I wouldn't have been able to tell you what retaliation Joe Wilson faced either, but as the independent prosecuter Fitzgerald pointed out, members of the whitehouse targeted his wife to get back at him. The rest could be trashing, influencing guests to not appear on his show, the administration already tried to influence guests and their appearences on PBS, but stacking the board, there, and might do so at other places which could hurt Colbert's future career opportunities. I don't really know. I just know that this administration has a record of being vendictive and going over acceptable boundaries when seeking that revenge.
All that would do is make Colbert even MORE of a symbol of the cause and a hero to bush haters everywhere than he is now. They would be stupid to do that. (Not that everything the administration does is smart).
Agreed. Just like what they did Wilson's case. If they had done nothing, everyone would have written off the Niger/Uranium claims like the ones about IRaq/Al Qaeda connections, and WMD. Those that tend to get mad about those would be mad, Plame could still be monitoring Iran's nuke program, our Intel capabilities would be stronger, and fewer Bush admin officials would be under indictment. But they opted for the stupid vindictive thing, and look where it got them. I think the more they went after Colbert the more the left would admire him, but who knows? In all honesty I think there are too many leaks in the dike for the administration to plug their fingers into. There was the man at Bush's town hall, there was Colbert, there was teh soldier questioning Rumsfeld about the armor, there are the generals calling for Rumsfeld's retirement, and then today there was the man at the press conference using Rumsfeld's own words against him. I don't see the trend ending any time soon. So I doubt the administration can go after everyone, and I doubt Colbert would be at the top of their list, especially given the mainstream media's poor reviews of his performance.
I am sorry, but people who think he was not funny at all, I just am sorry because you do not get the joy that comes from hearing the "we're not brainiacs on the nerd patrol" thing or the "I do believe it's yogurt" line. Honestly, those lines brought me immense immense joy. And humor aside, part of me thinks Bush's life is the Truman Show, and Colbert was that set lighting that fell on him. Not that Bush wants out or anything. But I think he needed to see that. It would have been funny even out of context.
So Colbert's performance will go into the propoganda library for the insurgency? I'm sure that's what he intended and isn't that great for us? I think Colbert, in general, is hilarious but I think it is tacky (and more) to mock the President of the US to his face.
His quote said judges need not be neutral, but that they only need to be fair. I don't trust them to meet the very standard rimrocker himself quoted.
No, but he may be the Shaw, Twain, Wilde, or Moliere of this generation. His writing certainly isn't of their calibur, but its a different medium. It is pointed, satirical, and aimed at powerful people, and the media.
As if the worst president this country has ever had wasn't doing a fine enough job disrespecting the presidency all by himself.
Colbert is far__and__away the funniest man on TV right now. It's a damn shame that it took a controversy for him to get this much pub. And this is from a Bush supporter.
i cant believe this thread is going this long! heres my two cents. i dont think he was being "brave" as many argue, but it was definately "ballsy". there were some laugh out loud parts, but it was more due to the sheer brazen harshness of his comments. it was more "oh my god, i cant believe he just said that!". i thought the material itself was clever, but the funniest/most shocking thing was that he was saying these things right infront of bush. he certianly had an unresponive crowd though. but for me that made it even funnier and ballsier. he had no friends in the room that night. however, the best line was the one talking about the reporters who want to take some time off and maybe write that novel they have been bouncing around in their head about the journalist who takes on a corrupt administraion. "you know, fiction".
I believe the distinction between the two is the point. Your statements portray a fear of impartiality, as opposed to fair treatment. But I retract the comment anyhow - it matters little - I still think your distrust of "non-americans" petty, sad, and telling of your misguided "patriotism".
Finally! Some reaction video! This is the point at which Helen Thomas asks, "Why did we go to war in Iraq?" Lots more here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/5/2144/53646
... just so you know that you're replacing facts with your opinion. In any public appearance, the President deserves respectful treatment-- as does everybody -- but especially our elected officials and especially the President of the US. It's part of our legacy of civil and resepectful discourse on issues and transition in government. Go ahead, call me corny!
