Jon Stewart Interviews Douglas Feith

Have you ever wanted someone to ask Douglas Feith real questions. You remember, Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense under Rumsfeld and architect of the Iraq War invasion? The man who wrote a bang-up PowerPoint linking al-Qaeda with Saddam Hussein? The man who Tommy Franks called "the stupidest f***ing guy on the earth?"

Well, someone interviewed Feith and actually asked probing, legitimate questions. There were even some follow up questions to boot! Of course, it wasn't a real journalist. It was Jon Stewart. And it is definitely worth a watch:

[WATCH THE UNCUT VERSION]

Comments

[FarmworkerLawyer]

Kudos, Jon Stewart. It's too bad that the mainstream media has lost all of its real reporters. If even ONE of the simpering scumbags had asked half of the questions that Stewart asked and didn't let them off the hook in their answers instead of the softball, 'let's go to war' questions that were asked, we wouldn't have 4000+ dead soldiers, untold thousands of permanently maimed soldiers and millions of maimed and dead Iraqis. War criminal is too polite of a term

[zizyphus]

It is sad that someone who obviously had some intellectual gifts was so utterly corrupted by the Zionist extremist ideology of the right. How much heroin money has he taken from the Turkish government?

[cuchulain]

For still interested in the historical comparisons issue:

I'll dial down my challenge. Name a situation in which two powers with the relative strengths and weaknesses of Iraq and America (as of 2003) were involved in a war started by the weaker power. Name a single instance wherein the weaker of the two powers launched a first strike against the more powerful nation. Remember, there is an ocean between the countries, the weaker nation has no air force, the stronger nation controls its air space, and the weaker nation has no allies.

Again, we're talking about a field mouse and a tiger. With an ocean between them. That field mouse would never attack the tiger.

[scottymac11]

Precisely. I believe one of the reasons Iraq was chosen to invade, was because it was so defenseless to a power great as us. They had been inspected and sanctioned for over a decade. We prevented them from significantly re-arming. We were determined to place a sizable military ground force in the area. Feith, and Rummy,Wolfie,and Cheney didn't care how. They gladly sent others to die where they would never dream of fighting themselves. Lying into the conflict would be a minor vice for them

[HippieChick]

That Jon Stewart can intice a war criminal to come to his show is a testament to Jon's diplomacy and debate skills. Jon gets credit for asking questions that should have been asked years ago by this nation's "free" press. Time constraints being what they are for an interview on The Daily Show, I understand how so many questions we would like responses to would not be brought into the discussion. Regarding the "intelligence" that the neocons used to whip this nation into war mode, I would really like to see an honest discussion of the role of Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi in the neocon propaganda machine. Too many questions...too little time - but your effort is appreciated, Jon. Hopefully, international war crimes trials for all the neocons involved in this travesty of leadership will reveal the secret war machine behind the Bush administration.

[scottymac11]

Why is it that a comedian with intelligence and integrity gets a more informative interview than any of the msm pundits who supposedly have journalistic expertise? Maybe the issue is the afore mentioned intelligence and integrity? Not many of these bought out, corporate picked, talking head bloviators are capable of discussing the Iraq debacle logically. Their focus seems to be on self promotion above anything else. Sad. The comedian has the sharpest political eye. The pundits are the most ambitious performers.

[Horst]

Americans are truly stupid. They elect morons like Bush, let people like Feith draft foreign policy and then get their news from comedy shows.

[rich3324]

Gen Franks was right. Does this guy have any military experience?

War is sweet to those who have no experience of it. But the experienced man trembles exceedingly in his heart at its approach.
Greek poet Pindar, 518-438 BC

[lthuedk_1]

Feith's OSP was a living breathing outgrowth of the PNAC conspiracy and Bush Coup. Does Feith not know he was being watched by more than millions of on-line citizens? Does Col Karen Kwaitkowski ring a bell?

The best place for Feith's kind is in a court of law with right hand raised. Mistakes, indeed. Being mind-melded to an undisputed dictatorship starring Dick and George links all Neo Cons to other "mistakes," like shutting down the CIA's Brewster Jennings, which had some very bad news intel for Project ideologues. 'Just kidding' won't work when all Neo Cons are on the same page 24/7.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/cheney_v_wilson.html

Feith's ideology was and still is alien and caustic to American Reality. This goes for every breathing Neo Con. The Internet and cable has been one long nightmare for Neo Con media control freaks who continue to conceal the truth any way they can. Pay attention, CNN, Neo York Times, and Neosweek.

Of course, Feith's Office of Special Plans was created to concoct foundation-less precepts for invasion. He magically transformed waste intel into preemption gold.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/the_feith_filter.html

[cuchulain]

Actually, it's not a tangent at all. It's essential to all of this.

Each of the cases you mentioned are not valid in this context. You speak primarily of potential and capacity, rather than actual military might at the time of the invasions. In each case you mentioned, those who launched the attacks believed they had stronger military forces AT THE TIME, and could defeat the nations, empires, etc. etc. they attacked. Or, at the very least, damage them enough to make it worthwhile to some larger tactical or strategic aim.

Japan was mobilized for war, for instance. America was not. It took a great deal of time for America to get up to speed, and before that happened, Japan continued to defeat it militarily.

In the case of Hussein. There was nothing he could gain by attacking America. Nothing but his annihilation. Sheeeesh. Bush attacked him for the mere possibility of a remote chance that he might possibly be considering to possibly, maybe, one day, possibly, maybe launch a suicidal attack. What did Hussein expect from us if he actually DID attack? We launched 500,000 troops against him for attacking Kuwait!

There was never any threat from Hussein.

[rbloom]

Historical analogies aside, I agree wholeheartedly that Hussein was no threat and that was clear before the invasion. His mistake was keeping up the pretense that he might have WMD, thinking it would deter an attack. He didn't count on the fact that Cheney is insane. By the time Hussein backed down and agreed to unrestricted inspections, the neocons had been able to buffalo everybody into supporting the imminent attack.

[VicksieDo]

That was the best journalism I've seen on this war. Way to go Jon, and shame on the MSM for NOT ever covering this war with the tenacity Jon showed.

[GKJames]

I thought the interview was a disappointment. Not a mention of the Feith-led intelligence unit at DOD because the stuff coming out of Langley wasn't consistent with the playbook. Nor of Feith's role in abrogating the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture. Certainly no reference to the assertion by Feith's boss, "We KNOW where the [WMDs] are." And while one understands the difference between being an incompetent and a liar, was there really no urge to ask this nitwit whether the buffoonery on display with respect to Iraq wasn't of such murderous magnitude as to rise to the level of deliberate indifference?

[WWWexler]

Stewart should have picked up Feith's book, thrown it at him, and told him to pack up his lies and get the f--- of the stage.

Find the nearest wall. It shouldn't be too hard to put a squad together.

-Wexler

[dadw5boys]

Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the Iraq conflict. August 2007

[solarenergy]

Feith, and many other war criminals, should be telling their side from the defendant's chair, in a court room, under armed guard, in an orange jumpsuit, with ankle bracelets and handcuffs clamped tightly.

After conviction, life in prison, with no opportunities to be interviewed by anyone.

[cuchulain]

Normathumb,

Another reason your example doesn't work. You're talking about a civil war. It wasn't one weaker nation-state attacking a much stronger nation-state. It was a rebellion against the federal power for a single nation-state. Within a single nation-state.

I was talking about no incident in recorded history of a weaker nation-state or kingdom or empire launching a war on a much more powerful nation-state or kingdom or empire. There are no examples of that in history.

[MadJeffersonian]

STFU, Feith. You guys, the Bush Crime Syndicate, are liars.

"Thought through the problems reasonably well?" Are you kidding us?! According to Bush Crime Syndicate, dissent and questioning were unacceptable then, and it still is now. Shinseki, and others like him, were public ridiculed for expressing serious concerns and offering intelligent advice. Rummy threatened to fire people if he heard any more opinions that differed from his and Bushie's.

Feith and the rest of you like0-minded criminal SOBs should be in a courtroom or a jail cell for what you have perpetrated on the US and the world.

We need more Jon Stewarts (and Helen Thomases). The traditional media outlets are a JOKE!

[cuchulain]

normathumb,

The south felt they were responding to an attack on their way of life. They attacked to protect and defend. They also felt they had the food and textiles wrapped up. They felt pretty good about their agricultural wealth, supply lines, and the size of their land holdings. At the start of the Civil War, the north was not militarized to any great degree, and the south believed it was superior. By every metric, it felt it could defeat the Yankees when the war started. In fact, they thought they could make very short work of them and get back to living their lives without federal government interference.

Your example doesn't work. On any level.

[UncleSquinky]

To you armchair historians going off on a tangent here:

I think a more accurate maxim of history is that no nation has initiated a war against another nation, which it didn't think it would win.

But as to whether a weaker nation ever started a conflict with a stronger one, there is most certainly a major historical precedent: The Second Punic War. However, even in this case, the aggressor, Carthage, foolishly thought it could beat Rome; it also knew that time was against it, so it was a now or never proposition.

Another classical case is Alexander's invasion of Persia. Persia had much more manpower, wealth and resources than the indomitable Macedonian; however, Darius The Not So Great played his hand very poorly, challenging Alexander in head on, rather than using Fabian-esque tactics.

I would also argue that Hitler attacking the USSR was a case of a weaker nation attacking a stronger one, given that Germany was already at war with England and the USSR was a vast country to conquer, with a much greater population, more resources and a much more vast industrial capacity than Germany.

The same could/has be said of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, as well as his reprise, culminating at Waterloo.

Certainly Imperial Japan attacking the US was a dubious proposition from the outset.

The Seven Years War was another case in point: Prussia and England against just about everybody else .

And what about the Falklands War?.

[rbloom]

Good points all, Unc.
But I object to being called an "armchair historian." My chair has no arms!
Nor does it have any padding. So that makes me a sore-assed historian.
Get your facts straight.

[rbloom]

Not my original comment, but I feel I have to drop in and recommend James McPherson's great "Battle Cry of Freedom." The first chapter lays out the comparative demographics of the North and South very well.

[cuchulain]

Completely false. Germany towered over Russia, as far as military strength at the beginning of WWII. It wasn't even close. Germany was far, far more industrialized as well. No nation had poured as much money and industry into creating a war machine at the time. The Soviet Union was reeling from several economic shocks and self-inflicted genocide. Hitler knew he had a more powerful nation, by far. He had military and economic superiority. He went wrong by opening up too many fronts at the same time and misjudged the Russian winter. The snow beat him, along with millions of Russian soldiers sent to their slaughter by their own government. Hitler couldn't defeat the weather, too many fronts, and the masses of human cannon fodder.

Hitler never attacked a nation he thought he couldn't beat handily.

[rbloom]

I don't want to be argumentative. Let me just refer you to "Thunder in the East" by Evan Mawdsley or "When Titans Clashed" by David Glantz. They're on Amazon or probably at your local library.

[jagoneely]

That was great journalism. Sadly, he doesn't consider himself a journalist, but a comedian. I'm starting to think all the other journalists are "comedians" and Stewart is the real deal. BRAVO!

[simpleshepard]

Oh my Lord,
That was just about the best and most honest discussion I have seen from somebody in our media. I have to say he pretty much took it to him. He allowed him to make his points but in the end Jon's logic was unassailable. If they did know the truth of what we were getting into and they didn't tell us that truth, then they were practicing deception.
Traitors. They are all traitors.

[drkazmd65]

I watched that interview - and my two thoughts were,...

1) Wow,... somebody is actually asking one of the lying necon bastards that got us into that war / occupation of Iraq on (mostly) false pretenses REAL QUESTIONS - and it is a satirical comedy show host.

2) How stupid / ballsy is Feith (or his publicist) to actually go onto a show where the host is going to ask him specific & pointed questions?

That being said - Stewart asked the quesitons that our alleged journalists should have been asking for years, and then allowed the guest a chance to answer them, and then restated what all of us thinking Americans have been thinking for years,.. that we were outright lied to.

Thank you again Jon Stewart!

[argeec]

I wonder if the media and others were deceived or if they were knowingly complicit.
After all, the NY Times, NBC, etc. were intimately familiar with the mideast, were they not?
And I was totally amazed when I first heard that Iraq was a target-it made no sense to me.
Everything I knew told me that Iraq was very weak, secular and an enemy of Al Qaeda.
And Colin Powell's UN presentation was just about the lamest thing I've ever seen.
So why wasn't the media more sceptical and questioning?

[lechatnoir]

asking that question is answering it...the media are OWNED by the very same corporation that stand to make zillions of dollars from war, any war.

as corporations, it's their duty to maximize profit for their shareholders. The media only serve to fill in the airtime between the ads.

[tbone99]

Mr Feith , you believe they were errors , not deceptions? How about a polygraph on that statement .....

while you're in the bathtub?

[fdp3]

Feith continues to claim that the government thought Saddam was a serious threat. The bulk of the evidence for that was either overstated or flatly fabricated by the government itself.

fp

[lisakaz2]

I'm waiting for the day it comes out that the yellowcake lie was started by Darth Cheney and ppl like Feith.

[fdp3]

By FAR the most substantive, probing, persistent, relentless, yet relentlessly polite, intelligent and adult interview on the foundation of the war and our government's role in it plays under a banner that says COMEDY CENTRAL.

fp

[drkazmd65]

Exactly fdp3 - isn't this what actual journalists are supposed to be doing?

[tipiglen6]

And they say Americans don't do irony!