A Response to "Why Did Jon Stewart Apologize?"

In a recent blog on HuffPost, Dennis Perrin criticized Jon Stewart for apologizing the day after he agreed with a guest that President Harry Truman was a war criminal. He wrote that "Stewart did what well-regarded mainstream entertainers do when expressing an unpopular opinion. He groveled for forgiveness....When an American 'satirist' apologizes for stating the truth, you can really appreciate 'free expression' in a corporate-owned culture." Since Perrin stated that, "before The Daily Show, Stewart was not known in a Paul Krassner/Barry Crimmins/Whitney Brown way," I feel especially compelled to disagree with his premise.

As a performer, I was a bundle of paradoxes. I was a hermit, yet I would go out to do shows and talk to a hundred people at once. I was a social critic, yet my spiritual path was trying not to judge others. Irreverence was my only sacred cow, yet I tried not to let victims become the target of my humor. So, there was one particular routine that I stopped using in 1970, when abortion was still illegal and I ran an underground referral service. It called for a "rape-in" of legislators' wives in order to impregnate them so that they would then convince their husbands to decriminalize abortion. But feminist friends objected.

I resisted at first, because it was such a well-intentioned joke. But I reconsidered. Even in a joke, why should women be assaulted because men make the laws? Legislators' wives were the victims in that joke, but the legislators themselves should have been the target. For me to cease doing that bit of comedy wasn't self-censorship, it was conscious evolution. I publicly apologized, in print and on the air. Of course, if you think I was merely kowtowing to political correctness, I hereby grovel for your forgiveness.

Perrin admitted that his take on The Daily Show was "a tad personal," because they had once rejected material he submitted because it was "too dark." Actually, I had a similar experience with Dennis Miller. He had called to invite me to submit material--several jokes and a rant--when he hosted his own TV series. This was when he mistook spouting obscure references for being hip, but before he became such a political reactionary. He never let me know his decision. After a few weeks, I wrote and asked him, but he didn't have the courtesy to respond. I learned from a staff writer that Miller considered my material "too radical." However, I did read it on the radio one Sunday morning when Harry Shearer invited me to substitute for him on Le Show.

I also feel compelled to disagree with Jon Stewart. I think that Harry Truman was indeed a war criminal. Actually, I believe that in most wars, both sides harbor top-level war criminals, but that the victor determines who they are. As Lenny Bruce said in 1962 at the Gate of Horn in Chicago, "If we would have lost the war, they would have strung Truman up by the balls...." Lenny was arrested for obscenity that night. One of the items in the police report complained: "When talking about the war he stated, 'If we would have lost the war, they would have strung Truman up by the balls.'"

Comments

[SteveL]

President Truman started this “Presidential War” garbage with the mess in Korea and we are still paying heavily for this to this day.

[ihsxps]

When Japan bombed Shanghai in 1931 and Hitler's Condor Legion bombed the tiny Basque city of Guernica in 1937, these actions were universally viewed by the liberal democracies as atrocities and war crimes.

Sometime during World War II we made three very useful discoveries. The first was that fire is far more effective than high explosives at decimating civilian populations. The second was the atomic bomb. And the third was that it is impossible for the air force to commit crimes against humanity.

Just ask the defendents at My Lai, who complained bitterly that if they used their zippos and M16's to liquidate a village it was a war crime, but if a plane dropped napalm on the same village and wiped out every living thing, it was "Mission Accomplish­ed." To hell with them--they were war criminals.

[tdpubs]

President Truman committed a war crime to pardon the pun kill two birds with one stone. That does not make him evil. There is a difference. I doubt if Truman would try to solve every international problem by dropping more bombs. I would without hesitation commit murder to save my family or my country. I understand the difference; murder is a crime. If the choice would avert the death of my family or the destruction of my country, I would do the act and take the consequences.

There are of course men who commit acts of evil who are predominantly evil. We call them sociopaths and psychopaths. They also rationalize their actions in order to justify their point. The difference is that they do not see their acts as criminal or wrong. They never take responsibility for the result of their actions either. I can understand a contrite criminal who vows to change his ways because he sees the horror of his actions. I cannot forgive the man who spends his waking moments justifying the crimes of his past without facing the facts. Given the chance, he will do them again and again.

[jeffepops]

Under the rather lofty and self-righteous criteria being applied in attacking Truman as a war hero, most humans walking on this earth could be labeled a criminal of some sort. If Truman was indeed a "war criminal", what does that make Hitler, Hirohito and their subordinates -- "super war criminals" and "mega war criminals" Dropping the A-Bombs on Japan, fire-bombing Dresden, etc. may have been wrong, but the larger picture was the totally necessary and extremely costly war we waged, with the sole purpose to fight the malignant evil perpetrated by these regimes. We have devalued our discussions of morality in world affairs by applying the most extreme labels to describe any political or military deed. Case in point -- a university professor idiotic enough to compare current day Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto of WWII.

[bluescat47]

If you want to brand Truman a war criminal, you can certainly make the case in the sense that the targets were civilian populations (and although there were war related industries there also, the laws of war do not allow for blanket bombing as opposed to discriminate targeting) and also as the second bombing was totally unnecessary, as it was part of the initial decision. One decision for two bombs. After the first bomb hit Hiroshima, a devastated Japanese war council was trying to deliberate when the second bomb hit.
But at the same time, it is not clear who wouldnt be classified as a war criminal. Churchill and Roosevelt would also be guilty. Clearly the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg killed more people than the bombs on Japan. All boundaries had already broken down before Truman came into office. Also, the Japanese still did not surrender until we agreed to allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. It is possible that if that had been agreed to earlier, the bombing might never have been necessary.

[Holypat777]

I agree with LMPE (as well as Noam Chomsky)

[brooklyncitizen]

For all of Jon's strengths and guts he does cow tow on occasion- he did it when Mrs. Cheney was on and he did it when he apologized for this. I was taken aback. But he is still part of the MSM...the humor of course allows him to tell more truth than news programs do....but his truth telling is selective and often takes a safe position.T­His could be a function of his personality, the shows' executive management ..or simply not wanttiong to step on more toes than necessary.

Interestingly enough I find Colbert more daring in his humor....m­aybe the conservative mask that he wears allows him to do that...but I think much of it is just him.

[brooklyncitizen]

Americans always justify their aggression towards other nations...­especially nations of people of color.
Gee looks like Bush is right afterall..­..in a few decades historians and American citizens will justify the torture and the invasion of Iraq as "necessary"to protect our freedom and save American lives...bl­ah blah blah.

[grailknight]

Japan by 1945 were fighting for their lives and there was no reason to believe they would have simply surrendered in the face of an allied invasion. There were still isolated Japanese soldiers found in the jungles of the pacific as late as 1975 willing to fight to the death. The consequences of nuclear power notwithstanding, Truman prevnted a million American lives from being lost during an invasion of Japan. I owe my very existence to Harry for allowing my father to live and procreate. One might very well call Einstein a war criminal for warning Franklin Roosevelt of the dire consequences had the Nazis gotten their bombs made.

[Virgil Kane]

I agree, Truman saved lives of counltess Americans and Japanese. It was a difficult choice for him to make. Truman was not a war criminal. William T. Sherman once said, "War is Hell, the sooner it is over, the better it is."

I'm glad you know your history, unlike other people that post here. It's OK to criticize him for using the bomb, but it goes to far when you call him a war criminal. If you call Truman a war criminal then the following people are also war criminals:

Abraham Lincoln, US Grant, George Washington, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, G W Bush, G HW Bush, JKF, Richard Nixon. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

[timinhi]

You are absolutely right. People didn't even start second-guessing Harry until way after the fact, almost as though with the advent of the Beat Movement and the radical sixties, it became "fashionable" to do so. It's easy to say that the use of nuclear weapons ALWAYS constitutes a war crime, but that's simplistic and un-nuanced. Both Germany & Japan had programs to develop nuclear weapons. If we hadn't beaten them to the punch, is there really any doubt that they wouldn't have hesitated to use them on us in a first strike? Would it then NOT have been a "crime" for Harry to retaliate, or is it only the first strike that constitutes a war crime? It's interesting to analyze history with the benefit of hindsight, but it's something of a waste of time to dwell on it. (And you're particularly on point in that many people in the South to this day consider Lincoln a war criminal. Isn't it about time to let it go?)

[kingdave]

I fail to see why you think that doing something good is at odds with being a war criminal. Committing a war crime does not mean that everything you do in your life is evil, it just means you committed a war crime.

> If you call Truman a war criminal then the following people are also war criminals: Abraham Lincoln, US Grant, George Washington, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, G W Bush, G HW Bush, JKF, Richard Nixon.

It wouldn't surprise me if they all met the legal criteria. Some of them clearly do. War crimes are fairly clearly defined, and if you're at the top of the chain of command, you're responsible for the actions of your troops. Their attitude toward war crimes is evidenced by their response when such crimes are committed (what punishments were meted out to the soldiers who murdered the 400 civilian inhabitants of the village of My Lai?).

[RobertHenryEller]

We may also wish to think about something that probably escapes us over 60 years later. Even if Truman fully understood how many people would die from the bombs, close to a quarter million, he was looking at it in the context of how many people had already died in WWII. By its end, 70 million people died in WWII, most of them civilians. If Truman believed he could save one million US soldiers lives by bombing, he was making a decision to minimize death. It was a choice with no good options, but he may have made the best of a horrible set. From our perspective now, it looks far too clear cut to judge Truman's decision. I doubt he made it lightly.

[brooklyncitizen]

Apologist.

[jbeach]

All of which are valid points, of the sort that I think led Stewart to recant his earlier statement. A statement made first in the heat of debate.

[Derelict outlaw]

Wow the depth of your mind scrub on this issue is impressive.

Truman had no options? He really had no other choices?

Is this a preview of what the apologists for the republican "enhanced interrogators" are going to say in court?

We had no other "final solution"?

[mmonarch]

The first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. It did not encourage Tojo to surrender. He saw the carnage of civilians at Hiroshima even before Hirohito did. Some have suggested that Truman should have dropped the bomb off the coast and let them see the explosion and it would have made them capitulate. How could it have when dropping a bomb on a civilian population (with materials factories) did not encourage surrender? As the above posted, the Japanese war mentality was to fight to the death...ha­ra kiri, bonzai(suicide bombers), etc. Civilians were taught to live in fear of Americans. Women were told that all American soldiers would come in and rape them. They had no reason to disbelieve that, if you know the history of Japanese soldiers and their behavior towards Korean women (sex slaves). Truman got it right. He was not a criminal. It was not done with malice it was done to end an already long war.

[doctorkosan]

The first atomic bomb dropped was appropriate and legal The second one dropped was an unnecessary atrocity and yes probably a war crime.

[Pema]

no atomic bomb are ever ever ever appropriate. have you seen the innocents burned and mutilated? its a weapon oif mass destruction as never has been seen on this planet. i am so glad i dont have your mind.

[Virgil Kane]

You don't know your history.

You should read up on Operation Downfall. Here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/Operation_Downfall

You should also read up on the Battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Those battles were a preview of what was coming if we would have invaded Japan's home islands. Don't make the mistake of thinking that it was an easy decision for him to make. After looking at the evidence, it was the right decision. Truman was a patriot, not a war criminal.

[jbeach]

Far worse deaths have resulted from conventional bombings, even in World War II.

I think what Truman is being blamed for, is as someone who first used nuclear weapons - which brought us a new age of teetering on the edge of world destruction.

Which is an awful thing. But which is not something that Truman can be legitimately blamed for. He's just the first guy that used them, and in a war, and arguably to end it.

[mmonarch]

I have seen the pictures. Eyes fused closed. Skin hanging off. Have you seen pictures of the women on Okinawa?In line on a cliff, jumping off. They were told American soldiers would rape them all. Seen those pictures?

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=30

""Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediatel­y."

[Spiritof1982]

You indirectly claim that there are, amazingly, 'necessary atrocities' with this post. I'm not sure that you intended that, but it's what your post does.

[Derelict outlaw]

You're mad. An Atomic bomb dropped on a city is appropriate and legal? Are you a physicist?

[greendream]

Dropping the bomb also sent a message to Russia..."­What do you think of our new toy?" which naturally made them want one of their own and before you know it all the other kids on the block had to have one....

The ramification of that decision go a lot further than the day the first bomb was dropped. It is still going on today and now we are watching nervously the events in the SWAT Valley in Pakistan. Who is responsible for that?

[jbeach]

No one person. There's plenty of blame to go around.

But certainly Truman can't be blamed for what happened after his actions.

[squeakyf]

Right, wrong or indifferent the US dropped two bombs on Japan. The US cannot take that event away, just like Japan cannot rid its past of The Bataan Death March (Which was counted as war crimes) or Germany of its Nazi past (which were also counted with many war crimes). What we can do is see these as a horrible lesson into what the Human Animal is capable of. What would have happened if Truman hadn't made the decision to drop the bomb? Who knows.
Do I personally see Truman as a war criminal? That is not for me to decide, but does Stewart have the right to say yes or no to Truman committing war crimes? Yes he does because of his right to free speech and just because we don't agree with him doesn't mean he has to apologize. It just means we have the right to disagree and change the channel if it offends.

[Virgil Kane]

Well said.

[brooklyncitizen]

LOL
exactly WHAT was said?

[brooklyncitizen]

Try gettting off that fence once in a while.

[Frank Smith]

You really don't know what you're writing about. I suppose the Berlin Airlift and the Marshall Plan were post war crimes.

[writerjohnny]

Who died by burning to death, untreatable burn wounds or cancer during the Berlin airlift?

[Spiritof1982]

Atomic bombs?

[protagonia]

Feeding people is not a war crime.

[rjmiller]

This statement made absolutely zero sense.

[LMPE]

According to Noam Chomsky, there's been a reason to impeach every president since WWII.

[Spiritof1982]

Grounds for impeachment =/= war crimes. This isn't a logical argument unless your mouthing of Chomsky relies on war crimes as the possible grounds for impeachment of every president.

[countfloyd]

What about Korea? What was the purpose of that war and Vietnam? The reason most given was to PREVENT the spread of communism. Yes we took preventive action twice against countries that posed no threat against the US. Stewart said something bad about a Democrat and couldn't take the heat.