They should be too far behind bars to be heard

You are absolutely right. Jon Stewart has a juvenile view of politics especially foreign policy of the USA.

I would never forget that Ghaddafi was killed in the sewers pleading for his life and when the news of his death flashed on Hillary's phone, she was giving an interview on CBS, and she happily said on live tv "we came, we saw, he died". She literally celebrated his death even though it was illegal and a war crime (regardless of what his history was).

@@OwlsEyelash True. He is a very concerned citizen with a platform and a voice, but is sorely out of his depth with these two. He kinda sorta got ahead of himself. He is trying though and the tightrope he walks is to hold scum like this to questions without becoming so toxic that he will get no interviews.

He needs a super Jamie to handle real time fact checking.

very weird indeed "suspect"

those were his salad days. he’s old now and has a fortune to leave behind

He spoke truth to power - just not directly. I remember mostly fawning interviews of politicians in person.

It’s not weird at all. He’s always been controlled opposition, like most of the people you idolize on the boob tube. Midwit.

@@john-paulhunt6943 I don’t quite follow. Can you rephrase that for me?

Absolutely - also, preferably tried for war crimes - regardless of whether the US is "willing" to participate in the ICC (I mean, they are... Just not as defendants. How just.🙄)

Omg...Michael 😢

You took the words right out of my mouth. I learned so much about foreign policy from Michael. Man I miss that guy.. I really miss his ability to slip an Obama impression in just about anywhere.

I would never forget that Ghaddafi was killed in the sewers pleading for his life and when the news of his death flashed on Hillary's phone, she was giving an interview on CBS, and she happily said on live tv "we came, we saw, he died". She literally celebrated his death even though it was illegal and a war crime (regardless of what his history was).

Ya, Michael just had a depth of knowledge where even if you disagreed with his foreign policy opinion, you could tell he knew the general topic well. Sam and the gang just don’t have that type of expertise outside the US.

I would never forget that Ghaddafi was killed in the sewers pleading for his life and when the news of his death flashed on Hillary's phone, she was giving an interview on CBS, and she happily said on live tv "we came, we saw, he died". She literally celebrated his death even though it was illegal and a war crime (regardless of what his history was).

I saw the thumbnail and decide to not watch the videos even though Jon is normally great. But just interviewing one of the would be quite tricky, but even both at the same time? Hillary hardly gives herself to an interview, without hard concessions in advance, I would believe.

He always laughs and had a good time interviewing right wingers. Go back and watch with clear eyes.

@Bryna L. remember when he humiliated Tucker Carlson? He doesn't even ruffle a feather here. He's a simp and so are you.

Carlin said it first

England DID invade France: Edward III of England (fathered by William Wallace, according the Gospel according to Mel Gibson) started the HUNDRED YEARS' WAR in 1337 in order to claim the French throne after the death of Charles IV of France, his mother being the later French king's sister. English law allowed female succession, but French law did not.

@@schoolfreak32 I believe the context of that remark was much more recent than that.

Just like the US and Cuba. Maybe we haven't attacked directly but we're occupying a piece and perpetrating the worst human rights abuses on the island while hypocritically denouncing Cuba and embargoing them, because of the fact that they kicked us out 65 years ago

true. clinton is such an amazing liar. she would have been a great american president.

Sounds like you would have given a more substantial interview than Stewart did.

Save the pie; proceed directly to war crimes charges.

@@selfish-perverse-n-turbulent After throwing ALL the books you can at them, then throw a pie?

@@selfish-perverse-n-turbulent If Cheney and W Bush aren’t brought up on war crimes, then who in the past 30 years would, at least at those levels of power? Who’s going to charge them? I’m not saying they don’t deserve it, just that it’s not realistic, with how the U.S. has let these types get away with it, since at least the Vietnam War.

I would never forget that Ghaddafi was killed in the sewers pleading for his life and when the news of his death flashed on Hillary's phone, she was giving an interview on CBS, and she happily said on live tv "we came, we saw, he died". She literally celebrated his death even though it was illegal and a war crime (regardless of what his history was).

@@CorbCorbin In the 60' s these people would have been dealt with much more directly and permanently.

He got starstruck or something. Sam needs to have Stewart on for a debate/discussion.

In hope that a spontaneous cage fight would erupt..

Possibly to have her side by side with Clinton to show us that not matter what party they represent, they are both lying, corrupt, warmongering criminals. Jon gave them a platform to rationalize the destruction and havoc they brought upon thousands.

To be fair, Speer was even more on the nose about it. When asked if it was because of his apostasy and good personality that he wasn't sentenced to life he responded "well, if it was, I must be thankful". Because they are shielded by the institution that is the United States, the fact that Hillary Clinton et al. are war criminals is actually obscured, and so they are obligated to behave as if they weren't war criminals. This allows them to trick stupid people. Speer did not have this luxury, being associated with what is popularly known as the most evil and criminal regime to have ever existed

I would never forget that Ghaddafi was killed in the sewers pleading for his life and when the news of his death flashed on Hillary's phone, she was giving an interview on CBS, and she happily said on live tv "we came, we saw, he died". She literally celebrated his death even though it was illegal and a war crime (regardless of what his history was).

But Condi is a war criminal who doesn't question election results..so she's respectable, right MSDNC?

I think that was Phil Donahue, not Merv Griffin.

I would definitely like to hear why he thinks this was a good idea. Like Trump, you're just giving these people a platform to spew more bullshit. They're frauds and warmongers, and nothing they can say would "contextualize" those facts. They think the American people are monkeys and farm animals.

libs gonna lib

condi rice was with bush

Go ahead and figure out who condi is, dip.

If Jon would have brought a 1/10 of the ferocity that he brought to that attorney general who espoused all that anti-trans bs, perhaps I would have been able to actually watch the video until completion.

To be fair they are mass murderers, being afraid is very reasonable.

Well he doesn't have a large corporation (Comedy Central, and whoever owns them) standing behind him anymore. Maybe that makes him a bit more cautious.

This is the same guy who helped get benefits for burn pit harmed veterans? I really hate to see him go the CNN (Fox, if just Condi) way. Just embarrassing.

He softballed quite a few Bush admin flunkies on The Daily Show.

traditionally the two parties were never arch enemies ... thats a very recent development

Hillary and Condi Rice "let" Jon on TV? 🤨

@@FakingANerve No, the wider political-media establishment. You get blacklisted if you step on the toes of important people by holding them to account.

@@elephantman2112 Ah, fast and loose with the pronouns. So... who are these people, exactly, who "let" Jon Stewart on TV? Did they do it in person? Were there demands made?

@@FakingANerve My big, hairy ballsack.

@@elephantman2112 That tracks.

If Dave Chapelle is Jewish, Ye have an idea.

Jon admits he is biased when defending fellow comedians/friends. He tries to be objective, but knows he sees them in a different light because of his personal ties. He did push back in that interview, but it wasn't as much as Sam wanted.

He doesn't give adequate push back to powerful people with ego. He knows that the conversation will be ended, they'll walk away and he'll have killed the opportunity. I agree that, in a perfect world, Jon shoulda pushed back a lot more in this one, but that would have had him pushing back on literally every sentence. I feel he was riding the line and he knew it. He still got them to talk. I would have loved to see an on-screen annotation with some corrections, at least... but I applaud Jon's in-the-moment sense of when pushing would cause the subject to be less talkative. @ his take on Dave Chapelle, Jon's a comedian and the conversation was moving towards censoring comedy. Jon's just never going to jump on that with both feet, so he gave a lukewarm take.

@@jeremyshahan2218Could you maybe give us a timestamp or something? Maybe I missed it. But, I did not see any push back from JS whatsoever.

I think it's because he doesn't want to lose his mainstream access. He knows for sure that people won't go to his show if hes too aggro

Gorbachev was bribed and sold out. He never even wondered why the slimmest American businessmen like trump were doing in Russia in the 1990s while Russia experienced pillaging.

How? I didn't realize there was a disagreement on this.

@@yosikama2611 Economically corruption was rampant so there's that, in a nutshell as it was declining. Also they had loosened up quite a bit already. After mass protests they had decided to loosen up the border as well. That didn't go as intended. The Berlin Wall coming down was accidental as was the rest of it. Shabowski screwed up an announcement that people could obtain a certain visa and pass freely into West Berlin. He actually never got to that part and basically said people could pass freely beyond the wall, effective immediately. The guards heard it as well as everyone else. Swarms of people came out, the guards let them go and that was the end of the wall and the Soviet Union as it was.

@@orionsshoe2424 Yes, because that is what works so well on other news programs. Uncritical interviews make their 'informed' viewers really consider all sides... Are you really this naive?

@@orionsshoe2424 that works out SO well for Joe Rogan’s fans!

@@orionsshoe2424 pushback doesn’t mean sensor them, it means provide alternative views and information

I'm sorry but I'm not going to sympathize with Gaddafi. He raped his all female bodyguards and starved and oppressed his people. I'm not saying war crimes are okay, but Gaddafi deserved much much worse.

what the USA did to Libya was a stain on our history, and the reason why I not not respect Hillary or Obama.

Bet you voted for her though because the other guy was mean.

@@jonhelguson I did vote for her. Not particularly proud of it but I'd do it again in the same matchup.

And what do you think the rebels who killed him are saints? They are, in my book, worse scum than Gaddafi ever was.

Jon is also a union buster so I hear.

Except Sam is WRONG. The UN mandate was ALL MEANS NECESSARY which includes eliminating Qadhafi. The Security Council today effectively authorized the use of force in Libya to protect civilians from attack, specifically in the eastern city of Benghazi, which Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi has reportedly said he will storm tonight to end a revolt against his regime. Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for the use of force if needed, the Council adopted a resolution by 10 votes to zero, with five abstentions, authorizing Member States “to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamhariya, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” The abstentions included China and Russia, which have the power of veto, as well as Brazil, Germany and India. [Sam claimed Russia and China were in agreement when they were not] Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties, the Council established a no-fly zone, banning all flights - except those for humanitarian purposes - in Libyan airspace in order to help protect civilians. It specifically calls on Arab League states to cooperate with other Member States in taking the necessary measures. The Arab League last weekend requested the Council to impose a no-fly zone after Mr. Qadhafi was reported to have used warplanes, warships, tanks and artillery to seize back cities taken over in what started out a month ago as mass protests by peaceful civilians seeking an end to his 41-year rule.

Overall, it was a pretty good discussion. I mean, despite feelings for either of these women, and despite some politician speak, it was civil, insightful, and knowledgeable. A discussion among smart, educated, and experienced ppl. I like MR, but they seemed to miss some of the points. It's like Sam just só badly wants someone to tell them off for their decisions that he didn't really follow what they were actually talking about. Also, It was made clear that they weren't going to get into whether their past decisions were right. Lastly, I think it's a little arrogant for anyone to talk about/criticize foreign policy as if it's all so simple and obvious.

@@JohnCarterRocks We were in Afghanistan to protect civilians too I hear It's definitely all about protecting the civilians right, we really care about that? It's called an excuse

@@felicityc ... The US went into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden and destroy AQ's network. The civilians became a priority for the UN once AQ was wiped out.

He allowed it to happen, he did nothing to push back.

How about criticizing John Stewart for doing it?

im sure the iraq war started in 2003..on George Dubyas watch post 9/11. Like 6 years before Obama & Clinton

​@@philwill0123she was one of the primary whips for "bipartisan" support for the illegal invasion. And her hubby tried to make a play to invade in 98 but had to back down when it was clear too much of the base would rebel. Sorry you're either too young or didn't pay enough attention to the news to remember these things.

@@philwill0123 ah yes and they were surely completely powerless just magically popping onto the political scene out of nowhere and totally did not drag on and escalate the war even further. /s

These kids come into the game 20 years too late and think they now a man's whole game. Yall are fvcking clueless. Jon's been killing it for 2 decades. What he understand more than any of you is that TOP LEVEL DEMS DO NOT TAKE INTERVIEWS where there is ANY kind of pushback. He's mastered getting them on camera while not overstepping his bounds. If you think ANY of you can get ANY of these people ON CAMERA and HOLD THEM ACCOUNT, it only proves you are BRAND SPANKING NEW to this game of politics and would get less than a reply from them.

@@deetrixreed8961 So, don't have them on? it's better than getting them on and then sycophantically letting them parrot their whitewashing narratives.

He certainly really sucks at holding these two Dems to account. I haven't seen any of his other interviews, but this is a gigantic disappointment.

@@bsqwahlE Stewart is great at holding far right Republicans and CEOs accountable for their bullshit but never has the nerve to hold the moderates in both the Republican and Democratic party accountable for their bullshit. It's disappointing but not entirely surprising since Stewart is pretty much a moderate Dem himself.

Since when was Condi Rice a "Dem?" She was and still is a Bush Republican.

What is facts? I dont have the stomach to go over the UN1973 resolution & its relation to the R2P act or russia abstaining not acquiescing & its eventual ending of medavevs political career. Im pretty sure im blocked from this channel but if not seder is lying

That claim is just absurd.

Then you don’t do it

@@scoobertmcruppert2915 I agree

Disgusting

i have a feeling hrc and rice purposefully negotiated this tag team against jon stewart as a condition of the meeting. he's outnumbered by design.

@@sandrafrancisco Basically, it was a waste of air time. I wonder how much each of them all got paid?

@@shmoopiebear a lot

Hell it's all they've ever done. In too deep to get out now lol.

Give up the libertarian position it's literally untenable and a fallacy

Not really. Did you watch it in full, or just here? The parts shown here aren't what the full discussion was really about. I would say the opposite. If you only watch here, it gives a pretty misleading idea of the discussion.

If you have to pull your punches in such an important interview then you may as well not have it at all

He was BAD at interviews? You are insane and have no clue what you're talking about. I watched every episode. He was perfect. He respects right wing guests and did not use their dirty tactics against them. He never once backed down. Sometimes we don't know how to push back against spin when the other side refuses to accept reality. I'd love to see anyone else's pathetic attempts to stand up to the people Jon has over his entire career. You must be coming from the prescriptive of a younger, newer viewer because you clearly do not know his repertoire.

His interviews on his new show are on average very good. He actually does push back on his guests. He made his last 3 republican candidate/officials look like complete idiots because of the level of scrutiny he gave them. Could he have done more in this one? Sure. Did he not push back at all? It'd be disingenuous to say so.

I think sometimes it is valid to invade a country to protect some of its inhabitants from genocide. Sometimes it's an obvious farse. Sometimes the mess you create is worse than the threat you invaded to stop.

You think we were a democracy back then? Slavery was still legal.

@@PatrickPierceBateman And wage slavery exists as I write these words. In my opinion we have never been a true Democracy. I was merely lowering myself to Rice and Clinton's level of folly. Happy Native American Day!

Panama 1989.

You mean Rwanda was on Bill Clinton's watch. But that would only bolster her point. She wants to stop other countries from becoming Rwanda, which gives her a reason to intervene.

Came here to say this. We have a long history in the US of attacking our neighbors.

Technically Canada wasn’t a country at that point.

@@steelersguy74 Correct. And technically we're not a country at this point. Just a space filled with diverse groups who do not try to understand each other. Exacerbated by the no-choice Government that continues to ignore the vast majority of people living there. I 'm old, my entire life I've watched this disintegration. I have never figured out how the most heterogenous place doesn't lean into it. The diaspora here could be earth shatteringly progressive in science, liberal arts (especially), and human rights. Instead, we lull ourselves to sleep with visions of cars with bows, and ridiculous toys, walking in a dream world where both collectively and singly we keep humpin' the myth that just around the next person we step over lies our salvation. All hail the Petro-dollar; 'til we lose it to China. And I know your snarky comment was meant to illicit this response..... Your Welcome.

lol wtf i didn't know that

Truth