Jon Stewart's False Analogy

[One of the 99]

Tonight on The Daily Show Stewart contended that the open letter to Iran by Senate Republicans is the same thing as Nancy Pelosi's meeting with Assad in 2007. And that both sides were hypocrites criticizing the other.

However, the two situations are not even remotely the same. Pelosi wasn't undermining a multi-national negotiation or even then US foreign policy efforts. It was totally dishonest of Stewart to draw an analogy between the two events.

While I normally love Stewart, every so often he goes down the discredited path that both sides are just as bad. He's never apologized for his hit job on Accorn in which he parroted FAUX News talking points that were later proven false.

On night's like this, I'm less sorry that he's retiring.

[NuclearDem]

1. Of course it's not the same.

Because if it were the same, we'd all feel really, really stupid calling for beatings, jailing, and hanging.

[marym625]

2. I'm still sorry he is retiring

But I agree it's a terrible analogy. I almost always agree with Greenwald, but he said the same thing.

I want Joseph Welch to talk to Cotton

[onenote]

3. On a basic level it is not a false analogy at all

At the time Pelosi met with Assad, it was the foreign policy judgment of the executive branch not to engage in discussions with Assad. So her very meeting with Assad was inconsistent with the foreign policy of the US.

Not the first or last time members of Congress have engaged in discussions with, or taken actions with respect to, a foreign government where such discussions or action was not consistent with the foreign policy judgments of the Executive Branch.

Some seem to believe that any such involvement in foreign policy is illegal. It is not. What Pelosi did wasn't illegal. What the Democrats in Congress did in imposing sanctions on South Africa by overriding Reagan's veto wasn't illegal. And the open letter from the gang of 47 broke no laws.

That doesn't mean that any or all of these (and other instances) were a bad move as a matter of policy or politics. Some were. Some weren't. Which were which probably depends on whether you agreed with the foreign policy position of the executive branch.

[One of the 99]

4. Two situations are not even remotely the same

Pelosi didn't engage in any discussions that underminded current negotiations or any other foreign policy efforts.

[onenote]

5. They were the same insofar as they were both inconsistent with the executive branch

foreign policy judgment. In one case, the foreign policy judgment of the executive branch is to try to reach an agreement with the foreign government (i.e. Obama with Iran) and the repubs disagree. In the other instance, the foreign policy judgment of the executive branch was not to engage in discussions with the foreign government and the Democrats (represented by Pelosi) disagreed.

Neither situation -- both of which involved the legislative branch bypassing the executive branch's foreign policy judgment -- violated the law, a position that the State Department has adhered to for forty years.

[One of the 99]

8. They're not.

Stop pretending that they are.

[onenote]

10. No. You stop pretending there is a legal distinction

See. I can give orders too.

[One of the 99]

11. There is.

You're pretending that substance doesn't matter. The GOP is trying to derail ongoing arms talks. Was there anything in Pelosi's meeting with Assad that directly tried to derail talks or international agreements at the time? That's the difference that you conservatives are ignoring.

[onenote]

14. I'm hardly a conservative. I just know the law.

And what Pelosi did. What the ten signees of the Dear Comandante letter did (which included an express offer to meet with Ortega to discuss how to undermine Reagan's pro-contra policy) and what the gang of 47 did have one thing in common. None of them broke the law as it has been interpreted and enforced for all of American history. That doesn't mean they were all the same as matters of policy. But as a matter of law -- no distinction.

But I'm not going to convince you. And when no charges are brought against the gang of 47 I suppose you'll be left wondering why the President and all the progressive legal scholars that have for years advocated that the Logan Act is unconstitutional and folks such as Jon Stewart are such "conservatives".

[One of the 99]

16. Could have fooled me

And I never claimed anyone broke the law. But I guess you needed to change the argument.

[Marr]

48. I have to agree.

In principle, they're the same thing.

[freshwest]

6. Not his first false equivalency:

[GreatGazoo]

27. good detailed analysis

TDS turns our outrage into laughter and then puts right wing guests in front of a left-leaning audience.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Right. If Boehner flew to the Middle East against Obama's wishes to hold talks with some presidents,

everyone on DU would be nodding approvingly.

[One of the 99]

9. Members of congress do fly to other nations

and speak with foreign leaders all the time. It's not the same thing.

[Nye Bevan]

15. So if instead of writing the open letter, those senators had flown to Iran,

to deliver their message to the Iranian government in person, that would have been totally acceptable?

[One of the 99]

17. Substance matters.

That's what you conservative are ignoring. The letter was an effort to derail ongoing talks. Big difference than a congressman or senator going to France or Russia and meeting with a foreign leader which they do all the time.

[Nye Bevan]

18. So there is something in the Logan act about "derailing ongoing talks"?

That would certainly explain the distinction.

Oh and BTW the "you conservative" insult that you like to throw around here is kind of juvenile.

[One of the 99]

31. Never mentioned the Logan act

But I realize why you need to change the argument.

And when you parrot conservative talking point, people are going to assume that you're a conservative.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Using "Conservative" to mean "person disagreeing with me" is foolish.

Try to learn to disagree without needless name-calling.

[One of the 99]

44. When they are parroting right wing talking points

it's not foolish or name calling.

[FSogol]

25. Am I a bad person if it would be acceptable to me if those 47 flew to Syria

to meet with ISIS in person.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Only if they kept him. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

53. Pelosi did not go against Bush's wishes.

[Nye Bevan]

54. "Her visit has been criticized by President Bush..."

Ms. Pelosi, the third-ranking elected official in the United States after the president and the vice president, is the most senior American politician to visit the country since relations between the United States and Syria faltered in 2003. Her visit has been criticized by President Bush and other administration officials, who have sought to isolate Syria diplomatically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=2&

[Drunken Irishman]

55. His state department approved it and she went with Republicans.

[Nye Bevan]

56. "The State Department urged the Speaker not to go"

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070404-2.html

[Drunken Irishman]

57. They approvedo it and she went with Republicans.

So, really, not remotely the same and anyone who tries to make the comparison is either being disingenuous or is a liar.

[Orsino]

60. Let's not pretend that Bush enjoyed her dissent.

The situations are still not the same.

[MrMickeysMom]

12. Strictly talking about Assad meeting… She would have less reason to protest...

But for so many reasons, this comparison is horse shit.

I love Stewart, false analogy in all. I think he's wrong if he made those two things comparable.

[aikoaiko]

13. No analogy can be false.

[DeSwiss]

43. !

Hold out your hand.

- There is such a thing, but this example wasn't it......

[PeteSelman]

19. No one ever mentions the three Republicans who also met with Assad that same week.

It's always just about Pelosi to them.

[Cha]

21. Oh yeah? I don't really remember any of it.

[PeteSelman]

26. It's right in the link they keep using against her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=1&

At the White House on Tuesday, President Bush told reporters that he saw little point in talking to Syria now. “Sending delegations hasn’t worked,” he said. “It’s just simply been counterproductive.”

Even so, three Republican congressmen — Robert Aderholt of Alabama, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Frank Wolf of Virginia — visited Syria separately and met with Mr. Assad on Sunday. And a senior American diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey, held talks in Damascus last month with Syrian officials about an influx of Iraqi refugees. Mr. Bush did not mention those visits in his remarks yesterday.

Ms. Pelosi is traveling with a high-level group of lawmakers, included Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise M. Slaughter of New York, Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, all Democrats, as well as David L. Hobson, Republican of Ohio.

Bolding is mine obviously.

[Cha]

28. Thank you for that, Pete. It doesn't seem the "same" to me, at all.

[PeteSelman]

29. No problem. This needs to be spread.

I'm sick of their cherry picking and lying.

[Cha]

34. So.Am.I.

[Cha]

20. Jon Stewart's False Analogy.. That's too bad.. but, there are many people who don't think that way

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:18 AM - Edit history (1)

and know that the republicons are out of control. First Netanyahu and now this with their stupid letter to the Ayatollahs in Iran.. trying to undermine the Peace negotiations that SOS Kerry and President Obama have been working on for months if not longer.

Thank you for your post, One of the 99

[One of the 99]

33. You're welcome nt

[Cha]

36. KICK!

[rock]

22. I believe there are two important points to be made

1) Pelosi's case that was the act of one individual, not 47 united;
2) What was the worse that could happen with Pelosi's meeting? (Nothing really - compare what could happen this time thanks to the rogue 47).

[Cha]

37. Exactly, rock

[Gothmog]

23. The two situations are not equal

What Pelosi did not compare to the treason committed by the GOP traitors. The over-reaction of Fox News was predictable.

[Jefferson23]

24. Pelosi invited Assad to speak on the floor of our Congress and use our platform to

make his case to the world? I must have missed that speech...did our congress
give him standing ovations too? One should not separate the actions of the
Republicans and AIPAC. Which lobby group punts for Assad in the US?

[Cha]

35. +1! Thank you, J

[Jefferson23]

45. That's how I see it...I don't agree with Stewart on this. The entire enterprise

has been an unprecedented and an outrageous move. Of course now that its
blown up in their faces, it was all a joke....right. Can you believe these
people, they're in powerful positions and when called on their reprehensible
conduct, they pretend it's a joke...bizarro world, indeed.

Obama is bucking the status quo on foreign policy and they hate it.

[Cha]

49. Weil said, Jefferson.. but, that's what "Traitortots" do. :(

Yeah Nancy Pelosi wouldn't be say her encounter was "a joke".

[uponit7771]

46. +1

[JoePhilly]

30. And in each case, Dems were trying to find a dipomatic path, and the GOP wanted War.

That's the thing John Stewart really missed.

In each case, the Dems involved are working towards finding a common, diplomatic solution ... where the GOP members involved are trying to do everything they can to push for, and force, a war.

[One of the 99]

32. Great point nt

[joshcryer]

39. Yeah, no one mentions Pelosi was delivering a letter from Israel.

That was asking for diplomacy, and, shock, was trying to tell Assad about the threat of Syrian fighters going into Iraq (what we now know of as ISIS today).



It's a completely different scenario.

[joshcryer]

40. Pelosi went on a bipartisan visit.

To try to broker a diplomatic solution.

The Republicans wrote a partisan letter to derail any diplomatic solution.

The difference is so huge that it maddens me when Stewart uses the "we're not news, we're comedy!" excuse.

[6000eliot]

41. I thought the same thing.

[One of the 99]

47. Stewart owes Pelosi an apology

http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/fact-check-republicans-attempt-to-deflect-criticism-of-iran-letter-by-equating-it-to-bipartisan-delegation-to-syria-led-by-speaker-pelosi-in-2007/

[Cha]

50. He owes Nancy Pelosi and America an apology..

"Republicans" and Jon Stewart.. from your link, One of the 99.. mahalo

FACT CHECK: Republicans Attempt to Deflect Criticism of Iran Letter by Equating it to Bipartisan Delegation to Syria Led by Speaker Pelosi in 2007

But the criticism from Republicans ignores key facts:

TOP REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS MET WITH ASSAD IN SYRIA JUST BEFORE AND THE DAY AFTER THE PELOSI DELEGATION

[One of the 99]

58. Unfortunately he won't apologize

He never apologized for his attack on Accorn despite the fact that he parroted right wing talking points that were later proven false.

[Cha]

63. No, he won't.. he just "owes" them. KICK

[TheKentuckian]

64. Neither have a huge bunch of people even right here.

Wanna talk lonely on a topic, try that one. It was precious few of our voices supporting ACORN even on DU.

Stewart wasn't the only one running with the pack of jackals by a long shot, it was fucking pitiful. Still is and some of the first to be hollering "GOTV!" were part of the gullible, dumbass shooting ourselves in the foot chorus.

Not saying you, maybe you weren't around but a great many would be hypocritical as hell to yell amen too loud with you.

[Enrique]

52. he blew it

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/235455-pelosi-my-trip-to-syria-was-nothing-like-the-gops-iran-letter

"This visit was organized by the Bush State Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in the meeting with President Assad," Hammill said. "As Republican Congressman David Hobson said at the time about the delegation's visit to Syria, 'I think we actually helped the administration's position by showing there's not dissension.'

[Orsino]

59. Making a ruckus for peace does differ from agitating for war.

It's fair to draw an analogy, but this is false equivalence.

[One of the 99]

61. See the post above yours from Enrique

It is in no way a fair analogy.

[Orsino]

62. It's a very instructive analogy.

The Dems showed how to do dissent correctly. I'd like to see the TV go over it point by point.

[One of the 99]

66. Unfortunately

That's not the analogy Stewart was making.

[Cha]

65. KICK!