A valiant effort, Jon. But alas.

Tonight's Daily Show was a good reminder why Jon Stewart is just a comedian, as much as people would want him to be otherwise.

A comparison. His guest last night was Senator Trent Lott, who'd published his memoirs, "Herding Cats." the entire interview was light (but not silly) as Stewart and the former majority leader traded barbs (particularly about Lott's remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday) and discussed the book. A wholly enjoyable segment.

Tonight's guest, however, was Christopher Hitchens, out promoting his book, "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America" With a understandably huge interest in the Iraq war, Jon had someone on who had an understanding of the geopolitical issues surrounding the war and thus had an the opportunity to ask Hitchens why if there were other countries that were perhaps a greater threat to the US (Iran, North Korea), why they went into Iraq instead.

The first point they discussed was some Bushisms, particularly the "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." Hitchens argued it was bullshit, as the global war on terror is either everywhere or nowhere--there can't be a 'there' and a 'here.'

While I agree with that, I wonder if it's possible that the disconnect exists because somehow Bush thinks that the US is somehow should be above the fray, so that while the war on terror is fought 'down there' in the world so that it's not fought 'up here' in the US? Or is it merely a statement that logically isn't true, as Hitchens argues?

Next, Hitchens said that countries had signed a convention (couldn't make out which one...anyone out there that can help?) stating if any of 4 principles were broken, a country's sovereignty was forfeit. Since Iraq broke these four principles, it's sovereignty was forfeit. Therefore, Bush was merely upholding that convention by following US policy, as passed in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act...

But if you read the act, you'll find this statement: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." (bold emphasis mine). It is NOT US policy to be the effort to overthrow the regime. Regardless of other arguments about the war, this one by Hitchens isn't true.

Hitchens also stated that Bush was correcting Pres. G. H. W. Bush's mistake of letting Saddam Hussein continue to run Iraq.

My question about this argument is, regardless of whether it was a mistake on the Senior Bush's part (it was), were there other MORE immediate threats to the US besides Iraq that would've warranted action in 2002-3?

For the first time since I've started watching the Daily Show, it wasn't a comedic interview as Jon turned it into a really serious debate. And while he's a smart guy, Jon couldn't give us any good responses to Hitchen's arguments. They were few and it seemed that at times he fell back on HIS talking points about wanting the war to be accountable (which it should always be) and be run competently (is it?) or making jokes to try to fall back on what the interview should've been like. Hitchens definitely sensed that the crowd wasn't going to be on his side (as he snidely remarked about the lack of applause on anything he said...). Maybe it was the lack of time that didn't allow Hitchens and Stewart to flesh out their one-on-one, but Stewart definitely seemed to be on the defensive for most of it as Hitchens through strike after strike.

In my opinion, Jon Stewart doesn't have the knowledge to have a serious debate with a guy like Hitchens. BUT, he would definitely make a good moderator on a debate program, kind of like Crossfire, but good. Imagine though, A one-hour debate show, with Jon Stewart as the moderator and host, Christopher Hitchens as one guest, Fareed Zakaria as the other.

Now THAT would be a show I'd tune in to...even if it was on CNN.

Update 2:16 AM: corrected the title of Hitchen's book.