The Daily Show has an extended interview titled in many other places as Jon Stewart Makes Tim Geithner Squirm Through Extended Interview.

The above link will take you to the extended 40 or so minute interview. Comedy Central only allows the embedding of pieces, so I will just embed part 1 below. If you use the link above, you won’t have to watch it a piece at a time.

Jon Stewart made a valiant effort to get Geithner to understand where the Obama administration failed despite the fact of all that the Obama administration accomplished. Geithner stuck tenaciously to the point of all that the administration achieved despite the many things it failed to do.

The argument at the very end was around whether or not the administration could have done more than it did. Geithner stuck to his perception that their were insurmountable roadblocks to their having done more.

The points that Jon Stewart failed to make that would have got this discussion unstuck are the points I have tried to make many times on this blog.

Whether or not the Obama administration could ever have gotten more support from the Congress than they had at the time, they did nothing that would make the voters understand that it was the Congress that needed to be changed. From this failure of the administration, they lost control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and they failed to restore the super-majority of 60/40 that they needed in the Senate to overcome the filibuster.

Jon Stewart and Timothy Geithner kept going around and around in circles about perceptions. The fact remains that the Obama administration put very little effort in changing the perceptions. They failed to take into account how important it was to get the perceptions right. Even more important than winning a single battle with the Republicans, and they did not even win a single battle with the Republicans after all the effort they put in on just this one tactical objective.

Jon Stewart could have asked Geithner why he wrote a book to justify the administration’s failures rather than to promote the efforts to undo the damage that was allowed to happen? That damage is still going on, and Geithner is doing nothing to change it. Six years later, Jon Stewart has to drag it out of him that there were insurmountable roadblocks. Could they have explained that to the American people six years ago, and possibly gotten some help over those roadblocks?

Contrast his current efforts with those of Elizabeth Warren. She is trying with all her might to accomplish the parts the Obama administration failed to accomplish and that administration is still failing to accomplish.

The point about the Obama administration is still failing to accomplish the goals that Geithner agreed should have been the goals is something that Jon Stewart should have hung on Obama.

The Real News Network has featured the video Banned Interview with President George W. Bush on Iraq Invasion.

This is a good time to take a look back in history. One of the many problems with Bush’s theory is the claim that the UN told Hussein to disarm and he refused and hid his weapons. In fact Hussein did allow for inspections and did tell us about his weapons. We just wouldn’t believe him. Nor would we believe our own weapons inspectors.

You might find the links on the YouTube site of some value.

The New Yorker has the article In Extremists’ Iraq Rise, America’s Legacy.

Today, many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now missing from Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, “If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be coöperating with you, and they would become your partners.” President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn’t particularly want them to stay.

I wonder how this would have worked.  Would a few hundred privates do it?  Maybe sergeants? Or how about colonels?  I  know, a few hundred generals. Is a Maliki confidant a good source to explain how a few hundred American soldiers in non-combat roles would have been enough to prevent Maliki from giving into his worst instincts? Is this healthy skepticism on my part, or am I just unwilling to put the blame on President Obama?

If an existential threat to Maliki and the Shia led Iraqi government isn’t enough to change Maliki’s behavior, would a few hundred soldiers have been able to do it?

Thanks to Nadeem Kalil for posting this on his facebook wall.