NEW YORK (Rooters) Popular political comedian Steven Colbert, who delivered a biting critique of President Bush at April's White House Correspondents Dinner, has been seized by US government agents.
Colbert's last major public appearance was at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, April 29, where he had been invited to "roast" President Bush. Colbert's comedic monologue was harshly critical of the President.
Repercussions were swift, as a team of CIA agents, backed by heavily-armed special forces operatives, surrounded the set of Mr. Colbert's Comedy Central TV show, "The Colbert Report", on Friday. Citing multiple violations of the Patriot Act, the agents shut down taping of the Colbert Report indefinitely, and hustled Colbert himself outside into a waiting black sedan. He has not been seen or heard from since.
According to a highly-placed State Department source, Mr. Colbert is believed to have been rendered to Uzbekistan, where President Islam Karimov may be holding him in a secret prison designed for the systematic torture of dissidents.
Comedy Central President Doug Herzog called the seizure of Colbert "shocking, but understandable."
"No one is a bigger fan of Steven than I am," Herzog said at a press conference earlier this morning. "But seriously, what was he thinking? This is America. If you mock the President, there are obviously going to be consequences."
Fellow political satirist John Stewart says he warned Colbert about going ahead with such risky material.
"I told him to play it safe," said Stewart, who worked with Colbert on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show". But Steven just wouldn't listen. He had to do it his way. And now, he's paying the price."
Recently-appointed White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there were no immediate plans to release Colbert.
"Mr. Colbert has quite clearly indicated that he is not with us," Mr. Snow said at yesterday's press briefing. "He is with the terrorists. And as long as this nation remains at war, we cannot afford to have him disseminating so-called 'comedy' that, quite frankly, plays right into the hands of this nation's enemies."
Snow also said there was no connection between the seizure of Colbert and the unexplained absence of White House press corps reporters Helen Thomas and Dick Gregory. Neither Thomas nor Gregory has been heard from since Friday afternoon.
Colbert's last major public appearance was at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, April 29, where he had been invited to "roast" President Bush. Colbert's comedic monologue was harshly critical of the President.
Repercussions were swift, as a team of CIA agents, backed by heavily-armed special forces operatives, surrounded the set of Mr. Colbert's Comedy Central TV show, "The Colbert Report", on Friday. Citing multiple violations of the Patriot Act, the agents shut down taping of the Colbert Report indefinitely, and hustled Colbert himself outside into a waiting black sedan. He has not been seen or heard from since.
According to a highly-placed State Department source, Mr. Colbert is believed to have been rendered to Uzbekistan, where President Islam Karimov may be holding him in a secret prison designed for the systematic torture of dissidents.
Comedy Central President Doug Herzog called the seizure of Colbert "shocking, but understandable."
"No one is a bigger fan of Steven than I am," Herzog said at a press conference earlier this morning. "But seriously, what was he thinking? This is America. If you mock the President, there are obviously going to be consequences."
Fellow political satirist John Stewart says he warned Colbert about going ahead with such risky material.
"I told him to play it safe," said Stewart, who worked with Colbert on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show". But Steven just wouldn't listen. He had to do it his way. And now, he's paying the price."
Recently-appointed White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there were no immediate plans to release Colbert.
"Mr. Colbert has quite clearly indicated that he is not with us," Mr. Snow said at yesterday's press briefing. "He is with the terrorists. And as long as this nation remains at war, we cannot afford to have him disseminating so-called 'comedy' that, quite frankly, plays right into the hands of this nation's enemies."
Snow also said there was no connection between the seizure of Colbert and the unexplained absence of White House press corps reporters Helen Thomas and Dick Gregory. Neither Thomas nor Gregory has been heard from since Friday afternoon.
I think the concerns are far too real, close to home important to mock, but if this makes you feel good, whatever.
Colbert was invited to roast the President, and he did. He does not deserve to be placed in the pantheon of Champions of Freedom alongside Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the Tiananmen Square tank guy. But you wouldn't know that from reading some of the liberal blogs' praise of his roast.
If so, it seems to me that your spoof is in poor taste because it makes light of very serious background matters that I alluded to in my comment (I could care less about Colbert) - we DO have a rendition program, the President still claims authority to whisk Americans abroad to Gitmo without trial as "unlawful combatants", the CIA is being gutted and replaced by the military agency NSA which is engaged in intrusive domestic spying, our press is being targeted by the administration for exposing the rendition and NSA stories, the President holds himself to be above the law, the Congressional Reublicans block any meaningful inquiries, etc.
Frank Rich hits the nail on the head in his last NYT piece, some excerts here:
Also here.
Sorry, but I just don`t get you - I would think that as a conservative some of things would actually CONCERN you.
Whom exactly would you put in the pantheon as a Champion of Freedom - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales?
I agree that since 9/11 all we have seen are many small men, inside and out of the Administration, including in both houses of Congress and the press, with no one willing to dissent in a manner that makes a difference. Remember the Goering quote about how easy it is to create a repressive regime?
This post doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether Colbert's roast was funny. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with whether Bush or any members of his administration are themselves champions of freedom (although many Iraqis were indeed quite happy that Bush freed them from Saddam's despotism).
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Bush is a terrible president who is destroying our liberties and spreading misery around the word, the point of my post remains unchanged: Criticizing the American President in a comedic roast does not require anything like the guts, selflessness, and heroism we rightly associate with people who have stood up against actual oppresive regimes at great risk to their own well-being.
Thus, the points you raise, as is so often the case, are simply irrelevant to the post you're commenting on.
Hopefully someday you`ll be interested in a sincere discussion about the state of the union and our future. For now, keep bashing the Bush-bashers!
Tell me again that this bit of "satire" doesn`t broach more serious issues about rendition and domestic Constitutional rights?
Here I thought I was commenting on points on which your piece was an invitation to discuss. I`ll have to keep reminding myself to read you more shallowly.
Sorry if I rained on your parade.
Let's remember that in the very first comment on this post, you asked me what my point was. Since then, I've been trying to explain it to you, which, I have gradually come to realize, is a fruitless endeavor.
No one (that I've heard or read) is saying that Colbert is a "Champion of Freedom" or that he was risking detention or anything. If you can find a post where someone is saying such things, I'll gladly join you in laughing at them.
The posts I've seen rightly laud Cobert's guts for not playing the toothless part he was called upon to play. You think it doesn't take guts to go against firmly established protocol, and get up in front of an audience of powerful people and intentionally antagonize them?
No, he wasn't risking physical harm or incarceration, and your satrire brilliantly skewered the multitude of strawlefties who wer e claiming he was.
I understand that Colbert was not at risk of rendition - that's apparent, so I was guessing you were making a subtler point - that Colbert should not be lionized because what he did was not truly risky. Fine, but that point doesn't really undermine the points he was making, which I think you were also implicitly trying to do.
I have another comment which I will make here as it is related (thanks for the open thread also): Your Colbert threads address only his criticism of the Administration, and have ignored that half of his speech gored the MSM. This may because you see the MSM as in the pocket of the liberals, but I share the view that, even if many reporters are liberal, MSM reporting is rather spineless and often is slanted in favor of the Administration. James Wood at The New Republic, makes this point:
As for the view that Colbert should be lionized, see here:And here:And here:etc.
Were these lefties saying Colbert risked his life or safety to give his speech? Of course not. That's why it's appropriate to use the ridiculous notion that Colbert might have been seized and tortured as satire, to illustrate that what he did was not really all that brave or heroic.
But the others are praising the bravery of his performance as a comedy routine. They're not mistaking Colbert for a Great Hero of Democracy, just admiring a great performance, and there's certainly nothing there implying he should be fearing government retribution.
Still, Colbert pissed off a lot of powerful people with that performance, and that takes courage. I think you've got a pretty strange definition of bravery if you think the word can't be used to describe something that doesn't risk physical harm or incarceration.Huh? Even you sometimes praise individual reporters and/or publications while criticizing the MSM in general. While I think both your blame and your praise are often misplaced, I don't think there's anything hypocritical about your believing an industry as a whole to be doing their jobs badly while praising individuals within that industry. Is it hypocrisy to say, for example, that the Mariners suck, but Ichiro is a great baseball player?
I think it will work out as a net positive for Colbert, because it raises his profile and it really was funny to the sorts of people who are likely to be his audience, but it easily could have backfired if he had been less clever.
The man is an actor and a comedian. He is not trying to be a bigshot in news journalism, or to score points with Washington politicians. If anything, he would like to join the ranks of Hollywood insiders. A speech like this will certainly help him do that.
Anyway, your effort to deflate the praise for him is another of your transparent efforts to shoot the messenger and ignore the message. Why not join all of those on the right who are jumping from the shipwreck of this admininistration and its policies?
A user account is required to post comments. If you do not have an account, please feel free to create one. Accounts with obscene or offensive user names will be rejected.
I always have time for a well-articulated opposing viewpoint, thoughtfully and politely expressed in good faith.
However, I have no time for name calling, personal attacks, rudeness, or other types of hostile behavior, whether directed at me or at other commenters.
Therefore, comments I find to be rude, abusive, profane, annoying, or otherwise inappropriate may be deleted. Comments may also be deleted if they are redundant or off-topic.
The maximum comment length is 3,000 characters. Longer comments broken into multiple parts to circumvent this policy will be deleted. If your comment is too long, please edit it down, link to the full text on your own blog, or both.