tv The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Comedy Central April 30, 2015 1:02am-1:34am PDT
>> jon: hey! welcome to the "the daily show." the program tonight, you have done yourself a service by tuning in to tonight's program. it is gonna be off the charts. tonight's guest, judith miller, author of judy miller. it's like they eat, pray love to get into the iraq world. it's going to be a really long interview. ( laughter ) but first, the supreme court the knowledgeable nine elgrandy justivo. robes robes, robes. yesterday, america dropped down on one knee and proposed oral arguments that could settle the question of marriage equality for gay people. >> the court will answer two questions-- can state refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and can they decline to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally
granted somewhere else. >> jon: that's right the supreme court is hearing those cases while participating in this year's "amazing race." ( laughter ) she seems-- she seems perfectly comfortable on a zip line. ( laughter ) of course, an issue this important was bound to draw a crowd, making their final arguments. the progay marriage camp went with how can a just god not allow two men to not be together? while the antigay marriage crowd went with why don't we summon the ancient hebrews and see what they say? by the way, yes, that is a shofar, and yes, the antigay man is blowing it. ( laughter ) ( applause ) but. ( cheers and applause ) it wouldn't be up to those outside the court. >> this will in all likelihood come down to justice kennedy. >> jon: kennedy kennedy kennedy!
the only justice anyone cares about is kennedy. he's the mash on to the supreme court's jan. it was for gay marriage opponents to air their best and final arguments which we look at in tonight's segment "they got nothing so-called because opponents of gay marriage got nothing. and they tried everything, starting with the good, old, classic slippery slope. >> if we rule in your favor in this case and after that, a group consifght of two men and two women afor a marriage license. would there be any ground for denying them a license? >> jon: why should gay people have to account for anyone who is ever going to want to get married after they get the right to? when women fought for suffrage no was one like what if one day a dog wants to vote. what about that ladies? because next thing you know the state of our union is...
( bark ) that was one dumb argument. but hard let's only one. >> if you prevail here, there will be no more debate. i mean, closing the debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how new institution is accepted. people feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by-- by the courts. >> jon: that makes sense. if you don't impose gay marriage, folks like this will be more open minded. ( laughter ) to evolving their position. yeah, there you go. see. ( laughter ) ( applause ) yeah. but the point was clear. it threaten nozz just maecialg but our very democracy. >> when you enact social change of this magnitude through the federal courts that's not the way that our democratic process is supposed to work and there are long-term harms to our country and to that fundamental liberty interest to govern
ourselves. >> jon: first of all, let me just say i love your lawyer costume. ( laughter ) ( applause ) secondly, it's bold for a young guy to walk into the sphreek and say i know you think marbury versus madison gives you the right to decide the constitutional questions but i say we're a direct democracy. now, which one of you pricks is going to buy my booze on 19? ( laughter ) here's the thing. we have both a fundamental liberty to govern and a court empowered to stop us from abusing that tee to take other people's liberty. that's how the system works. and if you don't agree with the court's decision you just have to suck it up, sometimes for years, with horrible consequences. ( laughter ) ( applause ) so enough with the democracy! enough! can a brother get a lame appeal to history argument up in here is it.
>> every definition they looked up prior to about a dozen years ago defined marriage as the unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable. >> you're not seeking to join the institution. you're seeking to change what the institution is. >> jon: the institution of marriage has almost never not been changing. before the last century marriage wasn't one man and one woman. it was one man and his new piece of vagina property. ( laughter ) change can be good. ( laughter ) but the antigay cray-cray-- ( applause ) probably peaked with this discussion about the point of marriage itself. >> if you're changing the maeng of marriage from one where it's based on the biological bond to one where it's based on emotional commitment then adults could think, rightly, that this relationship is more about adults and not about the kids. >> jon: whoa! ( laughter ) gay marriage isn't about kids?
have you ever been to park slope. oh look! the elizabeths have the new dyson upper baby xcel hover carriage. that won't be hard to climb over to get into beans and such. ( laughter ) but, all right, let's play this out. >> suppose that there's a state with a very pro-creation-centered view of marriage of the kind that you're talking about. so when people come in and ask for a marriage license they just ask a simple question, "do you want children?" and if the answer is no the state says, "no marriage license for you." would that be constitutional? >> jon: oh, that was very rabbinical. somewhat obtuse. anyone want to take a more practical swing at this? >> if a 70-year-old couple comes in and they want-- ( laughter ) ( applause ) ( cheers and applause )
>> jon: and this 70-year-old couple, no matter how much they ( bleep ) and they ( bleep ) a lot in the sit-down shower, on that-- on that electric stair chair, bent over the majong taiblg-- they're not having kids. is theirs not a constitutionally worthy ( bleep )-fest filled love as well? ( laughter ) but fair question. what if-- what if a couple of 70-year-olds want to get married, counselor? if marriage is for having kids yshould that be allowed? and when answering try to step as hard and deep into a pile of dog ( bleep ) as possible. >> well, a 70-year-old man obviously is still capable of having children and you like to keep that within the marriage. >> jon: you know, i think he would have been better off
answering ham ana-ham ana-ham ana. throwing a smoke bomb and getting the ( bleep ) out of room. the bottom line is this-- if oral arguments have any impact on the final results june is going to be a nice time for a our pizza hut big flavor dipper pizza is almost two-feet of pizza. you're gonna need a bigger car. get the new big flavor dipper pizza with four flavorful sauces and a free pepsi 2-liter with online orders. just $12.99. only at pizza hut.
how's it going? >> fine, other than the cold. >> jon: oh, i'm sorry cold there. so so so-- oh boy. so so my feeling has always been-- and you probably know this about me. you've probably seen the program. >> i watch the show, yes. >> jon: you've watched the show a couple of times-- is that i believe you helped the administration take us to, like, the most devastating mistake in foreign policy in we've made in, like 100 years, but you seem lovely. ( laughter ) why is that wrong? >> that's why i wrote the book. i wrote the book because i hoped that people like you would read it -- >> i did. >> and determine that, 1, it was really, really hard to do this kind of reporting. i wasn't alone. i had lots and lots of company.
and that the intelligence sources that we were talking to had really never been wrong before. these were not the people that you had on the screen, you know, dick cheney and george bush. that's not where this information came from. it came from the men and women who had steered me right on al qaeda before 9/11. who had told me that the soviet union, the former soviet union had a huge cache of biological weapons that they had never acknowledged, and they were right. and they had never led me astray. and then i went back to them in this book, and i said, "what happened? how did you get it wrong? how did i get it wrong?" >> jon: right. >> and that's what i've tried to do in this book. >> jon: there was a momentum to take us to war. something took us to war in iraq. would you agree? >> absolutely. >> jon: what took us to war in afghanistan? >> 9/11. >> jon: correct. >> jon: what took us to war in iraq? >> i think 9/11. >> jon: uh-huh. >> it's one of the things i argue in the book. >> jon: i think it was a
concerted effort to take us to war in iraq. you had to shift, with energy the focus of america from afghanistan and al qaeda to iraq. that took effort. would you agree? >> it took persuading and they persuade aid lot of democrats hillary clinton john kerry. >> jon: turns out idiocy is bipartisan. ( applause ) so so that's not-- but that's not-- that's not exculpatory that it captured democrats and republicans. >> no, but the intelligence was what it was. un, people like me didn't make it up. >> jon: intelligence wasn't what it was and not everybody got it wrong. >> almost everybody did, except for knit-ridder. almost everybody did. >> jon: "usa today" had an article-- >> we all had articles. i had an article, an interview with hans blixnwhich he said i know they are not-- the iraqis are still not in compliance with the 17 resolutions that we've-- the security council has passed.
i don't want them to go-- i don't think this is grounds to go to war. and i published that article. >> jon: but somebody point the the light at iraq, and that somebody is the white house and the defense department and rumsfeld. >> absolutely, absolutely. >> jon: he said right after 9/11 find me a pretext to go to war with iraq. that's from cambone, that's from the 9/11 papers and the study. >> i think the reporters who were covering w.m.d. did not know that-- at least i didn't know that. but secondly secondly, it was bill clinton who was worried about iraq, who long before george bush bombed iraq bill clinton did. >> jon: right. >> 1998, for w.m.d. >> jon: right. >> i think what changed is after 9/11 what, the risk that america was willing to tolerate just plummeted, and as cheney famously said, if there's a 1% chance of this being used --
>> that's an absolutely myopic argument because the only place we focused on was iraq. >> i had been covering saddam since 1978. i had-- i had watched him use chemical weapons against his own people. >> jon: right. >> i had covered the mass graves of halajab. i knew he wouldn't hesitate a minute to do it again if he had the opportunity. but i still think if i got information that had led me to believe -- >> you don't believe that you were manipulated? or that you were-- >> all journalists are manipulated and all politicians lie. they all try and spin. >> jon: well, then let's go-- let's take specifics, one specific case, because it goes to the effort that we took to not be lessening the threat of iraq, and the efforts we took to heighten the threat of iraq. this is just one-- we'll go one specific, and it's the big nuclear tubes fiasco. and that's-- should we do that now? do we center to-- okay, apparently budweiser has-- what
people all over america have defected to taco bell's breakfast. so now we are giving everyone in america a free biscuit taco. not everybody is happy about that. claim your free biscuit taco on may 5th from 7 to 11am. there are lots of ways to save money. here's one way. esurance. they were born online and built to save. they major in efficiency which means when they save, you save. they have smart online tools that help you find the right coverage. so you only pay for what's right for you.
intensifies quest for a-bomb parts." >> you mean michael gordon and i wrote an article. >> jon: sure. front page of the "new york times" next to a giant picture of "never forget 9/11." it was right around the first-- there it is. "in memory 9/11," front page. the information came from the bush administration, yes? >> broadly speaking, yes. it came from intelligence analysts and people in the bush administration yes. >> jon: it came from the bush administration. >> right. >> jon: right. so you write this article. >> right. >> jon: and you have somebody named david albright who is your source for whether or not this claim is wrong. >> no, he wasn't the source. >> jon: he's an expert. >> he's an expert. >> jon: and he's the guy you rely on and trust to tell you if this is wrong or right. >> no one of several experts because opinion is divided and you have to ask a lot of different people. >> jon: he's the expert that you write in your book that you trust that you desperately
are trying to reach. >> yes, i was desperately trying to reach him. >> jon: yes. >> couldn't reach him. >> jon: so you just went with it. >> because we had other sources. >> jon: who are the other sources, the guy in bush's office, joseph who you didn't name. >> whom i name in the book. >> jon: but not in the article. >> no, but i named charles delver in the article and i named who is the chief weapons inspector and we named chalabi and said he is the man who wanted to take to to war so you could evaluate the information. >> jon: they were paying him to spread that information. >> we had reported that many times. >> jon: so we know we're paying them. so we're paying-- or the bush administration is paying these guys to spread information about saddam hussein's weapons of mass destruction. at the same time this is happening, dick cheney is going on television in august saying there's a nuclear program, there are all these things. and in september they begin what's called the white house iraq group, yes? and that's a group of karl rove karen hughes, and all these
people-- gersen-- and their job is to sell the war to the american people because they're not buying it. >> can i just talk about aluminum tubes? >> jon: please. >> because there was something we knew that was new, that was really spinning up the intelligence community. we didn't know what it was. >> jon: so you report that they've got these tubes. this albright guy never calls you back. >> no. >> jon: so you run with it. now, there's a phrase in your story on the 8th where-- an unnamed source says "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." >> right. >> jon: right. that phrase, do you know where phrase comes from? >> no, because i only know that condi rice repeated it. >> jon: right it comes from the white house iraq group-- >> well, she's a member of. >> jon: five days before you write the article. >> but it's a very powerful line. and it explains their thinking. >> jon: right, but it comes from gersen. it's a political line directly tied to the white house. you said the information doesn't come from them. >> jon were we not supposed to report what it was that had the
community the intelligence community so nervous about saddam. >> jon: no you should have reported it though in the context that this administration was very clearly pushing a narrative and by losing sight of that context, by not reporting-- >> i think we did the story stayed sade -- >>y wholeheartedly disagree with you. >> that's what makes journalism. >> jon: it's actually not what makes journalism so let's continue with this. >> let's continue with this. >> jon: so you don't run with-- you run with the story when david albright doesn't call you back. he calls you back on that tuesday and says there's something wrong with this. >> right. >> jon: these tubes are not used for that. they're used for rockets. >> right. >> jon: in the article on the 18th which runs on page 13, not page one-- >> i don't -- >> i understand that. but it's still entitled, "white house lists iraq steps to build banned weapons." it still titles something that deems iraq is a threat. >> because the white house released another paper saying we
have more evidence. >> jon: albright calls you and says this is wrong. >> right. >> jon: you don't put that in that article. why? >> i did put it in. i said the community was divided. i didn't put david albright. >> jon: he said you could quote him by name. >> yes he did. >> jon: why didn't you? >> i think the story got cut for space but i didn't look -- >> in your original article you wrote in there david albright and they cut it by taking out-- >> i really don't remember because on that story -- >> what you say in the book is, what you say in the book is-- >> i couldn't remember. >> jon: you couldn't corroborate it. >> that's right, because he said these are the labs that have the people. >> jon: right. >> that have a different view of these tubes. >> jon: right. >> and i called-- i must have called 10 or 15 people. and nobody would talk about it. i went out to an analyst's house. i stood in front of his door. i-- you know i waited for him to come back from work. he said, "i can't talk to you about this." i called people i knew who had given me very good information in the past.
and they said no, no, that's a minority view." i went to david and said, "look, david, find me one person from the labs. you're not in the meetings. there are people who are in these meetings. tell me one person who can corroborate this and we'll put this-- you know, we'll make the story as long as we possibly can." and he either couldn't or wouldn't. it was a problem because david-- even though he disagreed with the tubes, believed that saddam had a nuclear weapons program. >> jon: i understand that but the standard of proof in all this seems much higher on the side of this is not an issue and they're not a threat and much lower on the side of you're being fed-- >> but that's what the intelligence community believed. >> jon: that's what they were feeding you. they created-- >> no, no that's what they believed, jon. >> jon: all right well, obviously we're never going to see eye to eye on it. i mean i appreciate you coming on the program. these discussions always make me incredibly sad because i feel
like they-- they point to institutional failure at the highest levels, and no one will take responsibility for it. >> i think they point to -- >> they paz the buck to every individual other than themselves. >> i think they point to intelligence failure they say still worry about every day because we're stille same intelligence communities to give us information iran, north korea, pakistan, and the countries that we have to deal with. >> jon: well, hopefully, given the same effort we'll get to invade all them soon. ( laughter ) ( applause ). >> we don't. >> jon: "the story" is on the book shelves now. the new s6 hits the stores and i'm like... whoa. open the box and... (sniffing) new phone smell. jump on a video chat with my friend. he's a real fan boy, so i can't wait to show this off. picture is perfect. i got mine at verizon. i... didn't. it's buffering right out of the box he was impressed. i couldn't be happier. couldn't see him but i could hear him... making fun of me. vo: now get $200 or more when you trade in your smartphone
for a galaxy s6 but hurry, this offer ends may 10th. verizon. hello! this little beauty here is top-of-the-line. see, you just pull like this to go left. and like so to go right. where are the brakes? uh, just grab ahold of both and pull straight back. and the "whoa!" is optional. you wouldn't buy a motorcycle without handlebars. no thanks. and you shouldn't ride a motorcycle without geico insurance. roadside assistance, 24 hour service, great rates. geico motorcycle. see how much you could save.
but not too sweet. [ male announcer ] built from apples. built to refresh. smith & forge hard cider. oww! made strong. ( cheers and applause ). >> jon: that's our show. here it is your moment of zen. >> police complaints about noisy sex. is there any other kind, though? >> in what may be the most infamous apartment building in new york. >> sex is not a quiet thing. >> i'm going to tell you >> tonightly, the balance mohr police make a black man disappear in front of a live camerament and for their next trick to make him reappear in jail. giuliani goes on fox news to talk about the riots and gives