I spent the ~25 minutes to watch it.
Stewart came very close to asking the important questions, but something always came up before Yoo had to give a full answer. :-(
It was infuriating to hear Yoo talk about the problem that 'there hadn't been a decision on what came between what was legal and what was torture.' That's BS. Stewart called him on it (there's the Army Field Manual and similar things, the Geneva Conventions, US law, prosecutions of people that committed torture in the past, etc., etc.), but Yoo slithered away. His rationalization that he was tasked to find what space existed between what was permitted and what was torture was nonsensical.
As Stewart said, several times, in each case Yoo sided with the argument that increased Bush's power - even if treaties, laws, and 210+ years of history said otherwise. His attempt to portray himself as a underling trying to protect the country was terribly disingenuous.
Stewart put up a good effort, but was reminiscent of his interview of Betsy McCaughey - http://www.huffingto...-ca_n_264970.html - and painful to watch.
I guess a consolation is that I wouldn't expect that the book will sell very well... ;-)
Thanks again.
[edit:] A few other views:
Andrew Sullivan - http://andrewsulliva...-that-theory.html
Adam Serwer - http://www.prospect....jon_stewart_fails
Spencer Ackerman - http://washingtonind...of-the-daily-show
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who expects that Yoo isn't out of the woods yet...)