Mike Luckovich

By RW-(the original)

October 20, 2005 01:16 AM | Link to this

Mike, I guess this a reference to John Kerry being born in the west wing of that Colorado hospital.

But really, putting someone in prison for being a gigalo is over the top.

By norman

October 20, 2005 05:57 AM | Link to this

My fantasy: Cheney is indicted for trying to do in a CIA agent and is forced to resign. Bush nominates and the GOP in Congress elect Tom Delay as VP. Bush is finally forced out because of his crimes and misdemeanors and Delay becomes president. The women of America rise up and invade the White House to eject this misogynist and fascist president. We have a revolution. Tom Jefferson: how right you were.

By Charlie

October 20, 2005 07:00 AM | Link to this

I think by now we pretty well know how you feel about our president and your liberal views, so why not show some more of your talent and address some other items or people, because most of us republicans are to busy working to write to you.

By Ben

October 20, 2005 07:54 AM | Link to this

Why is liberal bad? It just reflects the views of certain people. I’m know it would be improper to use someone’s race or gender to say demeaning things about them. Why is it okay to use someone’s political leanings to launch a broad based attack? All I know is than I’ve certainly never called anyone “conservative” to make fun of them.

p.s. Partisan name calling is only adding to the divide in this country between decent people who might otherwise get along just fine. Debate is OK, just keep it civil.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

I assume that Sandy Berger is also in there since he as already been convicted of stealing and destroying national security documents. Guess he really didn’t want the public to see that Slick Willy did nothing to fight terrorism during his eight years in office.

By gttim

October 20, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

Hey, maybe they can get the same rooms as most of the Nixon administration, or the Iran Contra folks from the Reagan administration. Perhaps we can call it the “Family Values Wing.” I find it hilarious the religious fruitcakes have hitched their wagons to one of the most corrupt political party in the world.

By Mike Not L.

October 20, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Is this the Clinton years? Before or after the pardons?

Norm you need to get out more….get a better fantasy..

By Claude

October 20, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Mike, keep giving this Republican administration/leadership hell. They need to get used to it since this is a preview of their afterlife.

By Mike Not l.

October 20, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

My apologies Norm. - was meant in jest.

By viktor

October 20, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Ben,

Thanks for validating that calling someone a “liberal” is insulting. The reason is obvious.

You can call me a “conservative” anytime, I’m proud of it.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

I find it hilarious that liberals think that their party has such a moral edge. Both parties have had people that have broken the law and been put in prison. To act as if it is only one party that is corrupt and beholden to special interests is intellectually dishonest. But we all know that is what liberals are best at. And remember, I voted for it before I voted against it.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

The use of the word “liberal” is an insult for many because conservative radio “personalities” have made it so. They’ve ascribed every vice and flaw imaginable to the “liberals”, and turned a political philosophy into a distorted scapegoat that would do the most hardened Orwellian propagandist proud. The fact that so many right-wingers have embraced the epithet so proudly just goes to show that they don’t care about reasoned debate, or “compassionate” conservatism. They would rather villify half the population of the country rather than use their brains. Congratulations, viktor!

And please, people, y’all really need to let the Clinton thing go. Just because HE left office with a higher approval rating than YOUR guy is going to, don’t be hatin!

By Young

October 20, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

So Chris, do you believe that every Republican is a conservative? Or do you believe that some of them agree with certain aspects of the Republican party, and disagree with others?

By Chris

October 20, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

When I say liberals, I am refering to the far left of the Democratic Party. Most of the people who insist on calling our President stupid and refuse to say that anything the Republicans do, I would consider far left. Both parties do good and bad things. One is not inherently evil and the other inherently good. From my own experiences, the ones that constatnly degrade the President and what is doing are on the far left, hence using the term liberal. I consider myself a conservative before a Republican. The Republican party happens to be the party that shares most, not all, of my views. Any other questions?

By Shelley

October 20, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Another phenomenal cartoon, Mike.

This is worse than Watergate. The Nixon administration subverted the electoral process and smeared their domestic enemies in an effort to consolidate their hold on power. Bush II has done all that, plus conspired to deceive the American people into supporting an avoidable war of aggression that has caused the deaths of 2000 American soldiers, alienated our allies and provoked a degree of hatred in the Islamic world that will have repercussions for generations to come. This administration has done the unthinkable — they have committed treason and must be held accountable.

By Kevin Crowe

October 20, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Mike - I don’t mind that you pick on Bush, however, haven’t the Democrats done anything in the last two years that is worthy of your attention? Aren’t any of Howard Deans’s recent utterances worthy of a cartoon or two? Why don’t you widen your scope to include more than one political target

By The72John

October 20, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Hey Chris, did you ever stop to think that it’s the fact that Republicans parade around like pompous, self-righteous jackanapes, proclaiming their God-given moral superiority to the poor corrupt Democrats. If the Republican party didn’t set itself up as some kind of bastion of family values and unassailable ethics, maybe we wouldn’t be quite so gleeful when it turns out that they are just as greedy and selfish as anyone else.

By John

October 20, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

I’ve never put stock in the idea that “liberal” was a put down. I’m a proud liberal from a long line of proud liberals. Call me a liberal any day. On the other hand, Bush and his crooked cronies are giving conservatives a bad name. I never thought of “conservative” as a put down until recently. And it wasn’t fellow liberals who made it so. It was this administration.

By Jeff

October 20, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Correct, Shelley.

Watergate was about a 3rd rate burglary. Clintongate was about a 2nd rate blow-job. But, Plamegate is about 1st rate treason, something the neo-cons have been accusing us lefties of ever since we started questioning Dubya’s callous and ignorant brand of “presidentialing”.

The uber-divider has become the uniter - of the true Americans and patriots against his criminal administration.

Oh, and please neo-cons, call me a liberal. It’s a compliment.

By kimberly

October 20, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Jeff, well said! Thanks.

Chris, I don’t think the President is stupid as much as he just doesn’t give a rat’s fuzzy a— about anything but his narrow little circle of interest. Why bother to learn the names of foreign leaders or of the grieving war mothers he meets? Why bother reading though stacks of resumes when he “knows a guy…” Why waste his beautiful mind on annoying facts? He JUST DOESN’T CARE, hence, the appearance of being stupid.

By Thomas

October 20, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Just ask any one, anyone at all in prison..and they will tell you they are innocent or they were framed….honest to God!!! Any way you look at it this administration is DONE….cooked! Including all you conservatives’ commander in thief…the ship is going down..every “man” for himself..abandon, abandon ship!!

By norman

October 20, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Republicans are either knaves or fools; some of them are both.

By Brenda

October 20, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Congratulations George W. Bush! You have managed to out do your grandfather Prescott, who traded with the Nazi enemy during World War II, you showed him, didn’t you George, you went and double-crossed your own country.

By Sherri G.

October 20, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Hey Mike!

No edgy, sarcastic commentary here, just praise for your ability to make me laugh about an administration that, to me, is anything but funny. Thank you.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Gee, Mike and his far left posters here sure are giddy about the witch hunt… You are really reaching for anything now, good luck.

If Bush is guilty of so many atrocities, then why has he not been impeached already? PS- Cynthia sure does make one proud, way to represent the ATL, you go girl!!!

By Bobbie

October 20, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Response to Charlie who implied that only Republicans are out on jobs working and do not have time to write in their comments. I am retired after working 44 years and I am enjoying getting to respond. And yes, I am one of those liberal Democrates I am proud to say. I am a little confused though with the church crowd that worship at the Bush throne. I understand that the Bible instructs us to love our neighbor and help those in need. Yet these religious people begrudge the Democrates trying to help the poor and down trodden of the human race. I think they would do well to well to consult their bibles again.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Well, it’s simply, Jay. The Republican party controls every branch of the Federal government right now. Do you honestly think that they are going to impeach their own leader? Silly little facist.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

As you read the post by the people of the left side of the spectrum, a couple of things become obvious. One they like to call names and talk about how dumb all conservatives are. They complain about being called liberals, yet they like to refer to all conservatives as neo-conservatives, which I doubt they could define. Not calling anyone uneducated, just don’t think most people understand the neo-con movement. Another thing that amuses me is the arrogance and the “we are right” attitude from most of the posters bashing Bush. I think that this is where the Democratic Party has gone wrong recently. The Republicans have controlled the White House for all but 8 years since 1980, yet Dems continue to think that they are right and that the American people are dumb for voting for George Bush. Obviously at some point, the general American public decided that the Repulbican Party was doing more for them than the Democratic Party. And what new ideas have we heard from the Dems? None, just more bashing of the Republicans.

By Elaine

October 20, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Carly Simon got it about right.

“Do the walls come down when you think of me?”

“Let the dreamers wake the nation.”

The chimp will surely pardon those indicted but it’s still gonna be sweet to watch them do the perp walk, even if only for one day.

By Bobbie

October 20, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

I seem to see a trend developing with the Bush worshipers. Every time he does something dumb they are like a mother hen trying to protect her chicks. They immediately start trying to draw your attention to something that happened twenty or thirty years ago. They try to create a diversion. Get real people we are dealing with the year 2005 and Bush.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Oh, pardon me John, I thought more than 2 Democrats had a voice in the House of Reps.

By Brenda

October 20, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

You nailed it, Elaine.

Heard in the West Wing when “W” was told by his aides that Mr. Fitzgerald would be indicting officials in the White House for treason: “BRING ‘EM ON!”

By The72John

October 20, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Awww, the poor wittle conservative can’t handle it when the liberals fight back. Maybe we’re just tired of being vilified by you people at every turn, of having our patriotism constantly called into question, of being told that we should leave the country, etc. Please, continue to complain about being called stupid.

And just for the record, the neo-con philosophy is one that was primarly developed by a number of former socialist-leaning sixities era political theorists. It focuses on an agressive approach to foreign policy, particularly identifies with Isreal as a vital ally (which has gotten the eschatologicly minded relgious nuts of the world all carried away), and believes that the United States is the moral center of the world and has an obligation to force US-style democracy on the rest of the world, whether the world wants or is ready for it or not.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

I wasn’t aware that people like you ‘thought’ period, Jay.

By Hal

October 20, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Hey Georgie,

Just think—if it was early August —all you and your administration had to “spin” was your tendency to enjoy extended vacations and why you did not have time to meet with the mother of a fallen soldier. My, my, Georgie, what a difference two months can make, huh? Would be a shame if individuals in your circle are responsible for Benedict Arnolding Ms. Plame.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

John, ok, “people like me”… I just asked a simple question. If Bush is guilty of all these atrocities, then why isn’t every Democratic Rep. rising up and calling for his impeachment for knowing about the 9/11 attacks before hand and then lying about the war and so forth? Even if Dems. don’t have a majority, do they not have the balls to put forth the evidence of Bush knowing about the 9/11 attacks before hand and then creating false evidence to start a war in Iraq for oil? If all this is true, then he should be impeached, show us the evidence….

By Chris

October 20, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

For the record, George did meet with Cindy Sheehan and hundreds of other mothers. Only when Cindy was coopted by fringe organizations, like MoveOn.org and Michael Moore, did she want to meet with the President again. George has taken just about the same vacation time as your hero Bill did. John, your definition of neo-con is mostly accurate. They don’t especially identify with Isreal as an ally, that is a misconception becuase some of the more prominent advocates happen to be Jewish. Hey, look I am not whinning about you guys talking back. I know that the conservative philosophy is winning the battle in America. When we actually skip the bs that gets put out by both parties and actually debate the liberal versus conservative ideology, conservatives are winning. Right now, more people is the country identify themselves as Republicans than any time in history. And those are facts, not opinions.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Another thing that kills me. Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, leaders of France, Russia, and Germany all said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. So were they lieing too?

By The72John

October 20, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Well, frankly I don’t think that Bush knew about the attacks before hand. There’s a difference in ignoring intelligence about possibilities and in willfully allowing something to happen.

See, this is one of my major gripes with “you people”. It’s all extremes with you. Thinking that Bush failed to heed the advice of his adviors becomes some wild conspiracy theory about Bush knowing about 9/11 before it happened. You have absolutely no sense of proportion and therefore it is impossible to rationally discuss anything with you.

Frankly, my disgust with the Bush administration goes far beyond his poor foreign policy decisions. Has he done anything impeachable? I don’t know…is refusing to admit that you were ever wrong about anything and constantly shifting your rationales for war impeachable? Don’t know…wrong? Sure is.

By kimberly

October 20, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Jay, there’s plenty of evidence to warrant an impeachment of Bush. But the White House strategy from day one was to surround themselves with suck-ups and bully anyone who doesn’t go along with the lie of the day. This bully-pulpit style of politics trickled down and soiled the legislative branch as well. My congressman doesn’t give a hoot about truth, justice, or what’s right or wrong. He thinks he’s just joined a neat-o fraternity. Brother Bluto says vote for this, don’t vote for that, and trot this pie chart out for the C-SPAN cameras! He only does what he’s told.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

We didn’t start the conspiracy theories about Bush knowing about the teorists attacks before they happened. Howard Dean put forth that theory. Michael Moore made a movie about it. Both Democrats. We didn’t take it to an extreme. Members of your party did. And don’t forget Ted Kennedy accused Bush of making the war up for political game. Now thats classy.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Whats the evidence Kimberly? Its not enough just to say it. You have to prove it too.

By kimberly

October 20, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Yes, an impeachment is a TRIAL in which evidence would be presented, argued, and defended before a decision is rendered. There IS evidence, such as the Downing Street Memo and the previous testimony of quite a few former high-ranking government officials, that suggest the rationale to go to war with Iraq was concocted and manipulated both before and after 9-11, which had nothing to do with Iraq! There’s plenty that goes to motive as well, like billions in profit for a handful of Halliburton and oil execs. But there will never BE such a trial, because the brothers have a kegger, some bike rides, and some photo-ops to plan instead.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Thanks John, for half way answering my question and not resorting to name calling that time.

Again, if it is so apparent, how come the Dems don’t fight to impeach Bush on fabricating evidence in order to start a war with Iraq?

By gerry sax

October 20, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Dear Mike, I live in ca. and the first thing I check on my pc in the am is your cartoon. I think their great.Keep up the great work. Their one of the reasons I get Newsweek

By kimberly

October 20, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Jay, what part of “minority” are you having trouble understanding? The people who care more about their own party loyalties, being on the bully’s side, and shouting down dissenters now constitute the majority in our government, and probably in our populace as well. The people who care about truth, right & wrong, and the general welfare of the people are in the MINORITY. It’s about power, not truth. Personally, I wish they would grow some spines and fight back.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Who knows, Jay. Maybe they’re giving him the benefit of the doubt on the first one. I don’t necessarily believe that he intentionally misled people about WMD. I DO believe, based on numerous sources and a basic understanding of the neo-con philosophies of his advisors, that he went into office with the express intention of making war on Iraq by any means necessary. Perhaps he jumped on the WMD train without allowing the claims to be researched, I don’t know.

I DO know that when it was determined that no WMD existed that he tried to slither out of his responsibility for starting a war prematurely by changing his rationales.

Do you understand? Do you understand that not liking Bush and his policies does not automatically mean I assume the absolute worst argument is true? Somehow I doubt it. Enjoy your Hannity.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, fine that’s your opinion, again my question is:

If it is so apparent, how come the Dems don’t fight to impeach Bush on fabricating evidence in order to start a war with Iraq?

There are plenty of Dems in the House. If they have this blinding truth and sit on their hands, then they are not representing their minority.

By Andy

October 20, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

As usual, Republicans are “guilty until proven innocent,” with the democrats “it’s just about sex.”

If you look in prison trying to find former government officials, I’d be willing to bet that you’d find quite a few City of Atlanta employees, the same people cartoon boy pays the highest tax rates in the nation to.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Yes, John I respect your opinion, that is fine. Point is, I had to ask you 3 times because the first two all you could do is resort to name calling and insults.

By Hal

October 20, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

When this administration goes down, let’s go after all of these rightwing idiots who keep blindly following these treasonous Benedict Arnolds. They are just as bad, if they continue to follow them and make excuses for them. There are those conservatives who have a brain, and are against this administration, because these conservatives are patriots, and are after the truth. Then, there are the “ditto-heads”, who are like mindless, brainwashed animals, and their comments have ZERO credibility. They will never change their minds, they have the same mentality that those who followed the Nazi’s had…blindly follow their leaders and never question them.

By Elaine

October 20, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

There’s a lot of lying going on in the Bush Administration, more lies than went on in the Clinton Administration. Where are all the conservatives who were up in arms about Clinton lying? Hypocrites!

By The72John

October 20, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Actually, I answered your question the first time. Repubs control all branches, remember? You just got your feelings hurt ‘cause I called you a facist.

I guess it’s only OK to call liberals names, hmm? Y’all sure are quick to get your feelings hurt when someone turns the tables on you, poor wittle fella.

By Dennis

October 20, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Everyone should go to the American Conservative blog site and read “Money for Nothing.” It is scathing in its discription of Iraq. This administration has literally pillaged that country. Also there is a story in the Washington Post on Porter Goss’s leadership in the CIA. People are leaving from lack of leadership. Look at Katrina. That wasn’t just problems with the state agencies. The Federal agency is obligated to step in and help coordinate, not buy shoes and go to fundraisers. Open your eyes, people.

By Eric

October 20, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Poor Charlie the Republican, he’s “to” busy to write.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

No, John, I’m a big boy and I totally expected such name calling- typical.

However, I don’t have to resort to that brand of debate.

If your answer is because Republicans control all branches, then I feel sorry for the Dems in the House if they cannot stand up and fight for the truth they claim that Bush knew about 9/11 and started the Iraq war based on fabricated lies.

I believe many Rebulicans and the American public would call for the impeachment as well if the evidence was put forth.

One good piece of advice- Get Howard Dean out of the DNC he’s hurting your cause!

By The72John

October 20, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Jay, I really don’t think that the mainstream Democrat thinks that Bush knew about 9/11. Again, you’re taking things to extremes. As you say - typical. Of Conservatives. Much like name-calling and character assasination.

Please refer BACK to my earlier post from 12:52 if you need a refresher.

By Young

October 20, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Jay, John, etc. Why exactly was the war in Iraq started? Shouldn’t we have continued going after Osama Bin Laden? After all, he is guilty. If he should go free, shouldn’t Brian Nichols? They both killed some people. Why should one go free and the other not? According to Conservative logic, letting Brian Nichols go would prevent other assailants from shooting at the courthouse and killing other people. If we go out into the streets of Bankhead for example, and start shooting, then we would be bringing the killing to them. Am I right?

By kimberly

October 20, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Jay, you ask a good question: Why DON’T they stand up and fight? I ask this question daily. As for Howard Dean, I am a life-long, peace-loving, yellow-dog Democrat, and YES, he speaks for me! Funny how people criticize the Dems for being sissies and wimps, and when confronted with one who actually has a spine and a sac, WHOA…. he’s off his chain! He’s crazy! He’s hurting your cause!” Gimme a break.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

John, I 100% agree about the questions being of the extreme, I simply asked the questions because the Democratic leaders such as Dean ,Kennedy and Kerry suggested ideas about 9/11 and fabricating lies although the Democrats take no action. These guys are the ones you have chosen to represent your party and should be questioned for thier statements. They just say it to attract votes. Where’s the proof?

PS- I did not once resort to name calling, etc. as you did, so you are as bad as the Right Wingers you hate.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Just because I am a conservative doesn’t mean that I support all of Bush’s policies like everyone here seems to think. I too agree that Bush has made some big mistakes. We could have done a much better job handling the situation in Iraq. There is no doubt about it. What bothers me is the total lack of acknowledgement of any of the good things that have happened during his tenure. Hal states that the only conservatives with a brain are the ones against the President. It is statements like that that cause people to disregard the serious arguements against this administration. As a conservative, there are many things I don’t agree with the President on. But I would still rather have him as President than John Kerry. And to say that the Democrats are the party that cares about the general welfare of people as Kimberely does, that just isn’t true. Look at the amount of spending on poverty in this administration versus the Clinton Administration. More is being spent now. More people have gotten themselves out of proverty in the last five years. The arguement that the Democratic party is the party that takes care of the poor is terribly false. What they do is continue to support massive amounts of welfare funding, while doing nothing to promote learning and job skills. And Kimberly are the Dems concerned about the welfare of the babies that have been killed while the left stays beholden to the Pro-Choice Movement.

By RW-(the original)

October 20, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Young, The Iraq war started on January 16, 1991 in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Killers should all be caught and punished, some take longer to catch (BTK, Green River killers took decades to catch). And aren’t the streets of Bankhead where thugs blow up trucks, beat and rob the drivers and get charged with disorderly conduct?

By The72John

October 20, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Once bitten, twice shy, Jay. I suppose that after one has been refered to over and over again in terms generally reserved for murderers, rapists and child molestors that one tend to go on the offensive right off the bat.

Chris, you really should state your spending sources. This administration has spent more on poverty than the Clinton administration? Are you joking? Are you drunk? And please, oh please, not the tired “poor babies” abortion debate. Why not just skip straight to the gay bashing?

By hewhoasks

October 20, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Jay:

The easier person in the administration to impeach surely has to be Cheney. I agree, the Democrats (or one or a few of them) ought to have the gumption to present articles of impeachment - but so far they have not done so. We both realize that were any of them to do so the Republican spin machine would turn that into a purely political move.

By the same logic that says the Democrats should introduce articles of impeachment the responsible Republicans should also introduce them. That wold be an act of tremendous political courage but we have seen such acts in the past.

All should recall that Nixon chose to resign when a delegation of Republicans came to him and said they’d vote to impeach, if a vote were taken.

(Cheney could be impeached if he were shown to bhave been the force behind the CIA’s issuance of the false and phony white paper that purported, by feeble logic built upon scientifically idiotic fabrications, to conclude that the trailers in Iraq used by the Iraqi military to make hydrogen to proivde lift for balloons were illicit mobile biological WMD units. The CIA itself has already debunked the white paper, in the Duelfer report. All the evidence is at hand except testimony that Cheney forced the CIA to issue the false document. If he did so the evidence should be very easy to gather: ask the authors of the white paper and those who were in charge of that effort.

Impeaching Cheney would be fully justified. if he forced the CIA to issue a deliberatley false political document (and it is easy to prove “deliberately false” - the white paper contains scientific “howlers”) he could and should be impeached. That would have an equal or greater effect than impeaching Bush.

I agree with those who say you should also do cartoons about the positive accomplishments and achievements of the bush administration. I suspect you’re still waiting for one to surface.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

I don’t need to gay bash, I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes and bedrooms. As for the spending figures, go to the Treasury Departments website and search for spending on poverty and poverty programs. You might get your heart broken though. And why assume that I am wrong? Just becuase you have had it beaten into your head that Dems take care of the poor? And from your comment on “poor babies”, I can tell you really don’t care about the lives of unborn babies. But hey, thats your opinion and that is fine. I just find it amusing that Kimberly thinks that the Dems are the party of caring and compassion.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, the Dems would stand up and fight but they have no proof or they would be screaming their heads off. Yes, I agree, Dean has spine for making such comments as leader of DNC. If Dean speaks for you, I would assume that you must also support the idea that Bush knew about 9/11 and fabricated evidence to start the war in Iraq.

By Ben

October 20, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Is it just me, or has this debate tured rather nasty? I’ve been reading these “debates” for about a week now and never cease to be astonished at how quickly they become negative. More disturbing however, is both’s sides seamingly complete inability to listen to one other. Just yelling back and forth while getting further and further entrenched helps no one. This persistant nastiness is unhealthy. I seriously doubt this forum was designed with the intent of creating yet another venue in which people can call each other ‘idiots.’ Also, please try not to jump the gun and fly to wild conclusions about people’s political views. Not every liberal leaning person is a charter member othe Democratic party, just like not every conservative is a third generation Republican.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Ben, I agree that name calling is not necessary. When you name call, I think you instantly lose credibility. Good healthy debate is good, however. I think that is what most people are trying to do here.

By Ben

October 20, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Chris, unfortunately you may be right.

By Jackie

October 20, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

We could be watching History in the making - the consequences of which might be unlike any we have ever seen in our lifetimes - for it affects not only our entire nation - but the entire World we have alienated. As exciting as it is to cheer with each new unfolding detail, the stakes are probably even higher than any of us could ever imagine, and I regret to think it might take a lot more than good luck and good wishes to keep Fitzgerald safe.

I think we all need to pause and take a moment to think how we can redirect some of our enthusiasm, hope and energies towards guaranteeing the safety of Patrick Fitzgerald and his family. Does he have the degree of protection that is warranted here? Would someone sympathetic with big bucks be willing to step in and bankroll his security - IMMEDIATELY ? This might be a more critically important fundraising cause than any political campaign or disaster relief.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

When I have a week or two, I’ll happily wade through several hundreds-page long budgets, Chris. Untill then, I’m going to have to stick with my assumptions, which are based on the fact that the Republican party has as part of its primary goals the elimination of welfare programs, etc. Crazy me for actually assuming they meant it.

By Que

October 20, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

I was content with just reading the opinions here but “CHRIS” I had to take exception to something you said. You talk about the people and countries that all said Sadaam had WMD, ie, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, leaders of France, Russia, and Germany all said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In respect to all the other countries that also said it, I just find it funny that the U.S. is the only country over there getting our troops blown to bits. So apparently those other countries weren’t to concerned about it and we all know how this fiasco has turned out.

As for all you folk that say we are unpatriotic for not supporting this war; well I spent 22 years in the military and was severely injured in the first gulf war, so how dare you say I’m not patriotic.

The difference between republicans and democrats is at least democrats admit when someone in there party has royally screwed up. Republicans just keep making excuses and hope screw-ups just goes away and hope the rest of the public is brain dead and don’t notice.

By Molly

October 20, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Interesting reading.

Dick Cheney’s Covert Action Larry C. Johnson October 19, 2005

Larry Johnson worked as a CIA intelligence analyst and State Department counter-terrorism official. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Face it, America. You’ve been punk’d.

It is now quite clear that the outing of Valerie Plame was part of a broader White House effort to mislead and manipulate U.S. public opinion as part of an orchestrated effort to take us to war. The unraveling of the Valerie Plame affair has exposed their scam�and it extends well beyond compromising the identity of a CIA officer. In short, the Bush administration organized and executed a classic “covert action� program against the citizens of the United States.

Covert action refers to behind-the-scenes efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to plant stories, manipulate information and shape public opinion. In other words, you write stories that reporters will publish as their own, you create media events that tout a particular theme, and you demonize your opponent. Traditionally, this activity was directed against foreign governments. For example, the U.S. used covert action extensively in Greece in the 1960s to help fend off communists. Covert action also played a major role in rallying world support for the Afghanistan mujahideen following the Soviet invasion in 1979.

Revelations during the past week about the Plame affair make it clear that the Bush administration used covert action against its own citizens. Consider, for example, the charge that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. The key event in this disinformation campaign was the intelligence manufactured by the Italians. The Italian intelligence service, SISME, provided the CIA with three separate intelligence reports that Iraq had reached an agreement with Niger to buy 500 tons of yellowcake uranium (October 15, 2001; February 5, 2002; and March 25, 2002). The second report, from February, was the subsequent basis for a DIA analysis, which led Vice President Cheney to ask the CIA for more information on the matter. That request led to the CIA asking Ambassador Joe Wilson to go check out the story in Niger.

We learned last May that in the summer of 2002, the Bush administration told our British allies that they would “fix the facts” around the intelligence. In other words, the United States sought to manufacture a case that Iraq was trying to build a nuclear capability. Note, not only did bogus intelligence reports and fabricated documents surface, but senior administration officialsâ€â€?Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheneyâ€â€?went to great lengths to try to convince Americans that the United States would soon face the wrath of Iraqi attacks. Remember the smoking mushroom cloud?

Despite repeated attempts by the Italian intelligence service to help us cook the books, the senior CIA intelligence analysts resisted the administration’s effort to sell the bogus notion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger. Even in the much-maligned October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the entire intelligence community remained split on the reliability of the Iraq/Niger claim. During briefings subsequent to the publication of the NIE, senior CIA officials repeatedly debunked the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. They also dismissed as unreliable reports from Great Britain, which also were derived from the faulty Italian intelligence reports.

It is now clear that Italy’s intelligence service, SISME, had a hand in producing the forged documents delivered to the U.S. Embassy in Rome in early October 2003 that purported to show a deal with Niger to buy uranium. Many in the intelligence community are convinced that a prominent neocon with longstanding ties to SISME played a role in the forgery. The truth of that proposition remains to be proven. This much is certain: Either SISME or someone with ties to SISME helped forge and circulate those documents, which some tried to use to bolster the case to go to war with Iraq.

Although some in the intelligence community, specifically analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Energy, believed the report, the intelligence community as a whole did not put much stock in the reports and forged documents, and repeatedly told policy makers that these reports were not reliable. Yet the Bush administration ignored the intelligence community on these questions, and senior policymakers�like Vice President Cheney�persisted in trying to make the fraudulent case.

Two weeks before President Bush spoke the infamous 16 words in the January 2003 State of the Union speech, the Department of Defense was fanning the flames about Iraq’s alleged Nigerien uranium shopping trip. Starting in late 2001, senior Department of Defense officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, provided favored military talking heads with talking points and briefings to reinforce messages the administration wanted the public to remember.

One of those who frequently attended these affairs, Robert Maginnis, a former Army officer and now a commentator for Fox News and the Washington Times , published an op-ed on January 15, 2003, for United Press International, subsequent to one of the briefings. In writing about the case for attacking Iraq, Maginnis affirmed that Saddam, “failed to explain why Iraq manufactures fuels suited only for a class of missile that it does not admit to having and why it sought to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger.�

Notwithstanding repeated efforts by intelligence analysts to downplay these intelligence reports as unreliable, DOD officials fanned the flames. This, my friends, is one example of “cooking intelligence.� These facts further expose as farce the Bush administration’s effort to blame the CIA for the misadventure in Iraq. We did not go to war in Iraq primarily because of bad intelligence and bad analysis by the CIA. The Bush administration started a war of choice.

While CIA did make mistakes, and while some key members of the National Intelligence Council were willing to drink the neocon Kool-Aid and go along with the White House, when it came to questions of whether Iraq was buying uranium in Niger or if Saddam was working with bin Laden, CIA and INR analysts consistently got it right and told the administration what they did not want to hear. It was policymakers, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, NSC Chief Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who ignored what the analysts were saying and writing.

The evidence of the White House effort to manipulate and shape U.S. public opinion is now overwhelming. Just last week, President Bush appeared in a pathetic scripted “dialogue� with hand-selected U.S. troops. We also know that male escort Jeff Gannon Guckert was granted special access to White House press briefings and that pundits like Armstrong Williams sold themselves to the White House. The Bush administration had an organized campaign to manipulate the U.S. media to get its message out. Unfortunately, the corporate media played along.

The attack on Valerie Plame Wilson was not an isolated incident. It was part of a broader pattern of manipulation and deceit. But this was not done for the welfare of U.S. national security. Instead, we find ourselves confronted by an unprecedented level of terrorist attacks and a deteriorating military situation in Iraq. At the same time, we now know that the Bush administration gladly sacrificed an undercover intelligence officer in order to keep up the pretense that the war in Iraq was all about weapons of mass destruction.

Americans have died because of the Bush deceit. The unmasking of Valerie Plame was not an odd occurrence. It was part of a pattern of deliberate manipulation and disinformation. At the end of the day, American men and women have died because of this lie. It is up to the American people to hold the Bush administration accountable for these actions.

By Young

October 20, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

So we have been at war for 14 years, RW? Wow, I didn’t realize that.

As for Osama, shouldn’t we be concentrating on that? Why is his name not even mentioned? Would that bring up questions about what is being done?

As for the nastiness of the arguments, yeah, it’s ridiculous.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

I agree with you hewhoasks. But let’s see the evidence before highly publicized politicians announce this to the world as fact and pointing everything as Bush’s fault. This kind of rhetoric does nothing to help our troops in Iraq-all it does is give the insurgents more will to wait us out longer. The main goal I hope we all want is to get this thing over with (win) and get home.

By Ben

October 20, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, but the president’s actions in regards to our troops have been anything but supportive. Suggesting salary cuts for combat troops and cut backs for vetern’s aid does not help our soldiers.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Sure Ben, it’s obvious that Bush wants to lose in Iraq. He said the troops would be given whatever they needed as dictated by the commanders and troops in the field (not the media). Where can I see the numbers that combat vets. salaries/benefits are being cut back?

The problem is the media has too much influence on the war (and the insurgents know this). Had the media controlled WWII in this fasion we may never have defeated Japan.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

The only things “highly-publicized” politicians are saying is that Bush has mishandled the situation, that he has exhibited terrible judgement, etc. I don’t see any politician suggesting that Bush knew about 9/11 prior to its occurence.

Yes, there are many people (from many politicial backgrounds, by the way) who have suggested that Bush either intended to make war on Iraq prior to 9/11, and even go so far as to suggest that, at the very least, he refused to accept intel that was counter to his desired result. Once again, you carry all criticism of Bush to the absurd.

Not surprising from someone who uses the whole “we shouldn’t dissent because it hurts the troops” nonsense.

By Mark

October 20, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

1)A very good case can be made that the Iraq war was planned even before the 2000 election and certainly well before 9/11. 2) Is it not a little sinister when the inner circle of chicken hawks that want war as the principle foreign policy of the United States calls themselves “The Vulcans.” (God of Fire) 3) Does it make anyone else here a little uneasy that a company and it’s subsidiaries with such close ties to the Vice President is the largest contract holder in Iraq? That this company shows up wherever there is a war. And now the war drums are beating in regard to Syria and Iran. Folks, I am a retired military officer and I am so glad that I do not have to send young men and women out to die for a cause that is so murky and even downright smelly. What is this administrations true agenda? I just can’t trust them.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Here ya go Jay.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4959370

And by the way, before you start prattling on with the “NPR is liberal and therefore you can’t trust it” nonsense, I would point out to you that when certain members of congress were trying to cut the funding for NPR, a large BIPARTISAN coalition stepped in to prevent it, citing the importance and value of NPR to the country.

Their fact-checking and journalistic integrity are beyond reproach, and unlike Fox News, they bring in people from ALL sides of an issue for their stories.

Enjoy, or keep your head buried in the sand. I don’t care which.

By Charlene

October 20, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

John, perhaps you should read Luckovich cartoons more often. In my memory, Mike has written more than one Howard Dean cartoon.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Howard Dean said on public radio that he believed Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorists attack. Honestly, I don’t consider Howard Dean part of the mainstream Deomcratic Party. I think if the Dems ran someone like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson of Nebraska they would stand a very good chance of winning back the presidency. The problem recently has been that they have picked candidates that have pandered to the far left, which doens’t win elections in my opinion.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Mark, I don’t think most people would consider you unpatriotic for being against the war. I am a conservative and I wouldn’t. The only people that I would consider unpatriotic are the ones that don’t support the troops or work with the enemy, ala Jane Fonda. I don’t care what side of the political specturm you are on either, regardless of whether you support the war or not, you HAVE to support our men and women in harms way. And John to say that Fox News doesn’t show people from both sides is just false. Granted most of their anchors and hosts are probably conservative, they have a large number of Dems appear. Donna Brazille, who ran Al Gores campaign is on all the time. Ellis Henningan also appears frequently. Jesse Jackson, Charles Rangel, Dick Durbin, Joe Leiberman, John Kerry, and many other prominent Dems have appeared multiple times on Fox. You really shouldn’t make blanket statements like that.

By Mark

October 20, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Chris, you are right. Mainstream America is caught in the crossfire of the idealogues of both parties. Unfortunately those of us in the middle will be the collateral damage of this jihad they have declared upon one another. When idealogues are allowed to become all powerful, moderation hasn’t a prayer. The moderate majority in this country goes practically unserved, yet we time after time are used at the polls to send these ideologues to their seats of power. The Joe Liebermans and Collin Powells of the world will never be nominated because the machinery of the ideologues grinds them up and spits them out in the primaries before turning their guns on each other. And the rest of us lose.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Mark, I feel your pain brother. I think that the hard idealogues on both sides are losing though. I think the American public is getting fed up with it. I am really hoping that the Republicans go with a moderate(McCain or Guilani) in the next election. But as they say only time will tell.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

I’m fine with moderation, really. But as long as the Republican party is determined to push a far-right agenda on us, there has to be someone willing to push back just as hard in the opposite direction. But frankly, what I get from you is that “moderation” means capitulation to Republican and conservative ideals. I don’t see any willingness to compromise from you.

By Mark

October 20, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Yes Chris..the troops deserve support. I have been to war (several times) and I understand that the troops did not start the war. And believe me. When people start dying everyone eventually asks why. Soldiers continue to soldier however. It is only the reason that they soldier on that changes. When the inevitable questions and doubts arise, soldiers fight primarily for one another. And I really pity the troops that have been stuck with this war.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

John, do you not think that the powers in the Democratic Party want to push a far-left agenda? But sides do. That is what I am saying. I would like to see both parties go toward the middle for their next candidate. Hillary Clinton, George Allen, Sam Brownback, Joe Biden, all would continue the same pattern.

By Jay

October 20, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

John, the question was for Ben, not you. Anyway, I don’t see any facts on your link that state that Vets pay and benefits are being cut, it looks more like a piece of an editorial from the NPR.
As for the “non sense”, The media and politicians pushing the “Bush Lied” mantra and so forth can hurt the troops because the insurgents and Al Qaeda watch and read our media outlets. They know if they can divide us and wear us down, it gives them the will to stick it out longer and hope we just go away.

By Daniel

October 20, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Perhaps one more photo of George with his sleeves rolled up, a couple GI’s, and a few black kids will do the trick.

By Mark

October 20, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Moderation means not capitulating to either group, right or left. This country needs a viable 3rd party, with candidates like Lieberman, McCain, Powell, et al. A credible ticket could command a very large percentage of the vote and at least force the idealogues to compromise. However, I am probably dreaming because the radicals will go to the mat to keep this from happening. Something else that will never happen is MEANINGFUL campaign finance reform. Get the corporate money and lobbyist out of the equation and we the people will get better representation. Of course we are not naive enough to believe that those in power want honest government or to truly represent those who gave them their jobs.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Then apparently you didn’t listen to the story, Jay, or you would know that it is a hard news piece, complete with facts, interviews with army officials and soldiers, etc.

As for that other thing - congratulations! You are a perfect drone. If you had been living in WWII Germany, I have no doubt you would have been goosestepping along with your neighbors.

The whole “aid and comfort” nonsense is just that. As an American, our GREATEST responsibility is to speak out when our President and leaders are leading our country down the wrong path, and especially when they are callously spending the lives of our men and women and uniform in the pursuit of their misguided agenda. If our foes take joy from our dissent, then we aren’t doing our jobs anyway. If not in times of strife, then when SHOULD we speak out? If a leader is in error, it is our DUTY to speak out against it. Sorry you don’t get that.

Chris, I dispute that the democratic party agenda is as far to the left as the republicans is to the right. I read the official party platform and answer the questionaires, and no…it is really pretty moderate. The conservative media has done a good job of painting all democrats as far left, but it really isn’t accurate.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Daniel, yeah no other politician has ever done photo ops before. I am sure no Dem has ever taken advantage of a pic that they thought would play well on the media. Comments like that do nothing but make you look like a cheap political hack.

By Mark

October 20, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

So I guess that since the bad guys watch and read the news that Americans should just shut up…give up another of the freedoms granted by the constitution. Why don’t we just add that to the Patriot Act while we’re at it. I think that one of the reasons that people serve their country is to preserve those freedoms.

By hewhoasks

October 20, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

Jay:

The proof that the CIA white paper is false is in the Duelfer report (also a CIA report), which clearly and professionally demonstrates that the trailers were, as claimed by the Iraqis, as admitted by the white paper the Iraiqs had claimed, for hydrogen generation. There was not one piece of evidence, large or small, that indicated biological WMD culture was the purpose of the trailers. The white paper was cooked. the so-called defector evidence was suspect on its face (and is now regarded as unreliable.) A chemical engineer woulnd’t describe the equipment he ioperated only in terms of external appearance - he’d know what the parts were, what they did, and why they were there.

Beyond that I don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to “supporting the troops.”

I’ve seen the “blame the press for military lack of victory” rhetoric before. The insurgents (or whatever you want to call the opponents) in Iraq don’t read our press, they read the Arab press. Go ahead, check: see that the NY TImes doens’t regularly deliver papers to the hidden hideouts in Iraq used by the opponents. Maybe they sometimes read translations of US articles but the nature of the opponents is that they will resist for as long as it takes no matter what appears in the US press. They survived when essentially no criticsm of the administration appeared in the press, they survive now. If would be a strange situation indeed for the US opponents in Iraq (and earlier the Viet Cong in Vietnam) to only resist as long as the administration was being criticized in the press. That makes no sense: they have an agenda, they fight befause of that agenda. Bush may persist in painting the issue in Iraq as one of “show reslove, we must show resolve” but the opponents aren’t primariliy interested in erasing the show of resolve, they’re interested in winning. (“Resolve” is the blunderer’s reason for an action when there’s no clear military reason for it. Professional soldiers initiate battles for military objective reasons, not for philosophical or psychological ones.)

The troops are there because they were ordered there. If the motives were ordering them there were bad then the troops shouldn’t be there and are dying as a result of bad orders (which put them in harm’s way), not as a result of opposition to administration policies in the press. The policy is bad, the troops suffer because of the bad policy. Continuing bad policy isn’t support for the troops, it’s support for the administration.

This could be simple, the Constitution makes it simple: only Congress can declare war. Congress hasn’t, but we’re at war, sort of. Follow the Constitutional path and the difficulty is far less likely to occur: the issues will be properly discussed before war is declared, if war is declared. That’s the wisdom of the writers of the constitution, who already knew the danger of a lone executive starting wars on his own. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can delegate that power, despite what Congress did and has been doing for decades. All the members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, failed to adhere to their oath to the Constitution when they allowed a vote on the resolution that gave Bush power that properly can only be exerted by the Congress itself.

By Chris

October 20, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

John, I think you are looking through politically tinted glasses when you say that the Dem’s agenda is not hard left. From my point of view it is. But I think we can agree to disagree on this one, because I don’t that the Republicans is that hard right, but maybe we are both biased a little.

By RW-(the original)

October 20, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Young, yes we have been in a state of war with Iraq for 14+ years. When Sadaam signed the cease fire he agreed to certain terms that any allowed any party to the agreement to take action if he didn’t fully comply. You might remember Bill Clinton bombing several sites in 1998. So just because we weren’t on the ground in an active war we were in a state of war.

If Osama is alive he will eventually be caught or killed. We didn’t leave Afghanistan and the sad tragedy of the earthquake may actually help us get to areas we couldn’t before. Part of not mentioning him might also be a pretty good way to draw him out.

Sorry to go on like Molly, that was interesting reading, but it sure would have been nice if she had broken it into a few posts.

By Mark

October 20, 2005 05:22 PM | Link to this

Now that someone has mentioned Osama, how can we be sure he is really alive? I think that he was killed during the Tora Bora actions. The guy had to have dialysis everyday! He has not been seen nor heard of (credibly) since Tora Bora. The last thing the Bush administration needs right now is a dead Osama bin Laden. If Osama came out on a plank, even more people would question continued involvement. Believe me…Bush needs him to be alive.

By Jon

October 20, 2005 09:28 PM | Link to this

You Republicans are hysterical. Of course, even Nixon had a 25% approval rating when he left office; many of your will accept any evil. You won’t be happy until you pay nothing in taxes, the infrastructure has crumbled to dust, and we all work for you for $4 an hour without hopes of health insurance. Seriously, your turn to “govern” is over.

By Margaret Parker

October 20, 2005 09:46 PM | Link to this

You rule. I laughed out loud. I love your editorial cartoons! Keep it up.

By Claude

October 20, 2005 10:24 PM | Link to this

Jon, you said it all except Republicans aren’t “hysterical” just selfish and clueless. You are correct. Their time to govern is coming to an end.

By Dusty

October 20, 2005 10:34 PM | Link to this

This blog reminds me of coyotes howling in the moonlight. Nobody listening to each other, just yowling and yipping. Anybody with a clear question or statement is bitten with accusations, fabrications and political buffoonery. Those who like Luckovich should join his Grand Graffito Club. You too can help undermine the American way of life and insult the president.

By hewhoasks

October 20, 2005 10:48 PM | Link to this

Dusty:

You’d be wiser to be concerned about the President insulting so many of us - and insulting so many in other countries. He and Rove.

In addition Bush is real cozy with Grover Norquist, who has declared his intention of destroying the US government. That’s the “undermining the American way of life” that is the major threat, not what ordinary honest Americans post in blogs - or draw in newspapers.

By The72John

October 20, 2005 11:06 PM | Link to this

And Dusty rings in yet again to reinforce his “if you aren’t with us you’re against us” philosophy. Pay attention, everyone, DUSTY is about to tell us who is and who isn’t a real American. Pay close attention to the man in the black shiny boots.

By RW-(the original)

October 20, 2005 11:07 PM | Link to this

Oh no!!! We’re not appeasing enough enemies, or kissing up to enough Europeans. And, and Rove is evil and and the President knows Grover Norquist.

When will the Republicans see that he is just Chimpy McHalibushitler!!

Dusty, good to see you brought a fresh batch of sharp sticks. Later.

By Dusty

October 20, 2005 11:28 PM | Link to this

hewhoasks, why don’t you stop reading propaganda and believing every word of it? What you mentioned is pure melarky. Terrorists ARE interested in what Americans say in blogs and newspapers. They are encouraged by crazy stuff like drawing the president as prisoner in the Federal Pen. And the president has never insulted anybody. More silly propaganda!

By Dusty

October 20, 2005 11:52 PM | Link to this

72John, you are howling and yipping at the moon tonight, aren’t you? I don’t have to decide who is “a real American”, your words by the way. Those who post on this blog make it very clear about their feelings concerning our way of life. I love this country and don’t like those who depreciate it. Just thought I would tell you before you blast off about “freedom of speech”.

By Rebecca

October 21, 2005 12:12 AM | Link to this

I occasionally log in just to check out what you come up with. I must say that many of your cartoons strike a cord and cut to the heart of the matter of what is being dealt with quite effectively. Being Canadian, this is quite refreshing to see - at least some have put their rose coloured glasses away…

By RW-(the original)

October 21, 2005 12:20 AM | Link to this

Hi Rebecca, Most people here, and I believe in Canada as well, think someone should be tried in a just court of law and proven to be guilty.

That’s why some of us think it’s in bad taste to portray people that have not even been charged with any crime as convicted prisoners.

By knowledge1980

October 21, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Why don’t Republicans address the facts and questions they are presented with? Stop beating around the “BUSH”

By Peter

October 28, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Obviously Mike is not happy with the results of his “Do you like Mike survey” as it is no longer showing the results page. Maybe a more appropriate survey would be; “Is Mike a Left leaning bed wetter?