Mike Luckovich

By Michael N.

October 26, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Mike:

Here’s the caption for tomorrow’s cartoon:

“Because I said so!”

By candide

October 26, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

The Bush administration is guilty of war crimes in sending 2000 young men and women to their deaths and countless others to a life of pain without justification other than arrogant ambition and imperialist hubris. I hope to see George W. Bush before a tribunal — and finally in Hell where he belongs.

By george

October 26, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

That is a question that I would like to know the REAL answer to.

By Constructive Feedback

October 26, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

http://www.leftbooks.com/online-store/scstore/graphics/chalcov.gif

Mike:

Where were you when the impact of the UN Sanctions were the dominate US policy over Iraq?

In my view this Iraq war replaced a policy that was MORE DEADLY and which allowed the people of Iraq to remain trapped under the death grip of a brutal dictator. The same suggestions of WMDs were made by most elected leaders in the federal and legislative branch throughout the 90’s. We now know more affirmatively that Saddam was bluffing.

I hope that you are not suggesting that a POLICY that imposed economic sanctions on a country to the detriment of the innocent people using an “economic” squeeze is superior to a POLICY that put 2,000+ American lives on the line and now has the INNOCENT people of the country with a chance to operate a government of their own choosing?

Until Americas are given the full measure of BOTH SIDES OF THE SCALE you can’t claim to be projecting the entire truth and impact about the current policy that you are condemning.

By Gordon

October 26, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Constructive Feedback said - a POLICY that put 2,000+ American lives on the line… The number of US personnel “put on the line” is more than a million. It’s the number of US personnel KILLED IN ACTION that now exceeds 2,000. And all for lies. Your hero, Bush did not invade Iraq in order to help the oppressed people of that country. He doesn’t care about people anywhere on earth unless they are in the top 2% income bracket. He prefers to give Paris Hilton a tax break before he buys body armor for the troops in battle. You also say - you can’t claim to be projecting the entire truth and impact about the current policy that you are condemning. Just what is THE POLICY of which you speak? Just what the hell is THE PLAN? Bush invaded Iraq without a plan. He only wanted revenge for Saddam threatening Bush Sr and to steal his oil. After that mission was accomplished he had no further plan. And what about Osama Ben Hiding? What about the people who actually attacked us? Bush let him go in favor of invading a country that was not a threat to us.

By steven

October 26, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Luckovich complaining of arrogance is laughable. What a hypocrite.

By Tim French

October 26, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Mike you could not have been more correct. There may have been a weak reason to go in But there is NO reason to continue this incursion. The longer America stays,thelonger the list is going to be .When this bunch of grafters and grifters is tossed out of power at the end of this term, You will be out of Iraq within six months. Unfortunatly,the version of this list that runs then may take the full page to report every BODY.”There are no heroes in War” W.T.Sherman.

By sct

October 26, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Another former National security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft said this about the Iraqi war:

“it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive — with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy — and could as well be bloody.”

Scowcroft, a republican, was National Security Advisor for the Bush Sr. administration.

By Rhett Millsaps

October 26, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Does anyone get tired of hearing that President Bush mislead America into this war or am I the only one. It is not the time for the constant negative comments about our soldiers, they are still at war and as a disabled veteran, I get really down remembering the Viet Nam war and there is no way this war is the same in any way. Wake up folks, our veterans and those who will be need our positive input, not the constant complaints from those who have no clue what it is like to serve this great nation.

By Anna

October 26, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Mike, it’s perfect. We love you.

By Gordon

October 26, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Rhett Millsaps I spent three tours of combat in RVN. Don’t accuse everyone of not having a clue just because they don’t agree with you. We have no business sending young Americans to die in Iraq just like we had no business sending young Americans to die in Southeast Asia thirty five years ago. We didn’t have a plan to get out then and we don’t have a plan to get out now. Do you begin to see how the two are similar? I do support the troops. That’s why I say they should not be wasted in this manner. They didn’t enlist to fight and die for Halliburton or Exxon/Mobile. They enlisted to protect their country. Bless them every one.

By Constructive Feedback

October 26, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

[quote]And all for lies. Your hero, Bush did not invade Iraq in order to help the oppressed people of that country. [/quote]

Gordon - your post is silly and that of a child.

I could argue that the SANCTIONS were not intended to have a reported 1,700,000 people expire before their time (a reported 750,000 of them being children) as they were denied food and medical attention due to economic sanctions that kept food and access to healthcare limited to Baath Party membership.

Please tell me WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT - INTENTIONS or ACTUAL RESULTS ON THE GROUND - Gordon?

For those on the left who are so interested in Human Rights - you sure were SILENT during this period.

Please do research on the work of Ramsey Clark (not a rightwinger) and on sequence of resignations of the 3 heads of the “Oil For Food Program” who resigned with one saying “I refuse to execute a policy of Genocide against the innocent people of Iraq”.

Again - measure this policy against the INVASION that took it’s place.

Certainly you can’t say that an American solider’s life is worth more than that of an Iraqi? (At least GOD does not believe so).

By Andy

October 26, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

If you think the libs care even the least bit about the lives of these soldiers, than you are just as naive as cartoon boy’s question. This is just another vehicle for them to bash Bush with. It is also horrendous dishonor to the sacrifices of these brave men.

Service in our armed forces is voluntary. These men made adult decisions, unlike the thumb sucking pacifists that publish this nonsense, to fight in defense of this great country. They are mature enough to know that this enemy will try to kill us whenever they can, wherever they find us. Our soldiers, every day, offer their lives to protect all of us from the killers of 9/11.

If you need further evidence as to where appeasement will get you, reference the journalist’s hotel that was blown to bits by foreign jihadis over the weekend.

It is a shame that the only reward our soldiers receive for their sacrifice is to be able to see the good they are doing in Iraq, freeing those people from tyranny, fighting for the same principles this country was founded on. We should be doing a whole lot more in their honor than using them to score cheap partisan political points.

By John O'Brien

October 26, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

The answer LIES in XOM’s quarterly financial results that will be posted tomorrow Thurs., October 27th, 2005.

By William

October 26, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Why? Because of 9-11. Why? So that you don’t run into a roadside bomb on your way to work (we fight them here or we fight them there). Why? Because more than 2000 died so that you have the right to scribble your cartoons on a piece of paper.

By Jay

October 26, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

To Andy, The libs (Dems) ARE the ones dieing in Iraq while the repubs are making money in with Haliburton and Texas Oil. Your statement would carry more credibilty if you had identified yourself as a Armed Forces Voluteer. It is easy to support a war when you don’t have a son or daughter or yourself in harm’s way.

Jay (Retired Military)

By Diane

October 26, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Very moving and thought provoking. That “Sweet Neo Con” is spinning out of control.

By urblind

October 26, 2005 05:15 PM | Link to this

Luckovich, You don’t give a damn about our troops and never have you pompous jerk. Go back and look at the way you have drawn them in the past.

Why can’t you just be honest to your feelings. It’s kind of like the way you describe yourself as a moderate.

By Ricky

October 26, 2005 05:20 PM | Link to this

So Jay, you contend that only Dems are dieing in Iraq, then why does the military vote so heavily Republican? That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. And before you say something about me not being in the military, I have served two tours in Iraq, lost friends, and seen some horrible things. But it is for a good cause. I voted for Bush twice. I know we are accomplishing things in Iraq that will makes this country safer.

By deborah carrico

October 26, 2005 05:22 PM | Link to this

Your illustration today appearing in the AJC should be used as the design for the Iraq War Memorial that will be built someday in Washington. Unfortunately, due to the current Administration’s policy many, many more names will have to be added.

By Neil Manimala

October 26, 2005 05:34 PM | Link to this

It is a moving editorial and must have taken much effort to not only write the names with a pen but also endure the emotional weight of such writing.

By Bill Beecham

October 26, 2005 05:43 PM | Link to this

Very nicely done. It took courage, and the result is quite heady. Let me know if you get an answer.

Bill

By eric gallant

October 26, 2005 05:49 PM | Link to this

Why? Liberals amaze me! Turn to the front page of today’s paper and observe the happy Iraqis. That is a picture of freedom and liberty being born. It is a picture of the most profoundly progressive shift in middle east politics in all of recorded history. It is courage blooming from despair and sanity blooming from lunacy. Liberals should be overjoyed! This is the triumph of everything that Liberals hold dear. Tolerance, diversity, human rights, equality; take your pick. The values that liberals and democrats hold as core principals are sprouting up all over a region of the world that has never known them before. Our brave men and women have brought hope to the hopeless and self-determination to the downtrodden. That’s WHY!

By RW-(the original)

October 26, 2005 05:51 PM | Link to this

mike l writes,

‘it was an emotional experience writing the names of the americans who have given their lives for our country’

Since mike doesn’t believe there was any reason for the war he’s got no business saying they died for their country. He obviously doesn’t believe it.

Major League Hypocrite.

By Mark

October 26, 2005 06:46 PM | Link to this

I too am a retired military officer and combat veteran. And I am saddened at the 2000 soldiers, countless Iraqis that have died. I also believe that the reasons for this war are very, very murky. We have gotten ourselves into quite a mess. I do not question that every poster on this blog supports our soldiers if not the war. obviously there are chicken hawks on this blog that have no idea what war is about or what it is like to have shots fired at them in anger. Colin Powell, a great leader and soldier, has doubts about this war. One thing that I would like to state before closing. I have written letters to the families of quite a few casualties in my day. And in every case, after I had written of their child, husbands, brothers, heroic death…how they served a noble cause…how they will be missed by a grateful nation, I always got this reply…why and what. Why did my loved one have to die, and what for? It is a legitimate question. Commanders of troops have to live with these deaths. So do the people that started this questionable adventure.

By Andy

October 26, 2005 06:54 PM | Link to this

Not very many people know what it is like to have to choose jumping from the World Trade Center or burning to death inside of it, either. You liberals are reading way too much into this. We didn’t start this war and unless we want to lose our lives, we had better finish it.

By Closs

October 26, 2005 08:09 PM | Link to this

Question: WHY?

Answer: So that Mike may ask the question.

By The72John

October 26, 2005 08:14 PM | Link to this

How many times must we say it? Iraq had nothing…that’s NOTHING to do with 9/11. You people are so ignorant of world politics that you think that Middle East = Islamic Jihadist. Wake up call, idiots. Iraq was controlled by the Baathist party, a SECULAR party that was just below the US on the list of Al-Qaeda’s targets.

I realize that you are so gullible that you gobble garbage like a dog eating it’s own s**, but we ABANDONED THE FIGHT AGAINST BIN LADEN AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY. If we were still purusing that fight with the resources that have been devoted to Iraq, we might actually have caught the bastard.

Besides, do you REALLY expect us to believe that you CARE about people overseas? Half of you don’t even give a damn about the disadvantaged in your own cities.

By Mike

October 26, 2005 08:21 PM | Link to this

WHY? So bias people like you and the AJC can have the freedom to publish the garbage that you write and or illustrate. Now I will ask a why question—why is the bias mainstream media, such as the AJC, not informing the American public of the biggest cover up in our history? Able Danger identified and inform the Clinton Administration of the terrorist cell in the US a year and a half before 9/11 but it was not allowed to share the information with other agencies. They also informed the Clinton Administration 2 weeks and 2 days before the USS Cole was attacked of the danger in Yemen but it was also ignored. How many innocent lives were lost in those incidents? Dems, where are the Grand Jury hearings and indictments into these major goverment failures?

By sam

October 26, 2005 08:27 PM | Link to this

Unless some major stuff changes this is only the FIRST 2000.

Sad.

By Dusty

October 26, 2005 08:40 PM | Link to this

Luckovich’s “Why?” is nothing but a jacked-up version of the Viet Nam Wall. You could hardly miss the resemblance. But there is a big difference between the two. The Viet Nam Wall is a MEMORIAL paid for by the American people. Luckovich’s plagerized art idea from the Viet Nam Memorial is an ANTI-WAR PROTEST paid for by the liberal leaning AJC.

I read Luckovich’s manifesto about the cartoon. All I can say is: there’s a 19 year old, 90 lb. female soldier from Georgia now serving in Iraq who has more class, more “guts”, and more patriotism than Luckovich will ever have. Our troops are the best. There is no “what” or “why” about them or their mission.

By Athy

October 26, 2005 08:49 PM | Link to this

Wow, Mike. There are so many idiots backing this page up.

Besides, this, I want to say that your cartoon was on point and very timely.

Thanks, keep doing your job!

By CynAnne

October 26, 2005 08:50 PM | Link to this

… Why ? That’s a very good question , and the answers = OIL , GREED, & LIES , are WHY this ” cakewalk ” has turned into a bitter , blood-red slice of ” Humbl(ing) Pie ” for our children to chew on ! The neocons must be SO proud of the SPECIAL place they’ve made of America ! …

By RW-(the original)

October 26, 2005 09:27 PM | Link to this

Why? CynAnne has the answers. Oil,greed, & lies really were a big part of the equation.

The oil-for-food scandal had all these elements. Sadaam bribing various governments to try to get the sanctions lifted. George Galloway and Kojo Annan getting rich on Iraqi oil. Kofi Annan , the French, and Russians undermining our efforts at the UN.

Eric Gallant did a nice job of describing progress upthread. I would add that during the January elections we were the primary source of security, while during the ratification election the Iraqi security forces were up front with our forces as backup. Guess what, this is real progress.

We are constantly inundated with screams of NO WMD. You don’t keep biological and chemical weapons on the shelf. We did find sarin gas filled warheads that had the capability of killing about 500,000 people. Maybe you don’t consider that WMD, I do. How many people would have to die for you to consider it WMD?

The other myth is this Sadaam had no relationship with Al Queda. The 9/11 commission which tried to whitewash any connection still cited many. As for 9/11 their statement was that Iraq had no operational control.

Do you remember the “aspirin factory” bombing in the Sudan. This was bombed because Bin Laden was working with Iraq on chemical weapons plans. Hint: It wasn’t Bush and company that did that.

Do you really think Al Queda was able to come in, establish contacts and safe houses, a full blown security network, and communications in a country they had no familiarity with?

By RLB

October 26, 2005 10:53 PM | Link to this

Hey Candide…your posting screams ” I am a MORON”. How dare you to wish President Bush to go to Hell. Why don’t you ever have an original thought or heaven forbid study history! You IDIOTS make me sick. How can you possibly be so damn stupid?? Lets go back to September 11, 2001..remember that? Over 2,300 innocent lives were taken by Muslim extremists who wish to see every non-muslim DEAD…including your worthless a*. Here’s a thought..why dont you go to hell??

By Anthony

October 27, 2005 12:48 AM | Link to this

Mike,

I am moved by this piece that you have drawn. I have served with alot of the men and women that are over there now with the 48th Brigade, of the Georgia National Guard, and I know that you have honored them and all who have died in this conflict with this piece. Whether I may agree or disagree with what you have to say in your cartoons, I must admit that you do honor the soldiers and the families that sacrifice what they have for this nation. Thank you Mike.

By Gordon

October 27, 2005 01:17 AM | Link to this

RLB The war on terror, that is to say Bush’s hunt for Osama has been going on since September 2001. That’s longer than it took us to defeat both Germany and Japan in WWII. And we are no closer to bringing him to justice today than we were then. Do you think that possibly, just possibly that Boy George may be giving him a little slack? I wouldn’t want to infer that it may have something to do with business arrangements between the two families or anything. But don’t you think it odd that we don’t have a clue where he is after all this time. Given all our resourses and everything. After all, we are the greatest and most powerful force on the planet and we can’t find one raghead someofabitch in a sand dune. The war on terror is about Osama. The illegal invasion is about Iraq. Do you get it? Do you not see why the entire arab world is against us now? And, if you study your history, it’s 2,758 lives lost on 9/11/01. Not 2,300, Moron.

By Michelle

October 27, 2005 07:40 AM | Link to this

Thank you! You have created a number of thought provoking catoons and this is one of your best. Keep it up.

By Voice of Reason

October 27, 2005 07:50 AM | Link to this

I see the idiot factory has moved. At least that James guy is gone.

It amazes me that some of you think the Iraqi people are better off now. I hardly consider it an improvement when they have to worry about getting shot up or blown up at the market. They have just as much water and electricity as they did when this whole thing started. And let’s not forget the oil that was supposed to help fund this debacle - isn’t it still burning today, not bringing in a dollar?

By Voice of Reason

October 27, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

RLB is a little prejudice. lol. Everyone remembers 9/11 - it’s just the smart ones remember that Osama did it. But Saddam/Osama, if you say them fast enough or talk like GWB, I guess they sound the same.

By Michael

October 27, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

This is one of your greatest but I it seem that the only time you do get to do them is because of some tragedy caused by W and his crew. It is about time he leaves before we don’t have a country any more.

By Will

October 27, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

I only wish the Administration would have asked this question beforehand.

Thank you Mike.

By Hellrooo

October 27, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Maybe some of you didn’t see what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran has said and what he is promoting. He called for isreal to be wiped off the face of the map and “God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism”.

These are the ones you need to worry about. Not those that have no WMD’s, but the ones that have legitimate uranium enrichment facilities. Places like Iran are the REAL threats. But the conservs would rather ignore places like this.

What it really comes to is we should have spent all of our time and energy finding Osama Bin Laden and eradicating the Taliban. At least they harbored terrorist. That was the main goal after 9/11. Iraq had not terrorist

But because of the Bush 9/11 anti-terrorist pep-rally, he was able to get support to go to war with Iraq, because he “knew” they had WMD’s and would have no problem selling them or using them against us. Even though Saddam did not want terrorist in his own country.

While taking Saddam out of power and free Iraq’s people is good, we’ve created a haven for terrorist at the same time. Their only goal is to come and kill our American troops. They’re not just from Iraq but from the surrounding countries.

Bush has done nothing more but to further destabilize the region and cause more hatred to the United States and its allies.

By Laura

October 27, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

I love Mike and his drawings. It’s important to educate those readers that forgot what real freedom of speech sounds like. Its time to open your eyes and mind and turn off the FAUX news.

By Ricky

October 27, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Voice of Reason, again your facts are off. Both electricity and water are reaching more people than they did under Saddam. Some parts of Baghad(like Sadr City) never even had sewage. So while we are not at the level we want to be, there are improvements and your facts are incorrect. Secondly, they are producing oil at 88% of their capacity according to their government. Again, while not at 100%, their oil is not burning as you suggest. Please bring facts to the table when you want to attack someone.

By Voice of Reason

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

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky - You need to do some homework. Why didn’t you mention that the electricity they have is only during certain hours, same with the water. It’s being rationed. I hardly call that progress.

And you can talk about the improvements to the infrastructure all you want, afterall we destroyed them to begin with. Kinda of like me knocking down your house and rebuilding it (SLOWLY)! Look at what a great job I’m doing. lol. You belong on the left side of the room.

Actually, as far as the oil goes, the main line was burning as early as two days ago, which halted production for obvious reasons. And if they are producing at 88% like your talking points say - “Where’s the Beef?” Their oil industry is next to nothing right now. But never fear, Halliburton is on the job.

By Ricky

October 27, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Voice of Reason, here is my rebuttal. It is only in some areas of Iraq that the electricity is rationed. And I did say that it wasn’t as good as it should be. When I was there(yes I have served two tours there), when the electricity did go out it was only for like 2 hours a day. And for the record we didn’t destroy the infrastructure, there wasn’t much to start with. Oh and I forgot, its all Haliburton’ fault. You also infer that I am just reciting talking points, once again you are wrong. But thanks for asking.

By Voice of Reason

October 27, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Ricky - We didn’t improve the infrastructure either did we? You should know that while we were rolling through the desert, our ships and planes were targeting certain buildings and “infrastructure stuff.”

I was there too, and I have friends that are there now. The electricity on camp went out for two hours at a time, but out in town, it was a regular thing. They got electricity and water at certain times of the day.

I never said it was Halliburton’s fault, just pointing out the fact that the oil isn’t producing revenue like it was “supposed” to. It’s just a good thing they aren’t getting paid for performance. And too bad the military isn’t getting paid for performance.

By Dave From Woodstock

October 27, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Bush sold this war as part and parcel to his self-proclaimed “War on Terrorism”.

For those you who still have your heads buried in your nationalistic pride, WAKE UP! The Iraqi’s had nothing to do with 9-11!!!

Joseph Wilson offered part of the proof that the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9-11. Google “Plamegate” if you morons don’t know who Joseph Wilson is.

Also: Why not ask, “Where is Osama bin Laden?!”

It seems that idiot in the White House forgot all about bin Laden. Have you too?

Mike Lukovich was dead-on target with this cartoon, as he usually is, I applaude him, as I usually do.

By Matt

October 27, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Dave, you ask a good question about Osama. I would love to know that he has been killed or captured. But one thing I do know for sure is that he hasn’t attacked America again and that is good enough for me. And to state Joesph Wilson as a credibe source is laughable. He has been wholly discretided in the whole Niger trip. If he was a legititmite critic of the war the Dems would be trotting him out every chance they got. Theres a reason they arent

By Midori

October 27, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Matt,

could you please indicate how Ambassador Wilson has been “discredited”?

Let me guess — you get your news from Fox.

Furthermore, as far as the U.S. not being attacked again — I wish the same could apply to London and Spain.

By RW-(the original)

October 27, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Joe Wilson said Dick Cheney’s office sent him to Niger. LIE

Joe Wilson said he had know when he went to Niger that the Italian documentts were false. They didn’t even appear until months after his return. LIE

Midori and really everyone, can’t we lay off the typo police? Please!

By Dave From Woodstock

October 27, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Matt said: But one thing I do know for sure is that he hasn’t attacked America again and that is good enough for me.

It is? What ever happened to, “you can run, you can hide, but will hunt you down…”

Sorry, the war was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. The war was to hunt down and kill those responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9-11, namely the aforementioned bin Laden.

The events of 9-11 set Iraq as the perfect pawn for George Bush to seek revenge for Sadam Hussein’s threat to have George Sr. assassinated. That and a nice supply of crude. If you think we’re in Iraq to protect our freedoms here, your lost.

The fact is, the war in Iraq has created more terrorism attacks world-wide than before 9-11. Do you think safety from terrorism stops at our borders? Do you care about the state of the world as much as the state of the nation?

Apparently not.

As for Joseph Wilson:

Have you any clue who Joseph Wilson is? Or do you just beat the tired drumbeat of right-wing smear? If the right says he’s been discredited, do you merely go along with it?

Do you know why Joseph Wilson was selected to go to Niger to investigate Bush’s claims that Niger was selling yellow-cake uranium?

You definitely have a need to know.

Wilson has more credibility in his little toe than the combined credibility of the entire scandal-ridden Bush administration.

Believing lies doesn’t make one a liar, just ignorant.

By Dave From Woodstock

October 27, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

This is a portion of Joe Wilson’s bio from Wikopedia:

Wilson served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. He was hailed as “truly inspiring” and “courageous” by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the US embassy in Baghdad, and mocking Saddam Hussein’s threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein

By RW-(the original)

October 27, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Dave, Why didn’t you use the Wilson bio in “Who’s Who” where he outed his own wife?

Once someone begins lying for political purposes and working actively for one presidential candidate he loses any non partisan credentials he may have earned in the past.

By Chris

October 27, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

I support our troops. I believe when they get home, they should be treated like royalty. They should never have to pay taxes, or for healthcare, or for tuition.

But just because I support the troops doesn’t mean I agree with the war. Why is it so difficult for conservatives to seperate the two. Or do they do that on purpose so if you oppose the war, everybody will think you’re a heartless American who don’t support the troops? When did the two become one? I lay you odds that there are soldiers in Iraq today who appreciate the fact that some of us are protesting this war. They know they shouldn’t be there and they want to come home alive. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t support the troops. But there are plenty of us who think Bush dragged us into an unnecessary war.

It’s interesting we count the number of US war dead, but has anyone heard the number of Iraqi’s killed in this war? Doesn’t everyone who supports the war like to use the excuse that we’re saving Iraqi lives? Are US soldiers the only human beings dying in Iraq?

As for bin Laden, why isn’t anyone been asking why we haven’t found him yet? Why hasn’t this dominated our news? Doesn’t anyone care anymore? Here we are 4 years later and he’s still out there plotting and scheming. Is he so much smarter than us? Is he that much slyer than the CIA? Is he the one guy who can outsmart the United States? Why is it we knew he was in Afganistan, but Bush decided to send the bulk of our troops to Iraq instead?

And now that we’re focused on Iraq where no WMD existed, our military is spread too thin to handle North Korea or Iran, who really do have nuclear capabilities. Who’s going to defend us when North Korea decides to lob a bomb at Hawaii or California?

I’m glad Mike posted this cartoon. For one thing, I’m glad he has the freedom to do it. And secondly, I’ve been asking the question since we invaded Iraq and I still don’t have an answer.

By Dave From Woodstock

October 27, 2005 05:47 PM | Link to this

Dave, Why didn’t you use the Wilson bio in “Who’s Who� where he outed his own wife?

How do you spell “delusional”?

Do you not think that if Joe Wilson outed his wife, he’d be the one under investigation?

Seek help.

By RW-(the original)

October 27, 2005 05:54 PM | Link to this

Dave, The concept is probably lost on you, but the point is she wasn’t a covert agent. If you’re waiting for Rove or Libby to be indicted for that you will be sadly disappointed.

By Matt

October 27, 2005 05:59 PM | Link to this

Joe Wilson has just as much credibility problems as the rest of them. Most everyone involved in this sorid affair has lied repeatedly.

By Dave From Woodstock

October 28, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Dave, The concept is probably lost on you, but the point is she wasn’t a covert agent. If you’re waiting for Rove or Libby to be indicted for that you will be sadly disappointed.

And you know that she was not covert how? Where did you read that she is not covert? Do you know what NOC means?

Do you really believe this investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald would go on for two years over the outing of an overt agent and those being investigated won’t be indicted?

How much sense would that make, especially since their are no laws governing the exposure of overt agents of the CIA?

After two years???

Who the heck do you think their investigating and why?

By Dave From Woodstock

October 28, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Here’s a must read r.e.Valerie Plame. It’s long, should take you about 5-10 minutes to go over:

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=257167

By Dave From Woodstock

October 28, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Dave, The concept is probably lost on you, but the point is she wasn’t a covert agent. If you’re waiting for Rove or Libby to be indicted for that you will be sadly disappointed.

Here’s some good news:

Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis “Scooter’ Libby Jr. was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury in the CIA leak case. Karl Rove, President Bush’s closest adviser, apparently escaped indictment Friday but remained under investigation, his legal status a looming political problem for the White House.

The indictments stem from a two-year investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into whether Rove, Libby or any other administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame or lied about their involvement to investigators. The five-count indictment accuses Libby of lying about how and when he learned about CIA official Valerie Plane’s identity in 2003 and then told reporters about it. The information was classified. Any trial would shine a spotlight on the secret deliberations of Bush and his team as they built the case for war against Iraq.

I’m sadly disappointed Libby won’t hang for treason.

One down, two to go.

The Bush legacy: Embarrassment

By Washington State

October 29, 2005 03:02 AM | Link to this

It is incredible that there are still Americans who think that opposing Bush’s war is disrespectful to our troops. Wake up, grow a brain. What is disrespectful to our troop is putting them in harms way without a strategic plan. What is disrespectful is using our troops to further geopolitical goals that we, the American people, were not even allowed to vote on; that our elected representatives were mislead about. There was a cabal covertly supporting the buildup to the war during the post September 11th period. They were prepared to lie to the press, the American people, and to our elected representatives in order to further this goal. Read what Powell’s chief aid had to say just last week. Here is a man who was on the inside and saw exactly that. Read what treasury secretary O’Neil, another former insider, had to say about the same issue. Read what countless dissenters within the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the DOD have said. This war is not about protecting America from terrorists, it is not about weapons of mass destruction, it is not about removing Hussein. It is about extending our influence in the Middle East. It is about a bunch of privileged men who never came close to combat having delusions of grandeur and ignoring all the professional advice available to them. The American people who think that this is an acceptable use of our Armed Forces are the ones being disrespectful to our troops. They should be ashamed of themselves. The politicians who sent our troops to Iraq on a fool’s mission are the ones who should be ashamed. Even Bush Sr. and his advisors are starting to sound the alarms. Support our troops or support George Bush. You cannot do both.

By Jay

October 29, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

For those who side with Luckovich, stupid is as stupid does. If it were left up to you, we would not have gone to war with Germany to help out our allies. You have no clue, because you are unwilling to fight for this country, and are letting someone do it for you, so you can complain about our government. How do you think you keep the freedom to do so? Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!

By mercy

October 29, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Mike, have you done a cartoon yet with Scooter falling on his sword, a la “Rome”?

By Washington State

October 29, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Jay, you need to pay attention to what is going on in the world. This war is not about defending the United States. It is about ensuring a strategic place in the coming battles for energy. And even for that, it is the wrong war in the wrong place. We are hanging our soldiers out to dry for a pipe dream. Listen to reasonable people like Powell. He is a man who has fought wars and knows what he is talking about. You need to realize that you have tied your cart to the wrong horse.

By Dave From Woodstock

October 29, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

*For those who side with Luckovich, stupid is as stupid does. If it were left up to you, we would not have gone to war with Germany to help out our allies. You have no clue, because you are unwilling to fight for this country, and are letting someone do it for you, so you can complain about our government. How do you think you keep the freedom to do so? Duh!!!!!!!!!

Are you willing to fight? You ask the question as if you are ready to enlist. So go for it, what’s stopping you?

You’re just another uninformed Bush supporter who thinks we’re defending freedom by invading Iraq. How stupid do you have to be to believe we’re defending freedom by destrying Iraq?

Answer the question, “Why haven’t we captured Osama bin Laden?” You remember him don’t you? You know, the guy who was responsible for the worst terrorist attacks in the history of mankind?

I’m so glad the allies in WWII stopped short of Berlin, and let Hitler escape into the mountains of Afghanistan.

They didn’t?

You mean they relented?

They pushed into Berlin until they found, captured, or killed all members of the Nazi party?

You mean the allies didn’t invade Peru?

How patriotic is that? Everyone knows Peru was responsible for the Nazi atrocities of WWII!

WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED PERU!!!

No wonder Patton was assassinated.

Maybe now you understand how stupid your logic is, but somehow I doubt it.

By Linda Myrick

October 29, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Mike, The “Why” cartoon was poignant and to the point. Thanks for eloquently explaining the feelings of the majority of Americans.

By Leonilde Tarullo

October 29, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

I just want to thank you for this powerful cartoon. It brought tears to my eyes when I saw it on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman. Again, thank you.

By Larry Sternbane

October 29, 2005 09:13 PM | Link to this

A touching gesture. I’m sure it took a long time, and that it took an emotional toll. Thanks for your tribute to these heros who were misled into war.

By Jeff

October 29, 2005 10:20 PM | Link to this

get our kids out of Iraq and put them in the hunt for osama bn laden or bring em back to defend this land!!

By JAY

October 30, 2005 06:35 AM | Link to this

By reading the comments after my original one, I see that socialism is alive and well here in the United States. As for the comment of me wanting to join and fight; I would, but I am 52 and not permitted…I have served my time..I don’t agree with everything Bush does, but I don’t disagree or hate him as much as most of you do.

By Brian Curtis

October 31, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

The soldiers deserve our support. That’s why we need to hold their commanders accountable when they screw up and throw brave men and women’s lives away.

Unless you believe that “support our troops” means “hope they get killed for no reason.”

By hewhoasks

October 31, 2005 06:58 PM | Link to this

RW:

The entire Fitzgerald investigation arose from a specific request from the CIA to the justice department because classified material (Plame’s identity as a CIA agent) was released to the press. Rather than telling people here Plame wasn’t covert maybe you should call the CIA and tlel them.