Mike Luckovich

By Madonna Swanson Ward

November 7, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

Stay on ‘em, Mike. None of us can let up until we get to the truth.

By Wild Sects

November 7, 2005 07:57 AM | Link to this

I thought the flowers that we were greeted with were the flowers on the graves of the more than 2,000 troops killed for no reason. But since we’ve made it possible for Al-Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq I expect flowers from them too.

Keep up the good work Mike!

By Ike Hedger

November 7, 2005 08:00 AM | Link to this

Here’s a little poem By a little vet: The kiddies of our Prez Ain’t done their duty yet!

By gttim

November 7, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this

One of the huge assumptions by our fearless leaders, fearless in that they aren’t going to war themselves, that turned out to be wrong. But what did they get right? Certainly not the amount of body armor and humvee plating needed to protect our wonderful troops. It seems like the GOP is not actually the party that loves our troops and wants to protect them during this awful time. Why does the GOP hate our troops?

By G.

November 7, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

Very apropos, Mike. No doubt Al-Qaida is immensely grateful.

By Ricky

November 7, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this

Gttim, the GOP doesn’t hate troops. Nice try though. The reason we were short body armor and humvee plating was two fold. First, Clinton so downsized the military and cut spending that the military was behind. Secondly, nobody predicted the use of IED’s like they have been used over there. I was there for the ground war and never saw an IED. I went home for 11 months and then went back to Iraq. By the time I got back the IED’s were very much a part of the enemys arsenal. Also, when I got back to Iraq in June 2004 you couldn’t leave the FOB’s without up armored Humvees and everyone had armor plates in their vest. Just to give you some facts.

By Andrea

November 7, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

Mike, great cartoon.

Please do one on Bushie sending his staff to ethics class. Now that is certainly rife with possibilities.

By Matt

November 7, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

Mike, how about a cartoon with Democratic Senators praisning Alito when we was nominated and approved unanimously and what they are going to say now. Or how about Dems supporting the war and talking about how Saddam had WMD’s and what they are saying now. Charles Schumer, never one to shy away from the camera, was asked yesterday why he voted for the war. “I wasn’t as convinced as President Bush, but I still voted for it.” I actually voted for it before I voted against it. Its too funny.

By Tom Wesley

November 7, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

Mike’s is a almost daily, anti-war - anti-Bush editorial cartoon. Occasionally, he loses his way and becomes just another political cartoonist. Life is so confusing for some of us. Fortunately, for Mike’s admirers, he’s pretty consistent.

By Jim

November 7, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Ricky, as we say in my neck of the woods, that dog won’t hunt. Clinton spent more on the military than George H.W. Bush. You remember him, don’t you? You wait until you have provided for your troops properly, THEN you go to war, not the other way around. That would be, as another saying goes, putting the cart before the horse, which is not good, but then you go to war against the group responsible for 911, which was not, by the way, Iraq. There are STILL to this day families who are providing body armor for their relatives fighting in Iraq.

As for IEDs, if they were not expected, then someone didn’t do their homework, but that’s obvious, isn’t it?

By Ricky

November 7, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Jim, your facts are incorrect. Bush has spent on average $37.5 billion more a year on defense than Clinton did. I got that from the DOD website in case you were wondering. It was Clinton you drastically downsized the Army afte Desert Storm. We went from 18 active duty divisons to the current number of 10. And yes we did go to war against the culprits on the terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. Bush and the Congress deicded that Iraq was too much of a threat to wait, so we went to war. And no we didn’t find any WMD’s despite the intelligence of every major intelligence agency in the world. Jim, I would love for you to show me where IED’s were used in large numbers before the Iraq war. Where could have we done our homework as you suggest and determine that that would a TTP for the enemy.

By Colonel Kurtz

November 7, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Vietnam,El Salvador, Colombia, Lebanon, Afghanistan (Soviet invasion), the West Bank, Palestine, Israel, and the list goes on and on. Come on Ricky! IEDs have been a part of life in every conflict, revolution, insurgency, whatever for time immemorial. IEDs are the great equalizer when one cannot match another’s firepower in head to head confrontations. They also are used as psychological warfare tools very effectively.

By Ricky

November 7, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Col Kurtz, do you consider land mines and claymores IED’s? That is what was used in many of the conflicts you have mentioned. Granted during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan there were IED’s.

By Colonel Kurtz

November 7, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Ricky…an IED is just a fancy name for a booby trap. Only the sophistication of the devices change. And yes Ricky. There were booby traps in Afghanistan.

By Scott

November 7, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

In response to Ricky, first off thank you for your service. Secondly, I can’t understand why the military isn’t mad as hell for being led into a war based on lies. Is it because they haven’t heard the truth yet? Have they no idea about the Downing Street Memos, nor the Valerie plame issue? How about the recently released declassified report that shows the Bush Administration knew the intelligence received from a “detainee” was false before going to war, yet went anyway? Aluminum Tubes from Niger? How about when Rumsfeld stated that they knew exactly where the WMD’s were? I could go on and on about the false statements made to you and I, but I prefer you do your own homework, instead of listening and following like a lost sheep behind this administration.

By Scott

November 7, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Great cartoon, Mike. Keep up the good work where we can find humor in this world. Humor prohibition is next on the Republicans list to further stifle our Civil Liberties, so get it in now while you can.

By Jesus

November 7, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!!

By John

November 7, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

MEMO TO ANYONE WHO THINKS US FORCES WILL EVER LEAVE IRAQ.

There is NO WAY as long as the US has large numbers of forces there, that they will allow the Iraqi’s to have weapons systems capable of standing up against the US military. Ever think they might be worried Iran gets this stuff from the Shia dominated government?

So, unless all you Bush loving, head in the sand stay the course lemmings have some magic bullets for the Iraqi’s, the names of the DEAD AMERICANS will keep going UP, UP. But they will be just as dead, and we will you will be just as responsible…

Thanks for listening. I never hear any one on TV or in the papers bring this up? Has anyone else heard these points made?

By Ava

November 7, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Ricky, George H. W. Bush is the father, not the son. I think Jim’s point was that Clinton actually spent more on the military than Bush I did, despite Desert Storm. Whether this is actually true, I cannot say— but I believe that’s what Jim was getting at. (Jim, if I’m wrong, I apologize for putting words in your mouth.)

By Andy

November 7, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

I agree, the United States invading Iraq was a good thing for Al Qaeda… in Paris. Funny thing is, we lost 197,999 more troops in the French quagmire than we have in Iraq.

Maybe if the French had showed a little muscle like we did….

By Dusty

November 7, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Same old stuff every day. Luckovich doing what he is paid to do—making our government and our country look bad, stupid, and aggresive. Our enemies couldn’t do it any better. Then the same old liberal comments—all government officials are liars, our troops are dressed in flour sacks, wearing flip flops and carrying sling shots. My information is better than your information and I know more about weapons than you do. Don’t save Iraq, just get us out of there. Saddam wasn’t so bad. It goes on and on.

Go wave your white flags somewhere else, dear liberals. We’ve heard your excuses over and over. Sure, free speech! I’ve got it too. But it will be the same old, same old stuff tomorrow.

By Marion of Texas

November 7, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Another stellar job, Mike Luckovich — keep on keepin’ on and maybe the Truth will win out!

By sct

November 7, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

So let me get this straight Andy.

Any president can start a war based on lies and the barometer of acceptable losses of life is 200,000 men and women?

Why don’t you write a letter to each of those families of the more than 2,000 men and women and let them know that their sacrafice has become so meaningless and has no value other than political. Better yet why not share your rationalization with them in person. How about, “your sons life is no big deal, we lost 200,000 in past “quagmires”.” I’m sure they would be thrilled.

What a sick way to justify a war and loss of life. Must do wonders for recruitment, “Your life has meaning to us……after the 200,000th death.”

By Jim

November 7, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Ricky, apparently you’re NOT familiar with George H.W. Bush, but then I’m not surprised. Okay, here goes. George H.W. Bush was the 41st President of the United States of America. He is also the father of the 43rd President of the United States of America, whose name is George W. (Dubya) Bush. You can read all about George H.W. Bush at www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gb41.html.

Bush and company did not treat Afghanistan as the priority that it should have been. Iraq was their priority, the most troops were sent to Iraq because of intelligence manipulation and just plain lies by who,(drumroll, please) Bush and company.

I never said IEDs were used in large numbers before Iraq, frankly, I don’t know the statistics, and you don’t either. However, I do know that IEDs had been used, therefore, should have been anticipated to be used again. Good ole common sense there, Ricky.

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Dusty is, as usual, spot on about this. Every day here the left makes the same “hindsight aided” points and ridiculous assertions about “lies” and “The Downing Street memos”. (Those would be the memos that George Galloway likes to flash around when he’s not reading his love letters to Sadaam and counting his Iraqi bribe money).

There is a great example of doing things exactly the way the moonbats on this blog recommend. Just turn on the news and watch Paris burn.

By Andy

November 7, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

The AJC readership declined by 8.73% last year only surpassed by Superlib San Francisco Chronicle at 16.4%. People that enjoy being lied to are getting harder to find.

sct: If France had stood up to Germany in 1936 there would have been zero American soldiers killed. These brave soldiers in the Iraq conflict know full well what they are fighting for. Just look at Paris, once again, to see your lib policy of appeasement in action.

By mike

November 7, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Hey Mike! Gonna do cartoon couching the AJC editorial staff as being so arrogant that they are killing their own paper by driving away it readers? Gonna do a cartoon about your incompetant publisher watching your paper be destroyed? Anyone over there “going to admit they were wrong?”

Of course you wont, because hypocrites liberals only criticize those who don’t share their ideology. Apparently a lot of people don’t share your ideology and they are walking away from this rag.

Kudos, Mike! You are doing a great job.

By Brent

November 7, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Dead-on, unfortunately.

Lampooning this admministration’s overuse (abuse) of hyperbole in its war pitch is a well-timed reminder.

Thank you.

By Bill

November 7, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

AJC readership down over 8 percent? Boy, that breaks my heart. Mike was crowing the other day about Bush’s drop in popularity, how does he feel about his own employer’s ratings sinking like a Michael Moore turd?

By the way, Mike, did you happen to notice that France is starting to realize the fruits of their appeasement — yet again. That breaks my heart, too.

By sct

November 7, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Enough of the grandstanding over circulation of a newspaper. The average age of a newspaper reader is 55 years old. Guess what times are changing.

Circulation has been steadily declining at newspapers for several years as people use other media such as cable TV and the internet for news.

Just as alot of you conservatives are doing now here at this website. Yep this “liberal newspaper” (more suburban paper than anything) gives everyone the chance to post their side of the story right here in this blog! Imagine that, lib media and all, allowing debate from all sides.

You poor conservatives can’t get access to any media these days, boo-hoo…… Its time to retire that poor “I’m a victum of the liberal media whine.”

How much do you want to bet that ajc.com has increased its readership in that same time? Duh! Lib and all.

By Daniel

November 7, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Mike: Great cartoon. We all need a good laugh, now and then.

By Matt

November 7, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Sct, why do you think people have started using multiple news sources instead of just using the newspapers? Becuase for years newspapers fell victim to group think and there wasn’t much original thought. You have writers for major newspapers like Maureen Dowd who all they do is bash people they don’t like. People get tired of that stuff. The AJC has one writer on its editorial page that is a conservative. The NY Times has one conservative writer on its editorial page. The mainstream media is by and large liberal. That is not in doubt. People went to alternate news sources to get away from this.

By Dan

November 7, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

I think the flowers should have been lilacs. To represent all of the purple fingers signifying the Iraqi voters and their release from a tyrant and their forthcoming emergence as a middle eastern democracy

By TrueConservative

November 7, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Andy… WOW

If France had confronted Hitler directly when he invaded they would have been completely destroyed- America would have had to fight the axis single handed on 2 fronts as there would have been no French underground to facilitate the Norman Envasion or supply the allies with intelligence- not to mention the momentum of such a victory which would have likely spelled Nazi victory in the Battle of Britian-

If France hadnt given ground to the Nazis there would have been MORE American hats on the ground and certainly not Zero.. in fact if things hadnt happened like they did we would have likely been fighting WWII on American soil. This is what we call a strategic retreat- the French didnt ‘give up’ they took the fight underground as opposed to a direct confrontation they could not win

if you look at the percentage of Bush supporters in the San Francisco area it makes sense the readership is down by 16.4 percent- those are the people who are running to Fox news to hear about how everything is the democrats fault and be re-assured that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church apparently you would like the media to remain the mouthpeice of white house policy it has been for the past several years… go watch the big news networks then- the fact that these huge corporations make so much money from white house monopoly reforms ensures they will continue regergitating whatever Frank Luntz and Carl Rove have to say for years to come

Paris isnt burning because of a ‘policy of appeasement’ as you say- It started with citizens throwing bottles at Nicholas Sarkozy (think Carl Rove w/ french accent)people are rioting because open social and economic opression of blacks and muslims in recent weeks led to the deaths of 2 innocent kids. apparently you werent watching the news about every riot in the past 20 years Ill recap- opress poor people until they have no choice and riots insue i dont like it either but then again im not getting fat on the blood of the meek

As for the soldiers in Iraq make no mistake many of them think youre crazy too- but they dont have the option of arguing about it while theyre being shot at- they have to be civil to each other -ironic no? that they can get over differences of opinion and survive while there are Righties AND Lefties in here slinging falshood and blaming each other for their problems instead of talking like adults and trying to fix the problems.. or even looking at them.

so pretty much every statement you just made was false exept one- we are SICK of being lied to (look at Bush’s approval rating) so if any of you righties or lefties wanna fill this board with falsehood Im going to nail you too

By Matt

November 7, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

TrueConservative, France did confront Hitler directly and they got their butts whipped. They had the Maginot Line and it was suppossed to be inpenetrable. Woops. And yes while there was an underground resistance during the occupation of France, many French sided with the Germans, hence the Vichy government. The French government did give up. It was the people that created the underground. If you are going to assail people for not being correct, you should make sure your facts are correct. Nobody on here is right all the time.

By viktor

November 7, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Lies, lies, lies I tell you! What a bunch of leftists hooey!

If you liberals that can read dare to learn the TRUTH, I suggest you read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-war intelligence and the UK’s Butler report on the same issue. You will find that your “Bush lied” BS to be totally baseless. You will also find that Joe Wilson is a liar.

By viktor

November 7, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Eric, You’re being paged! Clean-up on aisle two!! Hurry!!

By sct

November 7, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Matt, the ajc also runs George Will, Charles Krathhammer and Bob Barr, big deal, it doesn’t mean they are a bastion of the conservative right. The ajc also goes out of the way to print opposing views, in case you haven’t noticed.

Alot of you people won’t be happy unless the ajc gets rid of all their liberal writers and voices.

How many news organizations give their readers as much of a chance at feedback to stories and opinion as the ajc? Do they erase your posts on this blog?

You don’t think you conservative bloggers here have a voice here? Wise up, if anything the ajc has done nothing but kiss the you-know-what of the conservative population in recent years.

I guess if you repeat that “liberal media” propaganda enough, you people will actually start believing it.

The average reader and their opinion has access here. Thats a good thing.

By Andy

November 7, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

TrueConservative: I suggest that you get yourself a history book and read it. In 1936 when Hitler annexed Sudetenland he had 18 army divisions. In 1939 when he invaded Poland he had over 200 divisions. The 3 years France spent ignoring the threat, like you pinkos would have done with Saddam, allowed the German Army to become a monster.

The French spent the better part of the war shooting at Americans and turning Jews over to the SS. I wouldn’t nominate them American war hero hall of fame just yet.

sct: I look at the AJC for amusement.

By Steve SC

November 7, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

I have no love for Jacques Chirac, but this “the French are pussies” is so much hokum. The CSA lost 250,000 dead over four years (1861-1865) and it took the South ninety years to recover. The French lost more men in four years (194-1918) than the U. S. has lost in its entire history. Hardly surprising that they aren’t thrilled about war. Watch the movie “Paths of Glory” some time on TCM if you want a good illustration.

By Peter

November 7, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Use “support our troops” and “stop loss program” in a positive statement and I might better understand the Administration’s position. (Their statements and actions appear to be so contrary.)

By bill Clinton

November 7, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Mike Luckovich is anti-Americna and a small wimpy version of Michael Moore.

By Bobbie

November 7, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Viktor: If you can read why don’t you read other newspapers beside the AJC. They have the same sad stories about your hero Dubya. Where there is that much smoke there must be at least some fire.

By Bill

November 7, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Mike Luckovich is anti-American and a small version of the detestable Michael Moore. What I do not understand about you leftists is that there are plenty of things over to “go after” President Bush; you do not have to lie or distort, just look honestly at his record

By Bobbie

November 7, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Would the coward who used Bill Clinton’s name to sign in please step forward.

By Malachi

November 7, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

And we are still ignoring the problems in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Peter,

We occasionally use the stop loss program because we support our troops right to have the best possible support when we are short of a particular skill set.

Try this, use we support our troops by undermining their mission in a sentence to help us understand the left.

By Mike

November 7, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

TrueConservative,

You know nothing of history. It appears that your entire knowledge bas comes from bumper stickers and Luckovich cartoons.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Hey, I have had the name “William Wesley Clinton for 57 years, so, buzz off

By Matt

November 7, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Sct, I am not talking about the guests writers that the AJC uses. I am talking about the papers internal editorial board. They are the ones that set the papers positions, they are the ones that endorse candidates. When was the last time you saw the AJC endorse a Republican candidate? Most newspapers offer a feedback section for their readers and most newspapers offer opposing views for the editorial boards. That is common practice. Ask the AJC why they stopped publishing Bill O’Reilly’s column.

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Hey, I have had the name “William Wesley Clinton” for 57 years, so, buzz off

By TheTruth

November 7, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

RW. Who is we?

By Dusty

November 7, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Well, Dan, I really like your 1:02 comment. I hope we appreciate our own freedom enough to realize that Iraqis also have a great desire to be free. Their numerous purple fingers certainly indicate they do, even while it is sometimes dangerous to show that desire. Excuse an old cliche but “few good things come easy”. That is why I “support our troops” which in itself is a “stop loss program”.

By TheTruth

November 7, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

And while you’re at it RW, explain to us why we even need “stop loss.” To hear you and your cohorts tell it, everyone is just overjoyed to be involved in the democratization of Iraq. I am baffled and amazed that anyone would have to be kept against their wishes by “stop loss.”

By Ricky

November 7, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Big suprise another Republican bashing cartoon from Lucko. I was involved in the initial invasion into Iraq as part of the 3rd ID. Honestly, I would say that 95% of the Iraqis we encountered were so thankful for us getting rid of Saddam. I literally cannot count the number of times Iraqi adults tried to kiss me and hug me in gratitude. Yes there have been problems since then. But who are they coming from? Saddam and Baath Party loyalists and outside groups like Al Qaeda who declared war on America in the late 90’s. It is not the regular Iraqi that is fighting us. By and large they are thankful that we are there. Of course you won’t hear this from people like Lucko who want nothing more than to be able to attack this administration. Oh well, what more doe you expect from this cartoonist.

By GLW

November 7, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Supposition: Our greatest chance of a peaceful resolution of the Saddam ‘threat’ was for Congress to give Bush the publicly sanctioned power to wage war…giving Bush leverage and backing in building a coalition that would force Saddam from power without bloodshed.

Fact: No ‘real’ coalition formed, i.e. no UN declaration or Security Council action (due to poor US leadership or due to differing goals? my recollection was that ‘old’ Europe wasn’t interested in giving the US free-reign to set world policy)

Fact: Brinksmanship only works if the enemy belives you will follow through.

Conclusion: We went to war to convince our enemies that if we say we are going to do it…we are going to do it…no matter how badly things end up.

Question: Given the current situation… what’s the best way to come out on top of things? Is it to beat up our leaders over their reasoning or lack there of (accountability is extremely important for correcting mistakes and preventing future errors)… or is it to declare things for what they really are and let the enemy know where they stand?

My belief is that Bush was re-elected, not because he was seen as a great leader or the better choice (from a policy or moral perspective), but because in the voters’ subconscious they recognized this truth: voting him out would have been the wrong message to send to our enemies.

The leadership of both parties are killing our democracy by attempting to divide us based on our fears and differences. At this rate our enemies will win because we will self destruct.

I don’t view Mr Luckovich’s cartoons as ‘leftist’ or ‘mindless Bush-bashing’… but as barbs at the continued missteps of the administration in dealing with the situation. We don’t want false justifications, we want true backbone to tell it like it is.

FYI… I stopped subscribing to the paper when I could read the same news online as it happened (and when my garbage collection started charging me to recycle)

By Matt

November 7, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

TheTruth, well you aren’t living up to your self-appointed name sake. Everyone who inlists in the Army is aware that they may be stop lossed involuntarily if it is necessary to meet an Army need. It is not some back door gimmick that enlistees don’t understand. It is a part of everyones contract that they sign voluntarily.

By ernie

November 7, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

The truth will never be found in this blog

By Dusty

November 7, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

RW, you can count me in on your “we”. I’m an American and I support the troops too.

By gadem

November 7, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

because hypocrites liberals only criticize those who don’t share their ideology

Man if that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black!!

By Scooter

November 7, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Cheney made me do it.

By Peter

November 7, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

It would seem that in an invasion, designed and scheduled by the Bush Administration, could do better than going to war “with the Army you have rather than the Army you want.” This quagmire was so ill conceived from the beginning they were just making things up as they go along after the first month. Most people who lived through Vietnam would admit the mistake and cut our losses this time around. (Those who have nothing to loose and do not remember history will press on.) Bring the troops home ALIVE and admit we have made a huge blunder. The world remembers U.S. dropping atomic bombs on civilians, this is no better.

By TheTruth

November 7, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Matt, in one regard you are correct. It is not a back door tactic. However, there is also a thing called voluntary extension, reenlistment, etc. I just wonder why all the involuntary stop losses are needed. After all, to hear some of you tell it, everyone is just happy to be there.

By Bobbie

November 7, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Note to Scooter: Guess you do have some free time now.

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

I find the leftists arguments that “we support the troops but not the war” a specious argument. As a Viet Nam veteran I can tell you that the protests and name-calling of the prez is demoralizing to our troops and honey to the ears of our country’s enemies. It is your right, of course, but do yuo ever think of the adverse consequences?

By Scooter

November 7, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Pardon me?

By TheTruth

November 7, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Obviously the lessons of Vietnam have not been noted by alot of people in a multitude of ways. And probably after 10 or 15 years in Iraq I will wager that the lessons of Iraq will not have been learned either.

By Bobbie

November 7, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Buzz, Buzz to Bill Clinton a/k/a William Wesley Clinton. Not smart to put your real name on a blog. Is that your real name? You sound republican. Bet you have a hell of a life using that name.

By Peter

November 7, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

It was the adverse consequences that had many of us protesting the act of aggression in 2002. Too bad they were not considered by the Administraation. My conscience is clear.

By sct

November 7, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Protests are demoralizing to our troops? Anyone with first hand knowledge of the demoralizing affect the mouths of our Rebublican leaders had on our troops during the Yugoslavia conflict? Anyone care to explain why we did so well there despite the words of Delay, Lott and Gingrich about the cost, lack of an exit strategy, and loss of life? Speak up!

Now unlike Viet Nam, we have a volunteer army, they know when they sign up they may have to fight in an unpopular war. Democrat or Republican.

By TrueConservative

November 7, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Andy, Matt I love you guys-

It makes me feel so good to know that you cant prove me wrong so you have to twist my statements or take them out of context. Gimme a call when you guys grow up maybe we can talk policy-

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Yep, my real name, and you are probalby right I shoudl not use my real name. Naw, I am not Republican, but a true Independent, and I pretty much despise all politicians.

By TrueConservative

November 7, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Oh and I apologise I seem to have left out the words ‘of Paris’ but if it makes you feel better you did a really good job of arguing with the wind even if you dont read so well

By TrueConservative

November 7, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Amen Bill!

By Harry

November 7, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Mike’s right on target again! When he’s so right it hurts, the chickenhawk feathers really start to fly! Stop Loss is just a backdoor draft, period! bush and his fellow draftdodgers are forcing our troops who are unwilling to reenlist to stay in. Reenlist or face immediate deployment to Iraq, reenlist or your CURRENT combat tour will be extended indefinitely. Not much of an all volunteer Army. The bush lies got us into this mess, now they say we have to kill more troops to show support for those already dead. That kind of BS gives more aid and comfort to the enemy than any cartoon. I am constantly amazed that some veterans, especially Viet Nam vets, still support this draftdodging coward! Didn’t you learn anything across the big pond?

By geechee

November 7, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

“Here’s a little poem By a little vet: The kiddies of our Prez Ain’t done their duty yet!”

Niether has the Prez, or Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Rove, Libby, and the list goes on and on and on.

By candide

November 7, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Cheney is dangerous not only because he is an extreme rightwing fanatic, but also because he is living on borrowed time. He could keel over at any time and this gives him an invulnerability, a license to do and say anything as his last gasp. That he has so much power in this administration — he is the defacto president — is a scandal. The sooner he is forced out the better.

By candide

November 7, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

I noticed Libby during his court appearance: he is a shrimp! That explains a lot about why he is willing to nuclearize all his enemies. Again the little guy trying to be a big shot.

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

I always include you when I’m talking about adults that really do see through the “bumper sticker” arguements the moonbats use here. No matter how many words they try to use it always comes back to the same bs.

Peter,

I used your phrases in a sentence, is there some reason you won’t try my request to you?

By Midori

November 7, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Ah, the usual suspects show up with the usual b.s.:

“MIKE SUCKS”

“IT’S ALL CLINTON’S FAULT”

“DID I SAY, MIKE SUCKS?”

“WE HAVE TO FIGHT THEM OVER THERE, SO WE DON’T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM OVER HERE”

“LIBERALS!!!! AAAIIIIIEEEE”

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

That right-wing nut job Michael Savage is correct: Liberalism is a mental disorder.

By Midori

November 7, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Viktor keeps showing up every day, with the same talking point about the Senate Intelligence report proved Bush didn’t lie, and Wilson did lie.

Viktor is the liar. And not a very good one.

**”How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. The first line of defense…should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.” - Condoleeza Rice, 2/1/2000

“We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction…In the case of Saddam Hussein, we’ve got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction.” - Dick Cheney, 6/20/2002

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” - Dick Cheney, 8/26/2002

“There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.” - Ari Fleischer, 9/6/2002

“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” - Condoleeza Rice, 9/8/2002

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” - George W. Bush, 9/12/2002

“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” - George W. Bush, 10/5/2002

“And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.” - George W. Bush, 10/7/2002

“After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” - George W. Bush, 10/7/2002

“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.” - George W. Bush, 10/7/2002

“Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists…The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.” - Dick Cheney, 12/1/2002

“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.” - Ari Fleischer, 12/2/2002

“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.” - Ari Fleischer, 1/9/2003

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” - George W. Bush, 1/28/2003

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” - George W. Bush, 1/28/2003

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.” - Colin Powell, 2/5/2003

“There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling.” - Colin Powell, 2/5/2003

“If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us…But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.” - Colin Powell, 2/28/2003

“Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” - Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” - George W. Bush, 3/17/2003

“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly … all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.” - Ari Fleischer, 3/21/2003

“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” - Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/2003

“We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.” - George W. Bush, 4/24/2003

“I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now.” - Colin Powell, 5/4/2003

“It’s going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we’re going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction.” - George W. Bush, 5/25/2003

“But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” - George W. Bush, 5/30/2003

“No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored.” - Condoleeza Rice, 6/8/2003

By Dusty

November 7, 2005 05:12 PM | Link to this

Candide, are you two feet tall?

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

Hey, Midori, how come you neglected to post the comments made by Prez Clinton? VP Gore, John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, et al. who said the same things? My, my you brainless leftists need to quite quoting Moveon.org and democraticunderground.com and try to establish cognitive thoughts of your own.

By Midori

November 7, 2005 05:18 PM | Link to this

bill clinton, or whoever you are: you’re a moron. you claim to be an independent, yet all your posts reek of GOP b.s.

don’t tell me what to post/quote.

post your own damn quotes to back up your crap.

By Midori

November 7, 2005 05:26 PM | Link to this

talk about brainless: Gore, Kerry, Clinton et al didn’t take us into this war.

Moran!!

By Daniel

November 7, 2005 05:28 PM | Link to this

We are a great nation due to checks and balances. This has resulted from powerful, yet divergent minds working together for the good of the nation. We’ve gotten off course a bit, as of late. We will find the center, I’m sure. Posts on this BLOG to the contrary, notwithstanding. Ta, ta, I’m off to my workout.

By candide

November 7, 2005 05:28 PM | Link to this

No, Dusty, I am five feet eleven.

Have you noticed that Limbaugh and O’Reilly are happy about the riots in France? They think it is punishment for Chirac not supporting Bush’s war.

Interesting: in France the Muslims riot in the streets, in America the Fascist Right riots on the airwaves.

By candide

November 7, 2005 05:30 PM | Link to this

Chris Matthews, the product of too much of a Catholic education, likes to cite Henry II or England:
“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest [Thomas a Becket]?

I ask, in the spirit of this quote: Will no one rid us of Bush/Cheney?

By Midori

November 7, 2005 05:36 PM | Link to this

Hey BC — “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce a new product in August”

“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”

Bunch of lying filth.

By Ricky

November 7, 2005 05:49 PM | Link to this

Candide, why are you bashing Catholics again? Look, Bush and Cheney will leave office in about three years. So there is the answer to your question.

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 06:02 PM | Link to this

Midori: Are you a feminazi? And, do you know what one is?

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 06:08 PM | Link to this

Midori: You make an attempt to argue that Bush et al. lied. The reason i asked about Prez Clinton, Gore, Kerry etc. was to make hte point that they all thought SH had had them. So, if Bush lied, did hte Dems also lie?

By Andy

November 7, 2005 06:12 PM | Link to this

candide: “Chirac not supporting Bush’s war?” More like, Chirac obstructed America’s war because he was taking oil money from Saddam Hussein. The civic pride of France is so low they have to bad mouth Bush just to get a rise out of their citizens, much like the pinkos in this country do. The failure of Bush in Iraq would result in a lib world celebration holiday; it has come close several times already (cartoon boy’s anticipation of Fitzmas. Like that wouldn’t have been a riot.)

Besides which, El Rushbo, the Doctor of Democracy, was just pointing out that Frances policy of pinko appeasement, which nobody can deny, has gotten them into the exact fight they were trying to ignore.

By TheTruth

November 7, 2005 06:19 PM | Link to this

They all lie! If a politicians lips are moving he’s lying!

By Midori

November 7, 2005 06:31 PM | Link to this

Yo, BC — if I wanted to answer to incoherent, mindless GOP drivel that borders on desperation, I’d post on the Yahoo boards.

See you over there.

By Midori

November 7, 2005 06:38 PM | Link to this

you’re missing the point, plus mixing apples and oranges.

try to drag whomever else you want into this, the fact remains: Bush invaded Iraq. Bush. Not Hillary. Not Gore. Not Bill Clinton.

Deal with it. Own up to it.

I don’t give a flying f*** if the Pope thought Saddam had WMDs. Quote the Pope if you wish. However, the fact remains Bush invaded Iraq.

The Dems wanted to work via diplomacy and weapons inspections. They did not invade Iraq. Clinton wanted Iraq to topple Saddam from within. He did not invade Iraq.

Bush did.

And we are seeing it was all a lie.

Bush lied to Congress. He cooked the intelligence. He ignored the warnings. And slimed any and every one who called him on his B.S.

Bush invaded Iraq.

and we are ALL suffering as a consequence.

By Andy

November 7, 2005 06:51 PM | Link to this

Midori: Exactly what consequences are you talking about? How are we ALL suffering?

By Midori

November 7, 2005 07:01 PM | Link to this

Andy — oh, never mind.

I’m not about to supply an answer, only for you to go on that “liberal media” tangent.

Google is your friend. Or rather, it could be.

you don’t keep up with current events, do you?

By Andy

November 7, 2005 07:10 PM | Link to this

Midori: I’m just a simple old Conservative… humor me.

No, seriously, I just noticed how hysterical you were in that last post, I thought maybe I was missing something.

By Midori

November 7, 2005 07:28 PM | Link to this

If I’m “hysterical”, may I point out that I find you smug? Cynical? Feeble? Intellectually challenged? Dishonest? a Propagandist? Kool Aide drinker? Enabler?

see, I can call names too.

By Andy

November 7, 2005 07:36 PM | Link to this

You still haven’t answered my question.

By Midori

November 7, 2005 07:42 PM | Link to this

I believe I did, in that I directed you to where you could find the answer(s).

I have no intention of getting into a battle of “gotcha” with you.

Are you trying to stall until your posse shows up?

Google is your friend. Key in the appropriate search words, and, viola!!

Have a good evening.

If you follow my guidance, you should be busy reading for some time.

By Midori

November 7, 2005 07:44 PM | Link to this

BTW Andy,

tell Amos I said, “Hi”.

By Andy

November 7, 2005 07:48 PM | Link to this

It must not be that serious if you can’t even remember the damage Bush has done to you. Just what I thought, he’s a great guy, isn’t he?

By Donna

November 7, 2005 08:17 PM | Link to this

Great cartoon, Mike.

By Jason

November 7, 2005 08:35 PM | Link to this

Ricky, you said Iraqi adults tried to kiss and hug you in gratitude. I’m curious, why didn’t you let them?

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 09:04 PM | Link to this

Mildori, the point I am makign is that ALL the politicians were somewhat wrong including Dems. OK, Bush took us to war, but, you cannot say he lied unless you say they lied.

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 09:10 PM | Link to this

Andy, of course, Mildori is hysterical. The root words hysterical and hysterectomy are genetical indicators. Adding that she is a Moveon.org leftist type. Well, but I will bet she is a hoot with whom to pound down a few cold beers

By Teresa

November 7, 2005 09:21 PM | Link to this

Good grief, RW and Dusty, shut it already!

With all this nonsensical sputtering you two write, examples - Dusty is, as usual, spot on about this, and Candide, are you two feet tall? it’s no wonder the straitjackets are coming for the both of you.

By bill clinton

November 7, 2005 09:25 PM | Link to this

Yeah, that diplomacy worked real well, didn’t it? Hmmmm, 17 UN Resolutions, serious threats, yep, old Saddam was scared to death. You leftists all have the Jimmy Carter mindset. Peace is the absence of war, moronic. Appease, appease, appease, Hitler will not invade any more nations.

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2005 09:54 PM | Link to this

Hi, Teresa!!!!

By jimbo

November 8, 2005 12:18 AM | Link to this

“bill clinton”: Are you saying that the war is going real well? Because, pulling out the WMD inspectors too soon, not having any kind of plan once we were in, not having any way out, letting Iraqi WMD scientists slip out of the country when they had been in our custody or easily attained[0], and leaving large caches of weaponry ungaurded has worked really well at reducing the danger that someone is going to engage in terrorist acts against our country. A faulty peace is better than a completely failed war.

[0]: There is, at this moment, only one WMD scientist in our custody, and he came willingly after months of trying to get our attention, while he was still in Iraq, speaking to an American journalist on a daily basis. There are many other who were not reached out to, and it is quite likely that at least some of them would have been attracted some sort of asylum, as many German scientists were at the end of WWII (ie, Von Braun). Now, we don’t even know where they are.

By bill clinton

November 8, 2005 07:14 AM | Link to this

I have never even addressed the war in Iraq. I am just noting the hypocrisy of the leftists. I have tried to make my position clear: If Prez Bush lied, then so did Prez Clinton, Kerry, etc.

By jimbo

November 8, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Lying about getting laid in order to avoid the kinda crap the the repubs laid on Clinton is one thing. Lying about WMDs, etc in order to invade a country with military force is another. For one thing, few people die over a blow job.

Plus, just because “everyone lies” (which is a logical fallacy. If you knew how to argue you might know that) doesn’t make it right.

Furthermore, if you look, I never said that you addressed the war. I don’t have enough time to explain the progression of logic, but re-read your second-to-last post, then read mine.

And finally, look up the definition of hypocracy. Here is the example of a hypocrite:

Suppose there is a guy who will go as far as he can to protect the lives of people who are not even born yet, but at the same time will go as far as he can to send kids 20-25 years old into a war, where they will kill and possibly be killed.

There’s a hypocrite. Or would that make him a “Flip Flopper”?

By Dar

November 8, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Neither Prez Clinton nor Kerry led us into this war, you dolt. THAT is the point. Any ole person, democratic or republican or whatever, can have whatever opinion he or she wants. The point is that THE person in power, the ultimate power pushed for this war. Who gives a crap if anyone else did. He did and here we are. Anyone who cannot see that this war and this administration are colossal failures has one eye shut…

By susan

November 8, 2005 07:57 PM | Link to this

Mike always hits the nail squarely on the head. This particular cartoon is so accurate that I’m surprised that Mike didn’t come up with it previously. We were lied to in the worst possible way, yet there are still millions in this country who believe the lies. The Daily Mirror was correct—“How could 59,054,087 people be so dumb?”

By RW-(the original)

November 8, 2005 09:44 PM | Link to this

susan,

Thr Daily Mirror must have thought 2,986,519 Bush voters did the right thing since he got 62,040,606 votes. My guess is that since Kerry ended with 59,028,109 votes that was the “stupid” count they used.

Of course, the only count that matters is 286-252.

Scoreboard!!!!!

By JR

November 8, 2005 11:56 PM | Link to this

bill clinton: Yes, the “Jimmy Carter mindset” worked fine. Saddam was scared. Are you so blind that you don’t see that? He actually did keep his nose clean after all - not because he was a good person, but because he wanted to stay in power. Remember there were no more WMDs, he was not in bed with Osama bin Laden and he posed no imminent threat to us or our allies. So long as you cling to dubious reasons for the war, you can always pretend that peaceful means wouldn’t have been successful. There is no way to prove whether or not diplomacy could have fixed a situation that didn’t exist:

So far, diplomacy has failed to eradicate Bigfoot from the Canadian wilderness. The Canadians say he doesn’t exist and even our scientists can’t find any trace (they must be pansy traitors). Since peaceful means have failed us, we have no choice but to invade!