Mike Luckovich

By Scooter

November 8, 2005 08:26 PM | Link to this

Hey, I am the leak. Where is my cartoon?

By Andy

November 9, 2005 04:57 AM | Link to this

I wonder what cartoon boy thinks Bush would say, maybe “yes, you pinko libs, I am guilty of all the lies you have told about me, now go and celebrate Fitzmas.” Is this what children dream of during their afternoon naps?

By Dave From Woodstock

November 9, 2005 07:07 AM | Link to this

Wingnut: Maybe if Bush just kept his promise to fire anyone involved with the Plame scandal he’d gain some respect from everyone, even us pinko libs.

Bush has failed miserably in all aspects of his presidency and it makes you mad when it gets brought to your attention?!

Should Mike ignore Bush’s numerous scre-ups? Would that make you happy?

Merry Fitzmas!

By Mike Not L

November 9, 2005 07:28 AM | Link to this

boring Luckey…..boring

By JohnnyT

November 9, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

The only Fitzmas present worth having is the bringing to justice of the other leakers, namely T Blossom Rove and Mr Milk o’ Human Kindness Cheney (wherever he may be). Happy holidays one and all from the home of the lethally misguided puppy Tony Blair!

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Funny, but Luckovich’s never-ending anti-Bush hating is tiring. Personally, I have little use for Bush, have never voted for him, but L’s lack of political balance hurts his credibility. I know that editorials by nature are partisan, but, sheesh, there are great Dem targets, Reid, Chucky-sucky Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, and Mikey never touches them. I remember his ridicule of Kenneth Starr, but we see none of Patrick Fitzgerald. I would bet that as a wimpy child Mikey was bullied by manly types, and that helps explain why he hates Bush. Mikey is just one of many reasons I will not renew to the AJC. I mean, hell, I can read it online for nuttin.

By Dave

November 9, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

It seems many Republicans would defend anything anyone in the Bush administration did, no matter how embarrassing or horrific, though I’ve met a few who actually do regret their votes this past election. I just don’t understand the ones who seem so blind to facts.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

At least Bush addresses terrorism, his predecessor ignored it. Remember the Cole, and BC fiddled. We have kicked al Qaedi’s butt, but the left-leaning media is attempting to cast Iraq as Viet name,

By Malachi

November 9, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Billy Jack, what makes Bush so manly? Is it his serving in the military? Is it his hard work ethic working from dirt poor beginnings to President? Is it because he walks around with a pistol and a John Wayne swagger?

By Eric

November 9, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Were you in a freaking cave during the peaceful, prosperous Clinton administrations, Billy Bob? Our last legitimate president did not ignore terrorism. In fact, it was the Clinton administration who warned Bush and company about Bin Laden, but they refused to act on that warning. Then came 9/11.

By Chris

November 9, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

This guy needs some new material.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Eric, Clinton did nothing against terrorism. He bombed some empty camps in Afghanistan, thats it. He ignored Bin Laden when he declared war on America. He ignored the bombings of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the embassys in Africa. He emboldened Bin Laden, thats all he did. And the President has nothing to do with the economy. The free market controls the economy, not the President. Regan, Clinton, Bush, none of them have effect on the economy. Malachi, John Kerry had to work pretty hard to from his dirt poor beginnings and joy trips on JFK’s yacht. I love the double standard.

By mit

November 9, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Mike what leak are you referring too?

He has already done the Plame leak so I take it this is about the secret detention centers for terrorist suspects. Did Bush accidently out himself on this?

By SarahConnah

November 9, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Re: Mikey hates Bush because he (Mike) was bullied as a kid. Bushwacker couldn’t bully my cat! He’s a freakin’ Urban Cowboy; a plastic and vile action figure in bubble packaging, a complete loser! The South American soccer star said it best: “Bush is human trash! Scooooooooore! Remember, you can’t spell “BU* SH* without the letters BUSH! Curtsie!

By Andy

November 9, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

mit: The Washington Post leak only harmed the national security of the United States so it is no big issue with the pinkos. But the Plame “leak” hurt the anti American effort, hence we get cartoons and lib expressions of Fitzmas joy and happiness.

By Mike

November 9, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

If ignorance is bliss, I’m reading posts by some of the most blissfully happy people in the world!!

By Eric

November 9, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

You’re wrong Ricky. Were you living in that cave with Billy Bob? And it’s Reagan, not Regan.

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Today’s cartoon is a GREAT depiction of Scotty-boy McClellan. He NEVER answers a question directly. If you watch any press conference, he spends fully half his wind arguing that he has indeed already answered a question which in fact, he did not answer. Funny… he seemed a lot more at ease back when gay hooker escort Jeff Gannon (real name Jim Guckert) was in the room — a “reporter” he curiously seemed to know quite well. Ah.. but that’s none of our business, I’m sure. Only in a Democratic administration would anyone make a fuss about hookers getting a White House press pass.

By Tom

November 9, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

First of all this is NOT about what Clinton did or did not do. He was not at the President’s Daily Briefing in August of 2001 when Bush and Rice were told: “Al-Quaida is planning attacks….”. (They thought it was “history”, as if “is planning” was in the past-tense.) BUT - I clearly remember when Clinton sent cruise missles into Al-Quaida training camps and the republicans started screaming that he was trying to change the subject away from the Blue Dress….. Face it - Your man Bush is a TOTAL failure - God save America!

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Yep, Bush is manly because he has a pistol, can ride a horse, eats bbq, uses a chain saw and respects women. He has never been accused of rape, chating on his wife, and yes, he did serve in the military. Now, to be fair to Clinton, I give him a complete pass for adultery; Hilary explains many things he has done, sheesh, what a b***. An,d clinton ignored terrorism, for the msot part. Just read the book: “Losing bin Laden.” And, no one has ever refuted that book either.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Andy, if you run for president I will vote for you.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

McClellan is a punching bag, perhaps the worst press secretary I have ever observed. At least Fleischer had some stones. SC is an ineffective robot.

By Malachi

November 9, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Ricky, how is that a double-standard? I never, or have ever read, where anybody has said that John Kerry is a manly man. I posed a question, which still hasn’t been answered. How is Bush a manly man? Does he chew tobacco, look fierce, and challenge people to duos? Did he build his house from scratch? Does he have a blue ox named Babe?

By Daniel

November 9, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

This is a very funny cartoon. Laughter is a good anecdote to politics. Mike is consistently a very clever guy. It’s not an easy job. Some of that stuff is hard to make up.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Malachi, read my 11:07 post on manly men. I will give Luckovich credit, HE IS GOOD, VERY CLEVER. But, why not poke fun at Kerry, Hilary? Harry Reid, Schumer, Pelosi?

By Malachi

November 9, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

So Billy Jack, can you ride a horse? Do you tote a pistol? Do you use a chainsaw? If not all of the above, does that mean that you are not a manly man? As for respecting women, does he respect a woman’s right to her own body?

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Billy Jack, Bush does NOT ride a horse! Haha! He rides a pickup truck around his ranch because he’s afraid of the horses! Reagan rode a horse, I think…

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Eric, how am I wrong? Everything I said is based in fact. Yes Bush was at the meeting where they said Al Qaeda was planning attacks. Do you think Clinton never got any briefings on Al Qaeda? At least Bush had daily meetings with the CIA Director, Clinton went weeks without meeting with him. To blame the 9/11 attacks on Bush alone is a joke. To think that there wasn’t actionable intelligence during the Clinton administration is just loopy. They are both at fault, I put more on Clinton because he was in office longer and emboldened Al Qaeda due to his lack of a response.

By Dangit

November 9, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Question.. Where is all the coverage about Joe Wilson actually “outing” his wife before all this came to pass? Funny how he shut up when that came out.. Hey Mike.. can we get a toon of Joe Wilson with his foot stuck in his mouth?

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Dangit,

Here’s an interesting article about Joe Wilson “outing” his own wife.

This could start to be fun!

Maybe we should make sure CIA employees aren’t married to publicity hounds.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Just out of curiosity how did we get on the subject of Bush’s manliness? Does anyone really care? As for McClellan, I don’t think he is as good as Fleischer, but those of you that act like press secretarys actually answer questions are wrong, the all spin. Anyone remember Dee Dee Myers? She was pretty good at it.

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

Nobody was or probably ever will be as good as Ari Fleischer at that job.

Don’t you miss Helen Thomas saying, “Aaaarrrrriiiii, what about the Palestinians Aaaarrrrriiiiii?”

By bill clinton

November 9, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

I stand corrected, Bush does ride a pik em up truck and Reagan was the horseman. I used to ride horses. I do have a Homelite and Stihl chain saws that I use, And, yes I tote a pistol, have a concealed carry permit and a house full of guns (I collect). I do not chew tobacco, but do make a pretty darned good merlot wine. I garden and have a shop. I am a Viet Nam combat vet, so, I do consider myself a manly man, in a quiet way, of course.

By bill clinton

November 9, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Talk about media bias: CNN.com has a story about Dems scoring big yesterday. What did they do? Keep the two governorships they already had in V. and NJ. Bloomberg, a GOPper kept NYC. Arnold’s reforms got beaten, but “score big?” What bias, well, actually nonsense.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

RW, it will be a great day when Helen Thomas leaves the press pool. One think I do respect about her is that she doesn’t try to fake being objective, she is what she is and she lets everyone know it.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Well San Fran confirmed last night why it is one of the most liberal cities in America and should be called the People’s Republic of San Fran. The military recruitment initiative won with 60 percent in favor and 40 percent against.

The measure, dubbed “College Not Combat,” opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding. It encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military’s appeal to young adults.

By bill clinton

November 9, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

ricky, San Fran also voted to outlaw private citizens from possessing hand guns. What a bunch of kooks

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Ricky,

Helen already left the press pool. She is a columnist now so she doesn’t get to ask questions or sit up front at formal press conferences, just the briefings.

I honestly think Ari called on her just for fun.

By candide

November 9, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

The sound you hear is the deflation of Bush. He was puffed up to be somebody but he really was nobody. Now the air has been released and we can see him for what he really is. Thank you Virginia.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Yep San Fran joined DC and Chicago in ignoring the constitution.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Candide, why do people think it is a defeat for Bush that Kain won in Virginia? He is replacing another Dem who was wildly poplular in Virginia. Not to mention that they are both moderates. If the Republicans had lost a governors seat they are controlled that would be a big deal, not this.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

The Dems have to do more than trash the GOP. They really have no plans other than class warfare and tax the evil high achieving Americans. If they would endorse school vouchers and quit pandering to the despicable teachers unions and admit partial birth abortion is not only morally wrong, but murdering a baby….

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Here’s a great article by Norman Podhoretz.

Warning to liberals: Don’t click the above link if you don’t want facts!

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

RW, you cannot use facts and evidence on libs. The only understand slogans: 1. “Clinton lied but nobody died.” 2. “Bush lied” And the fact that the media lets reid, Schumer and others distort and downright lie is maddening.

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Billy Jack,

I know. That’s why I warned liberals not to look. I’d hate to see moonbat heads exploding all over this blog.

By Midori

November 9, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Lying with intelligence Robert Scheer

November 8, 2005

WHO IN THE White House knew about DITSUM No. 044-02 and when did they know it?

That’s the newly declassified smoking-gun document, originally prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002 but ignored by President Bush. Its declassification this weekend blows another huge hole in Bush’s claim that he was acting on the best intelligence available when he pitched the invasion of Iraq as a way to prevent an Al Qaeda terror attack using weapons of mass destruction.

The report demolished the credibility of the key Al Qaeda informant the administration relied on to make its claim that a working alliance existed between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It was circulated widely within the U.S. government a full eight months before Bush used the prisoner’s lies to argue for an invasion of Iraq because “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases.”

Al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — a Libyan captured in Pakistan in 2001 — was probably “intentionally misleading the debriefers,” the DIA report concluded in one of two paragraphs finally declassified at the request of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and released by his office over the weekend. The report also said: “Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”

He got that right. Folks in the highest places were very interested in claims along the lines Libi was peddling, even though they went against both logic and the preponderance of intelligence gathered to that point about possible collaboration between two enemies of the U.S. that were fundamentally at odds with each other. Al Qaeda was able to create a base in Iraq only after the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, not before. “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements,” accurately noted the DIA.

Yet Bush used the informant’s already discredited tall tale in his key Oct. 7, 2002, speech just before the Senate voted on whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq and again in two speeches in February, just ahead of the invasion.

Leading up to the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to sell it to the United Nations, while Vice President Dick Cheney, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith repeated it breathlessly for homeland audiences. The con worked, and Americans came to believe the lie that Hussein was associated with the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Even CIA Director George Tenet publicly fell into line, ignoring his own agency’s dissent that Libi would not have been in a position to know what he said he knew. In fact, Libi, according to the DIA, could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training allegedly occurred. In January 2004, the prisoner recanted his story, and the next month the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his false information.

One by one, the exotic intelligence factoids Bush’s researchers culled from raw intelligence data files to publicly bolster their claim of imminent threat — the yellowcake uranium from Niger, the aluminum tubes for processing uranium, the Prague meeting with Mohamed Atta, the discredited Iraqi informants “Curveball” and Ahmad Chalabi — have been exposed as previously known frauds.

When it came to selling an invasion of Iraq it had wanted to launch before 9/11, the Bush White House systematically ignored the best available intelligence from U.S. agencies or any other reliable source.

It should be remembered that while Bush and his gang were successfully scaring the wits out of us about the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda alliance, U.N. weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. Weapons inspectors Hans Blix and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei promised they could finish scouring the country if given a few more months. But instead, they were abruptly chased out by an invasion necessitated by what the president told us was a “unique and urgent threat.”

Bush exploited the worldwide horror felt over the 9/11 attacks to justify the Iraq invasion. His outrageous claim, repeated over and over before and after he dragged the nation into an unnecessary war, was never supported by a single piece of credible evidence. The Bush defense of what is arguably the biggest lie ever put over on the American people is that everyone had gotten the intelligence wrong. Not so at the highest level of U.S. intelligence, as DITSUM No. 044-02 so clearly shows. How could the president not have known?

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Midori,

I’ll put the reputation of Norman Podhoretz over that of Robert Scheer any day. I don’t think words per post is much of an argument. Why not just post a link?

Speaking of liberals, where is Mrs. Godzilla today?

By Midori

November 9, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

John Podhoretz is a lying weasel of a scumbag.

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=John%20Podhoretz

By Wild Sects

November 9, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

The tide is turning. Two red states just elected Democratic governors and ALL of The governator’s initiatives failed. Things are starting to become right with the country again. Let’s keep the momentum going through ‘06 and ‘08!

By Eric

November 9, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

I am hereby officially refuting the book “Losing Bin Laden”. And Ricky, you’re wrong because President Clinton did make an effort to get bin Laden. There were instances where they knew or thought they knew where he was, but they didn’t fire the missles for fear of killing innocent women and children. President Clinton had an aversion to killing.

By ic

November 9, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

RW,

I clicked on the article and it was well written. There were none of the usual insults that conservatives hurl at free thinking people. (For the record I’m an independent. I choose to read and think for myself as opposed to hopping on the party line. I don’t love Clinton or Hilary and I detest George Bush) Anyway, this article you posted however left out one important fact. In the Spring of 2001 Both Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell stated that Iraq had no significant weapons of mass destruction. Did they know something that W did not know. No they were actually reporting the credible intelligence that was out there. Fast forward to 911 and Bush sees his opportunity to start this war with Iraq. The credible evidence that they had prior 911 was ignored and this manufactured evidence was used to lead up to the war. So how do you go from not having WMD’s to having them in less than a years time. There are only two options. 1. Bush lied about there being WMD’s 2.Bush is completely ignorant to what is going on around him and he is being led by his subordinates. Neither one is comforting. The fact that the Democrats had no one with enough balls or a defined plan to defeat this man with so poor a track record is depressing. I truly wish McCain had won in 2000. I believe he would have handled 911 in a much more competent fashion.

By Midori

November 9, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Fool, Thy Name is John Podhoretz

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/27/144932/825

Ignorant bastard can’t even lie straight.

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Midori,

When searching for lying scumbags mediamatters is certainly a good place to find them.

In any case, John is not Norman.

By Midori

November 9, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

John Podhoretz: Compulsive Liar

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/19/podhertz-liar/

By candide

November 9, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

RW: please don’t recommend Norman Podhoretz, that Fascist-Zionist-Neocon pig.

By Midori

November 9, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

John Podhoretz admits he’s an idiot

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004419.html

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

WildSects, again your facts are wrong. No way is New Jersey a read state. Bush was beaten by both Gore and Kerry there. Corzine was the fav to win, that was not suprising. And in Virginia they are replacing a Dem governor, not a Republican. And Kain is very moderate, not far left. As for California, lets be real that is the most liberal state in the union. Is it a surprise that they rejected the propositions. There is no tide turning, you are grasping for straws that aren’t there. Now maybe if the Dems take back the House and Senate in 06 then you could say the tides are turning.

By Malachi

November 9, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Moonbats/moonbat has been added to the list of words prohibited from this blog along with the phrases “Bush lied”, “Clinton lied and nobody died”, and “pinko…”. Please, if you find yourself inclined to use these words, stop yourself. They suck and have become way too repetitious.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

It really doesn’t contribute anything to the arguement when someone goes to a website that caters to their thought process(whether it be MediaMatters, Daily Kos, or Moveon.org on the left or Rush’s site or Drudges on the right) and posts articles that are written for no purpose other than to slander someone. We can do better than that.

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Who made that moonbat Malachi the blog moderator?

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Wild Sects, the two red states already had Dem guvs. So what “tide” turned? Candide: what is a neo-com

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Candide, why do you hate people that support Isreal so much.

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Forgive me for being too literal, but I don’t get the point of the cartoon. Is he saying Bush is the leak? Or is he leaking something else? (popularity?) It’s not clear. Also not clear is why a leaking president would be standing next to the press secretary during a briefing. I guess one has to suspend reality to appreciate ML’s work fully.

As for McClellan, show me a press secretary who wasn’t an evasive weasel. That’s their job.

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

To the Helen Thomas bashers, would you please explain to us what YOU think a journalist’s job should be when covering the White House? Helen Thomas has the kajones to ask what the suck-ups and yes-men are too chicken to ask. Her loyalty is to the American people and the belief that we should know the truth about the leaders we elect and what they do in our names. And what do you have to say about gay hooker “Jeff Gannon’s” questions, such as “How do you work with Democrats when they’re so unreasonable?” Is THIS what you support as a journalist doing his job? What do YOU think would make a good White House reporter? Should they stop asking questions and just take notes instead? Really?

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

“Clinton had an aversion to killing.” Nice, but his “aversion” has led to the deaths of thousands at bin Laden’s hand, all because the commander in chief didn’t have the guts to act decisively when he had a chance. No one wants innocent people to die, but taking out a terrorist will save more lives in the long run than it will cost. Factor that in.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, here is why people conservatives have a problem with Helen Thomas. Yes she asks hard questions, but only to Republicans. She was soft on Clinton. She has stated publicly that she is a liberal. That is fine. No big deal. We just want her to be objective. as for Gannon, he is a joke. I just want journalists from both sides to check their ideologies at the door and ask tough questions.

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

You know, Helen Thomas and Harriett Miers could almost pass as sisters, and interesting thought unto itself.

By gadem

November 9, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Personally I like the cartoon Mike!! Two things you never talk about with people that are not friends, are religion and politics. I feel sorry for some Bush supporters, because it is like they are now only to begin to realize that Bush is a moron….kind of like realizing that Santa Clause is not real.

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

I’m not bashing Helen Thomas I think she’s a hoot, but she is no longer a journalist. She now writes opinion columns for Hearst.

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

“Bush is a moron.” Pretty general, that. Maybe he is, I don’t know; he’s not very glib, but that doesn’t make him stupid, necessarily. He’s got more college degrees than many of us, so that counts for something. Maybe if you could offer more specific reasons why you oppose him, you’d be better able to discuss politics. I voted for Bush once (not twice) and I now have misgivings; I see good and bad in him. But just to call him names doesn’t advance any argument worth entering. I can tell you why I voted for him the first time and why I didn’t last year, but “moron” is not on the list.

By gadem

November 9, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

“Clinton had an aversion to killing.� Nice, but his “aversion� has led to the deaths of thousands at bin Laden’s hand, all because the commander in chief didn’t have the guts to act decisively when he had a chance. No one wants innocent people to die, but taking out a terrorist will save more lives in the long run than it will cost. Factor that in.

Dr.R, There is more innocent blood on the hands of your beloved Dubya than one would care to recall. Is it better to be sure before you bomb a place (Clinton) or be a Maverick and just bomb and kill everyone. I am concerned that those that are posing as Christians, have no idea of what it means to be a Christian. “Christian Conservatives”, most, have hatred in their hearts. I say this because none have tolerance, compassion, or sympathy for those that are not like them.

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Complete impartiality is impossible, even for those who adhere to the [long lost] principles of journalism. The only way for us (the American people) and working journalists to get past that is to demand the TRUTH, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nobody seems to want that anymore; they only want factoids and sound bites that support their “side.” Sad. What DID happen? Will we ever know? I’m not fabricating the fact that I have been told many times that I didn’t “need to know” the truth, and I should shut up, trust, and stop asking questions. (Be a good girl, now.) Hearing that does not inspire my trust in our current leadership or their league trumpeting followers.

By Wild Sects

November 9, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Ricky, I didn’t know that New Jersey had such an illiteracy problem. I never realized that they weren’t a read state.

But you are correct that they didn’t vote for Bush but they were governed by the dark side until the acting governor took over. In effect making them a red state.

The fact that a Dem won VA in this political climate proves that the Repubs are slipping in their appeal with Americans. It wasn’t until the last minute that the Repub candidate agreed to be associated with Bush. A lot of good that did him.

Regarding CA - Ahnold is more or less seen as a moderate. Even a moderate Repub couldn’t get his way.

You seem to be in denial. When Bush’s poll numbers crashed to below 40 - and stayed there - that was the beginning of the turning tide and now it’s getting stronger and stronger. 2006 will show sweeping changes back to Democratic control - that is unless Diebold has it’s way again.

By candide

November 9, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Ricky: not Israel do I hate but the Likud, the offshoot of the Zionist Fascist Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini.

By the way, John Podhoretz is Norman’s son. John is much stupider than Norman. Norman is evil but certainly not stupid. But as in the Bush family, generation after generation families get stupider and worse due to genetic degeneration.

By Wild Sects

November 9, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe the blog censored the word associated.

My sentence read “It wasn’t until the last minute that the Repub candidate agreed to be a-s-s-o-c-i-a-t-e-d with Bush.”

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Well, he’s not my “beloved Dubya,” as stated above, and anyway the issue here is Clinton. The question is: If a leader knows he can take out a known terrorist who likely will kill thousands, is it worth the lives of innocents who happen to be in the way? Harry Truman thought so, among others. It’s never an easy decision, one I’d hate to make, and certainly why we must choose well when we vote. But I think it’s valid to question whether Clinton made the right call in this case. Had he had more foresight, we would have saved more lives than would have been lost in a single missile attack.

By Wild Sects

November 9, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

It did it again! how stupid.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Dr. R. I think the cartoon is saying that Bush’s head is leaking.

By Ava

November 9, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Didn’t George H.W. Bush have the opprtunity to get rid of Sadam during Operation Desert Storm and just let him go? Shouldn’t HE have done something about it 14 years ago?

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Oh, OK, back on the “moron” track. Well, he’s fair game I guess; I just don’t think it advances an argument very well to attack the president’s smarts when I’m sure there are many other issues you could focus on (and I could, too, to be honest). That’s what’s wrong with our political debate now; we’re focused on personalities and style rather than issues of substance.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

WildSect, New Jersey is a blue state because Dems control the state legislature and have for awhile. The Dems control the Congressional Caucus from New Jersey and both Senators. And they haven’t voted for a Republican president since Reagen. That makes them a red state. Can we please get away from the machinery stole the election for the Republicans. When they had the early lead last night in Virginia, Dems started that chant. Where are they now? I guess they don’t need to complain since they won. Bad, bad machines. And candide, I love how you throw around the term fascist. So the Likud party is fascist? Laughable.

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

On Desert Storm: Yes, we should have gotten rid of him then. Many of our allies were hesitant to pull the trigger and go into Baghdad so Bush backed down (though the Pentagon would have supported such a move). Doing so would have been unpopular then, though certainly justified at the time, and saved a lot of grief down the road. Good observation.

By Heywood

November 9, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

all of this hate and discontent stirred over a simple cartoon.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Dr R, what is wrong with our political climate right now is that character assination has taken precedence over debating real issues. It has happened on both sides. I really hope we get back to the issues in 08.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Ava, if you recall many Democrats voted against sending troops over there in the first place. And the reason he didn’t take out Saddam then was because that was not part of the UN mandate and most of our military leadaers advised against it

By Andy

November 9, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

The democrats won a governer’s race! The democrats won a governer’s race! Party time! Bring your own intoxicants! They are required for our altered reality!

Ricky: Don’t take away their hope. It is all they have. Even I am not that mean.

Malachi: What is your pinko problem?

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

More people saying they knew Valerie Plame was CIA: Was the identity of Joseph Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame really a deep dark secret before she was “outed” by columnist Robert Novak in July 2003? The number of witnesses now saying “No” has climbed to four - and none of them have apparently been interviewed by Fitzgerald’s investigators. On Wednesday, Wayne Simmons, a 27-year veteran at the CIA, told Fox News Radio: “As most people now know, [Plame] was traipsed all over Washington many years ago by Joe Wilson and introduced at embassies and other parties as ‘my CIA wife.’” Last week, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WABC Radio’s John Batchelor that during a 2002 conversation with Wilson while the two waited to appear on a TV show, Wilson casually mentioned that his wife worked at “the Agency.” In Oct. 2003, NBC’s diplomatic correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, told CNBC that Plame’s occupation “was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger.” Mitchell added: “So a number of us began to pick up on that.” And in Sept. 2003, National Review Online’s Cliff May wrote that when Plame’s CIA connection was mentioned in Novak’s column - “That wasn’t news to me.” “I had been told that [Plame was CIA] - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.”

By Ava

November 9, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Thanks for enlightening the unenlightened. I was in grade school at the time Operation Desert Storm started…and I’ve always wondered why Saddam wasn’t taken care of the first time around. Also, why don’t we hear much about Osama anymore? Isn’t he the reason we started this war to begin with?

By Harry

November 9, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Hello! Clinton hasn’t been the president for over five years. Get over it. What has bush done? He’s had five years to respond to the USS Cole, but he’s done nothing. He was warned bin Laden was determined to hijack aircraft, but he did nothing except tell a few high ranking officials to stop flying commercial airlines. He refuses to go after bin Laden, but invades and occupies a decimated third world country with no ties to 9/11. Bin Laden did demand the removal of all U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia and bush removed them as a favor for his close family friend. So how is he any better at fighting terrorists? He lied about WMD to get over 2000 of OUR troops killed for nothing and no end in sight. Save the line about we’re fighting them over there crap, the only reason we have a war in Iraq is because WE invaded them! When will you bush apologists stop making excuses for the Worst President in History?

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Harry, nice job reciting the Dems talking points. The reason nothing has been done on the USS Cole was because your boy Bill persued it as criminal matter. I especially like how you infer Bush and Osama are personal friends. Good one. He was warned about bin Laden just like Clinton was. Clinton was in office when bin Laden declared WAR on us. Or don’t you remember that?

By Dusty

November 9, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Now we have an innocuous little cartoon by an innocuous cartoonist. The drawing might have made sense if the balloon head going “sssss” was Luckovich blowing his anti-war steam. Anti-war liberals are angry because the White House does not report rumors. But they don’t. And some of our posters don’t know what makes a “real” man (figures). Others worry because the president does not ride horses (Paul Revere did …so…) As the sun sinks in the west, I am very busy. Make ‘em keep the facts straight, RW. Hold the fort!

By Midori

November 9, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

The Hazards of Watching Fox News

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington’s going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, “Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War,” also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16892/

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Midori, does the commercial news include CNN and MSNBC?

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Ricky: grammar first. As the writer, Harry IMPLIED Bush and Osama were friends. You, on the receiving end of the sentence, INFER the meaning. Now the reason Harry implied that Bush and Osama were friends is because their families and close circles of friends have been making big bucks together for decades. Perhaps that’s why “Bin Forgotten” has been allowed every opportunity to elude capture. By saying “perhaps,” I am offering conjecture. Please research this for yourself, and you’ll find that the families were indeed connected.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I thought we were friends. I love how people like to point out grammar mistakes. Who cares? I am sure that Bush allowed bin Laden to escape, that makes perfect sense. Just like America attacked themselves on 911.

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Clinton’s name came up because a previous entry indicated he didn’t take out Osama because he didn’t want to hurt anyone. For better or worse, the current president has at least engaged the terrorists by overthrowing one of their friendly regimes (the Taliban) and killing or capturing a large number of key terror leaders. Saddam, whether or not he had al-Qaida ties, did support terrorist groups in Palestine. It’s different heads of the same beast; you need to kill them all to kill the critter itself. Unfortunately, the pacifists among us believe we can refrain from warfare and make friends with these zealous killers. Dream on. Ain’t gonna happen.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

To other conservatives out there: Why are liberals so mean?

By gttim

November 9, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

I remember his ridicule of Kenneth Starr, but we see none of Patrick Fitzgerald

Well, which one of those guys spent over 70 million dollars and got a president telling a fib about a private matter during a civil trial, and during that course abused his power beyond belief. Which one concentrated on the matters at hand, the leak and the effort to cover the crime up, and is doing the job he is supposed to. Silly wingnut!

Clinton did nothing against terrorism.

I would argue he did. More importantly, him and the UN got all the WMDs out of Iraq; otherwise Bush may have found some. But, why are you wingnuts so obsessed with Clinton? Is it his manliness? Is that why you folk are so homophobic?

And please remember why OBL attacked, and has continued to attack, America. It is because we have troops in he mid east. He attacked because US troops keep the Saudi monarchy in power. Now, whose friends are the Saudi’s? Other than all Republicans and wealthy oil people, the Bush family. They are so closely tied to them, you can see pics of them holding hands! So what does idiot boy “W” do? He sends more troops over there so more folk will hate us. Lovely. Quite supporting the Saudi monarchy and OBL won’t have a reason to attack us.

Nice photo Mike! Reminds me of what the ladies in the campaign “W” was working on when he was supposed to be in the National Guard Champagne Brigade referred to him as- “The Texas Soufflé.” Said he was full of hot air!

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Midori, the website you got that article from includes an article saying the US used WMD’s on Fallujah. Do you believe that too? The whole website is devoted to stories about how evil and mean the Republicans are. Posting articles from a site that is ideologically driven is pointless.

By Mike Not L.

November 9, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Enlighten us Kimberly. Please cite your references so that all may know the truth.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Gttim, is the only reason OBL attacked us because we had troops in Sauda Arabia? Please tell me you don’t think that was the only reason.

By gttim

November 9, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Posting articles from a site that is ideologically driven is pointless.

So is watching Fox News or listening to Rush “The three time divorced drug addict” Limbaugh, but that does not stop you.

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Ricky, I’m just messing with you. {;-> I’m sure you can explain to us, with whatever word usage you like, why Bush went from “he can run but he can’t hide” and “we will not rest until he is brought to justice” to saying “I really just don’t think about him that much” and then attacking a whole different country. Surely there’s a logical explanation I’ve missed. And no, WE didn’t attack ourselves. A bunch of Saudis attacked us. Yet Bush tiptoes through the blubonnets holding hands with the Saudi prince. Google Images: Bush, Saudi Prince, bluebonnets, and see for yourself.)

By gadem

November 9, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Well Ricky, we all know that FOX News is fair and balanced. We all know that they only have contributors with the utmost credentials….The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth come to mind as those very qualified individuals that FOX News trots out to add substance to their opinions.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I know Bush held hands with the Saudi prince. We all saw it on TV. Just like we saw Hillary Clinton hug Yasser Arrafat and his wife. Does that mean she is beholden to helping out the Palestenians?

By Dr R

November 9, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Well, it was the UN inspectors ousted from Iraq during Clinton’s watch, not the weapons themselves. But more to the point, I respectfully disagree with your views on why al-Qaida attacked us. It’s not just that we have troops there, or support the Saudi regime; all are reasons, but not No. 1. The main reason “they hate us” is and always will be summed up in one word: Israel. As long as we support Israel’s right to exist, the Islamists will seek to destroy us (“the friend of my enemy is my enemy.”) It’s why Osama hit us, it’s why we invaded Iraq, it drives every foreign policy decision from Turkey to Indonesia. To secure Israel’s long-term future, we must dismantle, through diplomacy or warfare, the regimes that threaten her. You can disagree with that policy if you wish, but it’s why we give a rats behind about that area to begin with (well, there’s the oil, too, which is nice …)

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Gadem, Fox is as fair and balanced as CNN and MSNBC. To say otherwise is just untrue. They all have their bias. None is better than the other, that is what my point was.

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

The Carlyle Group was founded in 1987. Do the research. Bin Ladens and Bushes making $$$$$. Together. Whatever I say will be immediately shot down by the “faithful” here. Anyone who wonders should check it out for themselves.

By Andy

November 9, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: If we don’t stay in good with the Saudis and we lose their oil, how will democrats cruise for their drugs? Hillary has us locked out of ANWR.

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Ricky is right. CNN and MSNBC are whores just like FOX. Take two or three facts, and spin ‘em around all day for ratings. Forget the rest of the story; you’ll never get it from them.

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Andy: I know! Let’s exercise the true, free, American spirit of rugged individualism and personal choice, and GROW OUR OWN! Hahaha!

By Jay

November 9, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I’m curious- what do you consider the AJC?

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

gadem,

Would you care to tell us what charges the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made that were not true?

By Rich

November 9, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

God bless San Francisco. I wish I lived there. In fact I’m going to move there.

By Rich

November 9, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Hooray for Maine!!!

Texas…well they produced Bush..no wonder we should have let them be their won country. Think it’s to late?

By Mike Not L

November 9, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

RW-(the…. Do you wish to place a wager that gadem will not tell us what charges were not true??? And if there is a reply will it be baseless?

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Yeah, you move to Frisco and “if” there is a big quake and turmoil such as in New Orleans reigns you will wish you had a handgun. And, do you think that the criminals will turn in their guns?

By Rich

November 9, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

San Francisco is so much nicer than Atlanta. I’d rather get held up there than here.

By Mike Not L.

November 9, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

bye bye Rich….. As an Atlanta native I wish to bid you a farewell.

……you still here?

By Rich

November 9, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

And I lived in Maine too. It may be cold but the people are waaaay more sincere and real than here in Atlanta.

By Rich

November 9, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

What a surprise….you’re a native Atlantan. I could have never guessed.

By Mike Not L.

November 9, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

1) What do you mean by your statement? 2) How did you ascertain that I was a local?

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Regarding the Swift Boat Slanderers’ charges against Kerry, you have it backward. The group, funded by some heavy-duty Texas GOP contributors, claimed that Kerry lied to get some of his medals. But they never proved it. They simply SAID that the Veterans who stood up and said “I served with Kerry and he saved my life” were lying. They said they were there when the incidents happened, and that the official reports were not true. But the GOP-funded slanderers never proved anything, and in fact, other Veterans who WERE there, refuted the GOP-funded liars. The burden of proof to dispute the official records and the accounts of actual witnesses was on them, and they failed.

Fortunately for the GOP, many Americans don’t consider facts when they have an opportunity to slander someone’s character for fun and profit.

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Mike Not L,

No way I would take that bet. I imagine the answer would be sort of like the one kimberly came up with.

The only stories that have ever changed are Kerry’s ( Christmas in Cambodia, first purple heart, etc), but they insist we check the official record which we can’t since John Kerry still refuses to release them.

John O’neil has offered to publicly retract anything that is proven false, but the left just calls the whole group liars and stomps their feet.

By Rich

November 9, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

I voted for Mckinney just to offset fools like Santorum.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Oh, yes, San Fran, where until recently it legal to urinate and defecate on the street. Plus, they give bums, yuo may call them homeless, a paycheck. But, freak watching is a pretty good sport. And, I will agree with you that there are a lot of rude people in the Atlanta area, BUT THEY ARE MOSTLY YANKEE TRANSPLANTS!!!@

By Mike Not L.

November 9, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Not to confuse you Rich, as you still have not answered the previous questions, however….

Are you still going to vote for her when you are in SanFran?

By Rich

November 9, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

What was the previous question? Who are you?

By Harry

November 9, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Slime Boat Liars for Bush falsely claimed they served with Kerry in Viet Nam. Most didn’t know him or serve with him. Some were not even in country during his tour. Kerry’s actual boat crew of 7 men stood by him.

Slime Boat Liars for Bush falsely claimed Kerry only served a short 3 months. Actually he served on a Missile frigate his first tour (12 months) and then volunteered for his the second tour with the Swift Boats.

Slime Boat Liars for Bush falsely claimed Kerry didn’t earn his medals. But some of them were awarded the same medal for the same action. They falsely claimed numerous Career Naval Officers lied, gave false statements and reports. This lie is extremely despicable because they cast aspersions on all veterans that served in Viet Nam. Every man who was awarded a citation or medal has been tainted by these republican paid trolls.

Slime Boat Liars for Bush falsely claimed they received NO COMPENSATION except expenses. But they were supported and fully funded by the bush cartel in Texas. The book deals and personal appearance were arranged by bush/rove and the corrupt corporate media. Now they claim to have received over 5 million dollars in small donations.

They were in it for the MONEY! But they hated Kerry since 1971 because he told the truth about atrocities that were committed in Viet Nam!

By kimberly

November 9, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Like I said before, people will believe what they WANT to believe, truth be darned. What DID happen back in Vietnam & Cambodia? Haha… like you even care. You Busheviks only cared that people voted AS IF Dubya were a war hero and Kerry were a traitor, not whether either perception were actually true. Hey, if you can pay an advertising firm to blast it over the airways, it must be true! Yeah, right. You got your wish, too. HECKOFA JOB! Things are going greeeeeaaaaaat! THANKS!

By Mike Not L

November 9, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

By Rich November 9, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

What a surprise….you’re a native Atlantan. I could have never guessed.

By Mike Not L. November 9, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

1) What do you mean by your statement? 2) How did you ascertain that I was a local?

By Rich

November 9, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

I never said you were a local. I was repeating what you said:

By Mike Not L.

November 9, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

bye bye Rich….. As an Atlanta native I wish to bid you a farewell.

……you still here?

This says you are a native Atlantan, not a local.

Now here’s a question for you: When did I say you were a local? Then I’m done. Figure out the rest yourself.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Well, Kimberly, froma war perspective things are going well. The only ones fighting us are Islamic terrorists; most are not even Iraqi. We still had resistance in WWII three years after Germany surrendered. I will say that Bush was not prepared for this, but, in war there is always confusion, chaos, tummult We kicked butt in the Tet Offensive, I was there, but, the US media and the far left treated it as a loss for us. I know it seems like things are not going well, but my son, who has done two tours in Iraq swears the mainstream media is not being honest.

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

As everyone can see from Harry’s post, name calling and insinuation seems to be their only weapon.

Go here for a few facts

By Mike Not L.

November 9, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Just to deviate from the exciting drawing of the President flactuating… Rich and I do not seem to have the same understanding of what a local is…My thoughts where if one was from the local area (an Atlanta native) then one could refer to themselves as a local…… what am I doing… I guess this envokes the point of who is smarter, the drunk or the one arguing with the drunk… hypothetically speaking Rich, not calling you a drunk…

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Mike Not L,

I doubt this helps, but a google image search for “what is a local?” returns

this picture first

By RW-(the original)

November 9, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

I wish I would have todays Gaggle comic earlier when we were discussing Helen Thomas.

By Ricky

November 9, 2005 05:24 PM | Link to this

Harry, do you really believe that Kerry was telling the truth when he testified before Congress?

By Andy

November 9, 2005 05:41 PM | Link to this

Have you libs come up with a conspiracy theory about whoever his slandering the good names of Michael Moore and Al Franken? Can I help? Let’s just tell evrybody that Dick Cheney planted that Haliburton stock in Michael Moore’s portfolio! And that Al was gonna hire a minority, Cynthia McKinney, but she won her election before she could start!

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 06:01 PM | Link to this

Ah, that peaceful, loving religion, Islam, homicide bombers in three hotels in Jordan targeting civilians at a wedding. Oh, to Al qaedi there is no such thing as a civiliam.

By Trixie

November 9, 2005 06:02 PM | Link to this

People get a grip. How can you spend your days on here arguing politics when Michael Jackson has moved to another country. Don’t you even care?

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 06:20 PM | Link to this

Why do people go gonzo over an oil company making windfall profits, which by the way are profits beyond what it takes to keep the company running, yet bury their heads in the sand when the government rapes their paychecks and our property taxes are so high?

By Daniel

November 9, 2005 07:16 PM | Link to this

Enron.

By Billy Jack

November 9, 2005 07:29 PM | Link to this

Enron was about criminal activity, not profits

By Marion of Texas

November 10, 2005 12:03 AM | Link to this

Excellent cartoon, Mike Luckovich! Thank you for continuing to enlighten and entertain us!

By Rich

November 10, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

I guess the drunk is determined to stick with his point no matter what the reality is. George W. and you seem to have the market on that. Oh! Am I calling him a drunk…sorry an ex drunk.

By Rick T.

November 19, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this

Mike..did your parents make you the whiny little coward you appear to be or do you come by it naturally? Must be easy to make fun of the man with the most important job in the world from the comfort of your little cubicle at the AJC (AL JAZERRA CONSTITUTION ) I bet you got beat up every day in school…right? SHUT UP AND DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY AND MILITARY JUST ONCE!!

By Doug

November 20, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Mike is the greatest. He reminds me that it took 40 years to become a Republican and only 5 years to go back to the Democrats. What a mess we are in!!!!!