Mike Luckovich

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

ml,

Would you please quit spamming us and draw something.

By getalife

January 2, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Tell me again how Bush has made us safer?

By leaving in three years if not sooner.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Here’s ml’s latest “source”

I especially love the “Treasons Greetings” and the “Paranoid T-shirt shop”

By getalife

January 2, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

I just ordered a ” Bush Spied On Me ” T shirt. Thanks Mike.

By Mark

January 2, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Ok Mike, I’ll take you on: 1. UMMMMMMM 2. UHHHHH 3.DUHHHH

Damn, can’t think of anything.

By finch

January 2, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Try this source.

Military Times

“Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.”

“54 percent now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.”

The numbers speak for themselves. Hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform realize the Iraq war is a waste of time, money and lives.

Smarter than your average con!

By getalife

January 2, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

This one says Bush is crazy like Nixon

By Andy

January 2, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

-Osama is dead. Heard from him lately?

-We are redeploying 7000 troops early next year from, not to, Iraq. That is not bogged down.

-And the biggest terrorist graveyard, also. HOOOAAAHHHH!!!

-“Coalition Standards For Terrorist Detentions” is one of their recommendations. Anybody care to tell me how this helps “homeland security?” Maybe if they were serious and weren’t trying to score pinko points, somebody would listen to them…

-Homeland Security fund disbursements are spent according to the needs defined by the local government. The District of Columbia is 95% run by incompetent corrupt pinkos. You do the math.

-Nuclear proliferation concerns are being currently handled by the 2005 nobel peace prize winner and the EUnuchs. Long about the middle of 06, look for Rumsfeld to step in and finish them off.

How could a deceased man drop a an atom bomb on us? Do they have B1 bombers now?

-Good, they were never are friends. Less aid money going out to their sorry a-sses.

-It is scandalous that the airlines have been sued for interviewing more than 2 Muslim males per flight. With this operating environment are we expecting the airlines to take risks when they get sued for them?

We haven’t been attacked in over 4 years?

Anything else?

By Andy

January 2, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Is it any wonder that this cartoon boy is a kook? If he is hinged on every word that comes from americablog then he has no clue about reality. It’s like being totally disconnected from the real world.

By getalife

January 2, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

No wonder Bush hates polls

By Andy

January 2, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

Americablog featured ad!: Lights, camera, action! All at GAY.COM. Meet the hottest guys online. Over 3 million active members, plus the latest in gay entertainment news and gossip. Find men near you, and see everything you’ve been missing.

And they’re dogging out Jeff Gannon for being…. Gay!

Excellent choice of web blogs, ML. You can get your groove on (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and catch some pinko hypocrisy all in one stop.

By Andy

January 2, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

*December 21, 2005—The President’s Sunday night speech has increased the nation’s confidence concerning the situation in Iraq and the War on Terror. Confidence is up among Republicans and unaffiliateds, but not among Democrats.

No, getalife, I think it’s democrats that he doesn’t like…

P.S. I can’t post the graph but notice how public confidence in the war is rising all through 2005.

By getalife

January 2, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

“Bunch of wackos” - Rush Limbaugh

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If you hurry back to ml’s whacko site you can get an “I’m not gay, but my Barbie is” shirt to go with your paranoia one.

By Ricky

January 2, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

ml claims to be a moderate democrat, yet the only time he posts stuff it is anti-war and anti-Bush. Have we been attacked by the terrorists again? No. Have 3,000 Americans died on our soil? No. I am just glad we finally took the fight to the terrorists instead of doing nothing like we did in the 90’s. And as a soldier who has served two tours in Iraq, I much rather fight them with the Army and Marines who are trained to do that and occupy them away from our own country.

By Ricky

January 2, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

And someone explain to me how we are bogged down if we are bringing troops home. That guys post is full of the standard anti-war talking points that are not backed up in fact.

By Ricky

January 2, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

And why is some random guy worthy of having his post put on ml’s website? Is that because ml can’t think for himself, or is he scared to actually debate the issues?

By Midori

January 2, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

*Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.�

“54 percent now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.�*

Finch — that can’t be true. On the “Why” thread Dusty said that Bush is a “strong” leader who enjoys the support of the MAJORITY of the American people.

Oh, the horror.

Why does that poll hate America?

By Ricky

January 2, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

Mike Luckovich, would you be willing to post a from a blog site that is decidely Republican or do you only post them from decidely Democratic sites? I was shocked when you put up Danielle’s cartoon, thought maybe you were moving in the right direction, but then you post something like this. You are just showing how biased you really are.

By Andy

January 2, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

Midori, add a * at each arrow. You can’t leave spaces or you will not get italics.

*Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.â€?<———-

——->“54 percent now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.â€?*

Or bring the paragraphs together and make one out of them.

By finch

January 2, 2006 06:17 PM | Link to this

There’s nothing like taking a survey out of context to distort it’s conclusions.

Take the Rassmussen Reports survey quoted by a certain con here.

The quote “The President’s Sunday night speech has increased the nation’s confidence concerning the situation in Iraq and the War on Terror.” tells only part of the story.

Here’s the rest of it, from the same link:

“The number giving the President poor marks on Iraq declined to 39% from 42%.”

So instead of 4 out of 10 giving Bush’s Iraq war policy a negative, we have… ummm.. a statistically insignificant drop to about 4 out of 10 who think the Iraq war policy stinks. Astounding! Virtually the same before AND after the speech!

You’re doing a heck of a job, Bushie!

By finch

January 2, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

Ricky, it’s Mikes job to get people riled up. He’s very good at it.

Please don’t tell me that you can’t find a blog where you and other cons can post your opinions unmolested by trivial things like facts.

Please.

By Andy

January 2, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

I guess it will post the graph, I’ll refrain from ignorant commentary like the last poster and I’ll let you decide. The first number is those who think we are winning, the second who think the terrorists are winning (o.k. one small comment, the pinkos can’t even come together on the war issue, 25%, that’s pretty lame.)

Dates US/Allies Terrorists Dec 19-20 50 25 Dec 17-18 44 28 Nov 30- Dec 1 48 28 Oct 15-16 39 34 Sept 14-15 40 36

By Midori

January 2, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

Mike, Mike, Mike,

Didn’t you know that only right wingers can post analysis from other blogs in order to make their point?

We don’t need to hear no steenkin left wing arguments here!!!

Shame on you!!!

Get with the program, will ya???

By Midori

January 2, 2006 06:28 PM | Link to this

thanks for the tips, Andy.

Thanks very much.

By Andy

January 2, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this

Hey, Midori: Can you write this down, in case I forget, for the next time you rag me about the “Moonie Times.” BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa.

By Midori

January 2, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

Hey, Midori: Can you write this down, in case I forget, for the next time you rag me about the “Moonie Times.� BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa

Andy — you have yet to grasp the differences between “fact” and “opinion”.

The Moonie Times fails miserably when they report “facts”.

I saw Mike last night got you to finally admit that this “war” is based on oil.

Good job.

There’s hope for you yet.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

I wonder if John Kerry would agree that a 3% swing is meaningless

By getalife

January 2, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

Yep oil. Right now someone is drawing all the names of the fallen to spell oil to answer Mike’s question of why?

By Andy

January 2, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

Here’s some “facts” from americablog:

Impeachment It’s not just for b***** anymore

Tell me again how Bush has made us safer?

The Constitution You’re either with it or against it

Spying on your own people It’s not just for communists anymore

How very clever they are…

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

getalife,

As many times as you’ve said that you could have already done it.

By getalife

January 2, 2006 07:00 PM | Link to this

RW,

Here you go :

OIL

By Andy

January 2, 2006 07:00 PM | Link to this

What issues do you cover? (at factmongering americablog)

US politics overall with a particular focus on the Bush Administration, the radical right, and gay civil rights.

Tinky Winky, Lenny the shark, and SpongeBob SquarePants move on over. The next child icon caught promoting the homosexual agenda is none other than BARBIE!!

Yes, Barbie is making four year olds want to have sex with other four year olds of the same gender. And the Concerned Men would prefer that children have sex with four year olds of the opposite gender, I guess.

Project Shamrock began in the 1950s, and ran for about twenty years. It too had a massive program to eavesdrop on all international telegram communications, including communications to and from American citizens. (* Way to go guys, give me something to pound the pinkos with. Thanks.*)

By Andy

January 2, 2006 07:08 PM | Link to this

Project Shamrock, indeed: (hat tip, Midori.)

Project SHAMROCK…was an espionage exercise that involved the accumulation of all telegraphic data entering into or exiting from the United States. The Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA) and its successor NSA were given direct access to daily microfilm copies of all incoming, outgoing, and transiting telegraphs via the Western Union and its associates RCA and ITT. Operation Shamrock lasted well into the 1960s when computerized operations (HARVEST) made it possible to search for keywords rather than read through all communications.

By Amelia

January 2, 2006 07:24 PM | Link to this

So who gets the con nomination in 08?

By Andy

January 2, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this

Amelia: Giuliani will with Condi as a running mate. His progressive views are hard to swallow but he’s tough on defense, crime, etc. Goodbye, Hillary!!!

By Amelia

January 2, 2006 07:34 PM | Link to this

Giuliani would be OK, but please no more vulcans.

By candide

January 2, 2006 07:46 PM | Link to this

Let’s get real, folks. No wop like Giuliani, no Jew like Feingold, no Mormon like Romney will make the presidency in the near term.

What we’ll get is another bible-kissing Protestant blowhard. The first and last Catholic elected president was forty-five years ago.

By Amelia

January 2, 2006 07:54 PM | Link to this

Ok, now that we have the cons narrowed down, who gets the demo nod?

By Andy

January 2, 2006 08:12 PM | Link to this

Amelia: It all depends on who’s the most wacked out, foaming at the mouth Bush Hater at the end of 07. The kooks have to be satiated. It’s to early to tell, if Pee Wee Herman said the right things and wrote a book about Bush LIES!, he could get the nod.

By getalife

January 2, 2006 08:22 PM | Link to this

Amelia ,

They are all criminals and will be locked up. Look for Iraq veterans to take over.

By Andy

January 2, 2006 08:31 PM | Link to this

If anybody is wondering what I mean by wacked out, look at who they ran last time.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 08:41 PM | Link to this

And before that

By buff

January 2, 2006 09:04 PM | Link to this

Amelia, the Democratic Party is committing suicide. Look at their leaders: Howard Dean as DNC leader. Pelosi, Reid Congressional leaders?

When mainstream America analyzes these kooks, the GOP looks realistic

I do not think Rudy can get the nomination. If Condi would go for it, wow, what a campaign

Americans like to elect Southerners for the Pres. Hmmm, George Allen is a good candidate, but, JFK was the last Senator elected President

Do you think Hillary can win?

By buff

January 2, 2006 09:06 PM | Link to this

RW

Who do you think is the wackiest leftist on this blog?

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 09:12 PM | Link to this

buff,

They change names so often it’s impossible to tell. Midori will send you off to the kook web sites as “proof” the most often, but is fine to talk to.

By buff

January 2, 2006 09:18 PM | Link to this

RW

Yeah, I think that Midori might be one hot- hot babe

UWV is eating UGA’s lunch. That is $100 down the drain

By CLAX

January 2, 2006 09:33 PM | Link to this

This is sad….The same Reactionary Lockstep Conservative Sheep keep posting on this site over and over and over again. There are 4-5 of you concertatives who have nothing to do but attack either ML or those who agree with him. That Ploy has been taken from the Bush/Rove/Limbaugh/Hannity/Reed Playbook so many times, it is soooo 2000. If you don’t agree with someone, call them luny or call them some juvenile sounding bastardization of their name. So very, very mature! Why don’t you Republicans concede that Bush has made mistakes? And Rudi Giuliani for President? This coming from the Party that stresses morality? Giuliani was having an affair with a much younger staff member while still Mayor, and his wife had to seek a court order to prevent the staff member from sleeping over in the mayor’s mansion before the divorce was finalized (and this was because their children were still living at the mansion! Giuliani, the man who left office and immediately made millions and millions of dollars by profiting off his Republican connections and 9/11 fame. Giuliani’s Republican Business Partner, Bernie Kerik, had to withdraw from Giuliani Partners after it was discovered that Kerik had ties to the Mob and was carrying on two extramarital affairs simultaneously! Yeah, those Republicans really put morals and values first! We can learn a lot from them…

By Washington State

January 2, 2006 09:37 PM | Link to this

Food for thought: “But the NSA operation-and particularly Bush’s decision to bypass the generally amenable Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for authorization-has drawn fire not only from liberal Democrats but also from some of the most conservative in Bush’s party, in which government restraint is a fundamental precept. “There is a test of Republicans on this,” says activist Grover Norquist, normally a White House ally. “The country will let you get away with this in the wake of 9/11, but that doesn’t make it right.” And even if Republicans are prepared to bless Bush’s program, they know it theoretically would have to mean extending such sweeping Executive power to, say, a President Hillary Clinton.”

By Brian Curtis

January 2, 2006 09:41 PM | Link to this

You know, you’re right. Bush’s approach to fighting terrorism has been nothing short of brilliant!

If that’s not a winning strategy, what is?

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 09:42 PM | Link to this

buff,

I don’t know about that, it seems you have that description about alot of people lately.

What is that right below your post?

By CLAX

January 2, 2006 09:47 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis:

You left out Steps 5, 6 and 7

By CLAX

January 2, 2006 09:51 PM | Link to this

RW & “BUFF”

You do a great job of supporting my post. Keep up the name calling fellas! You’re Doing A Heckuva Job RW & Buff!

By Objective Observer

January 2, 2006 10:05 PM | Link to this

Not only is America safer, but the entire world because of this response

By Marion of Texas

January 2, 2006 10:13 PM | Link to this

Mike, thanks for posting another excellent commentary. I wish that the Bush-Lovers and Bush-Apologists would actually read the entire article and THINK about the content. Anyway, Mike, I remain one of your fans. (And, no, people, I am not his mother and definitely not him, despite your accusations. But I do most definitely agree with him!)

By buff

January 2, 2006 10:14 PM | Link to this

RW

“descriptions about alot of people lately” huh? Don’t get it

Clax, who was I calling names

Yeah, you leftists, just keep on doing what you are doing

By CLAX

January 2, 2006 10:15 PM | Link to this

“Objective Observer”

Voice of America is a propaganda agency of whatever current Administration occupies the White House. Given Reports two weeks ago that the U.S. was paying Iraqi newspapers to publish favorable stories about the war, why should it surprise you that Voice of America reports that Muslims don’t all agree with the use of violence by Jhihadists? This doesn’t mean that the “Whole World” is now safe. You Republican Sheep will believe anything that your Heir Bush tells you. Don’t you ever wonder why every speech that Bush delivers is only made to people who are invited and pre-screened for the event? Why do you think that is?

By Objective Observer

January 2, 2006 10:18 PM | Link to this

Oh and scroll down to see how concerned Germany, France & Russia are now. More than the U.S.? Just a little late to the party, aren’t they.

By buff

January 2, 2006 10:22 PM | Link to this

Hey, getalife,

How was the mood down yonder when LSU stomped Miami/

And, I wish you the best with your health situation

Happy New Year

By Phil

January 2, 2006 10:23 PM | Link to this

Stop bashing Bush. He’s one peeping tom who’s watching after our safety.

By Objective Observer

January 2, 2006 10:28 PM | Link to this

Well Klutz, I’ll tell you. You can buy into the liberal propoganda, and I’ll stick with the evidence I am seeing. I choose not to live my life with a pessemistic outlook on things. I don’t know how people like you can pull yourself out of bed in the morning with all the heavy burden of doom and gloom that weighs you down.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 10:36 PM | Link to this

buff,

It might a mis-perception or a name-jacking.

This GA/WVA game might go triple digits.

By buff

January 2, 2006 10:44 PM | Link to this

RW

Probalby was a name-jacking. I have not spent hardly any time on this blog since Christmas

UGA is down 10 at half-time; much better than 28. I think they can pull it out, but their defense has to step up. On UGA’s last drive before half-time Shockley was magnificent

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 10:49 PM | Link to this

buff,

The other buff never responded to me to so I figured it was either that or I had accidently gone off on you. It looks like Dan Rather has shown up on Danielle’s thread with the sign off they are using.

This game needs a halftime more than most any I’ve seen.

By buff

January 2, 2006 10:58 PM | Link to this

RW

Yeah, they may hit that triple-digit total

Another question: Why are leftists so negative and pessimistic?

I understand that hating America fits their agenda, but, sheesh……..

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 11:07 PM | Link to this

buff,

Who knows, today they were ranting about how conservatives are scared of people different than them. I don’t know a single conservative that won’t have a normal conversation with anyone that wants to, but I think most people avoid those that are screaming in their face that the world is coming to an end.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 11:09 PM | Link to this

I guess I should add, when they are screaming that is our President bringing around the end of the world. If they want to talk about the ones that truly are trying to end the world as we know it, we can talk if they just stop screaming.

By Objective Observer

January 2, 2006 11:14 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I believe it has been said that “Hate” and “Reasonable” thought cannot occupy the same brain at the same time.

By buff

January 2, 2006 11:16 PM | Link to this

RW

I think that the Moveon.org/Soros wackos are running the party. To them, policy is attack, attack, attack

Odd thing is, the GOP is pretty vulnerable; any party is after this long in power, but the Dems are so strident and hate-filled most Americans are repulsed. This Bush-spying brouhaha is a losing gamble for them, but they just cannot see the issues in anything but anger-filled rhetorical lenses

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 11:33 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I don’t know, I’ve had a whole bunch of things occupying mine at the same time. Maybe hate is the key, I try to keep that one out.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 11:39 PM | Link to this

buff,

I know you’re Libertarian and maybe if they would get on the national security bus they could really start to make inroads right now.

The Democrats just can’t seem to understand that when it’s obvious that they are cheering for bad news for America in the hopes it will help them politically people can actually see them. Most are disgusted.

By buff

January 2, 2006 11:44 PM | Link to this

RW

Yeah, I have Libertarian values, but they are nuts on defense; Jimmy Carter could be their security adviser. Their pacifist views make me want to bang my head on my desk

Yep, you are right, what a party the Dems aer. Their only strategy is exploiting distorted news. America is bad, blah , blah. Here come those Dawgs

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2006 11:48 PM | Link to this

buff,

If this is their (the Dawgs) plan for next year I may not watch. Spotting the other team 28 isn’t going to work too often.

By buff

January 2, 2006 11:52 PM | Link to this

RW

UGA loses a bunch this year, so, next year could be tough

Their defense was flat early, not prepared. They may still pull it off

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 12:00 AM | Link to this

buff,

I heard they didn’t have a single player on defense coming into this year and the offense would take weeks to learn to work together. Then I heard that they would only play against teams of 500 lb androids that could run a 3.5 forty and could read your mind.

They did pretty well playing in those conditions, of course I heard this from Larry Munson so it may be slightly exaggerated.

By RW-(the original)

January 3, 2006 12:37 AM | Link to this

buff,

I heard they didn’t have a single player on defense coming into this year and the offense would take weeks to learn to work together. Then I heard that they would only play against teams of 500 lb androids that could run a 3.5 forty. Larry Munson would give an accurate appraisal, wouldn’t he?

(I think this thread is broken)

By M.S.

January 3, 2006 01:36 AM | Link to this

This may well be the stupidest thing I’ve read in the last five years. Let me take it by numbers. 1 Osama may be dead. We havn’t heard from him in many years,I wonder why. 2 If you think Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda you must be a CNN viewer. There is a ton of evedence linking them.And if Iraq is thier new home,all the better at least we know where they are. Better there than here. If a U.S invation is the reason they are in Iraq, why are they not still based in Afganistan?3 coverd it.4 even if they did,the New York Times would just cry and complain about how the terrorist civil librties were being trampled on.(as they did recently when phone calls going out of country to Al Qaeda where spied on)Let me jump to 7 Who friggen cares? They’re jealous screw em!As for 5,6 and 8 The 911 commision is a joke. The problems with it are far to many to go into here but I urge everyone who reads this to look deep into this and educate yourselves! Don’t beleive Anything you read or see on TV.

By Washington State

January 3, 2006 02:06 AM | Link to this

There can never be an honest dialogue about any of these issues until we clear the air and talk about the real reasons we are in Iraq. The need for a substantial U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf transcended the issue of the regime of Sadam Hussein. There are valid strategic reasons we need a presence in the Middle East. They are not necessarily the ones that have been played endlessly on t.v., on the internet, or by spokesmen/women of the administration. Once we get beyond that, we can talk meaningfully about what this is all about. In the meantime, we are just a bunch of spoiled kids calling each other names.

By Andy

January 3, 2006 05:09 AM | Link to this

“Whoever the leaker was knew about the established law related to Presidential powers. If it didn’t come from the NSA, it came from a handful of people who would have known about the program, understood what it did and did not do, and still leaked it to create political controversy, because there is no legal controversy,” says a Senate Intelligence Committee staffer. “People here were briefed on this program for years and there was no crisis of conscience, because there was no crisis to be created. We are fighting the bad guys. And this program is helping us. It’s that simple.”

By Liberal Texas Democrat

January 3, 2006 06:05 AM | Link to this

Fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here. Hmmmm Been there, done that now when I buy a shirt at Wal*Mart I discover that it was stiched by the grandchildren of the ones I fought to keep from coming here. And when the party that cut and run from that fiasco claims to be the party that supports the troops I, selfishly, focus on the fact that a sizeable number of them mocked the Purple Heart Medal at their last convention. They printed them on band-aids in reference to their political opponent. It wasn’t about Kerry, it was about the Purple Heart genuinely earned by soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines being co-oped and slandered by chicken hawks and awol cowards.

By Dusty

January 3, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

After reading all this “stuff”, I am reminded to repeat:

PRESIDENT BUSH IS A STRONG LEADER WHO ENJOYS THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Thanks, Midori.

By Brian Curtis

January 3, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Except he doesn’t, of course.

By Dusty

January 3, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Yes he does, absolutely.

By Hayes

January 3, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

you guys have to be joking seriously all of these coments a george bush this george bush that , i almost forgot george bush is just that damned dictator right?? haha yeah right hes done some good things and some bad we should all reconize that and if your that far left or right i really dont think your oppion is that greatly valued. Osama … sure he may still may be at large or he may be dead but really are we targeting one man as a country? no this war is to stop terrorism sure it may make us look like d******* but its base is a good cause and how much terrorism have we had over here since? just let it go theres bigger fish in the sea another thing some of you are not letting go is the nuclear bombs you know he did have access and was working on it he just didnt have as much as he expected. another thing no one likes war i drove by a anti war protest yesterday and a sign said kill the soliders they are not humans they do not feel they just kill so wrong a large portion of my family is in the military and the other portion is against this war man can you say family fights. think about it i am not either for or against bush i choose not to be democratic or republican but choose to be nuetral in these topics but all you do is hold on to somthing and never let it go dont blaim all your problems on bush he his human just like you or me we all make mistakes sure some more than others.

By Constructive Feedback

January 5, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Please tell me that Mike Luckovich is not the author of this article?

*Osama is still free, and Bush never even talks about him anymore. * Are you saying that IF OSAMA WAS KILLED that the terrorist would STOP? Stop being silly.

Our military is bogged down in a war that had nothing to do with Osama or Al Qaeda UNTIL WE INVADED AND MADE IRAQ AL QAEDA’S NEW HOME.

I guess you forgot about the US Cole, the bombings of the African Embassies and the bombing in Rayad Saudi Arabia against Americans? HE SURE LOVED US PRIOR TO BUSH PICKING ON HIM

We’ve turned Iraq into the biggest terrorist training camp in the world:

MIKE do you believe that the AMERICAN FORCES ARE LEARNING HOW TO COMBAT TERRORISTS AS WELL IN THIS NEW “CLASSROOM”?

Look at all of the adaption that we have made: Learning to fight in a desert climate Armor on vehicles Cement barriers

Hey Mike - do you also acknowledge that the SANCTIONS THAT BILL CLINTON MAINTAINED FOR 8 YEARS WAS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT SADDAM HAD WMDS?

If I didn’t know any better I would swear that you believe that THE USA are the bad guys in Iraq and that the people who shoot electrial linemen dead while they are on top of the pole, attempting to restore electrical power to their people are the HEROS.

Simply amazing how the mind of a leftwinger works.

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Quote: *Osama is still free, and Bush never even talks about him anymore. * Are you saying that IF OSAMA WAS KILLED that the terrorist would STOP? Stop being silly.

Typical, desperate attempt to change the subject. 9/11 was caused by Osama; Bush swore to hunt him down; he has failed. Yes, there are other issues to confront, and Osama is not the source of all terrorism—but that doesn’t excuse Bush’s utter failure to get the only one who has actually attacked us.

Quote: HE SURE LOVED US PRIOR TO BUSH PICKING ON HIM

Actually, we loved HIM… to the point of supplying him with money and weapons. Which turns out—duh!—to be a bad idea.

Quote: MIKE do you believe that the AMERICAN FORCES ARE LEARNING HOW TO COMBAT TERRORISTS AS WELL IN THIS NEW “CLASSROOM�? Look at all of the adaption that we have made: Learning to fight in a desert climate Armor on vehicles Cement barriers

Oh, so THAT makes it all worthwhile… it’s worth 2,000 of our soldiers’ lives to give them the vital terrorist-fighting training that’s made necessary by the very act of training them. Only in Bushworld does that make sense.

Quote: Hey Mike - do you also acknowledge that the SANCTIONS THAT BILL CLINTON MAINTAINED FOR 8 YEARS WAS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT SADDAM HAD WMDS?

Aaaaand the old standby: blame it all on Clinton. If Clinton wasn’t the cause of the problem, you can at least claim he made the same mistakes! ANYTHING to take the focus of the traitorous twerp currently squatting in the Oval Office.

Yes, Clinton believed Saddam had WMDs… but you’ll notice he didn’t launch an illegal and unnecessary war over it.

Quote: Simply amazing how the mind of a leftwinger works.

No less amazing than the way the mind of a neocon DOESN’T.

By Tintilater

January 5, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Brian, follow the leader.

From the secaond to last paragraph; “On November 25, 2005, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said that he was informed that Bin Laden may have died in the October earthquake in Pakistan.[11]”

By Brian Curtis

January 5, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Yep… MAY have. Still a reward offered, still no solid proof. But Bush has gone on to bigger and better disasters, hoping that we all have short memories.

Bush. Failed. Any questions?

By Tintilator

January 5, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Yeah I do, First you have to define success to call someone a failure, maybe that is where we differ? If the war is on terror, why do you focus so much on UBL and assume we are not looking for and/or killing he and his buddies?

A couple more questions if I may, How many American troops do you think we need tromping around in the Afghani Mountains and do you know how specialized mountain warfare is?

By Hayes

January 5, 2006 10:42 PM | Link to this

no im not mike luckovich now think about it again what are we fighting for? are we fighting for revenge against one person are we? now mr curtis what exactaly would you do as president right now you seem to fully have the god given right. i am not saying that if we killed osama that this would all stop and how someone got that out of my article shows you the ignorance of the average american so to speak. Bill what exactaly do you think we should do other than criticize bush? bush does not control everything no one likes war bill im sorry if this is your way to deal with it go for it.

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Tintilator: Gee, I don’t know how specialized mountain warfare is… but I can bet you that training our troops to fight in an Iraqi DESERT isn’t getting them prepped for it.

What would I do? I’d devote our intelligence AND military resources, in cooperation with other governments (whose coooperation is, after all, essential to hunting down terrorists) to finding and stopping Al Qaeda.

I’d withdraw our troops from Iraq, since everybody there (quite rightly) sees us as an occupying force, which is perpetuating the violence rather than stopping it.

I’d go after terrorism with smarter tactics, rather than just bigger bombs and more troops: intelligence gathering and coordination, improved domestic security (especially at ports and power plants). I’d quit looking for ways to undermine civil liberties and spy on political “enemies” like the Quakers and Greenpeace, and instead focus on actual terrorist networks.

If Osama IS dead, I’d locate positive proof of that and parade it before the world as evidence that we’re really serious about terrorism, rather than just spreading our empire and controlling oil… and I’d keep hunting down Al-Qaeda operatives.

And I’d recognize that fighting a different type of enemy requires a different approach than “blow ‘em up until they learn their place.”… which has never worked anyway.

By Tintilater

January 6, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Waw a new approach like illustrate we are liberators not the cause of all their problems. Evrything else assumes we aren’t doing those things now and is generally short sighted, did you see the list of Al Qaeida captured or killed?

Unfortunately we spent our time gaining human intelligence in Eastern Europe and Russia, maybe Iraq will afford us some Middle-Eastern intelligence? What percentage of our oil do we purchase from OPEC?

I think, if nothing else (there are plenty of reasons) it was good to invade iraq to find out the UN monitoring program was corrupted, you don’t? The UN is worhthless and I’m sorry you have been forced into the corner of defending it.

By Brian Curtis

January 6, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Tintilater: Do you want to talk about fighting terrorism, or are there suddenly other priorities like OPEC oil and whining about the UN? You’re trying to change the subject here, which is Bush’s failure to react appropriately to the only proven threat we faced. If that’s not failure, what is?

We now know, thanks to our ill-advised invasion, that the inspectors were right; there were no WMDs; and that the entire Iraq operation was not only unnecessary, but actively detrimental to our national security.

Osama has not been caught; Al Qaeda continues to operate because we’ve failed to work with our (former) allies; and terrorism is a bigger threat than ever. Conclusion: Yes, Bush failed.

By Tintilater

January 7, 2006 07:52 PM | Link to this

Brian, absolutely. I and the president are wanting to fight terrorisnm and the causes there of. You and the left are still under the presumtion that we should “whack Moles” by focusing on Al-Quieda and UBL.

By Midori

January 7, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this

You and the left are still under the presumtion that we should “whack Moles� by focusing on Al-Quieda and UBL.

My God - how we have lost our way.

“Whacking moles” is going after the people who flew airplanes into the towers, and caused the death of 3K unfortunate souls????

Oh……..My…….God!!

By Tintilater

January 7, 2006 08:01 PM | Link to this

Brian, please tell me when in the last century France, Russia and Germany were our allies and why you feel it OK to belittle anyone who is our ally, like Australia. Australia has been with through thick and thin.

If you and the left had there way, the Oil for Food Program would be in its fourtenth year of trying to enforce a resolution. They would be on the take and stealing money from starving Iraqis, but you seem to trust the UN with my family’s life, scary. We would have never known that Saddam was paying off Security Council members, but you don’t care because you hate Bush more than you love America, sad.

By jurel

January 8, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

I really enjoy your work, Keep up the good work. As for the the teenager who made up the Freedom art, I wonder what she is doing when she get out of school, I am sure she will be doing the same as the Bush daughters. (She will not volunteer to go to the Armed Force)- signed an female Air Force Veteran.(against this war).

By Hayes

January 9, 2006 09:11 PM | Link to this

oh god grow up jurel it was your choice you moron. Most people that join the armed forces are in full suport of what they are fighting for right now.

By Midori

January 9, 2006 09:19 PM | Link to this

wow!!!

someone needs to get hooked on phonics!!

By Hayes

January 10, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

If you are going to criticize my english may I suggest capitalizing the beginning of your sentences. You get the point, we aren’t here to make immature and childish remarks over my grammar or in that case anyone else’s. Midori: If you have something important to add would you be kind enough to let me know? And if it is that big of a deal to you i will type grammatically correct.