Mike Luckovich

By Brian Curtis

December 12, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

It takes an even bigger nation to correct a mistake like voting BushCo loons into office.

By Mike

December 12, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

It takes a small man to take a consistantly partisan line on every event in the news. Mikey the bigot is that small man.

By the way, turns out that Pelosi’s selection to head the Intelligence committee was proven to be totally ignorant about Al Queda and Hezbollah. I know that isn’t as important to our country as Dick Cheney’s hunting accident, but you would think that all of the “concerned” pundits at the AJC would take notice. I guess they really arenet concerned with anything but hewing to an ignorant and hyper-partisan line.

By Shawny

December 12, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

Dang it!

Mikey penned two cartoons in a row without a Bush bash. Couldn’t make it three, though.

By Political Foreskin

December 12, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Just the ears. Hitting the long ball on a Tuesday morning. Only 21% of the country approves of Bush’s Iraq War. Nixon had more support for Vietnam. (and that was after he was found to be a crook).

When this country realizes that we are trapped in Iraq, and can never leave, Bush will be impeached and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law along with Cheney. They turned our Foreign Policy decisions over to the Saudis via the Carlyse Group (Halliburton). That’s treason plain and simple.

Osama’s target on 911 was the Saudi Royal Family, people. Know it.

Believe it.

Then find yourself in Bush’s world. Oh, you’ll want out.

That’s for sure. That’s for DANG sure.

By Peter

December 12, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

Mike - I don’t see a president in this toon …

Will Jones - (to follow up on your 9/11 conspiracy theory) If the scenario of bringing down the WTC and attack on the Pentagon was so “well orchestrated” by the (I assert, incompetent) administration. Why did the hijackers not have Iraqi papers to draw a direct link to justify invading Iraq? Did they miss that detail? (You know I’m too stupid to figure that out, please help me.)

By @@

December 12, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

Aaaawwww ml, you’ve given your liberals two of their favorite targets at which they can hurl.

No, it’s not your two ears silly rabbit.

It’s Bush and the church. The inlays on the desk look like church windows.

So if anyone is viewing, and it doesn’t appear that many are, the liberals will be attacking Bush and the church today. Same old, same old.

Liberal Tricks are for kids ml, and this site is their playground.

By candide

December 12, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Dear @@: Bush is evil; the churches are evil. Get rid of both.

By Eric

December 12, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

The entire bush presidency was a mistake. Iraq is just a major part of it.

By Political Foreskin

December 12, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Those aren’t MP3 earbuds in his ear!

By Producer

December 12, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Saudis were the target? Riiiiiiiiiiiight….That’s why over a dozen Saudi terrorists attacked the US. Couldn’t they find any targets in downtown Riyadh?

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 12, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Fabulous ‘toon!

Isn’t it a pity, how some folks find it easier to attack the messenger than the message?

Isn’t it ironic, to be called a partisan by a partisan?

The American people showed how big they were November 7th, 2006. They have not stopped growing, as we shall all see in November 2008.

By George

December 12, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

I can’t believe that we have two more years of this President!

It will take many more years to correct the damage that this guy did to the country.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

Ha! Ha! Ha! Mike, this is a great toon!

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

I LOVE the steadily shrinking Bush in the Luckovich toons!!

I look forward to the toons around this time 2 years from now when all that will be left are two tiny ears…

He is truly a small, small man in so many ways…

By CARTER JOSEPH

December 12, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

GREAT CARTOON, MIKE. WORTHY OF A PULLITZER. YOU DO THIS COUNTRY PROUD. IT HAS BEEN OBVIOUS SINCE BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE THAT GEORGE W. BUSH WAS GROTESQUELY UNQUALIFIED FOR THIS JOB. AND WE WILL BE PAYING FOR HIS INCOMPETENCE, ARROGANCE, AND STUBBORNNESS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

The incredible shrinking President (check out his numbers).

Great toon Mike.

w should reduce the troops to training only but he is still spewing victory. There is no victory in Iraq but we have a new slogan.

“New Way Forward.” Yeah. Go w.

Geez.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Yes, Bush made such a mess. No matter when we leave, Iraq will probably align with Iran. We can only hope to stay long enough that Iran is no longer a US threat. Or allow the great war for Iraq between Saudi Arabia and Iran with the US backing Saudi of course. Or until all the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis have killed each other. Well, at least they are free now to kill each other. Billions of dollars, millions of lifestyles and thousands of lives for what? Bin Laden wanted to create a religious war and bankrupt the US; Bush has done an excellent job of following his plan.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Yes, the same thing happened to Russia in Afghanistan. It would seem these warmongers would study history but listening to the experts, it is all bs with little knowledge.

The deep thinkers are not here in America. There is a lot of bs though.

By George

December 12, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

getalife, New Way Forward = Stay the Course only with different PR. Same Sh!t, different day.

By Diogenes

December 12, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Mike,

That’s terrific.

You have satirically demonstrated one of the primary weaknesses of our President. He lacks introspection and the ability to reconsider. Instead of adapting to a situation, he tries to bend the situation to his dictates. He has set into motion some very powerful forces and has not shown any ability to adjust and control these forces. When the Roman general (imperator) traveled in a “triumph” through the adulation of the crowds on the streets of Rome, he was required to have an individual at his shoulder repeating incessantly into his ear: “thou art mortal.”

Great Wall Bush lacks that moderating voice and lacks the internal voices which advise “think.” Great cartoon, Mike. Frame it and place it in all government offices.

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

- @@,

I didn’t take you for a whackjob, but if you are seeing the church targeted in this toon we are going to have to subject you to a Rohrschach test…

By Proud Pinko Liberal

December 12, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Good one Mike! It was “laugh out loud” funny.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 12, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Dumbya under his desk, Jeff Gannon must be in the Oral Office…

By DebbieDoRight

December 12, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

By the way, turns out that Pelosi’s selection to head the Intelligence committee was proven to be totally ignorant about Al Queda and Hezbollah

at least pelosi can LEARN what she needs to know by LISTENING and COMPREHENDING the information given to her. now, dubya and cheney………..

By getalife

December 12, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

@@,

I am not seeing church windows.

At least you have seen the doctor for that mental illlness dicovered from w’s supporters but the meds need adjusting.

Geez.

By Dusty

December 12, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Well,all you patriots undermining the president and this country, have fun today. Yeah, tell us how rotten the country has gotten and how we are fighting for nothing in Iraq.

Yeah, tell us how the president has led us through major disasters but he DON’T KNOW NUTHING!!

Yeah, tell the troops you support them but what they are doing isn’t worth a nickle.

Yeah, tell Luckovich he is Michelangelo

By Dusty

December 12, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Well, liberals, you get my point. Carry on your pathetic charade. It is a pitiful celebration of trashing the country.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Dusty, Rant on with your illusions. Nobody here is trashing the country. Just the self deserving administration that has made such a mess of things. We do want our country back to its former greatness and we liberals, along with a majority of Americans, have taken action to pull this country up to where it deserves. We have done that by overthrowing, at the ballot box, those like you who have made a career of tearing the US apart.

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

-

Anybody want to guess what Crusty’s rantings looked like during the Clinton Administration???

I wonder if they were cheerleading for Clinton and disparaging to those that were not supportive…

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm…..

By Midori

December 12, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

oh, Dusty,

waddle back to your cauldron.

I hear there’s a special of eye of newt going on today.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Okay, I’ll stick my neck out on this one. Possibly we can get past the mantras with the neolibs. We’ll stipulate everyone who reads this blog has the same understanding of “mistake.”

So, will we have philosophical consistency from the Left? Just saw (another) commercial last night. Sad middle easterners. Voice overs. “I saw my wife and children raped and tortured before my eyes. Then they were killed. My village was gunned down. My neighbors died of forced starvation. Doesn’t the world care? Why won’t you do anything?”

I thought, Wow, Iraq retro commercials circa 2000. Oops, nope, it’s Dharfur. Time to go into the Sudan, get rid of the evil dictator and end the suffering.

And the difference from Iraq is….. what? (And don’t go with the lightweight WMD argument - you’ll lose points).

Cindy? Candide? Goldie? Mrs. Godzilla? Anyone? Take “I hate Bush ‘cuz he’s really really stoopid” out of the argument and what’s the position? Do we “let” the situation in Dharfur continue? If not, why not?

By Dusty

December 12, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Yes, Cindy,

We tear the country apart by battling terrorists in Afghanistan and now those that gather in Iraq. Yeah, the terrorists didn’t do it. According to you, the Republicans did it.

Did it ever occur to you that everything this country has done has been VOTED upon by, not only the President but also the Congress elected by the voters? If you want to change that with your vote, fine. But quit trying to take the country down when we have war times and still stay the most prosperous country in the world.

You can loudly sqawk and discredit the president, but the terrorists hear you and they don’t separate the president from the country.

Like I said, go tell the troops you support them but what they are doing is worthless and costing you money. The terrorists already hear that message. It encourages them every time they read what some sorry loser wants to dump on our government.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

This toon fits crusty the clown perfectly. I tried to get the wingnuts at Woooten’s to admit Iraq is a mistake and got nothing.

I would say, this toon fits the wingnuts perfectly too.

By Huge

December 12, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2006/12/11/1212metlegbooze.html

“Sunday beer and wine sales is the kind of issue Georgia’s conservative policy-makers say is dead on arrival when the General Assembly reconvenes next month.”

“Nobody wants to consider allowing beer and wine sales at stores on Sunday for fear of rousing preachers and teetotalers…”

“I find it inappropriate that any group can use the power of government to stop what is basically just free commerce…”

Georgia is one of only three states that have a complete ban on the Sunday sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption.

The Founding Fathers, a number of whom, were brewers, would be appalled to see these religionists in action.

No wonder that in this country, the number of people who identify themselves as Christians is dropping about 1% per year and that at this rate of change, most Americans would identify themselves as non-religious or non-Christian by the year 2035…

By Jesus

December 12, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By Huge

December 12, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Africa has virtually no geo-political vital interests to the US. Our foregin policy is not about “exporting democracy”. (A cover up by this administration after the first two or three reasons were found to be falacious). It is not about humanity at all. It is about securing this country’s national interests through whatever means necessary. In this case, can you spell the word oil?

By Paul

December 12, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Dusty

Heard a Democratic rep on NPR (yeah, I do listen to it) asked “now that you’re in power and oppose the war, will you cut off funding?” Answer (here’s the spin) - “well, we can’t do THAT to the troops in the middle of a war.”

Yeah, right. We can’t take action so we’ll continue with personal attacks? So the difference on change in Iraq between the Democrats and the Republicans they replaced is - stronger rhetoric? When it comes to action we’re seeing more of the same old same old. Think we’ll see ML cartoons with Pelosi sinking behind her desk?

By Dusty

December 12, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Your diversionary tactics are good. Maybe liberals will direct their ire toward the Sudanese government that refuses to let more out-of-country troops stop the slaughter in Darfur.

But I don’t think American liberals will spend five minutes of thought on that. They enjoy demeaning the President of the United States too much. It seems to be their main goal in life now. Not any constructive ideas, just complaints, finger pointing and name calling.

May you have good luck with your mediation. I have other things I must get done.

By Dusty

December 12, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Paul,

To answer your question before I depart: Luckovich would chew up his pen and drink his ink before doing a cartoon of Pelosi.

First, he is so far left he can’t see his right hand.

Second, he doesn’t want to lose his job at AJC as liberals are the only subscribers left at AJC.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Huge

So you are advancing the position we invaded a middle east country to secure oil, when we can buy all the oil we want on the world market, even when Iraqi oil was off the market?

Venezuala was a much, much easier target.

Sorry, the only basis for that argument is speculation.

So, we let the folks in Dharfur die, right?

By TommyT

December 12, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

Look at Huge 11:19 telling everyone he’s basically too ignorant to buy his Sunday booze on Saturday.

Maybe the blue laws are nanny state for those who shouldn’t be drinking so much, like um, Huge.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 12, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Dumbya, Dumbya, Dumbya.

What a disgusting excuse for a human being. A worthless stupid POS punk.

Keep up the good work, ML. Pay no attention to the backwoods trash and morons - these filthy kkkracker bassturds need to reap the whirlwind they have sown.

By Diogenes

December 12, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Dusty (1138)

I disagree. Madame Speaker will open herself to countless cartoons, and Mike’s too good to miss the opportunities she will give him. That woman, it would appear, bears great resemblance to Great Wall Bush, she has no constraints. She too needs that voice in the ear saying repeatedly: “think, you’ll cost your party the landslide they so richly deserve in 2008.”

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Paul,

I am and have been against our incursion in Iraq since it was obvious we were going in.

Like the Dem rep on NPR, I do not think that cutting off funding or pulling out immediately is responsible.

By your pretzel logic, should I then support the President?

If that question is too abstract for you to follow then just please provide some examples of EFFECTIVE ways that people can protest this war and seek accountability for that are responsible for this disaster.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Where does the buck stop again?

w is the decider. He decides what to do in other countries.

Get real loser.

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Huge, I’d actually like to see the ‘Blue laws’ stay in place.

They are such a stark reminder of the hypocrisy of those that think gov’t is too big and should stay out of our private lies…EXCEPT when it comes to critical issues like which days of the week we can buy beer.

It is an occasional, minor inconvenience and such a great illustration of ‘conservative’ duplicity…

By Paul

December 12, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Lord Help Us

My question was not about supporting/not supporting Iraq War/Bush. It was a question to those who do not support the war/hate Bush to elucidate the critical differences between the situation in Iraq before the war and the situation in Sudan, leaving out the WMD angle. Many, many of the factors are the same - dictator, oppression of minorities, large scale killing, abuses, etc. I am really interested if those who are strenuously opposed to Bush/Iraq can come up with a justification for a Sudan intervention. Or if compassionate neolibs will go on record for letting the slaughter continue.

In response to your question, of course not. But after all the criticisms and now the election, the new strategy enunciatied by the Democratic leadership is - what, exactly?

getalife: you lend immense credibility to you side’s position.

By moonbat betty

December 12, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

great toon for the loons.

original and creative.

just awe inspiring to all fellow moonbats!!

BUSH SUX

lather

rinse

repeat

BUSH SUX

lather

rinse

repeat

Now everybody…

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Paul,

If the U.S. were to seriously pursue a humanitarian mission in Sudan, we could obtain UN support, a consensus from other countries around the world and form a REAL coalition of countries to participate.

We would call it a humanitarian mission, plan and execute the foreign policy necessary for worldwide support, assemble a credible coalition, plan the mission competently and execute the plan competently.

I see a number of differences with Iraq in there…Don’t you?

By Paul

December 12, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Lord Help Us

Sure do. But only in the form (planning, execution), not the reasons for intervention. The conditions within both countries are remarkably similar.

I think the UN should do the humanitarian missions, US military should be used when there’s a clear danger to American national interests.

So far, though, the UN has shown itself remarkably averse to Sudan intervention. A lot of the opposition comes from the countries who despise the US. And in African countries where it does intervene, it’s shown itself to be quite interested in raping children.

Good points - I was interested if neolibs would be consistent - as in - we go along with the UN - we send troops - one American dies - will the cry go up “Iraq (wait, I mean, Dharfur) isn’t worth one American soldier’s life.”?

I know, it’s obvious much of the rhetoric is driven by hatred of Pres Bush - because the logic breaks down so readily.

By Huge

December 12, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Brilliant analysis from TommyT at 11:19. Gosh, I guess I just never thought of that! Idiot.

Why discuss the issue from a rational standpoint when you can just make personal attacks? Oh yeah, you’d actually have to have something intelligent to say. Like free choice. Or the role of government in such matters. Or political hypocrisy. Why take that risk when it’s just so much easier to be a non-thinker who apparently lets the preachers and neo-cons do it for you. But thanks for playing, TommyT…

Paul,

That’s it?! That’s your response?! Your Venezuela red-erring notwithstanding, maybe you don’t appreciate world-wide economies and their interdependence.

The Cheney Doctrine has everything to do with maintaining our political, economic and military power in the region. Cloaked under the guise of iminent national security threats. The well being of the Iraqi people is WAY down the list.

LHU,

You hit that 11:55 on the head, brother.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Yes Paul,

Using “neolibs” just shows your credibility.

How about admitting Iraq is a mistake ?

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You’re mixing apples and oranges trying to reconcile similarities between Iraq and Sudan with the anger you see toward Bush.

If the steps I outlined above had been followed for Iraq the national and international criticisms (inevitable in any military mission) would be manageable.

In Iraq, Bush did not plan and execute competent foreign policy nor did he competently plan and execute military/occupation strategy.

To make matters worse, Bush has consistently and purposefully made misleading statements about the reasons for the war, the mission and the definition of success.

Bush has used the war as a political weapon, he has questioned the patriotism of people with patriotic concerns, and he has failed to hold himself and others in his administration accountable for incompetence.

I could go on, but, hopefully you can see my perspective.

By WashingtonState

December 12, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

The personna of Bush has become a symbol of his daft policies and of the people he surrounded himself with, the ones his father kept in the basement. I doubt that many libs hate Bush personally, but most of the country hates what he has accomplished(?) in his 6 years in office. Only two more years (unless he is impeached.)

By getalife

December 12, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Have Americans just witnessed the first bloodless coup in our history?

By Nomad

December 12, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

It is amazing that ML actually gets paid to put out this kind of crap each day.

Go Figure.

NOMAD

By Mikey

December 12, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Great cartoon showing the small bush hiding behind the church.

By @@

December 12, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Paul:

I liked the way you back the liberals into a corner on Darfur. It reminded me of a recent article where the writer enjoyed doing the same thing.

So when Bush calls the violence in Darfur genocide, it would be hard for Democrats to refute the claim. How they respond to this stunning genocide is another matter.

Huge comes in to say we have no interest in Africa. African oil fields are attracting lots of interest from larger countries like Russia and China.

Hell, Iran, Al Qaeda, Iraqi tribal factions, they’re all fighting for control of Middle Eastern oil, and we’re fighting terrorists there because that’s where they’re rooted. And…..they attacked our country on 9/11.

Lord Help Us and getalife:

I’m not a whackjob, just having a little fun with my church windows observation.

Just like Dusty, I’ve got things that need to be done.

Have fun.

By DamnYankee

December 12, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Hey could I ask a really unique question? And I do apologize in advance to all those compassionate conservatives with the flag in one hand, the martini or whatever in the other and the keys to the SUV in the pocket…

Okay… here goes… gasp… Like, if you feel Bush is so cool why don’t you put Y-O-U-R kid(s) in Iraq…better yet why aren’t the Bush twins ‘over there’??

Can you say economic disparity?

By Cretin Hop

December 12, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Gosh! Since Monica Lewinsky is no longer the tempting White House Intern hovering about the oval office after hours, I suppose Georgie has to take care of himself.

“Grrrggghll-slrrrrrp!”

By b man

December 12, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

IMHO, Iraq is neither as bad as the dems are making it sound nor as good as the repubs are making it appear.

Politicians (both left/right) will have different versions of the Iraq situation. I don’t beleive one side is 100% correct while the other is 100% false…I just think both sides spin facts to further their political agenda.

Do I wish more diplomacy would have been used before going to war? YES

Do I think even if more diplomacy would have been used, would war have been the outcome? YES

Do I wish more thought/planning would have been used before going to war? YES

However, I don’t think Iraq is a mistake. It could be another 15-30 years before the verdict is out on rather Iraq was a mistake.

Because a war fails to fit the cookie cutter mold that politicians/news reporters/media talking heads want doesn’t make it a mistake. I’m not an expert on wars but I would think that very few wars follow a nice & neat plan…obstacles will come up that are unforeseeable.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Lord Help Us 12:44

Yes, I see your perspective. I’m not sure, though, that the outcome would’ve been much different even with a larger international response. I think in today’s post-colonial boundary/death of a strong man world the Yugoslovian model is pretty predicting. Really not trying to reconcile anything - said, absent all the reasons given for intervention, one could point to the same factors we now see in Sudan. If it’s good enough for Sudanese intervention, would it be good enough for Iraq pre-invasion?

getalife: use of “neolibs” was flip side of “neocons” - used to illustrate those who force facts to fit the ideology. My personal thoughts about whether or not Iraq was/is a mistake have no bearing on the argument.

Huge at 12:37 - yes, it was a brief response. I’ve been asked by some to limit the responses. Point was, if it was about oil, Iraq was a poor choice for a target. I said nothing about interdependencies - was trying to stay with your point, which I took to be we hit Iraq as we wanted the oil. I agree with your point about maintaining influence - I’ve made numerous comments on numerous occasions on how all politicians, going back to Carter, have failed their trust to the people by maintaining technologies which keep us involved in the middle east.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

DamnYankee -

It’s called a “volunteer military” because people, well, volunteer.

I guess the attitude that an adult parent would force his adult offspring into a career and also force him/her where to live is a rather natural extension for someone who believes government bureaucrats should direct intimate elements of an adult person’s life?

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

b man: Dems claim Iraq is a horrible, unmitigated disaster. Repubs claim it’s merely a severe failure. Split the difference, as you suggest, and we wind up with a major disaster. Yippie.

I’m not sure what you expect to happen in the intervening 15-30 years to turn this situation into a positive. Iraq most closely resembles Vietnam, and 30+ years after that war it’s still considered one of the worst chapters of our history. It takes more than wishful thinking and time to turn a major disaster into a good thing.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Paul, I would support US military action with NATO or UN or some other contingency group assisting in Sudan. I would not support a “go it alone”, “stay the course” invasion there any more than I supported it in Iraq. FYI, I also supported the Afghan invasion to get Bin Laden because it was multinational and I don’t mean 99% US and 1% other; the Afghans had the boots on the ground and were fighting their own war against the Taliban. Yes, I believed it was worth helping them. I don’t know how you can say Bush has done anything but opened a can of worms in Iraq and did so with no foresight and planning. Total lack of leadership qualities there. He was only concerned with getting Sadaam and ignored much of the intelligence. Yes, they will all line the roads with palm leaves. How frigging stupid can you get. No I don’t support that kind of stupidity and this administration has been the dumbest in its dealings in Iraq. Very poor, poor leadership there. So bad, it erases any good done prior in my book.

By Midori

December 12, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Jefferson Unlikely To Win Back Seat On Ways And Means

I like the way Nancy Pelosi does things.

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Paul, the outcome in terms of sectarian violence could very well have been the same regardless of the size and veracity of a true international coalition.

However, I still cannot and will not ever understand the need to mislead, mischaracterize the reasons for going in, the mission, the definition of success OR demonizing those who disagree as unpatriotic, using the war as a political weapon, tolerating and making excuses for incompetence.

Sudan certainly is in need of humanitarian intervention. Nicolas Kristoff has documented the atrocities, along with, people like Pat Robertson. If people at such diverse ends of the ideological spectrum agree, I am betting the US and the world would go along too.

I wish this Presidend would champion an effort to organize a truly humanitarian mission in Sudan, plan and execute the foreign policy/military strategies and then execute these strategies competently.

It would perhaps help provide some legitimacy to an otherwise failed presidency…

By RE

December 12, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

On the whole war for oil thing,

You do not have to control an oil field to profit from it. It is a supply and demand thing. If oil company X has vast reserves in the gulf of mexico, texas, alaska…etc and pre-invasion world oil prices are at $35/barrel then you have a certain profit level.

If the invasion takes a large portion of oil fields out of the world market, and destabilizes the surrounding area’s oil fields, the price rises for oil to $70/ barrel.

In essense, profit is doubled off of the original domestic oil fields without incurring any extra risk to the domestic companies because of the destabilization on foriegn oil fields.

So it is not really a war for oil, it is a war for money using the destabilization of oil fields to make profit

Just a thought

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Paul, I might add that I would support assistance in Sudan if the leader was up front about the situation, honest, and gave truthful, supportable facts. Not a bunch of lies that proved false, so the reasons were altered to mislead the voters. How despicable! This administration is a total disgrace to the the honor of the US.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Cindy - Thoughtful. Thanks. I’m a bit dicey with any US involvement - even if part of UN mission. We seem to make up way too much of such efforts. Then we stay. Look at Bosnia. Still there. When then-Chairman of JCL Shalikashvili said we’d be home by Christmas I noticed he didn’t say which Christmas.

Lord Help Us: We had a UN ambassador who put America’s interests above the nebulous “world interest” - and he’s on his way out. Overtures to organize relief to Dharfur have been blocked by countries opposed to America - using UN as the vehicle. Don’t know who’s going to want to force that through. Sad, isn’t it, that it seems to be up to the US to force the issue if anything’s to be done?

Plenty’s already been reported in the Arab (and Persian) press regarding how they would view “western” intervention. It’d be another front in the war - involving ground forces. I believe I read France approached US regarding air sorties - really! - against the Janjaweed Islamists - didn’t seem to go anywhere.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Paul, Give me a break! You are comparing forces in Bosnia to those in Iraq??? Not to mention the lifestyle and danger. Do you know how many troops we have in the countries of the world??? Ho Ho Ho. I would much prefer my son to be in say Puerto Rico or Bosnia to Iraq.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Paul, Germany, Italy, England….there are many countries that are great tours for our military. A great draw for military recruiters, too. Just because we stay in a country doesn’t mean it is bad for our military. I know some troops who have been on isolated African assignments and believe me, that is where there is great pride of accomplishment. Iraq is a totally different story. You just can’t compare it to anything except maybe Vietnam.

By Political Foreskin

December 12, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

If Johnny Cash were drafted today: “I hear the rocket coming, coming toward my friends, I havent seen my humvee, since I dont know when, you see I’m stuck in Islam’s Schizm, and I’m eating sand..yeah I’m stuck in Islam’s Shizm, next stop seems to be Iran.

By Cal

December 12, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Luckovich, You must not be listening to the facts.

Bush’s war on terrorism has encouraged 80+ countries to get involved in stopping the extremists. Before his initiative it was the blind leading the blind.

A great accomplishment IMO.

By moonbat betty

December 12, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Ah good stuff.

In addition to Bush sux we have:

Midori’s headline Jefferson “Unlikely”…

Cindy would not have supported going into Afghanistan if it was not backed by a large percentage multi-national force.

RE thinks we went through all this trouble to invade Iraq over Oil prices.

Ok then.

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Paul,

We had a UN ambassador that was against the very concept of the UN and anything but a diplomat.

Much like we have a Secretary of the Interior that spent a career undermining that agency before being appointed by Bush.

Much like the head of the EPA, much like the head of the SEC, etc., etc., etc.

Bush has made a mockery of so many of the institutions that sustain our gov’t and facilitate our system of checks and balances.

Ah, but I digress…

You are correct that it is a shame nothing will be done in Darfur unless the U.S. forces the issue. And, you are also correct that the efforts made by this Administration have been blocked by countries opposed to the U.S.

BUT (a big BUT), the effort from the U.S. has been meager to say the least.

Don’t you think that if the U.S. put as much effort into pleading its case to the U.N. on Darfur as it did to try to get that body to endorse its actions in Iraq that it would be successful?

By Paul

December 12, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Cindy

Not comparing. Illustrating that we never ever seem to leave.

Remember the last election? Redeployment of forces out of Germany and Korea? Those wars were how long ago? And how pilloried the Administration for it? Yup - Democratic candidate Kerry.

I’d be happy if, say, Puerto Rico were the only option for non-CONUS permanent basing in significant numbers(aside from Hawaii).

By Midori

December 12, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

I just heard that Chimpolini is leaning towards sending more troops to Iraq.

I can’t wait to see him pull them out of his a$$.

This should be real entertaining……..

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Ummm, Cal, do you have any evidence for what you claim? Any at all?

Thought so…

By Paul

December 12, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

LHU Yes.

Maybe the UN could award the $1 bil rehab contract for the UN to Trump for $350 mil and use the savings to fund the mission?

Wait, graft, corruption and thievery are considered job perks in the Third World. Oh, well…

By RE

December 12, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Oh no Betty, I am not saying that was the reason for the war.

I mean that would only happen if we had an executive office completely beholden to the petroleum industry and the defense industry. That could never happen, wouldn’t even cross thier minds. They would have to hold some kind of secret meetings beforehand with the oil execs to try to implement foreign policy and energy policy together. There would be no way to keep that secret.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Midori

And your response, in three years’ time, if someone used those exact same words in referring to a President Obama would be what?

By Midori

December 12, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Paul,

take a walk over to www.freerepublic.com

What I called Bush is “mild” compared to what those people call Obama.

Oh, yes — Yahoo discussion boards as well.

By Huge

December 12, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

“Huge comes in to say we have no interest in Africa. African oil fields are attracting lots of interest from larger countries like Russia and China.”

No. That’s incorrect, @@. And atypical of you to put words in other people’s mouths. Go back and read my comments on the topic. I’ll not bother requoting them for you.

BTW, I’ve read a fair amount about Condi and Co.’s interest in Nigerian oil (over the Nigerian people).

But the point is that the MidEast has the largest oil reserves on the planet. And as our thirst for it appears to be unslakeable (a made up word?), our influence on the free flowing of it, is the primary objective. Also it’s position on the earth is of vital interest to us.

We’re not necessarily there for the oil, we’re there because of the oil.

IMHO, Paul’s contention that other countries are “easier” targets misses the point entirely.

Paul,

My experience here is that those who ask for brief responses to extremely complicated topics, mistake thought provoking discussion with the mindless diatribes that have, at times in the past, dominated this place. Say what you will, no matter how short or long. If it’s interesting, it will be read and debated.

b man,

Your 1:08 is excellent. But I don’t agree that the invasion was not a mistake. America has seen her role as the pre-eminent coaliton builder and more importantly, the ONE great shining example of democratic leadership in the world damaged dramatically. Perhaps beyond repair.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Midori

Why would I want to go to such sites and put that into my mind? I think it’s reprehensible when either side does it. Just as Sen Obama said on The Tonight Show last week.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Midori,

No big rush for chimpy. He will spew some more stupid crap next year while Baghdad burns. That is criminal indeed.

I think shotgun face cheney will resign and McCain will take his place for when chimpy gets impeached.

By moonbat betty

December 12, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

RE,

lather

rinse

repeat.

BUSH SUX

throw us some more conspiracy theories.

By Lord Help Us

December 12, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You appear to have gone bipolar on me at 2:06. Take your meds and we can talk again soon…

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Paul, what is your opposition to calling a spade a spade? If Obama fails as often, as spectacularly, and as disasterous as the Shrub, what people call him will be the least of our issues.

By Midori

December 12, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Betty,

are you saying that Pelosi should imitate the Republicans and give him a big fat raise, a promotion, 10 virgins and 50 acres and a mule?

By getalife

December 12, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

Paul will not admit Iraq is a mistake.

He has no credibility.

None.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Moonbat betty,

Do you think Iraq is a mistake?

By Midori

December 12, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

well, Paul, I’m not discussing Obama, I’m discussing Bush aka Chimpolini aka Retard in Chief, aka der Chimperor.

All of which are pretty mild (once again) compared to what Bill Clinton was called.

Then AND now.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Obama on Monday Night Football was hilarious last night.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Midori, Bush doesn’t care about $$$ and he doesn’t care about troops. He will send more troops, but they will be less equiped. Right now the Army is suffering terribly, but they still go off to war with what they have. We do have a great military: too bad we don’t have an administration that supplies the proper tools they need to best get their jobs done.

By Midori

December 12, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Cindy,

I think the only thing Bush cares about is not being proven wrong.

Yet he has been proven such time and time again.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Oops, here is the link

By Paul

December 12, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

LHU

Yeah, I know - just get very tired of the same vituperative filth masquerading as discussion. Or interupting a discussion. I don’t even have a “it’s after happy hour” excuse. It was an attempt to say “if the same words were used against the the man who could be President, would you listen to such invective with passive acceptance?”

A few deep breaths and a bit of meditation can take the place of meds. And I’m not a Scientologist.

Rushncap: I would likely say he’s failing spectacularly and is as disastrous for the country as was his predecessor. No need to make unkind comments about his appearance or intelligence and have that subsitute for “Pres Obama is failing because (insert reason) and is as disastrous because (insert reason).

Getalife: one more time - the issue of Iraq as a mistake or not has no bearing on whether or not the people who oppose war in Iraq will support war in Sudan.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Midori

Amazing that the same people who took issue with such conduct towards Pres Clinton use the same for Pres Bush. I’m not much of a fan of excusing poor behavior by citing poorer behavior.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Paul - I know it’s uncivil to call Bush blank and blank. But, again, it’s the least of our problems in this country. I have utter contempt for the man, as do a lot of people in the U.S. (according to every poll). And between our uncivility we have laid out, time and time and time and time and time again our problems with his presidency, his shortcomings, his horrible failures. At a certain point you want more variety. You would be correct if all we had was vitriol. But we have a lot of “substance”, we just mix the 2.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Cindy at 12:29

I once looked at the services’ share of the budget over time - even when it rose spectacularly under Pres Reagan each service’s share varied hardly at all. So much for needs/mission driving funding.

Go back a few years - Sec Rumsfeld told the Pentagon (and the big business contractors, and the politicians) - that we were going to postpone some major weapons systems. And get away from big buck, traditional weapons (and their profits and jobs). Even cancelled a major project. Got stymied on the rest. Then came Iraq.

As Col Hackworth said, there’s not much interest in designing a better boot for a grunt when there’s money to be made with ships and fighters. If Rumsfeld had been successful we’d likely see funded programs that would benefit the infantry and their evolving missions.

By Midori

December 12, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Paul,

glad I could accommodate you.

thanks.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Paul, Clinton’s actions didn’t cost thousands of human lives, yet he was crucified in a worse way than Bush.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

rushncap

I see your point. Gets frustrating, doesn’t it?

I just had lunch - blood sugar’s back in whack. Patience is up. Kumbayahhh.

Midori You’re welcome.

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Paul, The Army today cannot even get the equipment available today. This has nothing to do with a wish list and nothing to do about Rumsfeld wanted or didn’t want. It has everything to do with just maintaining. Those kids are going to Iraq without all the training, weapons and protection currently available.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Cindy

True, too. The ultra right, and much of the right, was merciless. Now they’ve changed places with the Left. It’d be nice if they left musical chairs behind.

Did you say you had some military time? If so, I hope you understand what I mean in saying I’m not much of a fan in using casualty counts as a measure of a mission’s validity. Now, having a lousy mission that costs lives is something else again.

By moonbat betty

December 12, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

getalife:

Time will tell, but you would never consider that this war could ever possibly be successful because you are sooo smart you think you can see into the future?

That’s why the moonbats called for all the troops out over a year ago even before Iraq was able to hold their elections?

It’s cut and run, let the region slide into chaos so we have to go in there again later when it’s a real cluster fk. Screw the Iraqi elections, the Iraqis and all our effort that has been put in thus far.

Regardless, we are there now and you can’t just withdrawl all the troops immediately.

I say wait and see before you start poo-pooing everything and everybody over political bs.

The outcome in Iraq is a very important one regardless of your dislike of Bush or your assumptions of how we got there.

Screaming about Bush everyday is not going to help anything in the least bit.

If we lose, it will be a mistake.

By Paul

December 12, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Cindy 2:57

And the other services will fight tooth and nail to keep the funds from getting transferred to the Army. Point was Rumsfeld’s earlier efforts could have resulted in just such an outcome.

Kinda makes one question the validity of the “we’re gonna budget and plan and buy so we can fight two wars at the same time” process, doesn’t it?

Let’s see, Air Force fighter pilots get custom-fitted helmets. And $20,000 a year bonuses. Army grunts get stock helmets. With modifications pushed by Cher that saved lives. Amazing picture, isn’t it?

By Cindy

December 12, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Paul, Ah, the budget process. Yes, jets are “sexier” than grenades and vehicle armor.

By Cal

December 12, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

rushncap, I can’t be specific on the 80+ countries assisting in counter-terrorism efforts but it’s up there. It’s one that has been quoted.

Do some research on U.N. Resolution 1373 signed in 2001 I think.

9/11 was a rude awakening for the world. Until then everybody accepted the threat as a living expense.

If you live in the world you accept terrorism as part of the package.

Not me my friend. I want the terrorists to pay.

By b man

December 12, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

rushncap 1:20pm

“It takes more than wishful thinking and time to turn a major disaster into a good thing.”

You are 100% correct…much work still needs to be done. In time, the Iraqi security forces will need to take more responsibility in creating a stable atmosphere.

IMO, I believe most common Iraqi people are glad Saddam Hussein is gone and are open to the idea of freedom. Those that aren’t probably either 1)benefited from the evil regime or 2)in the case of Al-Qaeda need a weak Iraq b/c it would be a hotbed for Muslim extremism.

This will be a VERY difficult process b/c these 2 groups won’t be defeated easily…they will resist to the best of their abilities b/c if they lose, they forfeit power.

Yes, the US forces are training/equipping them but this is a major hurdle that will take time given the amount of corruption & sheer chaos in the area. I think stability can be accomplished in time IF the Iraqi’s do their part.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 12, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Dumbya is a sheetstain on the office of the President. He’s garbage. The people who support him are mental defectives.

By Midori

December 12, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Britain stops talk of ‘war on terror’ Foreign Office has asked ministers to ditch the phrase invented by Bush to avoid stirring up tensions within the Islamic world

By Midori

December 12, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

2006 in Review, Part One

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Cal — I too want terrorists to pay. Invading the one country in the Middle East which was not an active supporter of that terrorism, and getting basically the whole world to hate us is quite obviously not the way to approach it. I also am not sure what the 100,000 Iraqis who died as a result of our invasion did to us. Meanwhile bin Laden is… where? I could keep going with Bush’s failures, but my fingers would fall off by the time I got about half way done with them.

b man, people may be glad that Saddam is gone, but, frankly, their country is worse off. Subsituting one evil for another, worse than the original one, is hardly the way to go.

All the ifs you’re talking about (like “if Iraqis do their part”) should have been thought of BEFORE the invasion. The pretty obvious result being that of regional instability and civil war could have been forecast from the beginning. This is not a stunning, unbelievable development. Anything other than this would have been. The administration screwed the pooch. We may be able to somewhat rectify the situation, eventually, but that’s not a “success”. That’s “minimization of catastrophic failure”.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

moonbat,

You can’t admit it, can you?

Yes, you have that mental illness really bad.

Seek help, seek meds, then you will the truth.

Get real loser.

By TommyT

December 12, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Let’s see who else thinks Iraq is a mistake:

Speaking to the British Broadcasting Corp., Kofi Annan agreed that the average Iraqi’s life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein and called the situation in the country “extremely dangerous.”

Another anti American on the mistake side.

Anyone ever hear Kofi admit to peac keeper rapes, oil for food child killings, genocide in Darfur and all the other blatant murderous corruption?

These are things you liberals find to be perfectly acceptable?

But removing a mass murdering dictator was wrong??

Hello?

By reebok

December 12, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

HILARIOUS. Thanks for the laugh-out-loud monent, ML.

By Buy Danish

December 12, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

You were okay with letting Saddam Hussein continue funding terrorist groups who routinely slaughtered innocents in Israel in exchange for a big fat check and martyrdom “glory”?

Out of sight, out of mind I suppose.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Let’s see who else thinks Iraq is a mistake:

CBS news poll shows that 75% of American adults disapprove of how Bush is handling Iraq.

More anti-American Americans, Tommy?

Oh, and scroll lower. Only 39% of Americans think we did the right thing by invading Iraq. And so on and so forth.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

No, Danish, I think killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians and almost 3,000 American soldiers is TOTALLY worth a few thousand dollars given to families of people who were going to commit terrorism anyways. In fact, I can’t think of a single better tradeoff in history.

By b man

December 12, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

rushncap @ 4:17pm,

I don’t think US military command is suprised w/ the current situation in Iraq. I think they knew this would be the result.

The way I see it, currently Iraq is going through a transitional period, a very difficult transitional period. You couldn’t have thought the transition of power would be an easy process!!

You’re right…things don’t look good now but the job isn’t finished yet, it’s far from being finsihed.

Yes, the current Iraq approach needs changes…the administration is addressing this and it looks like changes will be made ==> see yahoo news article

All I’m saying is give Iraq time…it’s too early to write off Iraq as a mistake.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Hello TT,

Lets get real about Iraq:

WMD’s = no.

Link to 9/11 = no.

Attack us = no.

Nut found in spider hole = yes.

Is it worth American lives? = Hell NO.

By Buy Danish

December 12, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Lying Rushncap,

Bush was following along with Rockefeller, Albright, Berger, Clinton, the U.N. and others.

Connect the dots.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

I know all this, b man. What I’m yet to see is ANY good reason for us to invade that country. That’s like saying “well, you couldn’t have thought that going through chemotherapy would be easy”. Yes, but what if I don’t have cancer?

By RE

December 12, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

b man,

would a civil war be considered a transitional period?

how about a full blown regional war along sunni/shia lines, is that kinda transitional as well

Just a question for you, how does the US win a civil war in a foriegn country when it is not taking either side?

By Cal

December 12, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

rushncap, Buy Danish is right. The sooner everybody realizes that terrorism has no borders the better off we’ll all be.

Terrorism isn’t anchored in one country in particular. It’s anchored by a hatred for Israel and anyone who supports Israel.

Terrorists, insurgents are killing the vast majority of Iraqis and our servicemen.

Come on rushncap; forget about what was and think about what is. Terrorists from all countries are gathering in Iraq including Al Qaeda because it is the central front that Bush talks about. Lose there and we’ve lost the war.

Whining about what was accomplishing nothing. It just undermines our efforts. The terrorists love people like you.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

Muffin, darling, why not go fornicate self with a large metallic rod? That would be a greater contribution to society than your current approach.

I’m done with you for today. Maybe tomorrow I’ll have more of a stomach for your intense idiocy.

By TommyT

December 12, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

rushncap 4:51: Answer this question honestly now, if that’s even possible for you-

52% of Americans elected Bush and almost 80% are against gay marriage.

Do you agree with them as you do with their Iraq conclusion?

Hello?

By getalife

December 12, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

Cal,

“Terrorists, insurgents are killing the vast majority of Iraqis and our servicemen.”

You are even uninformed or a complete idiot.

It is the Iraqis you moron.

By Cal

December 12, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this

BTW, Mike @ 8:32 mentioned Pelosi’s pick to head the house intelligence committee. She passed over Harmon for personal reasons. I had some problems with Harmon but Reyes doesn’t even know who is affiliated with Sunnis or who is affiliated with Shiites.

He doesn’t know much about Hezbollah. He admitted all of this in an interview. If I can locate the transcript again I’ll link it tomorrow.

Does this guy even know the threat that Iran poses?

Could the democrats here please channel this woman? Write her. Call her. E-mail her. Do something. She’s the biggest threat to our national security RIGHT NOW.

By Curly Girl

December 12, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

Hi. I’m scared. I’m just a big coward.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

No, Cal, Muffin is not “right”, she is “right wing nutjob”. There is a difference.

So since terrorism is not anchored in 1 specific counry, by your reasoning should we invade all of them? Pick one at random? What?

I’m sorry, Cal, but since neither you nor nor idiot president have any clue as to what the term “win” means, much less how you propose to accomplish it, all your ranting can be discounted out of hand. As for your comment that terrorists “love” me, I’ll attribute it to your single-digit IQ and let it go.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

Tommy, if you can’t even discuss Iraq without bringing up gay marriage, your argument and intellectual honesty are so ignobly dead that I cannot bring myself to desecrate their corpses by responding to your post. I’ll leave you to bury them in peace.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Neither did w Cal and it is his war.

Geez.

By Cal

December 12, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

getalife, I assume you meant to say (either instead of even) moron?

Look up the definition of terrorist. Who is encouraging the sectarian violence? What are they killing for? Shiites for revenge against Saddam’s oppression. Sunnis to reestablish themselves in government.

Reasonable Iraqis are supporting the government regardless of tribal connections.

Sadr was a terrorist and is a terrorist. He needs to go.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Just when you think they will not get any dumber than “crusty”, along come “tammyt” and “gal” to blow that theory.

Geez.

By Buy Danish

December 12, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Cal,

Good post

How often have we heard the idiotic proposition that we should have attacked Saudi Arabia because the hijackers are Saudis?

This war has no geographic boundaries, and moreover since Al Qaeda were in the U.S. it is the height of stupidity to conclude that Iraq was the only country on Earth where they had no presence, or that involvement in the Iraq War is what entices these degenerates to become terrorists.

Btw, aren’t you impressed with Rushncap’s erudite debating style? He has an amazing capacity to utilize vulgarities when his fabulists soliloquies are interrupted by reason.

By RE

December 12, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Hey, I actually agree with Cal.

Terrorism is generally rooted to Israel and the countried that support israel.

So the question is, why do we keep supporting Israel? Just about every problem in the middle east is in some way related to that country.

It is not an Ally of the US, has spied on the US, and gets a few billion a year in foriegn aid from the US.

What does the US get in return?

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

No, Cal, they are not terrorists. They are simply people struggling for the control of the country. Sadr is as much a terrorist as George Washington was. This is what politics looks like when you have a total government collapse.

By Cal

December 12, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

rushncap, I’m getting a clear picture on you now. You’re less into support of possibilities and solutions and more into supporting your own argument with accusations.

Easily said, easily done. You’re intellectually lazy in other words.

I’ll do you a favor and leave you alone with whatever it is you think you’ve got.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

Congrats Cal. Go climb onto that high horse of yours, and trumpet to the whole world that you’re for “victory”. Up there no one will bother you with pesky questions like “what is victory?” and “how do we get there?”. Enjoy!

By TommyT

December 12, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this

rushncap 4:52: If you need more time to think about the question, go ahead. Get back with me later.

Huge: Earlier today I made the mistake of assuming you were a somewhat intelligent person that did not need to have everything spelled out for him.

My bad.

“Nobody wants to consider allowing beer and wine sales at stores on Sunday for fear of rousing preachers and teetotalers…”

In your ignorant glee to mindlessly attack religion you inadvertently called yourself an idiot.

How have I erred by pointing this out?

In all reality, you and I both know that Sunday blue laws do not really concern you at all, this was just an opportunity to express your heathen, demented hatred of the Church.

By CCSmith

December 12, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this

Oh, I thought you said “two more ears”. Either way, Lord help us. The desk in-lays look like church windows? I think the reference is W thinks he is God.

By Buy Danish

December 12, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

Cal,

rushncap doesn’t like to admit that the sectarian violence has been fomented by Al Qaeda in order to get Useful Idiots like him to call for our retreat.

By Cal

December 12, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

getalife, You’re pretty quick to point to everyone elses intellectual faults.

I’ve never seen you post anything but simple-minded b******.

Are you sure you want to go there?

What are you? Windowdressing for shallow thinking of the left?

Buy Danish, The limited boundaries of their own minds limit their possibilities. What can I say?

I’m off the clock and on the road folks.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Gal,

GFY.

Stop posting, you are embarrassing yourself.

By Cal

December 12, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

rushncap, You simpering mofo!!!

Victory is first defeating them where they think they have a stronghold. Defeating them through technological tracking. Defeating them through sanctions. Defeating them through restrictions of funding.

Defeating them will take years but then I forgot. You’re lazy. Nobody can’t count on you for anything but a whine line.

What a frucking loser.

By Midori

December 12, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

I was wondering when the real “Cal” showed up.

By @@

December 12, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

Huge:

In your 2:15 you said I put words in your mouth.

You implied in your 11:25 that we would enter Sudan if it held any interest. You implied that we invaded Iraq for the oil.

I pointed out that Africa’s oil is attracting Russia and China. There’s oil in them there deserts.

After having read so many of your posts here, I would be willing to bet that if we took action against Sudan to prevent further genocide (the same genocide that Saddam committed), you would cry foul in the event things didn’t got smoothly.

You would say we invaded for their oil. Typical Democrat. Advance and withdraw.

By Buy Danish

December 12, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this

Cal,

Stick around long enough and you will get the distinct impression that the only defeat rushncap and comrades are interested in is the defeat of the U.S.A.

Getlife,

Inanely trying to suppress free speech again in I see.

By Cal

December 12, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this

rushncap, make that - Nobody can count on you for anything but a whine line.

getalife, Keep posting. You look great in your BVDs.

By RW-(the original)

December 12, 2006 06:41 PM | Link to this

TommyT,

Good job getting under lyin’ rushncap’s skin!

rushncap,

When you trumpet that 75% of the people in the country think X and cite that as a reason for immediately following the herd why doesn’t the same reverence of the herd apply to 80% supporting Y?

TommyT’s question needn’t have a distinction between what is represented by X and Y. So what is it rushncap, mob rule or should we continue being a Constitutional Republic?

By Cal

December 12, 2006 06:42 PM | Link to this

How’s it going Midori? You seem to be in a better mood today.

Were you stalking me?

I’m leaving.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

Gal,

Stop blogging on company time.

You can get fired for that and w needs your money to give to the Iraqis.

Frigging loser.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 06:47 PM | Link to this

Tommy, no, I don’t need more time to think about the question. I spent half a second. Therefore, I need less.

Great, Cal. “Victory” is “defeating them”. Immensely useful. And “defeating them” is “victory”. You should be a mathematician.

And you can spew invectives all you want. It’s obviously easier than thinking, and you’re not one to do any heavy lifting with whatever the hell you have under your hair. Neocon to the bone.

By getalife

December 12, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this

BD,

No, just trying to save poor gal some embarrassment.

She wants to see me in my BVD’s.

Stop hitting on me gal.

By Huge

December 12, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

@@,

“You implied that we invaded Iraq for the oil.”

Again wrong. Is your lack of discernment from basic reading problems or one of ideology?

“The Cheney Doctrine has everything to do with maintaining our political, economic and military power in the region. Cloaked under the guise of iminent national security threats. The well being of the Iraqi people is WAY down the list.”

Is that where I said we were after Iraq’s oil? Or maybe when I said:

“We’re not necessarily there for the oil, we’re there because of the oil.”

Understanding the complexities of Middle East policy and subtle nuance is apparently not your forte. What is, is your childishly simple adherance to black and white, all or nothing, good or bad. You’ve learned well at the hands of this “new” gop.

Apparently your memory is also worsening. I’ve stated numerous times I’m anti neo-con. If you ASSUME that is Democratic, that is your choice. A poor one, but your choice. Go back and look it up, as again I’ll not reward your lack of discipline in this area by reposting those.

By rushncap

December 12, 2006 06:55 PM | Link to this

RW, since you’re not a complete moron, I’ll explain. But just once. Our little Tommy was trumpeting the fact that Kofi Annan was reaming Shrubby for his invasion of Iraq. Tommy’s “point” was that this means that Kofi is “anti-American”. I simply pointed out to him that by this logic 75% of the population of this country is anti-American. That is all. I have no desire to get into a debate about gay marriage.

By RW-(the original)

December 12, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

Looking over the blog today it appears I was right again. The scribbler couldn’t draw flies around here until he gets back to Bush bashing and then the whole “Bush sucks” parrot flock flies in and squawks away.

Bush Sucks….Squawk

Iraq is a quagmire….Squawk

Bush Sucks….Squawk

Pathetic!

By RW-(the original)

December 12, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

What is an anti neo-con? From the looks of things it must be an insufferable condescending pr!ck, so I guess it wouldn’t be a Democratic. Whatever one of those is.

By Buy Danish

December 12, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

Classic!

Huge scolds @@ for not understanding “the complexities of Middle East policy and subtle nuance”.

Thanks for the laugh, Blowhard. Words that you are fond of using like “Nazi” and “Neo-Con” are oh-so subtle and nuanced.

By Huge

December 12, 2006 07:06 PM | Link to this

Heathen? Is that like an infidel?

That says pretty much everything anyone needs to know about you Tommy Boy.

Other than your diatribe, I see that you’ve offered what as a repost? Nothing?

You can’t debate the issue on it’s merits. In fact you’ve offered not one single reason why the law is worthwhile or not. And you know you can’t, so you pose as an intelligent debater.

“In all reality, you and I both know that Sunday blue laws do not really concern you at all, this was just an opportunity to express your heathen, demented hatred of the Church.”

Know? Oh really? Your crystal ball must have broken years ago. No big deal. That’s your problem, and a big one. But not mine. You assume much and look foolish by doing so. But it’s your lack of logic and even the semblance of arguing a counter position that makes you terribly ill equipped to debate.

So lay it on us, William Jennings Bryant. Why should the blues laws exist? This should be fun…

By Dick

December 13, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Cartoonists should play down, not emphasize, Bush’s ears - they make it look like he might actually be listening.

By bipartisan

December 14, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Shawny, are you stupid?

By Mzinterpret

December 14, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

To Dusty, I’m writing in admiration for the unintended humor and irony in your remarks in defense of your hero, such as blasting his critics as unpatriotic by “undermining the president and this country. Yeah, tell us how the president has led us through major diasters, but he DON’T KNOW NOTHING!” I take it you’re trying to make the point that these haters of Bush must also hate our country because they never give Bush any credit for fixing any disasters that have happened in the six years he’s been your esteemed Commander in Chief. Well, Dusty, did you forget to add the letter “i” in “led” which of course would make it he LIED, not LED. Seems to me that you’d be the perfect candidate for the next WH Press Secretary job since Tony Snowball is clearly not doing a heckofajob explaining what’s going on in Bush’s head, (stating “I don’t know” over 400 times since he’s had the position) and since it’s obvious that you know everything about Bush’s brain and how he’s not appreciated by people who “discredit the president” you’d be in perfect position to drive home your claim that you know what’s really in Bush’s head. Now THAT, would indeed be a very entertaining and worthwhile WH press conference.

By Mzinterpret

December 14, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

I nominate Dusty to be the next WH Press Secretary to replace Tony Snowjob who hasn’t been very forthcoming in his position, seeing as how he’s answered “I don’t know” over 400 times to date in response to those pesky reporters asking what the hell’s going on in Bush’s brain? Dusty is right in pointing out that the “president has led us through major diasters, but he DON’T KNOW NOTHING!” Rusty can put the record straight to all those irritating question in the daily press briefings by explaining how the Decider has come through wilth flying colors and admiration from all for doing a heckofajob with resolving all these diasters, such as why Bush didn’t warn his old lady not to wear that $8400 dress that was an exact duplicate of other ladies at their reception, now that was a major diaster, wasn’t it?