Mike Luckovich

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this

Too Funny!! BUT kinda scary too. That would leave Cheney as president!!! Halliburton’s stock would go up 200%

By Shawny

January 18, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this

Every Liberals dream. Sorry, welcome back to reality. Instead, you get 2 more years of bash Bush cartoons to ease your ‘pain’.

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/KenCatalino/2007/01/1

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this

And Republicans face two more years of dancing around the “proper distance” to keep from Bush’s insanity, in the hopes of clinging to some shred of support without alienating the drones.

By @@

January 18, 2007 08:14 AM | Link to this

Excuse me ml. I have an important announcement to make.

Hearsay! Hearsay! Hearsay!

Avoid excitement!

Midori will be along with a “windbreaking” newsflash as she has done so many times before…

“Bush will “mangle” this speech, and continue to serve out his term.

By reebok

January 18, 2007 08:17 AM | Link to this

What was it Ford said when he pardoned Nixon…? Something like “our long national nightmare is finally over”? Bush’s resignation would end the nightmare of his criminally inept leadership, but would still leave us (and the rest of the world) to clean up his mess

By Tom

January 18, 2007 08:19 AM | Link to this

Mike, you might want to consider this one yourself.

By LuckoDull

January 18, 2007 08:28 AM | Link to this

Huh, so mikey has been weirdly fantasizing about Dick Cheney becoming the president, go figure. I suppose we could be a little more ruthless with our enemies, I agree with that, but I think we should give the Bush plan at least a chance. After all, the president’s poll numbers are just as high as the idiot congressman that mikey is so proud of.

32% approval for the new congress, nice job libby, you go girls!

Dullards.

I thought evangelical’s were idiot shaman that believed in mystical fairy tales?:

Evangelicals join in climate warning- 28 leaders, scientists urge that U.S. deal with warming issue- Urinal

Look at this, now we’ve been promoted to “scientists.”

Does this mean you libs will be in Church on Sunday, hahahaha.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Eric

January 18, 2007 08:40 AM | Link to this

EXCELLENT I always try to avoid the accidental president because his voice and his image make my skin crawl. But I’d make the sacrifice for those two little words. You da bomb, Mike!

By Scooter

January 18, 2007 08:46 AM | Link to this

Hey ml, that would not only receive bipartisan applause, but would be applauded by the terrorists fighting for control of Iraq. The consequences of retreat are never to grave when retreat appeases the un-briefed masses of partisan folks being informed by a bias media, right?

ml, I know I have asked why the “media” printed daily reports on the lack of infrastructure, as compared to pre invasion levels, and all of a sudden stopped those reports. Now, I have another question for you. Early on, when the Iraqi Army would retreat from battles it was front page news for most of our mainstream “media” and now we see no reports of their successes. Sup wid dat,? Is it the new version of objectivity?

How about a toon covering the most recent fallen angels at the UN? You know, the ones going down for the corruption involved in the UN monitoring program? Well nah, that would illustrate the status quo the left now tells us was better then, would be better now and would be best in the long run. Or maybe if the war had been executed perfectly we wouldn’t have a bunch of hindsight jockeys creating and riding public discontent all the way back to the helm of social engineering? Yep, the majority of Iraqis would be terrorized and economically ignored by Saddam, the corrupt grouping of third world nits we call the UN would still be pilfering the monitoring program and things would be peachy. Idealism is a land of fools.

By @@

January 18, 2007 08:47 AM | Link to this

ml and/or Webmaster:

Why is it that you continue to withhold our freedom to italicize and embolden our text?

Yours is the only site that does this.

I’d like to send a special thanks to a couple of heros.

Afghan civilians stop terror attack at U.S. base

Good job guys!

By Goldie

January 18, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this

WOO-HOO! You got it right, Lucko! And yes, we can dream of this happening again — after all, no one thought that ole Tricky Dick would ever resign because of his criminal activities back in 1973!

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 18, 2007 08:55 AM | Link to this

Oh, Mike, you’re such a tease! This toon makes my heart go pitter-pat!

By Peter

January 18, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

Duh-bya has become such a good speech reader we just might be able to pull this off. (Since he doesn’t read newspapers the plan is safe.)

Thanks, Mike!

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Eric,

Nice counting job. You’d think a moonbat could at least count to three.

ml,

One thing you still don’t get about President Bush is he doesn’t care about applause or adulation. I know you live for whatever cartoon prizes you can get and then throw them in our faces so you scribble whatever you think will please the judges with no regard for principle, but the President does what he thinks is best for the country without regard for polls or cocktail party invites.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

RW: Which is especially tragic when he turns out to be WRONG, as he so often does.

Nothing worse than a leader who can’t accept reality or admit mistakes.

By getalife

January 18, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Great toon Mike.

It will be the gop forcing him and cheney to resign to try to save 08 for the w******* who spewed this:

“If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood.”

John McLiar, New York Times, August 19, 1990.

The Dems will have total power in 08.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this

Brainless,

I know you prefer that your life be run by public opinion poll and that’s fine as long as it only involves your life.

The problem with that is you can only act on hindsight and then it’s too late. Billy Jeff governed strictly by polls and it brought us 9/11 and a recession.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

Look what was written by one of the blog scolds yesterday:

{{{{{{By Huge January 17, 2007 07:07 PM It is becoming utterly uncanny how this mistres of misspeak can misuse so many different words! Last week - her adolescent assertion that the word summit is not a verb. When corrected and if she’d had any shame, humiliated, insisted that it’s use was pretentious. Incredible.}}}}}}

This is part of a lengthy diatribe to another poster chastising her for a perceived misuse of a word.

Let’s go to the scorecard.

“Mistres” is misspelled. (It’s mistress, blowhard)

“She’d had” would be “she had had” and would indicate a condition one used to have but doesn’t now even though the blowhard scold in question is making a present tense claim. Talk about mangling the English language!

“it’s use was” would be “it is use was” WTF?

So the blowhard blog scold is illiterate and just wanted to try a little projection I guess.

By Shawny

January 18, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

“Nothing worse than a leader who can’t accept reality or admit mistakes.”

Like Al (inventor of internet) Gore and the proof that humans are causing global temperatures to rise. Now we have this Weather Channel leading meterologist asking to stifle other experts that disagree. Flippin intelligent debate, analysis and free speech always gets in the way of “inconvenient truths”.

Ah, but don’t get me wrong…I have a lot of problems with W, too. There are many items I could point to where, with decent leadership and years of GOP control of congress, woulda/coulda/shoulda things should have been pushed through, but weren’t. Vetoes should have occurred, but didn’t.

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

I hope you liberal losers realize what you think is so funny here. You want the USA to bring our troops home in disgrace, raise taxes, leave Iraq as a terrorist center, stop home defense monitoring, close Guantanamo, start socialized medicine, tax religious centers and let Congress run the military, not the Commander-in-Chief which has been mandated since George Washington.

I have listed the policies that the President has been AGAINST. He does not want these failures for our country.

That is why you want to get rid of the President. He is not a liberal loser nor a timid retreater like you who want to do all the above listings. You endanger this country.

I can only take note of your ignorance and your mascot, Luckovich.

By Huge

January 18, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Great toon, very funny!

But as Debbie noted in the first post today, consider a world with D!ckhead Cheney in power. Yikes!

Perhaps he could do a Spiro and get axed first.

“President Bush’s State of the Union speech next week will address climate change, the White House says.”

This almost certainly this will fit into the same category as last years speech which included W’s comment about this nation being addicted to oil.

In the year since, what has the white house done about that? Anything? Anyone? Bueller?

I’m serious. Would somebody please list for me the changes that this administration has brought about to help with this addiction in the past twelve months?

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

And Dusty wants an all-powerful Republican god-king to replace our democracy.

Yours is the attitude that truly endangers this country, Dusty. But then, we already knew how much you hate American principles. The only cowardly loser is someone who runs and hides from the specter of terrorism and hands over our hard-won freedoms for a promise of “safety.”

In other words, Dusty—you’re that coward.

By Shawny

January 18, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Hypocrisy and political maneuvering. Both sides do it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Your far flung accusations of god-king, cowards and other trivia are hardly worth answering.

I want our President to attend to the office to which he was elected. He is executing his duties in difficult times. He does not need a propaganda war at home working against him.

I work for the success of this country and I support the president who is a strong and just man.

By regulator

January 18, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Great toon Mike. Dusty, take something and settle down abit. Your deserter pres will be there for you and your ilk,when he suspends the constitution and finishes his oligarchy, he will surely remember you.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Blowhard,

Following up on RW’s observations at 9:56, it’s review time again!

I said, “I disagree that this is of the {{{endemic}} proportions that you imply…”

ENDEMIC:

{{{b : characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment .}}}

While I should have said, “I doubt that this is endemic in our country as you imply”, the word “endemic” is proper in that context.

Your blanket assertion that we view combat veterans as “fake heroes” is not “endemic” in our population, and you are still unable to subtantiate that assertion.

During the Vietnam years, our soldiers WERE greeted as “baby killers”, thanks in no small part to John Effing Kerry who is indeed a “fake combat hero”, and his slander of his fellow soldiers fueled much of the anti-military sentiment that was “endemic” at that time.

In contrast, other than certain segments of the “extreme Left” (a tautology, but I digress), Americans today overwhelmingly view our combat veterans as genuine heroes.

Next…

You recently used the word STUNTINGLY.

Woops! Not a word according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Next…

You bloviated at length because I remarked on your use of the word “summit” as a verb. However, if you read my original post, you will see that I directed that comment to “Huge PRETENTIOUS Blowhard”.

My position then, and now, is that your particular use of the word was “pretentious”.

By getalife

January 18, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Dusty is the Rick Santorum of this blog.

Loser.

Boner whining on C-Span is hilarious. Then this loser asks for the House to adjourn.

No stupid, the Dems are getting billions from big oil.

By Huge

January 18, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Yes, Shawny, Cong. Reyes certainly seems to be in way over his head in his role of chairman of the HIC!

He seems better suited to Latino and Border Patrol issues and Pelosi should have known that.

Dusty,

For godsakes woman, we all know you’re in love with Bush’s performance. And, for that matter, every single thing about him. You’ve made that abundantly clear, fro much too long of a time now, as you tell everyone here seventeen times a day.

Let it go, uber-patriot. And start contributing something of SUBSTANCE here other than your own propaganda war and hyper-hypocrisy…

By Huge

January 18, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

stunt·ing·ly, adverb

Bigot, get and learn how to use a dictionary! Even then I’m sure, you’ll still screw up a ton. As a dictionary is never going to help with your fundamentally flawed thinking and beliefs. But at least you won’t look so pathetically uneducated.

Unless and until you can demonstrate some talent other than an inate ability to mangle your native tongue and to rely soley on exaggeration, prevarication and verbal masturbation, just hang out at Wooten’s, where that is much more the norm. Or better yet, just hang it up altogether, old gal…

By Goldie

January 18, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

The dream goes something like this:

First, Darth Vader Cheney has to resign as VP, due to the perjury he commits during Scooter’s upcoming trial (for perjury, no less).

Second, Dubya selects Nancy Pelosi has his VP because she’s already 3rd in line to the White House anyway and he makes his first attempt ever at “bi-partisanship”.

Third, VP Pelosi convinces Dubya that it’s time for him to go, due to the criminal act of declaring war on an unarmed country in the Middle East. She gives him another option: death by hanging, a la Saddam Hussein. For the first time ever in his life, Dubya makes a good, mature decision and resigns from his self-imposed dictatorship.

Fourth, Ms. Pelosi becomes America’s first ever woman President — Hail to the Chief-ette!

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Huge blog nanny,

If you don’t like what Dusty has to say DON”T READ IT.

You f’ing liberal fascists that want to shut off anything but your own one voice make me sick.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

I see that Getalife compared you to Rick Santorum - a principled and wise conservative whom I hold in the highest regard.

In the spirit of bi-partisanship, I agree with Getalife!

By LuckoDull

January 18, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

By getalife January 18, 2007 10:59 AM No stupid, the Dems are getting billions from big oil.

The mark of a true dullard. Like “Big Oil” is just going to suck up a big tax increase and not pass it along to the morons gleefully celebrating it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Huge dictionary salesman,

Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the word stuntingly.

Onelook only searches every published dictionary on the planet, so maybe you have a different one in mind.

By Scooter

January 18, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

I see everyone is going after grammer and mine will be ripe with fruit. I was going to report on the things Bush has done to incourage alternative fuels, since our objective “media” will relegate them to the back pages. That is obviously why Huge missed them. Or, perhaps he prefers the unfoulable government be POWERED with more control over the private sector.

Was Huge one of those people who scream they want companies to pursue alternative fuels and then scream to levy windfall profits taxes on many of the same companies? Well, that would make about as much sense as telling Americans they should drive more fuel efficient cars, while also insisting the government be POWERED with keeping gas prices low. Are some lost in a fog of Bush hatred?

By Local Recruiter

January 18, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

DUSTY WE WOULDN”T BE BRINGING OUR TROOPS HOME IN DISGRACE IF YOU WERE THERE NOW WOULD WE?

YOU”D LEAD US TO VICTORY!

COME SEE ME>>>I CAN ARRANGE AN ALL EXPENSES PAID TOUR OF DUTY>>>>>

WE ALL CAN SMELL YOUR FEAR>

RW

TO PARAPHRASE YOU JUST A MOMENT AGO>>

IF YOU DON”T LIKE MIKES WORK, DON’t READ IT< (DUH)

CRAWL BACK UP WOOTENS PANTS LEG

By w00t

January 18, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Hey, Dusty, How’s this for your Taxes…

“The head of the GAO also warned that if no action is taken now to control government spending, severe tax hikes could be necessary. He stated that, “balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or raising federal taxes to 2 times today’s level.”

Or how about this for some perspective…

“The two best-known analyses of the war’s costs agree on this figure, but they diverge from there. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion on the war. They include a number of indirect costs, like the economic stimulus that the war funds would have provided if they had been spent in this country.”

So, leave your debt to your children. All you’re doing is borrowing against them. What’s it matter though. This country doesn’t produce anything anymore so what’s it matter when Japan and China own the US. All we sell now is war anyway.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Goldie,

I think you may have been the only viewer of Commander in Chief, the flop Hillary as President show.

I’m sure that a scenario like what you describe is the only way Pelosi would ever become President. Now not to quibble much, but since the blog nanny is giving out reading assignments, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Constitution. In it you’ll find that, as scary as this sounds, Pelosi is SECOND in line for the Presidency, not third.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Blowhard,

If you’d clicked on the dictionary link I provided you would have read this:

{{{The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Suggestions for STUNTINGLY: 1. stunningly 2. stunting 3. stenotyping 4. still-hunting 5. storytelling 6. stinting 7. strunting 8. startlingly 9. stilting 10. stonecutting 11. storytellings}}}

By getalife

January 18, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Hahahaha, now Blunt is whining. This is too funny watching the gop whoring for big oil. The Dems should never stop the 100 hours. It is very effective like when the gop had power. Great stuff.

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Excellent toon Mike and so true!

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Ah yes, Buy Danish, bi-partisanship!!!

“I have a dream”said MLK and it is around his birthday time, and I have a dream too.

Just imagine this country with a great surge of patriotic fervor so obvious that the world would know and say “Americans really want to win the war in Iraq!” The President and Congress would be inspired to make every effort. The morale of our troops would rise like a rocket. Our enemies would think twice and wonder if they better change their plans of obstruction. Iraqis would have no doubts about peace and neither would Iran and Syria. The voice of the American people would reach them loud and clear.

Yep, that’s my dream. It was a reality in other wars, the ones we won. I am ready for it to happen again.

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Dusty - what flavor is the wingnut Kool-Aid today?

By @@

January 18, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

English class again?

Political Foreskin likes to give those too, along with his ?”insightful”? beyond anybody’s reach humor. Always telling people to STFU. We’re just too stupid to open our mouths he says.

There’s a blogsite where a huge wide-mouthed overseer is hugely popular.

Maybe he should return to gobble up all of that admiration that awaits him there. They miss him.

We won’t.

By The Peoples For a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 18, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

For a word that doesn’t exist it sure is used a lot.

Google: stuntingly

Maybe this will clear it up for you.

http://www.reference.com/browse/all/stunt

As he said before, its an adverb.

By The Peoples For a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 18, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

For a word that doesn’t exist it sure is used a lot.

Google: stuntingly

Maybe this will clear it up for you.

http://www.reference.com/browse/all/stunt

As he said before, its an adverb.

By w00t

January 18, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Dusty, that’s because the other wars were different. We KNEW there was a direct threat by Hitler and the Japanese empire. They were slowly taking over Europe and Asia. There was a direct threat by an army we could see. People knew back then that if they didn’t put their back into it the same could happen to the US. The American people knew just what was going on; there was no smoke and mirrors to convince the American people that war was a good thing.

However, the War in Iraq was a complete fabrication. No WMDs, No links to 9/11, no links to Al-queda, etc, etc. All this has been said by pretty much every one in the administration INCLUDING Bush. That, my friend, is the very reason why people are so disconnected with the war. They are saying, “hey, I trusted you Bush, but you lied to me, and took my trust, how can I believe you again.” Though, because we went there, we have cause 80% of the problems facing Iraq and the Iraqi people. Now we have to find a way to clean this mess up. Bush thinks his serge is going to fix this. It may, or may not. Only time will tell.

I still do not believe that any size force you put in there is going to fix the problem. Because you see, it’s all about ideas. The Iraqi people and the insurgence have their ideas of what the perfect Iraq should be. So, as long as that idea is passed around, preached, and discussed; no amount of troops or bullets is going to stop it. The solution to the problem or part of it at least, is to find a way to change their ideas about Americans and the United States. A good start, would be to completely get rid of Al-Sadar.

By Paul

January 18, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

I usually don’t comment on Mr. L’s cartoons. Most editorial cartoonists say they are different than the gag/story cartoonists on the comics page. Theirs is to stimulate debate, make policy observations, etc - not to go for a laugh. Today’s should have been on the comics page, not the editorial page.

An interesting observation on yesterday’s news concerning the Libby trial. Ms Plame used to be referred to as a covert agent, a spy, an undercover operative. All that cloak and dagger stuff. Last night I heard phrasing of “Scooter Libby, who was accused of revealing Ms. Plame worked at CIA Headquarters.” So now she’s a “worker.” So is a cafeteria worker.

By w00t

January 18, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Dusty, that’s because the other wars were different. We KNEW there was a direct threat by Hitler and the Japanese empire. They were slowly taking over Europe and Asia. There was a direct threat by an army we could see. People knew back then that if they didn’t put their back into it the same could happen to the US. The American people knew just what was going on; there was no smoke and mirrors to convince the American people that war was a good thing.

However, the War in Iraq was a complete fabrication. No WMDs, No links to 9/11, no links to Al-queda, etc, etc. All this has been said by pretty much every one in the administration INCLUDING Bush. That, my friend, is the very reason why people are so disconnected with the war. They are saying, “hey, I trusted you Bush, but you lied to me, and took my trust, how can I believe you again.” Though, because we went there, we have cause 80% of the problems facing Iraq and the Iraqi people. Now we have to find a way to clean this mess up. Bush thinks his serge is going to fix this. It may, or may not. Only time will tell.

I still do not believe that any size force you put in there is going to fix the problem. Because you see, it’s all about ideas. The Iraqi people and the insurgence have their ideas of what the perfect Iraq should be. So, as long as that idea is passed around, preached, and discussed; no amount of troops or bullets is going to stop it. The solution to the problem or part of it at least, is to find a way to change their ideas about Americans and the United States. A good start, would be to completely get rid of Al-Sadar.

By @@

January 18, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Oops! Warning! Do not go to that “Free ** Fall” in the previous post column.

The ability to express “in appropriate english” is sorely lacking.

A four-letter word abounds. It’s the word between the T&U in STFU.

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

w00t - you are absolutely correct. Both times :-)

By Paul

January 18, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Colbert’s going to be on the O’Reilly Factor tonight (Thurs, Jan 18). Then (same day) O’Reilly’s going to be on the Colbert Report. This I gotta see. If these two guys can get along, then maybe, just maybe there is hope.

w00t

Point of historical interpretation. There was a huge isolationist sentiment in the US before Pearl Harbor. Pres Roosevelt faced huge opposition and criticism for his actions. That’s how Lend Lease came about - pretty much an end run on the political establishment. On another interesting note - the next election the Republicans campaigned with the “Roosevelt lied - he knew an attack was imminent on Pearl Harbor and he let it happen so the US would get forced into this war.”

Gee, I never knew Michael Moore was a fan of Republican history!

By defender of huge

January 18, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

RW blog twit and defender of dusty,

If you don’t like what Huge has to say DON”T READ IT.

You f’ing neo-con nazis that want to shut off anything but your own one voice make me sick.

By Thomas

January 18, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

-=-

Hi Folks

Another point concerning Roosevelt and WW2.

Roosevelt had actually considered siding with Germany in WW2. Certain U.S. companys were pushing this as well since they had strong buisness ties with Germany (Including Dubya’s Grandpaw). When Germany and Russia both worked together in a secret deal to attack Poland at the same time this became a serious consideration. Roosevelt felt that if Russia became too strong then the United States would have no choice but to side with Germany.

In the meantime we were continuing supplying England with arms and supplies.

Of course Pearl Harbor changed all that as Japan and Germany were starting to both crush Russia and we knew that was going to be bad for the USA later.

But Iraq? How stupid can you get? What a waste of our resources both military and financial.

Thomas

-=-

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Given the damaging role corruption played against the GOP in the 2006 elections, one might think that Republicans would be anxious to get on the right side of ethics reform. One would be wrong. Yesterday, the Senate GOP voted en masse against ending debate on the Senate ethics bill. The GOP’s first filibuster stops ethics reform.

[Senate Republicans scuttled broad legislation last night to curtail lobbyists’ influence and tighten congressional ethics rules, refusing to let the bill pass without a vote on an unrelated measure that would give President Bush virtual line-item-veto power.

The bill could be brought back up later this year. Indeed, Democrats will try one last time today to break the impasse. But its unexpected collapse last night infuriated Democrats and the government watchdog groups that had been pushing it since the lobbying scandals that rocked the last Congress. Proponents charged that Republicans had used the spending-control measure as a ruse to thwart ethics rules they dared not defeat in a straight vote.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011702443_pf.html)

Ethics reform is the first piece of legislation being considered this year for obvious reasons. Corruption matters to voters. It doesn’t matter to the Senate Republicans. They’ve already shown their true colors.

By AntiRadical

January 18, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

I had the feeling that today would be a Bush bashing day for ML. Average toon with material that is becoming rather well-worn at this point; not ML at his sharpest, I’m afraid.

I’d have to agree with Shawney today that GWB has certainly made many critical errors but it is disingenuous of members of the far left to be so overly critical. I understand that there’s political blood in the water and the sharks are circling, however.

All Presidents (and all people) make mistakes. I do not totally believe that the President has taken the stance that he has with Iraq simply to reward political cronies. Instead I feel that he is primarily acting out of true conviction. I think he is wrong, but I do respect the strength of his beliefs and the fact that he is not swayed by intense political pressure. It smacks of a rather old-fashioned word in our sound-bite culture, integrity.

Unfortunately, I feel that the President is taking a rather large gamble with the future welfare of the GOP. If he is able to turn Iraq around and secure an American haven in the region he will be remembered as a great leader and the Reps will fare well in subsequent elections. If Iraq continues to slide further into the morass and does in fact become GWBs Vietnam, his legacy is over and the GOP will suffer at the polls for many years to come. The GOP has, for better or worse, put all its’ eggs into one Bush(el) basket.

The President has rolled the dice and we will see what we will see; you know, I hope he wins the throw, for America’s sake. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t bet money or lives on it, though. It was a long shot, at best, from the very start.

“You got to know when to hold ‘em; know when to fold ‘em, Know when to walk away; know when to run.”

“You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table. There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.- The Gambler by Kenny Rogers.”

Far right conspiracy theorists are now invited to feel that my support for the President’s surge initiative is so that he will be allowed sufficient rope to hang his entire party with. They would be as wrong-headed as members of the fri

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

defender of huge,

Where did I tell anyone not to post, dumbass?

By @@

January 18, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this

I thought this was damn funny!

Free speech?

Democrats’ New ‘Fairness’ Push May Silence Conservative Radio …

“We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible,” he said.

Visibility?

Hell, the leftists have tried “airing it out” in public, and nobody wanted to see it, much less hear it.

This kind of stuff makes the Democrats appear to be opposed to free speech.

By AntiRadical

January 18, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

Paul- O’Reilly and Colbert? I usually watch neither but that sounds like real entertainment. Hope I make it home in time to watch. Thanks for the notice. Back to work for me.

By Huge

January 18, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

RW,

Well, as I suspected, you and your ignorant companion, slept through English classes as well as skipping science classes.

stunt – verb (used with object) 1. to stop, slow down, or hinder the growth or development of; dwarf: A harsh climate stunted the trees. Brutal treatment in childhood stunted his personality. (Is this applicable to you and the bigot?)

–noun

a stop or hindrance in growth or development.

arrested development.

—Related forms stunt·ing·ly, adverb stunty, adjective

So now that you’ve voiced your support for the bigot’s illiteracy and constantly mangling her native tongue, what’s your next move? Pig-latin?

And on a related note, supporting statues that prescribe English only in this country would appear to not help you neo-cons!

Of course, I could post the link for you twits, but it’ll be much more fun watching you make idiots out of yourselves for awhile longer.

Your research “skills” have always been suspect; but seriously, man, if you can’t even master basic written English, how the hell do you expect anyone to take your STUNTINGLY ill-informed opinions and propositions seriously?!!!

Don’t answer that, as most already know the answer and it’s rhetorical anyway…

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

By all means google “stuntingly”

Even google doesn’t believe it’s a word.

By LuckoDull

January 18, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this

By Thomas January 18, 2007 12:48 PM Of course Pearl Harbor changed all that as Japan and Germany were starting to both crush Russia and we knew that was going to be bad for the USA later. But Iraq? How stupid can you get? What a waste of our resources both military and financial.

Sir Dullard Of GasBagdad: If Iraq had been allowed to nuke up, which they surely would have under the rule of you spineless democrats, they would have been thousands of times more dangerous then the Japanese and Germans ever were.

If you had any sense at all, closed your mouth long enough to actually think about something, instead of just babbling what sounds good, you would realize that neither Germany or Japan had the means to threaten the US mainland, other then a very limited one time bust their nut bombing raid like Pearl Harbor.

How much you want to bet that after Pearl we never again parked an as-sload of battleships in the same harbor?

Unless you want to tell me that a 1940’s vintage Messerschimdt could fly across the Atlantic Ocean and back again.

Dullard.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Shawny

January 18, 2007 01:16 PM | Link to this

Here is some good news, in case you aren’t being told in the mainstream outlets:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070118/economy.html?.v=11

This plus

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this

Blowhard,

Why didn’t you address the voluminous flaws I pointed out in the lecture you left for Buy Danish last night, right before the blog closed, before you began your lecture to me?

Not that I really care whether you use non-words, can’t spell, and know nothing about tense in your writing, but I would prefer a link to the word “stuntingly” rather than rely on your self created evidence.

By defender of huge

January 18, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

RW,

Where did Huge tell anyone not to post, dumbass?

By Huge

January 18, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

Nope, Scooter. Wrong Huge.

Huge’s position: alternative fuels - good. Unfair taxes -bad.

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

Senator Kennedy has introduced a bill that will require congressional approval before Bush can escalate the war in Iraq. Giving Congress the sole authority to declare war — what a concept.

But instead of putting this bill to a vote, Harry Reid wants to hold a vote on a meaningless resolution opposing more troops in Iraq. OOOOOHHHHH — a resolution! That’ll get the warmongers quaking in their boots.

It’s time for our lawmakers to come out from behind their slogans and platitudes and take a stand. They need to stick their necks out and say Yes or No to that crazed Genghis Khan wannabe in the White House.

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 01:36 PM | Link to this

OH, this blog is so “stuntlingly” simple it stuns me. (Excuse me, RW, I just had to post that. The devil made me do it!)

Liberals don’t want us to believe in the value of winning the war in Iraq. It doesn’t affect the USA. Oh yeah!! Terrorists are going to stay in their own little backyard and never give a thought to the USA when they get to run wild in Iraq. Yes!!

Oh, and that naughty word “patriotism”. Don’t mention it. It is KOOLAID!!! So saith Blackadder

By @@

January 18, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

Shawny:

Thanks for the picture of Jack Bauer(margin) AND the good news.

I can have both?

Yay for @@!!!!!

By Funny Bumper Sticker

January 18, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

“We’re Making Enemies Faster That We Can Kill Them”

By Funny Bumper Sticker

January 18, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

“Get Real! Like Jesus Would Ever Own A Gun Or Vote Republican”

By Funny Bumper Sticker

January 18, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

“Jesus Is Cool But Some Of His Followers Give Me The Creeps”

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

RW,

I think I found Huge Blowhard’s website!

My name is Stunty, I’m alive and my hobbies include talking nonsense and collecting usless wooden objects.

By Funny Bumper Sticker

January 18, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

(Picture of Laura an George) Laura’s balloon text reads: “I’m With Stupid”

By @@

January 18, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this

Dusty:

Where did “Lackbladder” make that Koolaid comment?

By Midori

January 18, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this

Excellent toon, Mike.

You’re definitely onto something here.

Sure would get a standing ovation from me!!!!

Torquemada Gonzalez is probably somewhere cleaning the crap out of his pants. The panel reconvenes in 10 minutes.

Be there or be square.

By @@

January 18, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

Useless “wooden objects” Buy Danish?

Can you be more specific?

By Goldie

January 18, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

The Iraqi PM, al-Maliki, says that the Bush administration is now giving comfort to the terrorists:

The prime minister said statements such as Rice’s “give morale boosts for the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort and making them believe they have defeated the American administration,” Maliki said.

I don’t recall Tony Snow ever mentioning that Bush himself is the one giving comfort to “the terrorists” — this is very different from Snow’s press conferences this week, where he states that the 80% of Americans who want our troops to come home are “giving comfort” to our enemies… shouldn’t this administration be listening to the government that was elected by the Iraqi people?

By Local Recruiter

January 18, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

CONSERVATIVES WANT US TO BELIEVE WE CAN WIN THE WAR>>>>

THEY JUST DON”T WANT TO GET THEIR OWN HANDS DIRTY DOING IT>

THERE IS A PLACE IN THIS WAR FOR ALL THE CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE STILL AROUND>>> THAT IS IF THEY REALLY WANT IT>

By Funny Bumper Sticker

January 18, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

During a floor speech on the topic of the White House aggressively replacing prosecutors, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said the White House has told her it was replacing from five to 10 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys with its own interim appointees.

I know of seven who have left during the last couple of months, many under unusual circumstances.

The rumors that (U.S. Attorney Carol Lam) has been asked to resign were met disbelief and dropped jaws by legal community members with ties to federal court.

“I was in a state of shock,” said Peter Nunez, who served as the U.S. attorney in charge of the San Diego offices from 1982 to 1988. “It’s just like nothing I’ve ever seen before in 35-plus years. To be asked to resign and to be publicly humiliated by leaking this to the press is beyond any bounds of decency and behavior. It shocks me. It really is outrageous.”

How’d they get that power? It was an obscure provision in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, and it didn’t take them very long to use it. The president signed it into law in March of last year — by June, they were already moving to replace unwanted prosecutors.

Former Arkansas USA Bud Cummins told the Wall Street Journal that “a top Justice official asked for his resignation in June, saying the White House wanted to give another person the opportunity to serve.” Cummins was finally forced out in December, replaced with Timothy Griffin, formerly the research director of the Republican National Committee.

Face it folks. We’re in the middle of a good ‘ol fascist regime.

By Goldie

January 18, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Some new polls show that McCain’s popularity is slipping with the “independent voters”:

Bennett says ARG is finding a similar trend in other states polled, including early primary battlegrounds like Iowa and Nevada. “We’re finding this everywhere,” he says. The main reason isn’t hard to find: His hawkish stance on the Iraq war, which is tying him ever more closely to an unpopular president. “Independent support for McCain is evaporating because they view him as tied to Bush,” says Bennett.

And McCain was supposed to be such a “maverick” for you right-wing loonies… So, who do you want to promote now for the Repugnants — Pat Buchanan? Jerry Falwell? Poor ole Ted Haggard? Now, there’s some mavericks for ya!

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

I bet Huge is proud to have such an ignorant defender.

I didn’t say the blowhard told someone not to post. Try to keep up.

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

Lackbladder :-)

Who says neocon numbnuts don’t have a sense of humor?

By Midori

January 18, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this

if you want to watch Gonzales, go here

click on, “Live Webcast”

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

I’d be willing to bet that the number of Americans that want out troops to come home is closer to 100%. When and under what conditions is where people differ. Are you trying to tell us that 80% want them to pack up and come home this afternoon? If so please provide a source for that.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

And on a related note, supporting statues that prescribe English only in this country would appear to not help you neo-cons!

RW,

More malformed English from Huge “Stunty” Blowhard^^^.

Dictionaries appear “to not help” the Blowhard. Perhaps we should commission a very small “statue” of him.

By Midori

January 18, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

DALLAS Jan 18, 2007 (AP)— A group of Methodist ministers from across the nation launched an online petition drive Thursday urging Southern Methodist University to stop trying to land George W. Bush’s presidential library.

The petition, on a newly created Web site, http://www.protectsmu.org, says that “as United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate.”

“Methodists have a long history of social conscience, so questions about the conduct of this president are very concerning,” said one of the petition’s organizers, the Rev. Andrew J. Weaver of New York, who graduated from SMU’s Perkins School of Theology.”

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this

Hey Blowhard,

I misspelled “our” in my post to Goldie, get busy typing up your next whiny lecture.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

I think I’ll launch an online petition to move Billy Jeff’s library to the Chicken Ranch.

Anybody want to sign on?

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

@@,

Sorry to be late answering you. I’ve been out to lunch with two charming gentlemen (my sons) to celebrate a special occasion. Lotsa fun.

Love your “Lackbladder” label!! Look at his post at 11:54. That was his idea of my thoughts on a “patriotic push”. I keep forgetting that patriotism is not only out of style, it is politically incorrect.

By Funny Toddler T-Shirt

January 18, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

“Help, Ted Kennedy drives me to day care”

By Funny T-Shirt

January 18, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

“Yesterday’s flower children are today’s blooming idiots”

By @@

January 18, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

Gosh, I’m a Methodist in disagreement with my own.

I thought all of us religious fanatics marched in “lockstep”.

I wonder what percentile I fall in?

Midori:

You’re the “pole queen”. Can you tell me?

By Jeannine Redden

January 18, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

I think your cartoon is just awful! I am so sorry you are still employed with the ajc! Surely a “non-partisan” cartoonist could be found to replace you!

By Another Good One

January 18, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

“I survived Roe v. Wade”

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this

Dusty: Patriotism’s not “out of style” at all… you just keep confusing it with support for Bush.

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this

It sure is refreshing to see Congress actually accomplish something. The 110th has done more in 34 hours than the 109th did the whole time they were in.

[Five down, one more on tap as House Democrats sprint through their list of promises, not even in sight of the 100 hours set aside for that goal.

About seven more hours ticked away Wednesday on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 100-hour clock for passing each item on an agenda that Democrats told voters they would enact after sweeping to victory in November.

The final piece was on deck for a vote Thursday: energy legislation that imposes billions in fees, taxes and royalties on oil and gas companies and uses the money to promote renewable fuels.

According to Pelosi’s count, it has taken just over 34 hours to pass the first five bills, including a measure approved Wednesday to lower interest rates on some student loans.](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/apongoco/congress100hours)

Of course now we’ll see a slew of vetoes from the Mental-Midget-in-Chief.

By Shawny

January 18, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

Presidential libraries are stupid. What a waste of real estate.

There are some books out there with “Bushisms”, which are admittantly pretty funny. They need to stock the library with those and put them beside the one entitled, “How to Responsd to the Press and Think on Your Feet”

By getalife

January 18, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

It is amazing watching the gop still supporting corporate welfare for big oil and the Dems are not.

The difference is night and day.

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Glad you found out that “patriotism” is not out of style. But you keep confusing it with “retreat”.

By Shawny

January 18, 2007 02:45 PM | Link to this

I like what they have passed, except for that minimum wage thing. That one scares me a bit. Mandating wages instead of allowing free market economies work it out is a little bit of communism and not necessary. Minimum wage should not be held in the light of allowing someone to live above poverty. Not too many jobs start that low, even for part time student help. The market simply won’t accomodate it, as employers would be hard pressed to fill jobs at such a low rate. However, raise it too much, and here come more illegals.

Many of the new bills are watered down and won’t make it through the Senate in their current form.

Go Nancy, go Nancy, it’s your birthday.

By Paul

January 18, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this

Thomas 12:48

“Dubya’s Grandpa” business ties with Germany. Don’t forget the elder Kennedy - they were all in it for the money. There was one family with far-ranging interests - bootlegging, etc. I don’t say that to disprage the kids - it’s just the way it was back then. Then again, maybe not too much has changed.

By Speaking Danish

January 18, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

Hence fourth, I will no longer unitize adverbs, or words who meanings are obese.

I will not summit anything (nor mount anybody!). I will strive argently to reframe from using pretendish verbals.

I will also reframe from using salacious seasoning and I will czech with the propertied pictionarys and Thesarus Rexes first.

And if I offense anyone, I am truely apoplectic.

By Shawny

January 18, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this

I agree that subsidies to big oil be removed. Excessive taxation of big oil should not be imposed, though.

It sounds great at the surface.
Oil companies make their money selling something we are addicted to. Fine, break the addiction, but imposing taxes would be like taxing PC maker Dell for our addiction to internet blogs.

Create initiatives for companies to invest in electric, hydrogen fuel cell (my favorite), and alternative fuels. Push it hard. Fewer future US demand for oil combined with falling oil prices will kill big oil’s profits. They aren’t evil and haven’t done anything wrong. People driving 15 mpg SUVs are evil.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

Unless and until you can demonstrate some talent other than an inate ability to mangle your native tongue and to rely soley on exaggeration, prevarication and verbal masturbation, just hang out at Wooten’s, where that is much more the norm. Or better yet, just hang it up altogether, old gal…

RW,

Actually, Blowhard did tell ME not to post right here^^.

It just so happens that upon further examination, I detected numerous errors in that arrogant post.

{{Bigot, get and learn how to use a dictionary! Even then I’m sure, you’ll still screw up a ton. As a dictionary is never going to help with your fundamentally flawed thinking and beliefs. But at least you won’t look so pathetically uneducated. Unless and until you can demonstrate some talent other than an inate ability to mangle your native tongue and to rely soley on exaggeration, prevarication and verbal masturbation, just hang out at Wooten’s, where that is much more the norm. Or better yet, just hang it up altogether, old gal…}}

One:

{{Bigot, get and learn how to use a dictionary!}}. Very awkward. I recommend, “Bigot, get a dictionary and learn how to use it.”

Two:

{{Even then I’m sure, you’ll still screw up a ton.} How does one “screw up a ton”? Okay, I admit it - that’s nitpicky. Let’s move on…

Three:

{{{As a dictionary is never going to help with your fundamentally flawed thinking and beliefs.}}

I’m waiting for the punchline. That^^is not a complete sentence.

Oh, here it is!

four:

{{But at least you won’t look so pathetically uneducated.}}

This fragmemt belonged up there^^.

Five:

{{Unless and until}}. Redundant.

Six:

…{{an “inate” ability.}} It’s interesting that Stunty can spell masturbation but misspells “innate”.

finis.

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Yep, Congress “sprinted” right through those agendas without any new committee discussion whatsoever. Too bad they are so slow about discussing Iraq.

For Democrats, it is now “cut the funds” instead of “cut’n’run”. I’d be dragging my feet too if I had voted for the war and then did not want to fund it. But I guess Kerry isn’t the only flip flopper in the crowd. Looks like he may be only one of many.

By Bobby

January 18, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

This was one of your best cartoons ever. When the Republicans said the Democrats would impeach Bush, I said the only way I would go for it was that Cheney had to go also. Then we could bring Clinton back to finish the term out. I feel for you because I live in Texas, which is another Republican haven. People here are still mad at the Dixie Chicks because they had they nerve to speak their minds. There would be hell to pay if they were wrong.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

Dusty: Patriotism never was “out of style”—and Luckovich and I both have it in spades.

Pretending that it has something to do with supporting Bush… THAT’s where your confusion comes from.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

Dusty: Patriotism never was “out of style”—and Luckovich and I both have it in spades.

Pretending that it has something to do with supporting Bush… THAT’s where your confusion comes from.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

Typo alert! “fragmemt” should read “fragment”.

Over and out (until later on today)…

By getalife

January 18, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

“Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC’s Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility. But Cheney rejected the plan, the official said”

cheney does not want peace.

Too bad for this chickenhawk, Iran is not taking his bait.

By Huge

January 18, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

Wow, RW. Speaking of whiney, read that 2:53.

Watching you two desperately trying to make sense and cover your tracks with your factured fairly tales is similar to that quote in Dodgeball:

It’s like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob…

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

Dusty - The Dems don’t want to cut the funds. That implies that they want to hang the current troops out to dry. That’s Bush’s job. Especially when they are wounded. The Dems simply want to not fund Bush’s surge. Therefore making it unlikely (should the funding not be approved). Pouring more money (and American lives) into Iraq is like pouring money into a leaky boat. Pretty soon you just have to get out and wave bye bye as it sinks below the waves. And it may not sink at all. When you subtract the added weight it just might float just fine. Not a bad analogy if I do say so myself.

By Midori

January 18, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

hey Dusty!! what’s your address?

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

I could have gone to just about any day and found an example of Stunty Blowhard telling people to STFU, but I wanted dio err….defender to point where I had actually said that.

So far crickets chirping…..

By Sgt. Badass

January 18, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

LUNCH?!!

So the little darlings are having a nice lunch with their mommy?

LISTEN UP SPLIT TAIL! You tell those yellow pansies to get over here to Iraq ON THE DOUBLE!!!

Haven’t you fvcknuts heard? We’re surging over here!

By getalife

January 18, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

“Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Article I, Section 9:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Resign in disgrace, unAmerican POS.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Stunty Blowhard,

I didn’t post anything at 2:53.

Have you looked up the difference between “it’s” and “its” yet?

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

OK, Blackadder,

The Dems do not want to fund the war any longer. Soldiers are already starting to leave for the “surge” and the Democrats don’t know whether they want to fund them.

I know that those already in Iraq will be funded. But they will not have the needed assist if surge funds are not approved. That is one way to lay the way for retreat. Don’t send help when it is needed.

No doubletalk will cover the aims of Democrats. Nor will it cover the aims of terrorists. (Yes, they are in Iraq.) Democrats better decide how they want to look in this war for which they voted. (Don’t get technical on me. I know they approved it one way or another.)

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 18, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this

Hey Blackadder.

Can you believe that these neocons still think that the Democrats voted “For a War?”

Was that what they voted on?

Dusty at 02:56 PM says so.

By Thomas

January 18, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

-=-

Uh-Oh~!

@@ and I are both Methodist… My Family has been Methodist for many generations. The scary thought is that @@ and I might even be related!

Your not Irish too are you @@~!?…

Thomas

-=-

By Scilicet

January 18, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this

“By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

I think I’ll launch an online petition to move Billy Jeff’s library to the Chicken Ranch

You’ll never get it done. Chief Chicken Hawk-Puppeteer Cheney and his cabal of little chirping chicken hawks in government and in the media—all of whom think (assuming in your case that’s the correct term) as you do and whom you clearly adore—will have first options as being far more qualified and entitled to such surroundings. The space requirements will be small, after the white-hot paper shredders destroy the records of their execrable schemes for power.

In the ensuing years, those of your ilk can make an annual trek to the sacred archives and stand in silent, reverential awe to their memory, not a few of you equipped for this visit with elbow and knee pads like those in use for grovelling during the “good old days.”

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

Cartoon Idea: Show W as a parrot on the statue of liberty’s shoulder, the lady herself with a patch over one eye, and a wooden pegleg, and W’s is parroting some slogan about Iraq…..

What can we do in Iraq if Bush resigned. think it through…..we pull back from baghdad and redeploy as an entrenched army on the outskirts of baghdad, and watch the two sides migrate to opposite ends of the city, and then we can easily pick a side and annihilate the other…..

We need to cater an exodus of civilians out of baghdad. A real life, modern exodus of peaceful iraqis who will agree to a strip search and forced march behind our entrenchments where we will make them live in refugee camps until we clear out the combatants that are left.

We could do this and win in just weeks.

It…..could…..WORK!!!

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 03:50 PM | Link to this

Dusty - The only assist the troops in Iraq need is a ride home.

Nobody disagrees that there are terrorists in Iraq. The fact is there were no terrorists at all until W invaded. Besides terrorists are a small fraction of who is killing our troops. They are largely being killed because they are in the middle of a civil war with no obvious allegiance to either side.

Nobody seems to remember that when Congress voted they voted for the authorization to go to war. Not for war itself. It was presented as a possible deterrent to Iraq to turn over any WMD. We were still smarting from 9/11 and we were ALL in agreement to invading Afghanistan for harboring bin Laden. Remember him? Obviously Bush doesn’t.

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

Scilicet: never use the word “ilk”.

I liked your command of sentence structure…….

where do you guys learn this stuff? I have repeatedly demanded that you all take an english class but nobody does, so everyone ends up blogging like helmet-challenged short-bussed blog-simples. (and retards)

and I think it’s a damn shame.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

I get the feeling Scilicet isn’t familiar with the Chicken Ranch and why it’s an appropriate place for Billy Jeff’s library.

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

WASHINGTON — A group of military officers and their families rallied on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, calling for an end to what they call the “occupation of Iraq.”

The group hand delivered an appeal to Congress to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq from more than 1,000 active-duty troops.

A Bethesda, Md., woman whose son died in Iraq last year was among the protesters who spoke to the crowd.

“We must stop this escalation,” Gilda Carbonaro said. “We must bring these children home. They’re our children. We must do what we haven’t done before. We must pay attention. We must demand that Congress bring them home.”

Carbonaro’s son Alex is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He was killed when his Humvee rolled over an explosive device last May. It was his second tour of duty in Iraq.

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

RW, do you realize that you’re the only troll left on either blog? Why do you continue to demean yourself with nonsense?

RW you are an unnecessary distraction to good men everywhere, and I see no rehabilitation for you beyond Saddam’s rope.

It is a far, far better thing that you do than you have ever done to become a nathan hale patriot for us all…thank you in advance, you surly troll (and idiot).

By Blackadder

January 18, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

Gotta go - see you all tomorrow.

By Thomas

January 18, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

-=-

Hey RW —!

I think “Scilicet” (Solicit) understood perfectly!

(Scilicet)- (not a few of you equipped for this visit with elbow and knee pads like those in use for grovelling during the “good old days.”)

RW - Looks like some good ol’ Chicken Ranch Style B&D to me.

Uhhm and by B&D I don’t mean Buy Danish.

Hmmm— on the other hand~~!?

Thomas

-=-

By LuckoDull

January 18, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this

Pelosi Turns Up Heat On Global Warming Speaker Ignoring House Traditions To Force Legislative Action On Climate Change

Aren’t you hysterics glad that the Dullard Of The House is on your side, to know that you share the same level of intelligence with the dumbest woman this side of Barbara Boxer?

It’s like one big ignorant family.

Run from the terrorists and now running from the weather.

You goofballs scare easily.

Grow some.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By jm

January 18, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this

here is a link for stuntingly

[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stuntingly

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

Talk about making excuses and little white lies, you are expert.

Democrats didn’t vote for the war. They just voted for the president’s wishes. Now that is a good one. I told you not to start nitpicking but you did. Are you ready to say that Democrats did NOT vote for the war?

Dingbat, do you think I don’t know that many sons and daughters get killed in wartime? My father was a military doctor in one of our largest wars and he is buried in a military cemetery as is my mother. Others in my family have served. We are not as ignorant nor blind as you.

Why didn’t you quote Cindy Sheehan? Because she has made a political self-promotion of her son’s death that even her family does not support. She disgraces herself, not her son.

Nobody has forgotten Osama. He has been rendered a recluse. His day will come.

By Local Recruiter

January 18, 2007 04:33 PM | Link to this

DUSTY AND LUCKODULL

OK, SO YOU WON”T ENLIST. YOU WON”T HELP WITH THE USO. NO CANTEEN FOR SOLDIERS EITHER.

HOW ABOUT A SCRAP DRIVE? TIN? TIRES? IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WILL DO FOR YOUR WAR OTHER THAN HIDE BEHIND YOUR KEYBOARD?

SOMEWHERE UP IN HEAVEN, JOHN WAYNE AND AUDIE MURPHY SMELL YOUR FEAR>

MEOW

By Huge

January 18, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this

Yes, jm. That’s it.

RW, The Master of Minutiae, and BD, The Mistress of Misspeak, will be sorely disappointed that it’s not a case of “self created evidence” after all!

Whatever the hell that is! (Sounds like one of RW’s evolution conspiracy terms).

And to plagarize Karma from his 3:53, I think it’s a damn shame. A damn shame that supposedly educated American adults have barely attained proficiency in, much less mastered, standard written English.

But worse yet, is that this is but one more example of their irrational insistence, in spite of the irrefutable evidence against them, that they are correct…

By LuckoDull

January 18, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

Sgt. Jonathan Kirkendall, 23, of Falls City, Neb., said he fears that many Americans think that building the country to viability will be “quick and easy,” when he believes it could take many years. Kirkendall, of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, is on his third deployment to Iraq and celebrated his 21st and 23rd birthdays here. “If they say leave in six months, we’ll leave in six months. If they say six years, it’s six years,” said Kirkendall, who is awaiting the birth of his first daughter, due next week. “I’m just an average soldier, and I’ll do what they tell me to do. I’m proud to be a part of it, either way it goes, but I’d like to see it through.”

That’s the America I believe in, where the selfless and brave defend their weaker countrymen, protect those unable to protect themselves.

You know, the normal world.

Not the America that this stroker “Local Recruiter” believes in, a virtual Iran where they send fourteen year olds in human waves against the enemy.

A place that if this Wanker were in charge, woman and children would leap to their deaths from burning buildings.

No, I’ll take the America that Bush has built, you jackas-ses can dream of our children fighting our battles on the streets of their cities.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Scooter

January 18, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

Huge, it is good you weren’t one of those people screaming for alternative fuel research, while at the same time screaming for heavy taxes on many of the industries that would produce them. Good, Good. It was truly amazing to watch the self proclaimed mental superiors on this blog follow the democrat party on that line of thinking.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

Blowhard,

Good job finding ONE unabridged dictionary that uses your word. Well I guess you didn’t even do that. Funny that I haven’t found one spell check program that recognizes stuntingly as a word. Why don’t you have jm find one of those for you?

Oh and I’m glad you learned to spell mistress! Now move on to the P’s and work on plagiarize. Or as you spell it “plagarize.”

By Abe

January 18, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

The reason these cowardly Repugs are so highly vocal about “supporting the troops” is because they never are the troops. Period.

By Jim

January 18, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this

RW’s dusty scooter. Hush pleeeze. You’re too loud. It could disturb my life’s work of attempting to surgically implant scrotums on Republicans.

By jm

January 18, 2007 05:16 PM | Link to this

personally, I think stuntingly is a word only a scrabble player would love or use. I wonder how many points it is worth.

By Jesus

January 18, 2007 05:16 PM | Link to this

Great post of 7:13 yesterday. Thanks, Dad.

By Average Joe

January 18, 2007 05:25 PM | Link to this

Mike, It’s too bad so many trusting Americans are victims of the media.

The AP reports cheering crowds at Bush’s Ft. Benning speech. The NYTs reports subdued applause. You would think there were two Columbus, Georgias.

It crosses the eyes and boggles the mind. No wonder the average Joe feels left out.

I’ll think for myself thank you very much. You’re a cartoonist for a newsrag.

By Sally

January 18, 2007 05:27 PM | Link to this

There will never be a rebuilding of Iraq. The Chimp has totally destroyed the village in order to save it. It is America that needs rebuilding.

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 05:31 PM | Link to this

jm,

This scrabble word checker would tell you how many points stuntingly would be worth, except scrabble doesn’t recognize stuntingly as a word.

By Abe

January 18, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

We need a president who is fluent in at least one language.

By Clyde

January 18, 2007 05:43 PM | Link to this

Inauguration day of 2009 will mark the end of an error.

By jm

January 18, 2007 05:48 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original),

I know, I already checked. That is why I asked the question.

By Buy Danish (Huge Critic)

January 18, 2007 05:57 PM | Link to this

Huge Blowhard,

I don’t know who wrote that entry in “dictionary.com” but it is unique in that not ONE other dictionary, including sources as varied as Websters and Princeton University, recognize it as a valid word.

That source also recognizes the word “stunty” as an adjective, but again, no other source agrees.

You distinguish yourself by using the maximum possible number of words while providing the least possible amount of facts and information, with a surfeit of grammatical errors thrown in the mix.

While performing these amazing feats, you consistently utilize an excruciatingly pompous writing style, expressed in a smug and sanctimonious manner - all of which earn you well-deserved nicknames like “Blowhard” and “Gas Bag”.

Despite all of these obvious failings, you operate under the delusion that you are a talented writer with a superior education.

I am left to conclude that you are smoking something. I’ll leave it up to others to decide just what that substance might be.

Perhaps someday you’ll put the pipe away, come down to Earth, and reveal your well-hidden talents. I promise to be the first to congratulate you should this miraculous and transforming event ever come to pass.

By @@

January 18, 2007 05:58 PM | Link to this

I know where you can find “stuntingly” defined with 100% accuracy.

It’s really quite simple. It can be found between two “HUGE” ears…

or you may have to grab those HUGE ears and force him to look lower on his person.

Groooiinnnnn!

By Bomber pilot

January 18, 2007 06:04 PM | Link to this

I was a volunteer and my country sent me to war.

Not to Iraq but to Kosovo, where we bombed innocent women and children from 50,000 feet in the air.

I was ordered by Clinton to do it.

And I never heard one, not one of these liberals say a word about that, nary a peep about those people we killed.

Why? Because they didn’t care about them just as sure as they really don’t care about dead Iraqis.

All they care about is hammering on Bush because they are a sorry bunch of partisan su^ckholes.

They’d totally ruin this country if it meant Bush got blamed for it.

By Maybe the next 100 hours?

January 18, 2007 06:17 PM | Link to this

The Democrats took over Congress a few weeks ago on a tidal wave of public outrage about the way business is done in Washington. But their ethics and lobbying bill won’t change the way business is done in Washington. It will only change the way it appears to be done. The real scandal in Washington is the everyday bribery that remains legal. I’m talking about campaign contributions given for legislative favors — a particular provision in this or that bill, an amendment here, an earmarked appropriation there. Lobbyists orchestrate this contemptible process. And members of Congress keep it going because the money buys television time for their re-election campaigns, and television advertising keeps them in power.

The democrats are nothing but a big lie.

By getalife

January 18, 2007 06:21 PM | Link to this

Bomber pilot,

I guess you forgot Tom DeLay and the gop screaming about you killing in Kosova.

Hey, but you won that one.

Thanks.

By Cal

January 18, 2007 06:21 PM | Link to this

Umm. Bomber Pilot. Another self-annointed BS artist here. Already we have been told that Dustmite comes from a long list of family military heroes. Yet this humble little person dedicates his life to mopping restroom floors in medical facilities. What a guy. In keeping with heroes such as BP and Dustmite, allow me to share this secret with you: I have just returned from a trip to the Sun, using my new waxed wings.

By getalife

January 18, 2007 06:26 PM | Link to this

Maybe the next 100 hours?,

Pelosi just completed her agenda with time to spare.

The ethics billed stalled in the Senate because the gop wants to attach line item veto for w.

gop will lose total power to the Dems in 08 and for a very long time.

Get use to it loser.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 06:31 PM | Link to this

Cal,

Since you assume that Dusty is a man, can I assume that you are not?

By Bomber pilot

January 18, 2007 06:38 PM | Link to this

Cal: I’m real just as sure as you are a pimple faced punk socialist using your mother’s computer in the basement of her house.

You can’t hide from reality forever, deadbeat.

By I'm "relieved"

January 18, 2007 06:43 PM | Link to this

I was worried that something might be wrong with getalife, since I hadn’t heard him whine like a big as-s baby in over an hour but I see now that he is fine.

What a load off.

By nuff-said

January 18, 2007 06:48 PM | Link to this

This cartoon is a scream. I’m still laughing. It identifies Bush as the awkward incompetent dumbbell, that he is. This is going to get much, much worse. Where is Monika Lewinsky when her nation needs her?

By RW-(the original)

January 18, 2007 07:03 PM | Link to this

Does anybody that claims Fox News is a right wing mouthpiece, bought and paid for by the White House, want to see my inbox?

I now have 17 breaking news alerts from Fox telling me the “first 100 hour” agenda is complete.

By keywest69

January 22, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

For those of you that couldn’t find the word STUNTINGLY:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stuntingly

I suggest you get a new online dictionary…

By Roy

January 23, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

I am sick of 24/7 BUSH BASHING from the liberal media, Hollywood, liberal democrats, scum bag leaders from some other nations, the liberal academic world and people who are so easly influenced by them. HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF ALL AMERICANS. He is still THE PRESIDENT and Commander in Chief. He was re-elected even after going into Iraq. If the world had support his efforts before Iraq, we would not be in Iraq in the first place. WE NEED TO SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT so that our enemy will know that we are the UNITED States!

By Hitoshi Kajihara

January 24, 2007 07:02 PM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Luckovich:

Your SPEECH cartoon appeared on page 27 Jan 29, issue of NEWSWEEK.

I am rather a serious minded math instructor(78-retired)and do not laugh much.

However, when I read the SPEECH cartoon, I almost rolled off my sofa laughing so hard.

You are commended for your capability to think of these great cartoons.

Hitoshi H.Kajihara