Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.

The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.

Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:

Thinking Right

Jay Bookman

OpinionTalk

Woman to Woman

Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2007 > February > 06 > Entry

Dominoes, anyone?

By Mike Luckovich | Tuesday, February 6, 2007, 06:09 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Do you like today's cartoon?
  No
  Yes


Voter Limit: Once per Hour
View Poll Results

Permalink | Comments (222) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorial Cartoon

Comments

By reebok

February 6, 2007 08:13 AM | Link to this

The saddest thing about this is, Dubya undoubtedly WOULD invade Iran if he hadn’t already decimated our military by creating, and then trying to quell, a civil war in Iraq.

By Brian Curtis

February 6, 2007 08:14 AM | Link to this

Bush still doesn’t understand that he’s not in charge, does he? He’s been given his orders, in the form of the 9/11 Commission report and the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Any deviation from those orders is going to blow up in his face.

He’s too incompetent to be trusted with this kind of power, and he just keeps on proving it.

By @@

February 6, 2007 08:21 AM | Link to this

ml has a “Bee” in his bonnet over “Plan B”?

Plan B has been in the works for awhile now. It’s covert…Shhhhhhhhh!

Maybe ml can elaborate on what he thinks Plan B is.

Or is he too preoccupied with his “mindless doodles” here?

By Jesus

February 6, 2007 08:23 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By mike

February 6, 2007 08:34 AM | Link to this

Plan B. huh ok I am still trying to figure out how that seaman I saw on the local news this morning got shot by a sniper in Iraq. Does that mean any mos requires pounding the sand over there.

By Paul

February 6, 2007 08:37 AM | Link to this

@@

Don’t give out Plan B! That’s Hillary’s secret plan. I mentioned yesterday the parallel between her “If we’re still in Iraq in 2009 when I’m President I’ll finish the war” and Pres Nixon’s election on “I have a secret plan to end the war.” Amazing, isn’t it - they now endorse a campaign gimmick for their standardbearer which was dreamed up by a Republican President they despise.

Predictably, no response, even the typically irrational ones, from the Bush-haters. Saw the most recent polls on Giuliani - “Hillary vs Rudy’ now there’s a debate I’d love to see!

Well, time to get ready for the blasts of “you criticized a Democrat so you love Bush and you love what we’re doing in Iraq and you love killing civilians and… and…” (yawn).

By Paul

February 6, 2007 08:40 AM | Link to this

Mike

Likely a medic. Navy corpsmen regularly serve with Marine units. Air Force enlisted pull a lot of security details.

By Paul

February 6, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

G’Morning, Buy Danish

Did your flak jacket get shredded yesterday afternoon? Geesh, read those posts - some of those comments hurled your way must’ve come from the “Happy Hour with Kool-Aid Shooters” group.

A couple days ago we were discussing the failure - not just of the current administration, but Pres Clinton’s - of taking any meaningful action on energy (even when Clinton was trying to arrest those pesky terrorists) - which would go a long way for a meaningful disengagement from the Middle East. It was also pointed out how under Pres Clinton (and Bush) CAFE standards were flat, about half the US fleet was exempt from automobile standards, vehicles got heavier, more powerful, burned lots more gas that necessary (remember the Bush model - people buying Hummers are all Clinton’s fault) and led to oil imports now constituting about two-thirds of our oil use (double from not too many years ago).

Bush has proposed significant CAFE increases - you’d think the UberLibs would be dancing in the streets.

You said you’d rather rely on free markets. My thought, generally, is free markets are fine for an economics class but break down outside of a university. Vehicle buying is an emotional decision - not usually a rational one. It is also one governed by perceived benefits to the buyer - not perceived benefits to the country (Toyota Prius buyers excepted).

Which I why I think CAFE standards should be strengthened. And why this ethanol thing, is, I think, just swapping apples for more apples - energy neutral or deficient, but a great deal for the agriculture industry.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 6, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

I sure hope he means daughters too.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

February 6, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

Singing to the Beach Boys tune “Barbara Ann”:

“Bomb Bomb Bomb - Bomb Bomb Iran”

By rushncap

February 6, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this

So ok Muffin… we’ll give Shrub’s new “plan” a chance. Once it fails (and it will), do we give his new inane idea a chance, and then a new one etc., or is there a certain point at which you would say “enough is enough”? Or do you not care at all? As long as he keeps proposing anything at all we should all blindly do as he says? Yes or no?

By Lord Help Us

February 6, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

Sure, Lucko-Curl,

Lots of smart people saw Iran as much more of a threat than Iraq back in 2003.

You see, a country with egregious ties to terrorist groups, a robust economy, run by Islamists, with nuclear capability would, to rational people, be seen as much more of a threat than a country run be a weak, secular, failing leader, with no nuclear capability and minimal ties to terrorism.

Can you explain why are soldiears are dying to solidify a gov’t in Iraq that is allied with Moqtada al Sadr and one that will have closer ties to Iran than the Hussein gov’t?

Thanks in advance.

By @@

February 6, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this

Paul:

Okey Dokey, I’ll do my part to assist in the covert operation.

Giulianni has “dimples” deep enough to hide Plan B, and “Mums” the word on Hilary…or is it Pelosi?

Anyway, they’re both “Mums”, and that’s a very “critical point” in politics these days.

“Bullet bras”, do you wear ‘em or burn ‘em? Decisions…decisions!!!!

By FACT CHECK PART 1

February 6, 2007 09:28 AM | Link to this

Last time we heard… By Craig

February 1, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request “carte blanche for an aircraft any time.”

Why stop there with just the families of California Congresspeople? Let’s have the military turned into a shuttle service for Democrats everywhere.

By FACT CHECK PART 2

February 6, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

Now we hear…

On February 1, the Washington Times published a story titled “Speaker pursues military flights,” which claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been “pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district.” Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also used military aircraft to travel to his district. However, the Times reported, Pelosi is “demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.”

The story was disseminated widely through right-wing talk radio and blogs, spurring posts like, “First Class Pelosi,” “Air Force Becomes Pelosi Air,” “Nancy Pelosi is Drunk With Power,” “The Imperial Speakership,” “Pelosi: Fly Me Awayyyyy,” “Pelosi wants military airlift,” and “Nancy Pelosi’s Private Military Plane.”

In fact, the central claims of the Washington Times piece are both false.

1) The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft. House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, “In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.” Additionally, Livingood writes, “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”

2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert’s plane required refueling to travel cross-country. The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, “her staff, other Members and supporters.” That’s not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

Why do you suppose it is that we call rushncap, rushncap and he makes up childlike names for people?

Oh well maybe he’s just a child. So rushncap, what military credentials do you have that make you more qualified than General Petraeus?

By FACT CHECK PART 3 THE LESSON

February 6, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this

We still can’t trust them to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

By Little Right of Center

February 6, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this

God just loves you little peaceniks doesn’t he? I guess that is why Jesus said “

[Luke 22:36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Stir up the delusional little lefties and watch them foam at the mouth! HaHaHa

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

Is there anybody here that doesn’t think LHU would be yapping about how we should have invaded Iraq and given us a litany of reasons that he got from Democrat talking points in the late 1990s, if we had invaded Iran first?

I, for one, am certain that Iraq would suddenly be called a menacing danger while the oh so peaceful Iranians had never so much as harmed a goat before the evil Chimperor turned them, and the world of course, against us.

By IN THE NEWS

February 6, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this

In response to continuing financial strains, U.S. Army Europe has canceled all welcome home celebrations for units returning from deployment through this fiscal year, halting the tradition of free food, rides and other community festivities for returning soldiers and their families.

Way to Go! That’s supporting our troops!

By rushncap

February 6, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this

Please tell me RW that you’re not seriously looking for me to start posting the names of every general that disagrees with the Shrub. I have a job, homes, don’t have enough time for that.

Also, since every single other thing that the Shrub has tried in Iraq has failed, I admire your child-like faith that this last one, half-assed and disliked by everyone with a brain, won’t.

By Eric

February 6, 2007 09:38 AM | Link to this

LuckoDull? Oh, that’s clever.

By Dusty

February 6, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this

Plan B???

A report from abc News on Jan. 30 includes this statement: “Bush says invading Iran ‘Not the plan!’”

Maybe Valerie Plame told Luckovich all the “secret plans to be”. Don’t mention my name as that info is confidential and not to be revealed.

By Eric

February 6, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this

Impeach the son of a b.tch now!

By Eric

February 6, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

Little Right of Center? How ‘bout Little Right of Stupid!

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

That fact check routine sounds a lot more like a cover up after a power mad politician got caught with her hands in the perq jar.

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

You said the surge will fail. That’s a definitive statement made by you. So again I ask, what military credentials do you have that make you more qualified than General Petraeus?

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 6, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

Little right of center,

Jesus would be so proud of you. Two sentences from our prophet and which do you choose to follow?

Here’s the footnote to that verse… 12 [36] In contrast to the ministry of the Twelve and of the seventy-two during the period of Jesus (Luke 9:3; 10:4), in the future period of the church the missionaries must be prepared for the opposition they will face in a world hostile to their preaching.

I think you are taking it out of context. But that is your right.

Go ahead and kill in Jesus’ name…. We’ll see who ends up in the express lane at the pearly gates and who does not.

Peace be unto you.

By FACT CHECK

February 6, 2007 09:48 AM | Link to this

y RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

That fact check routine sounds a lot more like a cover up after a power mad politician got caught with her hands in the perq jar.

PERHAPS, but the odds are it’s the another attempt at a smear.

By Paul

February 6, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS 9:36

I’m guessing your source is some anti-Bush web site?

If this was a “tradition,” Army commanders were breaking the law. US citizens do not pay taxes so government employees can have free food and parties. In the past, communities (civilian) have provided the food as a thank-you gesture. Military forces have had a “show up and congratulate the returnees” affair.

Congress allocates some funds for free food and gifts for civilian community PR - and they are explicit about how they are to be used. The amount is quite small.

Gotta get your “facts” from somewhere else. This one isn’t “Bush’s Fault.” The new Congress can change the law any time they want.

By Paul

February 6, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

LuckoDull 9:44 -

So are you saying there are some things the UberLeft takes on faith?

:)

By FACT CHECK

February 6, 2007 09:58 AM | Link to this

PAUL _ SHOW ME WHERE I SAID IT WAS BUSH’S FAULT. YOU ARE TELLING A LIE ABOUT THAT AREN’T YOU?

IPSO FACTO - YOU WORD IS NO GOOD HERE>

By Paul

February 6, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

John Edwards is being interviewd on NPR’s Diane Rehm show right now. Another chance to hear what a candidate says - not what others think he (she) said.

By AntiRadical

February 6, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

Good toon ML but for unintended reasons, I think. I get as tired of hearing Dem scare tactics (they’re going to invade Iran) as I do those from the Rep caucus (cut n run, raise taxes). This sort of politicing has run its’ course at present; someone should tell the pols so that they will stop insulting our intelligence.

David Brooks had a good article in today’s print edition entitled “Post-boomer crowd spells trouble for GOP”. The crux of the article is that post-boomers are primarily moderate in their political leanings but that they have been put-off by the hard line inflexiblity of the current GOP. Reps would do well to peruse this offering. Brooks is a NY Times columnist so he will probably be discounted as such, but I beieve he is dead on target with his observations as they parallel my own interactions with post-adolescents.

Paul- You are right regarding Nixon and the fact that he ran twice on a stop the ‘Nam war platform. He was a demagogue, intent on legacy and power. He shared many traits with the current President. I seriously doubt that Hillary would emulate his mistakes. Whatever else she may be, she is a consumate pol whose reputation is that of someone who can arbitrate and get things done.

We all know of the CAFE standards loopholes and the era of the SUV. I’m glad that GWB has taken a stand but I think most people see this sort of thing as a band-aid measure.

I think that Reps would do well to confront the Dems on their continued intransigence regarding expansion of nuclear power. It is my belief that this is the only truely viable fuel alternative to petroleum and that sooner or later it will have to be developed to its’ fullest potential. Many of America’s (and the world’s) problems would evaporate overnight if we could only break our critical reliance on oil. The party that champions this technology will save America’s bacon and gain the thanks of a grateful nation.

By Brian Curtis

February 6, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

BD, Bush has been shown the ONLY way he can proceed with any hope of salvaging his legacy: it’s to follow the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations to the letter.

If he fails at this—his last chance—he’ll be forever remembered as the worst president America has endured. Yes, even worse than Nixon. And given his record of stubborn incompetence, I seriously doubt he’ll wise up now and miraculously do something right, after his track record of repeated failures.

By Little Right of Center

February 6, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

More people have been killed in the name of Christianity than in all the World Wars combined. We’re just carrying on the Christian Tradition. Come On TruthMan, where is you Atheist Support??

See the foam, oh the pretty foam, take another toke you delusional old hippies. You’ve undermined our government for over 30 years, why stop now!

By Jump off point

February 6, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

The liberal view of America, that justice is job one, is superior to the conservative view, that the rich handful of white fatbellies deserve 90 percent of the world’s resources. We should rid ourselves of these finely dressed leeches now, and banish their fifth column blog-trolls along with them and be cleansed and then we can enjoy justice for all.

By Paul

February 6, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Fact Check

I see that moniker pop up every so often - can’t tell if it’s used exclusively or is one “worn” by one of the types who changes names like otheres change socks. The general tenor of such posts is “Bush is at fault for everything that can be spun as detrimental to the military, social programs, environmental issues, etc.”

So I apologize for inferring to you a position you obviously do not take. It’s good to know you place upon Pres Bush absolutely no responsibility for decisions taken by General McKiernan.

By One

February 6, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

That ba$tard Bush has denied the funding for Peachcare!!!!! That slimy, low down, greedy, deceitful, did I say GREEDY ba$tard!!! All this money for an ignorant azz war (weapons of mass destruction, my azz!!!!) and nothing to ensure the healthcare of our kids. I truly, without a doubt, despise him!!!! What an ignorant piece of garbage…………BUSH SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

By Buy Danish

February 6, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

We have no choice but to win and in order to win it requires will on our part.

It may require our presence in the Middle East for a very long time - C’est la guerre. The forces of the United States military are located in nearly 130 countries around the world performing a variety of duties from combat operations, to peacekeeping, to training with foreign militaries. Some of these deployments have existed for nearly 50 years, as in Japan, Germany, and South Korea, while other deployments have more recent origins such as the current occupation of Iraq.

Paul,

I’ll have to get back to you later - I’m on my way out.

I need to address Mrs. Godzilla briefly.

{{{Go ahead and kill in Jesus’ name…. We’ll see who ends up in the express lane at the pearly gates and who does not.}}}

Mrs. G,

Who kills in the name of Christ? The only people I know of who routinely kill in the name of any religion are Islamofascists who kill in the name of Mohammed (a very violent prophet if you read your history) and Allah.

Your phony sanctimony is quite frankly nauseating.

By Lord Help Us

February 6, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

RW-(the obfuscator) at 9:35,

Trust me when I tell you that answering a post and/or question directly will help you gain some credibility.

Constant obfuscation and obvious avoidance of reasonable questions only illustrates the absence of logic.

I’ll give you another chance:

‘Can you explain why are soldiears are dying to solidify a gov’t in Iraq that is allied with Moqtada al Sadr and one that will have closer ties to Iran than the Hussein gov’t?’

I’m rootin’ fer ya…

By Paul

February 6, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical

More good points. I would call CAFE a band-aid if it was taken in isolation - but in concert with other actions can be an important component. Germany’s new Pres has told critics “you don’t like nuclear power? You want to cut down greenhouse gasses? Fine. What are your suggestions?” So far the Green spokesman has said, in effect… not much. I agree with you about our oil gluttony being the source of much of our difficulties - but getting people to change their ways voluntarily isn’t going to be easy. This isn’t something where “tax the rich or someone else” is going to cut it.

My point on Hillary was not so much she’d use the tactic - it’s that voters would buy it. Memories are short - or are dictated by one’s Party affiliation.

By Two & 1/8

February 6, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

One- Don’t hold back tell us what you really think. LOL

By Midori

February 6, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Watch the Iraq Reconstruction Hearing Live

By Little Right of Center

February 6, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Calm down ONE, no need to blow a gasket, just take another toke, that’s it take a deep one. Now slowly release it… feel better?

Why don’t you quit whinning about what the government won’t give you and GO AND GET A JOB you d^mn freeloader!

Oh, I’m soooo sorry, but JumpOffPoint (10:07) just got rid of 90% of the people that create jobs. So I guess you will have to depend on the government for everything. Yea Stalin! He’s your kinda leader.

By Shawny

February 6, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

oooooh….the ipso facto card…..you got served!

By Paul

February 6, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Midori

Now there’s a recipe for depression. Assemble your 2006 income tax documents while listening to where your money goes in Iraq…

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

LHU,

Assuming you mean “our” and “soldiers” the answer is that they aren’t.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 6, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

It is my opinion that any self-proclaimed Christian who stand for this war, or any war kills in the name of Christ. To me this is the ulimate use of the Lord’s name in vain.

Any killing in the name of God is wrong.

As far as your accusation of “phony sanctimony”, it is, at best, a bad guess on your part as to my character. (it’s also the start of the slippery slope to name calling)

By FACT CHECK

February 6, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

PAUL

NO PROBLEM DUDE.

FACTS, JUST THE FACTS.

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

FACT CHECK,

If you’re only dealing with “odds are” maybe fact check isn’t the right name.

By Shawny

February 6, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G…

“Any War” ?!?!?

None, ever in the history of the world, were worth fighting? Forget this one, we know what you think about it.

By Dusty

February 6, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

anti-rad

David Brooks also gave a few thoughts that you barely mentioned. Many of the Duke students he wrote about have “moved lately to the center” of politics. And another thought:”their politics is not between left and right but between idealism and realism.” Brooks also wrote that little or no mention was made of Iraq by students.

Brooks concluded that this was bad news for the GOP. I can’t see that it is good news for Democrats either. The students sound like young Liebermans or Zell Millers. They look for “truth” not parties. And they are optimistic. That is good news for the future.

Footnote: David Brooks is on Lehrer News Hour every Friday more or less discussing the conservative view in debate with liberal commetator Shields.

By Midori

February 6, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

BAGHDAD (CNN) — A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq’s parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s ruling coalition, according to U.S. military intelligence.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed’s seat in parliament gives him immunity from prosecution, but Washington now says he supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq.

Repeated efforts to reach Jamal Jafaar Mohammed for comment through the parliament, through the ruling Shiite Muslim coalition and the Badr Organization — the Iranian-backed paramilitary organization he once led — have been unsuccessful.

A Kuwaiti court sentenced Jamal Jafaar Mohammed to death in 1984 in the car bombings of the U.S. and French embassies the previous December, which killed five people and wounded 86. He had fled the country by then, but Western intelligence agencies also accuse him of involvement in the hijacking of a Kuwaiti airliner in 1984 and the attempted assassination of a Kuwaiti prince.

By LMAO

February 6, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Bush’s State of the Union bump? Isn’t that usually the case, a bump right?

Not with this dumbazz president.

New Gallup poll has him at an embarrassing 32% approval. Down from 36%.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By getalife

February 6, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

“George W. Bush is again guiding the nation toward a preemptive war - this time with Iran - without allowing anything like a full debate of the underlying facts, probable consequences of the conflict or peaceful alternatives.

Bush is following the same course he chose in the run-up to war in Iraq: he insists that war is “a last resort” yet puts in motion the engines of war; he times the release of alarming intelligence reports for maximum political effect; he brushes aside doubts and warnings; he then presents war as unavoidable or a fait accompli.

Despite the painful lessons from the Iraq War disaster - including more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers dead and Iraq torn apart by sectarian civil war – the key institutions of Washington, particularly the Congress and the press, are playing similar roles, too.

The capital again is possessed of an air of unreality as the clock ticks down to a likely military showdown with Iran.

Though the documentary record is now clear that Bush set his sights on war in Iraq a year or so before the actual invasion, the President is still believed when he insists now that he wants a diplomatic solution with Iran.”

Of course, he will attack Iran to blame them for his disaster. He will never man up and admit his disaster, he is a coward.

Check out the new budget and it is clear he does not give a dam-n about the people. He is trying to devalue the dollar to create a new North American Union.

And the wingnuts say yea w, destroy our country until it is history.

Freaking pathetic.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 6, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Shawny,

I know this is tough, it’s tough for me too. But yes, I interpret Christ’s teachings as do not make war.

Doesn’t mean I don’t want to sometimes. Heck, there are times I’d like to nuke my next door neighbor.

I’m not alone in this…I respect and admire the Amish and the Quakers. Ghandi is a personal hero.

I have been called a lot worse than “Peace-nik”.

By Lord Help Us

February 6, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Yup, got me on a typo RW.

Remember, ‘let he who is without sin…’

Now, we are making ‘some’ progress.

Iraq’s current gov’t includes a large block of Sadr’s followers and he exercises respective influence. So, I am unsure about why you would so readily reject the obvious.

Also, the current gov’t in Iraq is already significantly influenced by Iran. Hopefully, you consider the latest NIE credible. You should read it if you do not think the gov’t in Iraq is already influenced substantially by Iran.

Care to set me straight?

By LMAO

February 6, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Yes, Jesus was all for war.

Thats why the all powerful One wiped his enemies off the planet in a shock and awe display that saved him from the cross.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

February 6, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

[Could Bush be thinking?]

Dubya’s “Axis of Evil” checklist

Iraq - Sunni Muslim Heathens (Conquered) Iran - Shiite Muslim Heathens (Next) North Korea - Godless Commies (soon)

USA troops will be used to take em’ down. Then my “God’s Work” private security firm “Blackwater” along with my good buddies at “Haliburton” will control and run these countries. And you taxpayers will pay for it through the nose!

Call Erik Prince! We have God’s work to do!

Praise God and Guns!

By This Justin

February 6, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Are you people just plain CRAZY?????

Have you ever heard of “THOU SHALT NOT KILL????? Did you war freaks get a special waiver from GOD????

God hates abortion doctors. God hates soldiers. THERE ARE NO WAIVERS you stupid idiots. Helllooooo, ever hear of “love thy neighbor”, what part do you not understand?????

God has a nice hot place reserved in Hell for all you soldiers and abortion doctors. STOP KILLING BABIES!!!!!!!! STOP.

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

LHU,

I answered your freaking question and I didn’t cast any stone at your typo. Why don’t you grow up just a little.

At least provide a link to the entire text of the latest NIE. What surprises is me is why YOU would find the latest NIE credible. Remember WMDs?

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

February 6, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Someone Set us Up the Bomb

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=92904

By Little Right of Center

February 6, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

LMAO, let’s see, there was Jericho and the parting of the Red Sea where God destroyed his enemies. I’m sure there are more instances but why confuse everyone with the details.

By Little Right of Center

February 6, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

This Justin, Please share with us uneducated where God claims to hates abortion doctors! I think it was something like love the sinner but not the sin. Where does the Bible claim that God hates ANYONE? More made up “facts” to make your case. You’re such an idiot, bless your heart.

By LMAO

February 6, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Answer the question, CHRISTIAN. Why didn’t Jesus wipe out his enemies?

He had the ability, answer the question.

Why no shock and awe from Jesus, the son of God?

You really think Jesus is up in heaven cheering on this war?

By AntiRadical

February 6, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Hi Dusty- Thanks for posting more of the good points from the Brooks article.

I don’t see this as especially good news for the Dems either, at least the older Dem platform. Thankfully, the conservative revolution is, also, changing the way Dems do politics. The new breed of blue dogs like Tester are appealing to the new pragmatists that are entering the voter rolls. The Dems are “evolving”. I think the Reps would do well to pay attention to this current social trending.

I’m especially glad that you didn’t discount Brooks simply because he writes for the NY Times. If we all focused on that which we believe to be right, regardless of political/social affiliation, we might find much more common ground to build upon.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 6, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Little Right of Center

Old Testament (The Torah) vs. New Testament.

Words of the Moses, Abraham etc vs. the words of J.C.

They are at times diametrically opposed. Do you side with Moses or Jesus?

By Brad

February 6, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Wow! ML, I was so concerned, we have had no BUSH BASHING toons for two days. The media’s job is to bash Bush 24/7, you are letting the libs down dude.

By Truthman

February 6, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it amazing that Ted Haggard, The Mega-church molester, completely “cured” of his homosexuality?

And it only took a few months! Gee, why don’t they bottle it and sell it!!

What a bunch of pseudo-christian crap. Molesters are not homosexuals. Molesters are usually hetero males with families.

Cured of homosexuality…what a load of horse dung!!

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

February 6, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Gee

Bush was Right! God did tell him to attack Iraq!

“Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you,” says the LORD. “Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction”. (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

By LMAO

February 6, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

The two-faced calf has died. I say we stuff it and use it as the Zell Miller statue! LMAO!!!

By Midori

February 6, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Brad,

maybe he wouldn’t be “bashed” (as you call it) so much if he wasn’t a weak, incompetent oaf, who is bleeding this country dry monetarily, spiritually and physically.

Ya think?

By Dusty

February 6, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

anti-rad

The new approach by the blue dogs is interesting. Wonder if Leiberman will return to join them? Of course, the Republicans also have their Tuesday Group which seems to be heading more to the center.

Makes me proud when I see Americans beginning to work out their political problems. A light at the end of the tunnel maybe. The extremes on both sides are just TOO much.

By New Life Church

February 6, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

We structured Rev Haggard’s therapy after the James Dobson gay conversion method for boys. Here’s how.

The man’s pastor has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm the gay man’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with the man, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with other men. He can help the man learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a nail into a board.

He can even take the man with him into the shower, where the man cannot help but notice that Pastor Bob has a pennis, just like his, only bigger.

By Cal

February 6, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

It’s the mellow mushroom for the lucko posse. Ride ‘em cowboys.

Yeeehaaawwwwwww

By Goldie

February 6, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

LMAO— don’t you remember learning about Jesus’ sermon on the mount, wherein he not only stated that “war is good”, but he also declared that “God hates f@gs!”… I’m pretty sure I learned about this in Sunday school…

By Scooter

February 6, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Good one ml, when Bush doesn’t give you direct fodder for funnies you can just make up stuff and make fun of that. Lord knows you wouldn’t want to perform your life’s work (drawing) to portray Hillary Clinton’s desire to confiscate private sector profits for the purpose of chasing a “solution” to today’s hysteria. Never mind that solution will transfer huge amounts of power to the government and government never relinquishes power back to the people. Hey, isn’t fascism some type of marriage between corporations and government for the purpose of pursuing government objectives? Or, is fascism holding private meetings with corporations, presumably to see how government can get out of the way of the private sector? Probably depends on who you talk to.

By Brad

February 6, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Midori - he is THE president of the USA, our president! He was reelected even after going into Iraq!

By Lord Help Us

February 6, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Well RW, you’re right back to RW-(the obfuscator)…

I said that the current Iraq gov’t is aligned with Moqtada al Sadr and is influenced significantly by Iran.

You said, ‘They aren’t (period).’

Here are some facts to back up my position:

From the Iraq Study Group, Page 11: ‘The Badr Brigade is affiliated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. The Badr Brigade has long-standing ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Many Badr members have become integrated into the Iraqi police, and others play policing roles in southern Iraqi cities. While wearing the uniform of the security services, Badr fighters have targeted Sunni Arab civilians.

There are many, many other credible sources that attest to the influence of Iran and I will have a number waiting if, as I predict, you obfuscate again.

Now, regarding al Sadr and his influence in the current Iraqi gov’t, please note the following:

Al-Sadr has significant political clout in the Iraqi government. His party holds at least 30 seats in the 275-seat parliament, forming one of its largest voting blocs. Al-Sadr’s movement also controls several government ministries.

There, now I would LOVE to see anything you have that illustrates your point (‘they aren’t’) - that al Sadr IS NOT significantly influential in the current Iraqi gov’t AND Iran is not influential in Iraq.

Thanks in advance…

By Buy Danish

February 6, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

MidoriLIZ,

Thanks for the link to the convicted terrorist sitting in Iraq’s parliament. It shouldn’t be too difficult to take care of this problem, now should it?

Mrs. Godzilla,

I don’t doubt that you would object to taking care of this depraved terrorist^^^^ as it is against your peculiar interpretation of Christianity.

Fortunately we do not rely on your unwise and pseudo-Saintly counsel, and I trust that justice will be served despite your wrongheaded entreaties to lie down like a doormat while IslamoFascism marches on.

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 01:03 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Here is your question in your own words:

{{{{{‘Can you explain why are soldiears are dying to solidify a gov’t in Iraq that is allied with Moqtada al Sadr and one that will have closer ties to Iran than the Hussein gov’t?’}}}}}

In the answer “they aren’t” “they” refers to “are soldiears” which I interpret to mean our soldiers. Your question doesn’t in any way, shape, manner, or form ask about the ever changing alliances in the Iraqi government structure.

By Midori

February 6, 2007 01:09 PM | Link to this

I fail to see your point, Brad, if there is one.

Perhaps you should take your case to the 70% of Americans of whom Bush is “the president” who don’t agree with his lunatic policies.

Maybe you should explain to those people why they have no right to voice that displeasure as well.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 6, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Do you mean KILL when you say take care of? If so, why not say it?

I assume, maybe incorrectly, that by peculiar you don’t mean:

uncommon; unusual. distinctive in nature or character from others.

That’s ok, it is your right.

I don’t think your view of Christianity is peculiar. I think it’s wrong. I think it puts your immortal soul at risk. But that’s ok too. It’s my right to think that.

You call me unwise, I hope to be as unwise as Ghandi. I pray for the strength to be as unwise as JC…giving up my life rather than to take one. Hey, it’s hard to follow the Prince of Peace. It’s a whole lot easier to follow Pat Robertson, et al.

I know better to offer you counsel of any kind.

s

By Midori

February 6, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this

you’re very welcome, B-a-a-a-a-a-h Danish - tho I don’t know what my email ID has to do with anything.

back to the link, yep, ain’t Democracy great?

The Iraqis seem to like to elect thuggish murderers just like us.

Aren’t we special?

By Lord Help Us

February 6, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this

So, RW-(the obfuscator),

Allow me to simplify:

Is the current gov’t in Iraq aligned with Moqtada al Sadr and significantly influenced by Iran?

Because, THAT is the gov’t our soldiers are dying to help solidify.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

February 6, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this

Dubya’ continues to allienate our friends around the world. This time it will cost us our one and only air base in South America.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/LatinAmericaAndCaribbean/EcuadorUS_Base.html

By Midori

February 6, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla,

If it’s any consolation, I consider you very wise. And sane.

Rather than return grenades, you just diffuse them.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 6, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this

Midori

Thank you.

I have admired your words as well.

Grenades are just too damn messy!

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Some of it probably is, did you expect instant Democracy? We have been working on that for 230 years without perfection. Guess what? Some things take time, this isn’t an episode of Family Guy or wherever you get your world view.

You do realize Iraq has a Constitution and they have elections don’t you? There has been a push over the last few days aimed right at the heart of the Mahdi Army and the surge hasn’t even begun.

Our military has been authorized to deal swiftly and decisively with interference from Iran and Syria. We have also placed the Iraqi government on notice that they will have to hold up their end of the bargain this time.

All these things are good signs that maybe we are going to fight to win finally.

Here’s some great reading for you to ignore.

By Buy Danish

February 6, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this

C’mon, Buy Danish - can’t you tell when someone’s not serious and is just funnin’ with ya?

People who discuss this topic seriously make the distinction between Old and New Testament theology (which was done initially). Then they usually recognize errors in translation, recognize that some words, no matter what word was used in the “original copy” gets translated into one or two English words (“kill” or “murder”) - heck, ever looked at how many words or concepts get rendered as “Hell”? (place of departed spirits, the garbage dump outside the Jerusalem wall) - Occasionally they’ll even introduce some scholarly writings on when war (or killing) is justified. It’s the same kind of situational argument that sank Dukakis.

Not to say it’s proper to say “Christianity” advocates military action based upon its principles. Then again, isn’t that one of the nice things about Christianity - you can pretty much believe what you want and still fall under the umbrella? Only on forums like this (or in Islamic schools) will someone who doesn’t believe in live and let live assail you for your interpretation.

By Goldie

February 6, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

{{and I trust that justice will be served despite your wrongheaded entreaties to lie down like a doormat while IslamoFascism marches on.}}

Kill, Kill, Kill! There’s only one way to defeat “IslamoFascism”, right Donut? And that’s to be even more fascist like you, apparently…

By Buy Danish

February 6, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Sorry ‘bout that, Buy - at 1:35 - I just came back online, was thinking about writing and zoned out when I was filling out the login sections. I’m sure others recognize you’re not one of the posters who talk to themselves!

Paul

By Scooter

February 6, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Where would the world be if all the good and righteous men of history sat idly by saying WWJD (What Would Jesus Do), while the world’s evil rulers conquered and ruled more and more people? Would that make Jesus proud of his fathers humans? How about What Would Jules Do?

By Paul

February 6, 2007 01:45 PM | Link to this

Buy D at 1:35

Sorry ‘bout that - wasn’t a namejack or nitjack or whatever they call it. I was just signing on, thinking about your comments, so rather zoned out while I was logging in.

Paul

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 6, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

Some one please help me!

It seems I can’t stop assailing…..

Pish Posh

By RW-(the original)

February 6, 2007 01:48 PM |