Mike Luckovich

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this

Uh, name change^^ in the spirit of political non partisanship, quelling the decisiveness, reaching out and all.

~~~~~

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far away, Kueen Klintoon, having been stung numerous times in her wide, heavy as-s by Hans Guiliani, decides to change course and attack the 2004 vice presidential candidate, who isn’t running for office in 08 but whatever, and as we join this story, “she” turns her Chinese Campaign Death Star and hurtles headlong towards Planet Moonbat:

{{{{HILLARY CALLS CHENEY ‘DARTH VADER’}}}}

Duh, duh, duh, duh, da, duh, da, duh

Duh, duh, duh, duh, da, duh, da, dumb

(uh, the Star Wars theme^^, duh)

And Duh calls Hillary “Jabba Duh Hut.”

~~~~~~~

The Atlanta Urinal Constitution, in cooperation with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, is not so pleased to announce this rather disheartening news:

{{{{Syria blast reportedly killed Iranians aiding in weaponry- Urinal}}}}

We wouldn’t want that ever important word “chemical” to come out, now would we, AJC?

That would reopen up a lot of old questions, wouldn’t it?

However, some of us already figured that Saddam moved his WMD to Syria and this just pretty much confirms it.

But you be real quiet about it, AJC, shhhhhhhh.

~~~~~~

The National Center for Policy Analysis’s new Global Warming Primer (www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/) shows that over the past 400,000 years, “the Earth’s temperature has consistently risen and fallen hundreds of years prior to increases and declines in CO2 levels” (emphasis added). For example, about half of the global warming increases since the mid-1800s occurred before greenhouse gas emissions began their significant increases after the 1950s, and then temperatures declined well into the 1970s when CO2 levels were increasing.

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 20, 2007 8:08 AM | Link to this

I’m feeling a bit inflammatory myself this morning.

The first and last frame of this toon are missing.

The first frame has Andy, RW, @@, Dusty, Buy Danish, Shawny and Paul adding fuel to the fire and basting the meat.

Discussing the best cuts and fine points of preparation. The Iron Chef’s of war.

I may be wrong here, maybe they DID call Isakson and Chambliss and demand they support the Webb amendment, perhaps they will let us know. I am sure they will have some comment.

The last frame has me, midori, getalife, Bosch, raisedanidiot, steve-o, Debbie do right, goldie and more with fire extinguishers.

Sadly they don’t work (FEMA issued) but it is evident we mean to put out this fire. We are working tirelessly to put and end to this madness.

Who will cry for our beloved country?

Will the tears of 70% of the American people be able to put out this fire?

By LuckoDuh

September 20, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this

{{{{Global warming is supposedly killing people. The 35,000 deaths from the August 2003 European heat wave were, in Al Gore’s view, an example of what “will become much more common if global warming is not addressed.” But the actual data put things in perspective. Whereas 2,000 people died in the United Kingdom in that heat wave, last year the BBC reported that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales were about 25,000 each winter, and 47,000 a year, in the winters of 1998 to 2000. Similarly, in Helsinki, Finland, 55 people die each year from heat and 1,655 from cold. In Athens, Greece, a much warmer place, the deaths from excess heat are 1,376 each year and the deaths from cold 7,852. All told, Mr. Lomborg calculates that about 200,000 people die in Europe each year from excessive heat, and 1.5 million from excessive cold.}}}}

That would be 1.3 million lives that we could save if the Earth continues to warm.

Ever wonder why the liberals are so hysterical about not letting that happen?

Duh.

They want your as-s gone.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

Have you hugged a Mullah today?

Have you hummed a hymn with an Imam?

Enjoy your Islamic American friends, people. They’re Americans too. And they love this country.

ps: Kiss a Caliph! Celebrate with a Caliphate!!

By Paul

September 20, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla

LOL! But first, the cartoon would have to be modified - take the soldier off, replace with a donkey. Replace one standing elephant with a I thought you werdonkey. Have us in the background just watching (no advice giving, amazing) - have the elephant say to the donkey,

“you donkeys really like eating your own, don’t you?”

or

“This was your plan?!!?”

or

“Any more bright ideas?”

Sigh. Even Iron Chef couldn’t make a good meal out of that!

By @@

September 20, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this

Funny opening comment. It leaves the door wide open for Darth to arm himself with the infamous “Cheney weapon”…GFY cause your husband’s been busy.

Anyhoo, Netanyahu has confirmed the airstrike in Syria and praised…yes PRAISED his opposition Olmert for having done so.

This IS becoming very interesting.

Hey ml, the Democrats are beginning to recycle old trash. Why is that? Is it getting too hot on the campaign trail?

By @@

September 20, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

Oops, almost forgot. A new gallup poll has indicated that the majority of Americans have confidence in the Petreaus report and there has been a slight uptick in confidence that his plan is the right plan.

The Democrats have screwed themselves with their attack on Petreaus and will be MovingOn.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

Make an emir your amour.

By Old Physics Teacher

September 20, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

This is why congress is held in such disregard. The Republicans MUST placate their base rather than doing what is right for the soldiers. To mis-quote Churchill: “Never have so few done so much for so many and been ignored” Just disgraceful

By mike

September 20, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Maybe some of the Repubtards kids need to join the army like my 25 year old nephew who is beginning his 3rd tour in country in November. I see nothing wrong with being home the same amount time your tour is.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

@@

An opposition party saying “well done” to their opponents in the interest of the national good? How UnAmerican!

(uh, no, others - I’m not looking at solely Iraq - more like the overall war against militant Islam - or - witness the attacks on McCain for working with Kennedy, Feingold as an example - )

By Destry

September 20, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Churchill is the best historical figure to quote concerning our modern plight in Iraq. He was there. He saw. He choose the Sunnis. He thought the Shia were a bunch of lunatics who couldn’t be trusted to efficiently supply that oil for his ships. So the Shia were persectuted for three full generations until we invaded and freed them.

Now, what do we do with the Shia. We provided elections. the Shia won. Churchill is laughing his buns off, trust me. He cant believe we were that stupid.

How do you solve a problem like the Shia? How do you keep a caliph on the sand? How do you find a word that means the Shia? A jihadist, a terrorist, a clown. How do you solve a problem like the Shia? How do you hold a Mullah in your hand?

By Paul

September 20, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

Democratic candidates respond to MoveOn Betray Us ad - Sep 20 summary

Link: Presidential Contenders responses

By GAK62

September 20, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

Republicans have always stated with such pride, how most members of the military ALWAYS vote for GOP candidates. Well, now that they see how Republicans treat our brave men and women, do you really think the military’s support for the GOP will continue?

By w00t

September 20, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Oh, World War IV is going to be so great. I can’t wait!

Thanks Bush, you were truly a visionary!

By Blackadder

September 20, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

After a long break I come back to find that the liberals are still correct and the morons are still, well, morons. Can’t wait for ‘08.

By luckovichisaheadcase

September 20, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

This one, again crosses the line. Luckovich, you are a rude,crude and socially unacceptable curr with all of the sublety of a Mack truck. How all people with taste are offended by your very existence.

By From Doom to @@

September 20, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

@@,

Read your comments yesterday. I apologize if my list offends you, but your so called friends have attacked Doom in the past. RW attacked me without provocation and BD, who was once a friend of Doom, turned on me because of RW. Dusty attacked Doom while I was apologizing for claiming that the two of you were the same person. So you see, there are reasons for them being my enemies. Also, I am prepared to move you up to the top spot over and above Midori because you seem to have no problem spending quality time with Doom.

In response to your comment at 8:40,

Don’t you think that the American people like Petreaus’ plan because it involves troop withdrawal which is what they wanted in the first place?

Doom

By luckovichisaheadcase

September 20, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

Blackadder - you got it completely turned around. The liberals are wrong, you are still a moron, and as usual the conservatives are RIGHT in every sense of the word. Now crawl back under your rock where all adders live!

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Make note of how the harpies in the pinko media are not ceaselessly whining about this:

{{{{Without a bit of pressure — indeed, without the appearance of a care in the world — Medhi, described in graphic detail the other half of his ISI cell’s operations: running an organized al Qaeda Rape ring in Samarra. With a modus operandi of breaking into various houses and either raping women on the spot or threatening the family with death while taking their daughter away to become a hostage and a sex slave, Medhi, a self-described homosexual who engaged in intercourse (via rape) with women “because other members of this group” did, confessed to his cell’s penchant for abducing girls and “holding them [hostage] just for their pleasure.” Most recently, he said, he had taken part in the rape, kidnapping, and/or killing of five women, three of whom were supposedly still alive.}}}}

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

Great cartoon — sad but true. Now here it goes: By whatever name, “Duh” must be a reference to this poster’s sympatico nature not only with W, with whom he shares the intellectual curiosity of a gerbil, but also his inability to grasp any information not fed to him by some right-wing propaganda house. Let’s say, just for a second, that the opening of the NW Passage, glacial melting and so on are not caused by global warming. Let’s say global warming is a myth. By extension, then, we have no responsibility to act in at least a decent manner toward the earth. (Do you carry a scoop when you walk your dog or just leave the mess for someone else to clean up?) Pretty clever argument, Duh, but a first-year philosophy major can knock that one right out of the park. So can I. I was born in L.A. when they skies were blue. I visited Athens, Greece, where pollution had eaten away at the Acropolis so badly that the government called for emergency repairs to keep from losing it. I live in a river valley city in which we receive daily pollution warnings and just had the hottest and driest summer on record. So give me a break; even if you don’t believe in global warming per se, you can’t tell me that all is right with the world. Or maybe you can, since your head is so far up your, uh … that you confuse the smell of decay with fresh air when you decide to pull it out. And, yes, I drive an SUV. I haul several hundred pounds of material from place to place and have a back injury that doesn’t allow me to lean over far enough to sit in a normal car. It’s a good truck, and I’m as sick of people telling me to ride the bus as the next person. Pssst, I even voted for a Republican — once. All my sins revealed. As for Iraq, ML’s cartoon was right on. I live in a state represented by one of the most egregious chicken hawks in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. I like the way he works for my state and believe he’s an honorable man, but I have no clue as to how he can possibly support a war in Iraq given his own questionable service record during the Vietnam War. Look it up. For or against the war, I don’t see how anyone can support the tours of duty being pulled by our troops. Nor can I explain their use by their commanders. Recon Marines acting as traffic cops and summons deliverers? Special Forces and Rangers wandering from place to place under rules of engagement that Blackwater USA mercs

By w00t

September 20, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

Awwww, poor little “luckovichisaheadcase” had his fe-wings hurt. Poor baby!

I think its unacceptable for our administration to force our soilders to fight for 15 months on end while they only get up to 12 months back home, sometimes less. Or, that there are some that are on there second, third, or even fourth tour of duity. Let’s not worry about their families, or their health, or their well being. Lets keep sending them over to do the same thing over and over and over again with no change. because I know when I have a problem, I do the same thing expecting different results each time. It’s the only logical thing to do.

oh yeah, you’re a repub, only you get to support the troops…

By Why do people type such long posts?

September 20, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

You misfits need to stop typing such long idiotic posts! What in the hell makes you think anybody wants to read that crap? The only thing you are doing is making it difficult to follow other more meaningful posts. Say what you have to say in a precise,short manner and you will be respected.

Doom

By Paul

September 20, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

Blackadder

Welcome back!

BTW - there’s a Dr Who marathon on SciFi today -

By RW-(the original)

September 20, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

Doomster,

You would have to be a worthy adversary to be an enemy. Now go back and play with your plastic action figure collection.

Mrs. G,

Not that it’s any of your business, but I’ve been on the phone with both Senator Chamblis’ and Isackson’s offices making sure they will be against Dick Durbin’s stealth attempt to sneak the DREAM amendment, aka amnesty for illegal aliens, onto the defense authorization bill.

Thankfully enough Senators were not willing to vote for Webb’s surrender now amendment and it’s gone down again.

By the way, the approval numbers for Congress are down to 11%. Talk about dead-enders, how does it feel to opposed by 89% of the country. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/and no I don’t believe that poll either.

By bj in ky (to finish)

September 20, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

… laugh at. If KBR weren’t doing the dishes at $28 a meal, it would probably fall to this country’s most elite troops to perform KP. Do you know KP, Duh? Or was your service to the USA spent in some REMF posting in which body counts and ruined lives were numbers to be processed the same way you ordered pencils for your unit and treats for your officers to keep you out of harm’s way? You have no sense of history, dude. This country has not fought a war since WW II to win (thank God we didn’t decide to end the fight in Belgium and apologize to the Nazis). We set unreal expectations for the citizens of countries in which we’re not wanted, for troops who do not fight for turf but for “hearts and minds” and for politicians who can’t keep their own houses in order, much less have a clue as to what it all means. That’s the great thing about term limits; you can leave your trash for the next person to clean up. I’m not a blind liberal. I don’t believe Obama can be elected and I have no love whatsoever for Hillary Clinton. This puts me in a quandary for ‘08 because the Republicans are odious to a man. I do have a healthy respect for Sen. McCain, who backs up his opinions with his experience. I don’t agree with him, but no problem — that’s what makes this country great. Duh, neocons like yourself have no capacity for honest debate or the ability to see beyond your own narrow views lest you come upon some new idea that makes you think. Your referral to the AJC as ‘Urinal’ is both childish and hackneyed. I haven’t posted here before, but I read the postings here on a daily basis and finally had enough. Your feeble attempts at wit prove you come to the table only halfway armed and your so-called facts read like the propaganda spewed out by the Soviets not all that long ago. For once, show some capacity for critical thinking. No one’s right all the time, Duh, but I have never seen anybody who can be so proud of being so wrong on so much on such a consistent basis. Have a really swell day.

By bj in ky is a longwinded blow hard

September 20, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

bj in ky,

No one is going to read your long meaningless post. we have better things to do than to just sit there and ponder all of your innermost dumb thoughts. Please print something that won’t take up an entire day to read.

Doom

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

{{{{By bj in ky September 20, 2007 9:31 AM So give me a break; even if you don’t believe in global warming per se, you can’t tell me that all is right with the world.}}}}

I post a comment that specifically addresses the various periods of global warming that we have had for over 400,000 years, and here comes a “republican voter” telling me I don’t “believe in global warming.”

Try thinking about it for a second, my man.

I know you are packed to the gills full of left wing propaganda and see every counterpoint to your cherished but misguided beliefs as blasphemy, but can’t you even fathom the concept that there was no ice in Greenland in 1300, the same ice that is “melting” now wasn’t even there, and humanity survived it?

How can a collective body of Americans be so blatantly brainwashed?

By luckovi chisaheadcase

September 20, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

My feelings are not hurt you childish twit. I am offended by the hate-the soldier, hate-America-first, knee jerk hate all Republicans attitude. This cartoon is offensive and disgusting to people of taste. Too bad you sychophants taste is just in your MOUTHS.

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Let’s get it all out. I too believe in the Petreaus report, particularly the line in which he says he has no idea how the war is affecting terrorism against the U.S. We could have bought off each and every Iraqi for a lot less money and fewer lost lives for what this war has cost us. But as a nation we have our principles … What? We’re paying the Sunnis to fight with us? Never mind.

By Mike

September 20, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

Let’s see. Congress’s approval rating is at 11% and Mikey has yet to draw a cartoon about them?

Mikey is a mindless partisan who is as intellectually dishonest as Anne Coulter.

By RW is a punka$$ biaaaaaaatch!

September 20, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

RW,

Why don’t you crawl back into your testube and germinate. You are not worth the toilet paper Doom wipes his a$$ with. Your retarded diatribes have no place on this here blog and you should return to your bridge game at the senior’s center before Doom really hurts your feelings.

Doom

By RW-(the original)

September 20, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Luckoduh,

One other thing the “news” papers are burying is the fact that John Warner switched back after the Petrraeus report and voted against the Webb-Surrender Now amendment. Funny how it was screaming front page news when he was on Webb’s side.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Greenland in 1300? Funny you should mention 1300. If you had even casually glanced at the topographical catastrophe man faced in 1300, you’d be a global warming St. Paul.

I’m going to give you a break, you deserve a break today: The warming and cooling cycle tells us alot about how this planet was formed, and the echoes of it’s catastrophic birth are vibrating loud and clear to anyone who observes them.

But please, sir, make it a political issue, so that when the 89% of the people understand who Iraqis really are, we’ll throw all of the DC Comics (congress) out, trust me.

I predict those 150K Blackwater militia in Iraq are the ones who will follow us home and they will be the Blackwater Militia 4Hire here in the USA. Highest Bidder. Mercenary armies are from the 1300s too. Osama Bin Laden is living in the 1300s too.

I urge all americans to act now to prevent this armed mercenary hoard from breeching our borders, (but you never even thought about it until this week when the Shia decided enough is enough. I wonder how many of these clowns are kidnapping and murdering at night the sleeping population in Iraq? It’s like having a second job, if you’re a mercenary. The reality on the ground in Iraq is that we put in place a mercenary militia with no oversight to kill randomly and confoundedly those very Iraqis trying to understand what the reality on the ground in Iraq is.

That’s the real story now in Iraq. We have great troops. Everybody in Iraq loves our Troops. It’s our circus they hate.

Blackwater. Oh, google.

By getalife

September 20, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Webb showed great leadership in supporting the troops.

Of course, the gop chose oil over the troops and showed their true colors. Black gold and green.

There is no compromise and the Senate will accomplish nothing.

There is a solution to vote out all incumbants but the gop voters will keep their corrupt fossils who are stealing their freedom.

The only way to get things done in Washington is a Dem President with a larger Dem majority.

This will happen in 08 but there is so much damage done, our country will never be the same. OBL has changed us for the worse and his mission is accomplished.

Now he is going after Pakistan and their nukes.

Geez.

By Dusty

September 20, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

This cartoon is absolutely disgusting. Suppose you have a child in the military and you see an American cartoon about roasting him or her? You really think that can be called support in any way? Only if you are some kind of barbarian.

Luckovich has traded loyalty and patriotism for his cheap two bit cartoons. The AJC has traded ethics and standards for infamous politicing.

The day of sensible debate seems to be gone. The libs have traded that style for a nightmare of deceit, disloyalty and lies.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

There, there, @@

If you say Geez one more time……

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Duh, I concede your point about Greenland. But this isn’t 1300, now, is it? Let’s cut this down the middle for a second. We’re a planet containing what, 6 billion or so? We have a large population on each coast of the U.S alone. Let’s argue that Gore’s projections are wildly pessimistic, which I pray is the case. Let’s say the oceans won’t flood Iowa or Kentucky. Now look at Katrina and the devastation from a single storm. We believed, despite warnings to the contrary, that the levees would hold. They didn’t. So it wouldn’t it be rather short-sighted of me not to take the threat — no, a possibility — of global warming seriously? I grew up in the era of bomb shelters, learned to duck and cover and all that. We never used the shelters, and the only ducking and covering most of us did was in asking for a first date. Were we paranoid back then? Yeah, probably. But we were prepared for the worst and prayed (yes, even some of us ‘lefties’ pray) we were wrong. That’s the point. As in war, which is sometimes necessary to rid the world of evil, you clean your weapon even if you’re posted at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. Because you never know, do you? I do hope you and others will forgive me the length of my previous post. I have not yet come to the point in which complicated issues can be summed up in a couple of sentences. Frankly, I hope I never do.

By getalife

September 20, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Great toon Mike.

When the wingnuts hate it, you have nailed it.

How many tours in Iraq will they serve? 10.

They are abusing the troops and their families and the wingnuts cheer it on.

Pathetic, worse than any cartoon.

Geez.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Put the Statue of Liberty on the roasting spit.

That would be nearer the truth.

Truth. The first casualty in war is truth.

By Peter

September 20, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Good ‘toon but I’m coloring the elephants YELLOW on mine. (SUPPORT THE TROOPS! - BRING THEM HOME NOW!)

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

{{{{By bj in ky September 20, 2007 10:36 AM So it wouldn’t it be rather short-sighted of me not to take the threat — no, a possibility — of global warming seriously?}}}}

bj in ky: As we speak, the United States is sinking vast amounts of treasure into rebuilding a major metropolitan area that is located under the sea level and has already been devastatingly flooded once.

All because of mass hysteria wrought upon us by liberal democrats charging “racism” and “incompetence.”

Now, do you really believe that I’m not entitled to even question their motives and evidence concerning global warming?

Really?

~~~~~

{{{{By Destry September 20, 2007 10:15 AM Greenland in 1300? Funny you should mention 1300. If you had even casually glanced at the topographical catastrophe man faced in 1300, you’d be a global warming St. Paul.}}}}

Polly: The human population in 1300 Greenland was wiped out because of the Little Ice Age, which formed the ice that is melting now and has you all aghast.

~~~~~

{{{{By RW-(the original) September 20, 2007 9:59 AM Luckoduh, One other thing the “news” papers are burying is the fact that John Warner switched back after the Petrraeus report and voted against the Webb-Surrender Now amendment. Funny how it was screaming front page news when he was on Webb’s side.}}}}

Good to have you back, by the way.

In the democrat party it is all about extinguishing your free will, much as it is with radical Islam. If you conform to their beliefs but are an outsider, or a non Pinko/ Muslim, they tax you and you are afforded the status of a dhimmi, complete with a room in a nice little housing project.

But once you exercise thought and establish your own beliefs, then you are an apostate/ wingnut, and are accordingly marked for beheading/ ridicule, did I get that last one in the right order?

I think so.

By Destry

September 20, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Google it, did you? and still now he thinks that the data in 1300 is evidence for his stance on the issue!!!!

It’s a shame when the educational network of safety netting lets readers fall through the cracks.

Readin’ is good, paw.

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Yep, the GOP (which today could mean “gang of perverts”) doesn’t mind our troops rotating on that spit, because not many of their own children are serving in Iraq for the 3rd or 4th tour of duty — they’ve never minded sending other people’s children to fight their wars!

By Destry

September 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

The planet could either be cooling or warming, we simply dont know what cycle we are in, nor do we know the length of that cycle, if our planet’s magnetic field managed to shift then the cooling/warming fruits of that magnetic shift will be nearly impossible to predict. 100 year of temperature data is not enough of a sample. 100 years is not even one quintquadrillionth of a fraction of a wisp of the time that the isotopes in our isolated atmosphere have oscillated.

By gtengineer

September 20, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

best one you’ve had in a while mike!

this is essentially how the republicans in congress think.

this measure will certainly be used against the republicans in ‘08, saying they support the troops yet their actions speak for themselves.

why do you hate the troops so much????

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Duh, I have worked with FEMA in several major disasters and while I was awed by many employees who worked their tails off, the organization was a disaster all its own. As for Katrina, I’m not buying into the racism angle, which is a cheap and easy way to blame anyone for anything; OJ, for instance, is not a victim. I assume you lock your doors and windows at night. Since you support the Iraq war (as I did when ‘Mission Accomplished meant ‘time to come home’) as a way to keep terrorists out of the U.S., I also assume you are a cautious person. I’m at a loss as to why you won’t accept global warming as a possibility and instead make it into a liberal agenda. If I’m wrong, nothing will have been lost. If you’re wrong, we’re in deep with few alternatives to climb out. Think, dude, don’t simply react.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

{But once you exercise thought and establish your own beliefs, then you are an apostate/ wingnut, and are accordingly marked for beheading/ ridicule…}

Andy of many names, are you referring to Senator Hagel? Or Congressman Paul?

By Destry

September 20, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

uh, i hate the troops so much because it’s hard to love war. Robert E. Lee said that he was feeling guilty that he loved war too much. The south lost simply because of that one weakness alone. Lee didn’t fight forthe Confederacy, he only fought in grey, because he could not bring himself to love killing Virginians, as much as he loved war.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Goldie 11:29

[[(GOP) never minded sending other people’s children to fight their wars!]]

Neither did - I think the prime recent example of that - was Democrat Johnson - with a draft - to ensure those in power from the less privileged socioeconomic classes went to ‘Nam so their kids didn’t have to.

But the “force others’ kids but protect your own” was over when the draft ended under Republican Nixon, so since that time anyone who deploys, shoots, gets shot at is a volunteer. Funny thing about that, people discuss the military as if getting shot and shooting others is some unusual thing, like a shooting at a mall. It’s part of the job description.

Okay, mostly Army and Marines. Not so much for the Navy guys or the mostly continent-away AF. And I know Air Force sergeants are smarter than Army sergeants ‘cause the Army sergeants are in the thick of it while the AF sergeants fix the aircraft then send the officers off to fly them and get shot at.

Been on another road trip before gas rockets up again? (Boone Pickens is predicting $100 a barrel).

By Paul

September 20, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Goldie 11:29

[[(GOP) never minded sending other people’s children to fight their wars!]]

Neither did - I think the prime recent example of that - was Democrat Johnson - with a draft - to ensure those in power from the less privileged socioeconomic classes went to ‘Nam so their kids didn’t have to.

But the “force others’ kids but protect your own” was over when the draft ended under Republican Nixon, so since that time anyone who deploys, shoots, gets shot at is a volunteer. Funny thing about that, people discuss the military as if getting shot and shooting others is some unusual thing, like a shooting at a mall. It’s part of the job description.

Okay, mostly Army and Marines. Not so much for the Navy guys or the mostly continent-away AF. And I know Air Force sergeants are smarter than Army sergeants ‘cause the Army sergeants are in the thick of it while the AF sergeants fix the aircraft then send the officers off to fly them and get shot at.

Been on another road trip before gas rockets up again? (Boone Pickens is predicting $100 a barrel).

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Dusty, let’s suppose you have a child in the military who hasn’t been home in a year and knows when he gets home, he’ll be going out again before he polishes the dust off his combat boots. Troops aren’t stupid; they know exactly what’s happening to them. ML’s cartoon was an apt analogy. I’d like to think I would die for this country if it came to that. But I wouldn’t die for KBR or politicians — including Democrats — who have set up our troops to fail in an undefinable mission ending only when they are rendered combat ineffective. Meaning, dead or scarred for the rest of their lives.

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

{{{{By bj in ky September 20, 2007 12:07 PM I’m at a loss as to why you won’t accept global warming as a possibility and instead make it into a liberal agenda. If I’m wrong, nothing will have been lost.}}}}

Man, if that was only true.

You haven’t made the most basic observation that is virtually only socialists and left wingers that are bleating about global warming?

The same people that hate capitalism and the “rich?”

The same people that would love to make all of us dependent upon their every whim and grow government into an all encompassing monolith that holds everything in it’s grip?

Think now of the regulations the libs propose to “stop the advance of warming.” To force caps of Carbon Dioxide emissions on industry, the same CO2 that is a basic plant food, and that makes up a total effect on warming, compared to all other atmospheric elements, of .0008%.

France imposed the same draconian measures upon itself and has been unable to meet them. They have utterly failed to come close. The same France with a marginal manufacturing base and a GDP of about 7% of the U.S?

It’s all about control dude.

Nothing more.

1934, the warmest year on record, think about it.

{{{{Since you support the Iraq war (as I did when ‘Mission Accomplished meant ‘time to come home’)}}}}

“Mission Accomplished” was clearly stated as an end to major combat operations against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Are you so misinformed as to believe that we are still fighting Saddam?

By getalife

September 20, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Here is a good explanation of what is going on in the Senate

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Duh, I thought Saddam was the premise for invading Iraq. He and WMDs. I am informed enough to know we’re fighting for oil, which is admittedly vital to our national interests. The rest of it is hogwash. Freedom? Terrorism? Gimme a break. Osama has a $25 million bounty on him the last I looked. KBR goes through that in a day just on dry runs to nowhere. Increase the bounty to $100 million, $200 million and give the bonus to U.S. troops, who’ve been the only ones not to profit from this war.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

{…when the draft ended under Republican Nixon,…}

Hi Paul! Knowing and respecting you as I do, I know this was not intentionally misleading, and though technically correct, it is also not entirely accurate.

American conscription during the Viet Nam war was ended almost exclusively due to the efforts of one man - a Democrat.

Mike Gravel. YES, THAT MIKE GRAVEL. Also famous for getting the Pentagon Papers into the public consciousness.

In 1971, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska embarked on a one-man filibuster against legislation renewing the military draft. Using various parliamentary maneuvers, Gravel was able to block the bill for five months before President Richard Nixon and Senate Republicans agreed to allow the draft to expire in 1973.

This man, who is running for US president and is “beloved” by Democrats and Republicans alike for his “Stay the course” message and party-first loyalty had the guts and wherewithal to help stop the madness.

Like Ron Paul of the GOP these two men are practically the only candidates, to me, worthy of respect, because of their long history of helping the nation. Even when it meant bucking their own sanctified political parties.

NONE of these other posers can claim that and can take their shameful snickering and put it where the sun don’t shine.

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

{{{{By bj in ky September 20, 2007 12:56 PM I am informed enough to know we’re fighting for oil, which is admittedly vital to our national interests. The rest of it is hogwash. Freedom? Terrorism?}}}}

Sigh, o.k. bro, but when do you think we’ll get that “oil,” it’s only been 4 and half years, shouldn’t it be ripe by now?

You “voted republican,” hahaha.

Let’s see here, 1979, Iran, hostages, as I was thinking at the time, these people gathered in front of the U.S. embassy chanting “Death to America,” while our diplomats were inside, now this would be a good place to expend a ridiculously large amount of U.S. Air Force ordnance, all up and down that street and maybe on the whole entire surrounding city too.

But no, we cowered in fear.

When a “madman” took the office of the United States presidency, hostages got released, that day.

The “brilliant” scholar and “brave” warrior, Has Bin Laden, has given us the depth of radical Islamic thought and comprehension, remember that thing about people like a strong horse?

Well guess what, after twenty some years of failed diplomacy and murdered Americans, now we are slaughtering these creeps wholesale, they found out first hand what a strong horse really is, just like I wanted to do back in 1979.

Trust me, babbling American Media talking points from a cave in Pakistan is not a show of force or an indicator of strength.

In fact, it’s rather embarrassing, especially if your whole family blew themselves up in service to this POS Koward Has Bin.

Arabs aren’t stupid, they know now who is on their side and who it is that really wants to enslave them.

Thanks to GWB.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

AmVet

Thanks. I was operating under the “who’s the Pres during the time ‘cause he’s the one who gets blamed for (or credit for) everything.” So, since Nixon was Pres during that time I just shifted credit to him - much as blame is now ascribed to the current Pres.

But that was very, very interesting about Sen Gravel. I heard him mention it during one of the debates but did not realize he was so much in the thick of it. I’d thought the lottery system kicked off in early 1970 - still a draft - so I assume you mean there was consideration for going back to the old method.

And the reasons you cite are exactly why Gravel & Ron Paul would never, ever make it past the Party activists.

Hey, maybe we could have a lottery for President….

By Destry

September 20, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

100 dollar/barrel oil is the direct 100% result of the Iraq War.

No one can dispute that.

ISAIDNO ONE!!!

By DancePartner

September 20, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Mike Gravel did NOT stop the draft intentionally. Tell the whole story, man. He burned his draft card (and his bra) at the national draft board building next to the smithsonian and nobody looked after the flames and the entire bank of records went up, forcing the Nixon Adminstration to abandon the draft. It’s not like today when you can reconstruct a hard drive.

I am sick and tired of you revisionists. You’re worse than the Islamists.

‘muff said.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Destry

How about the guy how made the prediction?

Believes oil will reach $100 a barrel within the next year, “unless you go into a global recession”.

Does not buy the idea of a terror/geopolitical/risk premium in oil prices, instead he thinks high prices are simply a function of supply and demand being close to or out of balance at roughly 85 million barrels a day.

Does not believe we are at the point of substantial demand destruction, and he isn’t sure where it is.

Link: Link

By getalife

September 20, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

If the occupation for oil is so important, why no draft?

There is no military victory in Iraq.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

Actually, Paul, I probably overstated Gravel’s role just a tad.

The truth is that Nixon was interested in, as early as 1970, doing the unthinkable - ending the draft in the middle of a “lost” war.

But his motives were purely political, as he knew it would be THE issue to carry him to victory in ‘72. And so got the Gates Commission to take advantage of the Senate’s decision with MUCH fanfare.

Gravel’s motivations were humanitarian and compassionate.

And in my entire lifetime, that has been THE defining difference between the two parties.

I am somewhat embarrassed to note, that the GOP, with precious few exceptions, to this day, still lacks any relevant military experience or understanding.

Yes, they spout how they are the party that supports the troops, but the reality, to me, is quite different. They unquestioningly support the administration and that is one helluva different thing.

And that is why we have this horribly botched clusterfu-ck called the “war on terrorism”.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

getalife 1:33

IF the occupation for oil is so important, why no draft?

Well, I suppose the inverse of that is, there’s no draft, so the occupation isn’t for oil and therefore it’s not important?

By RE

September 20, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

There was a military victory in iraq, back in 2003.

The problem is that there is no political victory. The standard is a stable, democratic US ally that opposes Iran and Syria. Those are the two largest neighbors of Iraq, it would be nearly impossible for that to occur, and if Iraq did become hostile to Iran and Syria, it would cause greater turmoil in the middle east.

Even the standard of victory brings more war.

By DancePartner

September 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

The guy deserves no more credit than anyone else who predicted higher prices in the wake of the Iraq War.

I predicted that oil would be a dollar a liter. I have calculated that I came within .0006 pegamixels of the hundred dollar futures of the actual mean price of raw sweet crude being siphoned by native eskimos along the alaskan pipeline.

Save the baby seals.

By getalife

September 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

Paul,

The same ones are sacrificing over and over until the end of w’s term.

The occupation for oil benifits many companies getting rich on their blood.

It is a fraud of massive proportions.

I see BO said he was tasered on a story and called that nut in Florida a wimp.

If he would reenact the taser episode, I would tune in to watch him yell.

He is a blowhard.

By Spike

September 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

AmVet: 1:35 post. Words well spoken and accurate. History. Fact. Thanks.

By Doom here to give Obama report

September 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Obama’s speech was pretty much the same type of things he and other dems normally say: This is a bad war, I will provide health care, etc. Doom is entering the health care industry, so I look forward to some of the changes they will bring about.

Doom

By Paul

September 20, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

AmVet

[[Nixon’s motives were purely political… Gravel’s motivations were humanitarian and compassionate… And in my entire lifetime, that has been THE defining difference between the two parties.]]

Well, I suppose one could make the case that this troop deployment/rest at home thing was just another in a line of efforts to shut down the Iraq theater under the guise of “we care for the troops.” BTW - O Reilly the other night said he thought Sen Webb was motivated by care for the troops (cited his military background) but the Dem leadership was using it as a means to an end.

Dick Morris once reported that in a meeting with Trent Lott, Lott offered up an increase in minimum wage tied to annual increases in inflation. Pres Clinton declined as Dems got way too much ongoing mileage from the annual battles.

Personally, I think there are honorable people in both Parties’ leadership and rank and file - and also a whole bunch of political opportunists with little in the way of a moral compass who will do whatever, whenever, to advance their cause.

I suppose that’s true with most walks of life -

By Catscan

September 20, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

I predicted a draft back in the wash of the dot.bombs in 2000. I said that the market has never collapsed or the economy never tanked without us going to war soon afterwards.

I also predicted a draft of at least 3 million men. Wait. We will eventually have 500K boots on the ground. The shoe shine concession alone will be worth millions.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

getalife

Yeah, lots of big business seems to operate pretty independently of the national interest during war. Nothing new - look at Standard Oil during WWII - Teddy Kennedy’s father’s actions - same stories, different year.

But that doesn’t make it right. I distinguish between “as a cause for war” and as “opportunism during war.”

I didn’t think much of BOR’s comment, either. I think way too many police are way too quick on the trigger - with some pretty nasty results.

But I think that U of F student was quite the actor - “the government’s going to kill me!!!” - then - several students said when they got outside and the cameras turned away he stopped.

But his actions, lame as they were, don’t justify the unnecessary use of force. I’m not saying it was necessary or not - just using the incident to make a point.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Paul, not to speak for getalife, but the answer to your question about why this President has not reimplemented the draft is the same reason Nixon “ended” it.

Not because it makes sense militarily. THE ONLY REASON IS POLITICS.

If this administration even breathed a word about conscription, their numbers in the house and senate would have dropped into a range similar to the approval rating by the American people on how our commander-in-chief is managing this “war”.

And the neo-cons know it. And maintaining power is more important to them than ANYTHING.

So we get Cheney blubbering about going to war with the army you have.

BTW this brilliant move to not allow for rational, compassionate troop rotations is yet another extremely short sighted move that is going to hurt the GOP very badly in the future.

And not for the obvious reasons.

Rather, as we all know, the US Armed Forces are getting stretched extremely thin, and is what we politely call “overextended”.

If, as this administration claims, Iraq is just the first battlefield in the “war on terror”, where the hell are we going to get more combat soldiers and marines in the future?

Recruitment numbers are down and are insufficient.

And the guys in country are either mostly going to get killed or will not re-enlist because of this immoral decision to keep sending them there over and over and over again until they are. Would you?

Can you say DRAFT in a few more years?

By Fly-on-the-wall

September 20, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

Can someone help me out with the ‘Greenland 1300’ stuff. I Googled it and didn’t find much then googled Greenland Ice and found articles talking about the formation of the Ice Cap or Ice Sheet, depending on your technical take of things, happening in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers; full link -(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandicesheet). Where is the information about there being no ice sheet on Greenland during the 1300’s??

By Catscan

September 20, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

Clinton was the master in the war on terror, if you count no attacks since the last one as the criteria for effective counter terrorism.

Checkmate.

By Bosch

September 20, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

Wow! I bet this cartoon made Dusty’s head explode!

Getting on late today - I haven’t read all the posts.

Fly on the Wall - We can’t help you out with that because it’s imaginary.

Check this out: Study Says Soccer Is Better Than Jogging

Hell yes!

By Gonna Love 08

September 20, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Lack of brains (lucoduh)

Your quote: “When a “madman” took the office of the United States presidency, hostages got released, that day.”

Once again you have rewritten history, The hostages were to be released 3 days before Reagan took office but he held them up to make him look good. Then he turned around and sold arms to the same Iranians who held our people hostage. Then he sold arms to Iraq and had them taken off the terroist watch list. Then after the Marine barracks was bombed in lebanon in 83 he had our troops high tail it back home (Cut and run is what the GOP likes to call it). Then he had the CIA buy coke to see and funnel the profits thru manuel noriega to the contras in Nicaragua, the same country where after democratic elections where had Reagan and his Neo-cons didnt like it and had the Sandanistas overthrow the government causing some 300,000 civilians to loose their life. Is this the same pres you were referring to? If so i though i would remind you of a few facts from his lame presidency….

By getalife

September 20, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

You can speak for me AmVet.

Well said like RE’s post.

I agree.

By RW-(the original)

September 20, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Amvet,

I would interject that politics isn’t the only reason even if you do want to shout it out in all caps. There is also the need for very specialized positions in today’s military which lends itself much more to an all volunteer force.

By Doomsday:Coming Friday Oct 5

September 20, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

There has been a change on Doom’s list of friends: @@ is now 1# replacing Midori.

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

{{{{By Gonna Love 08 September 20, 2007 2:15 PM Your quote: “When a “madman” took the office of the United States presidency, hostages got released, that day.” Once again you have rewritten history, The hostages were to be released 3 days before Reagan took office but he held them up to make him look good.}}}}

Hahahahahahaha.

~~~~~~

{{{{By Fly-on-the-wall September 20, 2007 2:07 PM Can someone help me out with the ‘Greenland 1300’ stuff?}}}}

No problem.

{{{{Data obtained from ice cores indicate that between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of the southern part of the island experienced a relatively mild climate similar to today. Trees and herbaceous plants grew in the south of the island and the prevailing climate initially permitted farming of domestic livestock species as farmed in Norway.}}}}

{{{{Main contributors to the demise of the Norse settlements appeared to have been destruction of the natural vegetation for farming, turf, and wood by the Norse and ensuing soil erosion and a decline in local temperatures during the Little Ice Age,}}}}

By Paul

September 20, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

AmVet

I can think of very few positions in which I’d support a draft. As RW-(the original) said, it’s a different military than ‘Nam. Basic training, basic military instruction in the career field can take over a year. The first year after that is basic upgrade training. They’re just getting proficient, they’re out.

But I doubt we’ll see any more boots on the ground in such a scenario in any mideast country. Limits options, doesn’t it?

BTW - going to war with the army you’ve got was a Rumsfeld comment - and it was about equipment. Army had not urban warfare vehicles - didn’t want any - so didn’t have any in the pipeline. So they went with what they had - Humvees.

getalife

Actually, I liked Jay Leno’s take on that Florida student:

“Did you hear what that UF student yelled at the cops? ‘Don’t taser me, bro’. Personally, I think any white guy who calls a black guy “bro” deserves to get tasered.”

By steve-o

September 20, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

Doom,

What do you think about the Jena 6 case?

By How did Doom know Steve would ask about that?

September 20, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

I think its f@#$ed up that those 6 gentleman were tried as adults and for attempted murder! That being said, since the charges were dropped or reduced in most of the cases, I see no need in treating this like this is the Civil rights movement all over again. The participants(marchers) seem to be more caught up in being prideful about what their doing than they are in getting justice for those young men.

If the same energy was spent when we kill each other unjustly, which is everyday during the week, then you would see some real progress in the African American race.

Doom

By rushncap

September 20, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Great toon, Mike!

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

{{Well guess what, after twenty some years of failed diplomacy and murdered Americans, now we are slaughtering these creeps wholesale, they found out first hand what a strong horse really is, just like I wanted to do back in 1979.}}

I remember the calls to bomb them A-rabs back to the stone age. If it’s merely revenge you and your ilk are after, say it. Just tell me where and with whom it stops. I thought it was all about oil, which makes at least some sense, I suppose. But it’s just good ol’ American hatred. That clears up quite a bit. Osama is Saudi, not Iraqi. Saddam is gone. It’s clear the new government is a cluster** and that religious fanaticism is centuries old and not going to be overcome by our C-in-C, who apparently skipped over the history lesson on Mideast realpolitik. So we are in Iraq to … hey, kill Iraqis. If that’s what it’s all about, fine. But no more b.s. about freeing them or introducing democracy. Kill ‘em all and sort ‘em out later. Sickening. I believed you were misguided, Duh, but now I see you are much more. You blame a ‘liberal media’ for this country’s problems so you don’t have to face your own fear of what you do not understand. Bid Laden is a fanatic and the world would be better off without him. But you represent the worst of America by pretending to be a patriot to cover your own bigotry and delusions that everybody everywhere should be just like us. Simply and utterly pathetic. Where you were once annoying, you’re no longer interesting. So many to slaughter, so little time. Closed mind, open mouth, dime a dozen.

By RE

September 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

US economy going strong, just like Bush says….

US dollar on par with canadian dollar. Pretty soon the illegal workers are going to be requesting pesos instead of greenbacks.

By georgia 74

September 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Watch out Gonna Love 08, telling the truth really drives some of these guys crazy. The Andy’s, Dusty’s etc. will go nuts.

By Catscan

September 20, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

Okay. What happened during the 1300’s was a mini-ice age, in which fragile cereal crops (porridge) gave way to potatoes (fries) once shunned till folks started starving. It seems folks looked down on a tuber that lived covered in dirt. Then when the 30 years war started in a particularly hellish reaction to global cooling, men burned all the crops and the only crops that didn’t burn were potatoes.

The original point about global warming: not predictable. (gore may or may not be right, but if he is, he is right only accidentally. trust me. Certainly rush limbaugh’s opposite assertion about global warming could be right, but only accidentally as counter propaganda.)

no reliable data exists for global warming or cooling. it’s simply not there. no sample yet.

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

{{{{By bj in ky September 20, 2007 2:41 PM But you represent the worst of America by pretending to be a patriot to cover your own bigotry and delusions that everybody everywhere should be just like us.}}}}

Uh, when did I say that?

I said we should kill all of the cut throat Islamic radicals, you know, the ones that kill innocent women and children everyday, and anyone with half a brain can see what I said and what Bush is doing.

I suppose you think that Bush is the one sending all of those suicide bombers out to kill innocent people, right?

If you are going to transform yourself into a crazed democrat toady and start babbling MoveOn slogans at me, then why don’t you run along and find some government building to spray paint, junior?

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 12:24 — yes, our armed forces are considered “volunteers”, but the question you should be asking is “why don’t more Republicans of military age volunteer for the wars they cheerlead for?”

Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called “war on terror” as nothing less than the cause of their time.— Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. “Medical reasons.” “It’s not for me.” These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them “over there.”— Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP’s next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.

I don’t believe many “volunteers” for our armed forces like being rotated & roasted on that spit, over and over again… exactly how many tours of duty in Iraq do you cheer for, for those volunteers fighting “over there”???

By steve-o

September 20, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

My opinion differs slightly from yours, but yours is well-said nonetheless.

It’s not the Civil Rights Movmement, but it’s good to see people motivated and protesting against the double standards that exist in a lot of court systems across the country.

I’ve never killed anybody and I don’t think you have either, so I guess we’re doing our part on that front.

By steve-o

September 20, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

Great cartoon today, BTW!

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

PAUL— More non-volunteers for that war “over there” — they really put their lives on the line for this war they believe in and cheerlead for, hmmm???

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons’ decision not to enlist in the military, saying they’re showing their support for the country by “helping me get elected.”

By steve-o

September 20, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

Doom,

My 2:55 post is supposed to be addressed to you.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Goldie

We’ve had this discussion before - but for the benefit of others’ reading I’ll briefly recap:

Mitt Romney’s sons are adults. I questioned before why so many liberals seem to be so in favor of parents mandating a career choice for their children? I suppose the freedom to live one’s own life without outside coercion is a conservative trait?

By that line of thinking, should those who work for stronger environmental protections force their kids to join the EPA? Do those who bemoan the state of inner city schools force their kids to become teachers, then direct them to move to inner Detroit? The answer’s evident -

It’s a fallacious line of reasoning. Great for sound bite rejoinders, though.

Our armed forces are “considered” volunteers? Considered?!!? They either are, or aren’t. Surely you think those who volunteer, especially for the Army and Marines, are smart enough to realize what they’re in for? Especially when they’ve done a couple tours and it’s time to re-up? See, that’s what I mean about personalizing something. This is about them and their career decision. Not mine. In fact, what I think about how they feel about a redeployment or the career choices they make, is - irrelevant. “Mikey, I really hate this war. I think it’s a waste. But you just signed on for another four-year tour and you’re going back and it’s just so… so… wrong!!!” (Mikey says “huh? do I tell you how to live your life?”)

BTW A young many very close to our family just redeployed. I’m not at all pleased about it. But I think it would be condescendingly insulting to question him about his career choice. Also a son who faces another tour. Working to end our involvement can be done without using soldiers as political pawns or treating them like they’re too dumb to live their own lives. I’m regularly amazed at how many liberals treat so many educated people as if they’re absolute morons.

And those college Republicans? Typical of college students. Any persuasion. Any cause. Stop world hunger! cry the Young Dems. Go on a one-year aid trip to Namibia? asks Doctors Without Borders. Uh, I’ve got this lumbago that kicks up, say the students -

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Oh Boy, won’t this be FUN? Newt will be the final nail in the coffin of the Repug Party majority for about the next 50 years!

Run, Newt, Run!

WASHINGTON — Announcing as a presidential candidate on Jay Leno’s late night TV show — as Republican Fred Thompson did recently — “is just goofy,” Newt Gingrich said Thursday.— The former House Speaker from Georgia said he would lean toward starting the race with a nationally televised address — if he decides to run. That decision will come around Nov. 1 and depend upon whether his supporters can get $30 million in pledges for campaign support, Gingrich explained at a breakfast with reporters and political commentators.

Of course, Newt is very prescient when he comments about the Dems winning big in ‘08, as stated in the same article:

“Gingrich said the odds are better than nine in ten that New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee and about 80 percent in favor of the Democratic nominee being elected in 2008.”

I’m sure Newt is including himself as being part of the resounding loss for the Repugs in ‘08.

By Analchord

September 20, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

There are rules of debate. They are called Roberts Rules of Order, and you uberpundits break every one of them nearly with every post.

You dont earn the conclusions, or deserve to infer the deductions, or even sketch out the premises without violating every law of legal discourse ever perpetuated…..and I think it’s a shame that your mothers didn’t raise you all to be nicer girls.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Goldie

No, Newt, NO!

Unless Dodd or Kucinich runs…

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

{{Mitt Romney’s sons are adults.}}

Paul @ 3:25 — no one is arguing about “adults”… are you suggesting that it’s a “conservative trait” to force or encourage only your CHILDREN into fighting the wars that you cheerlead for? And you’re suggesting that because Romney’s sons are adults that they “know better” than to enlist?

Wouldn’t it be a good “conservative trait” to actually encourage fellow conservative ADULTS to volunteer for the wars that they promote? Or is it just that the adults “know better” than children to do that???

If you’re promoting a war “over there” for the good of America, at least be man (or woman) enough to volunteer for your own war! Our troops are being rotated on the spit in Iraq, and you’ve got able-bodied, cheerleading Repugs who refuse to enlist — such COWARDS!

Paul, you can take your circular, war-promoting logic and SHOVE IT!

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

And once again, Paul, as I asked you before— exactly how many tours of duty in Iraq do you cheer for, for those volunteers fighting “over there”??? Would 5 tours be enough, and then you would state “I really draw the line there!”

Or after 10 tours in Iraq for the same troops over and over again, you might think about encouraging your fellow able-bodied Repug compadres to enlist at that point???

By getalife

September 20, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

My goodmess, we had gang fights in high school and nobody called the police.

They lasted a year until we got to tired and decided to be friends.

Kids today should fight instead of shooting each other and the parents should tell the kids to take it like a man and quit whining.

Big deal, he got his as-s whooped and the DA is a racist idiot.

They should be charged with fighting at school. You get arrested for that these days and that is ridiculous.We got paddled.

Geez.

By Fly-on-the-wall

September 20, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

Duh, can you post the source of that statement regarding the Greenland Ice Sheet or lack of it as you are stating?

By Paul

September 20, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

Goldie

No one’s arguing about adults? I thought you wrote:

[[Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons’ decision not to enlist in the military]]

Romney’s sons graduated university years ago and are well into adulthood. You wrote, I thought, in a critical vein of those who advocate a cause but whose children don’t participate. As I said, I view it as a flaky argument.

Of course it’s not a conservative trait. But I hear the argument over and over from liberals - or anti-Iraq war folks (notice the distinction?) of “well, their kids don’t serve!” Big deal. As I said, making national policy based upon the self-interest of one’s family members is not exactly appropriate.

I’m saying Mitt Romney’s sons should make their own choices what to do with their lives. And not get criticized (or his father) who think they know better.

As I illustrated from the examples, the whole “if you support a concept you should take part” is weak. Hmmm, I suppose if a man supports the right to an abortion he should get artificially inseminated, then visit Planned Parenthood and… see what I mean?

It’s similar to those who cry “that Mikey’s a lousy cartoonist!” and someone responds “oh yeah? Let’s see you draw better!”

As far as “your own war” - see, that’s the “them vs us” that permeates so many issues. Not two parties (and “two parties” is part of the problem) working together for the national good - without impugning the integrity or patriotism of those with whom they disagree.

BTW - what did I ever say in this exchange that “promoted” war? I thought we were discussing the ability of adults to make their own life choices without having someone who disagrees demonizing them or the lifestyle they choose?

Gee, sounds kinda like when the ultrareligious fundamentalist right criticises homosexuals, don’t it? :)

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

Uncle Sam needs YOU — All you College Republicans: put your cheerleading into real action and sign up now! Our military is strained to the breaking point and you’re busy here in America voting for your favorite “American Idol”…

There are no signs that the Pentagon’s top generals and admirals are pushing for an early end to the war, but they are concerned not only about strains on troops but also about the possibility that the heavy focus on counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq leaves the military ill-prepared in the event of a crisis elsewhere.

By Mike

September 20, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

Gee Mikey hates corruption so much, you would have thought that he would have done a cartoon on Norman Hsu by now. Or maybe Bookman or Tucker might have written a column about it. They hate corruption a bunch too.

Wait a minute! Maybe Mikey, Bookman and Tucker really don’t hate corruption at all. Maybe they just hate people who dont share their narrow views of the world and use corruption as a method to attack those people. Hmmm.

By @@

September 20, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Doom @ 2:20:

As your #1 bestest friend, I must advice you against my promotion. You’re looking for companionship, right?

I’m more into “schmooze” while Midori has given you the “smooch” on more than one occasion.:-)

I just check into how Hugo is progressing in Venezuela.

Marxism-Leninism Forging Ahead in Venezuela

NO PRIVATE SCHOOLS!!!! unless of course they follow the socialist doctrine.

That sounds so familiar…where have I heard it before????

Oh yeah, I remember now. Liberals hate private schools and all that they represent.

How very HUGO of them. Dick-taters in the making.

Mmmmm mm mmmmm mm mm…

By Paul

September 20, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

Goldie 4:07

Uh, haven’t I criticized the current and past Joint Chiefs of Staff for just those same things? Even Gen Shinseki - the guy so many point to as “hounded out” by the Bush Administration had a statutory responsibility to publish dissenting views of the Chairman, JCS advice (the Title 1500 series of the US Code, I believe. So much for the “generals can’t dissent” argument.

Were you around when I cited the Army Lt Col who had a piece published in the Army War College journal scathingly critical of the current crop of Army leadership’s conduct of the war? Or the piece I cited from the NY Times of the current Army Chief of Staff’s visit to one of the up and coming captain’s courses where he was peppered over and over with those questions?

BTW - as far as that criticism of “heavy focus on counterinsurgency warfare… ill prepared in event of crisis elsewhere…” I view that as just another method to defend the multibillion weapons systems the military’s so fond of. And I’ll still make the argument they’re engaged in a counterinsurgency operation with a prevailing conventional warfare mindset. Notice how Gen Petraeus was described as one of the few counterinsurgency types who could lead this change?

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

{I questioned before why so many liberals seem to be so in favor of parents mandating a career choice for their children?}

This goes to the very issue that I think is rarely spoken - our elected leaders are in many cases, examples for us.

In other words, because the former governor of Massachusetts chose not to serve, it is very likely none of his progeny will.

I chose to serve. Like my father before me. And now my son has enlisted in time of war to make it three straight generations who have done so.

Mind you I NEVER once suggested he do this. Nor did I dissuade him from that choice. You’re right. It was his and his alone. As it should be. But I believe at some level he chose to follow in my footsteps, like Mitt’s kids are doing.

Someone here once wrote about how the dads who avoided serving in Viet Nam now have children who are avoiding serving in Iraq. It is a valid observation.

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

{{I’m saying Mitt Romney’s sons should make their own choices what to do with their lives. And not get criticized (or his father) who think they know better.}}

Paul— you just continue to make excuses for your war-mongering, cheerleading friends, promoting wars for other people to participate in… you know, “they’re fighting them over there so that I won’t have to face up to my hypocrisy over here”… our military is at a breaking point today!

I think most everyone else (obviously other than you) understands that not only Romney’s sons, but many other war-mongering supporters are of military age — what, I think they’re accepting volunteers well past the age of 40 these days!

Paul, why not encourage your friends who believe in Bush’s war to do their real patriotic duty and enlist to fight in that war that they so much believe in — remember the one that they keep saying “we’re winning”?

And remember, we’re gonna have to keep the recruitment numbers high so that we can continue to “fight them over there!”, for the sake of the Repug Party, so I say be a real patriot instead of being just a cheerleader!

By RW-(the original)

September 20, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

{{{{{This goes to the very issue that I think is rarely spoken - our elected leaders are in many cases, examples for us.}}}}}

{{{{{In other words, because the former governor of Massachusetts chose not to serve, it is very likely none of his progeny will.}}}}}

That’s not “in other words” those are two completely different things unless you want to claim that an elected official becomes the parent of all in his constituency.

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Duh, why is your only consistent response is to label me a Democratic toady? I’m far, far from anyone’s toady and certainly not a non-thinking robotic Bushie who brands everyone and everything he doesn’t agree with as some form of “liberal.’ And I am not junior to the likes of you and yours. Draft lottery No. 3, 1-A. What did you do during the war? Who picks the terrorists, and where does it end? There’s a Nazi concentration camp just a short train ride from Munich. I’d suggest you visit it, then get back to me on slitting throats. See a friend die in your arms, then tell me again about why we are in Iraq and what it does to people who go off to fight for nothing. If we’re after bin Laden, then we should let the military go get him, not waste lives in some dung heap of a country where so-called insurgents are in a large part Iraqi citizens who want us to leave? Our troops have died in numbers equaling the deaths at the WTC. For what? If we’re safer today than before 9/11, why does Bush want to increase spying on American citizens? Why doesn’t the commander of US forces know whether the war has had any effect on potential terrorism here? And why are contractors making so much money on the blood of US troops? If asking these questions makes me a liberal, I’ll cop to it. I’d just like an honest answer.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

On a more current current event, anyone here think Ahmadinejad should have been permitted to lay a wreath at the site of the Twin Towers?

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

{{BTW - what did I ever say in this exchange that “promoted” war? I thought we were discussing the ability of adults to make their own life choices without having someone who disagrees demonizing them or the lifestyle they choose?}}

Paul, I won’t read your circular arguments anymore after this— you always try to do this and I won’t respond to your asinine “debates” anymore. We were not discussing “life choices” for adults— We were discussing the occupation of Iraq and the strain on our military forces, and the fact that so many Repug cheerleaders WILL NOT put themselves on the line for their own cause… not adults making “their own life choices” — that’s your circle going round and round there!

How convenient that you choose NOT to participate in a discussion of a WAR THAT YOU COME HERE DAY AFTER DAY DEFENDING AND CHEERLEADING FOR.

By RW-(the original)

September 20, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I don’t think Ahmadinejad should be allowed to do anything on US soil other than fly in, make his speech to our enemies….err the UN…and be escorted back to the airport for immediate departure.

By Bosch

September 20, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

Paul, Hell no.

By @@

September 20, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 4:30:

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! That’s one of the things I most respect about Giuliani; he took a lot of flack for placing restrictions on Yasser Arafat, but it was the right thing to do.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Goldie 4:29

You sure make a lot of assumptions about what I think. Seems to be some pretty selective extrapolations - remember all those Law and Order episodes where the lawyer objects and says “assumes facts not in evidence”?

Just so I’m sure I understand what you’re saying:

What is a “warmonger?”

I think it’s just the Army, maybe the Marines who are “at the breaking point.” Air Force and Navy’s fine. Weeks ago I gave numerous suggestions to alleviate this. You never commented. Why?

Why do you want to maintain the current force levels? Or increase them? Doesn’t that just encourage this sort of adventurism?

And what I really, really don’t get, is why, when a Republican lays out some ideas regarding Iraq he’s a @!!@## warmonger, but when Hillary does, or another Democratic candidate, and the numbers differ by only 40,000 or so, and that’s just in year one, with hardly any differences about regional structure after that - they’re some kind of visionary? Or is that just PR for general consumption and it’s the real reason so many Dems are so frustrated and ticked?

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Mr. Romney, I read a short article where he ostensibly said the GOP had lost its way.

Agreed. For goodness sakes, who wouldn’t agree with that gem!

But who knows what Mitt thinks is the correct road for the neo-conservatives? He offered no real clues which probably means he’s thinking just ever so slightly different than more of the exact same.

And after this administration, I doubt many are still fooled. And I’m fairly sure this next election is going to show as much.

By Bosch

September 20, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

RW, How is the UN our enemy? Good grief.

By RE

September 20, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Why should he not have?

By Bosch

September 20, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

BUT………I just had a thought- If we allow Ahmadinejad to go to Ground Zero, couldn’t we arrange some kind of “construction accident?”

By Liberal Lucy

September 20, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

I think it would go a long way in improving or securing diplomatic relations with Ahmadenijad.

I also think that we should buy the wreath since our sanctions have placed such financial constraints on Iran.

J/K…it’s me @@ posting under a pseudonym.

Excuse me while I go put the vacuum hose to my ear and suck out that liberal mindset.

By Goldie

September 20, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

Only Repug cheerleaders would take today’s topic of our “troops rotating on a spit” and try to make that an argument for “adults making life choices” — no wonder the Repugs are gonna lose so badly in ‘08!!!

By Paul

September 20, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

Goldie 4:39

I thought I was addressing both. But when I pointed out that Democrats criticized Romney because his sons didn’t enlist, I was asking why do antiwar Dems use an argument that in effect says parents should direct their adult sons’ career choices?

I thought I was pretty clear that I consider the “if you advocate a certain course of national policy you and your kids and friends and neighbors should serve in that capacity” is a pretty empty argument. Hence, my EPA and Detroit inner city school examples. But if it gets you mileage with others, okey dokey.

I already asked you once, how I “cheerlead?” I didn’t think that was exactly my style. You didn’t answer - just all caps, repeating the yell. I hear (read) just fine, thank you. And I understand English. So caps aren’t necessary.

I’ve also tried to engage in discussions of larger issues of war against jihadists, but my impression is your main source of interest is Iraq.

I’m reminded of an essay, I believe by a soldier, titled “is anything worth dying for?” Now there’s an interesting line of discussion -

RW-(the original) Bosch

Double ditto. Wanna bet if some Iranian expatriates might be there to challenge him? I’d hope the American government would record the confrontation and broadcast it to the general Iranian populace. Wait, didn’t the administration try something like that once and got criticized… by other Americans?

By getalife

September 20, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

RW has a lot of enemies. UN, Islam, libs, etc…

Geez.

He can go look at it like the tourists.

The Senate voting on the Moveon ad was pathetic.

A distraction from the failed occupation and failed government.

Geez.

By RW-(the original)

September 20, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Virtually nothing the UN does is in the best interest of the United States. If you can’t take a little hyperbole like my “enemy” snarkiness perhaps you should be doing something besides blogging.

Speaking of which, I’m heading out for about five miles of walk/running. Kind of a cross between jogging and soccer, if I pitch any dribbles while I’m gone I’ll let you know when I get back.

By @@

September 20, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

AmVet:

Just about every president seeks out a second term. If Mitt fails to bring about the change of which he speaks, he loses.

Americans haven’t seen any change in the Democratic platform in forty years. That’s why so many are fearful of them. I don’t see them offering any specifics either. They’re looking for a lot of money to repeat their past mistakes.

I’m not buying it. You’re the one that is always calling for a third party alternative. Shute…let the far left locomotion go out and form their own party and give us back the REAL Democrats of old.

With the ousting of YOUR neocon philosophy and the radical left, we would have a two party system that could actually work.

You’d have to go with the radical left then because that’s what you appear to be. Their heyday was during the 60’s. The 60’s mindset no longer impresses in a positive way.

By Midori

September 20, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

Marvelous Toon Mike!!!!

I love the sound of wingnuts heads exploding in the morning :)

By Bosch

September 20, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

RW, Oh, I certainly got your little “hyperbole” and no it didn’t ruffle my feathers, but maybe you should realize that the U.S. is not the only country in the world, and sometimes our “interests” cause a lot of turmoil.

LOL! If you pitch any dribbles, I would certainly wanto to know about that!

By Paul

September 20, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

AmVet 4:43

Romney was a Republican governor in a Democratic state with a Democratic legislature. Do you think (your neo comment) that maybe he’s just threading his way through the Republican right activists for the primaries like the Democratic candidates are doing with the farleft activists?

RE 4:45

Sorry, I don’t know who the “he” is. Can you clarify?

BOSCH! (4:45) NOOOO! I was just thinking the same thing but I thought “someone” here would accuse me of advocating the assassination of a foreign head of state.

And I thought RW-(the original) would be the one to print that suggestion (take it as a compliment, RW).

By RE

September 20, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this

Ahmadinijad, why should he not be allowed to lay a wreath?

By Bill

September 20, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

Just dropping by. Paul, you and RW take yourselves entirely too seriously. You are both extremely underwhelming.

By Duh stands for Democrat

September 20, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this

{{{{By bj in ky September 20, 2007 4:29 PM I’d just like an honest answer.}}}}

As soon as you ask me a question, sweetheart, I’ll give you an answer.

Up to this point all you’ve done is assume the worst about me, the worst about America and the worst about Bush, and of course, you’ve been wrong on all counts.

{{{{If we’re after bin Laden, then we should let the military go get him, not waste lives in some dung heap of a country where so-called insurgents are in a large part Iraqi citizens who want us to leave?}}}}

Are you denying that we are killing Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq?

Are you denying that we’ve reduced Al Qaeda to a bunch of cave dwelling blowhards that can barely set themselves on fire?

Are you saying that the twenty some odd years that we played punks to Islamic Fascists that ended with 9/11 is better than by the thousands with no further loss of American civilians?

Are you saying that Al Qaeda would cease scheming our cities if we just stuck our heads up our as-ses again?

{{{{There’s a Nazi concentration camp just a short train ride from Munich. I’d suggest you visit it, then get back to me on slitting throats.}}}}

I know of the horrors of Nazi Germany probably more so than you could ever imagine.

Why do you think I don’t want to punk out to these scumbag terrorists like you do, and like France did with the Nazis?

Duh.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

RE

Laying a wreath is a sign of condolence, respect - a solemn action signifying appreciation for or acknowledgement of suffering, injustice, sacrifice.

Many of Ahmadinejad’s goals are the same as militant Islamists. (An aside - if he were say, a South American dictator trained at the military School of the Americas with the same record of women’s rights, torture, executions - I believe many on the Left would protest his even being allowed into the country). His country supplies munitions with lead to the deaths of noncombatants and US personnel.

So he should be accorded normal diplomatic access to the UN - but no other courtesies.

By RE

September 20, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

Which goals?

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

Ooops, I was in a rush:

Are you saying that the twenty some odd years that we played punks to Islamic Fascists that ended with 9/11 is better than (killing them) by the thousands with no further loss of American civilians?

By Paul

September 20, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

RE

Somehow, I just knew you’d pick up on that, disregard the rest and segue away from the larger issue of what level of access and honor Ahmadinejad should be accorded. I even removed two other similar statements to leave just the one so it wouldn’t be so tempting. But that’s okay.

Well, without getting into a back and forth over how “we” translated his remarks and what he “really” innocently meant, I think it’s fair to say his views of women’s rights, self determination, the value of the individual, justification for torture and murder, views of the relationship of civilians and military in times of conflict, are more in line with fundamentalist Islam (getalife coined a phrase the other day - “wingnut Islamists” - great, isn’t it?) rather than moderate Islamic or Western civilization values. Goals. Both.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this

I have to chuckle when one of the “faithful” fails to admit the ongoing and impending total demise of their ideology, but instead blather about 60’s liberalism.

One time a few years ago, the Red Sox, were in town to play the Bravos. I wore my Yankee cap (I’ve been a die-hard NY fan since the mid-sixties) as I always enjoy riling up my adversaries (Who me?!!!).

My girlfriend and I were walking out after the game and about six or seven guys with Boston stuff on starting ragging on me. It was OK, but a one guy couldn’t let it go and kept yelling, “The Yankees su-ck!”.

I finally smiled and turned around and said simply, “No. You just wish they did. Twenty six.” (As in World championships). They never said another word.

My point is that liberalism always has and always will have a vibrant relevant place in American politics.

Neo-conservatism is essentially repudiated and dead already though the neo-cons keep yelling, “The Yankees su-ck!”.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

AmVet

neoconservative - conservative - middle of the road/moderate - liberal - ultraLeft/farLeft

neoconservative links to ultraleft, not liberal.

Unless your point was neocons (not conservatives) say liberals(ism) are/is dead. (If that’s the case, it strikes me as one of those zombie/walking dead movies. Sure are a lot of’em).

By RE

September 20, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this

Women’s rights, well that is kind of in line with every other muslim country, the only moderate muslim sountry I can think of is Turkey. Justification of torture is an issue that the US would have a lot of trouble preaching about right now.

I just think it is odd how many people woudl agree with you without really knowing why. We as a country are easily manipulated into agreeing on enemies, while disregarding other factors. All you hear about is how terrible Iran and Syria are, how they are “undermining our efforts in Iraq”

Where are all the AK47s coming from, they kill more than the roadside bombs (China, Russia, Pakistan). People are in fits over some bomb parts coming from Iran, but no mention that over 50% of the foriegn fighters in Iran are from Saudi Arabia. What is the Saudi royals family’s view on womans rights, torture and the like.

It just seems like we have standards that are applied very selectively.

By Tell tell signs

September 20, 2007 6:05 PM | Link to this

Barack Obama - Chris Dodd - Hillary Clinton didn’t join the members in casting a vote against the Moveon ad. Clinton and Dodd voting in opposition.

Obama was on the floor 20 minutes earlier to cast his vote on another bill but abruptly left before having to attack Moveon.

The bums rush from Moveon Obama? Methinks maybe so.

Obama, the faint of heart.

Chickensh!t!

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

September 20, 2007 6:07 PM | Link to this

I would like to second Duh’s comments about the War on Terror. People who disagree with Duh, the President and myself focus way too much on “facts.” I would suggest that rather looking at the “facts” that you react fearfully, emotionally or irrationally. When you are afraid, emotional or irrational the stupid and non-sensical makes sense. Duh and I are a good example of this. We can’t tell you that Iraq will become a beacon of Democracy in the Middle East that will oppose Iran if we stay the course, but we can distract you from that question while we commit people to die indefinitly for a cause which the General in charge of it can’t say whether it makes us safer. Further we can completly ignore the fact that Petraeus couldn’t answer whether the Iraq War makes Americans safer because again we are fearful, emotional and irrational and a “fact” that completely undercuts everything we’ve ever said about this war is easily discarded as irrelevant. So while Petreaus orders our sons into battles where they face death for a reason that he can’t say helps us at home, we cheer him on and lie and tell you that it does make us safer and Petraeus is a great General who happens to be an idiot on one small minor detail to wit: Are we safer because of our sacrifice? Why would we expect him to know that anyway? Once you understand that the “facts” don’t matter and that the only thing that matters is a stubborn unwillingness to admit that while we were wrong about EVERY F_ING premise of the War we can still be certain of its rightness until it kills every last one of us. Why? Because we are stupid like that!

Duh, I tip my hat to you. There has never in one being resided some much misguided patriotism wrapped in stubborness and stupidity. You are truly the great American moron. I salute you. You are my hero. BTW: My doctor has scheduled me for some shock treatment to see if I can rid myself of the memory of Petreaus’ testimony that he can’t say whether the war helps America. Unlike you I have a hard time completely ignoring reality, despite how hard I try, but I am willing to destroy whatever brain I have left so that I can stand side by side with the Biggest Douche in the Universe.

With Love and Respect for Duh I am,

RWNJIFG

By Paul

September 20, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

RE

Welcome to international relations/politics. Hard consistency just doesn’t happen. National policies and goals change over time, allowances are made for one situation, no quarter is given in another; treatment varies by how valuable one country is to another’s national interests; one country’s national power or economic status will elicit a different response - yeah, happens all the time. All countries do it.

Then so many think that because our national interests were served by supporting someone (or their organization) (Saddam or bin Laden) who years later doesn’t, and they become a foe, there’s some kind of conspiracy, or America’s a hypocrite, well, you can say “welcome to reality” all you want but for some, nothing changes.

By Doomsday: Friday October 5,2007

September 20, 2007 6:13 PM | Link to this

RWNJIFG,

Doom knew he forgot someone on his most hated list, it is you! I may replace Steve-0 with you. I see that you are still repressing your inner right wing feelings with sarcasm. It must be hard staying the closet with denial.

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this

Duh, I’ll assume for the moment the best of you. I have already asked several questions, but I will make these much clearer. One, do you think our presence in Iraq has made much real headway against fundamentalists or served to inflame Islamic militants even more? Two, do you realize the second deadliest terrorist attack in the US wasn’t by an Islamic fanatic but rather a white American named Timothy McVeigh, who shared many of your apparent opinions about big government? Three, how many American lives and how much money will it take to do whatever it is we’re trying to achieve in Iraq? Four, when and where does it end — when our troops are dead on their feet (or on the ground) or KBR and its cronies finish draining the treasury? Five, why have several former commanders in Iraq come out against the war and the current one has no idea about its effect on terror? Six, who is going to clean up after Bush since it’s clear we’ll be there long after he’s gone? One caveat, calling me a liberal once more doesn’t qualify as an answer.

By Who does Paul support

September 20, 2007 6:20 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You seem to be a man of wisdom, who do you support in the upcoming election?

Doom

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

{{{{Mitt Romney’s response sums it up:}}}}

{{{{“Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”}}}}

By getalife

September 20, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this

Actually, there are two wingnut, extremist, radical, insane groups wanting the end of times.

The Christian wingnuts and the Islamic wingnuts.

It is religion based insanity. Radical right, if you will.

The left believe this is insane along with the moderates and the the wingnuts should be marginalized to the lunatic fringe they really are.

duh, w and Iamanutjob are examples of this lunatic fringe.

By RE

September 20, 2007 6:25 PM | Link to this

I think you are right Paul, it puts things in an uncomfortable light though. America does not act upon any inherent values, just on temporary interests and oppertunities.

Here is a question for you, is America served by having an enemy to focus on, does having an enemy serve a purpose. From 1938 until 1992 we had clear deliniations of enemies/ allies. From 1992 until 2001 we had no central enemy. From 2001 until present, we have Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Afghanistan.

I am starting to think there is just not as much profit to be made in peacetime. A war, or at least a military tension is much more profitable to the country.

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 6:29 PM | Link to this

Please do not respond to me. I am one of the biggest dumba$$es to ever infect this blog. I love to go on and on about absolutely nothing and don’t know when to shut the hell up. I love listening to myself talk and reading my endless meaningless words. I think what I say is very intelligent but that is only because I never made it pass the 3rd grade. Please forgive my brainlessness and allow me to think I’m smart.

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this

I actually agree that the thought of the junior senator from NY being the commander-in-chief should give any one serious pause.

Now had she served in the Texas ANG, I would feel MUCH better!

By getalife

September 20, 2007 6:32 PM | Link to this

President Clinton’s economy was booming.

Ah, the good old days.

Lets get back to it.

After all, he cleaned up daddy’s mess too.

By Luckoduh

September 20, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this

{{{{By bj in ky September 20, 2007 6:17 PM One, do you think our presence in Iraq has made much real headway against fundamentalists or served to inflame Islamic militants even more?}}}}

Do you realize that you used number 1 to ask two entirely different questions?

1a) Yes.

1b) Um, 6 years with no attacks and you ask silly questions like that?

{{{{Two, do you realize the second deadliest terrorist attack in the US wasn’t by an Islamic fanatic but rather a white American named Timothy McVeigh, who shared many of your apparent opinions about big government?}}}}

Do you realize John Wayne Gacy was a sick little que-er that killed 40 some kids and shared many of your liberal beliefs?

(WTF kind of question was that, is Bush a homicide bomber too, MF?)

{{{{Three, how many American lives and how much money will it take to do whatever it is we’re trying to achieve in Iraq?}}}}

Less than you cowards killed in Vietnam before you ran screaming from the battlefield.

{{{{Four, when and where does it end — when our troops are dead on their feet (or on the ground) or KBR and its cronies finish draining the treasury?}}}}

40 years is what most educated people believe. Probably in the range of 5 years before Iraq, a enslaved pit of genocide just a few short years ago, becomes fully functional, with a full self defense in place against Iran and the other losers in the neighborhood.

{{{{Five, why have several former commanders in Iraq come out against the war and the current one has no idea about its effect on terror?}}}}

The “other one’s” nearly lost the war all on their own, probably because they were dreaming about stupid elite ideas about “making us safer” instead of concentrating on killing the enemy and actually making us safer.

Pretty sick idea you have of security, incompetent generals leading your non fighting army.

{{{{Six, who is going to clean up after Bush since it’s clear we’ll be there long after he’s gone?}}}}

Iraq will.

By getalife is going to hell

September 20, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this

There’s nothing fanatical about believing what your instruction manual(the bible)tells you. It predicts not only that heathens like you would say things such as what you just said, it also predicts that you will roast like a chicken as a result of it.

Doom

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

September 20, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this

Doom,

I am most disappointed that I didn’t make number #1 on your most-hated list as I had requested. I demand that I be the one you hate the most. I was always told that you can tell people by their enemies. With you as an enemy I know I’m doing something right.

GFY. Your opinion is meaningless.

Why don’t you address the substance of the point and either admit that Gen. Petreaus was stupid in saying what Duh and I have said all along which is that victory in Iraq is essential to our very existence or you can take the commie, leftist, pinko, treasonous approach and say that we should glean some meaning from Petreaus’ inability to justify his efforst in terms of our security at home? In other words, this is a political forum not a contest for Miss Congeniality you moron.

RWNJIFG

P.S. GFY, again.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 6:39 PM | Link to this

Doom

I honestly don’t know yet.

I liked Obama’s emphasis on a “new” way to conduct political activity - but I’m a tad disappointed on his response with this MoveOn thing. Maybe I’m being a tad too idealistic, here. Some, Richardson, have good credentials, but not the money or organization to make it. Edwards - goes from moderate last time to uberlib this time. Opportunist. Hillary - still strikes me as coldly calculating - I just can’t get a handle on who she really is.

Guiliani - other Reps - I frankly don’t care about their kids, wives, divorces, etc. A point was made about the size of NYC compared to some states - or populations represented by Senators. He’s made some hard calls. Romney - seems as if he began grounded in principle - now he strikes me in many ways with some of the same characteristics as Hillary (not knowing what he really thinks - changes to suit the audience). Ron Paul - if many people found out his Libertarian positions - not just his debate comments - they’d be appalled (like the alliterative play on words?). McCain - I’ve thought his work on McCain-Feingold was a response to the Bush political machine’s huge warchest that steamrolled him. I like the way he’d work with Feingold or Kennedy or others to achieve common goals. Thompson? He’s like Hillary in that I don’t know any specifics. Nice sounding generalities. Sparse specifics.

Many of these comments are impressions. Right? Wrong? Accurate? Not? Just impressions at this point. So I just don’t know. It’s not that it’s too early. It’s that there are still way too many unknowns.

By Paul

September 20, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

RE 6:25

LOL! I’ll have to beg off until tomorrow - I’m need to prepare some fresh trout before the doorbell rings. But you’ve done a pretty succinct job there -

getalife 6:24: Bingo! But the differences I see, the hard fundamentalist religious right tries to impose their views through the legislative process. Those they see as sinners - the leave it to God to “punish.”

Islamists - try to impose their views with a sword or rifle. Don’t want to wait for God. They see their duty is to send the nonbelievers to Allah - now!

Christian fundamentalists don’t even think about nukes. Islamists do.

Have a pleasant evening -

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

getalife, you know its kind of funny to look back on Bush 41.

I remember how he was practically despised by the “conservative” GOP for being a closet moderate.

(I foolishly had hopes his son would be the same!)

Yes, his Reaganism was still pronounced, but he was, to me, much more of a centrist who saw through supply side/voodoo economics, ultimately his undoing as he broke his promise of no new taxes to pay for Reagan’s enormous spending.

He enlisted on his 18th birthday and was to me perhaps the last Republican President of honor and courage.

By RWNJIFG

September 20, 2007 6:50 PM | Link to this

You’re right maggot! This is a political forum. You are not contributing to it by pretending you are something you’re not. Why don’t you just say whatever the f@ck is on your mind and get it over with like everybody else? You don’t like conservatives. fine. Quit being a fake human being and face your adversaries like a man, or woman, or whatever the f^ck you are.

Doom

By Goodbye Paul

September 20, 2007 6:54 PM | Link to this

Paul is the coolest dude on these here blogs!

Doom

By RW-(the original)

September 20, 2007 6:55 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I decided to do the full 10K and the only pitch I saw had turned back into an American football field so if there was any dribbling going on I didn’t get close enough to see.

If you followed any of the conversation I’ve had with RE over the last few days you wouldn’t have made that ignorant statement about me being the one that feels the US is the only country in the world and cares only about our interests. It’s just that the UN is structured in such a way as to be anti-American. However as a side benefit it’s totally useless so it really doesn’t matter all that much.

By Doomsday:Friday October 5,2007

September 20, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

ATTENTION EVERYONE: Doomsday is rapidly approaching. On Friday Oct 5, Doom will outline all of his political views and list all of his accomplishments on this blog. I will also designate who has been the 1# poster on Luckovich’s blog. In other words, who has made the most sense.

Doom

By bj in ky

September 20, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this

Duh, I’ll assume for the moment the best of you. I have already asked several questions, but I will make these much clearer. One, do you think our presence in Iraq has made much real headway against fundamentalists or served to inflame Islamic militants even more? Two, do you realize the second deadliest terrorist attack in the US wasn’t by an Islamic fanatic but rather a white American named Timothy McVeigh, who shared many of your apparent opinions about big government? Three, how many American lives and how much money will it take to do whatever it is we’re trying to achieve in Iraq? Four, when and where does it end — when our troops are dead on their feet (or on the ground) or KBR and its cronies finish draining the treasury? Five, why have several former commanders in Iraq come out against the war and the current one has no idea about its effect on terror? Six, who is going to clean up after Bush since it’s clear we’ll be there long after he’s gone? One caveat, calling me a liberal once more doesn’t qualify as an answer.

By @@

September 20, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

Well I do declare…President Calderon in Mexico has convinced his government that the Flat Tax is the way to boost Mexico’s economy. It’s a go.

That guy is on the ball. He’s made two concessions to the left that will eventually allow him to expand his conservative agenda.

Next step…opening up their state owned oil production to outside investors.

Good luck President Calderon. You da man!!!!

If it’s good for Mexico, it’s good for America and our illegal population.

By Right-wing nut job in full glory

September 20, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this

Doom,

First, no one cares about what you think.

Second, I’ll do whatever I like, however I like and you can GFY.

Third, being a coward is not being able to address serious issues irrespective of how they are phrased or framed. Obviously, you are incapable and thius a coward. Any human being with an IQ over 70, knows what I am and who I am. Is the name that deceiving you moron?

Fourth, while I object strenuously to your suggestion that I am sarcastic, and while I have freely admitted that my being a winger means that I am functioning at somewhat of a low level of intelligence, even I can see the value of someone using another’s positions to illustrate how f—-ing stupid they are. I also recognize that there is very little open-mindedness or seriousnes on this blog. People come here to spout their opinions and name call and “make friends” all of which is kinda sad really and if someone wants to use their own time to make fun of the idiots here, then too bad, get over it, GFY, and/or skip the posts. Either way, I don’t give a damn about what you think.

BTW: I look forward to having a “critical” look at your stupid opinions. You better be careful…I may agree with you.

RWNJIFG

By AmVet

September 20, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, the irrelevant UN. I remember it well…

Something about Saddam not obeying their irrelevant useless resolutions as I recall.

Well tomorrow is another day in fake it until you make it on neo-con fantasy Island.

And one day closer to you know who going on his speaking tour! (Can you imagine?!)

By RW-(the original)

September 20, 2007 7:27 PM | Link to this

Blowhard,

errrr…Amvet,

If you had one iota of the intelligence you ascribe to yourself you would realize the difference between us deciding to step up and enforce a resolution that the UN never would or could have and stating that the UN itself is worthless. The former tends to prove the latter.