Skip navigation




    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 7:49 am
    • Permalink

    Really Zack? After Bush’s “Watch this drive” soundclip?

    Also this is the 4th out of the past 7 comics where it’s just been your characters watching tv. That’s getting a bit lazy, but better than somebody holding a newspaper with a headline, which is probably the laziest route to go with a comic.

  1. Obama golfs far more than Bush. No comparison. And plays worse.

    Also, this is the 15th out of the past 15 cartoons where you make predictable liberal comments. That’s getting a bit lazy. But more to the point, hey, like most of America the Lanes watch a lot of TV. I can’t be blamed for that.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:37 am
    • Permalink

    Oh, Zack’s getting a bit touchy. You really can’t deal with anything other than complements, can you?

    You can’t be blamed for what the characters you invented, who live in a world you have imagined, do? Now that’s just plain dumb. Surely you can come up with a better excuse than that. Then again, you don’t seem to be able to come up with anything better than watching TV, so who knows.

  2. Not touchy in the least, Ken, it’s just that Manuel’s charge is ludicrous– and particularly ignorant, I’m sorry to have to add, now that you’ve pressed the issue. Charles Schultz’ “Peanuts” for example, often cited as the greatest of all comic strips, is about 90% of the time comprised of nothing but a couple characters talking on a flat featureless tract of dirt. Most good series do not extend their visuals into phantasmagoric new vistas every week but rather deal in the interesting twists and turns of the characters’ minds and dialog. As for my remark about my non-responsibility for what my characters do from week to week, it was a joke which I would have thought even a child of tender age would pick up on. That you did not makes me wonder if you are up to the intellectual level of this series.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:04 am
    • Permalink

    LOL You think you are in any way comparable to Peanuts. You are painfully delusional.

  3. I don’t think that at all, Ken. Again, you tend not to grasp the gist of argumentation; I can see why so many visitors here are so exasperated by your exchanges. I brought up Peanuts not by way of comparison to me but to highlight the fact that a comic series need not rearrange its visuals or setting dramatically from cartoon to cartoon. Did you understand this point? Let me know, I can simplify it if need be. By the way what grade are you in?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:34 am
    • Permalink

    You’ve shown you can do more Zack, yet you keep re-using “characters staring at tv.” That’s just lazy. I don’t see how that’s a “predictable liberal comment” at all.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:35 am
    • Permalink

    I have discovered in previously reading Ken- although I’ve stopped now for a week or so-that he is a troll. Trolls say or do anything to get a response. If he doesn’t get a response from you, Zack, he’ll go after Steve. If he doesn’t get a response from Steve he’ll go after me. Most of his comments have consisted of one line insullts amd that’s it. Sometimes he extends it to three setence insults. Trolls-so boringly predictable.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:43 am
    • Permalink

    And all of your posts are the same idiotic self-righteous whining, Methodistmin. Meth-so boringly predictable.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:45 am
    • Permalink

    It’s good for Presidents to get exercise and time away for recreation. However, the left seems somewhat hypocritical on this; I remember some of them whining about the amount of time George Bush spent playing golf. (And don’t get on me, liberals, because I didn’t vote for him either time). However. Obama has spent more time playing golf in ten months than Bush spent in two years and there’s nary a peep out of them. Obama can do do wrong. He’s working soooooooo hard. LOL.

    The golf theme seems to be occupying a number of conservative cartoonists. I guess for the reason listed above:

    • Ken
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:48 am
    • Permalink

    And yet, you seem to feel that if Peanuts could do it, so can you. Based on that, I’d say you feel your comics are on the same level as Peanuts. Otherwise, I would expect you to recognize that different comics, done in different formats, by different artists, might be criticized in different manners. Obviously, you think your comic is similar enough to Peanuts that you can get away with anything that Schulz could, which is a laughably pathetic belief.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:12 am
    • Permalink

    I can remember not too long ago on this very web site Ken complaining that Bush played golf while our soldiers died in Iraq and or Afghanistan. When he should have concentrated on the war itself, or something like that. Now we have the junior senator improving his golf game (you know practice makes perfect) while commanders in the field are asking more troops to complete the job. Yet what we have now is the same old crap from the neo-libs, complaining that the cartoons here are not up to the same as Charles Shultz. Never mind the point of the cartoon itself. Well?

    1 What the hell is he (Obama) doing, playing golf while soldiers are dying?
    2 Why is he taking weeks to answer the commander’s request?
    3 This is HIS war now! He said this was the fight we should be in.
    4 I thought he was from Chicago? Big fighter and all that. Well where’s the fight? All I see is a lot of running.
    5 Bonus question…. Cancelling missile defense for Poland did what exactly to encourage Russia’s help with Iran?
    Save me the Bush did this or did that bullshit, this is your guy, defend him!

    • thesecolorsdontrun
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:24 am
    • Permalink

    ikabod, what the hell was bush doing in texas while soldiers were dying? I fail to see why y’all are upset by this, Obama’s just maintaining your conservative values.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:56 am
    • Permalink


    So again, you don’t have answer? I’m not upset other than he has been told from his commanders in the field for more troops. His response has been to do NOTHING. Afghanistan is his to loose now. Bush is gone. Whats the hold up? Remember you guys called Bush an idiot. Well a genius is in office now. Whats the plan kids? Fix the problem in Afghanistan, or work on his back swing? Stay on topic.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 11:58 am
    • Permalink

    The last eight years NEVER HAPPENED.

  4. Methodistmin: “…the left seems “SOMEWHAT” hypocritical on this”? You are the very picture of understatement! Thanks for underscoring my point about Obama being far more golf-oriented than Bush (and these things are measuable, a matter of record). But of course, there’s so few problems for him to be cracking down and contending with, I suppose; his ‘Love Them and They’ll Love You Back’ directive vis-a-vis various Mideast nations is proving so effective at de-escalating the violence, don’t you know.

    • thesecolorsdontrun
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:05 pm
    • Permalink

    Just like when bush did nothing with afghanistan? I mean, you guys seem pissed when obama does it, but bush doing it gets a pss from you guys, what gives? I’m just honestly baffled as to why you guys aren’t congratulating obama for keeping the status quo.

    • thesecolorsdontrun
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:07 pm
    • Permalink

    I mean, thats what you all wanted right? just to keep everything the way it was, with the economy in the shitter, the president twiddling his thumbs for six years on afghanistan, who knows, we might even get to declare “mission accomplished” in iraq sometime soon. I mean, ya’ll were totally for this shit eight years ago, so why are you mad now?

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:15 pm
    • Permalink

    “The last eight years NEVER HAPPENED”

    I’m not saying that at all an you know it.
    Bush is an idiot.
    Plays golf when troops are dying.
    iniates the surge when his commanders in the field request it.

    Obama is a Goddamn Genius.
    Plays golf when troops are dying.
    Commanders request more troops….. waiting…..
    I see, by waiting he is fooling the Taliban into a false sense of security? Brilliant!

    McChrystal asked Obama for troops coming up 5 weeks ago. I’ll ask the question again, WHAT IS THE HOLD UP?

    • Ken
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:22 pm
    • Permalink

    “Save me the Bush did this or did that bullshit, this is your guy, defend him!”

    These are just restatements of the same questions (Except 3, because it is not a question, perhaps you need to consult a dictionary) you asked in a prior thread. I already answered those questions in that thread. I seem to recall your response consisted of little more than revealing your ignorance of well known economic policies. In fairness, you did number your list correctly this time, but you do not seem to know what a question is. Overall, I’d give you a C-. F for redundancy, F for vocabulary, A for effort.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:26 pm
    • Permalink

    “when his commanders in the field request it.”

    The military told Bush he needed more troops before the initial invasion of Iraq. That was in 2003. The Surge was in 2007. Apparently “waited four years” is the same as “when it was requested”. You really need that dictionary.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:29 pm
    • Permalink

    “I’m not saying that at all an you know it.”

    Don’t flatter yourself, I wasn’t even reading your posts.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 12:51 pm
    • Permalink

    First, this cartoon is about YOUR guy, Ken.

    The Bush-derange syndrome your sub-culture endlessly suffers always distracts you from the significant facts.

    Under Pres Bush;
    – Our troop morale was as high as it has EVER been.
    – Record re-enlistments, overwhelming numbers of soldiers and their families with their outpouring expressions of duty, and gratitude towards their Commander-in-Chief.
    – Record numbers of Taliban & Al-Quadi commanders and networks were killed, captured &destroyed.
    – The extremist Islamic enemies were on the run, for most of Pres Bush’s eight years.

    Of course, CNN and the rest of the liberal MSM did not cover this.

    Your Man-Child Messiah President is exactly the type who motivates our enemies, and the past several months of bad news is proof of that.

    Since BO’s inauguration;
    – Military morale has steadily declined. Soldiers are pleading for their commanders to be supported in DC.
    – Radical Islamist’s have become far more aggressive and active.
    – Out troop causalities have sharply increased.
    – More innocent civilians have been murdered (in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan) by terrorist bombs.

    “Some people don’t want to be confused with facts that contradict their preconceived opinions and prejudice.”
    –Geoff Metcalf

    This explains this liberal-anarchist mindset in you Ken. And you accuse me of being a “troll”… how amusing, in a pathetic & twisted way.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 1:23 pm
    • Permalink

    Seems to be focusing a lot on grammar as usual. As if my grammar has ANYTHING to do with the subject at hand. Again, Ken. Whats the hold up? He’s your guy. I remember being told that Bush was a horrible President, should have sent in Gore and Albright to negotiate with the Taliban to extradite Bin Laden. Well since he didn’t and Bin Laden is still running around loose (I do recall that the Demtards where going to get Bin Laden, if only they were in charge….) its Obama’s problem. Is the questioning too difficult?

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 1:37 pm
    • Permalink

    I will say this. and to be fair to Obama he did agree to sending in 13000 troops. If my math skills are correct that is less than half of what McChrystal wanted. I will be honest with you guys since you won’t be. I would be glad if under his watch, the Troops came home from Afghanistan victorious. You could even this on Obama’s limited resume under “Achievements”. “I, with all my awesome leadership skills, won the war on Terror in Afghanistan.” I could care less who’s in charge, win the war come home.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 1:40 pm
    • Permalink

    Another avoid the point and focus on grammar side step for Ken:
    “You could even this on Obama’s limited resume under”

    Now that the grammar problem is out of the way, care to answer the question as to why the hell Obama will NOT send in the troops Gen McChrystal needs?

    • Andrew
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 1:51 pm
    • Permalink

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 2:02 pm
    • Permalink

    So this is a defense of Obama’s foreign policy?

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:04 pm
    • Permalink

    Is there anyway we can get rid of the jerk who posts the same video under multiple handles?

    • jay
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:57 pm
    • Permalink

    ahaha oh my god are you fucking kidding me? did you pay any attention at all to bush’s vacation time over the last eight years? A living example of orwell’s doublethink.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 3:57 pm
    • Permalink

    Repeating what Bush did is not the answer Ken.
    “The military told Bush he needed more troops before the initial invasion of Iraq. That was in 2003. The Surge was in 2007. Apparently “waited four years” is the same as “when it was requested”. You really need that dictionary.”

    Where does any of this charming little quote, is your answer to specifically what Obama is doing NOW. You have a problem ken, a problem with answering a simple question regarding Obama. We’re right back to “well this is what Bush did!” Answer the goddamn question. Explain to me Obama’s decision to withholding troops? Why is he doing this?
    Come on Kenny! You are calling everyone else in here a dumbass therefore; I can only expect nothing less than your absolute brilliance!

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm
    • Permalink

    Ok kenny let me help you out.
    Obama is withholding troops because__________________ (your answer here) I support this policy because__________________ (your answer here) Sorry, Kenneth you need to provide your own no.2 pencil. If you need more time and more space, your free to use the back of the form. I expect this in APA double-space format too.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 4:55 pm
    • Permalink

    Really kenny? You really answered my hard hitting question? I would think that your praise of the Obama would be limitless! Endless! Why, I figured you would have no problem repeating the answer! This is your chance! Come on, use your words!

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    • Permalink

    President Bush spent 500 days, almost two years of his eight years in office on vacation. I’m by no means a fan of Obama, but can we have a little bit of objectivity here?

    • Mark
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 5:11 pm
    • Permalink

    Great work Zack, unfortunately your trolls here are unaware that Obama is statistically playing golf around 4 times as much as Bush ever did.

    And it really does say a great deal about them to read all of the Bush Derangement Syndrome posts. And a 16 second clip is supposed to be an argument!!!! LOL!!

    To continue with the sporting theme – what would you say about someone who kept on focusing on last years games when their team is clearly doing worse.

    No. credibility. whatsoever.

    And a big hello to ikabod and MethodistMin. Just because…

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 5:23 pm
    • Permalink

    ~~Cognitive Dissonance~

    • Max
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 6:06 pm
    • Permalink

    As the administration has said, these are important decisions that ought not to be rushed into. There many important factors to consider (…like the next hole).

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:05 pm
    • Permalink

    Why are extra troops needed now now now, and not 1 year, 2 years, or 5 years ago?

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:09 pm
    • Permalink

    Oh, and Mark, can you tell me statistically how much time Obama and Bush have spent clearing brush on their ranch?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 8:09 pm
    • Permalink

    Because there was a Republican in office then, thus he could do no wrong. As soon as a Democrat is in power, anything and everything they do is wrong. That seems to be how Steve and Zack’s trains of thought are going.

  5. So what was the delay between Petreus asking for the troops for the surge and when it was OK’d? Was it more or less than the wait we are seeing now?

    Oh, and Zack was not comparing himself to Schultz. He was merely pointing out how Schultz would do his comics. He used Peanuts because most Americans know the strip. I guess he could have used Hi and Lois or Beetle Bailey but not everyone knows those strips like we do Snoopy, Charlie Brown and the gang.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:57 pm
    • Permalink

    “Oh, and Zack was not comparing himself to Schultz.”

    He was using Schultz’s as an example of static imagery in comics and how since, it worked for him, then Diversity Lane could also be a quality comic using that as well.

    And the point he made is true: Schultz used rather static settings for his comics (think of how many Peanuts strips you saw of Lucy’s Psychiatry stand, or Snoopy’s dog house, or Charlie Brown and Linus talking behind that little stone wall). Schultz also wrote likable and/or relatable characters and clever humor, neither of which is contained within Diversity Lane.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 12:53 am
    • Permalink

    Regarding your assertion of Pres Bush having “…spent 500 days, almost two years of his eight years in office on vacation.”
    …is repeating the left-biased bilge found in the MSM, or any number of left-liberal web sites.

    Believing this betrays a wide ignorance of commonly available information of how Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G. W. Bush conducted their daily schedules while in the Presidency, especially when on war-time status.

    The overwhelming majority of G.W. Bush’s vacations were at his Crawford TX ranch – and they were WORKING vacations, in case you missed the complete context of the coverage.
    It is common knowledge Pres Bush had daily National Security meetings, every day, without fail.
    Guess how few Clinton & Obama had/have-?

    The Secret Service has, at every location any President lays his head on a pillow, scanned, wired, imbedded with redundant security systems, multiple levels of communication support, and complete logistical assets for National Security Staff within ‘a stone’s throw’… – without exception.

    So, if you genuinely believe Pres Bush had a whole “…500 days” of 24hr/day vacation, as the average American knows it, you have been seriously mislead.

    If he was lucky, George Bush probably had a mere 5-6 hours each day, on his ‘working vacation’, to cut branches, pull tree stumps, and enjoy driving his new F-350 pick-up around the back acreage.

    “…but can we have a little bit of objectivity here?”
    I vote for that-!

    • Mark
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 1:05 am
    • Permalink

    Facts, Steve T?!?

    I prefer media lala land, thank you very much. I feel sooooo good about that, don’t destroy my little progressive castle with facts, please.


    • Steve T
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 2:15 am
    • Permalink


    Can I share with you my favorite lemonade-grapefruit-Vodka drink recipe,…?

    And we can pretend to enjoy Keith Over-bite and Chris ‘tingly-leg’ Mathews oral effluvia-?

    Amidst clouds of wonderful, 2nd-hand, fine cigar smoke, I do enjoy fellow conservative satire-!

  6. Nice job Zack, the media, especially here in America, is sold out! I don’t trust anything they say anymore. This has to be addressed much more and Zack, you are righteously doing so! For those who feel this illustration is overemphasizing, you are very mistaken. We as Americans have the right to express our opinion and that goes for the way this Leftist-Socialist Obama administration continues to control the Main Stream Media. If you don’t see what is going on before your eyes and/or remain silent about it, you have chosen not to express your opinion or are in a state of denial. You have forfeited your freedom of expression.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 6:24 am
    • Permalink

    You never did answer my questions Cubanology, I answered yours.

    Steve? Don’t start on that “tingly leg” meme because it’s dumb and overplayed. And do you know for an irrefutable fact that Obama IS NOT working on those days he’s golfing? You can’t have it both ways, I’ll bet you he’s working then too, at least 90% of those days.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 6:59 am
    • Permalink

    Further insight. Steve, Sarah? YOu’re both wrong it turns out 879 days!

  7. I would not call Obama a center-right Democrat. Based upon his policies and statement he is much farther to the left. But that is besides the point (just happened to be the last post I read)

    Great Cartoon Zach. Brings to surface a very serious situation. I would like to offer this quote with reference to what Obama said about Bush not listening to his Generals at the beginning of the Iraq War.

    “There were generals at the beginning of the conflict that said this is going to require many more troops, will cost us much more … those generals were pushed aside.” (made in March 2008)

    It is a true statement. The same mistake was made in 2004 when McCain fought with the administration because he wanted a troop surge. It would have repeated again in 2007 if it were not for Bush finally caving in and listening to the commanders on the ground. Remember most on both sides were against it. Obama was one of its largest critics. He was; however,the only one I can think of that lied about his lack of support later.

    Obama is now about to make the same mistake again that he accused Bush of in 2008.

    An important point to note is that this strategy was agreed upon in March as someone else referenced. The specific request by McCrystal was just the details to implement the plan. It was never meant to send the strategy back to the drawing board. That is what is upsetting.

    I believe the delay is due to the health care debate. Obama does not want to make the unpopular decision with the left of sending in more troops before he gets health care through. He is afraid it will erode his support from some of those Democrats.

    Also Zach, nice touch with the Coexist pic in the background. Now there is a very naive group of people.

  8. I did answer your question Manuel amnd posted it twice but it never went through. I apologized for making the presumption that you were a sort of troll. I also raised another question. it was to a response you gave that Obama is a nice guy and he’s doing his best. My question was that why can’t you criticize Obama at all? I also mentioned that I disagreed with many of Bush’s policies when he was president. I didn’t like Bush that much but I did feel he was proud to be an American and supported countries who were seeking Human Rights. Obama, on the other hand, supports Chavez, Castro, Zapatero, Zelaya, Ortega, Lula, Iran, Russia and the others. As for Afganistan, I say, either send more troops or pull out COMPLETELY but don’t leave them hanging around and waiting.

  9. Sarah, with all due respect, I’d recommend sternly against notions of vacation pulled from some Michael Moore script.

    In fact, just to be safe put away all your scripts at the moment and pay attention only to the one where Obama fell in line on the campaign trail about all that stuff about Afganistan being the “real” war on terror, etc.

    And then at this point both you and he might tell us what all this is about at this point?

    And keep something else in mind here too:

    Now that we are about a full year since the election of Hopey McChange and all his handy little Change McNuggets, the penchant for blaming everything on Bush has lost most of its “sale by” date.

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 2:36 pm
    • Permalink

    Are you suggesting that Bush’s almost 1000 vacation days are untrue, or that they are irrelevant? They’re clearly true: If they’re irrelevant, than this whole comic is irrelevant as well.

    Furthermore, “Ick-a-Dick Crane”, “Keith Over-bite”, “Chris ‘tingly-leg’ Mathews”, “Hopey McChange”. Is it possible for you guys to provide an argument without devolving to grade school ad hom attacks?

  10. All in perspective, folks.

    Granted, these pieces are somewhat dated, but the analysis is still prescient to the hypocrisy of the Left.

    Obama’s allegedly stern “on the job” routine of globe hopping and running his big mouth have garnered little, even IF the Millie Vanilli Award he got begs us to think otherwise.

    Perhaps for his next trick at golf Obama CAN tell us just what the US role in Afghanistan is, now that the Bootlick Media have decided this war is not quite so damned important as it used to be. Or, for that matter, now that they no longer say things like “dissent from the general is the highest form of patriotism!!!!”

    Rather, they say things like “the generals need to suck it up, and SALUTE the commander-in-chief.

    No doubt they will. If told that the new Afghan strategy will be to make ducky noises and quack while standing upside down, that’s what Gen. McChrystal will have his men do.

    But rather than hitting the links, perhaps Obama could fill in some vital details about what the hell this has all become? Is that too much to ask while men are getting popped apart on what is now a daily basis and the Prez piddles and toys with the notion that maybe the Allah Knows Best crowd is not all that bad after all?

    Others vie with Bush on the extended time-off game.

    One guesses that this last record could be broken with another “hard at work” tour that does not involve a ranch but most assuredly will involved Obama’s blather about how Jerusalem is now to be a partly Arabian city, the big bad Americans are the proximate cause of all the world’s many ills, and socialist mops can clean the kitchen as well as the money-bag capitalist mops.
    Later he can mouthe off his compaints at not only Fox News and have his team of Maoskiteers defend hippy nuts like Chairman Dunn–and call that “work” also. But work it ain’t, brother.

    Not everything that creates a furrowed brow is “work.”

    Doubtful any of this HARD AT WORK crappola has any veracity other than comedy material, but that’s what he thinks the doctor ordered.

    Granted, one COULD argue (and no doubt some WILL) that you’re at work while running your putrid mouth full of PC piety and crap, much akin to Obama’s great Apology Tour 09 recently while also globe-trotting like a kid in a candy store.

    Or perhaps the overwhelmed aspect and apology of being a mere house painter visiting the Sistine Chapel.

    But if men of such mighty and supposed stature as Obama tend to follow suit (and they will) with little more than hot air and crap, not only does he deserve that “ad hominem” moniker (which I see in the last post someone turned into a noun, interestingly) then we’re better off with just sticking to the ranch.

    Obama needs a ranch too. We’ve had just about enough of that mouth after 11 months. That’s 11 months too many, but still..

    • Ken
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 3:43 pm
    • Permalink

    “Is it possible for you guys to provide an argument without devolving to grade school ad hom attacks?”

    Now where’s the fun in that?

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 4:02 pm
    • Permalink

    OK, so if Bush’s vacations weren’t really vacations, and he was only doing non-Presidential stuff for parts of those days, then why is Obama taking some time off to play golf such a big deal?

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 4:29 pm
    • Permalink

    I agree with Sarah. You can’t have it both ways. If President still gets work done on vacation, then this comic is pointless.

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 4:34 pm
    • Permalink

    If he’s like any other modern professional who plays golf, he’s probably on his blackberry half the time.

  11. Vegas Art Guy.

    I’m not sure of the exact time frame, but it is generally acknowledged that with Bush, the generals and the administration agree that in the case of Iraq the Surge was necessary, and in the second place we had then–as now–the claim from some in the media that a “General BETRAY US!” syndrome was in the air and the surge would not have worked.

    Well, turned out Code Pinky had about as much accuracy as MoveOn.Org and Daily Kos and CBS, and the Surge worked and stabilized the situation.

    Now then, being fair to Obama here, there are some who claim that you can’t have an exact analogy between Iraq and Afghanistan. Some, like Petraeus himself, have spoken to the effect that Iraq was logistically a different situation and that an Iraq-styled Surge over in Afghanistan might not work due to the more dynamic nature of the insurgency and Talib connections.

    McChrystal disagrees, and that might be part of the administration’s hesitance.

    Just saying let’s be completely fair here that what worked for one scenario might not work for another.

  12. The big deal is that we are going on 6 weeks without an answer to the Generals request to fulfill a strategy that was agreed upon in March.

    Its not so much the golf or vacation.

    Obama has shown himself to be a man who avoids tough politically unpopular or tough decisions. And this is something he cannot side step or ignore until it goes away. He has to make a decision. The fact that this has become another one of his political games is unacceptable. Our brothers and sisters in arms are in harms way and the military has requested resources to ensure mission success, which in turn protects these soldiers.

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 5:08 pm
    • Permalink

    So where were you guys clamoring for support from the President in Afghanistan before January 20th? A lot of folks over there are aware that you armchair generals only care about them when you don’t have any problems with criticizing the man in charge.

  13. Sarah
    I was clamoring for support for both theaters as they are both important to our fight against terrorism. I always have supported what the commanders on the ground deem appropriate for mission success. I hope you are not accenuating that people such as myself do not care about the welfare of our soldiers. This decision is not about politics. I would support Obama in his decision to listen to his commanders because it is the right thing to do. I was one of those folks over there so be very careful with your words. I still have friends in harms way.

    As a military we are stretched thin so it makes these decisions tough, but they have to be made. And they have to be made based upon the consequences of what will happen if we do not succeed. Keeping soldiers safe by bringing everyone home is not always the safest thing for our soldiers or our country. Obama has to understand this.

  14. Sarah,

    Some of us have realized from the beginning (that would be about 9:00 AM 09/11/2001) that this might turn out to be a multi-pronged attack on the terror lords from whatever and wherever their perches and nests might be. People mumbled that Iraq never attacked us, even if it turned out Brit Intel had things right after all regarding some kinds of WMD, etc.

    Tough crap. Afghanistan NEVER attacked us either. Nor did the Taliban, come to think of it.

    Al-Qaida did, and they were merely SHELTERED and aided and abetted by other groups. Yes, they were. True. But they are also in Indonesia as well. So why aren’t we over there? In fact, AQ operates in over 60 nations, but we can’t get spread quite that thin, I’m afraid.

    The Middle East region is the main hive of such terror activity, recruitment, training, and ideology. We are fortunate this this can–at the moment–be relatively contained.

    We conservatives never broke down this issue into a simplistic formula about the “good” war in one area vs. the baddy one in another.

    Both regions were proximate to the War on Terror (yeah, I know, John Edwards said that this phrase was a mere bumper sticker, and being a trial lawyer HE thinks everyone is a pitchmeister).

    Not just Afghanistan. My nephew has just learned the great news that he’s being moved from a transport company to infantry to confront these clowns. A friend of mine is about to go as well.

    So I have a relational part in this fight as well.

    al-quaida’s operatives in Iraq sure as hell know the truth about all this (and NO, it is NOT true they were merely there because we were) as do the generals on the ground who took much glee in cleansing Iraq of the radicals and nuts.

    This was never a choice of “either/or”–that choice was an artificial one created by the MSM and has a hint of BDS to it.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome might be curable, but as you can see from its long reach into the past, it is a stubborn illness that taints almost all discussions that include something beyond what’s for dinner. And if you’re struggling to make ends meet, it might even be there as well, as Obama has decided to make this “It’s All Bush’s Fault” his main recurring theme next to Hope and Change We Can be Confused By.

    So when someone from above, for example, likes to ask “Is it possible for you guys to provide an argument without devolving to grade school ad hom attacks?”, I am sorely tempted to ask if they in turn have seen their doctor about BDS.

    Further, I could ask that of about the 1000 liberal blogs I’ve visited. The same bile, puss, and wretch is fairly common across the board, even on the more sophisticated sites.

    Granted, getting the glop served up and tossed back at you these days, is undoubtedly, not quite as much fun as the 8 years of fun time you guys had.

    Unbidden counsel and words to the wiseacres on this thread:

    Some things need to wear out and go away already.

    Sometimes, as with Obama euphoria, this happens naturally, and the good jives have now turned to cynicism about the Boy Wonder’s Milli Vanilli world stage stardom and accolades for doing something next to nothing.

    But in American politics, that’s just mostly droll.

    As Newt Gingrich said recently:

    “As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials.”

    But just as the Hope-n’-Change mantra has worn thin right about now, so have some other things. One of those, my dear lib pals and worldly-wise sophisticates, is this notion that Bush can be successfully blamed for every woe, folly, and misfortune since asteroids popped the dinos until now.

    It’s getting old, libs. And while no doubt Obama will be using this tactic well into his 3rd year since he thinks this is so high-brow a tactic, YOU and your kin should seriously consider reversing course.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 7:00 pm
    • Permalink

    I answered your question re: criticisms back in the other thread Cubano, tho I’ll copy them over here for completeness sake.

    “Also, this is a direct question to Manuel Calavera. Manuel, where did you receive your training? I can smell you from here, who are you working for?” Explain that. And this “because after all, that’s how the Left works. Confuse separate and conquer! Right Manuel?” Because I seriously have no idea what you’re talking about and it sounds like a SOROS FUNDED TROLL conspiracy theory.

    And why do you presume I couldn’t tell you what I think of him without mentioning Bush or Republicans? Seriously? I think he’s a good guy who’s been getting a lot of shit since he started campaigning. But time will tell what and how he does. I think he’ll do good though, especially if say, some sort of UHC bill goes through.

    ~~second comment after your last reply there~~

    Answer my question please, explain your other comments (as I quoted in my last comment). I see no indoctrination in schools. ~~this is my answer reL criticism of Obama~~ I wish he’d get his act together in regards to say, Gitmo, or working on the economy, or figuring out a solution to the quagmires that are Afghanistan and Iraq. But it’s a stressful job, I understand that much. I’m not going to damn him because he doesn’t do something with the snap of his fingers, because that’s not how it works.

    If that doesn’t satisfy you, that’s your problem (cuz that’s about all I can think of offhand). I asked a question, I’d appreciate if you gave me the same courtesy and answer it.”

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 7:13 pm
    • Permalink

    Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because we are in Iraq. How can you assert otherwise? The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terror, other than terror being used as the excuse to attack.

    Bush can be blamed for things that are his fault. These include the state of the war in Afghanistan, which he allowed to fester for 6 years.

  15. They do have a course, complete with wrecked tanks…

  16. Big Money…Al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our invasion as well as other terrorist organizations. I am sorry but wikidpedia is not the end all for all knowledge on this group.

    You can go back further, but I will start in 1993. Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was given refuge in Iraq. Coalition forces recovered documents showing he was receiving housing and a monthly salary from the Iraqi government. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, a fellow planner of the 1993 World Trade Center attack arrived in the U.S with an Iraqi Passport. He was arrested at an Al-Qaeda safe house in Islamabad, Pakistan in 1995 and was extradited to the United States. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Yousef’s uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior al-Qaeda member.

    Al Zarqawi was running a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan when the United States attacked the Taliban. Zarqawi was wounded while fighting American soldiers and is believed to have received medical treatment at Baghdad’s Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of Saddam Hussein. Once he recovered from this injury, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of Lawrence Foley, a U.S. diplomat in Amman, Jordan who worked on international development projects. Later, he led the infamous al-Qaeda in Iraq. Ansar al-Islam is an al-Qaeda organization.

    Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (270 killed) also lived in Iraq. He surrendered to U.S. Marines in Baghdad on April 18, 2003.

    The terror mastermind Abu Nidal lived in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. The Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” Prior to his relocation, he ran the Abu Nidal Organization – a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Of those killed, 17 were known to be Americans.

    Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front, masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship. Before he surrendered to Egyptian authorities, his men shot and killed a handicapped 69 year old Jewish American. The hijackers were given free passage in exchange for turning over the remaining hostages, but there Plane was forced to land at a NATO base in Italy by US fighter Jets. There all were taken into custody except Abu Abbas, who was let go because he held an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport. Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. Abbas was captured in Iraq in April 2003 by American soldiers.

    Hisham al Hussein, the former second secretary at Iraq’s embassy in Manila, was expelled by the Philippine government on February 13, 2003, just five weeks before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cell phone records indicate he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda’s de facto franchise for the Philippines before and after an attack in Zamboanga City, which injured 23 and killed 3 including 1 American. Dan Murphy reported in the February 26, 2003 Christian Science Monitor that these phone records support the televised claim by Hamsiraji Sali, a top Abu Sayyaf terrorist, that the Iraqi diplomat had offered his group Baghdad’s help with joint missions.

    The Associated Press reported that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most famous of these was called Salman Pak. This training site consisted of an urban assault training course, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner.

    On April 7, 2003, Agence France Presse reported that US Marines discovered a terrorist training camp operated by the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF). The complex featured bomb-making facilities and pictures of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and PLF faction leader Abu Abbas. Other pictures included the terrorist leader Abu Abbas posing with a Republican Guard brigadier general inside the camp.

    Saddam Hussein’s Iraq government funded terrorism mainly through the bonuses paid to the families of Palestinian Homicide Bombers. These bonuses were raised from $10,000 per family to $25,000. Tariq Aziz announced this increase at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002. Between the time Saddam Hussein boosted his bonus payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists and the March 20, 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans.

    Other reasons listed for authorization of force against Iraq.

    Aggressions against the US. May 17, 1987 when an Iraqi Mirage F-1 jet fighter attacked the American guided missile frigate the U.S.S. Stark with two Exocet missiles- killing 37 American sailors. An investigation showed that the US Ship was in international waters.

    In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. FBI experts were sent to Kuwait to examine the physical evidence and question all of the suspects. Two of the suspects, Wali ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Abd Al-Hasan Al-Ghazali and Ra’d ‘Abd Al-Amir ‘Abbud Al-Asadi, admitted during the FBI interviews that they had participated in the plot at the direction of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. One of them claimed to be a Lieutenant Colonel in the IIS. Based upon the evidence, on June 26, 1993, the Clinton Administration launched a cruise missile attack against a building housing the IIS in Baghdad in retaliation for the assassination attempt on former President Bush.

    After the gulf war, the UN created No-Fly Zones in the north and south of Iraq to protect the Kurdish and Shiite populations. On March 28, 2001, General Tommy Franks reported to the House Armed Services Committee that during the prior year alone, coalition forces had flown nearly 10,000 sorties inside Iraqi airspace and those aircraft were engaged by surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft fire more than 500 times.

    Iraq’s brutal repression of its own people was another reason listed. That is well documented so I do not think I need to go into that. I assume there can be no argument there.

    Finally, during Saddam’s interrogation we learned that he had indeed destroyed much of his WMD arsenal, but his intent was to get cleared by the UN and then re-start these programs. The personnel and labs were still in place (we found them). We also learned he intentionally misled us by putting false intelligence out about his stockpiles. The intent was to ward off attacks by his arab neighbors and never thought we would attack. He figured we would just shoot a few missles as we had done over the previous 8 years.

    Iraq was no different than pre 9/11 Afghanistan.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 9:59 am
    • Permalink

    Excellent overview.

    Now – expect of being accused of being a “troll”.
    You had too many facts, stated too much overwhelming historical context.


  17. Well done, TSC.

    I’ll have to add you to the blogroll in addition to Zack’s site. Can’t miss out on these goodies anymore.

    Malto Bravo!

    A fantastic precis and overview of the story behind the stories.

    I might add a little different perspective later on.

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 11:34 am
    • Permalink

    In this post, I’m just going to address your comments regarding Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

    In March 2008, a Pentagon-sponsored study was released, entitled Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, based on the review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2003 US invasion. The study “found no ‘smoking gun’ (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”

    Abu Nidal was ultimately killed by Saddam’s secret police.

    Abu Abbas was not Al-Qaeda.

    Douglas MacCollam wrote in the July/August 2004 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review that “There still remain claims and counterclaims about what was going on at Salman Pak. But the consensus view now is that the camp was what Iraq told UN weapons inspectors it was — a counterterrorism training camp for army commandos.”

    The PLF isn’t Al-Qaeda.

    Palestinian “homicide” bombers are not Al-Qaeda.

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 12:03 pm
    • Permalink

    As I’ve shown in my previous post, there were no credible links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Iraqi links to Palestinian terror groups are irrelevant to this discussion, since they were never used as a reason for the attack.

    Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was “the intelligence failure” in Iraq, however, a Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq”. I don’t know where you’re getting the assertion that WMD personnel and labs were still in place, as documents recovered after the invasion showed that Saddam’s regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s

    I won’t deny Saddam’s repression of his people, but I will ask why this repression wasn’t important when the United States propped him up in his war with Iran.

    In his interrogation, I can only find evidence that his reasons for attempting to mislead on WMDs were as protection from Iran.

  18. The intel “failure” is actually partially upheld by Brit intel to this day regarding their understanding of the matter on WMD.

    But this and the other comments are only confuting and obscuring the issue of al-Quaida in Iraq.

    Let’s refocus on this:

    As I’ve shown in my previous post, there were no credible links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

    That matters not. The real issue is the operations INSIDE Iraq–merely inside–and their long-term plans for the whole region including Iraq.

    NOT whether Saddam had any real working relationship with the terror lords.

    As to Hussein and the other very real links that have already been pointed out by TSC and many others, that alone is reason enough to nip such jokers, even if no real relationship is found to a specific group like al-Quaida, et al.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 12:14 pm
    • Permalink

    Big Money,
    If I go down to the local library, I can find 600,000 x 100 documents, that do not show any smoking gun, for the same.

    Within the Pentagon, there are competing political agenda’s at work – my, my, my what a surprise-!

    There has been OVERWHELMING physical evidence, collected by our ground forces, found in the forms of small quantities, residue, and assorted small cache’s of chemical weapons, strongly indicative that there were very large stores of chemical weapons in Iraq.

    VX, sarin, mustard gas… ALL these have been found by the hundreds, even low-thousands.

    Would you care to take a ‘sniff’ of one of these-?

    Some of the former Iraqi generals have written books, attesting to these large stores of NBC weapons, and that they were taken to Syria shortly before the US opened the war.

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 12:39 pm
    • Permalink

    Wakefield: The casus belli for the invasion of Iraq was that Iraq and Saddam supported Al-Qaeda. This wasn’t the case.

    Steve: There’s no argument that Iraq had WMDs. But all of the evidence found were of old, non-functional items. There were no functional WMDs found, and not facilities capable of manufacturing them.

    For example: The Washington Post reported that “the U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active.” It said the shells “had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

    The Iraq Survey Group formed a special working group to investigate and consider these claims. Charles Duelfer, head of inspectorate at time of publication, summarized the group’s conclusion: “Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.

  19. Big Money:

    The casus belli for the invasion, was, as with almost all wars in known history, a matter of something far more complex than the simplistic claims the memory-starved left has as its talking points.

    Wars are always complex, and there is no evidence this one was any different, nor the build up to the event.

    It would be odd indeed if the build up to this war (which actually started under Clinton’s perception of some unfinished business in the area) stands along in all world history for not having a complex set of circumstances.

    Other lefties have claimed, at varioius times when the mood suited them, that the whole thing was Bush’s claim about WMD…or Yellowcake, which Wilson botched being the Walter Mitty fantacist he was, along with his lovely wife Valerie Plame (whose secret code name was…Valerie Plame).

    Others claim it was about oil and imperialism. Or was the uranium only?

    It was actually not about some claim of al-quaida and Hussein per se, but a collection of perceptions, including WMD, that also included Hussein’s very real penchant for funding terror operations in the Middle East.

    Perhaps we COULD, however, take a moment to point out that this flypaper effect of drawing out al-quaid from the hills and mountains and having more centralized operations on flat desert areas was a boon. We killed thousands of those jokers. Something a little more logistically challenging when you’re playing Whack-a-Mole as we are in the rather unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan.

    If the fools volunteered to come into the open to get popped apart by the world’s best weaponry and best soldiers, that’s blessed news to some ears.

    I haven’t exactly shed tears on that issue.

  20. The end perceptions on those WMD might have turned out to be incorrect, but as Factcheck pointed out, this was an error of intel, and not something of “lying”

    That’s a difference that bears a distinction that to today eludes some people.

    And now that I see this is still all about BDS and similar syndromes, what shall we now do?

    Hold a seance by candelight, and put the ghost of Hussein back in power to make sure this kindly old fellow treats his beloved citizenry with the same 80s-Vegas/Palace splendor he used to?

    The baton has been handed, bro.

  21. Ah…Duelfer’s name I see?

    Yes, and his report ALSO indicated that Hussein wanted those WMD back when and if he got the very whiff that the Keystone Kops of UN Inspectors had finally split to his satisfaction.

    This was a matter of principle, even if we got fooled on some issues.

    Like my dear old father used to say, “I’ll pop your ass to the wall even if you merely make me THINK you’re about to do something I told you not to do”

    If wars of principle are not on the table, and the only pre-emptive choices we have on such matters, in order to please the Complacnicks and Peaceniks among us, are to wait until a US city is lifted into the stratisphere, then we’re limited to just being victims, as more and more tinhorns withstand the UN’s solutions of jibber-jabber and delay tactics and talky-talk.

    If principle is not a matter to war over, then slavery, Tojo, Hitler, and other icons of evil would rule to this day.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 12:59 pm
    • Permalink

    Big Money-
    Claiming that there were no facilities to make chem-weapons is a phoney argument.

    Facilities that make many other commodity chemicals are flexible enough to make many types of chem-warfare items.
    (yeah – I am a process engineer)

    The “functional” WMD’s not found” is a diversion. The vast quantities of chem-warfare weapons were taken out of Iraq.

    REMEMBER the Iraq-Iran war-???

    Remember the chemical weapons used in THAT-?
    Got news – these were DAMN FUNCTIONAL-!!!

    Sadam Hussein even used chemical weapons on the people in towns in his own country.

    Would you like to see the many pictures of the thousands of dead innocent civials-??!??

    How & why do you maintain this denial-???

    There is a strong, proven history of Iraq, under Sadam Hussein, of using chem-weapons.

    Yet, you endorse the position that there were “no functional” chem-weapons there.

    This assertion is grossly absurd and false-!

  22. Steve is correct here. If you have the case of someone using WMD on his own people to make some lurid point, you’ve got some concerns to deal with.

    Also…Duelfer’s name I see?

    Yes, and his report ALSO indicated that Hussein wanted those WMD back when and if he got the very whiff that the Keystone Kops of UN Inspectors had finally split to his satisfaction.

    This was a matter of principle, even if we got fooled on some issues.

    Like my dear old father used to say, “I’ll pop your ass to the wall even if you merely make me THINK you’re about to do something I told you not to do”

    If wars of principle are not on the table, and the only pre-emptive choices we have on such matters, in order to please the Complacnicks and Peaceniks among us, are to wait until a US city is lifted into the stratisphere, then we’re limited to just being victims, as more and more tinhorns withstand the UN’s solutions of jibber-jabber and delay tactics and talky-talk.

    If principle is not a matter to war over, then slavery, Tojo, Hitler, and other icons of evil would rule to this day.

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 1:37 pm
    • Permalink

    Wakefield: Your “flypaper” effect would have merit if it didn’t also result in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians. But you’re probably not shedding any tears for them either.

    This wasn’t a war of principle. Iraq was not a credible threat. Saddam wanted WMDs to protect himself from Iran.

    Steve: Let us not forget, that, among the WMDs Iraq possessed during the Iran-Iraq war, were strains of anthrax provided by the United States.

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 1:48 pm
    • Permalink

    Also, I’m not denying that Saddam used WMDs in the past. I’m denying that he had functional WMDs at the time of the invasion.


    so were WERE at 600,000-1 million deaths, depending on the leftie outlet du jour.

    And now it’s been downgraded to 100,000?

    Actually it’s smaller than that.

    One supposes that the MILLION-plus people killed by Hussein would have come to a grinding/screeching halt like a derailed train had the US not intervened? I much doubt that.

    I don’t like the 85,000 people estimated to have been killed in the conflict either, whether by direct US action or (more likely) a combination of factors up to and including the terror lords’ actions of using people as fodder.

    In WW II we killed 250,000 German civilians with firebombs, and people said that the ordering of this by guys like Gen McClay might have had him tried for war crimes. Later, he went on to advise a “backbreaking” move of firebombing indendiaries over Tokyo and other cities that killed hundreds of thousands more–more than both A-bombs killed combined (240,000).

    Yielding death and suffering, yes.

    And also breaking the enemies will to fight and ending the battle to a favor that some estimates claim saved as many as 1 MILLION American servicemen’s lives.

    If your standard for war is a no-muss, no-fuss, extraction using perfect methdology that gets only the bad guys, you’ve lived in a fantasy realm.

    And that’s where such matras belong in the end. The make-believe world of government and free health care and sumptous lifestyles for all on someone’s back, combined with the notino that if we sit on our duffs and do nothing but outsource our policy to the lefties who infect the UN and it’s tinhorns and Chips-on-Shoulder leaders, we’ll all live in peace.

    Tsk tsk.

    As to the reasons d’etre of Hussein’s weapons, I told you that is irrelevent.

    As he already used these WMD on his own people that YOU claim were MERELY there for the convenience against Iran, I take it by now you too understand that works for one goose is good sauce on another gander.

  24. Iraq was not a credible threat. Saddam wanted WMDs to protect himself from Iran.

    He was not a threat at that particular time. But his regime was failing, and failed states–like wounded bears–can be very dangerous.

    Again I point to Jack Straw’s commentary to the effect that we can’t have the luxury in the modern world where even allegedly frowsy and flimsy WMD can cause much havoc and disrupt entire regions.

  25. The war might be horrific to think on.

    Most are. I can’t think of a “nice” crisp, easy-going war, come to think it.

    But beyond this, this is getting tiresome to say the least.

    I guess the lefties and BM are right.

    Since your types deny the very concept of principle, one guesses it must have been about something more tangible.


    That is–it’s all about the damned oil!

    Which is why the strategic decision of the evil Bushies led to…

    led to…

    led to…..

    well…led to CHINA, not the US, as the ones now sucking oil out of Iraq.

    I guess that too proves US Imperialism in the region. Which is where most lefty arguments go regarding almost all US foreign policy past and present.

    The claim that the US gave anthrax to Hussein is based on articles from the Left from Kristof and Grenwald and some others. Links are on the Net, but nothing in the FactCheck database has come to anyone’s serious attention:

    The US DID help Hussein with intel and some operations in the general area, including satellite date. But to infer help with actual WMD development is probably a bit of a stretchy smear campaign.

    Richard Spertzel, the former head of the United Nations’ biological inspections team in Iraq, says it is basically horseymess.

    The American Type Culture Collection, a Manassas, Va.,-based nonprofit that makes biological cultures and products available for research purposes around the world, shipped anthrax strains to Iraq in the 1980s — providing the basis for the charge that “we” gave Saddam anthrax.

    But the culture collection isn’t an arm of the U.S. government. Nor did it intend to give the material to Iraq for nefarious purposes. The transfers occurred at a time when anthrax was still primarily thought of as a veterinary disease.

  26. Big Money-
    You have obviously never read the authorization of force legislation. It did list al Qaeda, but it also listed other terrorists organizations. It also listed his aggressions against his own people. It also listed the assasination attemt of Bush I. I think the Bush administration did a poor job of explaining all the reasons given. Maybe they figured people would actually read the legislation.

    Other countries had their reasons for not wanting us there. Illegal oil and weapons deals were major ones. I saw munitions from France (or rather pictures of them – my unit did not find them) dated 2003. Our chemical units were picking up chemicals that werent actually there, but the holes were. Iraqis told us people had come in and moved 55 gal drums before we got there. Because of the Turkey backstab my unit, which was supposed to come from Turkey had to come from Kuwait. That left about a 14 day window for them to move or get rid of stuff they did not want us to find. Also allowed them to raid munitions caches. Just some things to consider.

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 3:36 pm
    • Permalink

    Thanks for the strawman arguments, but I’d prefer if you’d address my points instead. I deliberately picked a conservative number for the Iraqi civilian death count, but I guess you couldn’t let that pass.

    My standard for war is an enemy that is a credible threat. If your standard is “rumors of WMDs”, then I’d hope you’d expect your intelligence service to do a better job than was done with Iraq.

    How many fewer of his own civilians would have died if we hadn’t propped him up against Iran? How many fewer of his own civilians would have died if he had supported the rebellion after Gulf War I, rather than leaving the rebels hanging.

    Your anthrax link is bullshit. Anthrax would have been considered a weapon from at least 1979, after a outbreak at a Soviet bioweapons facility. The fact that the culture collection isn’t part of the government is irrelevant, because they had to get approval from the government to send the samples.

    • Big Money
    • Posted October 31, 2009 at 3:46 pm
    • Permalink

    I’m not really interested in discussing the Iraq war any further, it’s a tremendous derail from my original point: This comic is hypocritical and retarded.

  27. Whether official approved or not, it was not deemed the weapons grade material–was standard fare for research material, and was not part of some Bushian/Rovian plot to aid Hussein. Most nations have such facilities for research, and for you to make such into some conspiracy at some high devilish level as Kristof and Grenwald did, is the bullshit factor here.

  28. By that same reaasing we should ban hot water, shovels, bulldozers, slingshots, bows and arrows, and a host of other daily implements used for whatever purpose on the basis that Greenwald and his brigade of lefty twits deemed things dangerous when in reality these strains were what one finds in raw nature.


  29. And I take it as read by now that mere “rumors” are not the reason the Brit intel on things like Yellowcake is defended to this day, while Mitty Boy fantacists like Wilson ended up with egg on the face.

    Mere “rumor” is not the proximate reason for the war, and you damned well know it.

    I realized ahead of time this was Bush-Bash festival time, and he’ll be to blame regardless of context from here on out, perhaps into Obama’s 7 year in office and perhaps beyond if things really turn sour domestically.

    Having said all that, and acknowledging you think smoldering cities are the requisite tipping point for responding to threats, and that the whole cause was apparently for the greed lords of Haliburton alone, I think we’re about done here.

    Fine by me.

  30. I also gave you the link to the site where I had the context of the Mesopotamian al-Quiada operations and the aspirations of Zawihiri, et al.

    In any case, if you think for a moment that just leaving things be with the glory days of Hussein would have changed his tender little heart into a pussy cat and made him ease up on all his torment, murder, and scammery with Food for Oil (which hypocritically was very much enabled by the Europeans as by him), then you’re mad.

    Would that the world of war be made sanitized.

    But by the same token, would that we could all have winning lottery tickets and never have health problems and the Age of Aquarius comes next Wednesday.

  31. ..and waiting until the last possible moment when the enemy has the ablity to knock the hell out of you, kill with impunity, and turn American cities into something molten?

    I’m supposed to think this is the better way to save lives as well?


  32. Ken, you mean nuke the moon

    IMAO 🙂

  33. The indignant, faux moral outrage over Zack’s “Afghanistalled” toon, and the defensive postures being put forth by Zack’s detractors here remind me of Charles Krauthammer’s recent rehash of an old grim Soviet-era joke.

    I thought it would be a neat follow-up to Zack’s gallows humor of how liberal pieties never seem to match up to reality, or provide something other than eternal guesswork about how to bring about the Age of Aquarius; such jokes–like Zack’s cartoons–provide a much-needed cathartic release from the ever-increasing morbid moments now seizing America by the short hairs.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: