Weekend Cartoons
Lots and lots of powerful, sage cartoons this week, since it was such an active political week - from the anniversary of 9-11, which topped the news, to the ever-nauseating coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, which is now getting into full swing.
This one pretty much says it all (as do many of the ones below, in different ways). At the risk of offending a few (and quite frankly, I really don't care) - President George W. Bush is one of the best things to ever happen to Osama bin Laden. Bush has shredded Americans' civil liberties, diverted our attention with a War in Iraq, a country that is unrelated to 9-11. Despite what the official White House line is about Iraq's relation to 9-11 (and Sarah Palin's and John McCain's, for that matter), solid evidence "linking" Iraq to 9-11 doesn't exist, and likely never did. (More on White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's absurd statements about 9-11 a bit later - I've got some video you have to see.)
The ersatz bipartisanship between the McCain and Obama camps didn't strike much of a chord with me - if anything, it's hollow, because every educated American voter knows that really neither candidate means it - it's just for the cameras and media to play over and over, believing that the candidates can make nice and "rise above" the political fighting. I don't buy it, specifically when it comes out of McCain's mouth; he's already broken one big, fat promise that he and his wife made in a very public way just as the campaign got under way - that any mud slinging "would come from the other [Obama's] side.
One of the biggest outrages regarding 9-11 is that no prominent public servant, especially from American's alphabet agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) was ever fired for arguably the biggest, most massive intelligence failure in American history. In fact, a few were even decorated - most notably George Tenet, who was given the Congressional Medal of Freedom by President Bush, infinitely devaluing the medal for all of the deserving Americans who have received it.
Anyone remember when President Bush swelled out his chest before a joint session of Congress, boastfully and forcefully declaring, "Osama bin Laden wanted - dead or alive"? Yea, I don't either. In a way, I will always believe that not catching bin Laden was more politically beneficial to Bush than catching him would have been. Since he's still out there, he's the boogeyman that Repubes can use to frighten the electorate with. It should be lost on no one (but it is) that Dubya has taken very little blame for 9-11 happening on his watch, too. Hopefully the next president will reintroduce the word credibility to our political lexicon.
Thus far, the Democrats are making a big mistake thinking that they can be victorious in November by making this election about the issues. Statistically speaking (and the polls largely back this up), the Democrats have just about every issue on their side in this election. Yet, McCain continues to surge in the polls - he's now turned this race into a statistical dead heat (and in some polls, he has a small lead). The bottom line - it's because McLame is making the race about personalities, and thus far following his convention, he's succeeded. Obama had better start hitting back, and in a profound way, by hammering McCain on some of his past statements, including his record of siding with Bush an overwhelming majority of the time, up until right before he declared his candidacy for the presidency.
We DO need more boots on the ground in Afghanistan, but the biggest question is, where are they going to come from? Obama has publicly called for more troops in Afghanistan, and some of them should come from Iraq. Repubes have tried to rake him over the coals for it, but Obama should be hitting back with this one - "Okay, if not from Iraq, then where? We have already overextended and stop-lossed the military to excruciating lengths during the past five years, so why don't you explain to me, Senator McCain, where all of the troops are going to come from?"
Change isn't easy, as both candidates are quickly finding out. However, only one candidate in this campaign represents genuine change, the kind that American so desperately needs.
This one is tragically funny - and would it really surprise anyone? Halliburton and its former CEO, Dick Cheney, have both benefited to the tune of billions in taxpayer money as a result of no-bid contracts and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bonus: Halliburton moved its headquarters to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Its Website claims that the company is still "incorporated in the United States," but I'll be my bile duct that anything incriminating regarding the company and its involvement in Iraq has either been destroyed or moved out of the country. And if Obama wins, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the company moves most of its operations overseas, away from prying eyes. Oh, and about Cheney? The value of his Halliburton holdings, which have been held in a blind trust since he was "elected" vice president in 2000, has swelled to over $1 billion.
Yes, the Democrats could very well blow it - who would be surprised? I know I wouldn't. I some small ways, I've already steeled myself to the fact that McCain could very well win the presidency. Heaven help us all if he does, but on the bright side, he can't possibly be any worse of a president than President Bush, even though that's not saying much. Talk about an excellent example of setting the bar low.
I'm not an economist and I'll never pretend to me, but it doesn't take an economist to observe that it's quite troubling what the Bush administration has done lately - taking over and/or bailing out failing corporations - Bear Sterns, Freddie & Fannie, Countrywide, and now the Big Three in Detroit are next. The domestic automakers have been nearly criminally mismanaged for years, and it's only a matter of time before they arrive in Washington with their hands out. Mark this one down now, especially if McCain wins - they will be pleading poverty not long after he takes office, and more corporate bailouts at taxpayer expense will continue, unabated, all couched as moves that are "in the public interest." I wonder what will happen when companies like Countrywide return to profitability - can anyone honestly believe that the taxpayers will be repaid? If you think that, you need a political reality check, at best.
This is one of the most under-reported stories relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - since those conflicts have begun, over 400 GIs have killed themselves. This tragic trend is no coincidence - certainly it's not a stretch to say that stop-loss, extension of tours of duty, and reduced time between tours have strained the military to its limits.
No word yet on how Repubes will spin the latest wrath suffered at the hands of Mother Nature, Hurricane Ike, but any suggestion that global warming could be at least connected to it will no doubt incur the wrath of the detestable Sen. Jim Inhofe, quite possibly the most vile, anti-scientist senator to ever serve in Congress. (To add insult to injury, he's going to cruise to reelection this fall. Yay.)
Two of the biggest political grenades that Bush is handing off to the next president - Iraq and Afghanistan. It must be nice to start two wars, drain the treasury of trillions, killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands, and then not have to see it through until the end. However, thank God for the 22nd Amendment, which at least prevents Bush from stealing a third election.
People who believe that McCain won't be in bed with the oil lobby if he wins the election are out of their minds.
Dramatic and borderline offensive, but true. John McCain supports torture by our intelligence agencies and military, which the Bush administration has terms Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, so it cuts both ways, doesn't it? It's a fair question.
I've said it before and it bears repeating - Palin was a master-stroke choice by McCain - style of substance often wins with voters, without question. However, there hasn't been a more blatant choice of a running mate along this line of reasoning since Dan Quayle - another insulting choice to women, without question. I'm old enough to remember when it leaked out that H.W. Bush chose him to try and appeal to women voters. McCain has done the same thing, except that she's getting much more play than Quayle did in the summer and fall of '88 - after all, our media is much more corporate controlled now, and certainly in the bed of the big business dominated right wing.
It's little wonder that McCain has offered up Palin for very, very few interviews since he chose her as his running mate - publicly speaking, she's a complete disaster. (More on Palin's first extensive interview with Charlie Gibson in a bit - it's an understatement to say that it didn't go well.
The hilarity of Obama being accused of being a rock star is only more pronounced now that Palin is being treated with adoration by our corporate media. I find it sickening that the right has tried to castigate our media as "lib-rul" for asking her what it considers "tough questions," when in fact she has been asked very few. I can't remember any candidate in recent memory who has been asked fewer tough questions, and who has been this unavailable to the press. Clearly, the McCain camp didn't want to make her available at all, but cries and complaints from the media necessitated they make her available for at least a few. And really, Charlie Gibson was a soft choice, and even THAT was a disaster. Don't hold your breath for many more Palin interviews. And by interviews I mean no appearance on Faux News, where any appearance by McCain or Palin will be a verbal tongue bath.
Palin's religious fundamentalism is more than troubling, and her religious beliefs alone would disqualify me from voting for her. For that matter, I'm not even all that happy with the extent of Obama's involvement in his church, but he's not nearly to the level that Palin is. More on this in a bit.
Palin's executive experience is beyond pathetic, and what's more I think it's being highly overblown in the media. She was mayor of a small town of about 7,000 people, and was governor of Alaska - hardly a legislative tour de force. For instance, the legislature in Alaska meets for 60 days per year, nearly as pathetic as Bush's governorship of Texas, a state which has a legislature that meets every other year. But, I digress.
The pitbull vs. pig lipstick pseudo story this past week was beyond stupid - it's as if our election is now some sort of stupid reality show or something - the media coverage is bordering on the surreal. It's as if the candidates are part of MTV's The Real World or something. I'll have more on this totally fabricated "story" in a bit, too, complete with video. Stay tuned.
This one speaks for itself, too. She's about as qualified to lead this country based on her foreign policy experience as my house cat. "We're doing God's worth in Iraq"?!? That's as scary as it is stupid. Sure, Obama doesn't have a wealth of "experience," either, but he at least has the knowledge - he has a degree in political science, concentrated in foreign relations. Translation: Obama has more foreign policy knowledge in his big toe than Palin has. And it simultaneously enrages and amuses me that the right continually castigates him for being an intellectual. Well, considering the candidates the right is running right now, it stands to reason. McCain finished fifth from the bottom at the Naval Academy, and Palin can't even answer basic questions about foreign policy, as Charlie Gibson proved this past week. And during a Yale commencement address in 2001, President Bush very publicly took pride in his lack of academic achievement.
Whoops - introducing facts about the candidates is a no-no during this campaign.
This one pretty much says it all (as do many of the ones below, in different ways). At the risk of offending a few (and quite frankly, I really don't care) - President George W. Bush is one of the best things to ever happen to Osama bin Laden. Bush has shredded Americans' civil liberties, diverted our attention with a War in Iraq, a country that is unrelated to 9-11. Despite what the official White House line is about Iraq's relation to 9-11 (and Sarah Palin's and John McCain's, for that matter), solid evidence "linking" Iraq to 9-11 doesn't exist, and likely never did. (More on White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's absurd statements about 9-11 a bit later - I've got some video you have to see.)
The ersatz bipartisanship between the McCain and Obama camps didn't strike much of a chord with me - if anything, it's hollow, because every educated American voter knows that really neither candidate means it - it's just for the cameras and media to play over and over, believing that the candidates can make nice and "rise above" the political fighting. I don't buy it, specifically when it comes out of McCain's mouth; he's already broken one big, fat promise that he and his wife made in a very public way just as the campaign got under way - that any mud slinging "would come from the other [Obama's] side.
One of the biggest outrages regarding 9-11 is that no prominent public servant, especially from American's alphabet agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) was ever fired for arguably the biggest, most massive intelligence failure in American history. In fact, a few were even decorated - most notably George Tenet, who was given the Congressional Medal of Freedom by President Bush, infinitely devaluing the medal for all of the deserving Americans who have received it.
Anyone remember when President Bush swelled out his chest before a joint session of Congress, boastfully and forcefully declaring, "Osama bin Laden wanted - dead or alive"? Yea, I don't either. In a way, I will always believe that not catching bin Laden was more politically beneficial to Bush than catching him would have been. Since he's still out there, he's the boogeyman that Repubes can use to frighten the electorate with. It should be lost on no one (but it is) that Dubya has taken very little blame for 9-11 happening on his watch, too. Hopefully the next president will reintroduce the word credibility to our political lexicon.
Thus far, the Democrats are making a big mistake thinking that they can be victorious in November by making this election about the issues. Statistically speaking (and the polls largely back this up), the Democrats have just about every issue on their side in this election. Yet, McCain continues to surge in the polls - he's now turned this race into a statistical dead heat (and in some polls, he has a small lead). The bottom line - it's because McLame is making the race about personalities, and thus far following his convention, he's succeeded. Obama had better start hitting back, and in a profound way, by hammering McCain on some of his past statements, including his record of siding with Bush an overwhelming majority of the time, up until right before he declared his candidacy for the presidency.
We DO need more boots on the ground in Afghanistan, but the biggest question is, where are they going to come from? Obama has publicly called for more troops in Afghanistan, and some of them should come from Iraq. Repubes have tried to rake him over the coals for it, but Obama should be hitting back with this one - "Okay, if not from Iraq, then where? We have already overextended and stop-lossed the military to excruciating lengths during the past five years, so why don't you explain to me, Senator McCain, where all of the troops are going to come from?"
Change isn't easy, as both candidates are quickly finding out. However, only one candidate in this campaign represents genuine change, the kind that American so desperately needs.
This one is tragically funny - and would it really surprise anyone? Halliburton and its former CEO, Dick Cheney, have both benefited to the tune of billions in taxpayer money as a result of no-bid contracts and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bonus: Halliburton moved its headquarters to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Its Website claims that the company is still "incorporated in the United States," but I'll be my bile duct that anything incriminating regarding the company and its involvement in Iraq has either been destroyed or moved out of the country. And if Obama wins, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the company moves most of its operations overseas, away from prying eyes. Oh, and about Cheney? The value of his Halliburton holdings, which have been held in a blind trust since he was "elected" vice president in 2000, has swelled to over $1 billion.
Yes, the Democrats could very well blow it - who would be surprised? I know I wouldn't. I some small ways, I've already steeled myself to the fact that McCain could very well win the presidency. Heaven help us all if he does, but on the bright side, he can't possibly be any worse of a president than President Bush, even though that's not saying much. Talk about an excellent example of setting the bar low.
I'm not an economist and I'll never pretend to me, but it doesn't take an economist to observe that it's quite troubling what the Bush administration has done lately - taking over and/or bailing out failing corporations - Bear Sterns, Freddie & Fannie, Countrywide, and now the Big Three in Detroit are next. The domestic automakers have been nearly criminally mismanaged for years, and it's only a matter of time before they arrive in Washington with their hands out. Mark this one down now, especially if McCain wins - they will be pleading poverty not long after he takes office, and more corporate bailouts at taxpayer expense will continue, unabated, all couched as moves that are "in the public interest." I wonder what will happen when companies like Countrywide return to profitability - can anyone honestly believe that the taxpayers will be repaid? If you think that, you need a political reality check, at best.
This is one of the most under-reported stories relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - since those conflicts have begun, over 400 GIs have killed themselves. This tragic trend is no coincidence - certainly it's not a stretch to say that stop-loss, extension of tours of duty, and reduced time between tours have strained the military to its limits.
No word yet on how Repubes will spin the latest wrath suffered at the hands of Mother Nature, Hurricane Ike, but any suggestion that global warming could be at least connected to it will no doubt incur the wrath of the detestable Sen. Jim Inhofe, quite possibly the most vile, anti-scientist senator to ever serve in Congress. (To add insult to injury, he's going to cruise to reelection this fall. Yay.)
Two of the biggest political grenades that Bush is handing off to the next president - Iraq and Afghanistan. It must be nice to start two wars, drain the treasury of trillions, killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands, and then not have to see it through until the end. However, thank God for the 22nd Amendment, which at least prevents Bush from stealing a third election.
This one explains itself.
People who believe that McCain won't be in bed with the oil lobby if he wins the election are out of their minds.
This one says it all, and is one of my favorites I've seen so far in this campaign.
Dramatic and borderline offensive, but true. John McCain supports torture by our intelligence agencies and military, which the Bush administration has terms Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, so it cuts both ways, doesn't it? It's a fair question.
I've said it before and it bears repeating - Palin was a master-stroke choice by McCain - style of substance often wins with voters, without question. However, there hasn't been a more blatant choice of a running mate along this line of reasoning since Dan Quayle - another insulting choice to women, without question. I'm old enough to remember when it leaked out that H.W. Bush chose him to try and appeal to women voters. McCain has done the same thing, except that she's getting much more play than Quayle did in the summer and fall of '88 - after all, our media is much more corporate controlled now, and certainly in the bed of the big business dominated right wing.
It's little wonder that McCain has offered up Palin for very, very few interviews since he chose her as his running mate - publicly speaking, she's a complete disaster. (More on Palin's first extensive interview with Charlie Gibson in a bit - it's an understatement to say that it didn't go well.
The hilarity of Obama being accused of being a rock star is only more pronounced now that Palin is being treated with adoration by our corporate media. I find it sickening that the right has tried to castigate our media as "lib-rul" for asking her what it considers "tough questions," when in fact she has been asked very few. I can't remember any candidate in recent memory who has been asked fewer tough questions, and who has been this unavailable to the press. Clearly, the McCain camp didn't want to make her available at all, but cries and complaints from the media necessitated they make her available for at least a few. And really, Charlie Gibson was a soft choice, and even THAT was a disaster. Don't hold your breath for many more Palin interviews. And by interviews I mean no appearance on Faux News, where any appearance by McCain or Palin will be a verbal tongue bath.
Palin's religious fundamentalism is more than troubling, and her religious beliefs alone would disqualify me from voting for her. For that matter, I'm not even all that happy with the extent of Obama's involvement in his church, but he's not nearly to the level that Palin is. More on this in a bit.
Palin's executive experience is beyond pathetic, and what's more I think it's being highly overblown in the media. She was mayor of a small town of about 7,000 people, and was governor of Alaska - hardly a legislative tour de force. For instance, the legislature in Alaska meets for 60 days per year, nearly as pathetic as Bush's governorship of Texas, a state which has a legislature that meets every other year. But, I digress.
The pitbull vs. pig lipstick pseudo story this past week was beyond stupid - it's as if our election is now some sort of stupid reality show or something - the media coverage is bordering on the surreal. It's as if the candidates are part of MTV's The Real World or something. I'll have more on this totally fabricated "story" in a bit, too, complete with video. Stay tuned.
This one speaks for itself, too. She's about as qualified to lead this country based on her foreign policy experience as my house cat. "We're doing God's worth in Iraq"?!? That's as scary as it is stupid. Sure, Obama doesn't have a wealth of "experience," either, but he at least has the knowledge - he has a degree in political science, concentrated in foreign relations. Translation: Obama has more foreign policy knowledge in his big toe than Palin has. And it simultaneously enrages and amuses me that the right continually castigates him for being an intellectual. Well, considering the candidates the right is running right now, it stands to reason. McCain finished fifth from the bottom at the Naval Academy, and Palin can't even answer basic questions about foreign policy, as Charlie Gibson proved this past week. And during a Yale commencement address in 2001, President Bush very publicly took pride in his lack of academic achievement.Whoops - introducing facts about the candidates is a no-no during this campaign.
Labels: Weekend Cartoons
posted by RJ at 11:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home