Town Square

Post a New Topic

Editorial Cartoon on Iraq Says It All

Original post made by Observer, another community, on Sep 10, 2007

If you missed it, in today's edition of the "other" PA paper was an editorial cartoon from the Boston Globe that truly captures our President at his "finest":
Web Link

Its the one with W sitting at his school desk, looking like the slacker/class clown he is, saying to Congress (portrayed as Uncle Sam) "Yo teach - how 'bout another extension" while holding his Iraq report with a bunch of failed test papers from prior years laying on the floor and a calandar labeled September hanging on the wall behind him.

Unfortunately, in the one that will appear in tomorrow's paper, W gets the last laugh - see the Sept 11 cartoon with General Petraeus using the same link posted above.

Comments (40)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 5:18 am

An excellent illustration of what hate can do to an otherwise fine mind. An excellent illustration, also, of the regard LibLuds hold for the general public.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Joke is On ..
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 7:47 am

What is really the joke is that there are people who actually believe cartoonists' version of history over fact. They are CARTOONISTS, people! They DRAW and tell JOKES!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 11, 2007 at 8:08 am

The joke, or rather terrible tragedy of it all is that unfortunately, the propaganda effort by the White House now underway may have a more malign impact than most propaganda exercises. It claims that victory is possible where failure has already occurred. It manipulates figures and facts to produce a picture of Iraq that is not merely distorted but substantively false.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:25 am

Tell Nast that editorial cartoons are supposed to be jokes. They are political statements in a form difficult to respond to for us artistically deprived ones. That particulr joke wat an indication of the Bushatred that has overwhelmed any rational analytic ability of the artist. It is also a show of contempt for the people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chris
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:36 am

You're a broken record, Wally. Why don't you stretch yourself a litle and explain why any criticism of this administration is "Bush hatred" and all of your criticisms against "LibLuds" (how inelegant, Wally; surely you can do better)and others you disagree with is rational analysis.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hatred defined.
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:49 am

I will do it for him.

Those of us who couldn't stand much of what Clinton did were still capable of acknowledging what he did well and acknowledging that his intentions were probably good.

Those of you who exhibit "Bushhatred" are incapable of finding anything, at all, good about him, his intentions, or anyone who works for him.

That is hatred, pure and simple.And it diminishes any credibility you have.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by They are just CARTOONISTS
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:52 am

Web Link

link to a cartoonist who defined Democrats...Let's see how long this stays up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Democrat
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 10:22 am

I guess if it is trying to have sex in airport bathrooms, is in the phone book of a notorious madame, chasing after underage boys it must be a republican, accusing democrats who actually serve din the army as being supporters of terrorism and/or having a public press conference to announce that you are leaving your wife and moving in with another woman, then it must be a republican


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C'mon, be real
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:10 am

You don't know your Democrat elected officials' history too well, do you?

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that if a Republican is even ACCUSED through shadowy inferences and set-ups of even ADULT sexual activity of any type, they are forced out. Even the big "scandal" over Foley was based on just writings between him and ADULT males, not even any contact. But, Democrats can actually be CONVICTED of actual illegal sex, as in underage boys and brothels, and they get not only re-elected, but standing ovations!

Example: Look up Studds and Frank.

I am tired of is hypocrisy. I want the same standards for all. It is not worse for a person to do "wrong" if they believe it is wrong, than it is for someone to do "wrong" if they believe it isn't wrong.

And, please, are you really trying to say that somehow serving in a prior or current war makes you immune to being treasonous?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Democrat
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:16 am

C'mon be real---do you have any actual proof the Kerry and Cleland, for example have committed treason--in fact do you have any info about how many ex-soldiers have committed treason?
It has become fashionable for Republicans to paint anyone that is against anything they support with regard to the "war on terror" as being a supporter of terrorism etc. As we saw in the last election, the american people have gotten tired of that old refrain--especially coming from people that did not have the time to serve their country (i.e. Cheney).
BTW, you need to go back and refresh your memory about the Foley case.
The general problem is that republicans have become "holier than thou" about moral/social issues--yet they constantly forget to practice what they preach--I guess if you are a republican congressperson it is okay to solicit sex in bathrooms and seek underage boys for sex.
Finally it is up to the person's constituents to decide if they will be re--elected. if you have problems with that aspect of democracy, i suggest you work to change the laws.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C'mon, be real
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:19 am

by the way..I want all men out there to tell me that this is a fair and honest "accusation" of Senator Craig. Give me a break. We bust people because we THINK that they may be soliciting on "signals" like these..when you can't even see each other? So, what does this mean? Can I scratch my head while I happen to catch somebody's eye? If between stall behavior is convictable, what is eye to eye? I heard the big controversy, and decided to listen to the actual tape. It is appalling.

Transcript of police "interview" after "busting" Craig.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C'mon, be real
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:25 am

Tokyo Rose was executed for treason for much less than Reid, Schumer, Kerry, Feinstein, Biden et al say regularly now.

Unlike you, I prefer to aim for standards, and have some of us fail, than simply give up on any standards at all. You, evidently, think that those have standards should be convicted on accusations alone, and those who don't should be applauded when they live up to them.

And no, Republicans believe in freedom of speech, and can have honest disagreements over Iraq..the difference is that when we disagree, we do so in a way that doesn't undermine our efforts and endanger more lives, ours and Iraqis. We don't give the enemies their talking points, and we don't give them hope that we will accept defeat so that they keep killing in hopes of driving us out. That is treasonous. Don't you recognize any Democrat talking points whenever Ahmadinijad or Bin Laden speak?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Yay!
a resident of The Greenhouse
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:25 am


89% of those surveyed want to impeach GWB:

Link to MSNBC online poll results: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Democrat
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:26 am

Craig plead guilty. He was cruising for sex in the bathrooms at MSP and got caught. He was lucky to get off with a misdemeanor.
His press conference later where he declared that he was not gay, was a joke and an insult to the intelligence of his constituents.
At least he was not cruising for young boys like a certain former republican congressman


 +   Like this comment
Posted by c'mon, be real
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:29 am

He pled guilty because he believed it would be the fastest way to get out of an extortionist attempt to hang him.

He didn't count on the constant hounding.

This was a set-up, and it is a "he said she said".

Note..not one person has come forward at all to say "yes, I have had bathroom sex with Craig" and you can bet if anyone had, he would have come forward by now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by c'mon, be real
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:32 am

Yay: you need to learn about the process of self-selection. They were not surveyed, they volunteered to answer a question.

If Catholic Weekly did a poll on "Should Abortion be available on demand after 3 months" I would bet a year's salary that you would get "89%" who would say "no".

Self-selection does not an American Poll make. It makes a statement about what kind of people read that site and take the time to answer the poll!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by c'mon, be real
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:35 am

to Democrat: Please correct my information on Foley with a factual site that has proof of any kind that he had sex with any underage male, let alone solicited for sex with an underage male.

BTW, I think it is a common misconception that because you believe that marriage is a term reserved for STRAIGHTS that somehow you are against gays. I am gay, AND I believe that we shouldn't redefine the actual word. I just want equal rights and responsibilities.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Democrat
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:38 am

Yes isn;t freedom of speech terrible in the wrong hands--when Democrats exercise that right they are "undermining our efforts and endangering more lives, ours and Iraqis, giving the enemies their talking points, and giving them hope that we will accept defeat"--when Republicans exercise that right it is an "honest disagreements over Iraq".
As i said before, that is all the republicans have left now--trying to impugn the patriotism of those that oppose them. The war has been bungled from the start, we have had an almost continuous assault on our fundemental freedoms by Bush and his lackeys, while Bin Laden continues to roam freely in Pakistan/Afghanistan aand the administration continues to lie to us without any shame.
Quite a record for the past 7 years, no wonder republicans have chosen to take the low road and attack anyone that dares to questions Bush's banana dictatorship. Very sad days for deomcracy in this country


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Democrat
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:44 am

Regarding Foley here are links to a couple of sites with stories about Foley's IMs with underage males

Web Link
Web Link

You can nitpick and argue whether what he did was a crime or if he actually engaged in sex with underage males--the fact is that what he did was disgusting to the majority of americans. in addition what is disturbing is that the house republican leadership was aware of it and tried to keep it quiet.

I am not sure he would have wanted to be charged and face trial. I am certain that the repulican party were glad that he just went away.
i think you can do better than trying to defend a pervert like Foley.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by aw, c'mon, got me
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Not defending Foley. You aren't reading correctly. Calling for an end to hypocrisy, is what I am doing. Convicting someone in the media of talking/writing to an underage and running him out on a rail, yet re-electing CONVICTED SEX CRIMINALS and giving them a standing ovation is wrong.

By the time the IM story came out, I think I had tuned it out as yet another attempt to "get" a Republican. If the IMs are true, I am glad he resigned, also.

The Republican "Party" did know something, at least, and brought his e-mails to the Feds, who determined they could do nothing cuz Foley had done nothing illegal. But, in any case, I prefer my elected officials to live up to a better standard than any of these bozos.

By the way, just curious..how do you rate unmarried male congressman-former male page, with married male president to unmarried female CURRENT INTERN? Are they different to you? The same?

Just curious


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ImpeachBush
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 11, 2007 at 12:38 pm

No wonder that what Iraqis believe is happening to them and their country is wholly contrary to the myths pumped out by the White House and the Pentagon. The opinion poll commissioned by ABC news, the BBC and Japanese Television NHK and published yesterday shows that 70 per cent of Iraqis say that their security has got worse during the last six months when the US increased the number of its US troops in Baghdad and surrounding provinces. A solid 57 per cent believe that attacks on coalition forces are acceptable. Some 93 per cent of Sunni approve such attacks and 50 per cent of Shia also back them.

Interestingly, 46 per cent of Iraqis believe that full-scale civil war would be less likely if the US withdrew before civil order is restored. Some 35 per cent say it would be more likely to occur.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anne
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 12:49 pm


military commanders are pretty prone to propaganda, as are politicians. See, that is why a free press exists, i.e., to act as skeptical questioners digging through the nonsense to look for ... what's the word? Oh right, TRUTH. Six years of constant lies makes one forget what a "non-lie" is called.

For the record...

General Petraeus was given his current assignment specifically because of his proven skills as a propagandist. His predecessors were significantly more honest and were removed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Democrat
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Which convicted sex criminals are you referring to?
I fyou referring to Barney Frank and Gerry Studds, they were never charged or convicted of any crimes.

Web Link

"In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie's activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity"

Web Link

"Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual (which made it legal, in accordance with state law) but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates."

As for their re-election, as I have stated before that is an issue to take up with their respective constituents.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I don't see the Bush hatred to be any different than the Clinton hatred 8 years ago. Why would Republicans expect that they should be treated better?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ImpeachBush
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 11, 2007 at 1:33 pm

There's a world of difference between Clinton hatred and Bush hatred. Clinton had a consensual affair with a yung adult adult woman. He didn't trample on the Constitution, he didn't violate the Constitution and other laws, didn't lie and forge intelligence in order to get his nation into a bloody, illegal and murderous war. Bush is a mass murderer and a traitor to his country. Clinton didn't deserve a ny of the obscene hatred against him, bush deserves it and then some,as well as impeachment, removal and imprisonment.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by clinton lied
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 11, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Clinton did lie to the american people. He was adulterous.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by to democrate
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 11, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Democrate-
do you remember when you said "constantly forget to practice what they preach--" when you were talking about republicans? do you remember when dems were trying to get controll of the house, and they were preaching if we put them in office they would take us out of Iraq? Is this not a case of them forgetting to practice what they preach? hypocrasy...? We are yet to leave Iraq even though they have controll of the house and senate. Democrates are just a bunch of spineless flip floppers....in my oppinion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Democrat
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Yes, Clinton did lie and yes, he committed adultery. Remember also that the Republican plan was to hound Clinton for as long as he was in the White House--look how many millions were wasted on Ken "the Lackey" Starr's investigations.
Now let's look at Bush's track record--I do not need to go into detail-I think we all know about the lies regarding WMD and the war in Iraq, the assault on the constitution, Bush's signing statements which allow his to ignore the will of Congress. Not to mention his failure to catch the perp behind 9/11, his failure in handling the aftermath of Katarina and on and on.
Care to still compare Clinton and Bush???


 +   Like this comment
Posted by to democrate
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 11, 2007 at 5:16 pm

I am not comparing Bush to Clinton. You never answered my question about how democrates do not practice what they preach....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 11, 2007 at 5:44 pm

When I use the term LudLib, my construct incidentally, it is almost always accompanied by a description of the policy I object to along with a description of the wrong the policy will cause.
My primary objection to Bushatred is than it makes meaningful criticism of his policies impossible.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janice
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 11, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Wallis, every single policy of the felon-in-chief is deplorable, immoral and criminal. It makes life easier for his critics, because the man has never done anything right in his life, before 2000, or after he was installed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2007 at 5:55 pm

And the Clinton-hatred resulted in meaningful criticism? It all depends on who is listening. Bush's "high crimes" are fairly substantial. It's not hatred. It's the constitution and the rule of law.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of another community
on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Boy, what one cartoon can do to spark a debate!

Let's try something else to get everyone's gander up, since it is Sept. 11 after all (you do all remember Sept 11, don't you - it's that date after which our esteemed President urged us all to just keep shopping and don't worry about a thing).

Anyway, let's just say that - take your pick - Al Gore or John Kerry (or even better yet, the she-wolf Hillary) were President instead of W. and it's now been 6 years and Bin Laden is still around taunting us (as he is - even Fox News admits that's true).

Under that scenario, don't you think that every single conservative out there would be calling not just for impeachment of President Gore/Kerry/Clinton, but for execution of said President for "treason" based on some skewed version of the Constitution???

Yet instead, Bin Laden is being held up by W. and conservatives as the reason why we still must continue on with this insane Iraq war.

So now, let the "debate" begin!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 12, 2007 at 7:15 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dr. Ferragamo
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 12, 2007 at 8:02 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by yuk, lots of muck here
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Sep 12, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Wow, no matter how "right wing" the blogs are that I go onto, I never read the kind of talk about "the left" that I read about Bush et al regularly on this forum.

It says a lot about who identifies with which party.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 12, 2007 at 8:28 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Please Ban Wally
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 12, 2007 at 9:43 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fluffy
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2007 at 10:01 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 12, 2007 at 10:05 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't fund the rape culture at my alma mater
By Jessica T | 37 comments | 3,018 views

Palo Alto and Bay Area Election Facts and Thoughts on the Implications
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,609 views

I am Grateful for Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,252 views

Mothers, daughters, books, and boxes
By Sally Torbey | 4 comments | 1,222 views

Campaign Endorsements: Behind the Curtain
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,102 views