Bill Maher accused Vice-President Cheney of being responsible for people "dying needlessly." In its own way, today's Boston Globe editorial cartoon takes that calumny one step further, suggesting that the vice-president flatly welcomes as many American deaths in Iraq as possible, as a sign of national strength.
When it comes to portraying the image of the Vice-President, the Dan Wasserman effort is also remarkable for its sheer malice.
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Actually, if you view the log
March 5, 2007 - 15:52 ET by BDActually, if you view the logic displayed int he cartoon through the prism of that seen in arab world, it is highly logical.
In my experience arabs respect strength and tenacity more than most other cultures. This is continually driven home to me by my staff's arabist who will often refer to the "Hama Rules" attitude displayed by the Syrian dictatorship. In reference to this he usually points to the fact that much of the Arabic world looks POSITIVELY on this particular facet as a show of strength - something that horrifies the peoples of the west who do not value strength at any cost.
precisely, BD
March 5, 2007 - 16:09 ET by tumbler_2007You nailed it. Muslims respect force. Not appeasement and weakness.
That's why all the jihadists are pulling for the Democrat candidates come 2008. They want craven cowards to come to power here. Why don't Democrats see this obvious truth?
Hmm... Boston Globe... Dan
March 5, 2007 - 15:57 ET by Tim the EnchanterHmm... Boston Globe... Dan Wasserman... Nudge, Nudge, Grin, Grin, Wink, Wink, Say No More, Say No More, Say No More, Squire!
I don't know how Bill Maher h
March 5, 2007 - 16:01 ET by The Real TonyI don't know how Bill Maher has pictures of having sex with a goat, but it's amazing that this no-talent hack is still on the air.
Frankly, I will throw a party the day that this scumbag drops dead. I'll take out a front page ad in the dailies if his (alleged) homosexual lover kills him with a knife. **Please note that I'm not advocating for his death, but if it happens, we should be able to openly emote about it.**
Fight Terrorism at home - defeat a liberal!
And so the mischaracterizatio
March 5, 2007 - 16:09 ET by rbosqueAnd so the mischaracterization of Cheney continues...
We are not there to take casualties but to cause them to the enemy.
This isn't a caricature. It's
March 5, 2007 - 16:16 ET by Chris NormanThis isn't an edititorial caricature. It's not a caricature if there isn't some sort of truth there, however small, to exaggerate. This is just plain old making stuff up. However, it's what Liberals do best...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Maher is despicable...The Glo
March 5, 2007 - 16:24 ET by bigtimerMaher is despicable...
The Globe is despicable....
All of the loony left in all venues are despicable...
I have had my fill.
Fight we must....
Until we achieve Victory!
All of the loony left in al
March 5, 2007 - 16:43 ET by Rupert CadellAll of the loony left in all venues are despicable...
I gotta tell ya BT, I've never even heard a liberal so sweepingly condemn the entire right-of-center population. Of course, I don't know if "loony left" means that anyone on the left is automatically loony by virtue of their leftness, or if there is a particularly loony segment of the left that is so to the left that an alliterative qualifier becomes necessary to convey the sheer extremity of leftness in question.
You might be a liberal if..
March 5, 2007 - 16:52 ET by MightyMouthYou might be a liberal if...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
A few more... "Ther
March 5, 2007 - 16:56 ET by MightyMouthA few more...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You've never heard a liberal
March 5, 2007 - 17:00 ET by NL207You've never heard a liberal say anything like this? You live a sheltered existence indeed. Let me introduce you to Media Matters, the Huffington Post, DU and DailyKos. You will find an excellent slathering of such disrespect on all of those sites.
No, I've never heard anythi
March 5, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Rupert CadellNo, I've never heard anything of the sort. I guess I read more reasonable liberal critics and writers (which apparently, according to Ms. BigTimer, don't exist). I steer clear of sites like the ones you mentioned because they're full of babies and fools who believe nonsense like "Bush orchestrated 9/11."
But no, I have yet to come across someone who says "All conservatives, everywhere, are horrible people who will ruin America." That sentiment, albeit directed at liberals, is expressed in the signature line of about half the posters on NB. I'm sure they don't literally think it's true, so why lower oneself to the level of the DailyKos crowd?
Your post implicitly agrees w
March 5, 2007 - 17:39 ET by NL207Your post implicitly agrees with my contention. Those sites, possibly excepting MediaMatters which is decidedly better in manners and tone compared to those others, do have that level of conversation.
I could wish that some of the insults that get thrown here weren't. It would raiose the level of debate here a bit.
Here you go, from the Democra
March 6, 2007 - 14:46 ET by SpoonHere you go, from the Democrat(ic) Party Chairman "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel... Now you have one example of thousands, but when it's from the top, we don't need to hear the wacked out disciples, do we?
Yo Rupert...You are a perfect
March 5, 2007 - 17:05 ET by bigtimerYo Rupert...
You are a perfect example of the loony left.
'Nuff said.
Wow BT, that's an awesome a
March 5, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Rupert CadellWow BT, that's an awesome answer.
Yes Rupert, it is an awesome
March 5, 2007 - 17:10 ET by Clear thinkerYes Rupert, it is an awesome answer.
Deal with it!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Wow Rupert, what a dumb ans
March 5, 2007 - 17:13 ET by MightyMouthWow Rupert, what a dumb answer to BT's awesome answer.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
conservatives die defending t
March 5, 2007 - 16:33 ET by pmohbuckconservatives die defending their country
liberals die of drug overdoses
... the stereotype fits ... have another bong hit Maher
"at some point people need to realize that there is more to being an american than just exercising his/her rights" - me
I think you have hit on a tru
March 5, 2007 - 16:38 ET by BDI think you have hit on a truism for the ages.
Most members of the Department of Defense would be categorized as Conservatives, or even arch conservatives in the bulk of cases.
I feel fairly certain that if you researched most Overdose cases, you will find that they ARE liberals.
That's the dumbest thing I've
March 5, 2007 - 16:50 ET by Rupert CadellThat's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Especially since "bong hit" refers to marijuana, on which it's physically impossible to overdose. Sarcasmo will get my back on this one.
Your comment makes about as much sense as somene saying all conservatives are scotch-swilling megalomaniacs who throw their empty Glenlivet bottles at the hired help. Just 'cause it's in a few pop culture artifacts doesn't make it so. Besides which, the majority of combat veterans in the legislative branch right now are Democrats. Not that I think that matters; just playing your game.
Guess again!http://www.telegr
March 5, 2007 - 17:27 ET by Del DolemonteGuess again!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/20/ncann20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/01/20/ixportal.html
excerpt
A man of 36 is believed to have become the first person in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning.
Lee Maisey smoked six cannabis cigarettes a day for 11 years, an inquest heard. His death, which was registered as having been caused by cannabis toxicity, led to new warnings about the drug, which is due to be reclassified this month as a less dangerous one.
"This type of death is extremely rare," Prof John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, said after the inquest at Haverfordwest, west Wales.
"I have not seen anything like this before. It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody."
Yeah but, what at way to go
March 5, 2007 - 17:31 ET by MightyMouthYeah but, what at way to go!!! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
What it doesn't say is that
March 5, 2007 - 17:56 ET by balboaWhat it doesn't say is that "Dark Star" was playing on a continuous loop in the background.
AhHA! Just as I suspected b
March 5, 2007 - 18:04 ET by MightyMouthAhHA! Just as I suspected bal, you are a dead head, as well as a hippie!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Ha. No. You know, I never u
March 5, 2007 - 18:10 ET by balboaHa. No. You know, I never understood that whole Grateful Dead thing. Same with Phish. Don't get the appeal at all.
Part of the appeal (which i
March 6, 2007 - 11:23 ET by sarcasmoPart of the appeal (which is likely different for everyone) might be that this libertarian -- despite all the lefties present there -- has never seen a free-er marketplace than the one that always magically emerged before each Dead concert, and it was always fun to say that to the participants & see what they'd say in response...Part of the appeal might also be geek-appeal, as Dead fans were early adopters of the Well, and that subtly-affected things early on the 'net generally, pre-AOL. RIP Jerry.
JMR
I don't believe this at all.
March 5, 2007 - 17:48 ET by bigtimerI don't believe this at all.
It sounds like he had a brain aneurysm or some such...
Marijuana by itself will not kill you, do not know if he or others may have laced it with something, doesn't really say....now alcohol...that will kill you.
I think someone has an agenda...I would like to know more about if the brain was tested for any irregularities.
Just throwing in my two cents.
(Feeling a bit wicked- Nast
March 5, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Tim the Enchanter(Feeling a bit wicked- Nasty comment time)
If the deceased was a lib- well, good luck trying to find the brain.
Sorry....
Had to be a liberal. Pot is
March 5, 2007 - 17:54 ET by balboaHad to be a liberal. Pot is too "touchy-feely" a drug for conservatives. :-)
So- just for giggles, what
March 5, 2007 - 18:00 ET by Tim the EnchanterSo- just for giggles, what would you suggest?
For conservatives? Cocaine,
March 5, 2007 - 18:09 ET by balboaFor conservatives? Cocaine, or prescription drugs like Percocet and Vicodin.
You forgot OxyContin, Darvo
March 6, 2007 - 11:18 ET by Tim the EnchanterYou forgot OxyContin, Darvocet, Lortab, and Valium!
"Anything patentable&q
March 6, 2007 - 11:26 ET by sarcasmo"Anything patentable" is the key concept here (Follow the $!)...Of course, telling the plain truth like I just did gets treated like a fart in the elevator politically, because of all the politicians the aforementioned $ buys!!
JMR
Rupert:Virtually every survey
March 5, 2007 - 17:30 ET by BDRupert:
Virtually every survey conducted of the current volunteer US armed forces indicates that the military is overwhelmingly conservative. Liberal luminaries such as Kthleen Roth-Duquet when confronted witht he actual military population often remark on itas Roth Duquet did in her book...
AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service -- and How It Hurts Our Country
This is regardless of who is currently serving in elected office.
Note, I would take exception with her notion of "Upper Class" failing to serve when in fact she really refers to liberal Ivy School Grads as the demographic she is most conserned about.
BD, I think the sad and obv
March 6, 2007 - 12:01 ET by Rupert CadellBD, I think the sad and obvious response to this is: "Why would someone who has the chance to go to an Ivy, and then live the well-renumerated life that such education provides, go risk their life overseas?"
I do find it humorous that you qualify this author's discussion of the upper-class, basically saying that it's only the liberal upper-class. I mean, the history of warfare is also largely the history of the sons of the wealthy avoiding service, especially in America. Sure, if we looked back to Cromwell and the pre-New Model Army, you'd find aristocratic young men serving, but only as officers. WWI, perhaps the most monstrously evil campaign of the 20th century, was fought by immigrants, many of whom were beaten or killed for expressing their opposition to it. And why? To make the world safe for capitalism, er, democracy? No upper-class person in their right mind would have personally fought that war because they had the working class to do it in their stead.
Doesn't the same go today? The wealthy have nothing at stake in Iraq; they have everything to lose by going there. The outcome of that war will not affect their stock portfolio enough for them to care.
It seems that we basically agree, BD, I think I'm just more cynical.
Why would someone who has the
March 6, 2007 - 12:30 ET by BDWhy would someone who has the chance to go to an Ivy League and then livea well renumerated life that such an eduction provides, go risk their life overseas?
Interesting question, and one that I am actually qualified to answer. My oldest sister attended Yale, my older brother attended Brown. I had similar scores in all major indicators of Ivy attendance, but chose to attend a university that had an ROTC program and get a journalism degree with the specific goal to gain my commission.
If I had attended Yale or Harvard, i would undoubtedly desired to also attend ROTC and gain my commission.
Does attending a Ivy schhol disqualify me from a life of service to my nation? The Ivy's seem to thin so as they only have one Ivy school that still has an ROTC program, and that produces fewer cadets than most similar sized state supported schools.
Likewise, my last deputy attended Harvard, and chose to forgo a job in corporate america to join the Navy as an Intelligence officer, the reason was simple. Making a huge stash of cash or "remuneration" felt wimpy when he had the opportunity to actually impact his world as a school trained targeteer.
Regarding your notion that historically the sons of the wealthy avoid service, this is incorrect. If you look at the history of the US, you will find peple like Teddy Roosevelt, Tiffany, Hamilton Fish, etc who have gladly signed on to the cause. Of course, they were not leftists...
regarding your notion that WWI was fought by immigrants. I think you would find that notion incorrect when matched against the NCO core of the army which was hardly characterized as Immigrant.
regarding the notion that the wealthy have nothing at stake in Iraq. As the son of a retired CEO, I guess I put the lie to that. I have been to Iraq twice now and am prepared to go back again. I, am not worried about my significant stock portfolio when I perform my actions, I guarantee you that.
There are, of course, excep
March 6, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Rupert CadellThere are, of course, exceptions to any generality. I'm not sure you and Teddy Roosevelt are quite enough to disprove the notion that the economic/military systems are such that the wealthy have little to gain by fighting personally. Besides which, wasn't that the point of your original post?
Immigrants were the core of anti-WWI protest and were frequently forced to serve. I'm sure there were several who thought "Gee, I'd love to go back to Europe and engage in trench-warfare with my Old World counterparts to help make Rockefeller's bank account bigger" but thousands more were given no choice. There were also frequent incidences of German-Americans being beaten and lynched in city streets. It was also the beginning of sauerkraut's rechristening as "Liberty Cabbage." If you remember back to the "Freedom Fries" idiocy of 2003, you can see just how much our leaders have learned about xenophobia in 90 years.
OK, getting off topic.
Rupert:You assume that the we
March 6, 2007 - 16:57 ET by BDRupert:
You assume that the wealthy are in fact liberals, that does not necessarily follow. What I am saying can be proven by four positions.
1.) A poor conservative is likely to join the military.
2.) A Rich Conservative is nearly as likely to join the military as a poor conservative.
3.) A poor liberal is not likely to join the military.
4.) A rich liberal WILL not join the military.
After twenty two years of service, this in my experience is a truism.
Regarding your position that immigrants were the core of the Anti -WWI protests, the same could be said for the Anti-draft riots of the Civil War, but I do not see what this has to do with anything. The core of the US army/Marine Corps in that time period was NOT immigrant.
MY WW1 protestor comments w
March 6, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Rupert CadellMY WW1 protestor comments were drifting off-topic I admit.
I don't doubt your 4-point schematic one bit. I think the clear reason for it is that the purpose of warfare (beyond protecting our homeland security) tends to be aligned with conservative ideology, as does the perceived culture of the military itself.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't think it's an issue of patriotism but of why wars are fought and of the kind of atmosphere one would encounter in the barracks.
Regarding your last paragraph
March 6, 2007 - 17:50 ET by BDRegarding your last paragraph, I would say it is a issue of patriotism, and that is one of the factors in the "Atmosphere of the barracks" you reference.
I have had liberal members of my extended family visit me at various military posts over the course of my career and they are always struck by the differences in our cultures betwwen the conservative military and the liberal intelligentsia. A good example is the time honored tradition on military posts of coming to a halt and facing towards the posts flag when retreat is played at the end of the workday. This particular action of showing respect for the nations flag as it is being lowered at the end of the day never ceases to amaze them.
Most remark on it as if dealing with aliens from another planet and I have had one relitive remark that the act of facing towards the flag made them itch inside from a "regimented act.".
While most liberals claim they are just as patriotic as any conservative, they are unable to show even the most minor courtesies towards that patriotism, preferring to use a logic of "lack of patriotic display is actually more patriotic."
Like THAT makes sense.
my suggestion to maher (and m
March 5, 2007 - 23:18 ET by pmohbuckmy suggestion to maher (and my post) was tongue-in-cheek ... lighten up frances ;)
"at some point people need to realize that there is more to being an american than just exercising his/her rights" - me
I just read that VP Cheney
March 5, 2007 - 17:08 ET by Chris NormanI just read that VP Cheney is being treated for a blood clot. How long before Maher the Ghoul expresses hope that the treatment is unsuccessful?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Hi Chris,I just posted someth
March 5, 2007 - 17:14 ET by bigtimerHi Chris,
I just posted something about that somewhere! LOL!
You can be sure it will be used in skits too....in a deragatory way.
After they blame Bush/Rove for a conspiracy to put forth a candidate for Prez....as only the left can do.
bt,I always worry about being
March 5, 2007 - 17:40 ET by Chris Normanbt,
I always worry about being a day late and a dollar short with my comments. I can't monitor the posts as closely as I used to. I never know if I'm repeating what others have said. I maintain that today's liberalism is nothing more than immaturity (naively wanting some poltical parent to take care of all problems). This immaturity is again expressed in their hateful comments and "humor". They all need a good spanking and grounding for - say - about a decade...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Chris.... A decade or two wou
March 5, 2007 - 17:51 ET by bigtimerChris....
A decade or two would suit me just fine!
LOL!
Btw...I can't keep up either....
You guys obviously miss the p
March 6, 2007 - 11:12 ET by waka wakaYou guys obviously miss the point of the cartoon. It's not saying "Cheney welcomes American deaths in Iraq." That's how a 5-year-old would read it.
The cartoon highlights Cheney's absurd rationalizations over the past 4 years that escalating violence is a sign that we're even closer to victory than before.
No one thinks Cheney or anyone in the Bush administration "welcomes" American deaths in Iraq. But many believe the administration has wasted American lives by sending them in poorly equipped, under manned and without a plan to win the peace. They gambled with U.S. lives. And when it became blatantly clear they needed to change course, they refused, strictly out of the political consideration that admitting mistakes would lose them elections. It turns out NOT admitting mistakes loses elections. The American people aren't stupid.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
"...No one thinks Chen
March 6, 2007 - 11:27 ET by Tim the Enchanter"...No one thinks Cheney or anyone in the Bush administration "welcomes" American deaths in Iraq." You're kidding, right? You think no one here reads Kos, DU, or HuffyPo? All the comments about Bush, Cheney, et. al. being murderers, etc.? A murderer, by definition, likes to kill, desires to kill. That's why the law has numerous differentiations of homicide. Calling someone a murderer means that the one doing the calling accuses the one called of deliberately and willfully desiring and causing death. Also, please allow me to correct a typo in your tag line...
Reality has a well-know conservative bias.
You obviously miss the poitn
March 6, 2007 - 11:48 ET by BDYou obviously miss the poitn of my posting above in whcih the views of the Arab street are discussed.
Please list the rationale for the statement of US troops being "Poorly Equipped".
Also, please discuss the rationale of "no plan to win the peace."
How did GWB gamble with US lives more than FDR gambled with lives at Operation Torch, Operation Market Garden, Operation Overlord?
FDR was fighting against an a
March 6, 2007 - 12:41 ET by bushwickbillFDR was fighting against an alliance that had attacked and destroyed our major military outpost in the Pacific, had already outright conquered and occupied our allies, and was bent on conquering the world. He had good reason to take some risks. Bush is fighting in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. And Al-Qaeda, whereever we fight them, can't be seen as a group with the military capability to actually challenge US sovereignity. Their one major "victory" was not military in nature and could have been prevented by better coordination and execution by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. So it's not quite the same thing.
Do it like a G.O.!
1.) So FDR would not have h
March 6, 2007 - 17:06 ET by BD1.) So FDR would not have had the right to attack the four Japanese aircraft carriers northwest of Hawaii on 6 December 1941 because they had not attacked us yet? Not logical....
2.) Using the logic currently applied by those with Liberal "Bents" in the west today, we should NOT have invaded North Africa in WWII because Germany did not bomb us at Pearl Harbor, and certainly the French North Africans did not mean us harm until we invaded. THerefore, using this logic train, FDR was a war criminal.
3.) Saddam, who regularly engaged US aircraft monitoring the no-fly zone in north and south Iraq, was naturally NOT engaging in a hostile act because ....Well, Liberals can't come up with a reason for that one. Needless to say most countries would have flattened him following the FIRST time he engaged our aircraft...