Barack Obama says he wouldn't have voted for the Iraq War. Yet he voted, over and over and over, to waste billions of dollars to prolong the very same war. Now he's running on his theoretical voting record.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(310)
-
▼
February
(28)
- Cartoon for March 1Republicans are accusing Barack...
- Cartoon for February 28The New York Times accused ...
- TED RALL COLUMN: HOPE YOU CAN'T VOTE FORRalph Nade...
- Cartoon for February 25The media bemoans the psych...
- Cartoon for February 23Even Democratic commentator...
- Cartoon for February 21Bush Administration officia...
- Dear Albanians: You're Screwedposted by Susan Star...
- THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: TALK NO, VOTE YESHo...
- Book Review: "The Age of American Unreason"My revi...
- Cartoon for February 18The government wants to use...
- Generalissimo El Busho!Please click here.
- Cartoon for February 16Supreme Court Justice Anton...
- Cartoon for February 14In perhaps the most bizarre...
- Flashback: May 3, 2007I was looking over my cartoo...
- "Quit Your Job, Work is a Sham," Might Magazine, J...
- Greg Palast on "Silk Road to Ruin"Author and kick-...
- THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: THERE SHOULD BE BLO...
- Cartoon for February 11Attack them here before we ...
- A Special Thank Youposted by TheDonThank you, Cong...
- Cartoon for February 9After I drew this cartoon, I...
- Subscription Service ReminderI'm about the close t...
- Flash: MittBot2008 DeactivatedMitt Romney is dropp...
- Cartoon for February 7Barack Obama says he wouldn'...
- COLUMN: INTEGRITY LITEPuffing Up John McCain, POW"...
- Cartoon for February 4The 2008 presidential primar...
- As If the Primaries Had Never HappenedThe blog Pun...
- McCain RevisitedReader Kim asks:now that mc cain i...
- Cartoon for February 2The rise of the cute-ocracy ...
-
▼
February
(28)
Ted, love the parallel universe concept. Check out the Adventures of Luther Arkwright by Bryan Talbot for a great example. Rumor had it that Heath Ledger was slated to play the lead. Oh well. PS What a nation of idiots we are, none of the above for me!!!
ReplyDeleteTed,
ReplyDeleteReading today's cartoon I'm reminded why I love you. Sometimes I think things, and think I'm crazy. Then I read your bits and see I'm not alone.
Unless, we're both crazy.
"Theorical voting" indeed.
To save you from potentially angering your constituency of Star Trek fans, Ted, I must point out that the correct reference is "space-time continuum," NOT "time-space continuum."
ReplyDeleteEither way, I am now firmly in the Obama camp. His speech was amazing, and that does speak volumes. For example, GW Bush sounds incompetent most of the time, but he is very precise and direct about something you know he believes. Some might say he's just a really lousy liar, but I think false passion is very hard to fake. When called upon to be compassionate or caring, Bush comes off as a complete worm.
I also think that Obama's support for the funding aspect is not as absurd as you do. This was Bush's war, and to actually end it the American public had to remove him.
They did not.
Blaming congressional democrats for that is not misguided, I think it's precisely what the Bush Administration has been doing; they're playing a game of chicken with the lives of millions, and we both know if Democrats actually defunded the war they would make a debacle out of it to hurt the democratic party and the political left in the US for ANOTHER generation.
If Americans can't understand that conservatives do nothing but play games, then I can grieve for the absurdity of it all, but I am not going to put the blame on the LEAST among them who deserves it.
Bush challenged the country to remove him from power and nation as a whole refused.
It's an amusing column and I did laugh at it, but I think it's misplaced to scapegoat Obama for the Iraq war.
Dave
I think at this point most progressives have just thrown up their hands and joined the effort to get a democrat in office, and obama just seems that much nicer than hillary.
ReplyDeleteLoved the last panel, awesome punchline.
ReplyDeletePanel three cracked me up. There is something quintessentially Clinton about "I would've loved to have owned you!"
ReplyDeleteAggie, _I_ would vote for Hitler, because his speeches are amazingly clear and promise visions of a new era where our lost glory and honour will be restored to us.
ReplyDelete"There's nothing 'Neo' about reading Mein Kampf today and like the ideas."
Anders, that's disgusting and you know it. Hitler played off fascist tendencies and race-mongering, and did it very openly. He was like a German David Duke, and I'd never follow someone like that.
ReplyDeleteComparing Obama to Hitler just because they both are good orators is asinine and intellectually sloppy...they both breathe oxygen too, ooooh.....is there a connection?
That's the second statement I've seen you make on this blog that makes me pity who you must be.
The independent vote will go to McCain if Clinton gets elected. The media really doesn't accurately analyze the demographics; Clinton is far far more divisive and it shows in the support she gets.
I've been thinking about the fact that a lot of the anger I sense from Obama comes from the traditional left, and I think I know why:
It's because time past the flower children by; they had their opportunity and McGovern failed, and now they're angry that this time they're left out of the revolutionary party. The fact is this world has fundamentally changed, and maybe the older generations just need to put a little faith in something else.
Could there be a touch of bitterness here? I certainly sense it.
Hell, this is beyond me too, but I'm in a position where I've started to recognize the irrelevance of my world view.
Dave
Dave,
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, what was the first one?
Aggie Dude, you're right. Obama is not Hitler. The Republicans are Hitler. Obama is Neville Chamberlain.
ReplyDeleteStill caucusing for John Edwards! Let's have a brokered convention; keep McCain guessing.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith JRE: Suspended, not ended!
re: Headline: Cheney Defends Use of Harsh Interrogations
ReplyDeleteSo, when the Creator of the Iraq War/Bush Misadministration gets his turn after the indictments are issued, he will want harsh interrogations for himself. Right? Would he want a war criminal from the USA treated any differently? Or will Dick 'DICK' Cheney tell the government attorneys to Go f**k themselves?
Obama, is a little too centrist for me. I recomend we let the repukenekins win. They made the mess how much worse off can we be if they have another 4 or 8 years to clean it up? By then the left may possibly come up with a person we can all get behind.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems have a mass neurosis -- they not only want lobbyist money like the Repugs get, but also want to look like they're populists. They just end up looking like incompetent Republicans.
ReplyDeleteWhy would a lobbyist spend money on someone who might, just might, have to live up to a promise, when they can give the same money to someone who doesn't even bother to make those kind of promises?
And how can the Dems ignore a mandate like the '06 elections and call themselves populist?
Dennis Kucinich's local paper is opposing his reelection because he doesn't practice "compromise, modulation and patience." 70% of us think the war is wrong and stupid -- obstruction, defiance, and argument is exactly what we need.
Are "compromise, modulation and patience" appropriate responses to torture, illegal surveillance, and the overthrow of the Constitution? And what have the Dems really gained by their moderation?
McCain actually has a shot at the Presidency. It shouldn't have even been in the realm of the conceivable. But given the choice between a competent corporate shill and an incompetent corporate shill . . .
Is it just me, or did anyone else read the dialog in the last panel and the voice of Professor Frink in their head?
ReplyDeleteNot only do I agree with Aggie Dude's point about it being political suicide to vote against funding bills since you would then be portrayed as "abandoning" or "under-supplying the troops" -- but also, the entire premise of your cartoon willfully ignores the fact that Obama spoke out against the war in office as a Illinois State Senator back while Hillary was voting for it as per her usual triangulation.
ReplyDeleteSaying that someone who spoke out against the war when it was very unpopular to do so but wasn't in a position to vote on it is "just the same" as someone who actively supported it is nonsensical. Or willfully disingenuous, anyway.
I saw Obama giving a speech on tv, and behind him was a woman in tears with adoration. He never said anything accept the standard pap about peace love and understanding. I can't believe how enraptured people are with this empty suit. Goes to show you how far one can go on white liberal guit.
ReplyDeleteKLAVEN!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAnders:
ReplyDeleteThe first comment was the one about having "the correct level of skin pigmentation" to win.
Barack Obama is the first candidate I've ever heard southern white men talk about voting for who isn't the Republican standard-bearer.
To continue kicking a dead horse, I also stand by my point about the anti-Obama left. He's far more centrist than I am as well, but I think history has passed by the opportunity for a meaningful far left candidate to ever be elected in the United States. A centrist who inspires individuals to be active is a far bigger asset than a 1 term lame duck leftist who won't get anything done.
I think the hostility from the left toward Obama is seated in the bitterness of old school liberals because being the progressive wing of America is so wrapped in their identity that it offends them to think that a sea change in American politics could happen without their blessing.
Well folks, as a guy who makes his living studying social movement coalitions and transnational organizations, I think a former community organizer is PRECISELY the right person for a world in which the only thing that stands against the corporate fascism of neo-liberalism is a network of NGOs who need to be staffed by people whose idealism is seasoned by an understanding in the need to compromise.
Well, I was wrong when I said lobbyists wouldn't give money to a "Pretend to care."
ReplyDeleteOil ontributions
to various candidates
Apparently, they'll give it to anyone based on their estimate of "electability," or something.
“I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.” - Barack Obama, September 2002.
ReplyDeleteNice speech back in 2002. So why has he voted for (funding) the war six times out of six?
ReplyDeleteWhat part of "political suicide" did you not understand?
ReplyDeleteAre you being deliberately obtuse?
And yes, it was a nice speech. He's a better speaker than anyone else running. Charitable of you to notice.
Saying that someone who spoke out against the war when it was very unpopular to do so but wasn't in a position to vote on it is "just the same" as someone who actively supported it is nonsensical.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how much more "actively" you can support a war than by voting to pay for it over and over again. Talk is cheap. How would you feel about someone who railed against Bush and his war, but voted for him in 2004? It's kinda like that. When he could make a speech about making a difference, he did so. When he could actually make a difference, he passed.
Or to approach this from the other direction:
ReplyDeleteBush gave great speeches in 2000 about having a "humble foreign policy". Does he get credit for that, or do you count his wars of aggression against him?
Bush railed against "nation building" in 2000. Does that count, or does his record since 9/11 count more?
Bush called himself a "uniter, not a divider". Do you still buy that?
Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative", and a "reformer with results". Did Katrina sully those fine sentiments?
Bush talks endlessly about alternative energy sources, and the importance of weaning the USA off of "foreign oil". How's that working out?
After Katrina, Bush gave a great sounding speech about fixing the racial divides in the country. Do you think of him as the reincarnation of MLK, or as just another huckster?
I am not comparing Bush with Obama, or their records with each other, but I am comparing your reaction to their respective speeches. They both talk a good game, if you're into that sort of thing. You could choose to believe Bush on a number of issues, from the necessity of war to the success of the war, the economy, the tax cuts, torture, wiretapping, etc. etc. etc. BUT YOU DO NOT, because you look at what he has done, not what he has said.
I'm just suggesting that you accord Senator Obama the same courtesy.
I yet again kick the dead horse of old liberal bitterness as I sense it here.
ReplyDeleteIt is inaccurate to talk about Bush's speeches, because they weren't good. They were hokey and an embarrassment to our country and anyone with a brain could see through his folksy bullshit to know he didn't even care about what he was saying enough to use proper grammar. You're rewriting history to fit your own feeble argument.
What part of 'political suicide' don't you understand (again, in case you didn't see it the first time)? Furthermore, what part of false passion being really hard to convey did you not understand?
This is just my opinion, of course, but I think your displays of wallowing in despair are completely self-indulgent, and perpetuating the behavior only ensures that history will pass you by.
Perhaps we need another decade of right wing rule before we embrace a step in the right direction?
aggie dude,
ReplyDelete1. I don't hear people saying they like Obama because his speech against the war was uplifting, they praise it because it was AGAINST THE WAR. Despite the fact that he voted to fund it every time. They certainly like his soaring rhetoric, but the point here is that he was right to be against the war, but then voted to fund it. Bush was right about what kind of leader the country needed, but the did the exact opposite in almost every case.
2. What part of "we elected them to stop the war" do you not understand? Especially those who spoke so well against it. Stopping a hugely unpopular war would NOT have been political suicide, it would have guaranteed an energized Democratic party sweeping into power for the forseeable future. IMHO.
3. I don't know where you see "wallowing in despair" in my writing. I'm just calling bullshit on the Obama anti-war fairy tale.
4. I voted for Obama in the Georgia primary. Just so you know. I don't hate the guy, I'm not bitter, I don't feel passed by. But I won't gloss over his war funding record either. I have a lot of "hope" for his presidency (if it comes to that), and I don't like the people that the Clintons surround themselves with. And Edwards was gone. But I voted for him, and happily, because I am assuming that it will be impossible for a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, and a Democratic president to keep the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran going. I'm an optimist.
If you seriously think that Obama switching his lone vote against funding would've resulted in "an energized Dem party sweeping into power," and not the political destruction of his Presidential bid very early on, then you are kidding yourself.
ReplyDeleteWait and see what he does with the war once he's in office. Then you can criticize. This is exactly what I don't understand about the progressive Circular Firing Squad. We love to cut down people who support our interests, because none of them support ALL our interests PERFECTLY, so they must therefore be worthy of contempt, rather than what they are -- politicians.
We need to support the best choice we have -- THEN, once they're in office, we hold OUR guy accountable, push leftward, and repeat the process over and over again. It's not rocket science. You just run with the best choice you have instead of shitting on it.
Obama is a punk. He is worst than racist. Funding Iraq is inexcusable.
ReplyDeleteI am sick of people saying we need to uphold our empire, or China will take it over. The middle east does not give us power that we need. Let China have it. It's someone elses turn to do the dirty work.
You should read some of the comments on this cartoon over at Crooks and Liars.com
ReplyDeleteThey've kept it civil up to now...
mw,
ReplyDeleteperhaps I was unclear when I said, "Stopping a hugely unpopular war would NOT have been political suicide, it would have guaranteed an energized Democratic party sweeping into power for the forseeable future."
Stopping the war, of course, would have taken more than just Obama switching his vote. He's not the only spineless Democrat in the Senate, but he is ONE of the spineless Democrats.
My point remains that you can't claim to be anti-war before it was cool, and claim that John McCain can't call you a collaborator when you voted over and over to fund the war.
You can claim to be for universal health care even if you don't submit any legislation to accomplish it. You can claim to be a big supporter of unions when you don't submit any legislation to support them. You can even claim to be ready to green up the whole damn country without introducing any legislation to start the process. But you CAN NOT claim to oppose a war that you vote to fund six times.
I will support the nominee, and was on board with Edwards, despite his votes for the war. The difference is that Edwards didn't pretend to be pure on the war, and didn't pretend that his war votes differentiated him from Clinton.
And (not to put too fine a point on it) I don't notice that the Democrats are suffering during this cycle by calling for the end to this war. They didn't suffer during the last cycle either - as I recall, they won both Houses of Congress by running against corrupt Rs and against the war. In fact, Congress' astonishingly low approval ratings, according to the pollsters who report the low approval, is because they refuse to stop this war, stop the wiretapping, stop the torture, etc.
I think being Republican lite is far more suicidal than populism right now.
hmm, what has led to Republican rule?
ReplyDeleteWas is that we are too bitterly reasonable, and logical, and ethical and, well, moral?
Or is it that we make deals with obstacles rather than remove them?
Dave, aggie, I really have to wonder what constitutes a "step in the right direction"...
Speaking of theoretical votes I still do not understand how Edwards voting for the war, then realizing it was a mistake, makes him somehow better than Obama for speaking out against the war repeatedly and consistently, supporting bills to end the war, but not being willing to defund the war. It certainly ranks Edwards ahead of Clinton in respectability, but I did not hear Edwards calling for defunding. Why? Because this is politics. The only way to avoid this sort of political give-and-take is to have a fascist dictatorship. Pick your poison.
ReplyDeleteAnd I call bullshit on The Don's "you can't call yourself against the war if you voted to fund it six times". Defunding the war was the nuclear option. It would have been stupid to vote for defunding the war when there were not enough votes to push it through. Even if they had done so, the country would have been even more divided, and Bush would have ignored them anyway ("my attorney general said I could, and my supreme court backs me up 5-4"). Defunding was never a good option, merely a last ditch option. It would have opened another whole can of worms- you don't start fights you can't win (see Iraq). You can't say the man was not against the war just because he didn't want to go nuclear to end it.
More importantly, why are we even talking about this? Edwards is out of the race. Anyone who seriously thinks Obama is Republican-lite is delusional. The Republican-lite tag really does not apply to anyone except Lieberman, and sometimes Reid and Pelosi (who should not be in positions of power). Lets all be adults and start trying to understand that the world (and politics) is a complicated place. Lets stop bickering and start trying to repair the harm Bush has done to this country. It is going to be a long slog back up the hill.
Angelo,
ReplyDeleteA 'step in the right direction' for me constitutes a comprehensive panel of experts (as in, not business people who've dedicated their lives to greed and avarice) in every substantive field (earth sciences, climatology, political science, sociology, agriculture, education, etc) coming together in good faith to establish a report detailing all of the problems faced by the planet and the human family, and then laying out from the ground up at what level (local, regional, continental, global) each of these challenges is best addressed, then redesign institutions of authoritative power in line to meet those challenges with an established charter of goals and responsibilities. For humanity to survive, this is an inevitability, so the sooner we start working toward this goal, the better.
It is going to be insanely slow, and it should be. But right now we don't even have people with the right mindset (as opposed to 'the right people') in positions of power to begin to direct us in a way where the public discourse can tackle problems as a community in any systematic way. We achieve brief victories here and there in a continual slide.
Complaining about Obama's single funding vote and using it as an example of why you think he's a liar, comparing him to Bush, is idiotic. There is a staggering qualitative difference between the two parties. Democrats run candidates who have won grammys, written books, won Nobel prizes.
Republicans put up folksy millionaires. The idea that there is even a competition between these parties is incomprehensible to me.
We have to get the right mindset in place before real change can occur, squabbling over individual votes outside the context in which they occur is counterproductive.
It would have been stupid to vote for defunding the war
ReplyDeleteObama wishes he had.
A 'step in the right direction' for me constitutes a comprehensive panel of experts (as in, not business people who've dedicated their lives to greed and avarice) in every substantive field (earth sciences, climatology, political science, sociology, agriculture, education, etc) coming together in good faith to establish a report detailing all of the problems faced by the planet and the human family, and then laying out from the ground up at what level (local, regional, continental, global) each of these challenges is best addressed, then redesign institutions of authoritative power in line to meet those challenges with an established charter of goals and responsibilities. For humanity to survive, this is an inevitability, so the sooner we start working toward this goal, the better.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of people feel that way. Who is going to sit there and say they would rather have greedy ass holes deciding everything?
This is a very common sense outlook.