Feeling Rush Limbaugh's Pain

Limbaugh's Pain

What a sweet-heart deal! 18 months of probation, a $30,000 dollar fine (aka: "court costs") and a substance abuse class and he'll never have to worry about being purged from Florida's roll of registered voters. Limbaugh got one of the best agreements money can buy in Florida's justice system. Just ask Roy Black his attorney,
"With anybody in this position who found themselves addicted to pain medication, it is really unfair to prosecute them or to make some sort of a big case out of it. The idea is to help the person overcome the addiction."

I think that the best comment that I have come across regarding Limbaugh, and feeling his pain comes from Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney and prominent Miami defense lawyer, "This is a dismissal of the charge ... representing, in affect, a win for the defense."

Let us all feel sorry for Limbaugh for be coming addicted to presciption medication, that he obtained by illegal means. There is absolutely no comparison between Limbaugh and those addicted to illegal drugs.

Hmmm. I know there is a connection there somewhere...if I could just put my finger on it. Another one of those distinctions without a difference, I do believe.

Going Down

Going Down

OK, it's not exactly your average Sunday political cartoon. To be fair, it could have been worse. Instead of a side-by-side of Lewinsnky and poll numbers I had contemplated Lewinsky and Karl Rove. Of course, it would be up to the viewer to decide whether they were going to use a literal or figurative interpretation of the phrase, 'going down in the White House.'


Filler Up

Filler Up

We all know the mantra of Fox News is "We report [it's the Democrats fault]. You decide [it's the Democrats fault]." Well it does appear that those at Fox haven't yet been able to decide which side of the issue they believe in. I recently spent some time watching and listening to Bill O'Reilly and Shawn Hannity discuss the recent increase to oil and gas prices. O'Reilly is arguing that the oil companies are receiving the lions share of the profits that the consumers are paying at the gas pump. Hannity on the other hand is arguing state and federal taxes make up the lions share of the profits consumers are paying at the gas pump.

Despite their divergent opinions over who is profiting most, O'Reilly and Hannity believe it is ultimately the fault of Democrats, liberals and environmentalists that consumers are paying higher prices at the gas pump.


The 'Decider'

The 'Decider'


1. Do or make the opposite of:
2. Remove or remove from:
3. Out of:
4. Reduce:
5. Derived from:


1. Killer:
2. Act of killing:


1. Used to express hesitation or uncertainty.
2. Used to form the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs.


Iran's Front-man


I will take inspiration from where ever I can find it, and as it pertains to this latest cartoon, my inspiration (and growing appreciation) comes from the website Watching America that I discovered through Jurassic Pork. Rest assured, there is more to this post than just blog-whoring.

Over at Watching America I read an interesting story about Iran, the Mullahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Bush is making a concerted effort to focus all the nations (the worlds) attention upon Ahmadinejad by comparing him to Adolf Hitler, at the expense of the Mullahs of Iran. According to an article in Liberation (yeah, in France)
It is possible that Iran's strategy is centered on the concept of appeasement, once it completes the necessary technological steps to master nuclear technology...Iran's nuclear strategy utterly escapes the Iranian president. Ahmadinejad carries no weight in Iran's nuclear program, but the mullahs have taken him in and given him a role.
While Bush rails on about the extremist desires of Ahmadinejad to attack Israel the Mullahs are able to watch as
Ahmadinejad and his torrent of rhetoric have contributed to a personification of the crisis and have promoted the idea in the West...that the new president is responsible for all this.
As the Bush administration puts an effort into turning Ahmadinejad into the reincarnation of Hitler, Bush looks like the little boy who cried wolf, which clearly benefits the Mullahs of Iran. While Ahmadinejad is "attracting the thunder of the Western world to himself" the Mullahs can safely pursue the quest for nuclear power, if not nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad's replacement.

The article concludes that
The Islamic system has already begun to prepare for Ahmadinejad's succession. And it is entirely possible that the Western world will be so pleased to have him replaced, that it will concern itself only with appearances.
This strategy might work for the Mullahs. Afterall the Bush administration demonstrated itself to be concerned with appearances over substance as it sold the invasion of Iraq to the people of Oceania.

I put forth the following question to the half-dozen regular readers and those who have found me by other means:
What are the chances that the people of Oceania will rally behind the great "Decider" hell bent on fighting "two wars"?


Make it Official

Make it Official

Oh, I know, it is only speculation that Tony Snow will become the third Press Secretary of the Bush administration, following in the footsteps of Ari Fleisher and Scott McClelland. And if is is Tony Snow that replaces McClelland, the only dramatic change will be the cut in Snow's salary. Do you think that Snow would be willing to take the cut in pay to read the daily talking points and espouse the party line from inside the White House press room as compared to the confines of the Faux studio?

And then there is Rupert Murdoch. Will Murdoch "take one for the team" and let Snow out of his contractual obligations so he could "serve at the presidents leisure?" Surely such a personal sacrafice would have its rewards for Murdoch. Imagine the free advertisement for Faux. Just below Tony's US flag lapel pin would be the Faux News lapel pin.




I have an ever growing collection of faces that I have relied upon in drawing my cartoons over the past 10 months. And the previous cartoon is no exeption. When I decided to draw Colin Powell I did a cursory search for his face and found millions of images. When I discovered the above image I realized that for the first time as a blogging cartoonist I'd be posting an image not of my own creation. I might just give up posting the cartoons and start searching the internets over for pictures of politicians and their sycophants for the sole purpose of adding captions.


Circa 2003

Circa 2003

Remember when...

Powell demonstrated in 2003 that his loyalty for Bush superseded his duty to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the US Constitution as Secretary of State.

And now, Robert Scheer reports that
"former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim."

Powell had his opportunity to speak out against the invasion of Iraq, but he chose to sing and dance to the tune of the Bush administration.

Thanks to Martian Anthropologist.


Fraulein Coulter


Scott McClelland: Spinning out of control.

Back in October of 2005 I posted this cartoon (B.C.*) about Scott McClelland. It is apropos today just as it was in October. The only difference between the original posting and now is, I am offering more than just cartoon visual to garner your attention. This time around I am providing everyone with the words of the White House Press Secretary (complete w/links) for consideration. I have included both the question and the answer taken from Monday the 10th, and Thursday the 13th, White House Press Briefings for context. (Emphasis is mine.)

From Monday:

Q Okay, one other question on Secretary Rumsfeld, when you were talking before. This is now the second or third retired general to come out in recent weeks and say that he should step down. Does the President still have confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld? And if so, why, given all of these top military officials saying that he mishandled the war?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President thinks Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job, having overseen two fronts in the global war on terrorism. We have liberated 25 million people in Afghanistan and 25 million people in Iraq. The Secretary has also been leading a transformation of the military, to make sure that we're better prepared to meet the threats of the 21st century. And the President has great appreciation of the outstanding job he's doing.

From Thursday:

Q Those are General Pace's views. Does the President share those views, and does he have full faith and confidence in him?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history. The Secretary has led the Department of Defense during two wars -- wars that resulted in the liberation of 25 million people in Afghanistan and 25 million people in Iraq. The Secretary is also overseeing the transformation of the military, so that we are better prepared to confront the threats that we face in the 21st century. We are a nation at war and we are a nation that is going through a military transformation. Those are issues that tend to generate debate and disagreement, and we recognize that.

Oops! I wonder if Scotty was being deliberate? After all, Rumsfeld has taken a beating from former Generals who have been critical of his management of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Is it possible that Scotty was trying to uplift Rumsfeld and glamorize his accomplishments in the eyes of the MSM? I must admit, leading the Department of Defense "during two wars" sounds a helluva lot more impressive than "overseeing two fronts in the war on terror."

This is more than just a question of semantics. Might the latter language be an example of what is sometimes known as a Freudian slip? Did Scotty tip Bush's hat on attacking Iran? Iraq, is afterall part of the "war for of terror." Bush already admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would fall upon the shoulders of his successor. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility, or perhaps the operative word here is probability, that the next president will have to extricate the nation from both of George Bush's wars of choice.

Oh sure, I'm critical and cynical when it comes to this administration. Aren't you?

*Before Color


The Burning Bush

The Burning Bush



Update: If this poll is to be believed, it looks like Katherine's god has forsaken her.


Strict Constructionism


The Bush administration has sought to expand the powers of the executive branch “in a time of war” at the expense of the legislative branch, the judicial branches, and the system of governmental checks and balances. It is the height of hypocrisy when those who supposedly believe in “strict constructionism” fail to uphold this “belief” as they seek to expand the powers of the office of the president at the expense of the remaining two-thirds of the government.

The Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez believes that the language “The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force” found in S. J. RES. 45 (To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq), in concert with Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution (which reads: “The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, and the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States.”) gives the president, (in this case) George Bush the power to conduct his “terrorist surveillance program” without the issuance of warrants, or legislative and judicial oversight.

The recent reliance upon the language of the “use of force” by Gonzalez and the Bush administration has a couple of serious flaws. First, if the language “use of force” used to justify the use of warrant less wiretapping was legal and valid, why then did the president not evoke this interpretation of the S.J. RES. 45 to explain away the use of documented torture of detainees at Abu Ghriab or Guantanamo Bay? Surely, under the Bush administrations interpretation of S.J. RES. 45, the language “including force” would include the use of torture. But that is not what happened.

According to the Constitution, “[The Congress shall have the power] To declare war, grant letters of marque [sic] and reprisals, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” When Bush decided that he alone possess the power to determine those to be held as enemy combatants, indefinitely and without trial, it is clear that he has no standing constitutional authority. According to the US Constitution, it is Congress and not the president that determines the rules regarding those captured on land and water irrespective of S. J. RES. 45.

As it stands, Bush has relied upon what the administration refers to as “signing statements” that the president says allows him to disregard the laws approved by congress and that he signed into law. I keep reading the Constitution in hopes of finding where such presidential authority is located and I for the life of me cannot find it. I did find the following though. It is taken from Article 1, Section 8 that I found most interesting. The “strict constructionist” might want to make note of the following section of the Constitution, which reads,

[The Congress shall have the power] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all the other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

This is particularly important when taking into consideration the presidents "signing statements" and the recent exchange that took place between Congressman Weiner and Alberto Gonzalez on April 7th, 2006. Congressman Weiner asked of the Attorney General, “Is the president covered under the same laws that you and I are?” Gonzalez’s response to the question was, “No, he’s not.”

Again, I read the Constitution and I can’t find anything that would support that the president, George Bush is exempt from the laws that you and I are covered by. I was wondering if there is a “strict constructionist” out there that could explain where exactly this presidential exemption can be found in the text of the Constitution. It would be most informative to learn of the establishment of the presidential “signing statement.” Such an important executive power would have been within the scope of congressional authority.

Of course, this would mean that the Congress would be willing to forego their Constitutional duty to serve as a check to the president. As it stands, I have yet to hear these subjects explained with any degree of certainty by either the Attorney General, or any other sycophant of the Bush administration that would give the president such broad authority even in a time of war. It is time for Congress to reassert its authority and reign in a president that has clearly overstepped his constitutional authority.


Classified Leak

Classified Leak


Political Loops

Political Hoops

I love a parade!

I love a parade! Oops! I love a good protest march!

I listened to some callers on CSPAN for about 20-30 minutes this morning. And I kid you not, if not for the host, I would not have been able to distinguish between the Democrat callers and the Republican callers. The list of solutions consisted of rounding up 11 million people and deporting them of Mexico (regardless of where they are from); building a fence along the southern border, and a particularly "ingenious" idea of arresting all those illegals seen on the news protesting.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the problems that I learned about that the illegal immigrant population has created. According to the citizens of the United States, if not for illegal immigrants, working wages would increase, the educational system would improve, and the best news of all, health care costs would decline.

It never ceases to amaze me just how weak and fragile this nation and the system of capitalism really is when 4 percent of the population in the United States can depress workers wages despite the role of the businesses that set the wages and do the hiring. Then there is the impact on the system of education, apparently all those people that have spent countless hours blaming teachers and the unions that represent them got it all wrong. And of course, there is health costs, which I was under the impression that the reason heath care costs were out of control was due to workers unions and trial lawyers.

When did it all change?

Where is the real accountability to the system of capitalism? Businesses are interested in supressing wages to maximize their profits. The same principle of profit that promotes the outsourcing of jobs overseas is shared by those that rely upon the illegal immigrant who works in their employ. These economic realities are the fault of the government of Mexico? Apparently the economic incentives of NAFTA never materialized for Mexico.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that the government of Mexico is responsible for those Mexican nationals that enter the US illegally. Afterall, Mexico is just a client-state of the US government. The US has no incentive for ensuring that Mexico has a growing middle-class and viable economy. Together the US with Mexico can ensure a constant flow of cheap labor until the cost of labor becomes negligible.


Base Fears

Base Fears

Immigration. Immigration! IMMIGRATION!

The Republican Party needs a wedge issue to run on this November. They can't run touting the glorious invasion of Iraq and expect to win. What can the Republicans do to secure their seat in Congress? Republicans need to find the "others" that will pander to the Base Fears of their party and an American electorate that cowers when the threat of the "other" is looming.

I find it most disconcerting that no Democrat has the will to call supporters of HR 4437 out for their political grandstanding on the issue of immigration reform. I am sickened when I hear Republicans and the sycophants of the party talking about the "imminent" threat posed to this nation if congress doesn't pass some punitive immigration reform legislation.

If the invasion of Iraq was progressing in an orderly fashion as was predicted by the lucid thinkers of the Bush adminsitration, Republicans would be willing to actually appear on stage at the same time with Bush or Cheney when either man came to their district to raise cash for their campaign.

Well, Iraq is fast becoming a quagmire. The minority of Americans that have long opposed to the invasion of Iraq find themselves in the company of those that once drank regularly from the kool-aid if the various polls mean anything. The Iraqi government took their oaths of office nearly a month-ago, and ajourned indefinately. And not to be forgotten, the not-civil war is progressing rather nicely.

When the Republicans come pandering for your vote this November I want you to remember that you need not be driven by your Base Fears of the "others." Stay away from the damn kool-aid!


Tom DeLay: Cutting and Running

Tom DeLay: Cutting and Running

Well it looks like the Democrats won't have Tom DeLay to kick around anymore. It will be really interesting to see who has the fewest campaign appearances during the '06 mid-term election between George, Dick and Tom. I have this feeling that the three amigos have a better chance of appearing in commercials aired by Democrats than Republicans. We'll just have to wait and see.

Update: Damn! Another Bush administration official was arrested. I know that the Clinton administration was according to the Republicans, a den of thieves, but I don't ever recall anyone from Clintons administration having being arrested for trying to have sex with a minor. It is really distubing to think that Brian Doyle, a Deputy of Homeland Security (DHS) was arrested for soliciting sex with a minor. It is being reported that

in the first conversation, told the detective his job with the department and "started immediately into pretty vulgar language. He explained in graphic detail the sexual acts he wanted to perform with this 14-year-old."

Nothing says abuse of power than a man who tries to impress a 14 year old girl by bragging about how he works for the DHS. How long has Brian Doyle been seducing minors with his office? Or should I just think that this was just the first time he found himself in this situation of trying to seduce a minor?

Condoleezza on Thin (R)ice

Condoleezza on Thin (R)ice

Condoleeza Rice and the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw appeared on the BBC's Radio 4 program, and here are the Q&A. There is the Washington Post's coverage of the Condi and Jack road show. They also appeared on ITV. And during the interview Rice corrects herself regarding the "thousands of tactical mistakes."

QUESTION: So do you take no -- you acknowledge thousands of tactical mistakes. Do you accept no responsibility that those mistakes have contributed towards the killing and the bereavement that those in Iraq endure.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I guess it's not possible to use a figure of speech rather than to be literal. I was being -- giving a figure of speech when I talked about thousands.

But of course I've certainly made mistakes. You can't make decisions without making mistakes.

As well as an insightful geography lesson from Secretary Rice.

QUESTION: But that doesn't -- when you say it's never taken off the table, the United States in the end does reserve, from your perspective, the right to take preemptive military action against Iran if you feel that that is the only way to ensure that they comply with what you regard as the proper outcome?

SECRETARY RICE: Let me be very clear and go to the bottom line.


SECRETARY RICE: Iran is not Iraq. I know that's what's on people's minds. Iran is not Iraq. The circumstances are different. We don't have 12 years of Security Council resolutions, a case in which a state attacked its neighbor or tried to annex its neighbor, as it did with Kuwait, where we were still in a state of war after the armistice in 1991. I just want to be very clear: Iran is not Iraq.

However, the President of the United States doesn't take his options off the table. We are committed to a diplomatic course because we believe that a diplomatic course can work.

Of course it should be noted that despite these scripted responses, the plan to bomb Iran is in the works. Of course, neither Rice or Snow care what Hans Blix has to say about Iran. (What the hell does he know?)As we learned with Iraq, the lack of WMD is not going to prevent the US and Britian from acting anyway they see fit. Of course, there is something other than geography that distinquishes Iran from Iraq; allies China and Russia. And from all indications, the Chinese and Russian judges haven't rewarded Condi's performace with a winning score.