Saddam's CMD

Saddam's CMD

Finally, it makes perfect sense.

It also explains why the US military never found Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Because the real weapons were Camels of Mass Destruction (CMD). Lets face it, the US military wasn't trained to sniff out CMD.

After this latest revelation, I kind of feel bad for the latest sychophant for Bush and darling of the right-wing, Georges Sada. He wrote the book, Saddam's Secrets, where he tells a fanciful story about flying Iraq's WMD to Syria. Well, that story is shot to hell thanks to Saddam's secret papers. It is obvious that Hussein transported all his CMD via camels (duh!) to Syria. (And everybody knows that you can't throw I-raq without hitting a camel for crying out loud.)

Now that I think about it; Sada reminds me of another Iraqi who wrote a book called Saddam's Bombmaker. You might remember "Dr. Khidir Abdul Abbas Hamza, the 'star' witness of the Bush administration's war apologia." (Thanks WorldNetDaily for the great quote.)


The Road to Oz

The Road to Oz

If I [Donald] Only Had a Brain
If I [George] Only Had a Heart
If I [Dick] Only Had a Nerve
Courage (Dick)

Update from The Road to Oz:
Rumsfeld proves why he is heading to Oz. Bush demonstrates the conflict of a man without a heart. Let us hope that in the land of Oz these men will finally get their comeupance.


A Winning Strategy

A Winning Strategy

Warning: The following should be read wearing your Rosey(bush)Vision™ glasses. Have a nice day.

MSM: Aiding and abetting

It is the media, the mainstream media (MSM) that is to blame for the conditions in Iraq. If the MSM would stop covering all the death and destruction for the sake of market share and profits, the insurgency would wither away into nothingness. It is the fault of the MSM for spending each and everyday giving credence to the notion that there is a civil war in Iraq despite what George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, General Peter Pace, and Condoleezza Rice say to the contrary.

There is no civil war in Iraq. I don’t care what Iyad Allawi has to say on the subject. And forget listening to what the US Ambassador to Iraq has to say. The MSM has it all wrong. It is time that the MSM stop aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. It is time for the American public to stop aiding and abetting the aiding and abetting of the MSM. As long as the MSM continues airing stories about death and destruction, a small minority of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda types, and dead-enders will be motivated to kill and destroy again. And everyday that George Bush has to fight the misperceptions of the MSM, the US will never withdraw from Iraq.


The Hole Truth with PBush Polls

The Hole Truth

PBush Polls

You want me to talk about poll and I won’t talk about polls.” George W. Bush 3/21/2006

For a man who doesn’t watch nor cares to talk about polling data, George Bush certainly has a strange way of showing it. The man who won’t talk about polls has a habit of “informing the public” on issues such as Iraq when polling shows that public support for his policies have deteriorated. (If I am not mistaken, this is the second time Bush has sought to “inform the public” about condition in Iraq.) He also found himself “informing the public” about Social Security reform when public support for his plan fell flat.

So, Bush has decided to “inform the public” about the conditions in Iraq by not talking about conditions in Iraq. Bush loves to talk about Tal-Afar as a great success story of his Iraq policy. Of course, when I listen to Bush the story that I hear about is one of incompetence and a failed policy to win the peace and maintain stability. According to Bush, the US military has had to defeat the insurgents for control of the city, not once, but twice. If Tal-Afar isn’t a sign of competence, well then nothing is. And on a lighter note, according to some reports, the insurgents are returning to the city. Perhaps the third time will be the charm.

In the president’s effort to inform, while not talking about polls he is most fond of talking about the role that a free and democratic Iraq will have in the Middle East. According to Bush Iraq will lead to a wholesale change in the governments like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. I have questions as to how India and Israel have not inspired their neighbors in the Middle East to become more democratic. Clearly the viability of Bush’s reverse domino effect is in doubt. Could it be that this is the time, when the third time (India, Israel and Iraq) will be the charm.

During Bush’s March 21st, press conference revealed what many have said from the beginning about Bush’s war of choice, he hasn’t got a plan for winning the peace, or the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Oh wait a minute; he did say that the troops would come home when three conditions are met in Iraq. The first is political stability. (Well we aren’t there yet; the Unity government has adjourned indefinitely after swearing themselves in.) The second is security. (We all know that Iraq would be stable if the media would just stop reporting all the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the suicide bombings, and of course sectarian violence as civil war.) The third condition that will lead to troop withdrawal is economic stability. (By this measure the troops will never leave Iraq.)

Of course, I haven’t even taken into account the presidents belief that if the US were to withdraw that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the several thousand al Qaeda terrorists would take over Iraq. Such thinking on the part of Bush indicates that he doesn’t really believe that the Iraqis, despite their differences are capable of establishing a government without the “assistance” of the US government. Noting the history of Iraq, I have serious doubts about al Qaeda being capable of imposing their will, their religious beliefs upon the majority of Shiites, the “Saddam loyalist,” or the Kurds. By his own admission, Bush appears to believe that al-Zarqawi and his band of al Qaeda terrorist are capable of doing in Iraq what 130,000+ US military cannot. Bring about a stable government.

George Bush is now in a position where his father’s wealthy and connected friends are incapable of protecting him from himself. Unfortunately, it is also a position that we find that Bush is unable to protect the millions of lives that have been forever altered by his desire to invade Iraq. On Tuesday, Helen Thomas gave Bush the chance to finally answer the question as to why he chose to invade Iraq, noting that his pre-invasion justifications have proven to be without merit. Of course he decided to filibuster the question.

I have to confess; I finally found something that I can agree on with Bush. It does appear that problems of Iraq will have to be dealt with by future presidents and the members of congress. Remember, this is George Bush, the man who grew up knowing his father’s friends would protect him from himself by bailing him out of trouble with the law, with Vietnam, his National Guard service, and of course his successful business career. I am not surprised, that the problems of Iraq will fall upon someone else. And you should not be surprised either.




Caution: Never wear your Rosey(bush) Vision™ glasses while driving or operating heavy machinery.


Looking back...Dictator to Democracy

In looking back, I recall the first days of the invasion quite clearly. I had recieved a jury summons and was sitting in the waiting room with around 100 other people watching the live coverage of the bombing of Baghdad. As I watched in dismay the gentleman next to me started to talk about the bombing. He said that Hussein was going to get his asked kicked by the US military. And I of course agreed. (I remember the first Gulf War.) I told the man sitting next to me that Hussein doesn't have any WMD. He looked at me as if I had just stepped on his foot. So I quickly followed up with my belief that you can't find what does not exist. Well, needless to say that was the end of our conversation.

I often wonder if that man remembers our brief conversation that March day sitting in the courthouse awaiting jury selection. I know I do. Of course I may remember this day because I was dismissed as a potential juror.

I was thinking that since entering into the third year of the Iraq invasion that I would post a short essay (or two) that I wrote in 2002. Before I rediscovered a love of drawing, I used to write. I wrote essay after essay emailing them to friends, family and various newspaper editors. I can't believe that I never considered becoming a blogger back then. It wasn't until I started drawing again that I decided to blog.

The first I'd like to share is titled Dictator to Democracy.

Dictator to Democracy
J Macdonald

I would be the first to admit that I don’t find favor with the Bush administration and its Iraq policy. But, I have been re-thinking my opposition to the president’s pre-emptive attack designed to elicit a regime change in Iraq.

Before I throw caution to the wind.

I wonder if the president actually believes that he can depose a totalitarian leader and in his place institute a democracy where one does not exist? I was thinking that if Bush can create a functional democracy in Iraq through coercion and the use of military force I would vote the party line for the Republicans.

But before I get ahead of myself, I should think it important to review several historical realities. The first being, the U.S. doesn’t have much success in removing the head of a sovereign nation and instituting a functional democracy. As it stands, the U.S. government has a longer history of undermining democracies and replacing them with dictators.

Specifically in the Middle East, the U.S. has done more to support and foster dictatorships (and monarchies) than it has to inculcate the growth of democracies. The first (of several) examples that come to mind would be the U.S. Saudi relationship, going back to the Roosevelt administration. The relationship between our nations has been about oil and not about democracy. This axiom has yet to change.

Then there is the relationship between the U.S. and Iran. Most people know what transpired after the Shah of Iran was deposed by his own people. Not as many know that the U.S. helped overthrow the democratically elected government in favor of the dictatorship of the Shah of Iran. The U.S. exported weapons to Iran, but not democracy.

And what of Iran’s neighbor? Saddam Hussein the evil ruler of Iraq was a former dictator-ally to the U.S. At one time he received ample support from the U.S., from logistics to weaponry in his war with Iran. If Hussein hadn’t pulled a Manuel Noriega and invaded Kuwait, it begs the question, would he still be an ally to the U.S.?

Then of course there is Afghanistan. The U.S. government wasn’t interested in the country until the Soviets showed an interest. And then, the U.S. government was only interested in preventing the spread of communism and the influence of the Soviet Union. When the Soviets pulled out, so to did the U.S. Of course the idea of promoting democracy was not on the minds of many until recently.

Was it just coincidence that the head of the interim government Hamid Karzai was the preferred choice of the U.S.? Well, with any luck, there will be national elections in two years. But as we all have learned: in politics two years is an eternity – a lot can happen in two years.

One has to wonder just how long it would take Iraq to evolve into a democracy? Will it take a year? Two years? Ten years? Never? And noting the history of the U.S., doesn’t a democracy pose a similar threat to the U.S. hegemony? Will a democratic Iraq suffer the same fate of previous democracies should they stray from the democratic principles of the United States?

If Bush thinks that he is capable of stemming the tide of history, he should be prepared to accept the responsibility of failure. Historically, the United States government has overturned more democratically elected governments in favor of supporting dictatorships than it has overturned dictatorships in favor of supporting democracies.

I want to wish the Bush administration a heartfelt “Good luck.” We’re gonna need it!


Rose-Colored Hu(m)e

Rose-Colored Hu(m)e

I always considered Brit Hume one of the many sychophants for Bush over at Faux News. And after his appearance on Faux News Sunday, he redefined what it means to be a Bush sychophant. And just think, I drew this cartoon on March 13th and never got a round to publishing it. Procrastinating can be rewarding.

And Crooks and Liars has the video to prove it.

Coming soon to Macdonald's Animal Farm, rose colored glasses for you and your loved ones! See the world through the same lenses that make Brit Hume a leader in the sychophants for Bush movement!


John (Yosemite Sam) Bolton

John (Yosemite Sam) Bolton

You know you have thought about it. OK. Maybe it's just me. When ever I see John Bolton I can't help but be reminded of Yosemite Sam. Both appear to enjoy making absurd comments along with gratuitus threats. (Thanks History Mike.)

"Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat," Bolton said on the ABC program Nightline. "I think it's just facing reality. It's not a happy reality, but it's reality and if you don't deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.

Bbd, bbd, bbd, bbd...That's all folks!
(Cue music, fade to black, fade to banner.)


Last Ride

Last Ride

You know there comes a time when former presidential candidates for the Democratic Party need to realize that the sun has set on their dreams for becoming the President of the United States. I was thinking that the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) should do to John Kerry what they did to Paul Hackett.

Lets face it, Kerry can't beat Hillary. (And no,this is no endorsement for her either.) He is by reputation known as a flip-flopper, and he sure as hell can't beat a Republican in a national race. Of course, discussing the 2008 presidential race is a waste of time. (Ride on Kerry.) George Bush is one terrorist attack way from declaring the rest of the Constitution ("damn piece of paper") null and void as he assumes his "right"-ful role as the permanent leader of the United States.

And as one who opposed the invasion of Iraq from it's inception, I won't be on the "right" side of history again.


A Rosy View

A Rosy View

I am utterly dismayed by the media coverage of the sectarian violence in Iraq. And worse still was watching the various Sunday talk shows with the talking heads all doing their best to undercut the clarity of the mission set forth by the Bush administration. It is pretty obvious that the MSM doesn't get it. The news is willfully ignoring the real conditions on the ground in Iraq.

After watching Donald Rumsfeld and General Pace field questions last week you'd think that the MSM and the rest of the nation would finally get it through their heads that there isn't even a hint of civil war brewing in Iraq. (I can't believe the poll numbers.) The bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra was an act of desperation and was nothing more than an indication that the insurgents, or al Qaeda types have failed (in their last throes) to win the support the Iraqi people.

And just because the Iraqi election took place three months ago there is no reason to be concerned that the elected officials have yet to form parliment. Bush has made it pretty unclear that US troops will be in Iraq for as long as it takes. And if that means two or 10 years, you can be sure that many will be sacrificed, whether they want to or not as long as Bush is the commander-in-chief.

If you don't believe me, just ask Donald Rumsfeld.

Pulling out

Pulling out

The compassionate conservativism of George Bush is all about sacrafice. While the rest of the country does their part in fighting the war of on terrorism by shopping it is nice to know that the soldiers serving in Iraq are not alone in their personal sacrifice at the behest of the the commander-in-chief. The elderly too are going above and beyond the call, as they find themselves struggling with the MBA presidents strategic cuts to lessen the national burden of the prescription drug program.

The compassionate conservative is pulling out the rug from underneath the greatest generation to ensure that the pharmaceutical companies can maximize their profits. Oh sure to the Bush non-believer the cuts sound horrible. But we have to accept that there has to be sacrafice in the war of on terrorism, and who better than the unknowing young service member, and the elderly who already know what it means to sacrafice.

God save the King!


Can't beat'em? Join'em!

I have succumbed to the kool-aid drinking, rose colored glasses wearing sychophants of the Bush administration. As I indicated in my previous post, I opted for the glasses (looking into getting contacts). I believe that my new banner brings together the whole of what sychophants for Bush believe. Things like, sacraficing freedom for security despite the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin.

I too have taken up the call of George W. Bush as commander-in-chief when he says, "the Constitution is just a damned piece of paper." What insight and candor. I have come to love the resoluteness of Bush. He has demonstrated what it means to sacrafice without sacrafice in the "war of on terrorism." A war that I support by surrendering my freedoms to the enemy that wants to take them away. And now that the Patriot Act has been made permanent (except for two sections those damned communist supporting Democrats) I have discovered the humor in Bush's joke about, "This would be easier if this were a dictatorship." I never realized how funny the president could be.

It is really a good thing that the Bush administration has minds like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick (Straight shooter) Cheney and Condoleezza Rice who have fought the war in Iraq on the cheap. Just imagine the fiscal disaster this war would have been if the Democrats were in change. This nation would be in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars and the American taxpayer would be paying higher taxes to boot!

I am so thankful that I have finally seen the wisdom of what it means to be a compassionate conservative. Cutting funding to Head-Start programs. Increasing Medicare costs to the elderly that offset the paltry increase to their Social Security payments. (A perfect example of sacrafice without sacrafice from the first president with a MBA.) Making sure that the nations school children can read and pass a standardized test but are unable to read a chapter book, or think critically in their geography classes. Surely standardized testing is the best way to make sure that the US continues to fall behind the rest of the world in educational achievement.

I hope that all the Democrats in Congress and all their supporters, from the most left-wing liberal to the DLC conservative will come to understand the wisdom and the power of uniting under a single unified party, with a banner that best represents the unanimity of the people. Long may that banner yet wave, in the land of the "free," and the home of the "afraid."


Curious, George?

Curious, George?

It is about time some people started to recognize that emperor's new robes, like his old robes aren't very "conservative." There is the deficit which is growing faster than the insurgency in Iraq. There is his "un-constitutionalist" reading of the Constitution of the United States. Remember, he said the Constitution was only a piece of paper. (I was gonna add an embedded link, and thought better of it.) You don't believe me? (I just posted one a week ago.) Fine.

I suppose I could always get religion, become an "end of days" believer and only hope that either Israel or the US bombs Iran to kick of the Apocalypse and the end of the world!

Or maybe, now is a good time to start gambling. Apparenlty they are taking bets at Tradesports.com. If you don't believe me head over to Agitprop, cause I stole it from him.

On a more personal note, I am thinking about ditching the current banner for something that is both colorful and more befitting of the rose colored glasses that I recently purchased. I tried the kool-aid, but I could not get over the taste.


Stacking the Deck

Stacking the Deck

If Bush can have utter contempt for the piece of paper that is the Constitution of the United States, what would prevent him from throwing away the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in his dealings with India? Not a damn thing would prevent such an action on his part.

As was demonstrated with Iraq, the purpose of the UN is to serve the political ends of the Bush administration. The NPT is only meaningful if it prevents others from obtaining what the US government doesn't want them to have. In this case, Iran's legal right as a signatory of the NPT, to enrich uranium as contrasted to the nation of India.

And speaking of India. This latest deal between the US and India (and awaiting a vote of approval in the senate) has some serious repercussions. The first is not the utter disregard for the NPT. Nor is it about making Pakistan a client-state to India. That will matter much later. The deal Bush seeks to make with India is all about China.

Bush is interested in pulling India ahead of China in the race to become the next super power. But from where I am sitting, nuclear weapons aren't the only things that will allow India to compete against China. It is true that India is siphoning jobs from the US through the process better known as outsourcing. Of course so too is China.

And on the road to becoming the next super power China has something that India does not, a successful manufacturing infrastructure. China builds the products the world consumes, not India. India is who you call when you have a problem with the products built in China. Clearly it was manufacturing that helped the US become a super power, and it is more than likely that it is helping China.

There are other things to consider in determining which nation will supplant the US as the next super power. A few that come to mind are trade imbalances, foreign investment, and which foreign government is replacing the US as next the debtor nation. I'll give you three guesses, and two of them don't count.

I have to admit that there is one reason to support Bush in his quest to make India the next super power. There is something reassuring about living in a country that was the world's oldest democracy that came to be the client state to the world's largest democracy. It seems like a perfect fit.

But then again, what do I know? I just draw cartoons.


Handshakes and Hypocrisy

Handshakes and Hypocrisy

On more than one occassion others have suggested that I should use more than just black and white cartoons and I have been hesitant to say the least. I have decided to incorporate a little more color into my cartoons. (I don't see myself branching out into anime anytime soon, sorry History Mike.)

Now then: If George Bush and his sychophants are curious as to why the people in the Middle East "hate us" I suggest they consider adding the Handshake Hypocrisy of the Bush administration as it seeks to expand the nuclear capabilities (ambitions?) of India. It should also be noted that while Bush seeks to deny Iran, a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) their right to nuclear advancement, and that India is not a signatory of the NPT.

It is pretty obvious that a nation like Iran is supposed to be nuclear free while it is permissable preferred that India and Israel should not be incumbered by the limitations of the NPT. From all indications membership to the NPT doesn't have many priviledges. I suppose Iran can always opt out of the NPT, and go rouge like their neighbors India, Israel, and Pakistan.

Update: Here are a couple of articles for your consideration. The first is from The Frontier Post, Pakistan, and the second from Der Spiegel, Germany. Thanks, Watching America.


Cut and Run

Cut and Run (formerly known as Withdrawing from Iraq)

I can't imagine why the 101st Keyboard Division over at LGF (Little Green Footballs) are ignoring the latest poll results showing that 72 percent of the soldiers in Iraq want to withdraw within the year. Of course when you consider some of the results from the Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll I think you'll understand why.

  • Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
  • While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
  • Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
  • Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
  • Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
  • Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

I have to admit that I don't like to cite poll results. Unless of course they can be used to rile up the sychophants of the Bush administration. And speaking of sychphants of the Bush administration, I didn't notice any coverage of the Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll by the monsters of the MSM. I may have missed it so I decided to Google "Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll" to see what would turn up. Well much to my chagrin, not a single hit containing ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC or NBC was to be found.

It is really difficult to have a discussion about those that want to "cut and run" from Iraq when the soldiers share in that belief.


Positive Conditions

Positive Conditions

I need to get me a pair of those glasses. They might help obscure my ability to see that in the ratio of 1:1000 that I am 1.