Gary Varvel by Gary Varvel

Gary Varvel

Comments (29) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Sorry, Ima, that ignomy goes to Warren G. Harrding.

  2. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 1 year ago

    Too bad there’s no actual evidence for Clinton having caused the attack in Benghazi. Turns out it was terrorists. Rachel Maddow had a nice analysis of all of the attacks (and the amount of evidence supporting them) on Friday, you can find it at Maddowblog. The most damning is the lack of preparation against attacks, which falls at least as much on congress as it does on the State Department, but Clinton has accepted all recommendations and all responsibility for fixing those problems, so there hasn’t really been a story there since December.

  3. r2varney

    r2varney said, over 1 year ago

    @ARodney

    Sure but that story will never see the light of day on Fox so it is definitively not true.

  4. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago

    @ARodney

    Congress did not say it was you tube video, Congress did not change the official statement from Al Qaida to demonstrators. Congress did not, not send help, care to go on?

  5. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago

    @David

    The Americans reelected same as Obama.

  6. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 1 year ago

    Unfortunately, I don’t see a strong enough third party candidate running by 2016. Currently, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a candidate that I can see worth voting for. I guess I’ll have to wait and see which candidate gets the most tolerable platform and vote that way, as usual. Unless the Republicans make it easy by running someone like Bachmann or Perry, then I guess its Democrat.

  7. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago

    @r2varney

    And ARod’s post on Rachel Maddow now there is an unbiased source of info.

  8. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Bush lied, people died.

  9. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, over 1 year ago

    ARodney said, about 2 hours ago
    “Too bad there’s no actual evidence for Clinton having caused the attack in Benghazi. Turns out it was terrorists.”
    -
    No actual evidence? Testimony sworn by oath to a US congress hearing?? Most courts accept testimony as evidence. Evidence in emails exists and should be published for the public. No one claims Hillary “caused” the attacks.
    Hillary’s decisions (no doubt Obama’s policy) gave the terrorists OPPORTUNITY and she sent Amb. Stevens to an unprotected, insecure consulate after CIA had given many warnings about the dangers in Libya’s buildup of terrorists; that other foreigns heeded and removed their people from harm’s way!
    -
    Congress had given sufficient funding for diplomatic security, and after 9/11/12 sworn testimony of the official in charge said funding was NOT the cause of poor security. It was a POLITICAL decision to advance Obama’s narrative (MYTH) that he killed Osama so Al Qaeda was “dead”….to keep the US site open with US staff present to be attacked…and #2 in Libya told the State Dept during the attack that IT WAS TERRORISTS. Hillary called Hicks at 2a.m. Libya time and that was AFTER the report that it was a terrorist attack and not one word was sent to D.C. that there had been a protest, there had not been a protest, and Hicks, stationed in Tripoli, testified that in Libya the “offensive film” was a NON-EVENT.
    -
    Your post, Rodney, is biased and false as is your source.

  10. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    @ARodney

    Well when you don’t have lemons (conspiracies) you use something else yellow to fill it then push it as if it is real lemons as hard as possible.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    They stopped being the "party of Lincoln when the Dixiecrats came into the party. Then it become the party of Jefferson Davis. The Democrats changed too, became the party of Abraham Lincoln. Strange isn’t it?

  12. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, over 1 year ago

    @David

    Hate to say it, but onguard’s right.


    The democrats also chickenhawked their little butts into the war. It was even more revolting to witness than what the republicans did because American NEEDED opposition to that madness and these fools put their tails between their legs and lined up behind the wave of Freedom Fry eating lunatics for what they thought might be some political salvation.


    I’ll never forget this at the voting booth. Ever.

  13. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    @David

    Don’t forget that any war declared or not is supported by the majority of Congress.

  14. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    @Fourcrows

    No other party can be strong enough. The system is biased against them. And since the Plutocrats own the only two official parties there is no chance with a 3rd party. Just ask the Libertarians and Green Parties.

  15. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, over 1 year ago

    @onguard

    At least you recognize that the wars are bipartisan. And yet it is the faceless Plutocrats to whom they work for and with.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (14).