Gary Varvel by Gary Varvel

Gary Varvel

Comments (14) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 2 days ago

    She must be a good candidate. The Republicans tremble in fear at the thought of putting one of their motley crew up against her. Say anything, do anything to stop her.

  2. Lamberger

    Lamberger said, 1 day ago

    A new Adolf Hitler would make the Republican tremble in fear also; just saying’….

  3. wbr

    wbr said, 1 day ago

    she make lwnj Bernie look good

  4. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon said, 1 day ago

    “Just sayin’ " … that’s FOX News speak of expressing a ridiculous observation, and appending that suffix to make it ok. They also use the “Cavuto”, where an outrageous assertion is made on the crawler, but put a question mark at the end to try to make it rhetorical.

  5. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, 1 day ago

    Knowing what we know now, would she have resisted as the Bush admin lied the world into war?

  6. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 1 day ago


    Flawed intelligence (from intelligence agencies all over the world, including Iraq )is not “lying”, and Hillary is on record as saying she did her own independent research, consulting experts that she respected, before voting for the War.

    So, no, knowing what she knows now she wouldn’t have voted for the war, but knowing what she knew THEN, she did vote for the war. And she’s never stated that she was “lied to”.

    But this won’t stop the Left Wing Media from continuing to harangue Republican candidates, who weren’t in a position to vote one way or another, while they ignore Hillary Clinton, who was and did.

  7. Hiram Bingham

    Hiram Bingham said, 1 day ago

    Getting “speaking fees” is now a scandal in America?

    The Tightie Righties are getting desperate now!

  8. Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future." GoComics PRO Member said, 1 day ago

    And the lie that blames an “ntelligence failure” continues…
    Just like most of the other crap that the righties fall back on

    That ought to be enough, but I’ll go a little further.

    Because the Executive branch controlled the information available to Congress, they could choose to omit information which would have been helpful to Congress making a better informed decision.

    It was Curveball, the CIA’s pet liar who provided much misinformation about the then current status of WMDs. Did Congress get any warning that this guy might be a flake as some non-US agencies thought? Umm, evidently not. From Wikipedia:

    Committee Chairman Pat Roberts told NBC’s Tim Russert that “Curveball really provided 98 percent of the assessment as to whether or not the Iraqis had a biological weapon.” This was in despite the fact that “nobody inside the U.S. government had ever actually spoken to the informant—except [for a single] Pentagon analyst, who concluded the man was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source.”

    After learning the intelligence provided by Curveball was going to be used as the “backbone” of the case for war, the Pentagon analyst wrote a letter to the CIA expressing his concerns. The Deputy of the CIA Counter Proliferation Unit quickly responded by saying:

    “Let’s keep in mind the fact that this war’s going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn’t say. The Powers That Be probably aren’t terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he’s talking about.”

    The Powers that Be being the pro-war crowd in the Bush administration. Did they know Curveball was a useless source? Hard to tell, but it is certain that some of them would not have cared one bit.

    Other intelligence failures? It is important to note that underlings are sensitive to what the big bosses want to hear and can tailor the answers to make the bosses happy. And who is to blame for that? The bosses. Doesn’t matter whether it happens in industry or government, it is the bosses duty to make sure that their attitudes don’t encourage the “Just give them what they want to hear.” mindset. The blame for this unnecessary invasion lays squarely on an executive branch group that wanted the war and made sure that Congress heard what would convince most of them to vote for the war.

    It matters today, because the public needs to know how gullible the candidates are to this kind of crap. You’ve stated Clinton’s record. How about the fright wing candidates?

  9. Dale Hopson

    Dale Hopson GoComics PRO Member said, about 13 hours ago


  10. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, about 12 hours ago

    @Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    You’ve stated Clinton’s record. How about the fright wing candidates?

    I take it this is addressed to me.

    The “fright wing candidates” don’t have a record one way or the other. Clinton does. That’s the point.

    I don’t really care what one guy says. “One guys” say lots of stuff. I’d like to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), but I can’t because 78 of it’s 92 pages are still redacted. Bob Graham and Patrick Leahy said that reading the classified version helped convince them to vote ‘no.’

    Clinton has never claimed to be among them. When asked directly on Meet the Press in 2008, she sidestepped the question, declaring, “I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that.”

    Would reading the classified NIE have changed Clinton’s vote? Maybe not. Even after reading the classified version, [Jay] Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein still voted to authorize war. And some intelligence analysts familiar with the classified NIE claim it was a biased, shoddy document that, like its unclassified cousin, bent over backward to prove that Iraq was pursuing WMD. Perhaps most importantly of all, Clinton’s own national-security confidantes— including Iraq expert Kenneth Pollack— believed the WMD claims. It’s hard to imagine she would have overruled them, even if the classified NIE had given her pause.

    The Atlantic: What’s Missing From Hillary’s Iraq Apology: Did Clinton make an informed decision to authorize war?: 6/9/14

  11. manteo16nc

    manteo16nc said, about 11 hours ago

    We are just getting over one personality cult President. Don’t need another one. Say bye-bye, Evita.

  12. manteo16nc

    manteo16nc said, about 11 hours ago

    We are just getting over one personality cult President. Don’t need another one. Say bye-bye, Evita.

  13. Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future." GoComics PRO Member said, about 10 hours ago

    The record for the fright wing is what do they think now of the decision? Jebbie either can’t listen or is an idiot. I’ll guess the former. (Unlike the cons and the 57 state thing with Obama, I can recognize that nobody is ever on top of their game all the time.) But then he has W’s advisors. Not a good sign.

    As for the NIE, as I have stated before, nobody, on reading that should have been convinced, Even the redacted version
    has stuff that should have brought up warning flags to anyone who could be bothered to do some checking.

    The ridiculous claim about Saddam have a UAV to deliver CBW is a case in point. Virtually every fright-winger fell for that, together with some democrats.

    It mentions the 550 tons of Yellowcake that Iraq already had, and mentions that this is inspected annually by the IAEA. So the manure that the fright-wing keeps spreading because the US removed that yellowcake kind of loses it’s alleged potency, doesn’t it? Especially since everyone IAEA, for example, knew about it, where it was, and that it was not hidden.

    It then goes on to mention the NIger Yellowcake, which former ambassador Wilson debunked, and reported. And for which his wife was outed as CIA.

    Most of the rest is of a highly speculative nature.

    “Saddam might use CBW…

“He probably would use CBW..” (when he lost control of the military. Obviously, the speculation was not correct.)

    etc, etc.

  14. manteo16nc

    manteo16nc said, about 8 hours ago

    I’m not convinced Hillary Clinton will win the Demo nomination. She was considered a shoo-in in 2008, then what happened? And in 2004, all the experts just knew in the early going that Howard Dean could not possibly lose. (Then Dean opened his mouth and started saying stuff.)
    The Democrats have to choose between someone who can get nominated or someone who can get elected, in a country which just clubbed the liberals over the head at the polls. Should be interesting.

  15. Refresh Comments.