Jerry Holbert by Jerry Holbert

Jerry Holbert

Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Becca

    Becca said, about 3 years ago

    And where will you left-wing nut jobs self-deport to? Hmmm?

    Frankly, I wish ALL you nut jobs would stop yammering at each other and start listening, learning, and cooperating. Then WE might start fixing things.

  2. BobbyLx

    BobbyLx said, about 3 years ago


    Well said!

  3. jonesb

    jonesb said, about 3 years ago



  4. Kylop

    Kylop said, about 3 years ago

    Ghostkeeper is correct

  5. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, about 3 years ago

    You must have a very narrow and simplistic view of the world to think policy is either liberal or conservative, and merit is judged accordingly.

  6. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 3 years ago

    If we had trusted the UN weapons inspectors back in 2003, there would have been no need for a war in Iraq. Which do you prefer — war or diplomacy?

  7. jack75287

    jack75287 said, about 3 years ago

    So true….

  8. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    A brief moment or two on Faux this morning: one interviewee defined the situation in their thinking: WAR is “peacemaking”, and OCCUPATION is “peacekeeping”.

    Then the idiot Faux screensaver "host’, was corrected by another interviewee for making repeated false statements and she responded: “Why do you keep ATTACKING ME?” Which, is exactly where the “right” comes from, any specification of reality, or truth, that counters their argument (which since when is arguing with a guest, presenting “news”?) is an “attack”.

    Hmmm, Swirly, Zit, Offguard, assknownothing, our little “friends” here certainly do get their backs up if their precious fraudulent “Rushisms” are challenged. Ah, yes, “facts” equate to “hate”.

  9. jack75287

    jack75287 said, about 3 years ago

    A lot of us feel the same way about you, she made a comment to ask you to stop your whining nothing hateful to President Obama or the country.

    The only hater here is will you. Every day you come here give maybe a sentence. Contribute or stop posting.

  10. Becca

    Becca said, about 3 years ago

    @MStevenson58: I was replying to a left-winger who was suggesting that all the right-wing nut jobs should self-deport to Somalia. I’m frakking sick and tired of all the left-right BS. The whole system is broken and corrupt and we need to fix it or reboot it.

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 3 years ago

    Several posters are claiming that the UN inspectors did find evidence in Iraq that supported Bush’s call for war. They are wrong. They probably know that they are wrong. I will post the following just once, because it’s long:
    All of the following is a direct quote from an article by Hans Blix, who was head of the UN team of weapons inspectors.

    The Bush administration certainly wanted to go to war, and it advanced eradication of weapons of mass destruction as the main reason. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has since explained, it was the only rationale that was acceptable to all parts of the U.S. administration.

    The WMDs argument also carried weight with the public and with the U.S. Congress. Indeed, in the autumn of 2002 the threat seemed credible. While I never believed Saddam could have concealed a continued nuclear program, I too thought there could still be some biological and chemical weapons left from Iraq’s war with Iran. If not, why had Iraq stopped U.N. inspections at many places around the country throughout the 1990s?

    However, suspicions are one thing and reality is quite another. U.N. inspectors were asked to search for, report and destroy real weapons. As we found no weapons and no evidence supporting the suspicions, we reported this. But U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield dismissed our reports with one of his wittier retorts: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    Rumsfeld’s logic was correct, I believe, but it was no excuse for the American and British governments to mislead themselves and the world, as they did, by giving credit to fake evidence or assuming that if weapons items were “unaccounted for” that they must exist. They did not exist.
    We inspected many hundred of sites, including dozens that had been suggested to us by various governments’ national intelligence organizations. In a few cases we found conventional weapons — but no weapons of mass destruction. The governments that launched the war claimed to be 100% convinced that there were such weapons, but they had 0% knowledge of where these weapons were.


    On February 11 — less than five weeks before the invasion — I told U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice I wasn’t terribly impressed by the intelligence we had received from the U.S., and that there had been no weapons of mass destruction at any of the sites we had been recommended by American forces. Her response was that it was Iraq, and not the intelligence, that was on trial.

  12. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 3 years ago

    I’m not really expecting a conversation, just posting information for those who care.

  13. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 3 years ago

    My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that Blix reported to the Security Council on March 7, 2003, that inspections could be completed within “not years, not weeks, but months”. But then on March 15-16, Bush and Blair decided that even so, diplomacy had failed, and they decided to use military force, and the invasion began on March 19. The attack, of course, was not approved by the Security Council; some argue that the attacks were legal under Resolution 697 and Resolution 1441, but it’s clear that several members of the Security Council would not have agreed if the matter had been referred to the Council.
    “It will take several months to check whether Iraq has complied fully with its disarmament obligations, chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix says.
    “It will not take years, nor weeks, but months,” he told the UN Security Council.
    But US Secretary of State Colin Powell responded by saying that Iraq’s disarmament efforts had not amounted to the voluntary, active co-operation demanded by UN resolutions.
    By contrast, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said there was significant evidence of real disarmament.
    Iraq was less of a threat to the world than it was before the 1991 Gulf War and there was no need for a US-led assault on the country, he added.
    Mr Blix said that Iraq had accelerated its co-operation with weapons inspectors since the end of January as a result of pressure from the international community.
    Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also submitted a report to the Security Council in which he stated there was no evidence of a revival of Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme.”
    There’s more to the article, and it certainly does indicate that Iraq was not fully compliant.
    But let’s cut to the chase. Blix and El Baradei both indicated that they had no evidence to support the claims that Iraq had WMDs, and Blix indicated that he could complete inspections within a short time. The US could have waited, but Bush chose not to wait. It’s true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if you’re going to start a war, evidence of evidence is a lot better than absence of evidence. If you’re going to use absence of evidence as a justification, you could probably start a war with anybody anytime.
    I have to admit that at the time, I thought Iraq probably did have WMDs. I wasn’t much impressed by Powell’s show and tell at the UN, which was pretty feeble, but I thought that Saddam was acting as if he was hiding something (though now there has been some evidence that behind the scenes he was trying to make a deal). I also thought that the US must have information they weren’t making public; I did not believe that the US would start a war with no evidence. I guess I was wrong, as so many people were. At the time, even though I thought there probably were Iraqi WMDs, I opposed the war (and marched against it), because I did not believe that the possession of WMDs in itself was a sufficient cause. It’s true that Saddam had used chemical weapons, but that was years and years before, and the US had turned a blind eye at the time.
    So I repeat – if the US had believed the UN weapons inspectors, and if they had been willing to wait until the inspections were complete, there would have been no need for a war. I do not support a US military strike against Syria now, though there seems to be greater justification for it than there was for the war in Iraq, and I do support UN supervision of eliminating Syrian chemical weapons.

  14. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 3 years ago

    The feeling is mutual — it’s a pleasure to know you.

  15. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 3 years ago

    I don’t see that your post responds to the points I made. There was no evidence found that Saddam had WMDs. The inspectors said that they could complete their inspections in a reasonable time. Bush ignored their findings (or lack of findings) and disregarded their desire to continue inspections. He did not ask for a Security Council resolution, because he knew that it would fail. He went to war on hunches (I’m giving him credit here; it’s possible that he, or others in the administration knew that there was not much reason to think that Saddam had WMDs). In the event, no WMDs were found. The US didn’t in fact have any evidence, and no other intelligence agency had any evidence. If Bush had listened to the inspectors, if he had let the inspections continue, there would have been no reason to go to war.
    Your argument about Blix’s attitudes is irrelevant. Whatever Blix felt about the US, he didn’t find any WMDs because there were no WMDs to be found. Saddam didn’t move his WMDs around because he didn’t have any WMDs. His credibility was not the question — if he had been credible there would have been no need for inspections. The question was not his credibility, but whether or not he had WMDs. He didn’t. The reason there was an absence of evidence was that there was an absence of evidence. It’s true that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but presence is a lot better evidence than absence, and absence of evidence is not presence of justification.
    Yes, a lot of people believed that Saddam had WMDs. You say they believed it based on intelligence at the time. We now know — and we should have known then that the intelligence was non-existent or falsified. Some believed it because the US government was pushing a very misleading line of propaganda — aluminum rods and yellow cake and meetings with Al Qaeda and mobile weapons labs. Powell himself was duped, and he was pretty angry afterwards. At the time I believed that Saddad had WMDs, because I did not believe that the US government was going to go to war based on hunches. I was wrong. I knew Paul Wolfowitz when I was in college, and though I never liked him much, I never thought that he would do something quite so stupid and immoral as to start a war with no secure justification. I was wrong. He was that stupid and immoral.
    Even though I believed that Saddam probably had WMDs, I didn’t feel that in itself was a sufficient justification for going to war. The US has WMDs, but I hope other countries don’t decide to attack the US for that reason. So I marched with a lot of other people against the war. We were right.

  16. Refresh Comments.