Matt Wuerker by Matt Wuerker

Matt Wuerker

Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. omQ R

    omQ R said, over 3 years ago


  2. thomas burgert

    thomas burgert said, over 3 years ago

    Double ouch.

  3. WillardMBaker

    WillardMBaker said, over 3 years ago

    I’m surprised Homeland Security let them publish this. Maybe Freedom of Speech hasn’t been destroyed like the others, yet.

  4. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 3 years ago

    I am always amazed at how many of the anti President Obama ultra conservatives on this site continually want to state that president Obama is still responsible for the number of ground troops in the Middle East! While President Obama certainly is not perfect on at least some issues (what president is?) this has got to be the biggest non-issue among the issues he is being blamed for.

    The highest number of American ground troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan was in fiscal year 2008 (the last full fiscal year of the GW Bush administration). According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff report that total number was some 187,900 total ground troops. The same report has the number of total ground troops at some 63,000 total troops in Iraq (almost none) and Afghanistan at the end of 2012, the latest complete fiscal year for which such figures are available. This is a cut of 124,900 troops, or just about 2/3 rds of those in fiscal year 2008. Further cuts of about half of the remaining troops in Afghanistan will be made by February of 2014, and all such troops will be out of the Middle East by the end of 2014!

    I personally believe this to be one of the major reasons that voters placed President Obama back into office for a second term!

  5. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, over 3 years ago

    The “left” isn’t under any trance. It’s obvious he isn’t perfect. Maybe he isn’t pushing hard enough and maybe he has compromised too much and maybe some of his own positions are to “middle of the road”. But still, Obama isn’t G.W. Bush — or McCain or Romney. And what’s more, for all the right-wingers criticizing the Vic President, we can also be glad that he’s not one of the Republican alternatives.

  6. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 3 years ago

    He tried darn hard to close Guantanamo, since it’s so useless and the American court system works so much better. It was cowards in congress who blocked his ability to do that. They even kicked a fuss when he had a recent terrorist sent for trial in New York instead of Guantanamo. New York courts have an brilliant record of trying terrorists, while Guantanamo has completed, what, two trials in over ten years? But the cowards aren’t giving up. They don’t want to admit that Guantanamo was a mistake.

  7. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 years ago

    Mr. Wuerker points out eloquently why so many on the ‘left’ are disillusioned with Mr. Obama. Despite the many accusations from conservatives about the President’s leftist agenda, the legislative evidence since he took offices shows he is ‘left’ on social issues, but right of center on business, nat’l security, and other issues that are important to progressive moderates such as me. Both parties seem comfortable with banks remaining too big to fail; with corporations creating effective monopolies on services and products; and with cooperating with the lobbyists of donors
    I wonder how long it will be before one party or the other gets enough of a majority to do to our country what Michigan is doing to cities in Detroit, and decide that voters in this country are not ‘responsible’ enough to vote for ‘sensible’ reforms, thereby justifying their supervention of our votes in order to put a “National Manager” in charge of the country.
    The fortified institutions in Mr. Wuerker’s background lay a good foundation for enforcing a dictatorial gov’t and I do not trust either party to act in a Constitutional responsible way since they aren’t even able do the legislative jobs for which their states elected them’ and the states from whence they come are working so hard to create a one party oligarchy passing legislation friendly to donors and holding on to ‘allies’ by enforcing social issues that have nothing to do with the real purpose of gov’t….
    As zfacts says: “to require two old-fashioned conservative principles be joined to empathetic interpretation of three goals of government: to protect the public, promote the general Welfare, and stabilize the economy without wasting public funds, or not discouraging personal responsibility.”
    I dont trust either of these organizations to behave themselves.

  8. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 years ago

    When the left ran George McGovern, he was smushed. I’m on the left, I’d sure like to have a left president, but I’m also not stupid. If we want a left president, we need to make a left society that will elect her. In the meantime, if you get too far from the center, you’ll lose. But we should also keep up the pressure on Obama.

  9. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    “How’s that hope and change going for ya?”

    A lot better than the same ol’ sh-t the Republicans offered up for 8 long years.

  10. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @omQ R

    The truth. Both parties are lead by the Plutocrats. And they like their national security states.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    The question is, does Obama want his legacy to be war with Iran?

  12. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago


    “Perfection” isn’t what is being discussed. It is the fact that in the worst areas a Democrat is as bad or worse than a Republican.

  13. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 3 years ago

    Yeah, I’m not terribly impressed with how Obama has been handling defense and national security. But then again, we almost elected a guy who wanted to increase the military budget to 4% of the GDP….

  14. Caligulla

    Caligulla said, over 3 years ago


    The real question isn’t “DOES he want his legacy to be war with Iran” it’s “does he want to AVOID that being his legacy so much that he’ll let them build a functional weapon before doing anything?”

    If he doesn’t want it that badly, then he’ll forever be remembered for the aftermath, which given the mindset of the hands on the switch over there, is almost a foregone conclusion unless the Iranian people themselves hang the theocrats in the streets and city squares.

    Modeling nuclear age defense policy after a 5th Century religious document is not a recipe for anything but disaster. Particularly given that absent the need to get it aloft there is virtually NO limit to the maximum size and yield of a thermonuclear device. In fact efficiency of the burn INCREASES with the amount of available fissile or fusible material in the device.

  15. Radish

    Radish GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Consider the idea that the USA was taken over by the military/industrial complex during the Bush/911 admin. The Patriot Act replaced the constitution and Obama is the first dem elected under military/industrial regime and has continued to do their business.

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