Comments (20) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   richardelguru said, 2 months ago

   looks like a badge

2. 

   mattro53 said, 2 months ago

   I guess he wasn’t politically correct.

3. 

   cdward said, 2 months ago

   Yeah, the whole Van Jones thing was stupid. But the right will attack anyone and will find any excuse to go after them because their goal is impede governance. They are starting to sound a bit McCarthy-esque.

   I don’t think it’s fair pinning this entirely on Obama, however. He may not have defended Jones enough but he did not instigate it either.

4. 

   oldlegodad said, 2 months ago

   No one in the White House staff is checking on these “czars”. They are only interested in bypassing the cabinet and running everything from the west wing.

5. 

   Shanara Schmidt said, 2 months ago

   His blackberry?

6. 

   oldlegodad said, 2 months ago

   Shanara….no his pass to power, his WH Badge.

7. 

   M Kitt said, 2 months ago

   AS POSTED ON RAMIREZ:

   Jones is a radical? Based on the behavior of the entire last administration I’d say he’s a moderate centrist.

   He’s not promoting preemptive war, not associating Saddam Hussein with 9-11, not blaming all of Islam on the entire planet with responsibility for it, not selling WMDs in Iraq as cause for war, not spending us into bankruptcy while Cheney and W “War Incorporated” rips off the U.S. treasury thru war profiteering, not causing massive local casualties in Iraq as a for-profit business venture, not conducting torture as justified to support all of this.

   Neocons are just a symptom of the disease as was W incorporated generally.

   The actual cancer is big business buying the outcome of elections in our corrupt political system.

8. 

   churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

   ^ Jones is a card carrying Communist. I’m sure you’re good with that. I have no problem with him having radical views, and many have died for his right to his views and free speech. But he has also said that protesting and carrying signs were doing no good, and he would have to change the system from within. You might think that’s a good thing, but the American public didn’t vote for that (no matter what you think). Especially in a position that has no Congressional oversight, probably has no Constitutional authority, and has the direct ear of the President. You may be ready for that, but the people aren’t, and Obama knew it. So he’s gone.

   And stop comparing this to McCarthyism! This guy isn’t making movies, or simply espousing his views. He’s a member of the President’s administration. Big difference.

   On to the next one!

9. 

   ReasonsVentriloquist said, 2 months ago

   Veep Cheney can tell a Dem to “go f yourself” from the floor of the Senate and this guy can’t control the spin of calling Republicans A holes?

   Ashcroft (as AG) calls Senators (again, on the floor of the Senate) who don’t support Bush “Traitors.” And this guy can read the writing on the wall that he’s going to draw fire so he quits.

   Bush (as POTUS) and Quayle (as VEEP) call the probable winners of the Presidential Election a “couple of Bozos”

   Cheney (as VEEP) says that America will be less safe under Democratic control as opposed to Republican control. And there is nodding understanding, if not agreement even from Dems.

   This administration is inept! I least I hope they’re inept, the other possibility being that they are doing what they set out to do.

10. 

    d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago

    Love the second panel.

    I think he was referring to Churchill when he drew that panel!

    Anyone to the left of his right is instantly a commie. Anyone who wants to help anyone is a commie. And anyone who wants to change the laws for the better is a commie.

    So McCarthyism is alive and well within Churchill so its justified.

11. 

    M Kitt said, 2 months ago

    So Church, what damage has he done (or could he possibly EVER do) comparable to W Incorporated?

    Is his “red bait” background more of a threat than preemptive war or throwing away the Geneva conventions, standards historically used to bring to trial and convict violators?

    Let’s review the monumental accomplishments of W Inc.

    Remember the discussion before wiretapping became publicly known, W on national television stating that “constitutional protections are in place”? Now they’ve waived those requirements to protect the corporate reps. that cooperated.

    How about his statements a few weeks before we crossed the Iraqi border about how “war is a decision of last resort” while BBC documents leaked from official sources (legally pursued for leaking but not denied by Britain or Tony Blair) say Bush was planning to invade months before that, one of several “Downing Steet” disclosures about W.

    Wait, I know, the “rendition” that he claimed to be completely within legal requirements but that had to take place outside of the Geneva Conventions, standards that were used to convict prison guards (among others) during the Nuremberg trials after WW2.

    Pre-emptive war, rendition, CIA officials outed thru Cheney’s chief of staff, an attorney general kicked out for claiming he knew nothing about “Inspector General’s findings on the unprecedented firings of nine United States Attorneys, the improper political hiring of career officials within the Justice Department, the misuse of National Security Letters, and the efforts to bypass the Department’s finding that a warrantless surveillance program was without legal basis.”

    How much deception amounts to a lie in the eyes of one of the GOP party faithful, Church? When Clinton lied no one died.

12. 

    Ripit said, 2 months ago

    lol, good one, Ted.

    Love the Hello Kitty Third Reich.

13. 

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    Actually, the big deal seems to be him signing (or possibly not - there’s actually some doubt) the “9/11 Truth” petition that asks for additional investigation and implies Bush might have had something to do with it. I don’t think that, but it is worthy of note that the 9/11 Commission was consistently blocked by the Bush Administration in its efforts to investigate, and was massively underfunded. (They got $3 million. By contrast, the shuttle explosion got $50 million and Whitewater got $40 million) I’d be willing to reopen the investigation.

14. 

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    MOTIVE: I spent a lot of time trying to verify your figures, and aside from the fact that the 9/11 Commission actually had an official budget of $15 million, I was having a hard time finding any official $$ spent on the other two. Except for kooky blogs.

    Until I found THIS

    So, in the immortal words of Mythbusters, “BUSTED!”

15. 

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    Hm, interesting. I’ll check my sources, but mine wasn’t a “kooky blog.”

16. 

    cabrobst said, 2 months ago

    Obama is so Moderate he almost needs sun blocker.

17. 

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    MOTIVE: If it helps you any, when I started looking at your figures, the only verification I found of the $3 million was a Time magazine article that said they started with $3 million, had requested an additional $11 million, and the Bush administration had received the request and were thinking about it. The article was never updated.

    Wiki said they started with $3mil, requested $11 more, but only received $9 (that would total $12mil) They sourced a NYDaily News article.See here I know there’s a way to correct it, but I don’t know how. I waste enough of my time here.

    The official National Commission on Terrorism report clearly says it was budgeted $15mil. See here

    According to wiki, Whitewater wasn’t a commission at all, but a series of 3 “inquiries”. Couldn’t find any budgets.

    While I was looking at the official Commission report on the Challenger disaster, which didn’t have any reference to it’s budget, I accidentally erased everything I had already typed. Dam this laptop!

    Then I found my website. Since they confirmed what I already knew about the $15mil, they already had some credibility. Everything else they said sounded pretty reasonable, especially when you’re dealing with budgets and the bottomless money pit that is Washington. So I’ll go with them, though if you can find out anything that contradicts it, I’m all ears.

    Moral of story: never trust anything you see on the internet. Things get passed around from site to site until it’s accepted as the truth.

18. 

    Ted Rall said, 2 months ago

    Personally, I believe most of the official account of 9/11. But the Bush Administration’s reluctance to embrace transparency created the impression that they had a lot to hide. To set the doubters’ minds to rest, we ought to reopen the 9/11 investigation.

    Odds are people would be more open to talk now that Bush is out of office.

    The money is tiny…we spend $1 billion a week in Iraq…what’s $50 million to set things straight on 9/11?

19. 

    d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago

    Yeah trust Wikik! Where anybody can pull sources out of their A$$ like its all good.

    And I agree with Ted.

20. 

    M Henri Day said, 2 months ago

    From what I understand, the context in which Mr Van Jones called (Congressional) Republicans «assholes» was when asked why they, when in a minority position, still manage to block majority Democrats from enacting legislation. His take was that the Republicans succeed because they are willing play hardball, and he suggested that the Democrats should do so as well - become «assholes» - rather than seeking - and ever failing to find - the «bi-partisan» grail. Mr Obama’s position seems to be just the opposite, so it’s not strange that Mr Van Jones received little support from that quarter. For my part, I find his analysis flawed - like their Republican counterparts, Congressional Democrats have demonstrated time and time again that they are more than willing to play hardball to protect the interests of their real constitutents - the lobbyists who finance them. Now there’s a real victory for bi-partisanship !…

    Henri