Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Tags: D-Day Under Obama, For several weeks now. Add Tags

Comments (52) Jump to Comments Form

baslim_the_begger said, about 1 month ago

It’s simple, Bring us the head of Osama bin Ladin! Kill anyone who tries to stop you.
kreole said, about 1 month ago

Ted Rall—-Great cartoon…from a vet gets the irony.
MiepR said, about 1 month ago

This is a play on Pete Seeger’s song “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy.” See wikipedia for details.
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

Hehe. This looks to me like a cartoon depicting US troops landing at Normandy on D-Day. With a hand-held radio providing the satire, showing what it would be like if FDR had behaved the way Obama typically does…

I’ve grown to like Ted Rall’s work, overall. Well, sometimes. Obviously as a so-called “conservative” (funny how at the time of America’s founding all of my views would have been considered either mainstream, or “liberal”), I often disagree with his take on things. But his cartoons typically make me think far more than the vast bulk of the ones available to us here at gocomics every day…

PS I won’t pick on Ted and point out that hand-held transistor radios didn’t exist until the 1960s.. ;D
cdward said, about 1 month ago

Ha ha, scott! I’m sure you just made a typo, but Norway? Tell me that was a typo.

Now, sometimes I like Rall and sometimes I don’t, but this time I disagree with him. First, this war has zero similarities with World War II. In World War II we fought against nations that had declared war against us. It was simple, cut and dried. Also, we lost troops on an order of magnitude that would outrage Americans today. In contrast, we invaded a tiny country that had harbored a band of terrorists because it’s such an isolated place. We kicked out their government but then went campaigning somewhere else instead of doing what we came for and what was within our grasp.

Now we are mired in Afghanistan as occupiers, not an invading force against another army in head on combat.

It seems to me that this is exactly the time to sit down and really think about why we’re there and how we should proceed. There is no rush because we are simply in status-maintaining mode.

And Ted, any day scott starts agreeing with you, you really got to take a step back and think.
scottfreitas said, about 1 month ago

Whaaaaat? I said Normandy…

(reaches bleary-eyed for another sip of coffee)

Oh, and cdward: sane people refuse to accept your crowd’s assertions that George Bush destroyed the World Trade Centers.

So yes, War WAS declared on us. And plenty of Islamic nations in the world DO have governments which have openly sided with terrorists, and have also shot their mouths off threatening to attack / nuke the US, nuke Israel, etc etc, and so after 9/11 we started chasing terrorists inside nations whose leaders have threatened us, and that’s just too gd bad if you don’t like it. We’re not about to commit cultural suicide and wait to lose downtown Atlanta, Georgia just to indulge YOUR false sense of moral superiority, and your phony concern for “innocent civilians”, and all that other liberal claptrap you guys trot out every time America tries to confront anyone or anything evil…

Civilians stop being innocent when they allow maniacs and insane governments to both hide among them, and represent them.

In short: people are RESPONSIBLE for their own governments. Yes, even in a dictatorship. Because if they know their government is truly evil and don’t fight it or die trying, they’re just willing accomplices. THAT was one of many lessons the American Revolution taught us.

And yeah, this puts me on the hook as well, I should be trying a HELL of a lot harder to stop Osama and his unconstitutional mass of unelected, unaccountable “czars” before it’s too late…
HOWGOZIT said, about 1 month ago

Just as I expected, cd (and many other lefties) read into posts what they desire.
Lavocat said, about 1 month ago

Or, to paraphrase:

“I knew FDR. FDR was a friend of mine. Barack Obama: you’re no FDR.”

America wants leadership, not poll-tested, feel-good buzzwords of hope.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, about 1 month ago

MiepR,

While the universality of the truth of The Big Muddy is what makes it a great song, this cartoon is less evocative of it than the last one with Obama and his advisers in the jeep.

This cartoon seems to me to do exactly what it seems to lampoon. It’s marking time until there is a definitive position to be taken on the issue.

It tells me that Ted is internally conflicted on the Afghanistan issue. But then I’m projecting too.

I would like to see us drag the world kicking and screaming into the 21st century! But I know that this effort will take much more than we’re presently willing to give to it. And I’m not going to be willing to give more to it until I see a comprehensive plan for achieving the objective world wide!

There’s no sense yanking Afghanistan into the modern world if we’re not going to yank Pakistan and all its other brother Stans along with it. And Africa too!

Truth is we’re really not so far from the goal as we think. Most of South America is modernish, all of Europe, Russia, India (less or more) even China and lots of Indonesia, Australia is a basket case (and who cares anyway?) same with Canada… but neither of them are likely to start a war, they’re both slightly less ept at war than France.

So really what we want to do is welcome Africa, the middle east and Central America into the modern age. We need to be a planet of laws as opposed to a planet of competing religions. I’d hate to have to kill everyone to impose a law based paradigm… I’m open to other suggestions.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago

Lavocat said: “America wants leadership, not poll-tested, feel-good buzzwords of hope.”

DrCanuck giggles: Yeah. Which is why NOBODY fell for Reagan’s “It’s morning in America” silliness.
crunkbot said, about 1 month ago

Uh… FDR’s administration and countless “advisors” took more than TWO YEARS to plan D-Day.
Jim said, about 1 month ago

FTW !
dtroutma said, about 1 month ago

Afghanistan certainly is not a war against a “nation state”. It doesn’t even have the “legitimacy” of Viet Nam where we supposedly supported an inviting government.

THAT is why, though aggravating that it hasn’t ended, the slower and more cautious behaviors we’re now seeing make far more sense than a “fat man” attack. Pulling our combat troops out of field locations, letting Afghans to it out in the hinterlands, and focusing more troops on civil affairs, and letting SCW teams to their jobs, instead of random bombings, does represent progress.

The new situation IS far more complicated. It actually takes intelligence to understand, and implement. That is exactly why Bushco was a total loss leader.

It is very difficult to punch a multiple hoard of mosquitoes, blowflies, horseflles, butterflies, and fleas in the nose, let alone swat them all with only one “weapon”.
edmondd said, about 1 month ago

Scott, ironically, you are unwittingly advocating for terrorism, even of the inbred kind when you claim that “…[c]ivilians stop being innocent when they allow maniacs and insane governments to both hide among them, and represent them.”

That’s exactly the wicked, aberrant mindset of terrorists, extrapolating onto the general population, the authority in policy making that only belongs to a small number of people.

I’m sure Timothy McVeigh’s victims would disagree with your comment if they were alive today.
Arghhgarrr said, about 1 month ago

I’m sorry, but does Rall really think D-Day occurred without any planning, or meetings by the President to determine where to land, how many soldiers to send in, and ideas about how to win WWII? Better to have such meetings before sending troops in as we have learned in Iraq where the Bush’s idea for the endgame was to send in 20 year old MBAs to set up a new stock exchange. And we all know how that worked out.
audieholland said, about 1 month ago

“Civilians stop being innocent when they allow maniacs and insane governments to both hide among them, and represent them.”

Couldn’t have said it better, Scott.

So stop hiding, aiding and abetting terrorist scum like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Brezhinski, Bush and Bush.
believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

yet another attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq because 19 terrorist jihadists from Saudi Arabia attacked us. C’mon Scott, iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; Sadaam Hussein was our ally and we furnished him weapons and big time moolah.
cdward said, about 1 month ago

Howie, what did I read into it. Norway? Scott did right Norway at first (he hints that he did) but edited it to the correct way. As I said, I figured it was a typo.

Or did I read into the cartoon that Rall thinks Obama needs to make a decision right now? Please explain.
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago

Only faithless, godless, America hating traitors would stand down at this hour when we should invade Norway. I am ashamed of you spineless cowards. To infinity… and beyond…
Ted Rall said, about 1 month ago

The point I’m trying to make is: the troops have been fighting for eight years. NOW they’re getting around to coming up with war aims?

Yes, FDR waited two-three years to invade France during World War II. But by the time we went in, the war aims were clear.

I can’t imagine how it must feel to be a soldier in Afghanistan listening to the commander-in-chief try to figure out what a war is for AFTER we’ve been fighting and dying in it for years.
believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

Ted, I guess I would ask if you are faulting this President for not doing this sooner, or for taking time to try to get it right this time? I agree with your premise, the mission in Afghanistan has been drifting with no one steering a course for a very long time.
ahab said, about 1 month ago

Build two complex wars, a bad economy, recession, neglect the domestic problems over 8 years. Now we demand you make a snap perfect judgment now, while we do everything to get in your way for political purposes. Sure , fix it all in nine months. Only Christ could do it.
Ken Warren said, about 1 month ago

Too true. We sent the troops in without any idea of what we wanted, no plan, no idea of how much was needed, and what victory was and how to achieve it. A very dumb thing done by very dumb people - President Cheney and his puppet Bush.

Obama should get out while he can, or else he will be as dumb as they were.
cdward said, about 1 month ago

Ted, I agree that there should have been a specific objective if we were going to go in there. I agree that it’s late in the game to be coming up with one. But all but nine months of those eight years were under the previous administration. There was no mission - or we got away from it very quickly - and now somehow Obama is to blame. I know people don’t like deliberation, but if he’s going to keep us there, I want to know exactly what is to be achieved. I agree with Ken Warren, however, that the best thing for us to do is get out. Or hold a Loya Jirga to let Afghan leaders decide.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, about 1 month ago

BCS,

For me YES! I fault THIS President for not having a clear objective and plan in place!

Was it a mystery that there was a war going on in Afghanistan when this man was considering running for president? NO it was not! He knew it and yet instead of using the time to have a carefully thought out plan that could have been implimented from DAY ONE, he spent his time telling American that he was going to “work with the party of ideas”.

With all of this swirling around, why did he take two weeks off to loll on the beach in Hawaii? Why did he take time off to loll on the beaches of Nantucket (?).

We hired him because he is young and should be able to put in 80 hour weeks for the first two years of his administration.

When I got started in my field, I didn’t have more than a weekend off for 5 years. Then I took a month off.

Barack Obama is the guy that Harry S Truman would have despised. Harry said that (along the lines of) “Some men want to be President, and some men want to lead!” Barack Obama wanted to be President, but I don’t think he has a clearly defined agenda of what he wants to accomplish.

He should know by now what he wants to do in Afghanistan, he should have known back in 2002 when he cast his imaginary vote against Karl Rove’s Gordian Knot Presidential Powers vote (while Obama was running for the State Legislature). And he danged well should have known before he started spouting off about how wrong the other Senators were for having voted the way they did.

But he didn’t. And that he still doesn’t goes to show what a terrible mistake it was to nominate him.
Ripit said, about 1 month ago

Nice one, Ted.

7/10
Metzengerstein said, about 1 month ago

Excellent cartoon, Ted. I saw the D-Day reference right away, but maybe you have to be a certain age …

And it doesn’t make any difference if that war was against a nation-state and this one isn’t, or any other supposed differences. The point is, whatever the nature of the conflict, you need to know something about it and have a plan before you go in.
Palestino said, about 1 month ago

Brilliant..
audieholland said, about 1 month ago

It doesn’t matter if whatever president is clueless about US foreign policy. He does not make it anyway.

Any US president is just a strawman, a high-level manager at best while TPTB have long decided on long-term strategic decisions.

Get into Iraq, built lots of big military bases and never ever leave. To make it clearer to the general public: keep contracting the building firm that also excells at demolishing things (Bin Ladin Deconstruction Corp.)
ReasonsVentriloquist said, about 1 month ago

Audieholland,

The man to call is Milo Minderbinder.
michaelwme said, about 1 month ago

ReasonsVentriloquist said,

Barack Obama is the guy that Harry S Truman would have despised.

I’d been disappointed in Obama until this post. If Harry S Truman would have despised him, that elevates President Obama quite a bit in my book.

HST nuked the Japanese civilians, then fired MacArthur for suggesting more of the same for the Chinese. I’d say that was hypocritical.

Truman insisted the Jews in the concentrationrefugee camps in Europe be relocated to lands occupied by Palestinians. Why?, some of us ask. Why not let the European Jews go back to where they came from?
d_legendary1 said, about 1 month ago

The bottom line with war in this day and age is that it is a good business for the guys who are supplying the weapons.

There’s also a good reason why the media outlets aren’t clamoring for the war’s end. Only that the Jihadist want to kill us all and we need to do something about it.
NeoconMan said, about 1 month ago

War is VERY good for business.
Tatanka60 said, about 1 month ago

I can just imagine the look on Tom Hanks’ face (Saving Private Ryan) if he heard that…
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago

And business is what war is all about. A lot of the most enormous corporations profit from war, they pay for the politicians who vote for more war, or allow “conflict”, and thus, never-ending war!! General Electric profits from war, owns NBC, and is never going to give you a straight story. I truly believe that every conflict we have been involved with for 100 years had the underling motive of financial profit as the incentive. We’re not going to march into Rawanda or Dafur to intercede because there’s no bucks there. Schools keep dumbing down and American literacy, science and mathematic levels continue to plummet because these corporations need a steady and fresh supply of compliant obedient children to become soldiers. Television news continues to call every soldier a hero, and that’s all the reason those kids need to sign up. The slaughter house is this a way….. mooooooooo……
believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

War IS very good for business. That’s what President Eisenhower warned us about.
killbillvs007 said, about 1 month ago

As a time traveller from October 20 2001, This comic is bewildering and hilarious. Is GWB still president? I thought his term would be up by now? But he STILL doesn’t have a plan for the war? That George, what a scamp!! What mischief will he get into next?

Oh wait you are just punching Obama in the face because GWB admin ignored Afghanistan. Sweet. I understood the comic before you explained it, and thought it was misguided then too.

ReasonsVentriloquist - your OP is a HILARIOUSLY ironical critique that Obama should have been implementing a victory solution in Afghanistan while being a state senator in IL when the war started. [While GWB was the most vacationing presdient EVER] HOLY bleeep is that hilarious. oh you’re serious? oh…

Piling on: in 2007/08 when the GWB admin announced a change in Afghanistan policy, the McLatchey News correspondent for the Pentagon knocked on as many doors as he/she could and asked what the old strategy was. Everyone said, we’ll get back to you… This pane just needs the GWB in Napoleon garb to punch in [what I think is your original] point.
killbillvs007 said, about 1 month ago

Dr Canuck to share your irony:

we also rejected GWB’s re election ad with the wolves, the play on fear of large amorphous enemy states which recalls Reagan’s bear ad which was a play on fear of large enemy states, ALL as mere fear mongering which we rise above…
4uk4ata said, about 1 month ago

Considering that he was reelected in 2004, I am not sure if the ad was actually rejected by the people. Some of them, sure.
crunkbot said, about 1 month ago

@killbillvs007

oooooh… I like you.
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago

This is pretty good, to sum up the silliness. Pardon me Ted, but Lloyd Dangle offers a poignant analogy today…

http://www.troubletown.com
ReasonsVentriloquist said, about 1 month ago

Killbillvs007,

Nice try, but you’re showing a lacking of reading comprehension not a superior grasp of the issue.

The point is that Obama bragged about his superior foreign policy skills as demonstrated by his ficticious vote against giving GWB the authority to threaten Iraq with war if they didn’t open up to weapons inspectors (which was a vote that was placed before the congress just weeks before Bush’s first Mid Term Election. It was brilliant politicing by Karl Rove, and the stupid effing “Progressive Democrats” still can’t seem to get it through their heads that it was a political play.).

The point is that Barack Obama should have been ready to answer these questions on day one of his presidency not day 200 (and still no coherent idea). Why would someone run for the presidency that is obviously going to be a War Time Presidency without a plan for that war? It’s unforgivable! (But you seem to be willing to give him a pass, you don’t even seem to think that there is any thing that he would need to be forgiven for.)

You’re dismissed!

Michaelwme,

Oh, so you don’t like HST? Well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

So I’m not sure which part of the nuke story you’re mad about, that we did nuke Japan or that we didn’t nuke China, or is it that you want a guy who murders millions without considering the circumstances around the act?

In any case, your position is your position and not likely to sway me from mine one bit. And your position indicates to me that you are impervious to my opinion, maybe one day you’ll “re”think your position and see how flawed it is. I envy you that day of discovery.

As far as Israel is concerned, it never should have been there in the first place, it was only because the “superpowers” decided that the only fair way to vote for/against Israel’s existence was to allow for all Jews world wide to vote in the plebiscite as opposed to just the citizens of the territory (where the Jews were far out numbered by Palestinians).

As to HST insisting that jews be moved there… This is not something that I am well informed about one way or the other. But still it won’t change my opinion of the man, his opinions and his actions.

Everybody can do things I disagree with (and they will, given enough time, including me) but to hold your first weak logic and your second point against all the good that man did as president and before and beyond is to be a jackass IMHO!
treered said, about 1 month ago

the radio signal must have gone around the solar system a few times, the story about casablanca arriving at d-day…
shane damit said, about 1 month ago

I appreciate the actual artists opinion. Sometimes I cant tell which side of the fence he is on, nothing wrong with being a fence straddler either.
unless you are an elected leader, Obama needs to pick a side and then mend that fence from his side.
fennec said, about 1 month ago

RV, I take issue with you here. If Afghanistan had been the only or even one of only several foreign policy issues facing the nation, you might have a point. However, in truth it was only one of many, and, additionally, the domestic financial crises had to be dealt with. Also, he could not put an operating team into play on Day One due to the onerous confirmation process we require. In the lab, we find that, if you have too many projects going on at once, no one project can get done in a timely manner, yet this is what we require of our president.
cdward said, about 1 month ago

shanedamit, I also appreciate the actual artist’s opinions as well as most of the opinions here, yours included.

I will disagree with one point, however. I suspect I may be alone here, but am perfectly comfortable with the president being a fence straddler on many issues. I am one of those who thinks we make far too many knee-jerk decisions because we have to come down on one side or another. Sometimes we need the gray area – or at least some patience while all the angles are considered. Given that we’ve been in Afghanistan for a very long time and have done NOTHING there but kill and get killed, I’d say we have time to think it through a little more carefully.

Now, as to my opinion, I think the right answer is to hold a loya jirga, get the war lords and the leaders opinions, and then in all likelihood, get out of Dodge. We don’t belong, and we’re not achieving anything good there.
edmondd said, about 1 month ago

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

Regarding the war in Afghanistan.

And once you are done watch “the Warning”…quite eye opening…uhmm…more like cataract removal surgery.
killbillvs007 said, about 1 month ago
My Dearest RV,

The original argument of the art is People who lead soldiers to war need to have a plan. I don’t have to assume this because the artist said

“the troops have been fighting for eight years. NOW they’re getting around to coming up with war aims?”

Since you don’t seem to know a lot about The U.S. during the 2000 decade, I’d like to remind you US troops have been in Afghanistan since 2001, when Barack Hussein Obama was a State Senator in IL. In case you are unfamiliar with him, here is his wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

The original argument claims “leaders should have a plan when leading troops into battle where they could die” which means the previous administration needed a plan. Refer back to the piling on section of my OP, which McClatchey News Corp couldn’t find one.

The only evidence you have presented of a plan prior to 1-20-09 is that Karl Rove presented a bill in Congress (through channels) in 2004. If my math skills are better than my reading skills, this means soldiers were dying in AF/PAK for 2 years before GWB admin put thought to it. furthermore this plan was (according to you not me) “was brilliant politicing [sic] by Karl Rove”

That means your plan is NOT ANY of these things
1. A way to win the war
2. A way to make troops safer
3. A way to make The U.S safer.
EW Gross. Your comments reinforce the idea the “war aims” of the former admin was the reelection of the admin and not US interests. Such as having leaders who have a plan when they lead troops to war. Which gets us back to the artists intent, and along the way you are elbow deep in blood.

BACKUP PLAN: Get Osama bin Laden… Maybe we could try that?
killbillvs007 said, about 1 month ago

MY Dear and Beloved RV:

The “other way” I could take this argument.

Read Fennec and dismiss yourself, like you do in front of the JCP Bra Catalog.

Accomplishments

We have benchmarks/timetable for getting out of Iraq.

Russia looks more like our ally than enemy since we scrapped the red herring missile defense that was only meant to piss them off. Don’t BS anyone with strategic placement against Iran because,

Now that Russia is back, Iran is coming to the table because they are trading partners. Increased sanctions were only entrenching the Iranians against us.

I cant use the economic crisis as evidence because you can’t show what didn’t happen, which was financial sector collapse. that according to a consensus of economists liberal and conservative. With that I’d like to suspend my campaign until the crisis is over, remember that gem? [In fairness it was an indefinite suspension, not explicitly to the end of the crisis.]

Can I use the quick bankruptcy and move to restructure GM and Chrysler?

Can I use not pushing don’t ask don’t tell? Because while that is a civil rights violation I disagree with, its death will be better eulogized from the mouth of a general in 5 years than from the President now. (That sounds dirty)

What I would push back on is changing Gitmo Detainees zip codes without changing their legal status. That doesn’t solve the problem, its a distraction. Granted it was a headache that could have been avoided if someone would have followed the rule of law, but its our problem now.
killbillvs007 said, about 1 month ago

@ Ahab

I’m not sure you want to bring Christ into this. In the temporal sense, he only worked against religious hard liners in his OWN religion. Obama has the Christians and Jews too.

[this is sarcasm, or irony, actually , I might be being facetious, anyway it’s a joke, layered under another joke.]