Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (14) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. echoraven

    echoraven said, 10 months ago

    Black and White, nice touch.

  2. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 10 months ago

    Since it was in color. But then the US under any president does that same kind of crap all of the time. Pres. Obama is just the most recent version.

  3. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago


    They all do the same thing because they are all controlled by the military industrial complex.

  4. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 10 months ago

    The US has kept the peace since 1945. Instead of War, there have only been Peace Keeping efforts which often required the US military to invade and bomb places that posed a threat to world peace, beginning with Korea under Truman and Eisenhower, Vietnam under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, the ferocious aggressor of Grenada under Reagan, and the heinous warmongering states of Panamá and Iraq under Bush, Sr.

    And Clinton and Bush, jr kept up the good work and preserved the peace.

    Some have said that Obama has not led ANY peace keeping efforts. As a devout Muslim born in the Hawaii Islands of Kenya, he ordered the US military not to hurt his BFFs in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, but the US military never accepted Obama as Commander in Chief, so they have been operating without civilian oversight and carried out their essential peace keeping mission in direct violation of Obama’s orders, as it’s been explained to me by some of the others who post here. And it’s a good thing our military no longer listens to the civilians like Obama who claim to be in charge or they wouldn’t be able to carry out their peace-keeping missions.

    So I’m sure we all hope the military name a good general as our next president, thereby saving us the bother and expense of elections.

  5. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 10 months ago

    @Michael wme

    We were the ones that stopped him from doing much for Libya or Syria—thankfully.

  6. packratjohn

    packratjohn said, 10 months ago

    Wow, Deja Vu…. again. Go check out today’s Doonesbury.

  7. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 10 months ago

    Yes, we finally got over the “Vietnam Syndrome” and now we do it again in Iraq.

  8. Gregory Kruse

    Gregory Kruse GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    1962 except for the type of helicopter, the Obama figure, and the evacuees.

  9. Patricia

    Patricia GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    @Michael wme

    Appreciate your fine satire. Hope others do as well. Peace Keeping: deluded euphemism.

  10. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    A few hundred (or fewer) “advisors” into Afghanistan would have been far more effective at getting bin Laden, and taken away the excuse to invade Iraq.

  11. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 10 months ago


    There’s your problem… you think the objective was “getting bin Laden”.

  12. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 10 months ago

    Sending in “advisors” was how the mission creep went with Vietnam. By the end of it the US was bombing three countries and killing millions in each.

  13. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, 10 months ago

    Learn some history. When the French left Indochina, the agreement was for a divided Vietnam until elections could be held. The West aided the South Vietnamese gov’t in postponing the elections because it was clear that Ho Chi Minh would win. When the North Vietnamese attacked, aided by the large numbers of South Vietnamese who also opposed the Saigon gov’t, they drove out the French forces and our adventure of “military advisers” began, until it became obvious that the effort was unsustainable.

    So when we withdrew (two years before this scene), it was because we were tired of propping up a corrupt government that was not representative of the mass of Vietnamese people, not because they asked us to or because we felt they were at a point of self-sustaining, but, most important in this comparison, we had not toppled a government that had previously kept the nation unified.

    Hussein, for all his faults, had kept Iraq in place and we disrupted that. There is a difference between propping up something that cannot work and destroying something that did work.

  14. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 10 months ago

    “There is a difference between propping up something that cannot work and destroying something that did work.”

    If you’re only criteria for a regime “working” is the jack-booted oppression of it’s populous, then you’re right. It worked. But it’s not mine.

    Hussein executed 600,000 civilians, or 75-125 each day of his regime. I don’t know if this includes the 200,000 Kurds in his gas attacks (probably). His sons threw people off buildings for fun, and tortured and murdered members of his own Olympic team if they lost. He hoarded all the Oil-For-Food money, while his people starved and infrastructure crumbled, then convinced US liberals that the sanctions were responsible for their deaths. But that’s just his domestic “working”. He ignored 17 UN Resolutions, but he didn’t care because he was bribing the UN members. He was shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone. He was in violation of his Surrender Agreement. And he paid $25K to each family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. And that was his soft side. The day they hung him was a good day.

  15. Refresh Comments.