More on Iran attack innuendo...

Obviously, this week's 'toon is part a series that takes place in a parallel universe where the hippocratic oath doesn't exist.

Here are some articles:

• Glenn Greenwald has an excellent, on-point blog post on the "intellectual cowardice" of neo-cons who make implied threats up to a point, but avoid being specific enough (even when pushed) to leave any evidence in case someone calls them psychopaths. In this way, they're not unlike political satirists... except I don't help formulate public policy. And I don't make psychopathic arguments...
  
  On the other hand, not all Bushies deal solely in innuendo. Every now and then, one of them slips up and makes a comment that gives us real insight into their thinking... something like "I hate all Iranians." Of course, I've already covered Norman Podhoretz, who "hopes and prays" that we "bomb the Iranians into smithereens." It is thanks to his influence that the administration's discussion on Iran "has lost all connection to reality," according to Fareed Zakaria.
  
  It has been abundantly clear for a while that the most visible force pushing for war with Iran is our sleepy Vice President. Apparently, Cheney and his staff are such big fans of war, they'll even root for a strike against American troops so they can go ahead with an "accidental" war:
  

  One member of Cheney's national security staff, David Wurmser, worried out loud that Cheney felt that his wing was "losing the policy argument on Iran" inside the administration -- and that they might need to "end run" the president with scenarios that may narrow his choices. The option that Wurmser allegedly discussed was nudging Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran, thus "hopefully" prompting a military reaction by Tehran against U.S. forces in Iraq and the Gulf. When queried about Wurmser's alleged comments, a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times, "The vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff."

  
  I had to read that paragraph a couple of times, it's so freaking unbelievable.


• If you're wondering how I can justify calling them psychopaths, do me a favor -- take a look at this picture. This may seem like a rather obvious question, but given what they've already done up to this point, at what point can we officially start considering our decision-makers to be bloodthirsty crazy-people? When exactly are they obligated as human beings to start wondering: what actually happens when we drop bunker-busters on neighborhoods? What happens when we destroy another culture that we know so little about?
  
  Not interested in the human toll of war? Not to worry... the Washington Post has you covered.


• Retired four-star General Tony McPeak says:
  

  This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.

Fighting Words: 10/29/07 Cartoon...

"On Their Deathbeds: Dick Cheney"...

It's a new one, I swear! See the previous episode:

More on the military, Watada...

Sources and inspirations:

• This week's 'toon was based largely on the case of Ehren Watada, the Fort Lewis soldier who was court-martialed last week after refusing to be deployed with his unit to Iraq. The prosecutor in the case says that Watada "disgraced himself and the military." Of course, the obvious question is: if Watada has disgraced the military, then what in the effing hell has George W. Bush done?!
  
  This aspect of military law is pretty murky. Of course, soldiers cannot be governed under the same set of laws as the rest of us -- the chain of command has to be preserved. At the same time, soldiers clearly have a duty to refuse unlawful orders, a principle established by the Nuremburg trials. As a result, those soldiers who are men of conscience are put in an impossible position when a reckless and insane Commander-in-Chief orders them to commit illegal actions. And, in the end, the consequences for those actions fall completely on the soldiers' shoulders when the administration leaves them out to dry. "Support the troops" indeed...
  
  Taking all these points into account, Watada probably should go to prison, something he seems entirely willing to do. George W. Bush should go to prison, too, but my psychic tells me that's never gonna happen. My gut tells me that the mistrial was orchestrated by the government, which was faced with a high-profile trial that would put a huge spotlight on the most objectionable aspects of this already unpopular war and turn the kid into a martyr when they sent him to prison. I'm suggesting that the confession was "botched" to make it all go away quietly. I don't really have any "evidence" for this, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal in investigative journalism these days.


• Check out a whole heap 'a older articles from Mother Jones on the military and the Pentagon's recruitment crisis. JoAnn Wypijewski reminds us that "the fundamental lesson [of Vietnam]... is that soldiers forced to become criminals for old men's ambitions won't all come home quietly." David Goodman gives us the backstory on Iraq soldiers who believe that the adventure there is illegal and immoral, including one who has to worry about getting run over on the streets of his hometown because he voiced his belief. See also Jonathan Stein's interview with documentary filmmaker David Zeiger.


• Diane Farsetta on the U.S. Army's new sales tactic for potential recruits: encourage them to ignore their parents and other people who don't think the Iraq War is a very good thing.

Fighting Words: 2/12/07 Cartoon

"Who's the Most Screwed?, #2"...

Previous episode here:

More on Iraq, Iran, and War as a Children's Game...

Lots and lots of inspirations and sources for this week's 'toon:

• There were a few issues I wanted to touch on but couldn't work into the story, such as Bush's decision to send two aircraft carrier groups to the waters off Iran and his order to kill Iranian operatives in Iraq (which is called a "purely political" move). However, check out a terrific column by Robert Parry on the "logic" behind Bush's efforts to ratchet up tensions in the region.


• Why would he do this? Because, of course, Cheney and the neo-cons want it that way. Apparently, back in 2003, the White House had an opportunity for "a diplomatic prize of unparalleled proportions" -- a reasonable negotiated settlement with Iran. Of course, they blew it off because they were still expecting to be greeted with rose petals in Baghdad (with an encore in Tehran), and because Cheney said they "don't negotiate with evil." Juan Cole says: "For the Love of God Impeach this Man."
  
  In case you were wondering, the third Li'l Bushie along with George and Dick is Bill Kristol... not the best caricature ever, but it was my first time drawing him. Check out a post by Glenn Greenwald on the resurgence of neo-con influence over White House foreign policy decisions. In particular, Fred Kagan is said to have "won the ear of the President" on Iraq and Iran, which is not good news for any of us.


• I purposely avoided talking about the legality of the Iraq escalation or a possible Iran attack (I'll save that for another 'toon), but check out another excellent post by Glenn Greenwald on those issues.


• Is George W. Bush CRAZY? Justin A. Frank, M.D. says that he does indeed exhibit sociopathic tendencies, in the sense that he is someone who "exhibits external and surface empathy and amiability, but internally cannot actually empathize with the pain and suffering of others." He is one of many who say Bush has now adopted a "bunker mentality," and he argues that Dubya turns everyone who disagrees with him into his father (for example, James Baker).


• For in-depth analysis of the situation on the ground in Iraq, check out an article by Matt Taibbi, who argues that the whole idea that more troops will do any good in Iraq is "absurd on its face." He says that the majority of the troops there are holed up it Forward Operating Bases, simply trying to keep themselves safe, and that they are not actively engaged in keeping Iraq secure. The ones who go out on road patrol have been reduced to cannon fodder, forced to cross their fingers and hope they don't get blown up while driving around in circles.


• Notice any similarities between the current rhetoric on Iran and the Vietnam-era rhetoric on Cambodia and Laos? You're not imagining it...
  
  James Ridgeway argues that the Iraq surge may be a Kissinger ploy, in the sense that Bush "will plunge into a counterinsurgency operation in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, and then amidst mass civilian carnage, declare victory and announce negotiations." I think the apparent resurgence of neo-con influence makes this a less likely possibility.


• Do the Dems really have to cut off funding for the troops? Marty Lederman argues that they simply have to "pass an appropriations rider providing that no funds may be used to increase the number of troops in Iraq."


• Lastly, check out a typically outstanding column by Molly Ivins, who apparently is not doing well right now. She's one of the greats... give it a read.

...and probably more that I missed. Read a lot last week...

Fighting Words: 1/29/07 Cartoon

"Li'l Bushies 3: Real Men Go To Tehran"...

See the previous episodes here (4/17/06) and here (10/3/05).

More on Rumsfeld, The Art of War...

A number of commentators have done analyses on the conflicts between Sun Tzu's The Art of War and the military strategies of today's neo-cons (who, supposedly, are big followers of Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz). However, since I am a fan of the book, I have wanted for a while to put my spin on it too. The Art of War has to be among the most frequently misinterpreted books in history. The translation that I have is by Thomas Cleary, who says that "Sun Tzu's professed aim was not to encourage warfare but to minimize and curtail it," and that there is "a profound undercurrent of humanism" that runs through Sun Tzu's Taoist text. Here are some of the quotations that have been "Rumsfeldized" for this week's 'toon:

• Therefore one who is good at martial arts overcomes others' forces without battle, conquers others' cities without siege, destroys others' nations without taking a long time. (emphasis mine)


• So there are three ways in which a civil leadership causes the military trouble. When a civil leadership unaware of the facts tells its armies to advance when it should not... When the civil leadership is ignorant of military affairs but shares equally in the government of the armies... When the civil leadership is ignorant of military maneuvers but shares equally in the command of the armies.


• The superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid. The next best is to attack alliances. The next best is to attack the army. The lowest is to attack a city. Siege of a city is only done as a last resort.


• When hypocrisy sprouts, even if you have the wisdom of ancient warrior kings you could not defeat a peasant, let alone a crowd of them. (quote by Sun Tzu follower Zhuge Liang)


• To overcome others' armies without fighting is the best of skills.

See also a pair of older pages of Rumsfeld poetry from Slate, one from Wikipedia, and Think Progress on Rumsfeld's recent lies before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Fighting Words: 9/18/06 Cartoon

"Rum Tzu: The Art of Quagmire"...

Trying something a little different again artistically. Check out a previous 'toon with a "reenactment" of a historical character...

More on the Israeli-Lebanese conflict...

Many, many sources for this week's cartoon... check out:

• An Amnesty International report summarizing the war crimes committed or possibly being committed by both sides in the current Israeli-Lebanese conflict


• An article in Salon by Mitch Prothero, who claims that it is a "myth" that Hezbollah "hides among civilians," and says that Hezbollah actually avoids civilians for fear of betrayal (a claim that now seems to be wrong or outdated given the CNN footage of rockets being fired from behind an apartment complex -- which, of course, should not be an excuse for Israel to turn that building into rubble and kill everyone inside)


• Gideon Levy on the childish underlying motivations for this bloody war, such as rectifying "humiliation" and "restoring lost dignity"


• An extraordinary post by Juan Cole, who says that Israel's war on Lebanon has been planned for at least a year, with Rumsfeld's input, and that powerpoint presentations were being shown to right-wing DC think-tanks last year detailing a "Three Week War" that would happen during the summer (so as to minimize the possibility of protest demonstrations on university campuses in the U.S. and Europe)


• A speech given by Zbigniew Brzezinski, where he equates the Israelis' actions in this conflict to the "killing of hostages"


• Robert Parry on Israel's proud use of disproportionate force (quoting their ambassador to the U.N., who, when asked if Israel was overreacting, replied, "You're damn right we are")


• Joe Conason, Glenn Greenwald, and Michael Lerner on the "bloodthirsty" rhetoric used by neocon war advocates like William Kristol and Newt Gingrich, who've seized on these events to eagerly push for "World War III: War of Civilizations" (partly as a means of providing ex post facto justification for the failed war in Iraq)


• Robert Parry again on the possibility that the conflict will put the nuclear option back on the table with regards to a pre-emptive attack on Iran


• Frank Rich on the P.R. challenges that the conflict poses for the Bush administration, which, of course, has always been their sole concern


• An older Robert Parry article on Condi's propensity for justifying war crimes in the pursuit of grand, sweeping neocon foreign policy objectives


• Martin van Creveld on the Bush administration's Clausewitzian war philosophy

7/31/06 Cartoon

"War Crimes Club"...

While this one is a comment on everybody, here's an older one on Israel's propensity for disproportionate responses.