Whatever happened to wartime morale cartoons? [Archive]

Dan Porceddu

10-13-2006, 06:13 AM

I think it's simple- a lack of unity here in the states. I wholeheartedly support the idea but liberals in the media with verbal diarrhea would shoot them down

Who exactly are these devious liberals in the media that you speak of?

The lack of morale boosting cartoons today is due to a combination of factors. Feel free to decide which is the most prominent.
a.) The legitimacy of the war is being constantly being questioned, even increasingly within the Republican party;
b.) Cartoons are viewed as children's fodder, so no one at the large corporations would consider using them in patriotism-inspiring films;
c.) Cartoons are largely a global business, and with the expense and time required to produce a short, anything created would need to be accessible in as many markets as possible;
d.) Corporations would prefer to shy away from controversy, especially at a time when they are already seen as too cozy with the government.

J Lee

10-13-2006, 09:37 AM

Remember what happened during the aftermath of the first Gulf War in 1991 -- AMC Theaters worked out a deal with Warner Bros. to show classic Looney Tunes before the features at their theaters that summer, and one of those was the 1949 Bugs short "A Lad and His Lamp" which had absoultely nothing to do with war whatsoever. But with Bugs travelling to Baghdad and going up against a caliph (along with a sign for a used flying carpet dealer that said "Mad Man Hussein", audiences took it as a direct referrence to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

The cartoon got huge laughs from audiences who made the Bugs-Hussein connection (to go along with the, um, more risque meaning of Bugs calling the caliph "Beaver Puss"), but Warner Bros. ended up facing protests from Arab anti-defimation groups over the short (using Shaggy's voiceman, Casey Kasem, as their spokesperson). So any cartoon made today that did something similar would face the same problem.

Of course, if you don't care what the special interest groups think, you can do whatever you want. Matt and Trey over at "South Park" did the Bugs parody using Osama and Cartman in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and have enough leeway to do controversal stuff without getting the Viacom suits on their backs (except, apparently, for showing Mohammad's image) because they've been successful and their characters are supposed to be 21st Century edgy. Warners sees their characters as more child-friendly despite Bugs or Daffy's troublemaking pasts, and there's also no one in charge of the characters who has enough clout to get anything controversal made, other than the occassional DRx wall art designs in Hollywood.

Bartman

10-13-2006, 10:14 AM

Sogturtle

10-13-2006, 10:40 AM

To be perfectly blunt/honest, this country has been divided ever since the Vietnam war - a war in which we didn't belong. Granted the events of 9/11 united us for awhile, but it didn't last long - George W. made sure of that!!!

My only hope is that the next person who becomes our Commander-in-Chief doesn't have an IQ somewhere between a paperclip and an ashtray. Then again, paperclips and ashtrays are useful objects!!

You know Bart, that's REALLY unnecessarily nasty...:eek: The President happens to have degrees from both Harvard and Yale. How many of us can make that statement??

[And yes, both degrees were earned and his GPA was as high as that of John Kerry's].

Marty26

10-13-2006, 10:44 AM

Sogturtle

10-13-2006, 11:04 AM

Which is to say, "Not very high." :tweety:

Ummmm no... Neither President Bush or Senator Kerry is stupid by any means. Their grades were fine, probably higher than a good percent of any of ours in college.:)

Greg Method

10-13-2006, 11:55 AM

I'm not sure I would define a 2.35 GPA as "fine," unless Yale's standards were suddenly significantly dropped.

Bartman

10-13-2006, 12:20 PM

You know Bart, that's REALLY unnecessarily nasty...:eek: The President happens to have degrees from both Harvard and Yale. How many of us can make that statement??

[And yes, both degrees were earned and his GPA was as high as that of John Kerry's].

Personally, I feel my comment is not nasty enough - this man is a raving loon!! He should be impeached & deported to Iraq - they will LOVE him over there!

As for his degrees, there is a fine line between "book" smarts and "people" smarts - this man is certainly lacking in the latter!

He has brought this country to its knees.

J Lee

10-13-2006, 12:41 PM

Thad

10-13-2006, 02:07 PM

Plus, a lot of today's cartoons are animated in countries where the animators are seriously underpaid, so do you think they'd want to work on American propaganda?

Greg Method

10-13-2006, 02:46 PM

Plus, a lot of today's cartoons are animated in countries where the animators are seriously underpaid, so do you think they'd want to work on American propaganda?
Good point. Wow, now I'm imagining a parody of "Der Fuehrer's Face."

Chow Hound

10-13-2006, 03:05 PM

He has brought this country to its knees.No, the New York Times (and their fellow travelers in the MSM) has done that.

Geezil

10-13-2006, 03:18 PM

No, the New York Times (and their fellow travelers in the MSM) has done that.

"Fellow travelers"? Didn't you mean "card-carrying fellow travelers"? :rolleyes:

Just my opinion, but this thread is getting much too ugly, far too fast.

merc

10-13-2006, 03:32 PM

[QUOTE=wackyoverkhaki]Where’s :bugs2: , Betty Grable, and Bob Hope when you need ‘em? We can have :bugs2: and SpongeBob & Sandy kickin’ terrorist butt! And the terrorists can have buckteeth and glasses;) lol. And cartoon pinups:red: :sowhite: !

Today's Hollywood equivalents are too busy standing up and appearing with our enemies to boost the morale of our people. The peaceful protestors of the sixties have been replaced with storm troopers that would burn down the theater if you tried to exhibit "propaganda" of that nature. Antiwar today does not mean peaceful.

Sogturtle

10-13-2006, 03:35 PM

Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist and ex-New York Times reporter Molly Ivins actually got the "Bush is an idiot" ball rolling because she was extremely disgruntled that her good friend, the late Texas Gov. Ann Richards, was defeated by Bush in the 1994 gubernatorial election. Since Molly still had close ties to NYC media people, her version became the de facto view of Bush by his opponents (She also coined the term "Shrub" for him, just as a trivia note).

I could go into a few more things about Texas politics in the 1990s and how it led to a great deal about Bush's image today, but this thread is already veering far enough off topic and I'd rather not see it shut down, so I'll leave it at that.

John and all~

Molly Ivins?!?! Molly Ivins?!?!? :daffy: That's the woman my teeny mother burns in effigy every day:D.
(For wicked giggles I interrupted her talking to a friend just to mutter the words "Molly Ivins" to her;), and promptly watched her go into a mini-tirade against the varmint!:p:D:daffy:.

Thad~

And yeah, the foreign animators would do any work sent to them. Remember, "green covers a lot of dislike".:bugs2:

Geezil~

Hey, this turtle is trying his best to be pleasant.:)

Tom Stathes

10-13-2006, 03:40 PM

No, the New York Times (and their fellow travelers in the MSM) has done that.
Or as Michael Savage calls it, the Olde York Times ;)
It'd be interesting to see what happens if we back out of what has already been done. Oh wait, no, I wouldn't :eek:
On a more serious note I would be less worried if there were no nuclear weapons in the world. These political and social squabbles go back to the beginning of civilization excepting the fact that man has now created methods of significantly destroying this planet.
The truth is we cannot go back and undo the situation we're in. We just sure as hell have to come out of it after a point when large-scale retaliation would be impossible for the enemy.
As for Bushy ol' boy, bashing him is getting old and cliche. It's amazing so much attention isn't focused on eliminating actual tyrants and dictators.

Sogturtle

10-13-2006, 03:52 PM

Or as Michael Savage calls it, the Olde York Times ;)
It'd be interesting to see what happens if we back out of what has already been done. Oh wait, no, I wouldn't :eek:
On a more serious note I would be less worried if there were no nuclear weapons in the world. These political and social squabbles go back to the beginning of civilization excepting the fact that man has now created methods of significantly destroying this planet.
The truth is we cannot go back and undo the situation we're in. We just sure as hell have to come out of it after a point when large-scale retaliation would be impossible for the enemy.
As for Bushy ol' boy, bashing him is getting old and cliche. It's amazing so much attention isn't focused on eliminating actual tyrants and dictators.

Tom~

...Orrrrrr in worrying that the government of nuclear-armed Pakistan will indeed fall in the not too distant future to radical-Muslims... (There is strong speculation to this effect).

Just imagine a scenario of where India is suddenly thrust into the role of having to save itself (and much of the Middle-East) by employing ITS nuclear weapons against Pakistan. Strange thing to speculate on...:eek::confused:

....And then there's North Korea equipped with home-grown nukes and ICBMs aimed at whom???:eek::eek::eek::eek: (Yeah we've been such a threat to North Korea and its bloomin' looney father and son dictators:rolleyes: ).

....Or we have dangerously radical Iran working on nukes at a breakneck speed, to aim at who??:eek:

Hmmmm... And so, it DOES indeed seem that the 'axis of evil' really does exist, and MAY be planning some not-so-pleasant things for pretty much every one of us...

Dan Porceddu

10-13-2006, 04:39 PM

As for Bushy ol' boy, bashing him is getting old and cliche. It's amazing so much attention isn't focused on eliminating actual tyrants and dictators.

Many points would be appropriate here. Depending on your views, some may believe that America should not be in the place of eliminating tyrants and dictators (well, the ones that we don't like, anyway) and policing the world with a rapidly dwindling group of allies.

As for any supposed totalitarian leanings this current President may have, the suspension of habeus corpeus in the recently passed torture legislation is a good fit, as well as the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping of American citizens, which Bush says are absolutely vital to national security, but refuses to get a warrant for. Which is inexcusable, by the way, given how lenient our wiretapping laws are to begin with; he can get the warrant four days after the wiretap was performed. Since this apparently isn't good enough, we can only conclude that he's wiretapping people he shouldn't be wiretapping. And then, of course, there's the NSA database of phone calls; no content of the calls is being recorded, apparently, but the database includes the caller, who is being called, and the duration of the conversation, supplied by none other than three of America's largest telephone service providers. What exactly does the government need this information for? They won't say, other than it's "vital to national security." George W. Bush even authorized the companies that complied with the requests to lie about it. And of course, there's the PATRIOT Act, a lovely law which, among other things, gives the government permission to search through your library records.

Is it close to a Middle Eastern dictator or tyrant? No. But it is cause for concern. With the War on Terror's end seemingly nowhere in sight, how much longer do you think these programs will last? For all we know, we've only scratched the surface. There could be all sorts of other programs that are constitutionally questionable or violate civil liberties that haven't been leaked by the media yet.

Dan Porceddu

10-13-2006, 04:41 PM

No, the New York Times (and their fellow travelers in the MSM) has done that.
I am interested in how you can conclude that the actions of a newspaper can bring a country to its knees. What exactly have they done; leaked a few classified Bush programs? Frankly, I don't think anyone over at the New York Times wants to help the terrorists as you seem to be insinuating.

Sogturtle

10-13-2006, 05:14 PM

Many points would be appropriate here. Depending on your views, some may believe that America should not be in the place of eliminating tyrants and dictators (well, the ones that we don't like, anyway) and policing the world with a rapidly dwindling group of allies.

As for any supposed totalitarian leanings this current President may have, the suspension of habeus corpeus in the recently passed torture legislation is a good fit, as well as the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping of American citizens, which Bush says are absolutely vital to national security, but refuses to get a warrant for. Which is inexcusable, by the way, given how lenient our wiretapping laws are to begin with; he can get the warrant four days after the wiretap was performed. Since this apparently isn't good enough, we can only conclude that he's wiretapping people he shouldn't be wiretapping. And then, of course, there's the NSA database of phone calls; no content of the calls is being recorded, apparently, but the database includes the caller, who is being called, and the duration of the conversation, supplied by none other than three of America's largest telephone service providers. What exactly does the government need this information for? They won't say, other than it's "vital to national security." George W. Bush even authorized the companies that complied with the requests to lie about it. And of course, there's the PATRIOT Act, a lovely law which, among other things, gives the government permission to search through your library records.

Is it close to a Middle Eastern dictator or tyrant? No. But it is cause for concern. With the War on Terror's end seemingly nowhere in sight, how much longer do you think these programs will last? For all we know, we've only scratched the surface. There could be all sorts of other programs that are constitutionally questionable or violate civil liberties that haven't been leaked by the media yet.

Dan~

Saying this authentically with all due respect.:)

I would personally suggest that EVERYONE check out the actions of most everyone's favorite President, Abraham Lincoln, who during the course of the Civil War took some of the very same actions:eek:. Yes indeed, "the Great Emancipator" did it... Oh, except tapping phone-calls;) That was a little bit difficult back then:daffy: (Bell hadn't even daydreamed the phone yet).:p

Dan Porceddu

10-13-2006, 05:18 PM

A good point, Sogturtle, which I'm glad you brought up, except to say that Lincoln is not my favorite President for that very reason. :shame: I would have been very opposed to certain actions of his, particularly imprisoning newspaper editors who were critical of him.

That being said, and not in any way to defend Lincoln's actions here, there is a clear difference between what was going on then and what's going on now in that terrorism will always exist, so any suspension of civil liberties performed now is not really temporary.

Thad

10-13-2006, 05:47 PM

Thad~

And yeah, the foreign animators would do any work sent to them. Remember, "green covers a lot of dislike".:bugs2:

No it doesn't. The Korean studio Rough Draft refused to finish John K's Yogi Bear cartoon due to a ton of abuse he handed them. (This was back when he actually paid suppliers.)

cabe624

10-13-2006, 06:40 PM

...Since this apparently isn't good enough, we can only conclude that he's wiretapping people he shouldn't be wiretapping.
I don’t know, personally I have no reason to be concerned about wiretapping, because I'm not doing anything wrong. I am concerned about the possibility of being attacked again, and if wiretapping can prevent that then I'm all for it. The August 10th bust of terrorists planning a trans-atlantic airliner attack where no doubt foiled by at least some type of government surveillance. I've also yet to hear of a case where a person was arrested or was somehow wronged by having their library records accessed...:confused:

Dan Porceddu

10-13-2006, 06:46 PM

I don’t know, personally I have no reason to be concerned about wiretapping, because I'm not doing anything wrong.

The Bush administration is free to perform wiretaps on suspects through a perfectly legal process using FISA, which was set up by Congress in the 1970s and allows the executive branch to obtain a warrant up to four days after the wiretap is performed. Bush won't explain why he has to continue circumventing this process. Regular, ordinary citizens could be wiretapped and not even know it. So if you're not doing anything wrong, we may as well set up video cameras in everyone's houses, as well, since only wrongdoers will have anything to worry about.

Sogturtle

10-13-2006, 07:03 PM

No it doesn't. The Korean studio Rough Draft refused to finish John K's Yogi Bear cartoon due to a ton of abuse he handed them. (This was back when he actually paid suppliers.)

A good point, Sogturtle, which I'm glad you brought up, except to say that Lincoln is not my favorite President for that very reason. :shame: I would have been very opposed to certain actions of his, particularly imprisoning newspaper editors who were critical of him.

That being said, and not in any way to defend Lincoln's actions here, there is a clear difference between what was going on then and what's going on now in that terrorism will always exist, so any suspension of civil liberties performed now is not really temporary.

Okay Thad, I stand corrected! I'll amend my thinking and statement to "...the foreign animators would do any ALMOST work sent to them. ...That is until the director gets to be completely abusive and/or obnoxious". But I'm a-stickin' with my quote "Remember, green covers a lot of dislike":D.

Dan and all~

I was speaking generally, that Lincoln is most people's favorite president:). [He's not my brother's favorite either;)].

The truth is that being President during ANY time of war or national conflict is extremely difficult for the man in office. As a nationality we are guilty of not half-understanding the challenges that face our leaders or even trying, and journalists are the worst offenders. And we as a people criticize to death!! The asinine modern public-opinion polls are always meant to mold our thinking, NOT reflect it. As such we stand guilty of being possibly the most gullible and sheeplike of any people on earth. Iffff we "heard, read or saw it in the media about the government then it must be true":rolleyes:. And "HEY, the AOL-USA Today poll said that 62% of Americans believe this, so I better get in line with that. Don't want people to think I'm not like them".:rolleyes:

As such I am (or have become) quite sympathetic and understanding of the measures that Presidents have to resort to in times of war or national emergency:). Not just Lincoln, but the presidents during the Indian wars (and I'm part Indian), even FDR (despite his abuse of power pre-WWII) I can understand. As such President Bush's terrorism/war-related actions are very minor and honestly of virtually no effect on the vast bulk of Americans. Unless of course someone happens to be phoning overseas terrorists:eek:.

And to be fair, President Bush has been very good NOT to invoke the incredible powers that invoking FEMA on a national basis would create. Think total dictatorship for as long as "needed" :eek::eek::eek: (and that lovely thing was written by a Democratic Congress).

Once upon a long ago;) I was a journalism student:eek:. At the time I was appalled to discover that American journalism believes that it is utterly necessary for it to be NOT just totally independent, but confrontational and antagonistic to the government. Yes indeed, that's what they were TEACHING us all to be when we got out... Confrontational and antagonistic to politicians... Except that is, to Democratic officials (my professor was not only a former journalist, but was a former press [under-] secretary in a Democratic administration).

janiepooh34

10-13-2006, 09:54 PM

Where’s :bugs2: , Betty Grable, and Bob Hope when you need ‘em? We can have :bugs2: and SpongeBob & Sandy kickin’ terrorist butt! And the terrorists can have buckteeth and glasses;) lol. And cartoon pinups:red: :sowhite: !

Ok, I’ll admit unlike WWII I’m not very fond of this war, but the folks over their still need our support and morale-boosting, which there obviously hasn’t been enough of; it’s pretty disappointing. And with all the $ being poured into this war, you'd think there'd be enough money to make quality toons like that.

Let's see, how can I put this...today, showing any support for anything opens you up to being called some type of racist, biggot or being politically incorrect. No one wants to take the chance and openly support our troops anymore. See, if we support our troops, we must be anti-something, and that is "wrong." Things like what happened during WWII will never happen again.

Tom Stathes

10-13-2006, 10:31 PM

Let's see, how can I put this...today, showing any support for anything opens you up to being called some type of racist, biggot or being politically incorrect. No one wants to take the chance and openly support our troops anymore. See, if we support our troops, we must be anti-something, and that is "wrong." Things like what happened during WWII will never happen again.
I couldn't have said that better myself. :o
You're pretty much correct when it comes to supporting any idea or tradition that would typically fall on the middle to right side of the political spectrum.
It's unpopular. But how? If one is made to feel like some sort of criminal for having rightist ideals, where's the democracy in that?
Regarding race as cited in your post,
Last night I watched a show on PBS called "A Walk Through Queens" (the area I live in.) An Asian woman was speaking a poem she had written, part of it stating how [she? everyone?] hoped that some "white boys" would not bother the three Asian boys reading Nintendo magazines they were peering at.
Somehow, this airs on member-supported television...but if the tables were turned and a white person was reading a similar kind of poem (say, fearing a non-white race of peoples), you and I know that heads would be rolling.
What's wrong with this country? :mad:

Dan Porceddu

10-13-2006, 10:54 PM

You're pretty much correct when it comes to supporting any idea or tradition that would typically fall on the middle to right side of the political spectrum.
It's unpopular. But how? If one is made to feel like some sort of criminal for having rightist ideals, where's the democracy in that?

Actually, the right to hold unpopular opinions is the cornerstone of democracy. What exactly are you so upset about? Who is making you feel like a "criminal"?

It's not "politically incorrect" to hold positions that are conservative. Perhaps you didn't notice that the Republicans won the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004? If anything, they hold a slight edge in a highly polarized environment. The only reason they stand a chance of losing this year is because of their own mistakes.

In regards to your earlier statement that the media should stop, as you seem to see it, villifying Bush...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
— Theodore Roosevelt

Dan Porceddu

10-13-2006, 10:57 PM

J. J. Hunsecker

10-14-2006, 02:03 AM

Dan Porceddu,

Your comments are sensible, balanced, cogent and humane -- and those are the very reasons that people are arguing with you. Good luck trying to persuade people about the importance of our civil rights when they give in to emotion rather than reason.

***

Also, The New York Times' Judith Miller (www.slate.com/id/2086110)was a lackey for the White House's false claims regarding WMDs. So much for the "liberal media". (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/04/lapdogs/index_np.html)
The main reasons the current Iraq war (or rather occupation, since "Major combat operations have ended") is unpopular is because it was poorly planned and mismananged (with Haliburton unable to account for over $8 billion in missing funds (http://colgene.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=131895)), plus the reasons for starting the war were faulty to begin with.

The people to blame for this quagmire are President Bush, VP Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice, not the media or war protesters.

Robert Paulson

10-14-2006, 03:06 AM

You know Bart, that's REALLY unnecessarily nasty...:eek: The President happens to have degrees from both Harvard and Yale. How many of us can make that statement??
How many of us can make the following statement: 'My father is a former President of the United States of America'?

Junior's academic 'achievements' have everything to do with his family's position at the height of society. Sadly, most of us don't have that privilege.

Robert Paulson

10-14-2006, 03:17 AM

Or as Michael Savage calls it, the Olde York Times ;)
Hilarious! Nothing like conservative wit to get me rolling. Instead of the New York Times, it's the Olde York Times! LOL!

As for Bushy ol' boy, bashing him is getting old and cliche. It's amazing so much attention isn't focused on eliminating actual tyrants and dictators.
I must admit that this statement is slightly confusing. Are you arguing that criticism of Bush is unproductive, because he isn't the worst leader in the world?

If that's the best that can be said for him, there is something very wrong.

Bartman

10-14-2006, 12:21 PM

Dan Porceddu,

The people to blame for this quagmire are President Bush, VP Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice, not the media or war protesters.

THANK YOU, J.J. - THANK YOU!

Somebody out there is able to see this whole debacle for what it is!

Even my 80-yr old parents, the staunchest Republicans I know, are totally put off by the Bush administration and their foul-ups!!

Let's lay the blame where it belongs, OK?? Right on the White House steps!! Then again, George W. might trip over it, like he does with his words!!

Thad

10-14-2006, 12:22 PM

Dan Porceddu,

Your comments are sensible, balanced, cogent and humane -- and those are the very reasons that people are arguing with you. Good luck trying to persuade people about the importance of our civil rights when they give in to emotion rather than reason.

***

Also, The New York Times' Judith Miller (http://www.slate.com/id/2086110)was a lackey for the White House's false claims regarding WMDs. So much for the "liberal media". (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/04/lapdogs/index_np.html)
The main reasons the current Iraq war (or rather occupation, since "Major combat operations have ended") is unpopular is because it was poorly planned and mismananged (with Haliburton unable to account for over $8 billion in missing funds (http://colgene.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=131895)), plus the reasons for starting the war were faulty to begin with.

The people to blame for this quagmire are President Bush, VP Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice, not the media or war protesters.

A-Friggin'-Men!

That 70s Mom

10-14-2006, 04:27 PM

And this, folks, is why studios have figured out that people won't pay $9.50 to watch an "up with war" cartoon. :tweety:

Toonami

10-14-2006, 10:31 PM

Trey and Matt are the only ones doing proper wartime cartoons. Family Guy, The Simpsons and their ilk resort to cheap shots. South Park is the new Looney Tunes when it comes to wartime issues.

That Bugs Bunny tribute was BRILLIANT. Did anyone see theire 9/11 conspiracy conspiracy episode? It's on youtube. Search for "Mystery of the urinal deuce"

Cartman

10-14-2006, 11:05 PM

Trey and Matt are the only ones doing proper wartime cartoons. Family Guy, The Simpsons and their ilk resort to cheap shots. South Park is the new Looney Tunes when it comes to wartime issues.

If I recall, there was a scene of Osama Bin Laden in the "Family Guy" episode "Road to Rhode Island," which was cut on CN (but is available on a DVD release).

Chow Hound

10-16-2006, 09:24 AM

I am interested in how you can conclude that the actions of a newspaper can bring a country to its knees. What exactly have they done; leaked a few classified Bush programs? Frankly, I don't think anyone over at the New York Times wants to help the terrorists as you seem to be insinuating.

No disrespect intended, but leaking "a few" classified programs is no small matter, especially when the ones they've leaked happen to be among the most effective methods of stopping terrorists we have (as evidenced by the foiling of the London-based terrorist cell's plot). There was a time when exposing just one classified program in time of war was enough to get you tried for treason, and rightly so. The newspaper can bring a country to its knees (and is doing it) by alerting the country's enemies to the methods the government is using to pre-empt their terror attacks (it has done this at least twice now, the money tracking program and the wire-tapping), by pointing out how best to penetrate the body armor our troops wear, by constantly comparing the current war with Vietnam (why not compare it to WWII, where the motivations of the aggressors are identical) and by giving constant coverage to all the bad happening in Iraq and none of the good (instead of giving huge coverage of the number of U.S. soldiers who have died and minimal coverage of the number of terrorists they've killed, why not the other way around). This constant favoring of the country's enemies over it's own government eventually influences those who have only one source for their news, the mainstream media, and who don't bother (or don't have the time) to seek out other sources on their own. The people running the Times either know the influece they have and how to use it and are willingly aiding and abetting the enemy, or they are completely ignorant of the effect their coverage of the war has (and I don't think they're that stupid).

Uncle Pecos

10-16-2006, 10:58 AM

Leaking "a few" classified programs is no small matter, especially when the ones they've leaked happen to be among the most effective methods of stopping terrorists we have (as evidenced by the foiling of the London-based terrorist cell's plot).I really don't want to get into what I feel has been an unnecessarily ugly debate. But I do feel the need to correct what I believe is misinformation.
Regardless of whether one supports the leaked programs, they were not what stopped the recent UK terrorist plot.
Evidence is here (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-surveillance-not-illegal.html), in a piece that also clarifies how a lot of lefties feel about fighting terrorists (no surprise: they're for it!). You'll have to forgive the snarky tone—at least I can say in all honesty that it's no snarkier than a lot of right-wing writing.

gdX

10-16-2006, 01:49 PM

how a lot of lefties feel about fighting terrorists (no surprise: they're for it!)This doesn't get said enough, amid all the shouting and finger-pointing.

I guess we GAC-ers are to be commended for talking out this highly-charged subject to 5 pages without a lock put in place.

You won't find a bigger Snafu fan than me, but that was a different time and a different place... there's something kinda corporate and creepy about a govt-sanctioned big-studio cartoon used to promote anything in 2006... meanwhile, the way maverick South Park occasionally addresses the issues seems entirely appropriate.

I'll spare you all my little laundry list of what's wrong and how to fix it, as I would surely offend everybody... there are root causes at work, and I'd be all too happy to erase them.

Chow Hound

10-16-2006, 01:57 PM

But I do feel the need to correct what I believe is misinformation.
Regardless of whether one supports the leaked programs, they were not what stopped the recent UK terrorist plot.

No, it's not misinformation. The legality or illegality of the wire-tapping has no bearing on the fact that wire-tapping has been proven to stop terrorist attacks. Leaking the program does the same damage to counter-terrorism efforts regardless of the nature of the wire-tapping. Terrorists the world over are now going to be far more cautious about their communication methods, making it much more difficult to stop them with any kind of wire-tapping, legal or otherwise, thanks to the NY Times.

gdX

10-16-2006, 03:07 PM

It's not like terrorists had no concept of wiretapping... they knew sooner or later we'd catch on and take countermeasures, at which point they'd re-org and go further underground as needed... they're not dumb.

I know that in a wartime situation that some measures need to be taken, and that we can't be privy to all of them... but at the same time it's necessary to have some information, so we can at least vote some preferences as to direction... maybe if certain information had been more forthcoming, going into Iraq would not have been necessary after all, and resources could have been better directed elsewhere to eliminate terrorists.

After living through some nine presidencies, I can't just give carte blanche to any administration anymore... I have to at least make a vote known, and I can't do that responsibly unless I'm informed.

:sailor:

Chow Hound

10-16-2006, 05:08 PM

It's not like terrorists had no concept of wiretapping... they knew sooner or later we'd catch on and take countermeasures, at which point they'd re-org and go further underground as needed... they're not dumb.

Apparently the ones in London didn't. There's a big difference between suspecting your enemy is going to do something, and having solid information that they are doing it. If you only suspect, you don't throw as many resources at the potential problem and don't treat it as seriously as if you know for certain. If you know your calls are being listened in on, you do everything it takes to find another method of communication no matter the cost.

I know that in a wartime situation that some measures need to be taken, and that we can't be privy to all of them... but at the same time it's necessary to have some information, so we can at least vote some preferences as to direction... maybe if certain information had been more forthcoming, going into Iraq would not have been necessary after all, and resources could have been better directed elsewhere to eliminate terrorists.

After living through some nine presidencies, I can't just give carte blanche to any administration anymore... I have to at least make a vote known, and I can't do that responsibly unless I'm informed.

:sailor:2 problems with that: the first is that it grinds us to a halt. You can't possibly vote on even just the direction of every policy every branch of government is implementing to defend us in this war in any kind of reasonable time frame. We would be paralyzed. That's why we elect leaders to to the day-to-day work of running (and defending) the country. We hope they follow the path we want them to. The second problem is that as soon as you give away even some information on secret measures you're going to use to thwart the enemy, it's sometimes enough to tip them off as to the nature of the measures, so they are no longer completely secret and therefore ineffective no matter the outcome of the vote.

wackyoverkhaki

10-16-2006, 05:27 PM

I think it's simple- a lack of unity here in the states. I wholeheartedly support the idea but liberals in the media with verbal diarrhea would shoot them down (like they should be doing to the enemy...)
I'm not fond of any type of war but with less and less unity [in general] this country won't be able to achieve major goals.
During WWII, all members of the family participated towards the war effort in some way. I don't need to detail the specifics. Today? That would happen only in a dream. Oh, and we didn't lose WWII either and one can only wonder why :rolleyes:

Yeah I know it's so tragic and pathetic. It's making us weak. We need to grow up and get our butts back in line. It's so sad that we can't be a country of moderates, instead we're half one extreme and half another extreme. As I tell people, I don't care whose side you're on, if you're in extremist, you're wrong. Plain and simple.

gdX

10-16-2006, 05:37 PM

You can't possibly vote on even just the direction of every policy every branch of government
And I wouldn't propose to.

I'm sure a great deal of effort is made in several areas that we will never know about, and it's just as well... it's a difficult time.

But I can't just stand here and holler 'hooray for everything'... not when moves are made that are obviously questionable (to what seems like about 60% of the populace currently).

I still want my government as accountable as possible, without tipping our hand – they work for me.

Maybe it boils down to whether the current players are trustworthy and/or capable, and this is where differences of opinion show up... even without a wartime situation or a terrorist threat, I'm not confident in this bunch... even if there's a thorough change of hands in '08, what's been left behind will be difficult to unravel.

No easy answers, ever.

Hey, isn't this a Porky 'n' Daffy forum?

:bosko:

Chow Hound

10-16-2006, 06:28 PM

But I can't just stand here and holler 'hooray for everything'... not when moves are made that are obviously questionable (to what seems like about 60% of the populace currently).
And I wouldn't expect everyone too, but I do expect the majority of the media to not holler 'boo for everything' as they are currently doing. That just gives comfort to the enemy.

I'm not confident in this bunch... even if there's a thorough change of hands in '08, what's been left behind will be difficult to unravel.

No easy answers, ever.
I'm not all that confident in them either, I just wish there were a major opposition party that would put up some reasonable alternatives. I'm sick of voting for the least horrific candidate, but I will if I have no other decent choices.

Fibber Fox

10-16-2006, 08:17 PM

Anyone going to talk about wartime morale cartoons here again?

FF

cabe624

10-16-2006, 10:18 PM

So if you're not doing anything wrong, we may as well set up video cameras in everyone's houses, as well, since only wrongdoers will have anything to worry about. I can't quite agree with that slippery slope argument. I really can't see how wiretapping would lead to the government setting up video cameras in our houses. In theory, that seems like a logical conclusion, but in actuality the American public would never let that happen. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I respect your informed opinion. :)

I will concede to you however that the Patriot Act has a lot of provisions in it that are disturbing and infringe on our civil liberties. It also bothers me that many of our paid representatives didn't even bother to read the whole thing. However, I don't think the government has the time or the resources to wiretap every American; they only go after red flags, which is why I'm not worried. Personally, I believe our individual rights need to be infringed upon in a time of war to combat an enemy that wears no uniform and is operating within our own borders. The fact that many Americans live their lives completely oblivious to the current conflict in Iraq is irrelevant to me.

President Bush overstepping FISA is a mistake in only that it espouses questions from people who already hate him and think that everything he does has some sort of malicious intent behind it.

Dan Porceddu

10-17-2006, 03:10 AM

President Bush overstepping FISA is a mistake in only that it espouses questions from people who already hate him and think that everything he does has some sort of malicious intent behind it.

Well, most of the concern lies on the fact that the current FISA law is really lenient enough for all intents and purposes in fighting terrorism. Bush is trying to make this look like leftists oppose wiretapping terrorists, when in reality they just want him to get a warrant. If he were willing to obey the law, very few would be suspicious or upset, nor would there have been any talk of censure in the Senate.

As I tell people, I don't care whose side you're on, if you're in extremist, you're wrong. Plain and simple.

Sometimes an "extreme" position is the correct one. The definition of political extremity shifts over time as people's beliefs and values change; in the 1850s, for example, tolerating interracial marriages or viewing all people as equal (regardless of one's view on slavery abolition) would have been an "extreme" position.

Chow Hound

10-17-2006, 01:09 PM

Well, most of the concern lies on the fact that the current FISA law is really lenient enough for all intents and purposes in fighting terrorism. Bush is trying to make this look like leftists oppose wiretapping terrorists, when in reality they just want him to get a warrant. If he were willing to obey the law, very few would be suspicious or upset, nor would there have been any talk of censure in the Senate.

The problem with that course of action could be that President Bush fears that revealing enough info to get a warrant will likely make the source of that info apparent. That would be fine if the information he used for the warrant would not go any farther, but recent leaks have shown that he can't be sure his information sources won't be compromised. Just speculation as we can't (and probably shouldn't) know everything going on behind the scenes.

wackyoverkhaki

10-18-2006, 05:06 AM

Sometimes an "extreme" position is the correct one. The definition of political extremity shifts over time as people's beliefs and values change; in the 1850s, for example, tolerating interracial marriages or viewing all people as equal (regardless of one's view on slavery abolition) would have been an "extreme" position.

Yeah, but you see, I don't believe in moral relativity- I believe morals are timeless, regardless of what is popular or accepted in a society for their own convenience. I believe our country at the moment is too far too the left whereas the Middle East is too far too the right. Moral anarchy...fascism. Both are bad. I'll give you a simplified example of one of my moderate views. For instance, I believe birth control should be available to married people and rape victims. A too leftist extreme would be to allow it to everyone and a too rightist extreme would be to deny it to everyone. Not that I want to get into a discussion/debate on birth control, just giving an example.

And was it really the abolitionists that were extremists, or the majority? Counterculture does not necessarily mean extremism. Counterculture can be good or bad. MLK=reasonable progressive counterculture; hippies=not so much; look what problems "free love" and parent rebellion has caused. Too bad an American revolution spawned from the latter instead of the former.

wackyoverkhaki

10-18-2006, 05:07 AM

Anyone going to talk about wartime morale cartoons here again?

FF

Heyyyy... you're right. We've gotten too carried away here. Back to toons!:)

Dan Porceddu

10-18-2006, 05:29 AM

For instance, I believe birth control should be available to married people and rape victims.

Actually, this is not a moderate position. Restricting the availability of birth control for unmarried persons (assumably as an attempt at cutting down on pre-marital sex) is not advocated by any political force with any power whatsoever. I'm curious though as to how your proposal would work. Would pharmacies be required to do a background check on someone before selling them contraceptives? How lenient a definition of rape would you allow? BTW, birth control is useless for a rape victim unless you are referring to the morning-after pill.

And was it really the abolitionists that were extremists, or the majority?

At one point, being an abolitionist would have been an extremist position. Abraham Lincoln once said that he did not believe black persons to be at all equal with white people, and that he opposed inter-racial relationships. This would be an extremist position today, but a mainstream one in 1856.

The fact that you believe morals are not relative just makes your aversion to extremism all the more puzzling. What makes someone "extremist" changes constantly. If you do not think morals are relative, then the correct position never changes -- yet you refuse to hold an "extremist" position, even if it is the correct one.

janiepooh34

10-18-2006, 10:44 AM

For instance, I believe birth control should be available to married people and rape victims.

Seeing as that you are a 20 year old woman; I think that if you believe this to be right for you, fine, but you are in no place to make that decision for other women. (Just as I am in no place to make the decision for any other woman either.) What next? A push to have women's suffrage repealed?

Wartime cartoons? Anyone?

cpdavison

10-18-2006, 11:20 AM

Wartime cartoons? Anyone?

Well, Tim probably has the encyclopedic knowledge on this subject, but the brothers Warner were deeply committed to exposing and fighting the Nazi threat early on. Their distributor in Germany was dragged out of his office and killed for being a Jew (if I recall correctly).

It's quite understandable, then, why the Warners' release schedule was so full of WWII themed, morale-building subjects!

The Korean War (Conflict? Police Action?) did not seem to engender any similar such morale-building cartoons. Or did it? "Foward March Hare" maybe?

South Park responded to 9/11 with a pretty dandy episode that quoted quite a few WB conventions. Have there been any others?

Mr. Semaj

10-18-2006, 01:02 PM

From what little I've read so far, what I can say is that the reason why we have no morale-building cartoons in response to the war on terrorism is that, in these enlightened times, after we supposedly settled the main world conflicts with the Cold War and supposedly came to terms with our own internal prejudices, people are just sick to death of war.

We've been having problems with President Bush even before the war started, but how many of us were old enough to vote in 2000? When it's to the point where half the nation can't trust the goings-on at Capital Hill, then that gives the other nations who now want to kill the lot of us more of a warrant than us trying to reform nations that not only have little to nothing to do with the original 9/11 attacks, but we have no business trying to fix in the first place, not to mention the neglect and rising costs of our own domestic problems.

There is no morale in this war. The goverment is simply out for world domination, a mere continuation of the Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine that were implemented thru the 19th century. In the eyes of the Middle East, WE are the evil ones, and having a stubborn, if not incompetent leader doesn't help.

wackyoverkhaki

10-18-2006, 08:28 PM

But then, the hippies stood for some very good values as well such as peace and environmental ethics. Speaking of which, I think some of us have gotten too angry and self-righteous, myself included. This is supposed to be a cartoon forum, remember?

I just remembered something. In addition to South Park, I remember seeing this one SNL sketch where they did acknowledge the notion of modern wartime cartoons and it featured SpongeBob! Of course, it didn't work out with SpongeBob being the peaceful little dude he is. Did anyone see it?

cpdavison

10-19-2006, 07:47 AM

I just remembered something. In addition to South Park, I remember seeing this one SNL sketch where they did acknowledge the notion of modern wartime cartoons and it featured SpongeBob! Of course, it didn't work out with SpongeBob being the peaceful little dude he is. Did anyone see it?

Was that the one that had an ersatz Bugs Bunny WWII clip in it? I saw something like that on YouTube a while back...

Craig D.

Matthew Hunter

10-19-2006, 11:16 PM

I think the main reason for no "morale boosting" cartoons is that the media outlets who would produce them now are no longer American, they're global. They're scared to death of taking a stand for any cause, because every person offended is a dollar lost, and in some cases a LOT of dollars lost.

As for the political chaos surrounding the war going on now, all I can make of it is this: both sides are making great points, and neither side will listen to the other...so their points fall on deaf ears.

Regardless of what you may think of President Bush, he's trying to lead a country that has lost its identity. Some people say we should fight the terrorists, some people say we should be pacifists. What is a leader supposed to do with that? Ultimately, the outcome of this war can't be blamed on the President or even the government as a whole...win or lose, it all depends on how well the country supports the effort. I know one thing...I'd rather win, because I don't like the idea of terrorists being free to roam about the world and use our country for target practice! :bugs2:

J. J. Hunsecker

10-20-2006, 01:56 AM

Regardless of what you may think of President Bush, he's trying to lead a country that has lost its identity. Some people say we should fight the terrorists, some people say we should be pacifists. What is a leader supposed to do with that? Ultimately, the outcome of this war can't be blamed on the President or even the government as a whole...win or lose, it all depends on how well the country supports the effort. I know one thing...I'd rather win, because I don't like the idea of terrorists being free to roam about the world and use our country for target practice! :bugs2:
I would support President Bush, too, if he actually fought terrorists. Unfortunately, he decided to invade Iraq -- a country that had no ties to al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden (you know, the people actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks). I supported the war in Afghanistan to get bin Laden and al Qaeda leaders. But our government never finished the job there and let bin Laden escape. When asked about bin Laden President Bush once answered, "I'm not really concerned about him." So the President doesn't care about catching the man resposible for the deaths of over 3 thousand Americans. He'd rather go after the man who once threatened his daddy.

J. J. Hunsecker

10-20-2006, 02:05 AM

Anyone going to talk about wartime morale cartoons here again?

FF

If you're talking about modern day war cartoons, how could one be made? We're not technically at war anymore. The Iraq war ended (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/bush_05-01-03.html)in spring of 2003. You'd have to create cartoons about the rebuilding of Iraq and the insurgency if you wanted to make cartoons about the "war on terror" today.

J. J. Hunsecker

10-20-2006, 02:08 AM

The U.S. government wouldn't fund Private SNAFU type cartoons today. They would give the contracts to Haliburton, who would then charge the government a billion dollars for cartoons that would be created with Flash on low rez.

J. J. Hunsecker

10-20-2006, 02:37 AM

...I do expect the majority of the media to not holler 'boo for everything' as they are currently doing. That just gives comfort to the enemy.

The media has been very compliant to George W.'s wishes. The majority of the media cheerled for the Iraqi war (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842).

And if that wasn't enough the Bush administration paid journalist to promote their programs, such as Armstrong Williams. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm) And Maggie Gallagher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36545-2005Jan25.html) And 10 journatlist for anti-Castro reports. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/washington/09cuba.html?ex=1315454400&en=c781b60b4cf50258&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) And yet more here. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/26/politics/main669432.shtml)

And if being a figurative wh*re for Bush wasn't enough, the GOP hired an actual gay prostitute (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?storyid=2952), Jeff Gannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon)(AKA Jame D. Guckert) to pose as a journalist (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/index.html) during press briefings.

cbrubaker

10-20-2006, 06:51 AM

Wow...pretty political here.

Before it gets locked, let me say few words.

Let's review some of what Bush did: he killed off habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, wiretapped people without warrant, tried to ban gay marriage, thus, also tried to ruin gay rights itself, and of course, he started a war based on lies, killing about 2,500 troops and over 600,000 Iraqis. And with the help of the Republicans, he also stole the 2000 election (and possibly the 2004 one as well). And that's just starters.

So...if Bush isn't a fascist scumbag, I don't know what he is.

Jon Cooke

10-20-2006, 09:37 AM

Chow Hound

10-20-2006, 12:08 PM

I know one thing...I'd rather win, because I don't like the idea of terrorists being free to roam about the world and use our country for target practice! :bugs2:
Amen to that.

Geezil

10-20-2006, 12:13 PM

Well, at least we made it 7 pages before the posts like this started...

Yeah, and "cheeses crisp," :p I thought post #16 way back there on page 2 was already pushing the envelope. It just goes to show that we GACers can still work up a good sweat in the name of OT debate, with or without the presence of professional agent provocateurs ;) in the ranks.

Chow Hound

10-20-2006, 12:20 PM

wiretapped people without warrant,
And we'll never know how many thousands of lives he saved by doing that. Possibly yours.

tried to ban gay marriage, thus, also tried to ruin gay rights itself,
Banning "gay marriage" is hardly ruining gay rights. It does nothing to detract from anything won by the gay rights movement thus far. And I would have said he tried to protect marriage and counted it as a plus.

he started a war based on lies,
That statement itself is a lie. I've seen no proof the intelligence estimates were lies.

killing about 2,500 troops and over 600,000 Iraqis.
It wasn't our President planting the IEDs and doing the shooting, it was Muslim terrorists.

And with the help of the Republicans, he also stole the 2000 election (and possibly the 2004 one as well). And that's just starters.
No, it was the Dems who attempted the theft and failed (fortunately).

So...if Bush isn't a fascist scumbag, I don't know what he is.

So you're throwing our president in with the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong Il? He's a man trying to lead a severely fragmented country, thanks largely to the media, and while I wish he were doing a better job, he's doing far better than Kerry could possibly have done.

Dr. Killpatient

10-20-2006, 01:58 PM

I would support President Bush, too, if he actually fought terrorists. Unfortunately, he decided to invade Iraq -- a country that had no ties to al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden (you know, the people actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks).
I haven't kept up with the Iraq War for ages, but wasn't there an Intel report stating Iraq had WMDs (but were never found)?

When asked about bin Laden President Bush once answered, "I'm not really concerned about him." So the President doesn't care about catching the man resposible for the deaths of over 3 thousand Americans. He'd rather go after the man who once threatened his daddy.

That's actually an incomplete quote. Bush goes on to say that bin Laden has no place to train al-qaeda fighters, and is not so much a threat anymore... something along those lines.

We're still sniffing around for him, i believe - just not as focused as before.

cbrubaker

10-20-2006, 02:20 PM

Okay, first off, an apology. Sorry if that was heavy handed. I've always been a heavy-handed type when it comes to politics, I pretty much take it seriously. I've realize this isn't a best place to be heavy handed, so I'll try to keep it minimal next time. (I still stand on my opinions of Bush, though)

Anyway, Chow Hound

How is making sure gay people won't marry protect marriage? It's not like gayness is a disease. As far as I know, preventing gays from sharing their love legally doesn't ruin other people's marriage, or marriage in general.

And there are no Saddam-Al Qaida connection, according to MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/).

So...where'd you hear about Dems (trying to) steal the 2000 election? That's the first I've heard of it. Meanwhile, Rolling Stones has a very detailed account (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen) on the 2004 election.

Dan Porceddu

10-20-2006, 08:16 PM

And I would have said he tried to protect marriage and counted it as a plus.

How does banning gay marriage "protect" the institution? Why is the preservation of the status quo so important when the institution has undergone many notable changes in just the last several centuries (marriage is no longer arranged in western culture, but is about love; interracial marriage is tolerated, etc.)?

Dan Porceddu

10-20-2006, 08:22 PM

Some people say we should fight the terrorists, some people say we should be pacifists.

I think this is a very oversimplified and incorrect way to frame the opposing views. It is possible for one to be a pacifist on a certain war if they do not believe it will help in fighting terrorism, while not opposing the goals of erradicating terrorism in general.

Of course, the war on terrorism seems similar to me to the war on drugs, in that it a.) attempts to fight something that cannot be entirely removed and b.) through poor policy, has actually made the problem worse than solving it.

J. J. Hunsecker

10-21-2006, 04:34 AM

I haven't kept up with the Iraq War for ages, but wasn't there an Intel report stating Iraq had WMDs (but were never found)?

Not according to the Downing Street Memos, (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) which shows that the Bush administration was cherry picking Intel to support its goal to go to war in Iraq. Also, most of the Iraq/WMD info came from Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm)and that info proved to be wrong.

That's actually an incomplete quote. Bush goes on to say that bin Laden has no place to train al-qaeda fighters, and is not so much a threat anymore... something along those lines.

We're still sniffing around for him, i believe - just not as focused as before

Concerning what Bush has said about bin Laden, (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html) I find it strange that he wouldn't want to get the leader of the terrorist group that attacked our country. Whether or not bin Laden represents a threat anymore is irrelevent. He committed the crime and now he should pay for it. If a police chief decided to stop pursuing a wanted gangster on the grounds that he felt the gangster no longer represented a threat (because, say, his gang was broken up) that officer would face public outcry and lose his job.

J. J. Hunsecker

10-21-2006, 05:00 AM

And we'll never know how many thousands of lives he saved by doing that. Possibly yours.

Did it occur to you that Bush might be spying on his political enemies and not necessarily on suspected terrorists? (Like the way Nixon did.) I'm not claiming that Bush did, but it's a possibility. Especially when you consider he started the illegal wiretaps before 9/11. (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/17009) Since warrents for wiretaps are easy to obtain, one has to wonder why the Bush administration would circumvent the NSA? Was the easedropping something the administration knew the NSA would disapprove of? Even if it wasn't, do you really want to give the executive branch of government that much power?

Also, Bush lied about the wiretaps. He said, "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Chow Hound

10-23-2006, 05:55 PM

Anyway, Chow Hound

How is making sure gay people won't marry protect marriage? It's not like gayness is a disease. As far as I know, preventing gays from sharing their love legally doesn't ruin other people's marriage, or marriage in general.
I wasn't comparing homosexuality to a disease, and preventing the definition of marriage to be changed to include homosexuals does not prevent them from sharing their love legally. They can still co-habitate and express their love in public and private (going as far in public as heterosexuals can, anyway), and they can't be arrested for it (at least, not in most or possibly all states). If there are benefits that married people enjoy (hospital visitation rights, etc.) that are denied to homosexual partners, they can be addressed legally short of redefining marriage to be inclusive of same-sex relationships.

At first, I didn't care one way or the other whether or not homosexuals were able to marry. But the more I thought about it, the idea occurred to me that a law that enables homosexuals to marry could and probably would be used by the more militant elements of the gay rights movement to attempt to force churches to permit homosexuals to marry within the church. In the early stages of the debate over gay marriage I ran this thought past a gay friend of mine, and he was of the opinion that this was exactly where this is all ultimately headed. Then something very similar happened to the Catholic church in Massachusetts: since Catholic Charities would not consider same-sex couples as equally fit adoptive parents as heterosexual couples, they were forced by a Massachusetts court to cease their adoption activities completely within the commonwealth. That sealed my opinion on the issue of gay marriage; I now have absolutely no doubt that if gay marriage is legalized, it would be used against Christian churches to force them to either marry gay couples against their conscience, or cease marrying anybody at all. That's why preventing gay marriage is in fact a protection of marriage in general.

And there are no Saddam-Al Qaida connection, according to MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/).

Clinton's own people claimed there was, according to NewsMax.com (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/11/154020.shtml) - it's half-way down the page (I've seen this reported elsewhere as well).
WorldNetDaily has other sources here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34841).

So...where'd you hear about Dems (trying to) steal the 2000 election? That's the first I've heard of it. Meanwhile, Rolling Stones has a very detailed account (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen) on the 2004 election.

And here's (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17718) a description of tactics the Dems employ to steal elections (not just the 2000 one).
We could go back and forth forever, quoting conflicting news sources. It all comes down to who you trust.
I simply don't regard the mainstream media as a reliable source of information anymore, especially after Rathergate and the faked war photos.

Chow Hound

10-23-2006, 05:58 PM

Did it occur to you that Bush might be spying on his political enemies and not necessarily on suspected terrorists? (Like the way Nixon did.) I'm not claiming that Bush did, but it's a possibility.

Well when you have proof he was spying on his political enemies (like JFK did to Martin Luther King), get back to me. I'm not interested in what he may or may not have done, because the possibilities are infinite. Wild speculation just hinders the prosecution of the war.

J. J. Hunsecker

10-23-2006, 11:29 PM

Well when you have proof he was spying on his political enemies (like JFK did to Martin Luther King), get back to me. I'm not interested in what he may or may not have done, because the possibilities are infinite. Wild speculation just hinders the prosecution of the war.
(It was RFK who authorized the FBI to spy on MLK, (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200207/garrow) not JFK.)

My point was it is dangerous to give any president that much power. The temptation for abuse and corruption is too great. If you feel alright giving politicians the unprecedented use of illegal wiretaps, the right to use torture, and the suspension of habeus corpus (spelling?) well, then, you frighten me.

Speaking of the prosecution of the war, ("prosecution"? Do you mean execution?) are you talking about the Iraq war or the "war on terror"? The Iraq war is over. It's the occupation of Iraq that is going badly. As for the latter, even the administration doesn't use the nebulous term "war on terror" anymore (which at least was a better term than Bush's use of the word crusade).

Chow Hound

10-24-2006, 01:54 PM

(It was RFK who authorized the FBI to spy on MLK, (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200207/garrow) not JFK.)
But it wasn't done without JFK's knowledge (http://www.aframnews.com/html/2006-01-11/lead1.htm).

Speaking of the prosecution of the war, ("prosecution"? Do you mean execution?) are you talking about the Iraq war or the "war on terror"? The Iraq war is over. It's the occupation of Iraq that is going badly.
No, I meant prosecution (here's one definition from Dictionary.com: "the following up of something undertaken or begun, usually to its completion").
The Iraq war is not over. The U.S. may have officially declared it over, but the Islamic insurgents have never agreed. The Iraq war is merely one front in a global war against militant Islam and they are carefully watching our actions in Iraq. If we cut and run, it will be seen as a sign of weakness and an invitation to more attacks on our soil.

As for the latter, even the administration doesn't use the nebulous term "war on terror" anymore (which at least was a better term than Bush's use of the word crusade).
Inasmuch as the crusades were a reaction to Islamic incursions into Europe, I think crusade is as appropriate a term as war on terror. You're right about the term "war on terror", "war on Islamic fascists" I suppose would be more appropriate.

fan4life

10-24-2006, 03:38 PM

Chow Hound

10-24-2006, 07:33 PM

I think the cartoons during wartime not only built the morale of the troops but also of the people. I think I could watch these even today, and get a feel for the national sentiments during that time in our history.Definitely. On the Front Lines is my second favorite WDT set, and I'm looking forward to Plane Daffy and the Private Snafus on the upcoming LTGC set. But I really wish WB would put out a completetly war-themed set like Disney did.

Gordan

10-24-2006, 08:31 PM

The Iraq war is not over. The U.S. may have officially declared it over, but the Islamic insurgents have never agreed. The Iraq war is merely one front in a global war against militant Islam and they are carefully watching our actions in Iraq. If we cut and run, it will be seen as a sign of weakness and an invitation to more attacks on our soil.

Iraq (under Saddam) used to be one of the most secular states in the Islamic world. Hussein was a tyrant and a dictator, a really bad man indeed, but he was hardly a Muslim terrorist. Saddam was closer to the Soviet school of authoritarian dictatorship than to radical Islam. Also, he was very close to some communist / socialist leaders, such as Yugoslavian Josip Broz Tito, who was one of the creators of the Non-aligned movement, for example. Just look at the way women were treated in Iraq and compare it to radical Muslim countries (i.e. Afghanistan under the Taliban). George W. Bush, whom you are praising so highly, has created a fertile ground for Islamic terrorists by invading Iraq. Isn't it ironic? Mr. Bush and his administration have forgotten about real terrorists (in Afghanistan, for instance. Or, how about Osama, hmmmm?), and instead went into a corrupt war of personal (and business) interests.

I am just astonished at this whole right-wing attitude that "leftists support terrorists because they are against Bush's administration's war against terrorism". I have yet to meet a left-wing person who does not support the REAL war against terrorism. But, questioning Bush's inexplicable invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with being pro-terrorist. If anything, by questioning the invasion of Iraq, one simply points out the inadequacy of Bush's administration to fight terrorism - Are they really fighting real terrorists? To make a cartoon connection here, remember the good ol' Chuck Jones: "A fanatic is someone who doubles his efforts long after he has forgotten his aim." That's exactly what Bush and his co. are doing now. They are doubling, maybe even tripling, their efforts, but they have long forgotten their aim (or, maybe, just maybe, they don't have the same aim as people who are TRULY against terrorism????).

Inasmuch as the crusades were a reaction to Islamic incursions into Europe, I think crusade is as appropriate a term as war on terror. You're right about the term "war on terror", "war on Islamic fascists" I suppose would be more appropriate.

But, why is that a crusade? As far as I know, crusade implies Christian fight against Muslims. There is, however, a lot of countries that support the war on terrorism that are not Christian, including, believe it or not, some Muslim countries. So, perhaps, you should revise your terminology?

gdX

10-24-2006, 09:42 PM

Great post, Gordan... right on the nose-y.

This war has not been fought intelligently... and by all means, it is NOT a crusade, nor should it ever be described as one.

One this administration's biggest shortcomings is total lack of understanding of the other countries and cultures they deal with... the expressed notion that we'd be unequivocally welcomed with open arms in Iraq stunned me when first suggested.

Even the man in the street is informed enough to know that the word 'crusade' is about the hottest button anyone can push in Islam... the very word runs deep and bitterly through most Muslims, radical and peaceful alike.

You win conflicts with smarts, not hubris.

Just ask this guy :ysam:

fan4life

10-25-2006, 03:32 AM

Mark J

10-25-2006, 07:19 PM

You guys are all nuts having a political debate on this kind of board. You aren't going to change anyone's mind, only stir up anger on both sides and damage the whole board. I've seen it happen at music boards, some have been totally destroyed by the fighting which started in political threads and spread everywhere. Everyone has their two bit opinion and every thread on every subject becomes a political fight. This isn't even in a separate section, it's part of the TTTP!!!!! I have my own political opinions which I wouldn't share here since this isn't the place for that, it's the place to discuss the golden age of animation. :eek: I like this place and don't want to see it go down in flames. Beware.

J. J. Hunsecker

10-26-2006, 03:36 AM

But it wasn't done without JFK's knowledge (http://www.aframnews.com/html/2006-01-11/lead1.htm).

No, I meant prosecution (here's one definition from Dictionary.com: "the following up of something undertaken or begun, usually to its completion").
The Iraq war is not over. The U.S. may have officially declared it over, but the Islamic insurgents have never agreed. The Iraq war is merely one front in a global war against militant Islam and they are carefully watching our actions in Iraq. If we cut and run, it will be seen as a sign of weakness and an invitation to more attacks on our soil.

Inasmuch as the crusades were a reaction to Islamic incursions into Europe, I think crusade is as appropriate a term as war on terror. You're right about the term "war on terror", "war on Islamic fascists" I suppose would be more appropriate.

The King wiretaps were the personal obsession of J. Edgar Hoover. They were approved in 1963 by Atty. Gen. Bobby Kennedy. JFK would be assassinated only a few months after the approval of the wiretaps, so it is not known how much he knew about it. Here (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-katzenbach16jan16,0,2941426.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) is an article from someone who worked with Bobby Kennedy in the Justice Dept. at that time. As you can see from the article "...it was a time of growing animosity between King and J. Edgar Hoover, who had created the Federal Bureau of Investigation and led it since 1924. That animosity created a growing problem for Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy and those of us on his staff."

Also from that article, "In October 1963, Hoover requested Atty. Gen. Kennedy to approve a wiretap on King's telephone. At that time, taps had to be approved by the attorney general and did not require court approval in the form of a warrant. The basis for the tap was King's close association with Stanley Levison, who Hoover said was a prominent member of the Communist Party with great influence over King in civil rights matters." (Emphasis added.)

So those wiretaps, though egregious, were legal! The problem with Bush's wiretaps of American citizens is that it was done illegally.

I also wonder why you brought up the King wiretaps in the first place. Are you trying to suggest that two wrongs make a right?

"The Iraq war is not over"!? I repeat, "Major combat operations have ended." The Iraqi army was defeated, and later disbanded by L. Paul Bremer. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63423-2003Nov19?language=printer) What we now have is an insurgency in response to the occupation of Iraq by US forces.

"The Iraq war is merely one front in a global war against militant Islam..." You've got that wrong. There were no Islamic militants or terrorist in Iraq before we invaded it. In fact, according to the National Intelligence Council report, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html)Iraq has now become a breeding ground for creating new terrorists. So instead of Bush's Iraq folly preventing or fighting terrorism, it has created more terrorists!

About "Islamic fascists" -- that term is a bit of a misnomer. Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote that entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana, Mussolini just claimed credit for it.) What the Islamic terrorists believe in is fundamental theocracy. They believe that government should be subserviant to religion. That's hardly a belief in the power of corporations and the state.

From Vice President Wallace as published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944...
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

doctoon

10-26-2006, 10:57 AM

It's interesting that one of the first cartoons completed after the Pearl Harbor attack has blackface in it. ANY BONDS TODAY, which I think was completed on December 15, 1941, has the scene of Bugs Bunny imitating Al Jolson. It's ironic that Leon Schlesinger used stereotypes about one group of Americans as a means of trying to rally ALL Americans to the war effort.

Perhaps because ethnic stereotyping is now frowned upon, it is more difficult to make a cartoon that popularizes a war effort.

Chow Hound

10-26-2006, 02:17 PM

Iraq (under Saddam) used to be one of the most secular states in the Islamic world. Hussein was a tyrant and a dictator, a really bad man indeed, but he was hardly a Muslim terrorist.
Who said he was??? He conspired with Al-Quaida, so I suppose terrorist ally would be appropriate. I never called him a Muslim terrorist.

Saddam was closer to the Soviet school of authoritarian dictatorship than to radical Islam. Also, he was very close to some communist / socialist leaders, such as Yugoslavian Josip Broz Tito, who was one of the creators of the Non-aligned movement, for example.So being a communist-like dictator is better than being an Islamic dictator? Sorry, I'll admit they differ in many ways, but I can't call them better.

George W. Bush, whom you are praising so highly,Only someone with a really bad case of BDS would think what I've said about Bush is high praise. I've said he's doing the best he can and a better job than either of his two political opponents could have done, but that isn't really saying much when the bar is so low.

has created a fertile ground for Islamic terrorists by invading Iraq.Completely false. The ground was already fertile: attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing, 9/11 all predated the current war in Iraq. Each incident except the last was met with a tepid response at best by the Clinton administration, and THAT is what made the ground fertile for terrorists. Inaction is seen as weakness and it emboldens them. A harsh response to terrorism is the only way to fight it. It's no accident that we've had no more successful terrorist attacks in America for over 5 years.

Isn't it ironic? Mr. Bush and his administration have forgotten about real terrorists (in Afghanistan, for instance. Or, how about Osama, hmmmm?)Forgotten? We still have troops in Afghanistan who still undertake anti-terrorist operations. Just because the media forgot about it (because it is more successful than Iraq) doesn't mean the President has. As for Osama, does anyone in their right mind actually believe killing him will end Islamic terrorism?

I am just astonished at this whole right-wing attitude that "leftists support terrorists because they are against Bush's administration's war against terrorism". I have yet to meet a left-wing person who does not support the REAL war against terrorism.And I have yet to meet one that does. I am completely astonished at the whole left-wing attitude that Islamic terrorists pose less of a threat than the U.S. Government.

But, questioning Bush's inexplicable invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with being pro-terrorist.Inexplicable only if one buried one's head in the sand on the morning of September 11, 2001.

But, why is that a crusade? As far as I know, crusade implies Christian fight against Muslims. There is, however, a lot of countries that support the war on terrorism that are not Christian, including, believe it or not, some Muslim countries. So, perhaps, you should revise your terminology?Crusade has come to mean any fight in defense of an idea or cause and thus is perfectly suitable for use here. The cause is freedom and the enemy is militant Islam (again).

Chow Hound

10-26-2006, 02:18 PM

So those wiretaps, though egregious, were legal! The problem with Bush's wiretaps of American citizens is that it was done illegally.Those wiretaps were egregious and served no public good, while Bush's wiretaps saved lives.

I also wonder why you brought up the King wiretaps in the first place. Are you trying to suggest that two wrongs make a right?No, I just thought that since you brought up unrelated wiretaps against political enemies, I would too: "Did it occur to you that Bush might be spying on his political enemies and not necessarily on suspected terrorists? (Like the way Nixon did.)"

"The Iraq war is not over"!? I repeat, "Major combat operations have ended." The Iraqi army was defeated, and later disbanded by L. Paul Bremer. What we now have is an insurgency in response to the occupation of Iraq by US forces.No, it's not over. Regular army yes, but the planning for the insurgency was carried on under Saddam's regime and is not so much a response to our troops but a carrying on of the fight in the only manner they're capable of.

"The Iraq war is merely one front in a global war against militant Islam..." You've got that wrong. There were no Islamic militants or terrorist in Iraq before we invaded it. In fact, according to the National Intelligence Council report, Iraq has now become a breeding ground for creating new terrorists. So instead of Bush's Iraq folly preventing or fighting terrorism, it has created more terrorists!No, unfortunately I've got that right. Islamic terrorists had high-level contact with Saddam's government and the relationship would have gotten cozier had we let it continue. There is one small section of the National Intelligence Council report that references creating new terrorists (but we're probably killing them there just as fast). The rest of the document is rather upbeat about the situation in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

About "Islamic fascists" -- that term is a bit of a misnomer. Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote that entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana, Mussolini just claimed credit for it.) What the Islamic terrorists believe in is fundamental theocracy. They believe that government should be subserviant to religion. That's hardly a belief in the power of corporations and the state. I wouldn't say it's a misnomer at all. In an Islamic state Islam (Sharia law) is the government, and they certainly believe in it.

From Vice President Wallace as published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944...

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."Well at least we agree here. Though I find it highly ironic that the NYT would declare what it's doing so openly.

fan4life

10-26-2006, 06:24 PM

:cool: Great post, Gordan... right on the nose-y.

This war has not been fought intelligently... and by all means, it is NOT a crusade, nor should it ever be described as one.

One this administration's biggest shortcomings is total lack of understanding of the other countries and cultures they deal with... the expressed notion that we'd be unequivocally welcomed with open arms in Iraq stunned me when first suggested.

Even the man in the street is informed enough to know that the word 'crusade' is about the hottest button anyone can push in Islam... the very word runs deep and bitterly through most Muslims, radical and peaceful alike.

You win conflicts with smarts, not hubris.

Just ask this guy :ysam:

First of all, I'm not into mixing my politics with my love of cartoons. For me, they are completely seperate realms and concepts. That being said, I agree, the war has been fueled by hubris and machismo, rather than by principle as well as a knowledge of what is practical. And the current "President" doesn't seem to realize this fully. At any rate, it's obvious that we won't stay in Iraq forever, and will have to withdraw someday. The only question is, will we withdraw with some degree of honor and dignity, or will we slink out with our tail between our legs?

:cool:

gdX

10-26-2006, 09:11 PM

The ground was already fertile: attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing, 9/11 all predated the current war in Iraq.
Yeah... and none of it was generated by Iraq.

That's the whole point of most dissent in this regard.

Virtually nobody is suggesting to simply lay down arms... just aim the effort at where the problem is.

O/T – for such a powder-keg topic, discourse has been mighty darn civil... nicely done guys.

J. J. Hunsecker

10-27-2006, 03:18 AM

Who said he was??? He conspired with Al-Quaida, so I suppose terrorist ally would be appropriate. I never called him a Muslim terrorist.

Completely false. The ground was already fertile: attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing, 9/11 all predated the current war in Iraq. Each incident except the last was met with a tepid response at best by the Clinton administration, and THAT is what made the ground fertile for terrorists. Inaction is seen as weakness and it emboldens them. A harsh response to terrorism is the only way to fight it. It's no accident that we've had no more successful terrorist attacks in America for over 5 years.
There is no proof that Saddam Hussein conspired with Al Qaeda. Even George Bush said so...(from thememoryhole.com) (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm)

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

The 9/11 commision (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)also debunked the Hussein/al Qaeda connection.

You mentioned "attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing, 9/11" as predating the war in Iraq. But those attacks had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. The Cole and Embassy attacks were by al Qaeda. And Clinton did respond. He sent Cruise Missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the Embassy attack in Kenya. The Cole attack happened October 2000, the end of Clinton's last year in office. Suspects were caught from November 2000 to January 2001. Here is a timeline (http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole1.htm) of the events. The Clinton administration also caught the men responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

From Wikipedia -- "In October 1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995), the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheik_Omar_Abdel-Rahman), was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. In 1998, Ramzi Yousef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef) was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing, each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years."

The Clinton administration's Richard Clarke also warned the incoming bush administration's Condi Rice about al Qaeda. (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm)
(Also, http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/09/27/675/28143)

But the Bush administration ignored the warning. They were too busy thinking up ways to go to war with Iraq, which they started planning before the 9/11 attacks. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/110106planned_war.htm)

J. J. Hunsecker

10-28-2006, 04:16 AM

Those wiretaps were egregious and served no public good, while Bush's wiretaps saved lives.

No, I just thought that since you brought up unrelated wiretaps against political enemies, I would too: "Did it occur to you that Bush might be spying on his political enemies and not necessarily on suspected terrorists? (Like the way Nixon did.)"

I wouldn't say it's a misnomer at all. In an Islamic state Islam (Sharia law) is the government, and they certainly believe in it.
Let's see you prove that Bush's wiretaps saved lives. There is no evidence that it did. From the American Civil Liberties Union:
MYTH: This illegal program has saved thousands of lives.
REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.

From the NY times: "In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans’ international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans’ privacy."

It's also been revealed that the FBI spied on peaceful domestic protest groups, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316) like the Quakers!

Here are some other groups the FBI spied on: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24036prs20060201.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/20246prs20050829.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html

***

I brought up Nixon because I believe he was similar to Bush. Both spied on peace activists and ran secret governments. It turned out ot be Nixon's downfall. Read John Dean's excellent book "Worse Than Watergate".
(http://www.amazon.com/Worse-Than-Watergate-Presidency-George/dp/0446694835/sr=1-1/qid=1162022766/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4233497-2040006?ie=UTF8&s=books)
***

"In an Islamic state Islam (Sharia law) is the government..." Yes, and that's called theocracy, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy) not fascism. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:Fascism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)