Sunday December 10, 2017
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Jun-18-2008 07:16printcomments

Cartoon Strip: Nota Bene by Leonardo No. 99 - The Thrill is Back

This is the xxxxx installment of the Salem-News.com original series "Nota Bene by Leonardo" by Salem cartoonist Glen Bledsoe.

Nota Bene #99 The Thrill is Back
By Glen Bledsoe
CLICK HERE to View Comic

(Earth-Alpha-Zed) - Barack Obama's speech at the AIPAC recently caused some ripples. Although liberal organizations such as Open.org clearly understood it as political posturing, others were upset that it represented a hawkish Obama that they had never previously seen. "Change you can believe in" will only happen if the man is elected.

Frame 1 | Frame 2 | Frame 3 | Frame 4




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Godsofchaos June 25, 2008 1:48 pm (Pacific time)

What is Obama going to change? So far I have only heard "change" but not details from Obama...As for me I think none of the candates is viable for office. So why vote for a lesser evil?


Disappointed June 25, 2008 9:16 am (Pacific time)

One certainly does not need to have a professional background in the news media to appreciate that the New York Times acted inappropriately by outing a covert operative, putting him/her (and their family) in danger. I guess we can see what happens in the future, but I would like to share an opinion that a retired newspaperman shared with me: He felt that one of the reasons that the print media was losing market share on almost a daily level was because their reader's simply could not respect or believe what they were writing anymore. Essentially losing market share went along with losing the trust and respect of their readers. I agree.


Henry Ruark June 24, 2008 6:45 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Founders knew what they were doing, per painful, protracted discussions for years, available in the Federalist Papers. Here's one, with final-word from later writings: " The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government... The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few to ride them. Thomas Jefferson ---- Don't see anything there opening door for "preemptive attack", do you ?? !!


Henry Ruark June 24, 2008 5:15 pm (Pacific time)

To all: In light of comments here, this "see with own eyes" mat just take us back closer to the fine treatment in Glen's strip: (From NYT, with no apology !) June 24, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist Wounds You Can’t See By BOB HERBERT "The U.S. has been at war for years now, but ordinary Americans have never been asked to step up and make the kind of sacrifices that wars have historically required. "There is no draft. There are no shortages of food, consumer items or gasoline. We’re not even paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That multitrillion-dollar obligation has been shoved off to future generations. "Incredibly, taxes have been lowered, not raised, since the wars began. "On the home front, this is as pleasant a wartime environment as one could imagine. "That’s actually an added danger for the young men and women who have volunteered to fight in those far-off lands. It’s too easy for the larger society to put them out of sight and out of mind. I asked a college student in Bridgeport, Conn., the other night if she or her friends ever talked about the war in Iraq. She said no. "Among the least-noted aspects of these two seemingly endless wars is the psychological toll they are taking on those who have volunteered to fight them. Increasingly, they are being medicated on the battlefield, and many thousands are returning with brain damage and psychological wounds that cause tremendous suffering and have the potential to alter their lives forever." -------------- Tht's the realities which cannot be avoided any longer, as more families lose more loved ones, with the broken lives and smashed bodies and ravished brains of yet more "coming home". Is THAT the "progress being made in Iraq" that you want us to know more about ? Never forget, either, this was "a new kind of war" by choice: "preemptive" to make dead sure (forgive me !) that we control whatever part of the world the imperial president chooses to take our youth into, for his own purposes, and without the real Constitutionally-demanded act of Congress. This one has been run on a resolution --you can check it out !!


Henry Ruark June 24, 2008 4:56 pm (Pacific time)

R, D, Et al: Sorry, guys --about the need to whine and whimper, I mean. When it comes to choice among you and the NYT, my-side action is indeed easy. Dunno what working experience you may have "in the media" on which to base your so-sure assessment, with no contact with any of the incoming information from their own reporters, or from other worldwide resources as strong (and more reliable) than those of government sources (surely not now known for their absolute conformance with realities !), but if the TIMES states it, do believe most of the world will prefer to count on theirs, rather than yours. SO where else did you check, as I did ? Do you wish to share what's found-there, too? If so, ID-selves to Editor Tim and we can go-direct with PDFs, if you have any...and give way here to others with something worth time, space, attention, vs truth sure to surface given channels enough like this one. Fellas, you can always cancel your subscription, if any you have other than Internet...time is short for free-ride there, too, due to still further neocon nonsense coming down pike despite the departure/transition now underway in D.C., desperate for end of impeachment danger.


Ronan June 24, 2008 8:51 am (Pacific time)

The main reason progress in Iraq is not receiving more attention is that the progress is considerable and the big media, like the NEW YORK TIMES, are not paying attention because they don't like the new story line. They prefer "America defeated," not "America victorious," because defeat increases the likelihood of a Democratic electoral blowout in the fall. A headline in last Saturday's New York Times tells you all you need to know about the reluctance of the mainstream media to report on progress in Iraq. With what sounds like information produced only after an editor was waterboarded, it reads, "Big Gains for Iraq Security, but Questions Linger." If this headline writer were reporting victory in World War II, it might have read, "America wins; German and Japanese Psyche Seriously Affected." The 1969 moon landing might have read: "Man Lands on Moon; Will It Hurt the Lunar Environment?" Or, "Adam and Eve Marry; Gays Demand Similar Rights." The subhead on the Times story is "More Iraqi Troops – New Sway for Maliki." Only falling gasoline prices might make the Times feel worse, or perhaps John McCain discovering the Fountain of Youth. "What's going right?" begins the lead sentence, which quickly adds "And can it last?" This is typical Times naysaying, which undercuts anything that might reflect positively on the Bush administration or McCain's election prospects.


Disappointed June 24, 2008 7:42 am (Pacific time)

Ben, some highly intelligent people are just too lost to logic and reason to rationally comprehend the inherent dangers of working(and following orders) with various government agencies. Keeping America safe is dangerous business, and even more so when you have people/organizations that constantly compromise you under the guise of reporting a story. There are demonstrated needs to keep some things secret, and outing an operative that the New York Times did was unforgiveable.


Henry Ruark June 23, 2008 2:53 pm (Pacific time)

Ben: You expect me to wipe away those hypocritical tears from thine eyes ? Facts about Plame did not stop Bush from declassifying NIE date so Cheney, Rove, Libby could spread the word as smear to punish her husband. Book makes that direct statement, as direct answer to McClellan question. Where's your "outrage" at that act by Constitutionally bound civil servant elected on basis of oath to uphold our sacred document ? Re NYT-action, IF any legal sanction demanded, prosecutor also takes oath, and you can expect action much more rapidly there than vs Bush. Your intensity appreciated, but one must not trip over piles of neglected-fact. Those piles much, much higher on Bush-side than ever before required for impeachment, don't you agree ? Can you cite any other 35-count indictment like the Kucinich compilation ? Where do YOU stand on the Founders-solution: "Impeach Any Perpetrator" ?? !! OR is it only the TIMES that you see as guilty-here ?? Surely the Bush perversion of intel has had MORE and STRONGER negative-impact on the intel-worker group than anything else in our history.


Ben June 23, 2008 12:01 pm (Pacific time)

Hypocrisy is an accurate description regarding the New York Times egregious act of identifying an undercover agent. Good people will give a second look at joining our government to work in such dangerous jobs if you have news organizations outing them for what? Their feeling of doing what they think is right? Plame was not undercover at the time she was so-called "outed" by Armitage. In fact she was in Washington DC's social register with her husband whose testimony to the 911 commission warrants to be also made part of the current investigative record. If this happened during WWII, there would have been a criminal trial and the penalty would have been severe under the Seditions Act. I would hope that the management of the New York Times is called to task for this breach of national security. I would imagine that future intelligence information will be harder to come by in the future, which may have a negative impact on down-grading security levels on old information that would have become public knowledge in time, but now never will be. The Freedom of Information Act will be harmed by this thoughtless act by the Times. I bet right now the document shredders are working overtime. We have been harmed as a nation by this, we really have.


Henry Ruark June 22, 2008 6:39 pm (Pacific time)

Ben et al: Pentagon Papers topic via Wikpedia will bring you full information on 7,000-pp. of Vietam policy and secrets, disclosed to N.Y. Times, who then published summary and, I do believe, complete content. That required courage and journalistic competence. Do you have that kind of competence to question their judgment, this time ? Re "partisan witchhunt" and "disgusting", I learned several corroborating points and others challenging some questioners from McClellan hearing --after having read his book. Have you read the book ? AND how "witchhunt"? OR "disgusting !",either...please clarify the "why" for use of each term, otherwise we must simply draw own conclusions, obvious from your comments, that you are hardfledged neocon pressed to extreme to defend shrine now being shredded before your very eyes --or do you prefer other even more onerous description ??


Henry Ruark June 22, 2008 5:33 pm (Pacific time)

Ben et al: You overlook "slight", to you, but "extremely significant" difference, for most others, in these situations: One involves our President, members of his staff, protracted, detailed information from insiders and outsiders, the press itself, and the public record. That office bears certain Constitutional obligations, untrue for the TIMES. The other is a question of news-judgment within the TIMES perhaps offset by circumstance about which I doubt if you have any means for knowledge. IF you do not recognize that plain fact, there's little hope for further remediation for you. Please note it was the TIMES and the W/POST which undertook publication of long/hidden government documents, some time ago, braking part of the malign manipulation that then became highly evident. IF you have any proof of further "guilt as I see it" for the TIMES, here, please share it now, with link for our usual "see with own eyes" and then evaluate"with own mind", with which you should surely be familiar.


Ben June 22, 2008 9:56 am (Pacific time)

HYPOCRISY BY THE NEW YORK TIMES? In an astonishing stroke of irony, the New York Times has outed the name of the CIA operative who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, over the objections of CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and a lawyer representing the operative. Agency officials and legal counsel told the Times that publishing the agent's name would "invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency." Will congress have a hearing on this one?


Ben June 22, 2008 9:46 am (Pacific time)

By all means call in more witnesses ang get some more info. This hearing otherwise, is simply a partisan witchhunt that is not producing any new info, in fact it's diminishing the past reported info. Disgusting.


Henry Ruark June 21, 2008 1:49 pm (Pacific time)

Wonder et al: ALL Congressional hearing stick tightly to topic, unless "unforeseen consequences" force further painful probing. If--should say when--that now happens, testimony by all you name can only confirm what we now know, and is on record already from Fitzgerald probe and Libby trial. Avoiding any further peel-back in story-spun so far by Rove hearings, or Cheney summons, or ANY further such action, deeply desperate need among far too many in D.C now, on both sides of aisle. Which is why Constitutional process of impeachment is now demanded, to clear out, clean up, after due Congressional responsibilities demanded by each person's oath have been completely, cumulatively and comprehensively carried to conclusion,as foreseen by our Founders.


Wonder June 21, 2008 12:10 pm (Pacific time)

I wonder if they will call Richard Armitage to testify? How about the special prosecutor? Maybe even Plame herself and her husband? All of these people could help round out the investigation, and maybe even neutralize calls that the investigation is partisan.


Henry Ruark June 20, 2008 3:17 pm (Pacific time)

Hoople et al: Re Plame-name revelation as possible crime, even impeachment charge, today is day McClellan testifies at Congressional hearing. He tells what happened, will tie action directly to Bush, via Cheney, Libby, to six reporters. SO hardly sensible to suggest that "it just seems that this may backfire because it is simply covering old ground" when being pursued as Congressional-duty demanded by Constitution. OR do you consider our famed Constitution "old stuff" and "mind-set", too ??


Henry Ruark June 20, 2008 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

Hoople: You seem not to be able to read English. I did NOT tell ANYone to get over it, buut took time to share with you precise-parallel experience ou may not have had. Re rest of "stuff", your values show clearly in what you tried, and how you reacted when caught-in-act. Any true American recognizes Plame action by Bush and cohorts as unacceptable, unfair, mean, low, and surely now seen as UnConstitutional -- OR doesn't that reality count right up there for you with "mind-set" ? Your participation richly appreciated, sir, for what it truly was, is, and probably will continue to be. Sorry, Glen, but believe your strip deserves decent, honest, honorable, kind and democratic comment -not blind-side politicalized "mind-set" --especially when MindSetter writes "it was over for me when apology was made". If that's "truth", why "mind-set" comment ? Only possible reason is as stated here, I do believe. Re your judgment, we are now deep into recession; cannot you tell ? Can justify statement in depth, but start with ONE MILLION HOMES in foreclosure. Rw energy policy, "mind-set" operates there too; remember Cheney's "energy policy workgroup", with lobbyists and corporations writing the content ? One can go on and on and on, but in essence Leonardo-strip does very well allatime. Why not honor effort rather than carp, cavil, conform and concentrate on crap like "mind-set", when your own statement shows falsity of motivation for original comment.


Tim King June 20, 2008 1:21 pm (Pacific time)

Leonardo, I am banking on you and just hoping and having faith I guess. If it is the only way then I understand; it is too bad it has to go this way. At any rate, it was certainly a timely pick this week!


Hoople June 20, 2008 1:02 pm (Pacific time)

As far as I'm concerned the issue was over as soon as an apology was issued. I do know that there is some grumbling about this in the Muslim communities, just as there would be anytime people perceive being slighted for their religious beliefs. Not being a Muslim I cannot truely understand how they feel and believe it would be very arrogant of me to tell them to get over it because of some stupid volunteer, because ultimately it goes to overall campaign judgement. As far as this Plame fiasco re-tooling, it just seems that this may backfire because it is simply covering old ground, and there are other issues that should be looked into by these congressional investigative panels. I guess they will be going on July 4th hiatus pretty soon, so my hope is that we get some kind of up and down vote on an energy policy before the economy gets into an even worse situation, like a full blown recession.


Henry Ruark June 20, 2008 12:17 pm (Pacific time)

Hoople et al: You want "mind-set"? I'll give you "mind-set": Try Plame-name-game by Bush, involving "declassification" of NIE intel, two "WH oficials passing ID to six reporters", as poison-pill for honest man telling truth re mission for CIA. That's "mind-set", defense by any means to cover up what is now seen as potential for impeachment-action. For several-more, see Op Ed re fortified bases in Iraq, costing us all billions upon billions.


Henry Ruark June 20, 2008 11:29 am (Pacific time)

Hoople et al: Disagree mind-set involved, except for stupid volunteers. If one gonna hold candidate for THAT, we got some way to go with either McCain or Bush last two times. "Faux pas" coverage by NBC or other msm media means nothing any more since that's fodder for false emphasis, plays only to conflict-theme, avoids solid responsible coverage, and hurts all involved. That's why "media reform" now coming strong-issue, with FCC constantly challenged on continuing give-away policies for further monopoly ownership at root of massive media misanthropy. Nice try, but means nothing in long run, especially when seen in comparison to blunders --read "mind-set" if it please you-- by "those others" trying again to sell us a false bill of goods.


Hoople June 20, 2008 11:12 am (Pacific time)

I was glad to see an apology was provided, but what type on mindset allowed this to happen? I saw this faux paus reported on NBC, so evidently it was important enough to recieve national attention. I imagine we will be getting more and more reports of questionable behaviors from all candidates right up to voting day. Certainly for most of us an apology was enough, but if the election is close, any voters who feel disaffected can impact the final vote count. For example, Michigan, with their large Muslim population could be a factor if , once again, the vote is close.


Henry Ruark June 19, 2008 9:24 am (Pacific time)

To all: Leonardo's sensitively selected dialog in this one tells it true. I.e., watch what they DO, even while listening to what they CLAIM. For reality re McCain "100 years in Iraq", see current Op Ed AND NYT Edit. Right on again, Glen !!


Henry Ruark June 19, 2008 9:19 am (Pacific time)

Jess e al: Similarly suffered several such stupidities, from over-anxious volunteers without a sensititive bone in head. No way to prevent except too-drastic staff-choice, not possible now in real-time. Pay no attention; not worth time, comment, attention here, with inclusion obvious ploy for hard-pressed anti-Obama "disseminator". "Give-away" is first phrase, placed as question but entirely unneeded with rest of comment, except to cast doubt on the comment-itself. Honest-share info from one who has "done allathat" far too many times to fall for this amateurish attempt.


Leonardo June 18, 2008 9:05 pm (Pacific time)

If an apology was given, I don't see your point, Jess. You don't expect the campaign to be flawless, do you? If the prohibition was made by volunteers I hardly think the injustice extends to Mr. Obama himself. This looks like the proverbial mountain made out of a mole hill.


Jess June 18, 2008 10:04 am (Pacific time)

Is it real change, or maybe manipulation? As per an ap article: "Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate. The campaign has apologized to the women, all Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally."

[Return to Top]
©2017 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for June 17, 2008 | Articles for June 18, 2008 | Articles for June 19, 2008



Your customers are looking: Advertise on Salem-News.com!

googlec507860f6901db00.html
Donate to Salem-News.com and help us keep the news flowing! Thank you.