Ed. Cartoons

[pinkeye]

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/3079/cp.jpg

http://img27.exs.cx/img27/3352/lbs040714.jpg

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/6351/cp2.jpg

[budanski]

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/3079/cp.jpg

The accusations of Bush helping out Lay is reserved for the conspiracy theorists. Can you explain why Lay under the Bush administration would be indicted right before and on election year? If Bush wanted, he would have the indictment last year or after the election to not look connected prior to Nov.

Besides that, what the looneys like to connect Lay with the Bush administration, they leave out that Enron and the California energy crisis happened under the Clinton administration (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,338580,00.html).

[thatguy96]

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/6351/cp2.jpg
There remains little to no evidence of Iraqi aid to international terrorism, and even less that isn't being actively picked apart by various investigative committees. Plant a democracy in a region with no history of it isn't a good enough reason. Furthermore, it would have to be legitimate, and one that appears outwardly to many in the region as a US puppet and formed at gun-point (regardless of the truth of the matter) doesn't seem to fit the bill. Lastly, murderous regime and mass graves? Weren't these the same people who told us to look the other way when Saddam started doing that because he fit our interests in the region at that point in time? Saddam's regime has been doing that for decades, what made now a more reasonable time to invade? Not to mention all the other places that do this, like, for example, China...who apparently don't get invaded, and get to enjoy a great relationship with us.

[American Patriot]

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/3079/cp.jpg

It would be funnier and more sensible to have Ken Lay's buddy Clinton there instead of Bush. You know, since Enron donated 1.3 mil to Clinton and all.

[Deuterium]

http://www.comics.com/editoons/asay/archive/images/asay2004071149411.gif

http://www.comics.com/editoons/asay/archive/images/asay2004071743110.gif

[catchv22]

There remains little to no evidence of Iraqi aid to international terrorism, and even less that isn't being actively picked apart by various investigative committees. Plant a democracy in a region with no history of it isn't a good enough reason. Furthermore, it would have to be legitimate, and one that appears outwardly to many in the region as a US puppet and formed at gun-point (regardless of the truth of the matter) doesn't seem to fit the bill. Lastly, murderous regime and mass graves? Weren't these the same people who told us to look the other way when Saddam started doing that because he fit our interests in the region at that point in time? Saddam's regime has been doing that for decades, what made now a more reasonable time to invade? Not to mention all the other places that do this, like, for example, China...who apparently don't get invaded, and get to enjoy a great relationship with us.

What are these human rights things that keep getting mentioned? All I hear about is the word 'Tibet' and Tiananmen Square Massacre. What else have they done in the past few decades? I was raised in the American Education system and I've never heard of other things, not doubting that it's not true, but just wondering.

[Deuterium]

There remains little to no evidence of Iraqi aid to international terrorism, and even less that isn't being actively picked apart by various investigative committees.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1309

How soon we forget.


Plant a democracy in a region with no history of it isn't a good enough reason.

Worked for the US, France, Japan to name a few.