« Out-of-Wedlock Births | Main | The A-Team vs Obama »

Obama vs The Navy SEALs

April 20, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

So true. Thanks for your posts.

Posted by: Bruce Oksol | Apr 20, 2009 9:08:25 PM

Nonsense. Arrant nonsense. When did Obama deride Navy SEALs or another servicemen as right-wing extremists?

This is crappy thinking. It used to be that people could disagree about politics without indulgining in such idiotic exaggerations, distortions, and falsehoods.

Posted by: Geoff | Apr 21, 2009 9:45:31 AM

I didn't know what this was about, so I took some time to inform myself. This is particular comic is very misleading, as it attributes Obama having said "A Bunch of Right-Wing Extremists" in reference to Navy seals, specifically, when they become civilians.

The facts are that a report from the DHS, headed by Janet Napolitano, warned of right-wing extremist groups targeting "military veterans who have difficulty reentering civilian life", as was the case with Timothy McVeigh.

I think the Obama's administration push for improving mental health care is extremely overdue, and demonstrates a real change in the right direction. At least that's what my vet friends have impressed upon me.

Though the political bias in your comics can be overt, I very much enjoy that you are making them and I've even snickered out loud at a few. I'll have to read the archives when I have more time.

I'm not trying to debate the report itself, I'm just saying that if it's a duck, call it a duck. There's no need to distort reality here.

Posted by: tpulley | Apr 21, 2009 10:22:53 AM

It's a duck.

His administration thinks veterans are right wing extremists.

No amount of BS will change that. Or is your argument that right wing extremists are really bad recruiters, so they never actually get anyone to join?

Either way your argument is weaker than Hardee's coffee.

Interesting that this ran on 4-20 and no comment on that.

Posted by: John Galt | Apr 21, 2009 2:36:55 PM

Think of these as political cartoons. They are going to have a bias. Many of us here agree with the bias, those that don't can either laugh and appreciate the irony or choose to leave and go look at the also stretched liberal cartoons or the daily show.

Posted by: ninja pancakes | Apr 21, 2009 4:49:46 PM

> "military veterans who have difficulty reentering civilian life", as was the case with Timothy McVeigh.

Timothy McVeigh was screwed up long before he went into the military. This was heavily documented back when he was a subject of attention.

That's not to argue against the notion that it's hard to go back into civilian life when you've been in the military by any means, but the connection/association with McVeigh is far, far more misleading than Tom's cartoon.

> When did Obama deride Navy SEALs or another servicemen as right-wing extremists?

When a member of his admin released a report which suggested it was so, did Obama come out and vociferously deride them for such a specious suggestion?

Letting a sock puppet say something you want to avoid the heat for is a classic backhanded political trick, and if you're under the impression that Obama doesn't do such things, then I suggest it's long past time you clicked your ruby slippers together...

Posted by: Obloodyhell | Apr 21, 2009 5:55:11 PM

hey - thanks everyone for the replies! I want to respond without starting a flamewar if I can :)

In general, I think the presence of the phrase "right wing" here is being taken the wrong way. I personally don't care for any type of extemist or hate groups, including the "left wing extremists" like ELO/ELF, PETA, or anyone else who uses violence to promote their message. I'm more than happy to let the leftists and rightists to be judged on their own merits without holding a bias other than my own personal one (which I fancy as transcending left/right politics).

@JG - My argument is pragmatic. I didn't comment yesterday because I only discovered this comic today while googling "popularity of golf".

@NP - I couldn't agree more. Sorry I wasn't more clear about my mention of the bias, but that's a major part of the fun of these comics :)

@OBH - I was using timMcV as an example of what the report was saying (actually, I think the report itself used that example), which is that certain types of groups are targeting certain types of people for recruitment. Granted, invoking him as an example is perhaps hyperbolic, but that makes it all the more unambiguous.

It's another thing entirely to say that the report directly called veterans right-wing extremists. Don't make me try to express this using formal predicate logic. Even the VFW defended it as an assessment, not an accusation.

I can't speak for Obama, but if I were in this situation, I would be satisfied to let the person directly responsible for the semantic disturbance clarify it on her own while I worked on more important things. And that's exactly what she did. Napolitano said, "We do not mean to suggest that veterans as a whole are at risk of becoming violent extremists." and "I apologize for that offense. It was certainly not intended." What more do you want, her to flash some tits?

It's not like Bush ever apologized for Cheney shooting that guy in the face. Hell, it was the guy who got shot that apologized!

Posted by: tpulley | Apr 21, 2009 9:57:58 PM

Great post. Thanks. Keep up the good work. As a military veteran having spent time in Iraq, I now know where I stand -- at least in this administration: among the group of potential terrorists.

Posted by: Bruce Oksol | Apr 23, 2009 10:24:23 PM

> hey - thanks everyone for the replies! I want to respond without starting a flamewar if I can :)

Silly little pulley...

:oD

Actually, for the most part, Flame Wars won't be found here. It's rare that it degenerates to name calling only.
"You're an idiot because....xxxx" isn't a flame. It's just impolite.

> I'm more than happy to let the leftists and rightists to be judged on their own merits without holding a bias other than my own personal one (which I fancy as transcending left/right politics).

I tend to agree in principle, but how much money are you willing to bet that Obama will make a statement deriding "left wing fascists" in the next year, upon any of several events which I will pretty much guarantee you will be citable during said timeframe? That lack of equal-time comment is the subject here, as much as anything else.

> which is that certain types of groups are targeting certain types of people for recruitment.

Ah, but you're wrong there -- that meme is and has been a pernicious lie: **McVeigh was tossed out of EVERY Militia Group he attempted to join.***

The attempt to paint militia groups as "xxxx-wing nut jobs" is entirely in tow with the rest of this crap which is part of the subject of this toon. The number of right-wing nutjob groups is probably smaller (esp. in terms of overall nuttery) and far less dangerous than the left-wing sort.

McVeigh had an extremely hard time finding people like him who were willing to actively strike out at innocent people. I consider people who support -- openly and stridently -- like Ward Churchill -- to be far more common and much more dangerous to the social fabric than the occasional McVeigh.

> while I worked on more important things

I think that if I was working for the Fed and came out with an "assessment" on the probability that someone in the Islamic community would do precisely the same things this report says that "right wing" groups will do (And I'm sorry, I think that there is AMPLE justification for such an assessment), that said report would be squashed, and my political career would be over, or at least at a standstill until the current admin left office.

If I did release it anyway, I will absolutely bet you that Obama would be very, very, VERY strident in his opposition to such claims.

Part of what is objected to is the one-sidedness of this claim.

I am willing to bet good money, even at decent odds, with you: If there IS an attack in this country in the next 10 years, it will come not from the Right but from either the Left directly or one of their pet causes, such as Islam (and yes, probably that...), which they are quite adamant about never, ever mentioning as a possible threat*

Want to take me up on that?

====
*(How many times have you seen a movie villain be an islamic terrorist -- and how many times has it been "big business"? 'Nuff said.)

Posted by: Obloodyhell | May 2, 2009 7:00:55 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.