Jim Borgman has been the Enquirer's editorial cartoonist since 1976. Borgman has won every major award in his field, including the 1991 Pulitzer Prize, the National Cartoonists Society's Reuben Award for Outstanding Cartoonist of the Year in 1993, and most recently, the Adamson Award in 2005 as International Cartoonist of the Year. His award-winning daily comic strip Zits, co-created with Jerry Scott, chronicles the life of 15-year-old Jeremy Duncan, his family and friends through the glories and challenges of the teenage years. Since debuting in July 1997, Zits has regularly finished #1 in reader comics polls across America and is syndicated in more than 1300 newspapers around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 Comments:
at 6/8/07, 8:30 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/8/07, 9:13 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/9/07, 8:26 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/9/07, 1:16 PM 
Scott Evans said...
-
-
at 6/9/07, 1:29 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/9/07, 1:30 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/9/07, 1:38 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/10/07, 12:48 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/10/07, 3:37 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/10/07, 7:18 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/10/07, 8:57 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/10/07, 11:16 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/11/07, 9:55 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/11/07, 11:30 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/11/07, 11:34 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6/11/07, 9:33 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Calling the surge doomed before it is fully in place.
Ahhhhh yes, liberals support the troops! (when they come home in body bags..)
If this guy (anonymous) were in a bar nobody in his right mind would bother talking to him, let alone argue with him. Let's ignore him.
liberals support the troops when they come home in body bags.
hmmm. how about liberals support the troops because they want to end the shrubs insanity.
or better yet. conservatives hate the troops because they want to waste their lives trading blood for corporate profits. yeah, that one fits pretty well doesn't it.
Jim wasn't calling the surge doomed, in fact the surge wasn't the point of his cartoon, the point was the passport fiasco that was created by more regulations and inefficient bigger govt.
The cartoon was saying that because troops couldn't get passports in time that there could be no surge in troops as they would not be able to leave the country. Its a political cartoon that was done very well. Quit making everything to be an us vs them liberal vs conservative type of conflict.
A great cartoon that Jim or someone could do would be a two frame cartoon, then and now. First frame, 9/12/01 showing Republicans and Democrats hugging, holding hands, and singing together to show unity(maybe an elephant and donkey). Next frame: Today, show the elephant and donkey in divorse court with the soldiers as the kids in the broken home, possibly saying Mom, Dad please quit fighting with each other and support/love me.
Does anyone recall a Jack Lemmon film called "How to Murder Your Wife"? I don't recall much about it, but when I was a kid it made quite an impression on me because Lemmon played a cartoonist.
There was aslo a TV show called "My World and Welcome To it" based loosely on James Thurber's life and works.
Now that's what I call a FAST response!
anon 8:26a
this is not bush's war, sugartits. im not sure how far your memory goes back, but if you can think back a few years ago, remember all of the liberals that authorized the war in iraq? and im not sure you understand how the basic process of our government works. you see, the president needs the authority to declare war. that authority comes from..CONGRESS!!!!11!1!!1!!
so what youre saying is liberals vote to send troops to war, allow a few thousand to be killed, and then say "we had nothing to do with this!!!!! it's all bush's fault!"?
ohhhh i love liberal hypocrisy. you guys have no regard for life, in general, unless youre a convicted felon of course. if youre a fetus or a soldier, well then youre pretty much screwed. yes, lets vote to send you to war, and then a few years later, call you miserable failures and waste the lives that were lost because we change our minds!
had enough?
vote republican.
heres the entire speech from the lefts savior, bill clinton, in 1998 explaining why he attacked iraq.
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."
yes, bush lied, and people died!!! right?
PATHETIC!
the man is right, put another dem in the whitehouse fast
Put a Democrat in the White House and Al Qaeda will be dancing in the streets, because they know the Jackass in the Oval Office will pull the troops out giving the Jihadists the physical and political victory they need/want. When that happens, you'd be well advised to avoid all forms of mass transit here in the US because they'll be looking for another victory on US soil. Handed to them on a silver platter by the liberals.
Oh dear, time for another Reality Check . . .
Reality Check #1: Thank you for admitting Bill Clinton took care of Saddam the way it's supposed to be done! No invasions!! Slobodan Milosevich died in a Hague prison, yet not one US soldier ever set foot on Belgrade!
Reality Check #2: Americans had indeed had enough . . . and voted for Democrats in 2006 . . .
Reality Check #3: Al Quaeda benefits from out stay in Iraq. It provides them with a never ending promo for recruitment and fund raising, and a proving ground for new soldiers. All signs show that if we leave, Al Quaeda will be wiped out by secular Sunnis who won't stand for fanatics at home, Shi'ites intolerant of Sunni Al Quaeda, and Kurds who only put up with them 'cause it pissed off Saddam. Indeed, vote Democratic, see Al Quaeda die (they'd actually finish the job in Afghanistan; you know where Al Quaeda is actually based)!
Sorry to burst the bubble of the delusional few . . .
Delusional George (Curious George) says at 8:26am
this is not bush's war, sugartits. im not sure how far your memory goes back, but if you can think back a few years ago, remember all of the liberals that authorized the war in iraq? and im not sure you understand how the basic process of our government works. you see, the president needs the authority to declare war. that authority comes from..CONGRESS!!!!11!1!!1!! Let's ignore him.
well 7:18, sounds like you got your brown shirt pressed and you're just waiting to march down the street and salute ghouliani.
be careful you don't spill any kool-aid. it leaves a nasty stain.
Maybe not brown shirt, but I think he (she?) must've enlisted for military duty the first chance he (she?) got. If he (she?) is not in the military, one wonders what they told him (her?) at the recruitment office when they turned him (her?) down . . .
I love how the "Congress approved it!" people always fail to mention the faulty information, the false threat, and the upcoming election that led many to make that decision, some probably thinking they were just approving another round of air strikes; yeah, rather convenient . . .
Everybody wants the last word.
Here's mine: I keep thinking about Edward Sorel. And about keeping the energy of a fluid line visible.
(I have no idea if Sorel is conservative or liberal, bless his gesture drawing heart.)
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home