And it’s sad that these comments have been hijacked by those wishing to ‘out-argue’ Look at the bigger picture. It’s not about who wins a frigging arguement

And it’s sad that these comments have been hijacked by those wishing to ‘out-argue’ Look at the bigger picture. It’s not about who wins a frigging arguement

For even more spectacular entertainment along the same “hand the lefties’ asses to themselves on the subject of national security” lines, read or listen to Hugh Hewitt hang, draw and quarter the execrable Joel Stein of the LA Times:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001332

why we’re having this discussion at the Drawn blog, I don’t know. But it’s good target practice, at least…

For even more spectacular entertainment along the same “hand the lefties’ asses to themselves on the subject of national security” lines, read or listen to Hugh Hewitt hang, draw and quarter the execrable Joel Stein of the LA Times:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001332

why we’re having this discussion at the Drawn blog, I don’t know. But it’s good target practice, at least…

he portrays their decision not to testify in a FAVORABLE LIGHT.

he chalks it up to honor and dignity rather and bypasses the obvious skepticism that any objective person would look at that decision with.
because, if i’m not mistaken – its a crime to make false statements to to a senator in the presence of an attorney.

these two men have no credibility, an unknown history, no witnesses and backed down when brought to a real power to present their case.

the US military has an established protocol with checks and balances, a chain of command, and servicemen who are just like me and you.

so in the same manner that Sacco has doodled a sympathetic light to the consummately hateful violent and crooked Palestinian command, he has here bent over backwards and twisted the perspective to a dizzying extent in regards to the outlandish stories of these two men.
.. who backed down when pressed for statements in front of real authorities and not syccophantic journalists.

and it takes a rube like you to not only miss this point but blindly believe what you want to believe because it subscribes to your hollywood perception of world politics.
-when we pursue an enemey, we will find out that the enemy is ourselves!
-if we are at war with another people, then we just don’t understand them!

idiocy defined.

he portrays their decision not to testify in a FAVORABLE LIGHT.

he chalks it up to honor and dignity rather and bypasses the obvious skepticism that any objective person would look at that decision with.
because, if i’m not mistaken – its a crime to make false statements to to a senator in the presence of an attorney.

these two men have no credibility, an unknown history, no witnesses and backed down when brought to a real power to present their case.

the US military has an established protocol with checks and balances, a chain of command, and servicemen who are just like me and you.

so in the same manner that Sacco has doodled a sympathetic light to the consummately hateful violent and crooked Palestinian command, he has here bent over backwards and twisted the perspective to a dizzying extent in regards to the outlandish stories of these two men.
.. who backed down when pressed for statements in front of real authorities and not syccophantic journalists.

and it takes a rube like you to not only miss this point but blindly believe what you want to believe because it subscribes to your hollywood perception of world politics.
-when we pursue an enemey, we will find out that the enemy is ourselves!
-if we are at war with another people, then we just don’t understand them!

idiocy defined.

You’re right that Sacco doesn’t make a clear criticism with that segment (thanks for agreeing with me). There is no (obvious) judgement. The individual reader makes the call. Again, his tone is not that of the wild-eyed paranoid that you originally described.

You seem to be on to something when you allude to Sacco’s caricatures of “big fat ugly american servicemen”; it can be argued that he unfairly stacks the deck with his style. On the other hand, he doesn’t spare himself by drawing himself heroically – in fact, there are some really unflattering (but funny) self-caricatures in past comics (Palestine comes to mind). Furthermore, the way characters are drawn and exaggerations are just one more way that underlines the strengths and weaknesses of the comics medium when it’s used as a form of journalism.

As one who’s very familiar with Sacco’s work, you probably have something significant to say but you’ve buried it in irrelevant, trifling rants. Too bad. At least you’ll be able to recycle this stuff for some other nutso artist later on. But Sacco doesn’t fit the bill for what you’ve written here.

You’re right that Sacco doesn’t make a clear criticism with that segment (thanks for agreeing with me). There is no (obvious) judgement. The individual reader makes the call. Again, his tone is not that of the wild-eyed paranoid that you originally described.

You seem to be on to something when you allude to Sacco’s caricatures of “big fat ugly american servicemen”; it can be argued that he unfairly stacks the deck with his style. On the other hand, he doesn’t spare himself by drawing himself heroically – in fact, there are some really unflattering (but funny) self-caricatures in past comics (Palestine comes to mind). Furthermore, the way characters are drawn and exaggerations are just one more way that underlines the strengths and weaknesses of the comics medium when it’s used as a form of journalism.

As one who’s very familiar with Sacco’s work, you probably have something significant to say but you’ve buried it in irrelevant, trifling rants. Too bad. At least you’ll be able to recycle this stuff for some other nutso artist later on. But Sacco doesn’t fit the bill for what you’ve written here.