The quote comes from the Washington Post. While this war criminal cozies up with the neighbors, Obama gets kudos for ordering the shootings of three Somali pirates. Charming.
Bush’s Comfy Retirement
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
47 Comments. Leave new
I don't see how one can object to the resolution of the Somali pirate incident.
I have to second that. They had AK-47s trained on an American citizen, whom they had taken hostage. What would have been a better resolution, since arrest seemed out of the question?
It's a hypocritical society that celebrates the summary execution of these pirates while war criminals walk our streets with impunity.
ted, i'm curious as to what point you're making by bringing up the piracy thing. some may feel otherwise, but i personally don't think there's anything wrong with somali pirates being shot (and i honestly can't imagine that too many other people do either)– live by the automatic rifle, die by the automatic rifle. granted, the info we have comes mostly from the MSM, so a great deal of it is probably bullshit; but on its face, the situation seems pretty cut and dried, and i for one have no more sympathy for dead pirates than thomas jefferson did when he ordered our navy and marines to go whack the barbary bad guys (of course, whether or not the recent incident deserves the amount of coverage it's been getting, while the continued subversion of our checks and balances and rule of law by yet another despotic president receives comparatively little attention– well, that's another issue).
as for the war criminal bush– i'm definitely in full agreement with you there. the thought of that piece of shit eating dinner at his neighbors' parties, rather than in a cell at the hague, pretty much makes me want to skip MY dinner entirely…
Honestly, a lot of those pirates are just hungry people. So they find the target of opportunity and we give them money. It's a sort of relief fund for the part of the world the rest forgot.
Also, I am kind of weirded out how we are lauding these snipers as great shots. The shots were taken 30 yards away with high power rifles. I can put bullets down range about the length of a thumb with a pistol at 30 yards.
errrrrr
I think the kids' mothers may have….
and the pirates are pissed.
Obama wants you to forget the past. Dorme bene…
I have a problem with shooting three teenage blacks living in poverty don't you?
Ted, a while back didn't you write that America should be more aggressive about the Somali Pirate situation?
If ever there is a time where it is acceptable to use military force it is when our citizens have been abducted and had their lives threatened by friggin' pirates.
You can't honestly disagree with this, can you?
Aggie, I don't see how anyone can object to the merchant sips being allowed their own defense instead of spending bazillions of taxpayer money. Anyone, that is, that is not in government or the UN.
Aggie Dude:
When it's pirates vs. empire, I reflexively identify with the pirates.
One can object to the excessive use of the military to resolve the matter. The pirates have been hijacking boats for a long time now, and rarely if ever does anyone get killed. They come from a poverty stricken country where one of the few options they have is to hijack boats with millions of dollars of cargo.
My personal objection is the fact that America didn't care what was going on with the Somalia boys until they kidnapped an American. Then, instead of looking at the problem from a perspective of peace and resolution (what Obama said his "change" was going to be about) They go in there guns blazing, in a "you don't mess with Americans!!!!" bravado, sending Navy Seals (!!??!!) in to handle three teenage boys. One can also object at the irony of the situation: it's o.k. for us to kill Afganis and Iraqi citizens, but, man, don't you kidnap an American. That's just wrong…
If you want to fix the pirate problem is to look at the situation they are coming from. These boys aren't criminals. They were hungry. Jobless. Homeless. The only job available that paid well was to rob boats. You need to fix the economic problem first, give them some hope, then you can fix the "pirate" problem.
The same logic applies to opium/insurgency in Afganistan (build schools for the kids and give them another alternative), and the drug cartels in Mexico (legalize drugs here and stop selling assault guns). Stop focusing on the symptoms, and fix the problem.
I don't object to the resolution of the Somali incident, even as I recognize that the pirates are mostly victims of circumstances.
Much in the same way I know most criminal activity is a symptom of poverty, disenfranchisement, and lack of education and basic opportunities which will not be addressed just by putting more cops on the street. But if someone breaks into my house or holds a gun to my friend, I won't shed a tear if the cops have to shoot him.
KARBALA, April 9, 2009 (AP) – A parliamentary committee criticized police on Sunday for raiding an exhibition featuring a cartoon lampooning Iraq's prime minister.
Last Thursday, police raided a cartoon exhibition in the Shiite holy city of Karbala and seized a drawing depicting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with a long nose trying to repair a car labeled "sectarian distribution of jobs,"…
Yeah, didn't you write an article saying you couldn't understand the pussyfooting about over the pirates?
I won't waste my time trying to tug your heart strings about the plight of 16-year-old boys living a life you couldn't possibly imagine. Let's stick to motivated self-interest:
In reaction to this incident, the pirates have stated that henceforth they will simply kill any Americans they capture, rather than take the risk of holding them hostage. Could any of you tough-talking "do the crime/do the time" fellas object to THAT?
This rescue will make a great made-for-tv movie, and the short-sighted can applaud the drama, but this WILL make life a lot more deadly for Americans working in that region and, in case you haven' checked, the defense budget is a little bit stretched right now. Keeping a team of SEALS with every convoy is going to run a tab.
The solution to the Somali pirate issue will be a lot more complicated than three sniper bullets (and those shots, from different vessels in rough seas, were AMAZING shots).
Aggie, I don't see how anyone can object to the merchant sips being allowed their own defense instead of spending bazillions of taxpayer money. Anyone, that is, that is not in government or the UN.Incitatus, the shipping companies can't afford the cost in elevated liability insurance that comes with arming their crews. It's not economically viable. In reality, they're content to simply pay the ransom money and move on, and that's amplifying the problem.
As with the federal government having the responsibility to provide for the security of its citizens (if it fails to, that's a reason to hold it accountable, not an excuse to say "oh well, I guess we're on our own" btw), this is precisely a job for civilized nations to do what they can to ensure the security of shipping lanes that we all depend on.
ken: you, sir, should do stand-up! everything you wrote was so hilarious! now, i would never insult your intelligence by insinuating that you may have been serious and actually MEANT any of that silly stuff you wrote, but just in case someone else sees it and mistakes it for a sincere opinion, let's do this:
"One can object to the excessive use of the military to resolve the matter."
obviously, this is ridiculous because stopping pirates from victimizing americans is a completely legitimate use of our military, as it clearly falls under the category of self-defense.
"…one of the few options they have is to hijack boats…"
which, of course, isn't an option at all, but rather a CRIME. attacking innocent people with automatic rifles and grenade launchers and kidnapping them and holding them hostage could never be an "option" for any decent, moral human being. CRIMINAL SCUM, on the other hand, have no problem with those sorts of things. so yeah, great joke!
"…America didn't care what was going on with the Somalia boys until they kidnapped an American."
which is exactly as it should be, of course. well, unless you're one of those imperialist weirdos who feels that the US military is supposed to be the world's police force, instead of a self-defense force for american citizens, the way our founders intended. but i know you don't really think that, because that would be totally silly!
"They go in there guns blazing…"
actually, as i'm sure you're aware, our navy spent several days trying to peacefully negotiate with the criminals, and did NOT use force (not even when fired upon, nor when the hostage was fired upon while trying to escape) until the negotiations broke down and the criminals were observed actually holding machine guns to the kidnapped american citizen's head, threatening to murder him. "guns blazing" indeed! haha!
"it's o.k. for us to kill Afganis and Iraqi citizens, but, man, don't you kidnap an American."
oh man, i LOVE the way you bring apples into a conversation about oranges! that's a stroke of comic genuis! i mean, obviously, the morally repugnant military invasions of iraq and afghanistan have NOTHING to do with the somali pirate situation, and so *I* know you're not really being serious… man, what a great parody of the kind of specious, illogical arguments that dimwits in comments sections use every day! brilliant!
"These boys aren't criminals."
HAHAHA!! holy crap! that's your funniest line yet! you HAVE to take this act on stage, ken! i'm telling, you'll be a star! insisting that people who attack innocent, unarmed civilians with machine guns and rocket launchers and kidnap them and hold them hostage at gunpoint for ransom, threatening to murder them, AREN'T criminals– BAHAHA!! i just don't even know what to say! so i'll just say "bravo!"
"They were hungry."
and then you follow it up with this comedic gem!! using hunger as an excuse, when anyone who's been following the story knows that the ship they hijacked was TRYING TO BRING THEM FOOD!! omg! i'm rolling over here! GENIUS!
"The only job available that paid well was to rob boats."
holy shit! stop, ken! i'm gonna laugh my head clean off! as if "robbing boats" is a job!!! that's not a job! that's a CRIME! HAHAHA!! but wait– i forgot! "these boys aren't criminals"..!!! oh man! i can't take it!! HAHAHAHHAHAA!!!!11
ken, after reading your inspired work of gut-busting, knee-slapping comedic brilliance, all i can say is:
"colbert who??"
thank-you so much for this gift, ken! i thank you, the hundreds of victims being currently held hostage by somali criminals thank you, their families thank you, the WORLD thanks you!
keep up the GREAT work!
Seriously, Ted, give us an answer here. You wrote an article about how we were too lenient on the pirates, now you're saying we were too heavyhanded with them. On this particular issue, you sound like a 16-year-old kid who is saying something contrary just trying to piss off his parents.
Santiago, you are a fool. It was not just 30 yds, and it was a moving shot taken on a shifting surface. And, please, save us this nonsense that the pirates were just "three teenage blacks living in poverty." This is their business and their chosen trade. They are thugs who got themselves into the wrong hostage situation. No moral person should have a problem with shooting someone — of any color — who has kidnapped an innocent individual and is threatening to kill him for ransom. The mawkish tripe of some of the commentors here is both offensive and morally idiotic.
"Santiago, you are a fool. It was not just 30 yds, and it was a moving shot taken on a shifting surface."
Oh no, a shifting surface at 30 yards. Oh no… so hard… I am quivering…
I guess I am a fool… I mean I can put a 30 caliber bullet at 100 meters with iron sights and shifting winds in a quarter size hole. Much more so the size of a human head.
John127 either you have never shot a gun or you probably suck at it.
I agree with Jason on this. Ted is very flaky on many issues and does come across sometimes like a 16 year old who's just trying to piss off his parents.
It has been fascinating to read these comments. I think this issue can now serve as the ultimate litmus test in distinguishing a reasonable thinking liberal from an utterly batshit crazy one.
I should have added, Incitatus, that I agree with you that the shipping companies should be arming crews, and perhaps putting deck guns on freighters, or at least hiring security guards if they can't get the crews armed. I heard reports that the Administration supported that but I'm not sure.
I don't really think there's much more than a wooden pirate leg to stand on for supporting the pirates, but I understand and accept that support being voiced here. There are enough flakes on this blog that at least a few of them are going to melt for any group that is opposed to the United States in any way, even when American policy IS working effectively.
This isn't about poverty, this is about 1) a failed social order in Somalia that provides the conditions under which chaos emerges, 2) the presence of a lot of small arms, and 3) an existing criminal network that gives individuals a platform to profit from theft and ransoming.
It is PRECISELY the reason that strong central governments are important, so much so that the ones that exist in most countries are taken for granted by the people who live in those countries, and spend their time venting on blogs (myself included).
Establishing or maintaining order is the first step toward liberalization of a society that leads to the personal freedoms we take so much for granted that we ask the institutions that established that order to take a hike (e.g. Incitatus-relying on family and friends absent state structures is tribalism…do you want to live in Afghanistan?).
I have a problem with shooting three teenage blacks living in poverty don't you?Look, I'm as classically liberal as they come, but if three PEOPLE of any color, age, or income are holding an innocent person at gunpoint and refuse to surrender, they get taken out. It's how the world works. Like someone already said, live by the automatic rifle, die by the automatic rifle.
Any reasonable person should be able to agree that Bush's crimes are on a much larger scale than those of the pirates, and Bush hasn't even been prosecuted.
Take that same ship captain.
Now pretend he just got hit by a car, and broke his femur, but does not call an ambulance because he can't afford it.
The navy never arrives.
The man dies.
"In reaction to this incident, the pirates have stated that henceforth they will simply kill any Americans they capture, rather than take the risk of holding them hostage."
Did that come direct from Pirate HQ, arrrrr me hearties?
What's their plan B if they can't outrun elements of the 5th Fleet? They're gonna try to OUTGUN the US Navy are they? Without a hostage on board? When they've just murdered a bunch of Americans in cold blood? Meh, I'm sure the super-hornets could use the target practice.
I'm not American BTW and am quite objective about your country and its use and misuse of its military, but I bet the pirates don't do that.
Pirate – a person who makes a career out of aquiring wealth through any means possible, leaving behind a trail of victims.
Did that come direct from Pirate HQ, arrrrr me hearties?Good one. Nothing like a bit of wise-ass flippancy to raise that intellectual bar, eh Sean?
How about the words of Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command? "This could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it"
Too credible a source? How about the words to AP from one of the pirates actually holding a Greek ship hostage right now? "Every country will be treated the way it treats us(…)We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men."
How about another pirate quote? "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)(…)Now (Americans)become our number one enemy"
Not Pirate Central. FoxNews, so no bogus accusations of bleeding-heart liberalism please.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514719,00.html
The only "litmus test" this thread demonstrated (apart from the fact that appeals to rational motivation are lost on the chat hall mob), it is that the face of righteousness triumphant can be every bit as hideous as the face of evil unmasked…
Yeah Flamingo, I'm sure Fox would never try to find a way to make your current president look bad.
Like I said, if the pirates carry out those threats they're pretty damn stupid. Talking tough is probably a good negotiating gambit at this stage – it's worked on you after all. They hope to maintaiin the fairly lawless status quo in those seas, which has been so profitable for them.
If on the other hand they again find themselves trapped by the international force, they'll probably want a hostage. Then, whether they've got one or not, they should surrender at an opportune moment, ie before they get killed.
Nice poetry about the face of righteousness and stuff. Oooh shiiiiit! But that's got nothing to do with it. The captain was a civilian on a legal, peaceful mission. His government has a right to defend him if they can, before his captors get him to shore, cut his throat and dump his body in the mangroves.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/03/26/thailand-pirate-murder-the-moment-yacht-hijack-wife-knew-her-husband-had-been-murdered-115875-21228433/
The USN gave the kidnappers every chance to surrender (5 days). The kidnappers repeatedly threatened to kill Phillips. Lesser of two evils, in other words. In the heat of the moment, the peaceful relatively law-abiding dude is taken to have the greater claim to continued breathing than the murderous, money driven criminal who's pointing a gun at his unarmed head.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.
Me hearty! Arrrr!
Flamingo Bob – You are absolutely pathetic. Yes, hitting somebody back can escalate violence, but sometimes it is what you have to do. The idea that we should resist using force against pirates because that might cause them to get angry with us . . . . . just stay out of international affairs and run your own sad little life, you idiot.
Aggie,
Our country was founded on a weak central government and stronger state and local governments. We would not devolve to Somalia if we went back to Federalism.
jason said:
"The idea that we should resist using force against pirates because that might cause them to get angry with us."US unemployment is at a post depression high. The national debt is going to eat our grandchildren. Life in the US was better for our parents. What are we focusing on?
Somali pirates.
None of you are any different than the fools and hucksters that got America into an unwinnable war in Iraq. Tough talk and plugged ears. Name-calling and lame "media bias" excuses. Shit. After umpteen surges and as many failures, you still don't know the difference between a "solution" and an "escalation". Oh well. "Pathetic" guys like me can wait. In the end, we're proven right.
Anon:
Our country was founded on a weak central government and stronger state and local governmentsStrong state and local governments are still strong centralized governments, they simply traverse a smaller territory. My statement wasn't about the geographic size of the domain, but the strength of the bureaucracy, founded on a legal code (whatever it may be, and however fair it may be) that establishes order. Order is predictability, the ability to plan for the future because you know an investment today will be with you tomorrow.
When you stop being so hung up on outdated ideological arguments, you would be able to get a lot more out of the things I write.
When you stop being so hung up on outdated ideological arguments, you would be able to get a lot more out of the things I write.Well you had me until this paragraph. You were correct I assumed you meant a strong federal government. You didn't really need to be a jerk about correcting me.
I feel as though some commentors here, e.g. Flamingo Bob, feel as though the Iraq War has vindicated the unfounded world view that the exertion of American military force is at all times immoral, imperialistic, and counterproductive. As if the situation where pirates have taken American citizens hostage is identical to Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. This is blind ideology and, ultimately, base stupidity. And it should be labeled as such.
Pirate – a person who makes a career out of aquiring wealth through any means possible, leaving behind a trail of victims.I take issue with this definition.
When an empire steals from a colony, leaving behind a trail of victims, it's call "international commerce."
When a rouge steals from an empire it's called "piracy."
In my estimation, engaging in piracy could potentially be justified…
Ag,
A small decentralized federal government is not an "outdated ideology". We have a federal government that weighs heavily in almost every aspect of our daily lives. And what has it gotten us? A ponzi scheme called Social Security, another ponzi scheme called medicare, a tax system nobody can figure out not even the Treasury Secretary, a bloated bureaucracy that seems intent on regulating or nationalizing major portions of our economy, a Fed that prints money with no regard to the currency future (de)valuation, a system whereby politicians dedicated too much time extracting money from other people for their own gain, the current housing crisis yadda yadda yadda. There is almost nothing the government can do right.
Bear in mind that Somalia has had no government to speak of since 1991. Along with the collapse came Western exploitation (this was more European than American, bear in mind) in the form of illegal fishing and dumping of toxic wastes in Somali waters.
The 'pirates' were originally pissed off villagers and fisherman defending their own territory in lieu of government action; an unofficial coast guard if you will. From there, others realized the financial potential of kidnapping/ransom. The problem now is differentiating between the two.
I'm not justifying the recent pirate attack, mind you. Kudos to the SEALs on some amazing shots. But, I wonder how long it will take for other 'interests' to take similar action against the local fisherman trying to keep nuclear sludge out of their water.
They are all just 'pirates', after all, and that label alone is justification enough.
Anon 5:08 PM
I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was trying to impress upon others the need to escape very narrow parameters in which we discuss institutions of governance. I'm sorry if it was offensive.
Anon 12:56 AM
Did you read the rest of the post? Your argument isn't about weak vs. strong government, but about federalism and where final authority lies. These are two distinct issues, and the failure to differentiate between them demonstrates my point that the public discourse on this topic is too focused on outdated ideological stances.
The argument over federalism is outdated because of global telecommunications and transportation, global finance, and global environmental problems. Essentially, we need a different paradigm for discussing the issue of governance, and Americans are still arguing about 18th Century political philosophy for the most part: government vs. market, federalism, the power of the executive.
I have a distinct image of Ted Rall's piece depicting McCain and Obama debating as Rome burns in the background.
The level of discussion on governance in the United States is, I swear, at like an 8th grade civics class level.
wow, this may be the longest comment thread ever on this site. and yet our host remains conspicuously absent…
I get a kick out of hearing free-moron-teers call Social Security and Medicare a "ponzi scheme."
Ha!
Social Security and Medicare work. If you're eligible you collect benefits. How is this a "ponzi scheme"?
Fucking idiot. Fucking retarded right-wing talking point.
Grouchy,
Social Security IS a ponzi scheme. It's a giant ponzi scheme. There are only two differences. First, when it was designed, the designers did not anticipate the consequences of the baby boomer generation aging and starting to collect. Second, because there is a constant supply of "new investors" (read, US tax payers), the Ponzi scheme theoretically never breaks down. Ponzi schemes break down when the crafters of the scheme decide to loot the till and run away with the money.
I would equate that to the "cut taxes at any cost" revolution of Reaganites, perfected under George W. Bush, who basically looted our country for privateering gains and left the place a house of cards. Now we have to clean up the mess while Cheney continues to yell at everybody and Bush quietly collects his pension, enjoys benefits and writes his memoirs.
I like the idea of social security and think it should be maintained and strengthened, but the fact that I like it doesn't mean it's NOT a ponzi scheme. It totally is. Privatizing it would have made it even more of one.
Shouldn't some web admin have put a filter on the phrase "dorme bene" to reject it as spam by now?
Somalia has no official defense infrastructure. Some foreign businesses decide to take advantage of this to dump industrial wastes. In areas not effected/less effected by the pollution, other foreigners deploy commercial fishing ships, leaving Somalis with polluted and/or empty fishing waters. The so-called “pirates” are a citizens’ Coast Guard, organized in the absence of anyone else doing a single goddamn thing to protect Somali interests against transnational thuggery.