Obama announced that the U.S. will station 2,500 U.S. troops in northern Australia.
Sorry
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."
29 Comments. Leave new
I like the concept of the comic but my one disappointment is that you are using only one example of stationing troops in Australia again and again for all the “apologies”. This strip would provoke more rage and hit home with more people if you grabbed three more examples off the long list of destructive, stupid, and even cruel things Obama has freely spent large sums of money on instead of the important things that would actually help out the American people. Beyond that, however, this is golden work as per usual.
A chronological build up would have been a nice touch too. Where he tells the first person “Sorry but I needed to spend the money on [stupid thing] A”. Then the next person “Sorry but I needed to spend the money on [stupid things] A and B”. Finally to the last person “Sorry but I needed to spend the money on [stupid things] A, B, C, D, …[trail off with small illegible font.”
Ted,
$2.5 billion, written out: $2,500,000,000.
Twenty-five hundred is: 2,500.
That’s one million dollars per troop. Per YEAR? Has there been any breakdown of how, exactly, one soldier can require a million dollars a year?
“That’s one million dollars per troop. Per YEAR? Has there been any breakdown of how, exactly, one soldier can require a million dollars a year?”
Yeah, uh there’s a little more to a military presence than a troop. The military has been known to have some high-tech equipment. I’ve heard they even have computers.
If this is true (and I’m not saying it isn’t, just that it hasn’t turned up on ANY of the other political sites I hang out at yet, and they would be all over something like this.), this is a serious WTF moment for me. I really want an explanation for this one.
Even factoring in extra costs to feed, house, etc., this is an enormous figure.
@Alex: The $1 million per soldier per year figure has been widely reported. The Google will show that.
As usual, pro-war liberals (Kos, etc.) didn’t say boo.
The $1 million per year per troop figure is not limited to the Australian “project.” The wiki article “United States Armed Forces” gives the number of active US military at 1.5 million and the same for reserves.
An objective analysis of the 2011 federal budget, estimated that the true funding level of our “defense” system was to be $1.5 trillion (with a “T”) when ALL related items were considered.
(Much actual defense-related expenditure is routinely omitted from polite and serious punditry.) http://tinyurl.com/6aj4zqu
This comes out to the same $1 million per active duty troop and $0.5 million per each active+reserve troop.
So the full system figure is consistent with what here is being considered an outrageous number for the “limited” Australian deployment.
I hope this information will sustain and enhance the confusion and consternation instigated here by the new, Australian-adventure segment (about 0.15% of the total) of our perpetual war machine.
“As usual, pro-war liberals (Kos, etc.) didn’t say boo.”
Of course not. When Obama does it, it’s a-ok. That’s the Obamabot mantra. That and “Republicans are so much worse, so you have no choice” – which is a total fiction of course. Obama is the most conservative president we’ve had since Reagan, bar none.
Kos is a joke. I haven’t read that site since the whole polling data scandal broke, whereby their provider admitted falsifying 18 months of data. For me it just undermined the whole site, what with Kos always criticizing the “Very Serious People” and “MSM” – yet he can’t even provide accurate polling data. Kos is a clown. A joke. A mouthpiece with a bunch of brainless minions idolizing him.
To hell with the financial aspect, what about the cost in lives, of having even more people in the world hate us because we have military stationed in their country?
Obama is the most conservative president since…I don’t know…McKinley?
“As usual, pro-war liberals (Kos, etc.) didn’t say boo.”
I rather like dailykos. I mean, look at it. He gets scores of people to provide him with content, he pays almost no one anything, and they’re all thrilled to be working for free to make him lots of money. Seriously, does anyone know anything about how much his paid staffers make, and how much that represents as a percentage of the take?
The funniest part is that over the years, I’ve heard/seen pretty much the same business model from every “progressive” organization out there. They pay shit to everyone (except the highest circle), and scream themselves hoarse about how corrupt big business is.
I almost hope Obama gets re-elected (which I can’t imagine is going to happen) so that he can announces something like the forced registration and implantation-with-tracking-chip of all Americans. And while they’re lined up at the clinic to get chipped, the progressive element will be explaining to the rest of us that this is for our own good. “He’s doing this because he cares! It isn’t a violation of our liberties. If you ever loved him, you’d understand. If you keep this up, he’ll have to beat some sense into you, but you’ll deserve it. …”
alex_the_tired
Funny, I can’t imagine Obama NOT being re-elected. Not unless someone new enters the race, anyway.
If they keep up with the current crop of clowns, even if they retake the entire Congress (which I think is doubtful), I’d bet money Obama keeps the Presidency.
Alex: while the majority of voters SAY they’ll vote for ABO in generic polls, specific polls show they were not quite telling the truth: they’ll vote for AABO. Odds favour re-election by a narrow margin.
Whimsical: Republicans re-taking the entire Congress is about 70% certain. The Senate seats up for re-election were mostly won by Democrats in the ’06 sweep, so the Republicans are heavily favoured by the seats up for re-election in the Senate, and most polls show the Republicans holding the House.
The big question is whether a Republican Congress will have a veto-proof majority (probably not).
And, if the Republicans do get that veto-proof majority (highly unlikely) will they be dumb enough to try impeachment, as many have promised?
Whim,
Fair enough. If someone new enters the race (or even if one of the previous drops re-enters the race), it’s a whole new calculation.
But I think a lot of people used up the last bit of their hopefulness backing Obama. Personally, I can’t vote for him again because anything he does NOW will be an obvious attempt to buy my vote. He had three years to bring a Wall Street banker to trial, to close Gitmo, to end those ridiculous wars.. He didn’t. And the Dems are just as bad. I’m still going to go with my initial guess: a triple-play for the Republicans.
Election after election has shown that any calculations this early amount to mere guessing. Remember when it was a sure thing that Hillary would be the Dem. nominee? I cast my guess for who would capture the GOP pres. nomination a year ago. I said Gingrich. With all the ups and downs I may well end up right. But I made that guess before I knew he was a perennial candidate who fleeces supporters by asking for donations before declaring his candidacy, thus avoiding FEC rules, which is what Palin did this year.
My gut tells me the establishment elites are happy with Obama, so he will get reelected. I don’t know enough about Congress right now to say about it. However, people tend to vote whatever issue is biggest in the final month of the election. While an old issue, likely the economy will remain in that place. History also tells us that Democrats aren’t too motivated to get out and vote. Turnout should prove historically low with all the disappointment. Yet I can’t help but think there are enough Obama fanatics and people terrified of Republicans for Obama to win. He probably has something up his sleeve…some military “victory” perhaps or some other nonsense saved for next October.
The elite must realize now how successful having a wolf in sheep’s clothing has been. (A Republican as a Democratic President.) They must marvel at how stupid and foolish the people are. Obama gets away with more conservative crap than Dubya, all because Obama uses pretty words, seems calm and smart, is black, and of course, is of the Democratic Party.
It’s comical (pun intended) reading some of these comments. They’re just like a recent cartoon of Ted’s whereby people partake in politics like it’s a spectator sport. “So and so will win the presidency, unless this-or-that happens, it’s almost a blah percent chances Repubs retake the Senate, unless blah-ba-de-blah happens”. All sports talk. Nonsense. Meaningless.
Meanwhile the unelectable elite that comprise the shadow government continue shaping and crafting the actual policy (foreign and domestic) that will shape your lives for years to come.
Of course you are right, exkiodexian. It doesn’t matter who wins. Reminds me of what Mr. Rall said to the occupiers. Something like, “We’ve had forty years of political coverage without politics.” I hope you weren’t talking about my post. You won’t see me making percent projections. As I said, no one can guess with any accuracy anyway, even if it did matter who won, or if political coverage ever talked about WHY someone was leading and what it might mean for the country if he ultimately won.
The point is this kind of coverage is easy and good for ratings because it is for entertainment…
@Jack Heart: No, I wasn’t talking about your post.
@michael
Maybe if the election were held today. But I don’t see that trendline going anywhere but down, to the point where at the election time I’m thinking control of the House will be a toss-up. The Senate is the only body that I think the Republicans stand a chance at winning, and that’s due more to chance than anything else.
Alex
I don’t think it’s a good idea not to vote for Obama, but it’s your vote. I do, however, disagree with your reasons:
Speaking as someone with a sizeable contingent of family in law enforcement, I can say this: Three years is simply not long enough to bring a case of this complexity and magnititude to trial. Fault him for not being passionate enough in pursuit of the bankers (I disagree, but I can see the case being made), but don’t fault him for something no one else could’ve done.
Ditto for Gitmo: I will maintain to my dying day that Obama did everything in his power to close Gitmo. He was stymied by the Republicans and some traitors in his own party (including liberal icon Bernie Sanders, IIRC). I feel your anger, but IMO, you’re directing it at the wrong target.
Can’t really disagree with you on the war thing, especially with this ridiculous expansion into Austraila, though.
@Whimsical: You’re so self-deluded that it’s not even worth responding. I can’t even imagine the amount of mental discipline it must take you to maintain such delusions.
@ex
Personally, I think you’re a government plant. The ones pushing for violence the hardest almost always are.
@Jack Heart
I’m not looking forward to 2012. This dog and pony show called the “presidential election” makes me want to hide in a cabin for a year without any outside communications just to keep my sanity.
Case in point: Ralph Nader was denied participation in the presidential debates in 2000, to the point where he was not even allowed in the audience even though he was a ticket-holder. And now Ron Paul is being denied as well. While I don’t agree with Paul’s politics, why not allow him in? The whole thing is quite a sham. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton accuses Russia of rigging their elections. Come on.
Hi Susan, I’m flattered you should respond to me. o_- You’ve got the kind of biting wit that I really admire. I actually feel free now that I understand it does not matter who wins elections. I have nothing riding on them and can just enjoy the circus if I feel like doing so. What I find annoying about the elections is how all candidates do their best to avoid answering questions meaningfully. That and how long elections take…
I did like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for until I realized some of his positions are unpalatable. Even so, he would still be a step up from Obama. Hell, I’d go vote for Mr. Trump if he ends up running. The guy’s a genius; there’s no denying it. Otherwise, I’ll vote by not voting as Mr. Rall suggested. The news is always more of the same and I don’t know who to trust to tell me what really matters, so I haven’t kept up for almost one year and don’t plan on watching the general election closely…
I was only a fifth grader during the 2000 election, so I did not know at the time that Nader wasn’t even allowed to be an audience member of the debates. When I did learn this, I found it unbelievable the elite could get away with it, but then, there’s a long list for such things. I can still recall where I was after the whole recount debacle when I asked my father, “But Al Gore’s still going to be President, right?” He just shook his head. Just a kid and I knew something was terribly wrong.
I remember when I wrote Obama a letter during his first year. Back then I was foolish enough still to believe that he might really be trying and just didn’t know how to negotiate. How silly. As if a guy can become president and not have any negotiating skills…
@patron
The list of those “liberals” who have disappointed me is too long for me to be surprised at adding another. It includes:
Barney Frank
Joe Biden
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Al Franken
Rachel Maddow
Keith Olbermann
Ed Shultz
Michael Moore
John Kerry
John Edwards
Howard Dean
Al Sharpton
Dick Durbin
Arianna Huffington
and many more…
@exkiodexian
I don’t think being crazy takes much mental discipline at all. What takes it is ridding oneself of all comforting illusions. Anyone who thinks Obama wanted to bring anyone to justice is a crazy person. “I will maintain to my dying day that Obama did everything in his power to close Gitmo.” Again, spoken like a true crazy person. I’m ecstatic that we could all be (once again) treated to Whimsical’s expertise in legal matters due to his law enforcement family.
Geez! This has become Troll Central – where everyone attacks each other’s posts. Hey, Ugly Pathetic Trolls – if you put only half the effort into attacking each other into trying to do something positive, you’d probably feel better, you patheitic crybaby whiner trolls!
Lists of Liberals who have disappointed me? People who think they have “wit”? Concepts of ideas? Conspiracies? Nitwits pounding away on their keyboards while the REAL SMART people get things done? Looks a lot like a losers’ club to me. Reads like a losers’ club of whiners.
Hey pathetic losers and whiners! Ever thought of actually getting off your fat asses and DOING Something? Oh, I forgot, you’ve all got a terminal case of whiner’s bad back, flatulence, and lack of spine.
Remember – pathetic stupid loser is, as pathetic stupid loser does.
rikster, what exactly makes you better than another troll? Judging by your post, you qualify as the worst one here. Somehow I doubt you are getting much done because at this stage we all are trying to discuss what CAN be done. And who are you to say that no one here is also working to bring change. We aren’t whining. Expressing anger while stating facts and arguments. It’s very different, but I suppose you lack the intellect to make the distinction.
Oh and the Clintons and Dennis Kucinich have also disappointed me.