"The Politics of Fear" and drawn by Barry Blitt

[justaguy]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/14 ... ine-cover/

Aides to Barack Obama are blasting a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts “President Obama” in the Oval Office, wearing a Muslim-style outfit and doing a fist-bump with his wife, Michelle, who is dressed in camouflage with an automatic rifle slung over her back.

A picture of Usama bin Laden hangs above the mantel of the fireplace, which has an American flag burning in it.

The July 21 cover, titled “The Politics of Fear,” is intended to be a parody, an attempt to show how “scare tactics and misinformation” are being used to try to derail Barack Obama’s campaign, says cover artist Barry Blitt.

“I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous,” Blitt wrote in an e-mail to the Huffington Post. “It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.”

The Obama campaign has had to fight an intensive e-mail spam campaign that claims Obama is secretly a Muslim, and his wife is a black radical. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton called the New Yorker cover over the top.

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create,” Burton said.

“But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

Obama did not reply to a question about the cover when he answered reporters’ questions on Sunday in San Diego. John McCain’s campaign also slammed the cover as “tasteless and offensive.”

Click here to read the Huffington Post article quoting Barry Blitt.

[TC95GT]

Michelle, who is dressed in camouflage with an automatic rifle slung over her back.

This must be the part they found offensive.

[JohninMinnesota]

Anyone.

ANYONE who says that we should nationalize health care is a economic terrorist.
ANYONE who says that we should get more taxes and build more government with them doesn't appreciate America's foundation.
ANYONE who says that rural Americans could have a gun to protect themselves, but that city dwellers needn't since help is so close is a moron and doesn't have a clue.
ANYONE who thinks government will SOLVE the poverty problem is part of the poverty problem.
ANYONE who sits in a church for *20 years* and says he didn't know Rev. Wright was who he is, is a liar.
ANYONE who has paid any attention to Iran and thinks we can "talk Achmadinajad out of terrorism" is a moron.
ANYONE who hangs out with William Ayers and doesn't denounce him as a terrorist, is a terrorist supporter.

Arguably, we occupy Iraq as part of a strategy to keep their America hating radical muslim asses out of our country. It is better to be there in the middle of certain chaos, exerting some control over it and keeping the tide going in the right direction that to abandon the non-radical muslims who just want to exist without a harsh dictator. If we weren't there right now, who knows what kind of craziness would be going on? Anyone care to speculate? A whacko Saddam and his worse than whacko sons? Jesus, that is scary... and Iran/Iraq/Isreal it is all a powder keg waiting to be ignited by one giant ego (pick one of these dictators). Beyond that, they HATE America, and there is NOTHING we are going to do to change that. Ever. So, in my opinion, we did the right thing by occupying Iraq and are doing the right thing by staying there nursing a society where people appreciate freedom from cruel dictators and will eventually be willing to step up and start denouncing it themselves.

Oblah,blahblahblahma says:

I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11. The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war. Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jun. 18, 2008

Well, you're a moron. B. Hussein.

[ttousi]

Bush-McCain.............thought Cheney was vice pres

[rucker]

Arguably, we occupy Iraq as part of a strategy to keep their America hating radical muslim asses out of our country. It is better to be there in the middle of certain chaos, exerting some control over it and keeping the tide going in the right direction that to abandon the non-radical muslims who just want to exist without a harsh dictator. If we weren't there right now, who knows what kind of craziness would be going on? Anyone care to speculate? A whacko Saddam and his worse than whacko sons?

I don't know what's gotten into me but I'm going to "go there"

I thought we invaded Iraq because a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan organized people from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon to carry out an attack on the US.

[jwinker]

I thought we invaded because they hate our freedom.

[justaguy]

We invaded because Sa-dam wouldn’t let the UN into look for weapons. This was a violation of the treaty he signed.

[Wadero]

And because he was an *******.

[Wadero]

And because he was an jerkface.

Can we go back to the asterisks at least? ***hole looks better than jerkface.

[princewally]

We invaded because Sa-dam wouldn’t let the UN into look for weapons. This was a violation of the treaty he signed.

And not the only violation of the terms of his 1991 surrender.

That alone was enough, and it was the primary justification. The media seized on secondary and tertiary justifications instead of the primary (real) justification, in an attempt to discredit the invasion.

[rucker]

And because he was an jerkface.

Can we go back to the asterisks at least? ***hole looks better than jerkface.

But it doesn't amuse me nearly as much It doesn't really work though does it... you always type "an" before a**hole but you need just an "a" before jerkface

[hammAR]

And because he was an jerkface.

Can we go back to the asterisks at least? ***hole looks better than jerkface.

But it doesn't amuse me nearly as much It doesn't really work though does it... you always type "an" before a**hole but you need just an "a" before jerkface

He's an officer, they wouldn't know a hill from a valley, let alone an "a" from a "an"........................

[princewally]

And because he was an jerkface.

Can we go back to the asterisks at least? ***hole looks better than jerkface.

But it doesn't amuse me nearly as much It doesn't really work though does it... you always type "an" before a**hole but you need just an "a" before jerkface

So stick some descriptive words in there.

An aromatic poopyhead jerkface
An idiotic jerkface
An excellent jerkface

[justaguy]

And because he was an jerkface.

Can we go back to the asterisks at least? ***hole looks better than jerkface.

But it doesn't amuse me nearly as much It doesn't really work though does it... you always type "an" before a**hole but you need just an "a" before jerkface

Make A-hole=Wadero

[JohninMinnesota]

Arguably, we occupy Iraq as part of a strategy to keep their America hating radical muslim asses out of our country. It is better to be there in the middle of certain chaos, exerting some control over it and keeping the tide going in the right direction that to abandon the non-radical muslims who just want to exist without a harsh dictator. If we weren't there right now, who knows what kind of craziness would be going on? Anyone care to speculate? A whacko Saddam and his worse than whacko sons?

I don't know what's gotten into me but I'm going to "go there"

I thought we invaded Iraq because a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan organized people from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon to carry out an attack on the US.

As I understood it we went into Iraq based upon Saddam's refusal to allow inspections and the suspicion that there was a reason for him not wanting the UN looking around. I'll bet though that it was more of strategic move than anything else. Bush knows his strategeries - that's for sure.