Bad Habits

Well...this one should put to bed all the complaints that Clay is not critical of the President.

Yep. One token cartoon makes this cartoonist objective.

Who ever said he HAD to be objective? All is fair in love, war, and when creating editorial cartoons.

Next!!!

I do wonder what particular secret he is smoking.

Waterboarding? CIA involvement in Honduras?

How much control the president has over the CIA?

The FEMA and other agencies preparedness for a potential natural disaster such as the recent deep shaking of the San Andreas fault and it's potential for damage.

His inability to control our bureaucracy and an overhaul of, say, the Veteran's Administration among the many other agencies.

Anyway, a lot of stuff!

Sigh!

This notion that the CIA had to maintain secrecy in order to operate obviously expanded in the Bush years. As long as they kept everything classified, even those in Congress who were given privy had their hands ties. The CIA basically had the powers of another KGB and abused those powers accordingly.

First off, I am(obviously) not a fan of the current POTUS, but the following is, in my mind, applicable to all.

OPSEC, or OPerational SECurity, can be very important to the health of an organization. When a nation is dealing with foreign nations(opposing interests), OPSEC is something that must be achieved if success is to be realized.

This is most dramatically evident in the diplomatic and/or military spheres. The diplomats say "Do not show your hand", and the military says "Shut up!!". It's the same old "Loose lips, sink ships" bit. It is also true.

Sometimes we simply must trust our elected leaders to make the best decisions on the nation's behalf.

Sobering isn't it?

The bigger problem with .gov secrecy arrives when the same mindset is applied to domestic issues.

Health care, energy, banking, housing, automobiles, the environment, education: there should be no need for OPSEC in any of these things.(This is not a definitive list, I'm sure I missed more than a few!)

Who are the people being denied access to the inner machinations of .gov policies which WILL have a direct effect upon their person?

It is us, the people from whence U.S.A.gov's power is derived.

The actors and connections behind domestic policies should be open-record.

I'll hedge here a bit and say that POTUS, etc., should be free to consult with anyone they see fit, without the requirement of a total disclosure of every word spoken.

I'll not even go into voting for bills that no one has read.

As I said, "Sometimes we simply must trust our elected leaders to make the best decisions on the nation's behalf."

If secrets are being kept, then, by definition a conspiracy is in place. Who is being conspired against?

On the domestic front, it is us.

There is a story, it is about honorable people, taking control of their own destiny, throwing the might of an entire nation against their adversities, keeping to the path of liberty, honesty, and openness, and continuing as a beacon of freedom for the world.

No secrecy required on the domestic front.

I must admit, today's cartoon(?) may certainly leave the casual observer, or conspiracy theorists with a lot to ponder upon. Then again, it could be as simple as finally admitting one has been a bit naive.

It should come as no big shock that most people who enter politics do so with the utmost desire to 'do what's right'. Of course, then reality steps in and even those with the deepest of convictions tend to 'bend' to the will of whatever 'power' that controls them.

I guess one might say we have finally discovered the answer to an age-old question, "Is it the man that corrupts the office, or the office which corrupts the man?"

It might be neither. It could possibly be as simple as discovering it isn't as simple as it appeared to be.

It could be as simple as our current leader finally discovering his campaign slogan, "Yes, we can!", might need to be amended to reflect, "Well, at least we can try!"

Our 'system', which by the way, did not just 'happen' overnight. It has taken hundreds of years and the toils of a lot of good, well-intentioned, as well as (let's face it) quite a few greedy old gluttons to become that which a simple slogan of "Yes, we can!" cannot undo in one presidential term.

Was Obama a bit naive? Oh yes. Was George "W" a bit egotistical? Most assuredly. Did both take the "Oath of Office" as seriously as most of those who did the same before them? I have no doubt.

Could any of what I have said be right, or as simplistic as I have laid it out? Well, even if it isn't I'm sure it will be laughed at, ridiculed or picked apart by some just looking for grammatical or spelling errors. Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

There was a recent NY times article about one secret CIA mission that Cheney controlled, that was never permitted to be brought to light. Apparantly, Congress never heard about THAT one either. Cheney is unavailable.

I'm wondering if Mr. President is sitting on that one, too.

TCH! TCH!

I'll try to find it!

I have theorized for many years and from a completely naive standpoint, that the person elected as President is not completely in charge of our Government.

While I am sure that the President is informed to many things that the public is not aware of, there are many more details that even the President is never informed about, unless and until it is absolutely necessary.

Washington D.C. is filled with people who have been on the job for decades. They are nameless, faceless, and they will forever remain so. The executive branch of Government receives briefs, but not detailed information. Let's face it, if everything our Government did was completely open and accessible, the world would know it also.

I cannot presume to know exactly which Governmental secrets that Clay or anyone else is referring to, and I too have been a little dismayed at some of the backtracking that has occurred since President Obama has taken office. But the first thing that came to my mind, more than a couple of times, is that he was informed rather quickly that certain things are above his pay grade, off-limits, and to back off.

We are a nation at war. Our military and intelligence divisions are operated far differently than we might imagine, as Scotty pointed out. Any oversight that exists is minimal at best, and those on the outside are on a need to know basis.

This is why Nancy Pelosi has not been thrashed publicly by the CIA for her moronic accusations. She is playing with fire. She is on a fishing expedition, plain and simple. The woman knows that for the CIA to truly defend themselves, it would require them to compromise the very veil of secrecy that they depend upon to do their part in keeping this nation safe from harm.

When it comes to certain things that our Government does, I liken it to those times during my childhood when my parents decided to "take a mid-day nap" behind locked bedroom doors with the radio turned up. While we may have our suspicions that all is not as is explained to us, we are probably better off not knowing the truth to all things.

Scotty has it right;

"Sometimes we simply must trust our elected leaders to make the best decisions on the nation's behalf."

Well, the URL of the Times article on Cheney is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp

It's in today's NY Times.

Alprova,

You write so lucidly, but the people have the right to know what these appointed "Bureaucrats" are doing to us, or trying to do to us. You are right about the President only getting a briefing of what the agencies want HIM to know, much less the rest of the country.

I question when you think we MIGHT be better off not knowing is healthy.

But, it scares me to imagine what the machinations really were or are.

FINALLY! Thank you, Clay!! Things are so much better all around when conservatives and liberals alike can see the flaws on BOTH sides of the fence!

I agree with alprova's contention that objectivity is not the purpose of an editorial cartoon. You won't see any cartoonist worth his or her salt who strives for objectivity. I do, however, disagree with alprova's description (from a couple of days ago) of Clay's cartoons as 'rather neutral'. His work might be more subtle than other editorial cartoonists (a trait I really like), and his cartoons are more issue oriented than most cartoonists (which may give the impression of neutrality), but Clay is ANYTHING but neutral.

It's hard to come to an ideological conclusion from any one of Clay's cartoons, or on any particular day perhaps (although some conservatives might argue with that point), but over time and throughout the body of work he produces, you see (quite obviously) a man with strong progressive values.

Sometimes you can see it through the positions he supports: health care reform, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state, civil liberties, human rights, or environmental regulation. Other times you see it through the policies he obviously opposes: lax gun laws, the war in Iraq, domestic spying, torture, anti-abortion, government secrecy, or our system of campaign finance.

Oh, Clay's definitely a lefty... that's for sure.

Today's cartoon is a perfect example. Bennett is criticizing President Obama, but from the left. After eight years of George W. Bush, I'm sure Clay (as with many of us on the left) was more willing to give Obama a chance to make good on campaign promises than the cartoonists or pundits from the right. After all, we're still just 6 months into a new administration. But, as many of those promises go unfulfilled, I would expect to see more cartoons like this one in the months and years to come.

maj- I wanted to address your comment, "FINALLY! Thank you, Clay!! Things are so much better all around when conservatives and liberals alike can see the flaws on BOTH sides of the fence!" because, frankly, it puzzles me.

I know that there's a perception that every cartoon Clay Bennett produces is designed expressly to poke at the last nerve of conservatives everywhere. After looking through his archive from the past few weeks, however, I just don't see that to be the case.

I found many cartoons from that period of time that might well appeal to both conservatives and liberals alike. Even the cartoon from two days ago about the 'armed and unarmed sections' in the restaurant seems pretty matter-of-fact to me. Many of Clay's cartoons could be seen the same way if we didn't view them though jaundiced eyes.

Another thing I noticed were several cartoons that would definitely appeal to all of us despite our political baggage. Below, are the links to five such cartoons.

http://tinyurl.com/l9nbuj

http://tinyurl.com/kjavq7

http://tinyurl.com/n7gonk

http://tinyurl.com/noj8at

http://tinyurl.com/lcn9mq

In my opinion, these five cartoons would appeal to any of us. But another thing they have in common is that they inspired fewer comments than most of the other cartoons from the same time frame. That's not to say that they weren't good cartoons (In fact, some are quite good), they just didn't seem to stimulate the kind of debate that some of the others have.

My point? Be careful what you wish for, maj. Because a cartoonist who appeals to everyone, might very well be a cartoonist who inspires no one.

I wonder...were people expecting miracles and instantaneous results? C'mon people, you should all know that the wheels do not turn that fast.

I think the man has made some tremendous progress in gearing up several issues to be put on the table for serious discussion. GM just emerged from bankruptcy, and Chrysler was never really under the thumb of the Government to begin with. The sale is still on track to Fiat. Banks are still failing but at a far slower rate than they were last year. Stimulus funds are being doled out carefully.

In the meantime, half of America has their wallets and purses clamped shut, and are cowering in utter fear of the unknown, because every time you turn on the news, doom and gloom dominates what you hear. Corporate banks have shut down lending, and are only interested in collecting new and raised fees from customers. But all of this is Obama's fault...right?

In amongst all of that, the man has had to deal with many, not a few, but many foreign diplomatic situations. I dare offer that he has made more trips abroad to meet with other leaders in his first five and a half months in office, than GWB did in 8 years.

And let's not forget that we are still entrenched in a very bitter and expensive war in the Middle East.

Now I don't know what people expect, but the man has his hands full, and I think the man is doing a fine job. Give the man some time...not weeks or a few months...give him a year or two to work through the back orders first.

Back to the "secrecy issue" - Personally, whenever I have decided to research anything that I wanted to find out about what our Government is up to, I have been able to find the information I seek. I'm not going to find military secrets, or what Obama had for supper last night, but...

So what exactly are the pieces of information that people feel are being kept so secretive?

President Obama fulfilled five of his campaign promises within his first 48 hours in office.

He overturned Bush Administration polices in regard to how detainees at Guantanamo Bay were to be treated.

He ended the policy that allowed POW's to be detained without any right to defend themselves against charges.

He ordered a return to a policy by all departments within this nation to use lawful methods when interrogating detainees for questioning.

He ordered an end to the practice of allowing others besides the President to assert executive privilege to keep records sealed after an administration ends.

And last, he issued an executive order banning Executive Branch employees from taking gifts from lobbyists, or going to work for any lobby for a period of two years after leaving Executive Branch employment. Former lobbyists are prohibited from becoming Executive Branch employees for two years following any employment with any lobby.

The man needs time to work through the list. We need to exercise a little patience to allow him to work down that list.

I need to clarify the first executive order I cited. I failed to proof-read all five before I posted.

He ordered a study to determine if Guantanamo Bay should be closed and those detainees moved to facilities within the United States.

Dear Leader is doing his best to meet his campaign promises and stated personal goals. Got to give him that. He is going as fast as he can. Unlike many candidates before him, we knew exactly what we were getting...or should have.

Unfortunately for him, the blind-lemming, power- and pork-drunk socialistic Democrats running Congress are starting to wake up and smell the upcoming elections...and they do not like what they see.

Toonfan, First-- it's apparent you may have too much free time on your hands. Second-- my comment was addressing the lack of cartoons that are negative toward the liberals in our country. The cartoons you showed as examples of Clay being fair didn't address that whatsoever.

Obama is just like the previous Presidents, they are mislead many times, by the appointees they pick to run the government.

No President is without fault, that applies to Obama also.

Many of the problems in the governmet was passed from Clinton-Gore, to Bush-Cheney and today Obama-Biden has many of the same problems. Clinton-Gore was handed the problems from another President.

Congress and Senate has often said we know nothing, but behind a closed door session they know it all. Those include both Democrat and Republicans alike!

The game of politics is known to be a misleading game of Musical Chair and failing at Show and Tell!

Clay Bennett, another great editorial. Our Prez needs some zyban, and a less stressfull job and cutting out the nasty habit would be more feasible.

This one is funny

The people have a right to know? Ha, ha, ha. How silly. If true then I'm glad Cheney and/or the CIA kept information from certain enemy (The Democratic-lead Congress). Does anyone here really believe that Nana Pelosi is a patriot? Nope. She is first and foremost a liberal politician who seeks personal power. To think that the CIA or military could carry-out operations with ther knowing is laughable.

bookieturnersghost-

Wow! That was quite a post.

I would reply but I refuse to dignify your comments with a response.

Off topic (kind of) but check it out: http://tinyurl.com/lj7rnl

Our favorite cartoonist gets reprinted in TIME Magazine. Good job, Clay!

bookieturnersghost --

You understand how the military and other intel outfits operate inside the government. Good post.

For those unsure of the inner workings of our government, here's how our "good stuff" military programs work:

Certain select, influential and pro-America Congressmen from both sides of the aisle are carefully vetted to ensure they can keep their traps shut and don't yap to their staff [who are among the worst motormouths].

They are then briefed into the important aspects of various highly classified programs. They invariably give their full support [the programs are rather important, you see. They played a very, very large part in winning Desert Storm for us, for example.] The funding is carefully hidden away inside large, un-itemized "black" accounts.

This system works very well and has for decades. Need I say the Pelosi/Reid types are not on the A-list? Not sure what the outlook is under Dear Leader but his newly adopted [from previous presidents] "idea" that some things should be kept quiet is a good sign. The lad is learning...

A slip occurs occasionally; J. Carter's "invisible bomber" comment to the press about an early stealthy testbed aircraft was one such. It was ridiculed to the press and laughed out of existence with help from some carefully planted misinformation [newspapermen are SO easy]. Wonder Woman's glass plane, etc.

Bennett is brilliant;. A real talent. I'm delighted we have him in Chattanooga.