TOM THE DANCING BUG: The Truth Behind the Nixonian Presidency of Obama

Tom the Dancing Bug's "The Truth About the Nixonian Presidency of Obama," IN WHICH Barack Obama takes advice from his little Dick.

Be the first on your block to see Tom the Dancing Bug, by @RubenBolling, every week by joining the INNER HIVE!

"My only argument with Ruben B. here is his apologetic tone for asking you to pay money for early access to his very good comics -- that is to say, something that YOU LIKE AND WANT. DO NOT APOLOGIZE, RUBEN." -John Hodgman, Charter INNER HIVE member

Please click HERE for information.

Be the first on your block to see Tom the Dancing Bug, by @RubenBolling, every week by joining the INNER HIVE!

"My only argument with Ruben B. here is his apologetic tone for asking you to pay money for early access to his very good comics -- that is to say, something that YOU LIKE AND WANT. DO NOT APOLOGIZE, RUBEN." -John Hodgman, Charter INNER HIVE member

Please click HERE for information.

Published 8:45 am Wed, May 22, 2013

78 Responses to “TOM THE DANCING BUG: The Truth Behind the Nixonian Presidency of Obama”

  1. coolvoodoo says:

    I hear crickets chirping…….this comic successfully interweaves so many important issues maybe people actually have to think before they write something! Good work.

    • Herm says:

       I think people would rather look away than see the uncomfortable truth.

      • Dcoronata says:

        I think people are so locked into sociopolitical lies that they don’t care what the “truth” is, it is whatever they believe it to be.

  2. Steve Kerr says:

    And he totally forgot the umbrella..

  3. Brainspore says:

    Arguably the most Nixonian thing about Obama’s Presidency to date was his push for universal health care.

    • gtrjnky says:

       Ha

    • Herm says:

       Could’ve been, if Obama actually pushed for universal health care. Too bad he didn’t.

      • Brainspore says:

        Less ambitious but more successful.

      • cleek says:

        well, it’s pretty close to universal.

        (of course “universal” just means everybody is covered. it doesn’t mean “single payer” or “Medicare for all”)

        • Herm says:

           Pretty close? 30 million people won’t be covered. That’s 10% of the population. Calling something that leaves out such large swathes of the country “universal” is more than pretty close, it’s dishonest.

          • cleek says:

            from what i’ve read about that number (from the CBO, right?), the largest group are the undocumented/illegal immigrants. personally i’d like to see them covered, too, but if we have to draw lines for financial reasons, that seems like one that most people aren’t going to have much problem with.

            the next group are people who don’t sign up. well… um, sign up!

            and then there are people who simply refuse to get insurance despite being able to afford it. well, fuck them.

            yeah, i’d prefer single-payer. but that wasn’t going to happen with the Congress we had.

            what we got instead does go a long way towards getting everybody access to health care. certainly much farther than the mess we had prior.

  4. Dan Shahin says:

    The fact that this kind of stuff is now legal and SOP is the scariest part.

  5. John Irvine says:

    It does seem that all modern scandals are about following the letter of the law if not the spirit: Apple’s tax avoidance, IRS targeting, drone strikes: nothing straight-up illegal about ‘em.  When the laws are stinky, following the law can still stink.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       IRS investigated groups that went to them requesting tax free status. It’s exactly what they should be doing to those political groups. The problem was that they focused on the baggers. Thank Citizen’s United for making this all more murky and open for abuse.  Now we have sanctioned abuse…

    • Brainspore says:

      It was certainly interesting watching McCain grill Tim Cook over the “unfairness” of Apple taking advantage of the tax policies that McCain helped enact.

  6. zyodei says:

    I’m sorry, this is just too poor not to comment on.

    First, the premise is incredibly stupid. You are defending Obama by saying he is not as bad as Nixon, and that some of his actions are supported by the vile Republicans. That’s, um, a little underwhelming. 
    And Obama hasn’t engaged in secret bombing campaigns, but he has been as warlike as Nixon: Libya is alluded it, I think it’s safe to say now that US/NATO intervention in that country has been a disaster, with quality of life drastically diminished and the place run by hardcore Islamists now.

    But, beyond that, the points you make go so far to defend Obama as to be dishonest.

    1) The IRS thing. Offering to sack someone to save your own hide is hardly an incredibly noble action. Obama’s chief of staff admitted he knew about it but says he didn’t tell Obama. Saying it was the uncoordinated actions of a few low level IRS guys is just assuming the scenario most favorable to the administration and printing it as fact.

    2) The Benghazi affair was far more than ‘changing a few lines on a memo’; at the very least the Sec. of State blatantly lied before Congress and the Ambassador to the UN lied on national TV, not about some small details but about the fundamental nature of the incident, and there is evidence they knew at the time what they were saying wasn’t true. It’s not a Bush level crime, but Tom is dishonest in how he brushes it off.

    3) Again, defending the actions because Republicans support it and it’s something Bush would have done is ‘damning with faint praise,’ and exactly the core problem with the Obama administration. Defending his actions because his own DOJ has called them ‘legal’ is laughable. Massive drone strikes against Pakistan, Yemen, who knows where else, countries we haven’t even pretended to declare war against? Hey, legal, sure, why not?

    It’s one thing to be a partisan hack, but you should at least try to appear somewhat honest.

    • Brainspore says:

      I read this comic as a response to the oft-repeated claim “Nixon got impeached for doing the same things Obama has done!!!” That claim is flat-out inaccurate even if Obama does have questionable actions of his own to answer for.

      • theophrastvs says:

        it’s even “flat-out inaccurate” as Nixon was not impeached.

        if nothing else there were a few laws restricting the actions of the executive that i wish were more currently …restrictive.

        • heckblazer says:

          Technically Nixon wasn’t impeached, but that’s only because he resigned first.  If he’d stayed on his impeachment and conviction was a near certainty.  

          “You can’t fire me, I quit!”

          • theophrastvs says:

            what you type there is true, technically or otherwise.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Clinton was impeached.  Impeached means accused and charged.  It doesn’t imply guilt, just accusation.

          • Medievalist says:

            Nice to see somebody’s read the constitution.

            It’s increasingly difficult to believe that Obama has, though.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       I can’t stand Obama, but it’s charming that you guys still think that Benghazi has legs. The rest of the country and many Republicans are laughing at you.

    • Lucas Picador says:

      Yeah, characterizing Obama’s wiretapping and drone campaign as “legal” is pretty messed up. After all, everything Bush and Cheney did (torture, invading Iraq, spying on US citizens, sweetheart contracts for Halliburton) was “legal” as well — just ask John Yoo and David Addington! And Obama, of course, has continued all of these policies, in most cases extending them farther than Bush would have dared.

      Obama has actually done Nixon one better: Nixon stated publicly his belief that the President is above the law (a statement that sealed his reputation as a scumbag), but Obama is the first guy to convince the public to go along with that proposition.

      • Stuart Smith says:

        There’s a difference between being pronounced legal by partisan hacks who are paid to pronounce things legal, and actually being in accordance with laws that have actually been passed by actual congress.

        That isn’t to say I don’t agree that Obama shouldn’t do these things, but the term legal applies to all kinds of scummy actions, from cutting off people’s heat in the middle of winter because they’re late on a bill to giving politicians massive amounts of money as long as they only do things you agree with. Legal doesn’t mean good, or fair, or just, it means in accordance with the laws.

    • Stuart Smith says:

      Strange, I didn’t read this as a defense of Obama at all, but as mockery at the massively hyperbolic attacks that come out of the right-wing media. I don’t think there’s many actual liberals who support Obama, except in a lesser-of-two-evils kind of way.

      • Vicq_Ruiz says:

        “I don’t think there’s many actual liberals who support Obama,”

        Well, this website certainly made its leanings crystal clear during the campaign.  I guess it’s encouraging to think that the editors and mods here are not actual liberals.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          BB leaned against McCain and Romney. We’ve published hundreds of posts critical of Obama.

    • phuzz says:

      “[Libya] run by hardcore Islamists now.”
      Well it is an Islamic country…

    • strangefriend says:

       You are wrong about Libya (it is not run by hardcore Islamists) & the Benghazi affair (to lie, the officials had to know that the info was incorrect.  They didn’t).  Which is why I didn’t ‘like’ your comment.  Stop listening to Fox News.

  7. Jerry123123 says:

    The effort to reduce the issues here to lampoon/satire are part of the left’s arsenal to discredit any legitimate discontent with this administration and/or any of their (misguided) ideological tenants.  Calls to mind the rampant reporting of Marco Rubio’s “water bottle” moment.  Fearful of his speech resonating in any capacity (it’s hard to discredit logic/reason/fact), it’s easier to try to defuse the threat by lampooning the delivery.

    So let’s talk some truth, excising the snarky (yet insidious to the uninformed) comedic element:

    No, this is not Watergate or Iran-Contra. Nor is it like the sex scandal that got Bill Clinton impeached.

    The AP, IRS and Benghazi matters represent a scandal not of
    presidential wrongdoing, but of presidential indolence, indifference and
    incompetence in discharging the duties of chief executive.

    The
    Barack Obama revealed to us in recent days is something rare in our
    history: a spectator president, clueless about what is going on in his
    own household, who reacts to revelations like some stunned bystander.

    Consider. Because of a grave national security leak, President Obama’s
    Department of Justice seized two months of records from 20 telephones
    used by The Associated Press. An unprecedented seizure.

    Yet the president was left completely in the dark. And though he rushed to defend the seizure, he claims he was uninvolved.

    While the AP issue does not appear to have legs — we know what was
    done and why — it has badly damaged this president. For his own Justice
    Department treated the press, which has an exalted opinion of itself
    and its role, with the same contempt as the IRS treated the Tea Party.

    The episode has damaged a crucial presidential asset. For this
    Washington press corps had provided this president with a protective
    coverage of his follies and failings unseen since the White House press
    of half a century ago covered up the prowlings of JFK.

    The Benghazi issue is of far greater gravity. Still, Obama’s sins here as well seem to be those of omission, not commission.

    The president was apparently completely in the dark about the urgent
    requests from Benghazi for more security. Obama was also apparently
    completely out of the loop during the seven-hour crisis of Sept. 11-12,
    when Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, calls for help from Benghazi
    were denied and two heroic ex-Navy SEALs died fighting to defend U.S.
    personnel from the roof of that CIA installation.

    No one seems to know where Obama was that night.

    The following week, as the State Department, CIA and National Security
    Council all worked the “talking points” to make it appear that this
    preplanned terrorist atrocity was a spontaneous event triggered by an
    anti-Islamic video, Obama knew nothing of the discussions.

    Thus,
    almost a week after the massacre, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was put on
    six networks to move the line that we could not have better prepared
    for what would happen in Benghazi because it was all a spontaneous event
    triggered by a YouTube video.

    Rice’s version was untrue, but consistent with Obama’s campaign message: “Bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaida is on the run.”

    Yet if Rice’s credibility was crippled by what she was sent out to
    parrot, a week after she got the egg all over her face, Obama was
    himself peddling the same line at the United Nations. Obama, it seems,
    may have been the last man to know the cover story had collapsed.

    As for the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party applications for tax-exempt
    status, this bureaucratic misconduct began as far back as 2010, when the
    Tea Party was a national sensation.

    Yet, despite Tea Party
    protests to members of Congress, who made inquiries of the IRS, the
    discrimination against groups with “Tea Party” and “Patriot” in their
    names continued, and was extended to groups whose proclaimed mission was
    to defend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

    Literally for years this went on. Investigations were begun by the IRS, and the results reported to the Treasury Department.

    But nothing was made public before the election of 2012.

    This weekend we learned that the White House counsel was told this
    April about the IRS misconduct and the investigations, but she did not
    inform President Obama. He learned about it from news reports.

    What we have here, it appears, is a government out of control and a
    president clueless about what is going on in that government.

    And that is the best case. For it is difficult to believe the IRS could
    conduct a full-court press on Obama’s opponents, that IRS higher-ups
    knew about it, years ago, and that Treasury knew about it before the
    election — but the White House was kept in the dark about a scandal
    that could have derailed the Obama campaign.

    But whatever Obama
    knew, he and his allies in Congress bear moral responsibility for
    denying these Tea Party folks for years their right to participate fully
    in the politics of their country.

    For years, Obama, Nancy
    Pelosi, Harry Reid and other Democrats have slandered and slurred Tea
    Party people as enemies of progress — smears echoed by their mainstream
    press allies.

    Should we then be surprised that IRS bureaucrats,
    hearing this, thought they were doing what was right for America by
    slow-walking applications for tax exemptions from these same Tea Party
    folks?

    Who demonized the Tea Party people? Who created the climate of contempt? Whoever did gave moral sanction to those IRS agents.

    And the Spectator President is right in the vanguard.

     

    • Brainspore says:

      I like your dramatic used of line breaks. It’s almost as if you copied and pasted a long rant from somewhere else and shoehorned it into this discussion.

    • DrunkenOrangetree says:

      So Obama’s indolent? Or maybe you wanted to say “shiftless”? Or “lazy”?

      • Christopher says:

        Watch out. He just might accuse you of being as “uppity” as Obama.

      • Navin_Johnson says:

         He posted earlier that only male landowners that have passed a test should be allowed to vote so probably something much worse than “shiftless” or “lazy”…

      • Jerry123123 says:

        that or completely inept.  I believe it’s a combination of the two.  That would be a favorable set of circumstances vs. direct knowledge which would be an impeachable offense.  And if you’re somehow looking to attribute my commentary to having racist undertones, you’re furthering the point I am making regarding baseless vilification in an effort to evade the substance of the discussion (and the fact that my commentary is virtually incontestable).  Throw out the race card and all of a sudden the underlying contention bears no merit, right?  News flash: being indolent doesn’t presuppose race or skin color and even considering drawing such a parallel in connection with the discourse is simply an effort to deflect the issue since you likely have nothing substantial to contribute otherwise.

      • cleek says:

        if this clown thinks Obama’s lazy, i wonder what he would call someone who copy/pastes entire Pat Buchanan articles into his blog comments!

        • Jerry123123 says:

           Yep-and that was done so that the commentary would be read with an open mind vs. outright dismissal prior to further scrutiny.  I have still yet to get one intelligent, debatable reply.  Only one liners because there’s no sensible way to contest the post and Pat’s words.  Just vilify, condemn and berate.  Or put together lampooning comics.  That’s the liberal way…emotion, not reason.  Style, not substance.  A Hollywood favorite.  I can just sit back now and watch while you guys further cement the validity of my post/sentiments.  So without further ado, drunkenorangetree and other of mindless ilk…proceed.

          • Christopher says:

            I guess you deserve some credit for finally admitting you committed plagiarism. But I see you’re not addressing your earlier comments that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

            I guess even you won’t defend the indefensible, even if it’s something you’re guilty of saying.

          • Jerry123123 says:

             I never denied including the content of his post.  There’s no “finally admitting” anything.  As noted, I was looking for open minds so there would be no baggage brought into the dialogue.

            If you want to address my prior posts (which I stand by wholeheartedly), I’ll happily do as such elsewhere.

            But this thread pertains to the Nixon/Obama comparative comic so that’s where this discussion stays.

            Once again, you’re attempting to deflect and discredit, not addressing the substance of the post and this topic.

            And yet again, I am awaiting ONE reasonable retort here.

            Come on guys…we know liberals have a hard time with facts and reason but I expected an effort at least.

            REPLY TO THE ORIGINAL POST…STOP DEFLECTING.

          • Christopher says:

            You copy and paste, without attribution, a rambling statement full of unsupported assumptions that doesn’t really address the substance of the comic, and then ask that those who are critical of you “STOP DEFLECTING”.

            Pot, meet kettle.

          • Brainspore says:

            @Jerry123123:disqus :

            If you want to address my prior posts (which I stand by wholeheartedly), I’ll happily do as such elsewhere.But this thread pertains to the Nixon/Obama comparative comic so that’s where this discussion stays.

            That Pat Buchanan article you plagiarized wasn’t written as part of the discussion about this comic. Why are his opinions fair game for discussion but yours are not?

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            That’s the liberal way…emotion, not reason.  Style, not substance.  A Hollywood favorite.

            Right!? And who runs Hollywood?  Jerry123123 will tell you!  haha….

          • Jerry123123 says:

             ho-hum.  Same old deflection/discrediting tactics.

            Now, anyone have anything intelligent to contribute here?

          • Jerry123123 says:

             Wow Christopher–the entire piece is predicated on facts put forth by the White House regarding Obama’s purported ignorance of these events.  It doesn’t leap to any conclusions about his complicity but analyzes and assesses in light of WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS MADE PUBLIC.  And these are “unsupported assumptions?”  Really?  Not only are you being evasive but you’re being intellectually dishonest.  You’re looking at FACTS and logical conclusions based on such facts (ineptitude in this administration at best, impeachable offense at worst) and labeling this piece as “full of unsupported assumptions”????

            Once again, absolutely no effort here…just discrediting tactics.

            1.) You either realize that there is no real rebuttal to this piece and are intentionally dodging the issue like a rat in a cage (which would presuppose some amount of intellect on your end which is becoming highly questionable considering your other posts)

            2.) You’re a lock-step partisan sycophant with an inability to look beyond the unsubstantiated “hope and change” rhetoric which boosted this unqualified community organizer into the White House in the first place. 

            FORGET PARTISAN POLITICS.  FORGET LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE.  BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND YOU WILL SEE THERE IS NOTHING DEFENSIBLE ABOUT OBAMA’S AND THE ADMINISTRATION’S REACTION TO ANY OF THESE ISSUES, WHETHER ATTRIBUTABLE TO INEPTITUDE OR INTENTIONAL EFFORT TO DECEIVE.

            I’m done…there’s been no substantial reply and it’s a waste of time to try to discuss with people who don’t care for (or likely don’t have the intellectual capacity) for real discourse.

          • mccrum says:

            I thought we were waiting for you to start.

          • Christopher says:

            Jerry123123, I love that you dismissively address anyone who disagrees with you as “liberals” then suggest we “FORGET LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE”.

            Perhaps you should do the same yourself, and, while you’re at it, think for yourself instead of copying and pasting and doing a lot of name-calling.

            As I said, you copied something and didn’t admit you copied it. You’ve even admitted that’s what you did. That’s why I’m correct in calling you dishonest, even if you did, when called on it, admit what you’d done.

            As for your views expressed elsewhere, I’ll remind you that they seriously undermine your credibility.

            Call me “a lock-step partisan sycophant” if you want–a claim you’re making without any evidence, by the way–but you’re just making yourself look increasingly ridiculous. It’s no wonder you’re done. You’ve found yourself not only caught by your own dishonesty but hopelessly outmatched.

    • Avram Grumer says:

       I’m deleting this. If people want to read it, they can go to Cleek’s link and see Pat Buchanan’s words in their original context.

      Jerry123123 (if that really is your name), you can use your own words to express your ideas. If you absolutely must quote someone else, cite them. But we host this comment space so our readers can share their own opinions, not so they can rebroadcast the words of a nationally-known public figure who has his own platform to speak on.

      • Jerry123123 says:

         The piece was an effort to get a conversation started without prejudice considering that most liberals won’t read past the name “Pat Buchanan” in a subject header.  That’s why the piece was not initially attributed to the author. 

        But hey–here’s a convenient way to stifle further dialogue that doesn’t conform with the liberal agenda–take a cue from the Obama Administration (or Eric Holder more specifically) and just delete or recuse yourself of the conversation! 

        I bet if I re-posted Kermit Gosnell’s talking points without crediting him, I’d be lauded as a progressive of the pro-choice movement, quote attribution or not!

        • Brainspore says:

          What’s that internet rule that says any angry commenter who says “I’m done!” always comes back for one last gripe?

        • Christopher says:

          Oh Jerry123123, stop being such a lock-step partisan sycophant.

        • Jerry123123 says:

           Christopher-
          still not addressing the original post.  Claiming I am hopelessly outmatched but you have not even had one sensible reply to the original post.

          That’s why I am done…it’s a waste of time because you haven’t said ANYTHING except that the piece is full of “assumptions” when it’s 100% based on fact.

          It’s a waste of time to try to discuss with people who don’t care to discuss. 

          See ya

          • Brainspore says:

            That’s why I am done…

            You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

          • Christopher says:

            Jerry, I’m afraid you’re the one who’s still guilty of not addressing the original post, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

            Please stop insisting that all you’re doing is offering facts when, as I’ve said multiple times already, you’ve shown yourself to be dishonest and lacking in any credibility.

            If you really wanted to discuss issues you would have started by offering your own opinions in something that was germane to the comic, not an irrelevant rant by Pat Buchanan.

            Please, though, feel free to keep saying you’re not going to discuss this any further and then coming back for more. I find it increasingly unlikely, though, that you’ll even offer anything intelligent or even substantive.

          • Jerry123123 says:

             This piece is directly relevant to the original post.  It’s not worth my time to spell it out to you because you clearly don’t want to draw the parallel otherwise you would have and would have replied in kind. Instead, you label a concise analysis of FACTS available as an “irrelevant rant”  of “unsupported assumptions” when facts are SUPPORTIVE by their very nature (inconvenient things those facts, huh?) Again, my point…just disregard, deflect and label “irrelevant” a piece that’s immediately germane to this entire larger issue, to which the comic specifically refers and of which it lampoons.

          • wysinwyg says:

             Sorry, Jerry, could you recap the facts real quick?  There really weren’t any in that Buchanan op-ed.  (Perhaps you’re confused about what an op-ed is?)

        • wysinwyg says:

          FORGET PARTISAN POLITICS.  FORGET LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE.

          You said that, then you said this:

          -here’s a convenient way to stifle further dialogue that doesn’t conform with the liberal agenda

          This is a really good indication that you’re not actually interested in an open, honest conversation about ideas. It’s a good indication that you’re a partisan ideologue here to spread propaganda (written by someone else no less).

          You could have avoided the “prejudice” against reading something by Pat Buchanan by making the same argument in your own words. But you didn’t. That’s on you, not on the readers here.

          And I have no idea who the fuck Kermit Gosnell is in the first place.

          • Jerry123123 says:

            nothing substantive to reply to here…yet again

          • wysinwyg says:

            You haven’t actually made a substantive argument.  It’s hard to make a substantive reply when you don’t do that.

          • mccrum says:

            nothing substantive to reply to here…yet again

          • Jerry123123 says:

            The cartoon is trivializing the gravity of the blunders by the administration by couching it in a satirical comparison to Nixon. 

            It is a clear effort to downplay the severity of the administration’s incompetence which should not be trivialized (based off of the current facts at hand–those which have been publicly acknowledged by both Jay Carney and President Obama–we can only presume ineptitude, not an impeachable offense…yet).

            These are the facts I am referring to which are incontestable (see below for the excerpt from Buchanan’s piece).

            The analysis is such that it is a deplorable state of affairs to have a President who is so out of touch with his Administration that these kinds of events can transpire without him being made aware.

            In truth, I am not sure what’s worse, having the highest office in the land being run like a fly by night operation–a disorderly mess of failed communication, the likes of which has never been seen in modern day history–or a president who is intentionally deceiving the public regarding his knowledge of such deplorable (and in the IRS case, scandalous) events.

            Here are those pesky facts a la Buchanan’s piece:

             “The president was apparently completely in the dark about the urgent
            requests from Benghazi for more security. Obama was also apparently
            completely out of the loop during the seven-hour crisis of Sept. 11-12,
            when Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, calls for help from Benghazi
            were denied and two heroic ex-Navy SEALs died fighting to defend U.S.
            personnel from the roof of that CIA installation.

            No one seems to know where Obama was that night.

            The following week, as the State Department, CIA and National Security
            Council all worked the “talking points” to make it appear that this
            preplanned terrorist atrocity was a spontaneous event triggered by an
            anti-Islamic video, Obama knew nothing of the discussions.”

            Thoughts?  Comments?

          • Jerry123123 says:

             Dead silence?

            Yeah…I thought so.

            Unfortunately I had to completely connect the dots for any one of you jokers to see the relevance to the original post.

            It’s easy to duck and dodge (great job Christopher–you’re so proficient at it that you might even qualify for a job within the administration).

            As I noted previously, pesky things, those facts.  They’re just so damn incontestable.

            Later morons…headed off to shut down some other similarly factually (and intellectually) challenged “lock step ideological sycophants.”

            BWA HA HA HA HA

  8. BacchusPlateau says:

    Benghazi!

  9. aikimoe says:

    Because if it’s legal, it’s okay!

    Nixon would be proud of Obama’s record on medical marijuana.

    Also, he’d love that he ignored the torture treaty, has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all other presidents combined, and that he violated the War Powers Resolution when he committed troops to Libya without congressional approval.

    I think this cartoon just wanted to disappoint the ghost of Nixon.

  10. MattAtDoyle says:

    Monty Python said it best:

    Henry Kissinger

    How I’m missing yer

    You’re the Doctor of my dreams

    With your crinkly hair and your glassy stare

    And your machiavellian schemes

    I know they say that you are very vain

    And short and fat and pushy but at least you’re not insane

    Henry Kissinger

    How I’m missing yer

    And wishing you were here

    Henry Kissinger

    How I’m missing yer

    You’re so chubby and so neat

    With your funny clothes and your squishy nose

    You’re like a German parakeet

    All right so people say that you don’t care

    But you’ve got nicer legs than Hitler

    And bigger tits than Cher

    Henry Kissinger

    How I’m missing yer

    And wishing you were here

  11. Robbins Mitchell says:

     Well “Dick” Nigson is no Richard Nixon

  12. sonicyoof says:

    OK, I’m pretty sure the point isn’t to say Obama is noble and to defend all of his actions, it’s simply to say he’s not Nixon.

    Now who is that in the sixth panel?

Leave a Reply