Barack Obama

When You've Lost Walter Cronkite MAD Magazine… (Obama-Bergdahl Edition)


For those of you who haven't checked out MAD magazine in a while, the old publication still has life in it.

Original here.

NEXT: Matt Welch on Barry Goldwater: 'He may not recognize our world, but we can recognize his fingerprints all over it'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s a Sergeant, not a Private, no?

    1. Promoted in absentia; a Pfc when captured.

    2. I believe he was a private when captured and was promoted in absentia.

      1. That’s curious – they promoted a deserter?

        1. If classed as a PoW, they’re assumed to meet performance metrics while in captivity, someone classed him as a PoW.

          1. That’s interesting, thank you.

  2. So wait, are we supposed to be upset that Obama released five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who should have been released a decade ago?

    1. I think we are supposed to be upset that he tried shoving a “hero” down our throats when he is allegedly no such thing.

      1. Bingo.

    2. no, we’re upset at the dog and pony show whose only discernible purpose was to shove the VA story a few pages back. And, perhaps Obama’s ritual ignoring laws such as the requirement that Congress be notified of said swap. A bit karma, it seems, that the subject of the photo op will likely face court-martial.

      1. You’re not upset. Nothing about your life including your acute emotional state has changed. You hated everything Obama ever did and will continue to hate everything he ever does because that’s what you’re told to do.

        Hugh is right. The only other option, eventually, was to release these guys and not get a POW back.

        If all the president is doing wrong is getting in front of a camera then you really don’t have that much to be upset over, do you?

        1. fuck off, Tony. Once again, you trot out to pick up your check by reciting bullshit talking points you were given. This is YOUR guy, having stepped in it all by himself, aided and abetted by a staff chock full of either morons or blind partisans who either ignored what followed Bergdahl or didn’t know about it.

          This is YOUR guy being abandoned on this one by at least as many of your fellow travelers as he is criticized by non-statist toadies. And how cute that you embrace a libertarian argument – the anti-Gitmo one – when it suits you, rich coming from a guy whose daily ritual includes making up shit about the philosophy.

          1. I’ve been against pretty much the entire Bush War on Terror program since the start, as I’m sure you were.

            So you think we should have left the guy possibly to die as a POW, then we would have let the Taliban guys out anyway, Obama wouldn’t have gotten in front of a camera, and that would be a better world? Got it. (The only thing that’s different is Bergdahl is probably dead in Pakistan.)

            1. Get real. Your opposition to it ended in January 2009.

              1. You mean when the guy who’s main appeal was his anti-Iraq-War rhetoric got elected?

                1. ..and then that same anti-iraq-war guy promptly pushed for a surge, drone bombed some children and weddings, and prosecuted the Iraq war for 5 years.

                  And you supported him with bombing Libya.

                  1. Tony’s working on his response to that one.

                2. “You mean when the guy who’s main appeal was his anti-Iraq-War rhetoric got elected?”

                  Well, you’ve finally realized Obama’s speeches were rhetorical. So good job Tony, you are making progress.

                  1. I would just go ahead and say that his speeches were lying bullshit to get himself elected.

                    I think the only time he ever told the truth was when he said that he wanted electricity costs to skyrocket.

                3. Tony|6.4.14 @ 3:38PM|#
                  “You mean when the guy who’s main appeal was his anti-Iraq-War rhetoric got elected?”

                  Yeah, that lying bastard.

            2. Tony|6.4.14 @ 3:22PM|#
              ‘I’ve been against pretty much the entire *Obama* War on Terror program since *he was inaugurated*, as I’m sure you were.’

              Yeah, sure.

              1. You’re a ridiculous moron. Not even suitable for this libertarian shithole. Go to drudge, find a link to an article about benghazi, and park yourself there where you belong.

      2. the dog and pony show whose only discernible purpose was to shove the VA story a few pages back


        At least one dem is now using it to distance himself from Obama.…..precedent/

        It is a the perfect scandal perfectly timed. Gives Dems a foil in the elections without actually opposing any of Obama’s core policies.

  3. If you fold it in thirds, does it become a picture of Alfred E. Newman sitting in the Airforce One presidential can?

    1. Now *that* would be amazing.

    2. Well, of course. This is MAD Magazine.

    3. What, me worry about Congressional approval?

      1. The Usual Gang of Idiots in the administration

  4. Look at the Taliban in the photo – don’t let the Taliban ruin beards for everyone!

    I’m doing a kickstarter campaign to publicize good old patriotic Americans with beards – for technical legal reasons please send donations to Mo’s Tavern and put “Notorious’ bar tab” in the memo line.

    1. If you have nothing to hide, why grow a beard?

      1. Because I get a five o’clock shadow by noon. It’s easier to have a beard.

      2. It’s called herpes, and it looks much better hidden.


      4. Beards are popular because it hides the neck fat.

    2. Real men have goatees.

    3. Beards, the padded bra of masculinity.

  5. With Obama being so overly flirtatious with Bergdahl’s mother, I can only assume there was something more to this bargain.

  6. in the tales of Deep Derp that is the NYT…

    Critics Are Questioning American Military Credo of Leaving No One Behind

    please scan the story, and see if you can find one cited quote of anyone identified as a “critic”, or that the criticism is aptly described as “Questioning The Credo”

    (from my read of the piece, it is a series of bland statements by the president and DoD officials wrapped in a fictionalized-context suggesting the statements were ‘responses’ to specific criticisms never actually cited)

    I mailed the author, who explained “there was ‘no need’ to cite the critics since they had been ‘well publicized’ by the media already”.

    Guess who the ‘critics’ are that he is referring to?

    (if you read the piece and still can’t guess, let me know)

    1. Guess who the ‘critics’ are that he is referring to?

      (if you read the piece and still can’t guess, let me know)

      Well…there’s the journalist himself, his editor(s), the editorial board…I dunno, GILMORE, is there a magic right answer here?

      1. Oh wait, I’ve got it now: all three reporters!

        1. consensus!!

    2. you won’t be able to that questioning. What has happened is a few folks questioning Bergdahl’s worth and being pissed off out loud. That, of course, has been turned into “right-wing thought” by the WH dogwashing brigade.

      1. “That, of course, has been turned into “right-wing thought” by the WH dogwashing brigade.”

        What’s amusing about it was that Rolling Stone broke the story of Bergdahl the deserter two years ago. And as far as I know, there’s nobody contradicting it.

    3. I think the headline writer was making a creative interpretation of this sentence:

      “But now this credo is being questioned by critics who say it is one thing to risk lives to rescue a comrade captured in battle, and another to take the same risks for someone they accuse of being a deserter.”

      But “critics suggest case of alleged deserter should not be included in the credo of No Man Left Behind” just doesn’t have the same punch as the actual headline.

      1. No one is in fact ‘questioning the credo’

        Former platoon mates of Berghdahl simply think he should go to fucking jail.

        No one ever suggested that getting him back ‘should have never been done’

        They complained that he should face the music for the pain/death/suffering/problems he’d caused

        The NYT is trying to suggest criticism of the guy is equivalent to questioning his return at all.

        They repeatedly claim that the fact he may be court martialed is the result of ‘critics’, and not simply the consequences of his contract violation.

        1. I’m not certain the ‘no man left behind’ credo applies to someone who deliberately walked away, and who wasn’t suffering from a mental disorder.

          He wasn’t left behind, it appears he chose to stay behind. Big difference.

    4. The answer =

      The aforementioned ‘critics’ who Need Not Be Named? = Berghdal’s former platoon mates

      Now knowing that, go back and read his fucking story and realize that the author claims its ‘readily apparent’ this is who he meant.

      You’d think that if actual ‘soldiers’ are ‘criticizing’ the very notion of ‘no soldier left behind’ – he’s bother to point this out. No, instead the ‘critics’ remain a strangely amorphous non-entity.

      You may begin to grok how fundamentally dishonest i find the piece.

  7. Earn this.

    1. …by getting your family to sign up for Obamacare.

    2. …by taking the VA heat off.

  8. Where is buttpig on this latest fake scandal? Did he finally go full on Mary?

    Honestly, this is the least of the Obama scandals. The IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the VA scandal are all more disturbing than this. Especially the first 2.

    At this point, it’s just the emperor doing as his pleases because he knows full well that the first black potus cannot be touched for any reason, no matter how offensive. That is way past a proven fact.

    1. i see your point, but this is pretty big. Only because the left is the culture of the apology. If after the litany of scandals you cite BHO still acts unilaterally and imperially, it shows he has no remorse. Remorse is the coin of the realm with the left.

      Now we all know he has no remorse, but the facade is fading and more and more people are seeing him for what he is. That translates to supporter apathy, leading to his irrelevance.

      1. I don’t think it matters to him at this point how much public support he has. He just does what he wants and if anyone criticizes him, he will just get one of this many alphabet soup agencies to go after that person or persons to silence or punish them, or both. He can’t be re-elected and so I have a feeling he is going to get extremely vindictive during his last 2 years.

      2. Even Nancy Pelosi has stepped back from him on this one. And, she’d defend him if he were caught in bed with a 12 year old boy. I think this one might actually bring him down.

  9. Obama had to trade the five Gitmo prisoners when the Taliban turned down the offer of 100 senators plus Nancy Pelosi.

    1. They may be crazy, but they’re not dumb.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.