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

Nick Gillespie | 6.4.2014 2:24 PM

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

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

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

Hide Comments (56)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Ryan60657 11 years ago

He's a Sergeant, not a Private, no?
1. rts 11 years ago
  
  Promoted in absentia; a Pfc when captured.
2. Nick Gillespie 11 years ago
  
  I believe he was a private when captured and was promoted in absentia.
  1. Notorious G.K.C. 11 years ago
    
    That's curious - they promoted a deserter?
    1. UnCivilServant 11 years ago
      
      If classed as a PoW, they're assumed to meet performance metrics while in captivity, someone classed him as a PoW.
      1. Notorious G.K.C. 11 years ago
        
        That's interesting, thank you.
Hugh Akston 11 years ago

So wait, are we supposed to be upset that Obama released five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who should have been released a decade ago?
1. RBS 11 years ago
  
  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. wingnutx 11 years ago
    
    Bingo.
2. wareagle 11 years ago
  
  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. Tony 11 years ago
    
    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. wareagle 11 years ago
      
      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. Tony 11 years ago
        
        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.)
        
        The Last American Hero 11 years ago
        
        Get real. Your opposition to it ended in January 2009.
        
        Tony 11 years ago
        
        You mean when the guy who's main appeal was his anti-Iraq-War rhetoric got elected?
        
        Corning 11 years ago
        
        ..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.
        
        Hyperion 11 years ago
        
        Tony's working on his response to that one.
        
        JWatts 11 years ago
        
        "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.
        
        Hyperion 11 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Sevo 11 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Sevo 11 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Tony 11 years ago
        
        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. Corning 11 years ago
    
    the dog and pony show whose only discernible purpose was to shove the VA story a few pages back
    
    yup.
    
    At least one dem is now using it to distance himself from Obama.
    
    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/.....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.
WDATPDIM?! 11 years ago

If you fold it in thirds, does it become a picture of Alfred E. Newman sitting in the Airforce One presidential can?
1. Nick Gillespie 11 years ago
  
  Now *that* would be amazing.
2. Episiarch 11 years ago
  
  Well, of course. This is MAD Magazine.
3. Grand Moff Serious Man 11 years ago
  
  What, me worry about Congressional approval?
  1. Notorious G.K.C. 11 years ago
    
    The Usual Gang of Idiots in the administration
Notorious G.K.C. 11 years ago

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. Fist of Etiquette 11 years ago
  
  If you have nothing to hide, why grow a beard?
  1. UnCivilServant 11 years ago
    
    Because I get a five o'clock shadow by noon. It's easier to have a beard.
  2. Dweebston 11 years ago
    
    It's called herpes, and it looks much better hidden.
  3. GILMORE 11 years ago
    
    REAL MEN ARE TOO LAZY TO SHAVE
  4. The Last American Hero 11 years ago
    
    Beards are popular because it hides the neck fat.
2. Hyperion 11 years ago
  
  Real men have goatees.
3. wingnutx 11 years ago
  
  Beards, the padded bra of masculinity.
Jerry on the sea 11 years ago

With Obama being so overly flirtatious with Bergdahl's mother, I can only assume there was something more to this bargain.
GILMORE 11 years ago

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. Fr?ulein Nikki 11 years ago
  
  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. Fr?ulein Nikki 11 years ago
    
    Oh wait, I've got it now: all three reporters!
    1. wareagle 11 years ago
      
      consensus!!
2. wareagle 11 years ago
  
  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. JWatts 11 years ago
    
    "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. Notorious G.K.C. 11 years ago
  
  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. GILMORE 11 years ago
    
    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. Pulseguy 11 years ago
      
      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. GILMORE 11 years ago
  
  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.
Game of Thrones fan 11 years ago

Earn this.
1. Grand Moff Serious Man 11 years ago
  
  ...by getting your family to sign up for Obamacare.
2. Bobarian 11 years ago
  
  ...by taking the VA heat off.
Hyperion 11 years ago

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. Mr. Soul 11 years ago
  
  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. Hyperion 11 years ago
    
    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. Pulseguy 11 years ago
    
    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.
Aresen 11 years ago

Obama had to trade the five Gitmo prisoners when the Taliban turned down the offer of 100 senators plus Nancy Pelosi.
1. Sevo 11 years ago
  
  They may be crazy, but they're not dumb.

Please log in to post comments

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

Latest

Schumer's Big Break

Tariffs Raise Prices, Spark Conflicts, and Make Everyone Poorer

Dumping Environmental Justice From the EPA Is a Good Step. Now Dump the EPA.

Review: Charting the Rise of Anti-Lockdown Activism

Review: D.C. Museum Exhibit Illuminates the Brutalities of Slavery

Recommended

Login Form