Back to the Schools

Oh man. I don't think I've seen anyone make a serious effort to argue that ongoing school construction endeavors in Iraq outweigh the fact that we aren't achieving any of our mission objectives, but apparently Chris Muir didn't get the memo that these talking points are inoperative:

I'm pretty sure that these reconstruction projects have, in fact, largely been halted. And, of course, a lot of the refurbishing of public buildings is necessary precisely because the war has been so destructive. But all that aside, the level of bad faith here is really mind-boggling. If I proposed that the United States appropriate $87 billion to build 306 schools and refurbish 364 additional schools in Ecuador, would conservatives be applauding that? But that's what congress appropriated in its 2003 supplemental for Iraq. The bill the president just signed appropriates $95 billion for just the next six months. Does Chris Muir intend to get behind a $95 billion disease eradication program? It only costs $1 to give someone a measles vaccine and "approximately 410,000 children under the age of five die globally of measles each year."

But, of course not; take the value as a talking point away and conservatives don't care about education in the developing world or global public health at all.

Comments

Can we do a $95 billion disease eradication program? Please please please? If any Republicans want to cut a deal where they support that program in exchange for me shipping off to fight a war somewhere, I'm pretty sure I'd say yes.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 27, 2007 5:53 PM

Chris Muir has never been noted for his intelligence. He's useful solely to help keep track of what the Yahoo 30% still believe.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | May 27, 2007 5:53 PM

The point of this argument is that the media are still "liberal" because they never show the "good news about Iraq." The implication would be that the war is going much better than you're shown by the DFH reporters.

This may be contrasted with, for example, arguments against the minimum wage from conservative economists, which are the only occasions they ever pretend to show sympathy for unemployed black teenagers.

In the case of this particular comic, however, it's all just an excuse for Muir to draw two things that turn him on: large breasts and battle gear. I think that the white soldier is supposed to be female, and Muir was no doubt wondering if he could possibly get some sort of breast image from her, but the gun got in the way.

So to speak.

Posted by James Killus | May 27, 2007 6:06 PM

When you have to underline the word reality, you should know thst something is wrong with your argument.

Posted by goethean | May 27, 2007 6:35 PM

If reporters are wrong to wear vests and headgear, how come we're hearing about it from two GI's dressed in...vests and headgear. And holding guns. That said, I don't recall Iraq's immunization rates and school painting and primary school attendance being bad under Hussein. In fact, I suspect they were all pretty good. As for universities, what I hear is professors are leaving under religious or criminal threat.

Also, I don't think Chris draws these things.

Posted by Brian C.B. | May 27, 2007 7:11 PM

Hey - guys! Be fair. There was something like a joke in this comic. Now, it's true that any humor that might have escaped was captured and interned (or shot on sight, unclear) by his ideology, lack of skill with dialog, and poor reasoning, but still. Also, this is the first Muir comic I've seen where he takes advantage of the fact that comics are a visual medium by having a character do something fantastical or unusual (disappear). Normally his comics are entirely people talking out Republican talking points as jokes (which this is, but it had an actual comic element).

At this rate, Muir might draw a single real cartoon in about 2 years.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 27, 2007 7:12 PM

Who the fuck is Chris Muir and why should anyone care what a Z-list conservative cartoonist thinks about anything?

Posted by Peter Principle | May 27, 2007 7:22 PM

Not to mention the fact that if she went outside in Baghdad dressed like that, she would be killed.

Yup, that's real progress.

Posted by serial catowner | May 27, 2007 7:25 PM

Hmm. Imaginary girl lists imaginary successes in iraq in a comic strip. Anyone else see the unintended irony here?

Posted by unintentional irony | May 27, 2007 7:30 PM

Who the fuck is Chris Muir and why should anyone care what a Z-list conservative cartoonist thinks about anything?

Worth repeating. Always, always punch up, not down.

Posted by kth | May 27, 2007 7:43 PM

As Atrios points out, Chris Muir did, indeed, "get the memo."

And give him credit: at least he doesn't have the woman contorting herself too much to show her ass in this one.

Posted by dave™© | May 27, 2007 7:47 PM

Can we appropriate 75 million to get that woman's spine properly aligned?

Posted by Thers | May 27, 2007 7:56 PM

Also, since the beginning of the Glorious Five-Year Plan, tractor production has risen 158% in all Soviet factories.

Posted by The Next to Last Pope | May 27, 2007 8:36 PM

The second-to-last panel is deeply unsettling. And what on Earth is the point Muir's trying to make here?

Posted by teh l4m3 | May 27, 2007 8:37 PM

Who the fuck is Chris Muir and why should anyone care what a Z-list conservative cartoonist thinks about anything?

Worth repeating. Always, always punch up, not down.

Chris Muir has a huge audience. Just because WE know he's a complete tool, doesn't mean his audience does.

Posted by Auguste | May 27, 2007 8:59 PM

This is the first I've heard of a Chris Muir....is he related to Dave Muir of Oswego County New York?

Next to last panel....a phantasm? Like Malkin running around in Iraq with no armor and provacative dresses? Or was that Jesse in the dresses?

If there were good news to spread from Iraq, it would be on Fox 24/7, and Associated Pravda would be crowing from the Capitol Dome about all the painted schools and friendly, just plain folks, in old Baghdad....with apologies to Tom Lehrer.

Posted by boilerman10 | May 27, 2007 9:09 PM

Come on, give the guy a break. Dude's obviously auditioning for the Daily Show.

Posted by mwg | May 27, 2007 9:10 PM

Actually, the scary part of this cartoon is that it's citing usubstantiated emails from 2003 and 2005. Things have gone swell since then.

"Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operation squadrons, 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers?"

Yeah. A true Iraqi Air Force is a highly unlikely development. Boy, there's something you wouldn't want to trust your Amerian or, probably, Arab Sunni life to. I also love the production of 3500 Sadrist militiamen in uniform, er, "police officers" every eight weeks. Doesn't that training schedule seem pretty abbreviated?

Posted by Brian C.B. | May 27, 2007 9:15 PM

As is mentioned above, these are almost exactly the same numbers from a chain-mail going around two, three, and almost four years ago.

Didn't see any contact information for the cartoon's creator, of course.

Posted by Kurt Montandon | May 27, 2007 9:19 PM

For some reason, no one puts me on their list for these pro-war chain letters.

Posted by Constantine | May 27, 2007 10:01 PM

Auguste --

I like your Muir parodies, but WHO is his large audience?

His homepage proudly states,

"You can find Day By Day in: Hemingford Ledger, Knoxville News-Sentinel, North County Times"

But before you find Day By Day, you first have to find Hemingford.

Posted by theo | May 27, 2007 10:08 PM

In the bill you're thinking of, 20 billion.

Posted by gcochran | May 27, 2007 10:11 PM

You do realize that Reconstruction of Germany was seen as a complete failure in 1948?

My point being, the reality of Iraq will be written 50 years from now, not today

Posted by James Robertson | May 27, 2007 10:11 PM

You do realize that Reconstruction of Germany was seen as a complete failure in 1948?

Is that a joke?

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 27, 2007 10:16 PM

Actually, if you just fix the wording in panel 7, it actually works. They soldiers should be pointing out that the newsbabe is spouting crap and right-wing talking points, and confronting her with reality that way.

I mean, it's not like this Muir guy is artistically declined or anything. He's got some talent in that area. He just has to escaped from his fact-free world and embrace actual reality.

Posted by jeffk | May 27, 2007 10:36 PM

I've always wondered if Republicans like Muir count the blood-spattered walls of blown-up Universities as "painted schools"?

Posted by Harry R. Sohl | May 27, 2007 10:39 PM

I mean, it's not like this Muir guy is artistically declined or anything.

Seriously - If you just look at it and don't read it, you'd ask "WTF's up with Doonesbury this week?"

Muir's such a hack he can't even draw his own friggin' characters, much less have them say something that isn't stale discredited bullshit.

Posted by Harry R. Sohl | May 27, 2007 10:44 PM

Panel 7 shows that this zero-talent hack knows how to use the Radial Blur effect in Photoshop. That's probably an easy get for him, as it he apparently has that effect built into his frontal cortex.

And isn't it funny that a conservative is taking the rhythm and tone of Doonesbury and perverting it as if he invented it? Nice score off what was a completely original, anti-war, liberal trope--30 years ago. Reminds me of how often you read wingnuts using 'truthiness' as a slur against liberals, probably completely unaware of its origins. No amount of vitamin E can cure the irony deficiency rampant among our stupider counterparts.

Posted by djangone | May 27, 2007 11:19 PM

Muir's factoids are virtually word-for-word from this breezy recitation on the site of ICCB, Iraq Consultants & Construction Bureau, which has made a bazillion dollars off the reconstruction effort. (According to the page history, it was last updated December 17, 2006, so even if they were ever accurate, the factoids are some six months out of date.) I also note that Muir has somehow expanded 1,192,000 new cell phone subscriptions to "2 million." I guess that's rounding error?

There's no indication of where the factoids came from. And although they have permeated Right Blogistan like a fart in an elevator, there seems to be no way to, you know, fact-check them. It's just possible that's why the media aren't reporting them as gospel truth.

Posted by Dan Someone | May 28, 2007 12:10 AM

If the Germans had been engaged in an armed insurrection for the three years preceding 1948, then yes, the Marshall Plan would have failed, too.

Posted by mwg | May 28, 2007 12:13 AM

Well, you would say that, seeing's how you're a Kantian nihilist and all...

Posted by Scott Lemieux | May 28, 2007 1:22 AM

"Also, this is the first Muir comic I've seen where he takes advantage of the fact that comics are a visual medium by having a character do something fantastical or unusual (disappear). Normally his comics are entirely people talking out Republican talking points as jokes (which this is, but it had an actual comic element).
At this rate, Muir might draw a single real cartoon in about 2 years."

As djangone noted, Panel 7 is a lame-f*ck, probably default setting of Photoshop's Radial Blur filter--which ironically enough, gives the poor, scoliosis-deformed lassie the appearance of...well,

"spinning"

:)

P.S. Having actually studied cartooning for two years with the great Will Eisner as my teacher, slogging through a six-panel "Duh by Duh" is akin to running a fine-gauged cheese-grater over my corneas--repeatedly. :(

Posted by LowerManhattanite | May 28, 2007 2:46 AM

The single most effective thing that we could do to combat terrorism in the world would be to divert at least 25% of our defense budget to non-military foreign aid. Things like disaster relief, disease prevention, food and housing, and economic development.

This will never happen, of course. A majority of people, and especially majority of Americans, would rather spend $500 on a gun to protect themselves from their own countrymen than spend $5 to help their own countrymen eat for another day.

Posted by josephdietrich | May 28, 2007 5:25 AM

As I understood it, the reconstruction effort was founded on the idea that the regime of Iraq had to be toppled, but that the Iraqi citizens/subjects should be helped in recovering from the war and hopefully becoming a democracy. (Even if the chances of that seem slim these days.)

Your argument is then that these efforts instead should be considered entirely independently of the invasion of Iraq, no more nor less than foreign aid to any other country?

Posted by Tom | May 28, 2007 7:43 AM

What's wrong with cartoon lady's spine?

Why the scoliosis?

Posted by a person | May 28, 2007 8:31 AM

I wonder why the funding of this chronic enterprise is not simply included as a line item in the budget. When the Democrats 'compromised' they should have had the spine to include a stipulation that the endless war would henceforth become part of the DoD annual expenditure, and be included in the calculation of the FY deficit. I wonder if bush would veto that.

Posted by buma | May 28, 2007 8:37 AM

"As I understood it, the reconstruction effort was founded on the idea that the regime of Iraq had to be toppled, but that the Iraqi citizens/subjects should be helped in recovering from the war and hopefully becoming a democracy."

Actually, the reconstruction effort was founded on the idea it wouldn't exist beyond what could be funded by Iraq's oil revenues, that Iraqi civil servants would watch Saddam's statue pulled down on Tuesday and show up for work on Wednesday, swearing allegiance to viceroy Chalabi, or whomever was designated strongman deigned to guide Iraq toward a secular democracy that would, among other things, recognize Israel. That it was a sanctions-stripped, Iraq-Iran war impoverished Balkans II where every oppressed group, plus the oppressors, would seek power, motivated by ethnic and religious and just plain fucking greedy compulsions and prodded by various regional powers who were practiced at the game since Ottoman times was not a scenario to be considered since, you know, it was enough of a downer to make one question whether we should do the invasion at all. And we had to. I mean, there were aluminum tubes for God's sake.

Aside from ridiculous comparisons to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan, ones which require the invention of resistance groups ("If we keep attacking, the Yankees will just leave and let the Red Army occupy this sector. Wouldn't that be great?") there's that cellphone number. I figure half that number of cellphones are sold to insurgents to trigger bombs.

Posted by Brian C.B. | May 28, 2007 9:00 AM

We're winning!

Posted by Rich L. | May 28, 2007 10:22 AM

Yes, James Robertson reconstruction efforts in Germany in 1948 were nil. On that point you are right. However, they were nil because that was the original post war occupation strategy. the plan was to turn Germany into a pastoral country with no industrial capacity. That way it would never have the ability to start another war.

But because of the cold war that policy changed in 1948 and the Marshall Plan was devised as part of the new strategy.

James Robertson, next time before you start quoting talking points you might actually try to read a little history so you could a least give a semblance of knowing what you are talking about.

Posted by spencer | May 28, 2007 10:27 AM

The schools! The schools!

Recently released statistics from the Ministry indicate that only 30 percent of Iraq's 3.5 million students are currently attending classes. This compares to approximately 75 percent of students attending classes the previous year, according to UK-based NGO Save the Children.

"Last year I had nearly 80 students in my class. Today, there are less than 25. Families are keeping their children safe at home, waiting to see how violence will spread, particularly after many schools were targeted countrywide," said Hiba Addel Lattef, a teacher and coordinator at Mansour Primary School in the capital, Baghdad.

"Education [levels are] deteriorating as a result of violence," Lattef added.

According to the Ministry of Education, 2006 is the worst year for school attendance since US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The immediate post-war level of attendance in 2003 was almost 100 percent.

Posted by tequila | May 28, 2007 10:30 AM

Also, does anyone notice that he says this reality comes from America's Armed Forces, but it actually comes from a hackish right-wing loser? Do they operate under the belief that they are actually a branch of the military? Army, Navy, Airforce, Republican Apparatchik?

P.S. If you look up the definition of Apparatchik, it really does describe the current right-wing bureaucracy/Party very well.

Posted by MDtoMN | May 28, 2007 10:36 AM

I suppose the "punch line" here is meant to be the "irony" inherent in the fact that Red-Dress Lady (newscaster?) - gives the "good news" about Iraq , but then vanishes as "unreal", since "The Media" isn't supposed to be reporting any positives: although having the tag delivered by a couple of soldiers robs it of what little coherence it had. Which, typically, isn't much.

Actually, as noted, this is one of Chris Muir's better cartoons: usually they consist of talking heads repeating strawman talking points; with some "liberal shibboleth" being dismissed with a wry witticism in the final panel. But as usual with a lot of right-wing media efforts, Day by Day seems never to have lived up to its expectations: I gather it was meant to a conservative riposte to Doonesbury; instead, we've gotten a slightly droller version of Mallard Fillmore.

Posted by Jay C | May 28, 2007 10:39 AM

Being a newcomer to this blog, I'm not sure whether Yglesias's line that "conservatives don't care about education in the developing world or global public health at all" was meant seriously or whether it's just a sort of rah-rah camaraderie by liberals.

So please pardon me if I'm being gauche, or a "troll," or whatever, if I point out that President Bush tripled funding for the fight against AIDS, to $15 billion. Again, I apologize if it is a faux pas to mention this in this forum. Maybe Yglesias and all his readers already know this, and the "global public health" was not meant seriously but is just a sort of game that I don't understand. Interpreting the exact nature and degree of irony of the snarky contrary-to-fact claims that constitute about 40% of the content of liberal blogs is not my forte.

If it is necessary to censor this comment, I understand that every forum has its rules. If Yglesias wants to protect his readers from hearing facts that refute his thoughtless remarks, it is his right to do so.

Posted by Nathan Smith | May 28, 2007 11:12 AM

Sorry, I forgot to put the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030129-1.html

Posted by Nathan Smith | May 28, 2007 11:13 AM

The best part is that if you consider the youth demographics of Iraq, the numbers he cites sound more like failures than successes.

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2007 11:19 AM

It actually gets funnier with repeated viewing. It reminds me of China Reconstructs from the 1950s where the Chinese would list (tediously, from our perspective, excitingly, from theirs) the surges in grain and rice production, increased numbers of tractors, building of miles of roads, etc etc.

In much the same vein, we learn here that 2 million new phone "subscribers" have generated 158% more phone calls. But why not even more, if we adopt the artists trick of simply flipping the image to produce the next panel? Even the Communist Chinese never reached those levels of 'productivity'.

You can joke about the 60s, but if we had that creative talent now, somebody would be doing a knockoff where that babe has sex with Mallard Fillmore. I bet you'd read that!

Posted by serial catowner | May 28, 2007 11:57 AM

If Yglesias wants to protect his readers from hearing facts that refute his thoughtless remarks, it is his right to do so.

And if you want to display such passive-aggressive silliness, that's your right as well.

As for the point about global health: in Africa, it's lashed to a pseudo-religious message that's condescending at best.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 28, 2007 12:00 PM

"Being a newcomer to this blog, I'm not sure whether Yglesias's line that "conservatives don't care about education in the developing world or global public health at all" was meant seriously or whether it's just a sort of rah-rah camaraderie by liberals."

Assuming you're not being deliberately disingenuous, I will explain. Matt's highlighting the utter ridiculousness of highlighting small (and possibly factually dubious) public-health accomplishments in Iraq in the face of the massive destruction caused by our invasion. As Matt points out, if we'd wanted to build schools and inoculate children, there are plenty of places we could've done it without invading the country.

Posted by James Gary | May 28, 2007 3:02 PM

Bush tripled funding for the fight against AIDS, to $15 billion

The $15B was "found" by cutting foreign aid to Africa by....$15B. They just changed the earmark. I believe the technical term for this in street magician jargon is "sleight of hand."

This was announced in the 2003 SOTU address. Feel free to find something a bit more recent.

Posted by nota bene | May 28, 2007 9:26 PM

I think Tequila's posting on the Iraqi Education Ministry's bad news is the final word on this subject. What happened to the schools is what happened to the doctors and engineers, the electricity, the ministries, the telephone lines, the sanitation, and everything else that made Iraq a middle-income country in the past and one of the worst places in the world to live today.

We can force-feed all the half-assed projects we want on the place. We did that in Vietnam while we were killing a million people. We lost. Of course Muir probably doesn't know anything about Vietnam except what Rambo told him as a little boy.

Posted by super390 | May 29, 2007 12:39 AM

The irony cuts both ways.

http://www.slate.com/id/2167083/

Posted by Peter K. | May 29, 2007 11:10 AM

Nathan,

I started to say that your link to very old news (what has W done in THIS term?) of W pretending to request $15B to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa was made as a dubious PR gesture, knowing his compliant conservative rubber-stamp Republican't Congress would never write the check.

But then I saw what nota bene said and didn't bother....

Sorry W suckered you.

Posted by bartcopfan | May 29, 2007 12:26 PM

...In the case of this particular comic, however, it's all just an excuse for Muir to draw two things that turn him on: large breasts and battle gear. I think that the white soldier is supposed to be female, and Muir was no doubt wondering if he could possibly get some sort of breast image from her, but the gun got in the way.

So to speak.

James,

After reading your post, I thought you might be onto something--until I remembered the "I was gonna ask her out" punchline. I doubt the chickenhawk "cartoonist" would knowingly violate "Don't Ask-Don't Tell". ;-)

Posted by bartcopfan | May 29, 2007 2:05 PM