I'm curious to see what the spectrum of reactions to this are, particularly from the left. This Monday, the Washington Post ran this editorial cartoon by one of its artists named Tom Toles, showing a man lying in bed seemingly with all 4 of his limbs blown off, and a "Dr. Rumsfeld" saying his condition was now battle-hardened.

 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff found this cartoon so reprehensible that they sent a letter of protest to the Post describing the cartoon as "reprehensible" but not asking for any specific actions to be taken in reply.

 

For my part, I believe that the cartoon in question appeared in my LAT one morning this week (I can't remember which day honestly, I don't take careful notes of these things), and I remember finding it pretty tasteless.

 

So, bunch of questions; on the comic itself, should the Post have run it in the first place? Should it do anything in response? On the Joint Chiefs...is it appropriate for the military to officially protest the expression of opinions in ways it finds "reprehensible", or should the military stand by and say nothing so as to avoid intruding on the press?

its pretty despicable in my opinion, but i am much more conservative than liberal

I have no problem whatsoever with them writing a letter to the paper voicing thier displeasure with the cartoon. It's not like they demanded someone's resignation over it, or took over a Wapo office in protest. This has nothing to do with 'intruding on the press by the military',

I'm not a liberal either, however, I don't disagree with the cartoon's publication. A columnist could have written those exact sentiments in words and it wouldn't have caused nearly the reaction. I understand there's a distinct difference between a person's mental image of words and a cartoon, but it's simply an opinion.

 

For anyone who approves this image because it supports their views and it's merely another venue to criticize the war, don't be shocked when someday a cartoon is printed which provides a cheap shot on a sensitive topic you support.

Edited February 2, 200620 yr by Flash Tizzle

"Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon is beyond tasteless," they wrote.

 

Yet referencing death/war injuries in a speech that has become so much pre-scripted political theater and it somehow becomes 'patriotic'. Funny how that works out.

 

What I find reprehensible is the fact that they sent troops into Iraq with no post-war plans that could be put in place and due to their lack of forethought, many more US soldiers, multinational forces, private contractors (that is both the paid mercs on the US bankroll and also the people trying to fix the infrastructure) and Iraqis have died. But I can see how a cartoon would really rustle their feathers. Perhaps if the JC's got off their ass and planned better, they wouldn't have been so enraged at the reality of soldiers losing limbs in Iraq.

Yeah, it doesn't phase or much surprise me that the Pentagon felt the need to write a vaguely threatening letter, but I'd agree they have better and more important things to do.

 

The cartoon pretty much nails the sentiments doming from the administration though. It's about the level of compassion you'd expect from the guys who would rather threaten soldiers with punishment and loss of death benefits if they use the good body armor that they paid for themselves instead of using the crappy stuff the military provides them.

It was actually the Sunday Post.

 

It takes a lot to offend me with a cartoon, and this one doesn't cross that line. But it wasn't very funny. That did piss me off.

 

I don't mind what either side did. I just wish they'd be more clever.

They've got the right to run their crude, tasteless cartoon.

Yeah, it doesn't phase or much surprise me that the Pentagon felt the need to write a vaguely threatening letter, but I'd agree they have better and more important things to do.

 

The cartoon pretty much nails the sentiments doming from the administration though.  It's about the level of compassion you'd expect from the guys who would rather threaten soldiers with punishment and loss of death benefits if they use the good body armor that they paid for themselves instead of using the crappy stuff the military provides them.

That same crappy armour that saved Woodruff's life? That s***ty stuff?

 

It's amazing the rhetoric, from both sides, of the spectrum here.

That same crappy armour that saved Woodruff's life?  That s***ty stuff?

 

It's amazing the rhetoric, from both sides, of the spectrum here.

The same crappy armor that a Armed Forces Institute of Pathology report said have failed to prevent torsoand shoulder damage that side panels could have prevented, yes that body armor.

 

Neither the Pentagon's claim that "soldiers have the best body armor available" nor its claim that what they are using strikes the right balance between weight and mobility jibe with their current scramble to send 230,000 sets of new side armor to Iraq this year.

 

It seems like the sticking point was the additional $260 the side armor would havve added to each set and/or the contracts the military has witth certain suppliers.

 

And they say you can't put a price on the value of human life.

Yes, that body armor, the one that has advancements all the time and it doesn't roll out to the front lines quick enough. No matter how fast, it's too slow. (no sarcasm).

 

But what I think is silly is no matter what happens, it's never, ever good enough. If there's a way to rip into this administration for anything, it sure will be found ASAP.

 

Yea, this administration is hypocrtical screwoffs. So was every administration before this one. But one certain Democratic administration before this one gets a free pass on everything, including scaling down the military and said armor programs back in the 1990s.

Yes, that body armor, the one that has advancements all the time and it doesn't roll out to the front lines quick enough.  No matter how fast, it's too slow.  (no sarcasm). 

 

But what I think is silly is no matter what happens, it's never, ever good enough.  If there's a way to rip into this administration for anything, it sure will be found ASAP.

 

Yea, this administration is hypocrtical screwoffs.  So was every administration before this one.  But one certain Democratic administration before this one gets a free pass on everything, including scaling down the military and said armor programs back in the 1990s.

 

Why does it have to be a rip into "this administration," or "Republicans," or "conservatives?" Why can't it simply be taking to task individuals, regardless of affiliation, who simply are doing a piss-poor job of managing nearly every aspect of the war? I would like to think that Jim(or anyone else) would raise the same point no matter what stupid group or useless party held office.

Yes, that body armor, the one that has advancements all the time and it doesn't roll out to the front lines quick enough.  No matter how fast, it's too slow.  (no sarcasm). 

 

But what I think is silly is no matter what happens, it's never, ever good enough.  If there's a way to rip into this administration for anything, it sure will be found ASAP.

 

Yea, this administration is hypocrtical screwoffs.  So was every administration before this one.  But one certain Democratic administration before this one gets a free pass on everything, including scaling down the military and said armor programs back in the 1990s.

 

Hey look, it only took 11 posts to blame Clinton.

 

The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't rush us into Iraq in 2003. The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't fail to plan for an Iraqi insurgency. The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't go into Iraq with "the army he has not the army he wants."

 

If Bill Clinton gets a free pass on everything, maybe you could explain why people in this forum find the things he invests in so interesting?

Hey look, it only took 11 posts to blame Clinton.

 

The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't rush us into Iraq in 2003. The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't fail to plan for an Iraqi insurgency. The last time I checked, Bill Clinton didn't go into Iraq with "the army he has not the army he wants."

 

If Bill Clinton gets a free pass on everything, maybe you could explain why people in this forum find the things he invests in so interesting?

I didn't "blame" him. I "blamed" them ALL.

"Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon is beyond tasteless," they wrote.

 

Yet referencing death/war injuries in a speech that has become so much pre-scripted political theater and it somehow becomes 'patriotic'.  Funny how that works out.

 

What I find reprehensible is the fact that they sent troops into Iraq with no post-war plans that could be put in place and due to their lack of forethought, many more US soldiers, multinational forces, private contractors (that is both the paid mercs on the US bankroll and also the people trying to fix the infrastructure) and Iraqis have died.  But I can see how a cartoon would really rustle their feathers.  Perhaps if the JC's got off their ass and planned better, they wouldn't have been so enraged at the reality of soldiers losing limbs in Iraq.

 

 

YYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyawwwwwwn....... we all know what you think.