Just a thought on the Tom Toles cartoon

[Atman]

Has anyone heard any members of THE PUBLIC speaking out against Toles cartoon, or just the Joint Chiefs and the government? It seems to me Tom is getting skewered by the government who claims to be protecting his free speech, and no one but the brass is offended. The military is upset. Probably for the same reason they don't like to see the flag-draped coffins or any battle field photos. So why should we give a flying f*ck what the Joint Chiefs think about an editorial cartoon? Do your jobs defending our right to speak freely, and we'll do you proud by exercising those rights on a daily basis, thank you very much!

[FSogol]

1. I agree. The joint Chiefs need to put down the editorial page

and make sure our troops have non-contaminated water, non-perished food, and the proper body armor. The fact that they let all these things happen is a million times more offensive than any cartoon.

[w8liftinglady]

2. I agree-I emailed the Post as a soldier's mom to support Tom

[e-mail]

[Feenicks]

3. I believe the objections have nothing

to do with the politics of the cartoon, but of the depiction of the patient (an American soldier) as a quad amputee. They are saying that that depiction is insensitive and calloused to real soldiers who have lost limbs, etc. in combat.

(edit) Okay I just found the quotatation: ""While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency not to make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices."

I happen to agree. Now, if the issue is that the government shouldn't be in the business of writing in to newspapers, then that is another matter entirely.

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. The irony is, I bet the cartoon's a hit with SOME quad amputees

... the one's who aren't bitter about not being able to rejoin their brothers in combat, that is.

And even some of them may get a lift out of it thanks to the depiction of Rumsfeld who is NOT a popular guy these days.

Most military combat guys have a very dark sense of humor.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. ever read any of Paul Fussell's experiences in WWII?

he'd agree with you, and go well beyond what you've said

most combat infantry grunts have nothing but the UTMOST contempt for the brass, especially reserved for those who've never seen front line action

[Gabi Hayes]

5. did you lose your way to some other site, as well as your critical

thinking skills?

are you that easily swayed by the mass of propaganda being put out on this?

how much more OBVIOUS can it be that the object of Toles' contumely is NOT the victim, ie, soldier, but the perpetrators: Rumsfeld, Bush, etal

seeing as how almost nobody can possibly be that dim, I'll infer that you know very well what you're doing here

have a nice life, and keep on catapulting the propaganda

[Feenicks]

7. Take a break from your witch hunt for freepers

to actually read what I said. I said nothing about what I thought Toles' point was. I only said that I thought the objections were stemming from the depiction of a US soldier as a quad amputee, not about the message of the cartoon.

There have been many, many cartoons skewering * and his band of thieves, but this is the first printed objection?

[Gabi Hayes]

9. witch hunt for freepers?

which hunt?

dunno what else you have on your edited post, but it certainly left me with the impression you supported Toles' critics, hence the response

if I'm wrong, I apologize

since I don't know what else was in your edited post, I'll stick with my original impression

and your quote very self-servingly sides with those who have been hammering Toles to death, and would like nothing better than to see him and his ilk shuttered up in some Abu Ghraib environment

do you agree with the sentiment contained in your quote?

should Toles have been more :sensitive: to the plight of the soldiers?

or is this just another example of the faux outrage of the RW radicals who control the media? have you seen the near uniform response in the MSM? I've seen more than five reactions on cable since yesterday, and there was NOT ONE person defending Toles, save Toles himself. that reminds me, I'm going to get the transcript of that Paula Zahn interview, and see what approach she took

want to bet she went after him hammer and tong?

[Gabi Hayes]

12. here's Zahn/Toles, with lead-in

ZAHN: Tonight, we take you inside a huge controversy brewing over a political cartoon that has the country's top military brass up in arms.

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks the drawing about the U.S. military is way out of bounds. So, we're asking the cartoonist, what was he thinking?

The cartoon ran in Sunday's "Washington Post." It shows a bandaged soldier with both arms and legs amputated. The doctor, who is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, says, "I'm listing your condition as battle-hardened." The cartoon is a response to something Rumsfeld said last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It's not that this armed force is broken, but that this armed force is enormously capable.

In addition, it is battle-hardened. It is not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: The cartoon provoked a rare letter to "The Post"'s editor signed by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calling it reprehensible and beyond tasteless. They deplored what they called a callous depiction of those who volunteered to defend this nation and, as a result, suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds."

Today, Secretary Rumsfeld ducked the issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUMSFELD: I'm not going comment on their letter, except -- except to say that, in my view, they have the right to do that. As to the cartoon...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Well, he thought long and hard before pointing out that, throughout U.S. history, political cartoonists and critics have been, in his words, vicious.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUMSFELD: That's -- that's the way it is here. It comes with the territory, I guess, is all I can say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And joining me now from "The Washington Post" newsroom to tell us what he was thinking when he drew the cartoon, Pulitzer Prize- winning editorial cartoonist Tom Toles.

Thanks so much for joining us, Tom.

TOM TOLES, EDITORIAL CARTOONIST, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: So, you have heard what the Joint Chiefs of Staff said about your cartoon, that it was a callous depiction of soldiers who have suffered life-altering wounds.

How do you justify using war casualties to make a political point?

TOLES: The way I look at it is this. Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed two serious reports about the damage that has been done to the U.S. Army and -- with the expression that it was battle-hardened. My feeling was that, in light of the damage that has been done to the Army, and the catastrophic suffering that has happened to a lot of American soldiers, that that expression did not appropriately cover the situation. And the cartoon was about my response to his -- his comment.

ZAHN: But you were accused of also making light of some of the life-threatening injuries these soldiers have sustained. What specifically were you trying to provoke, basically, by showing a depiction of a quadruple amputee?

TOLES: I have heard a lot about this cartoon in the last day.

And I think it was best put by a disabled woman who called me today from California. And she said that she looked at the cartoon, and she found it very painful. On the other hand, she also said that she support -- understood the point of the cartoon, supported the cartoon, and said, yes, it is a painful cartoon, but it is a painful reality.

And a depiction of a situation, a reality, a set of facts, is not the same thing as making fun of them. There was no intention to make light of the situation. I was trying to point out -- and I felt I did point out -- the seriousness of the situation.

ZAHN: When you drew this, though, you had to understand you were going to be criticized for it, right? That was -- that had to be in -- in your thinking.

TOLES: It was in my thinking.

It is also my thinking almost every day that I draw a cartoon. And the days that it is not in my thinking, I -- I stop and think, if no one -- no one could possibly take offense or issue with this cartoon, is it a cartoon that really makes its point effectively or with -- with enough strength?

ZAHN: Well, Tom Toles, we appreciate your helping us understand your side of the story. Thank you for joining us.

TOLES: Thank you, Paula.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And here is one more thing.

The deputy communications director for the Disabled American Veterans says he was certainly not offended by the cartoon and adds that it has raised awareness of critically ill patients who need our attention.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. I love this, from Zahn:

''How do you justify using war casualties to make a political point? ''

too bad she didn't ask him to limit his cartoons to baby puppies and kitties?

how DARE he make a political point, using WAR as a topic, of all things?

[Feenicks]

16. What "other site" did you have in mind?

My edit merely cleaned up an html mistake and added the quotation from the letter to the Post.

I think that Toles could have gotten his message across without using an image of a quad amputee as one of his "symbols". My reaction was completely limited to that particular aspect.

As for the cartoon in general, I found the idea good, if not obscure (Toles is reacting to a statement made by Rummy that isn't at all clear from having only seen this one cartoon). I just wish he'd used different imagery, that is all. Heck, even if the soldier were all in casts and slings.

And no, I wouldn't like to see TT shuttered up in Abu Ghraib! I actually have had aspirations of being a political cartoonist, and so my analysis may have been too esoteric....

[Twillig]

8. I'd like to point out that the victim lying in bed there

is supposed to represent the US Army (see his chart). Not some basket case soldier.

The Army is the basket case. Stretched thin, etc. whatever.

I think I see a lot of people falling for the line the
Pentagon brass is putting out in defense of their man (who lets them
keep their jobs) Rumsfeld.

[malaise]

10. They're on their own

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/02/141714.php

[Gabi Hayes]

14. great find!

this sums it up for me, in response to the quoted sentence:

"No one likes to see their compatriots used and exploited for someone else's benefit," my ass!


bush and rumsfeld alone have purposefully put themselves next to a service member, wounded or not, and allowed their picture to be taken, printed, broadcasted, and used over and over again...for whose benefit?

still the wounded are in need, and those who aren't wounded yet are in need -- of armor to protect them from getting wounded...

for whose benefit were those pictures of bush, rumsfeld and sgt whoever?
it helped nothing but the images of bush and rumsfeld...

[malaise]

15. They want to keep the ugliness out of the media

no deaths, no injuries, just their version of the war. That link was amazing because it shows they don't even want to see soldiers with really serious injuries. They are fooling no one anymore.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Tsk, tsk. People get hurt in wars. Who'da thought!

And, the brass who send them to kill and be killed feel soooooooo bad about it.