.Anti-war cartoonist denigrates our troops
(Orange County Register, The (CA) (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) I wonder if Tom Toles had Lance Cpl. Hugo Lopez in mind when he drew his little cartoon.
Toles is the Washington Post political cartoonist who last week published a controversial cartoon portraying a hapless-looking American soldier lying in a hospital bed with his amputated arms and legs swathed in bandages. He's being visited by "Dr. Rumsfeld," who tells him, "I'm listing your condition as `battle hardened'" _ a reference to the defense secretary's recent statement that the American military is battle hardened from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....
TCM.net
These people are idiots, that cartoon was funny, I even posted it, and I'll post it again
It's funny and it's to the point, states a political opinion. To think that the men and women that make up our military would be offended or turned off by such a cartoon is to not believe in America. Cartoons and political satire have been a part of this country from it's inception, and everyone, but these stupid fucks know it.
The worst part is they did not even run the cartoon with the story, nor I believe link to it. What can I say...maybe we should take a hint from our Muslim adversaries and burn the place to the ground. Where is that paper anyway?
Toles is the Washington Post political cartoonist who last week published a controversial cartoon portraying a hapless-looking American soldier lying in a hospital bed with his amputated arms and legs swathed in bandages. He's being visited by "Dr. Rumsfeld," who tells him, "I'm listing your condition as `battle hardened'" _ a reference to the defense secretary's recent statement that the American military is battle hardened from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....
TCM.net
These people are idiots, that cartoon was funny, I even posted it, and I'll post it again
It's funny and it's to the point, states a political opinion. To think that the men and women that make up our military would be offended or turned off by such a cartoon is to not believe in America. Cartoons and political satire have been a part of this country from it's inception, and everyone, but these stupid fucks know it.
The worst part is they did not even run the cartoon with the story, nor I believe link to it. What can I say...maybe we should take a hint from our Muslim adversaries and burn the place to the ground. Where is that paper anyway?
posted by madtom at 11:02 PM
12 Comments:
'An Aberration, A Mistake'
by Aslan Brooke, Frontiers Newsmagazine
An editorial cartoon that appeared in the Sept. 20 issue of Paraglide, Fort Bragg's (N.C.) official base newspaper, has set off a firestorm of protest within the gay community.
The cartoon, titled "The Flop Zone," depicts three servicemen--two assumed to be heterosexual and one who is portrayed as an effeminate gay man--in a combat situation. The gay servicemember is depicted with a butterfly and the caption reads, "Well hello, Mister Butterfly!!! My, you look very majestic today!!!" while the two nongay men look on derisively under the caption "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The offensive cartoon was illustrated by Capt. Clay Mountcastle.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), among others, were highly critical of the cartoon.
SLDN Executive Director C. Dixon Osburn noted the disparity between the recently issued Army guidelines condemning anti-gay harassment and the anti-gay tenor of the cartoon.
"The cartoon is decidedly not in keeping with Army standards."
In an earlier issue, Frontiers reported on the Army training guide, "Dignity & Respect," which addresses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and which clearly states that "harassment will not be tolerated."
The guide, presented in a comic-book format, further states that "every soldier has a right to fair, equitable and respectful treatment." The Pentagon has also stated that harassment is detrimental to unit cohesion.
"The Army has emphasized dignity and respect," Osburn said in a press statement, "but this cartoon shows a clear lack of both. Army leaders have a responsibility to uphold the Army's highest values, not to malign or stereotype fellow soldiers. It is especially harmful that this cartoon has been published as our soldiers are being called to fight for our country. At this time, we must have one country, indivisible."
GLAAD News Media Director Cathy Renna in a press statement also condemned the anti-gay stereotype depicted in the cartoon. "The use of stereotypes like this reinforces the image of lesbian and gay enlisted personnel as objects of contempt rather than as dedicated, equal soldiers," she said. "When personnel see media images like these, it only exacerbates the oppressive atmosphere gay and lesbian servicemembers already face in the armed forces. We would hope that they would exercise better editorial discretion in the future."
Steve Ralls, SLDN communications coordinator, told Frontiers that the cartoon is decidedly "not in keeping with Army standards."
SLDN and GLAAD called on Fort Bragg leaders to reiterate the Army's anti-harassment guidelines and commit to curbing anti-gay harassment among its troops. "Images such as this one hurt readiness, morale and unit cohesion," Osburn said. "The message it sends is never an appropriate one, but is never more inappropriate than during a time such as the one our troops face today."
When Frontiers reached the public affairs office at Fort Bragg, its chief officer, Col. Roger King, who oversees Paraglide, called the use of the cartoon "an aberration, a mistake." King said that subsequent to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks he was overseeing three different offices, and that a "young, inexperienced" temporary editor was looking for filler for the newspaper and threw in Mountcastle's cartoon. The use of the cartoon, King said, "is not in keeping with Army values. The [temporary editor"> obviously needs more experience in judgment and we'll work on that."
King added that when he discovered the cartoon had been put in the paper there was no uncertainty about his reaction--that he was not happy.
"Everybody got the message. The Army's values is not just talk." King said he wrote an apology to SLDN and answered e-mails he received about the matter.
Was the cartoon online? If so could you provide links, or post the image. And If I understand this story correctly, the paper in question is a military publication? Or just a local publication? But whatever people have the right to express their opinions though the use of art and any other form of expression. I still find it hard to believe that anyone would be harmed by the publication of opinion.
In the case of "gays in the military" there could be an exception, as it's an illegal orientation that could get people "separated" and in that sense dangerous as hell to any unit cohesion, and fan the fires of intolerance. But even misguided intolerance could be used to spark the debate and expand freedoms and liberties.
I'm not sure why the anger remarks, did my response come off as angry? I was hoping to see the cartoon in question and trying to make the point that in the special case of a military publication it was dangerous because it would be a one sided attack on a defenseless population. If I was gay and in the military and was somehow offended, or after the publication saw a rise in harassment, I could not come out and defend myself, or even try and produce a countering cartoon. As soon as I came out to defend or complain, I would be ousted and separated.
Still, I doubt this cartoonist ever visited a rehab center and has seen the incredible courage and dedication on display there.
The cartoon is not about the soldier, it's about Rumsfeld. I don't think you get it, those taking offense are not thinking of soldiers injured or otherwise, they are much more worried about the administration.
did you see at the bottom, how being stretched was not being tortured?
This has nothing to do with the soldiers, there just props in the joke, but the joke is about the administration. And those people complaining are trying to hide behind the soldiers, using them in every way as human shields. In my book that makes them stupid fucks.
Again I don't see the connection you make with wounded soldiers, the satire in the cartoon is about the lack of caring for the soldiers by the administration. The blind adherence to a set policy, do or die. "I'm listing your condition as "battle hardened"" Those are Rumsfeld's own words. And you can see in the cartoon the doctor busy writing without even looking at the soldier. And if you look at the chart on the foot of the bed, you can see that the soldier is a representation of the US Army's conditions, the chart is trending down. You have seen all the stories about how the army is hurting. That's what this cartoon is about. It's not about wounded soldiers. Yet you keep bringing wounded soldiers up, why? A more clever defense would be to talk about how the army is not broken, how the moral is high, how repeated year long deployments are not putting a strain, maybe even bring up recruitment numbers, reenlistment rate. any of those would be an acceptable response to this cartoon. Why people are trying to hide the real issues behind the wounded soldiers is beyond me.
" Those who have seen and talked to real soldiers in that situation just can't be that dismissive--it may be a cartoon figure, but you think of real people who are making real sacrifce when you see it if you have been up close and personal with someone severely injured from combat. It also brings up the frustration of knowing that far too many have no appreciation for it and regard it is waste which only adds to the disgust."
Unless your referring to the administration, I don't see what this has to do with the cartoon.
would you rather go to war with the military as it is now or as it was at the beginning?
Clinton bashing? I think a better question would be, do you think we have been pursuing a good strategy in Iraq, and do you think that the military has been used correctly to that end?
seeing the point of the other side shouldn't be as hard as it apparently is.
Maybe it would be easier if it did not come across as "leader worship". I was going to post the cover picture from Fred Barnes "Rebel in Charge" but for some reason google did not return anything
Well the military might be more experienced today, but it's also more worn out. Have you heard what the replacement cost are? Again there is lots of experience in the troops, but people are getting killed on their third tour. I have to take exception with your characterization of the initial mission. To destroy the Iraqi military. That failed miserably. Sure we drove right in to Baghdad, but the Iraqi army was not destroyed, it melted away, and we have been paying the price ever sense. That in and of itself could fill ten volumes of what not to do,
"The definitive library on how not to fight a war."
We were promised that Iraqi oil could pay for reconstruction, the reconstruction has in fact been completely absent. Thousands of projects have either been abandoned of never even started. All of the indicators are below prewar levels, oil production, electrical out put, gas production, employment, security, schools, the number of people graduating university, the professionals are fleeing the country, the medical system is worse now, GDP has fallen sharply. Now I don't want to sound like a crybaby, I am trying to highlight some of the worst for the sake of this argument. but almost everything I have sated can be traced right to the great failure in strategy from the beginning. It's not about third guessing, or weekend quarterbacking, they are a direct and predictable consequence of this administrations lack of vision and planing, it's mismanagement and poor use of available resources. Your fooling yourself if you think all the criticism is just democrats hostile to the war. That's just a talking point and not based on reality of the situation.
This war is and has always been winnable, but the question is are we winning? If I had to grade the administration I would give them a D-. They have misspent billions and more important wasted lives and are hardly any closer to victory today than they were the day of the "mission accomplished" TV spot.
I could go on but this post is depressing me. If your not Bush worshipping, then you must be reading better sources than I. Drop me a few links I also want to be as informed.
Actually I don't hear fingernails on a chalkboard.
But if I was as cynical, as I am. I would bring up a different notion as to why the high reenlistment rates. loyalty to your brothers in arms, not wanting to abandon them in a fight, and a feeling that unless you get back there the whole thing could fall apart. And maybe a little not wanting to leave your fiends to face the lions alone.
I know I'm not a psychologist, but you could as easily paint the situation as the brave men an women know we are loosing and want to give their all to stop the unavoidable. Sort of like how people will keep pilling sandbags in a flood even though the water is already rising over their necks. But I'm not that cynical.
Actually I like your plan, I would have modified it some important way, but it's a plan....
So far as the speculation about the motivations of the troops--I really think you really don't get it.
Remember this is a blog, and I did say I was being cynical. Believe you me, I sleep comfortably with the knowledge that good men and women go out into the night and do violence on my behalf. Non of my arguments and criticisms should be taken as reflecting badly on the troops. That's just right wing talking point.
In A way I think you were right when you said I was an anomaly, I support the troops, and I support the mission, I just don't support the administration and it's so-called strategy. Talk about an enigma, I'm sure I keep a few right wingers out there up at night, hoping that I just go away.
While I was in Iraq, I read Walter Isaacson's remarkable biography, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life." I was reminded of the passion and determination of our founding fathers, and of the long years they experienced between independence and the founding of the government we enjoy today. Franklin and company recognized the importance of having a fully informed American constituency involved in making the decisions of government.
When it comes to Iraq, in my experience, that constituency is poorly served.
I am glade you posted this and it highlight one of the most egregious failures of this administration. It's why I started this blog. If the constituency is poorly served be sure it's by design.
This guy better be careful putting such subversive material, this administration has not in the past looked kindly on such.
It doesn't matter much does it? If the forth estate is broken, but it's propped up as the only alternative, where do you turn, and who do you blame?
I don't know what his intentions are, but I have used that exact same argument so many times....And in such similar ways. I would say that he was being careful. But if you ask me not careful enough. It was carried by the LATimes, that should tell you something about his discussions with the editors. You think he went in there and was all gun hoo pro Bush and they said, yea your the guy we're looking for.
By the way what are you doing up this late? It's past your usual bed time, you never post this late. Anything wrong? something keeping you up, or something?
Will calm down, I think you must have connected my question about being up late to my joke the other day about keeping right wingr up at night. Will one was a joke, the other a question, out of concern. Like I said you never post that late, and I did not know what to make of it. People are usually creatures of habit, I just thought it strange that you were up late on a sunday night.
I only wish I could get you to post your interviews with the soldiers here on the blog, I'd offer you money if I had any. But I will promise you one thing. No editor, no questions asked, no conditions whatsoever, and basically no audience either, but maybe we could work on that.
(I'm the liberal most of the time)
To be a fly on that wall.......
Post a Comment
<< Home