Cartoon causes JCS complaints

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think this was intended to be disrespectful of soldiers. It is a comment upon Rumsfeld's recent statement that the Army isn't stretched too thin, instead it is "battle-hardened."
 
i thought that was pretty funny. considering how good rumsfeld is at dismissing or ignoring reality, it seems spot on.
 
I don't think they intended it to be bad, but it just demonstrates the disconnect many see between the media and normal people.
 
Maybe I'm humorless, but I don't see paraplegic soldiers as funny in any context.
 
News4 in Buffalo (a CBS affiliate) just aired a story about this. The Joint Chiefs sent a "nastygram" and both the Secretary of the Army and a few others publicly chastised Tom Toles in a news conference.

I understand what Toles meant, but the meaning is somewhat hidden to those that don't pay attention to politics.

News4 then followed it up with a story about the new Hooters casino in LV, so I'm a lot better now. :D
 
It seems poigniant to me. If you think that our soldiers arent ending up like that, then you need a big reality check. Rumsfield certainly doesnt seem to care much about that reality, and the "battled hardened" comment is direct from his lips. I think the disconect that we see here is between politicians, their constituents and the reality of war. Honorable men being placed into that condition is the price of what we are doing in Iraq and Afganistan, if its a price that you feel is appopriate why would you find it offensive?
 
middy said:
Maybe I'm humorless, but I don't see paraplegic soldiers as funny in any context.

Considering how I and many others were treated by the "anti-war movement" when we came home wounded from Viet Nam, I can assure you there is no humor here. It's a calculated, deliberate insult -- all the more offensive because it assumes that wounded soldiers are legitimate targets.
 
Rumsfeld was talking about the state of the army as an institution, not the condition of any of its soldiers. Twisting his words this way is completely out of context, and applying it to a crippled soldier is just a cheap shot designed to be as controversial as possible.

It doesn't even make sense if you think about it.
 
Good grief. No wonder irony is a lost art in this country.

The outrage over this cartoon is exactly -- and I do mean exactly -- the same as the stupidly incomprehensible outrage over the "racism" in Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. Most educated people know that Twain's work was anti-racist; he set out to illustrate racism and to condemn it with biting, vicious, and blatantly obvious sarcasm. He accomplished his goal so very well that the perpetually humor-impaired are still "offended" by his work, lo these many years later.

Same thing with this cartoon. Rumsfeld's (and the administration he serves) multiple demands upon an overworked military and his callous disregard for the difficulties faced by military people as a result, is exactly the point that is being illustrated. The point is that the current administration is demanding too much of an overworked military, and of the people in it. In this sense, the cartoon is extremely pro-military, and the slings and arrows of "outraged" military supporters are pathetically misplaced.

Instead of being offended at how anti-military the cartoonist is, you might try being offended at the thing that is actually offensive: the callous mistreatment of troops which are severely overworked and continuously called upon to do the impossible by political authorities who have neither understanding of nor regard for the thinly-stretched condition of our military and the terrible burden that overstretching puts upon military families.

You might try being offended at the completely ridiculous and painfully obvious fact that ordinary troops are being sent overseas for longer periods, to do more diverse tasks, and with less support than they have at nearly any other point in our nation's history.

You might even turn some of the stupidly wasted energy you've spent decrying the MSM for publishing this, and direct it instead to our elected officials who obviously believe that a severely truncated and underfunded military is nonetheless capable of fighting on multiple fronts throughout the world, whenever and wherever the politicians decide the troops need to go today and without any regard for the condition of those troops. If you support our troops, you might consider protesting the over-use and under-funding of those troops.

But no, we're not going to do that. Because if we did that, it might have the effect of, you know, encouraging our leaders to either demand less of the military, or give the military the tools it needs to do the multiple jobs the politicians demand it to do.

Instead, we're going to stomp and hold our collective breath until the MSM apologizes for so clearly, cleverly, and sarcastically condemning the very point that offends us.

Brilliant.

pax
 
Just to make a point.....

While some folks are not happy about this cartoon, and while the Joint Chiefs have even issued a letter against the cartoon, I do think it's worth pointing out that no has threatened violence over this cartoon.

No one has called for bombings and kidnappings.

No one has called on those offended to "get their swords."

No one has called for "jihad" as a repsonse to this cartoon.

No one has rioted in any streets over this cartoon. No one has burned any flags over this cartoon.

The merits or lack of merits of the legless cartoon nonwithstanding, I do think it interesting to point out the differences between reaction to this cartoon and to certain other recent cartoons.......

hillbilly
 
I think the crux of the dispute is that the MSM thinks they know the true situation better than the secretary of defense.

If you believe, as the MSM does, that the institution of the army is crippled by Iraq, and Rumsfeld is lying about it, or too incompetent to notice, or both, then there's some sick element of humor involved in making fun of Rumsfeld's statement.

If you believe as I do that the army is doing a good job over there and only a tiny fraction is coming home wounded, while the rest are volunteering to go back again and again, then this is simply giving material aid and comfort to the enemy. That's par for the course for the MSM.
 
Even a cursory viewing of the cartoon should have immediatly shown that the soldier is the victim of the administration, nothing in the panel indicated in any way that the soldier was the butt of some joke. I never really thought that the meaning of a simple single-panel cartoon would be so difficult to understand.

The really bitter thing here is that the cartoon alledges that Rumsfield has used the soldiers and their suffering for his own gain and in response to the cartoon what has he done but called upon that suffering to sheer attention from the fact that he bears an amount of responsiblity for it. This is like Ted Bundy appealing to the media not to run stories about his killings out of respect for the victims.
 
pax -- #13
multiple demands upon an overworked military and his callous disregard for the difficulties faced by military people as a result, is exactly the point that is being illustrated.

At the risk of arguing with a moderator :) , I disagree with your interpretation of the cartoon. Amputated limbs have nothing whatsoever to do with "multiple demands upon an overworked military". Amputated limbs are "the difficulties faced by military people as a result" for only a small fraction of the military.

I think it's a better fit to correlate amputated limbs with the Army's inability to continue. The Army shown in the hospital bed is crippled. I think the point of the cartoon is that the Army is defeated. That and, as a token thrown to humor, that Rumsfeld is lying/wrong/incompetent about it.
 
Bad taste does not deserve to be regulated by anyone, period.

The cartoon is in extremely poor taste. So the publisher will suffer financially because of it, that's how it's supposed to work.
 
Vern ~

About as well as I was treated when I was a black person in Twain's south.

Did you read the rest of my post, or just decide to throw out that irrelevant ad hominem after reading the first few lines?

pax
 
I wonder why we don't see any "funny" cartoons about the New York Times journalist murdered in Washington D.C.?

I am sure their is some ironic humor to be found in an unarmed person working for a rabidly anti-gun newspaper being beaten to death, no?

Maybe I will see if I can contact Tom Toles and see if he can come up with one...
 
silliman89 said:
At the risk of arguing with a moderator , I disagree with your interpretation of the cartoon. Amputated limbs have nothing whatsoever to do with "multiple demands upon an overworked military". Amputated limbs are "the difficulties faced by military people as a result" for only a small fraction of the military.
Silliman, the military's budget has been cut, multiple times, over the past decade. The number of available troops has been slashed, chopped off, amputated.

Yet the politicians demand that this force which they have chopped off at the knees should nevertheless do even more than it was doing a few short years ago.

Claro?

pax
 
pax said:
Vern ~

About as well as I was treated when I was a black person in Twain's south.

Did you read the rest of my post, or just decide to throw out that irrelevant ad hominem after reading the first few lines?

pax

I read your point -- and I also saw the cartoon. It's a double insult -- first the cartoon is an insult, assuming as it does that wounded soldiers are suitable subjects for "humor." Then the outrage that they would dare to take offense is the second insult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top