Disgusting Editorial Cartoon In the Washington Post

[GotZoom]

Joint Chiefs of Staff have written a letter to protest the running of this cartoon.

Absolutely disgusting.

NEW YORK A Tom Toles editorial cartoon published in The Washington Post on Monday and on its Web site has drawn a very rare and very strong protest letter to the editors from all six members of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, E&P has learned.

The letter, not yet published by the Post, charges that the six military leaders "believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds. ... As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered."

A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed the contents of the letter to E&P late this afternoon. That the newspaper had received such a letter was first reported on the popular AmericaBlog site, which is run by John Aravosis, this afternoon.

The spokeswoman said a letter from all six joint chiefs to anyone, let alone a newspaper, is rare, but the cartoon so offended them, they wanted to let their feelings be known. "It was expressing their disappointment with the paper and outrage at using that image to make a political point," said Lt. Col. Diane Battaglia. "That is a rare occurrence, but the level of inappropriateness prompted a response of unanimous support."

Battaglia said Post editors told her office that the letter would be published in Thursday's paper. Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt declined to comment on the letter. "My policy is I can't talk about letters until we publish them," he told E&P. "If and when a letter runs, I'd be happy to talk about it."

Reached by E&P, Tom Toles said, "no comment."

The Toles cartoon shows a soldier, a quadriplegic, in a hospital, being visited by a Dr. Rumsfeld who is scribbling on a form. Rumsfeld says, "I am listing your condition as battle hardened." At the bottom a smaller figure of the doctor adds, "I'm prescribing that you be stretched thin. We don't define that as torture."

The letter, signed by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastini, Jr., the vice-chairman, and the four other military branch leaders -- and addressed to the Post's managing editor, Philip Bennett -- reveals that they were "extremely disappointed" in the Toles cartoon. "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.

They observed that the paper is "obviously free to address any topic," even use exaggeration. But they added: "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 to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices."

Aravosis from AmericaBlog told E&P: "Now that the Joint Chiefs have addressed the insidious threat cartoons pose to our troops, perhaps they can move on to less pressing issues like getting them their damn body armor."


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001955937

 

[manu1959]

lots of dark streets around the NY times building

 

[Annie]

If we are not speaking of the NYTimes in the past tense within 5 years, I'll be surprised. This is one more reason why.

 

[NATO AIR]

Its the WAPO. I find the cartoon tasteless but true enough to be worthy of defending.

Rumsfeld's policies have devastated the Army. Yes, reenlistment is high, yes morale is high, yes recruiting is starting to recover. All that is true, but none of it has anything to do with the misleadership shown by Rumsfeld throughout the Iraq war. Between him and Cheney, both would have been sacked for high treason in most other countries by now for their conduct in the war effort. Rumsfeld and co. botched the reconstruction so bad that we lost dozens, perhaps hundreds of American soldiers and tens of billions of dollars in the process, all unnecessarily.

And the little line about torture and the like; that comes directly from poor leadership by Rumsfeld and co. about the issue of torture. Anyone remember Capt. Ian Fishback? The Army tried to shut him up but that case is not over and will not be over, and at the end of the day, it all comes down to Rumsfeld and co. not clarifying the issue for the troops and setting them up for needless pain and problems.

 

[Annie]

Its the WAPO. I find the cartoon tasteless but true enough to be worthy of defending.

Rumsfeld's policies have devastated the Army. Yes, reenlistment is high, yes morale is high, yes recruiting is starting to recover. All that is true, but none of it has anything to do with the misleadership shown by Rumsfeld throughout the Iraq war. Between him and Cheney, both would have been sacked for high treason in most other countries by now for their conduct in the war effort. Rumsfeld and co. botched the reconstruction so bad that we lost dozens, perhaps hundreds of American soldiers and tens of billions of dollars in the process, all unnecessarily.

And the little line about torture and the like; that comes directly from poor leadership by Rumsfeld and co. about the issue of torture. Anyone remember Capt. Ian Fishback? The Army tried to shut him up but that case is not over and will not be over, and at the end of the day, it all comes down to Rumsfeld and co. not clarifying the issue for the troops and setting them up for needless pain and problems.

LOL, you are right about WaPo, what I said about the Times though, still stands!

IMHO, Rumsfeld has pros and cons, both in serious areas. He talks too quickly for some of our enemies and friends, sometimes this is good and sometimes bad. He may be too heavy handed at the Pentagon, shutting off his ability to get good advice. He doesn't 'listen easily' or for long-he's too impatient. He doesn't give time for those that do not think or speak as quickly as he, to make their points. He seems to have a very quick temper.

I do not think he wanted or condoned prisoner abuse. I do think that mistakes were made though, in how those reservists were trained and supervised. Perhaps his largest fault in that arena though, goes to wanting to 'protect' those that did it, at least until they were sure what was going on. The inquiry had started prior to the release of those pictures.

He certainly does care about the safety of the troops, that has been made more than clear by many of the milbloggers. That cartoon is good for propaganda, but isn't reflective of Rumsfeld in any truthful manner.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If we are not speaking of the NYTimes in the past tense within 5 years, I'll be surprised. This is one more reason why.

Because they don't attempt to hide the cost of war?

 

[Annie]

Because they don't attempt to hide the cost of war?

That they lie. With malice and forethought.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Because they don't attempt to hide the cost of war?

No, because they have a very clear bias when it comes to "reporting" news and politics. It's so clear, it's laughable. Anyone who believes what they say or "report" in those areas is a fool.

 

[NATO AIR]

LOL, you are right about WaPo, what I said about the Times though, still stands!

Agreed with you. I don't even bother defending or addressing the NYT. The WAPO's editorial staff is excellent, presenting what is often (aside from occasional outbursts of intelligence at the New Republic) the only responsible, coherent and worthwhile advice, analysis and arguments from a centrist to left standpoint in the nation. Their reporting is often partisan, such as the Bill Roggio case, but they still maintain a high standard of excellence which the NYT and LAT can't come close to. A nice 2nd place rival to the standard bearer, the conservative WSJ, which continues to surpass the competition by light years.

This cartoon= tasteless, but not without some merit.

 

[Adam's Apple]

This cartoon= tasteless, but not without some merit.

Please explain how you see this cartoon as having "some merit". I'll wait with baited breath to be enlightened.

 

[NATO AIR]

Please explain how you see this cartoon as having "some merit". I'll wait with baited breath to be enlightened.

See my first above comment.

Rumsfeld is as bad an enemy to the troops as Al-Qaeda and the insurgents are. His incompetence has cost this nation tens of billions of dollars, and the priceless lives of far too many soldiers who died needlessly because of his incompetent choices. Don't believe me, read "The Assassin's Gate", check the public record using the notes and citations in the back of the book, and see who made the decisions that screwed up the occupation, who decided to not plan for any semblance of post-conflict reconstruction. God knows how many innocent Iraqis died because of this cowardly, unforgiveable set of errors. Its damn near treason.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

See my first above comment.

Rumsfeld is as bad an enemy to the troops as Al-Qaeda and the insurgents are. His incompetence has cost this nation tens of billions of dollars, and the priceless lives of far too many soldiers who died needlessly because of his incompetent choices. Don't believe me, read "The Assassin's Gate", check the public record using the notes and citations in the back of the book, and see who made the decisions that screwed up the occupation, who decided to not plan for any semblance of post-conflict reconstruction. God knows how many innocent Iraqis died because of this cowardly, unforgiveable set of errors. Its damn near treason.

On the senseless lib pipe again, I see.

 

[NATO AIR]

On the senseless lib pipe again, I see.

Conservatives from Elliot Cohen to Bill Kristol to Jack Kelly have said Rumsfeld is the problem. This is not a liberal issues. Liberals have no leg to stand on in this debate.

 

[CSM]

In my opinion, Rumsfeld is a double edged sword. His push for Army transformation is a good thing, I think. Not listening to his Chiefs of Staff on military matters is a bad thing. Let us not forget that he had to call a retired general back to serve because he could not find one on active duty willing to work with him.

There is a lot of veracity to the allegations of piss poor planning for Iraq and a lot of it is because the planning staff was given guidelines which did not include stabilization of the country; I suspect there was a lot of "cold war" mentality that went into the process as well. I have been in those kinds of planning sessions and I can tell you that some senior officers have a hard time visualizing anything beyond the tactics required to defeat the enemy on a linear battlefield. They need someone with a strong personality (like Rumsfeld) to shake them up a bit. On the other hand, I have seen some civilian leadership for the military that have NO clue.

As for the cartoon, I think the Chiefs of Staff should have kept their mouth shut; the cartoon is a political statement (in my opinion) and the Joint Chiefs should stay the hell out of politics. If Rumsfeld needs defending, let Rumsfeld's staff do it, not the Pentagon. The sad fact is that the media will ALWAYS use killed or wounded soldiers to make a political statement (anyone remember the MSM interest in pictures of flag draped coffins returning to the US not so long ago?) and also use disgruntled soldiers as an example of how "bad" the military is or how evil the soldiers are. It has been that way since before the Civil War.

 

[NATO AIR]

As for the cartoon, I think the Chiefs of Staff should have kept their mouth shut; the cartoon is a political statement (in my opinion) and the Joint Chiefs should stay the hell out of politics. If Rumsfeld needs defending, let Rumsfeld's staff do it, not the Pentagon. The sad fact is that the media will ALWAYS use killed or wounded soldiers to make a political statement (anyone remember the MSM interest in pictures of flag draped coffins returning to the US not so long ago?) and also use disgruntled soldiers as an example of how "bad" the military is or how evil the soldiers are. It has been that way since before the Civil War.

This is the consequence of this excessive partisanship caused by democrats determined to ruin pres. bush and neoconservatives determined to push through the war in iraq no matter the cost, no matter the intelligence deficits
or the daily changing rationale.
Now you've got a CIA that's literally a rogue agent against US policy, and especially against the US president. The State Dept. has always been a problem, but with Condi in tight control there, it actually has been the most behaved of the agencies. NSA/DIA leakers all over the place, some leaking to protect the president, most leaking to damage the president. Now the Joint Chiefs want to throw their hat in the ring by getting publically involved. All this cannot be good for us.

So far as the cartoonist took a shot at Rumsfeld, I had no problem with it. But cooler heads have entered into the debate and noted correctly that this is also probably an attack on the troops themselves too, something which I failed to note at first and which is a real shame.

But this is the state of our free speech, we've got a freaking LAT columnist laughing about how he doesn't support the troops and how they get what they deserve by their injuries and suffering.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Conservatives from Elliot Cohen to Bill Kristol to Jack Kelly have said Rumsfeld is the problem. This is not a liberal issues. Liberals have no leg to stand on in this debate.

Of course it is.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's offensive and insulting, but hey, it's a political cartoon. It's called free speech. And Im sure our boys could use a little better care.

 

[Adam's Apple]

See my first above comment.

So you're blaming Rumsfeld for the maimings caused by the terrorists' roadside bombs? You should transfer your blame where it belongs and quit drinking so much of the Kool-Aid being served up by the NYT and WaPo. That is very poisoned water, man.

By your same logic, I guess we could blame Rumsfeld for the maiming of Bob Woodruff and his cameraman this past weekend? The next thing you will be telling us is that Rumself is responsible for the kidnappings, beheadings, etc. Beware, NATO, or you will be joining the leftist loonies before you know it.

 

[Annie]

In my opinion, Rumsfeld is a double edged sword. His push for Army transformation is a good thing, I think. Not listening to his Chiefs of Staff on military matters is a bad thing. Let us not forget that he had to call a retired general back to serve because he could not find one on active duty willing to work with him.

There is a lot of veracity to the allegations of piss poor planning for Iraq and a lot of it is because the planning staff was given guidelines which did not include stabilization of the country; I suspect there was a lot of "cold war" mentality that went into the process as well. I have been in those kinds of planning sessions and I can tell you that some senior officers have a hard time visualizing anything beyond the tactics required to defeat the enemy on a linear battlefield. They need someone with a strong personality (like Rumsfeld) to shake them up a bit. On the other hand, I have seen some civilian leadership for the military that have NO clue.

As for the cartoon, I think the Chiefs of Staff should have kept their mouth shut; the cartoon is a political statement (in my opinion) and the Joint Chiefs should stay the hell out of politics. If Rumsfeld needs defending, let Rumsfeld's staff do it, not the Pentagon. The sad fact is that the media will ALWAYS use killed or wounded soldiers to make a political statement (anyone remember the MSM interest in pictures of flag draped coffins returning to the US not so long ago?) and also use disgruntled soldiers as an example of how "bad" the military is or how evil the soldiers are. It has been that way since before the Civil War.

They weren't defending Rumsfeld, the war, or the way it's been prosecuted. They simply stated:

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. Editorial cartoons are often designed to exaggerate issues--and your paper is obviously free to address any topic, including the state of readiness of today's Armed Forces. However, we believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defened this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds...

...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 to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.

As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.

 

[CSM]

They weren't defending Rumsfeld, the war, or the way it's been prosecuted. They simply stated:


As the Joint Chiefs, it is rare that we all put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.

Dont get me wrong...I fully agree with the Joint Chief's sentiment! If I were them I would add the idiot cartoonist's house to my 'secret' target list...the one the black choppers use to make their visits.