Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Just a quick question, had he made the point clear, would the cartoon still achieve the purpose to bring out thought and debate?
|
I think so - and in my opinion only, the inflammatory image would be a lot more defensible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Will, I think the answer to your question is also the source "event" of the political cartoonist. Recently, Rumsfeld pronounced the military in great shape even though a recently published Pentagon report and a commander in Iraq said otherwise.
|
Elphaba, you might very well be correct. However, I'd like to take them at face value when they write "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."
Regarding the original post and thread title: I don't actually think it is the Washington Post's job to "support the troops". In my opinion, supporting the troops is a good and admirable thing to do, but the Washington Post's job is to sell papers. They probably feel that they can do that best by supporting their readers' exposure to diverse points of view. Or maybe they do hate the troops - but that is immaterial. There is no obligation to voice only support for our armed forces. Such a duty would be onerous and repugnant. Support them because they deserve it, not because you have to.