Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Mocking? Did you see the cartoon? The cartoon is honoring the sacrafice of the soldier, while trying to communicate that Donald Rumsfeld is the one showing the troops - who have sacraficed - disrespect. You're misunderstanding th cartoon just as these 4 enerals and 2 admirals have.
All these gernerals and admirals have done is show that they will back up the Bush administration no matter what...and that is the very thing that has the troops morale down.
You don't understand the cartoon. If I were to see a cartoon, misunderstand it and be offended by it, who's fault is that? Is it the cartoonists? Nope. It's mine for not thinking about it. Political cartoons are supposed to make you think.
|
How can you be sure you are interpreting the cartoon correctly? Is there only one interpretation that is "right"?
To me, the cartoon is showing a doctor, in this case Rumsfield, making glib of the soldiers injuries and sacrifices.
Regardless of who is making glib of the situation, I think it is important for the leaders of those being disrespected to back up their men. A letter signed by them shows that they disapprove of the cartoon and its attempt at lessening the importance of what these soldiers are sacrificing in the process of serving their country.
George Bush could be the man in the suit, and the letter would still be justified. The leaders that sign the letter likely have more connection with their troops than George Bush or Donald Rumsfield, and thus they are 100% justified in writing a letter to show the troops that they have their back. That is what leaders do. To not write a letter and just sit idly as others sling disrespect and mockery, regardless of medium, would be concerning to me.
Is the cartoonist justified in creating and publishing such art? Absolutely, but a response from those leading the men featured in such cartoons are also fully justified in sending signed letters expressing their disapproval.