President of Cartoonists Group Hails 'Wash Post' for Backing Toles

By Dave Astor

Published: February 02, 2006 1:40 PM ET
NEW YORK Clay Bennett said the Joint Chiefs of Staff have more important things to do than write a letter criticizing a Tom Toles drawing.

"They should be as concerned with the soldiers in the field as they are with a cartoon in The Washington Post," said Bennett, president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC), when reached Thursday by E&P. "Maybe they should provide the body armor soldiers need to help avoid the sort of injury shown in the cartoon."

This Sunday's Toles cartoon pictured a quadruple amputee being visited in a hospital by "Dr. Rumsfeld," who says: "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'" The Joint Chiefs letter, published in Thursday's Post, said Toles was making fun of the soldier, and called his cartoon "reprehensible." Others noted that Toles was actually commenting on Rumsfeld, the state of the Army, and the carnage caused by the Iraq War. The Post has defended running the cartoon.

"It appears they [the Joint Chiefs] interpret cartoons as accurately as they do pre-war intelligence," Bennett said. The Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for The Christian Science Monitor added: "It was a tough cartoon on [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, but he certainly deserves tough cartoons."

People, said Bennett, can be "purposely obtuse to pick a fight. You can always take a cartoon at face value -- rather than looking at it as a metaphor -- and make it something it's not."

Bennett concluded by praising the Post for backing Toles: "It's great to see a newspaper supporting their cartoonist under this kind of pressure. A lot of papers would have buckled under far less pressure."

Toles' cartoons are distributed by Universal Press Syndicate, while Bennett's work is syndicated by The Christian Science Monitor News Service.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff all took time out of their busy days to write a protest letter about this Editorial cartoon by Washington Post cartoonist Toles.

While on the surface it seems offensive -  when you dig into it it really reflects this Administrations total disregard for the truth and how they like to spin things when it becomes uncomfortable for them - such as the fact that the troops are overly stressed right now almost to the breaking point.

And when Rumsfield refered to the Troops as being "battle hardened" when many are so stressed out right now, with little or no rest between missions and repeated redeployments and stop loss - this cartoon conveys the message in a way that words would or could not so dramtically.

And this is especially apporopriate right now as all of you find it funny to defend the Danish and their cartoons depicting Muslims in a negative light - so I'm curious as to how far your sense of humor extends when it's an American cartoonist making the cuts.

One last thing - I admire the Post for sticking up for Toles.
And the Cartoon:

I should think it is offensive to the soldiers and their families, who have suffered losses. What the toon says about the Toles is ever so much revealing about him and his defenders. The point of the toon is to show how callus Rumsfield is toward the troops. My opinion is it reflects ever so much more and without doubt Toles's narcissistic dislike for the war at the expensive of our soldiers and their love ones.

And who is this Clay Bennett telling the Joint Chiefs they have better things to do? How does he presume the Joint Chiefs are not concerned for the soldiers in the field? Narcissistic emotionalism! The truth is the toon can looked at from twp prospectives. If you look at it from the view of the soldiers, which I must, I say Toles could have found another way to jab Rumsfield. As it is his message is lost, but he probably got His satisfaction.

Greyman, I must say you are at least consistent. You were all in a snit about the Handel Pilgrimage skit and your feelings on this story are... well...er? Well you know what I mean!

How does he presume the Joint Chiefs are not concerned for the soldiers in the field?

Well having two kids in the military and one in Iraq - I find the disregard by the Bush administration towards the health of the troops to be disturbing at the very least. As our other discussion showed - we all have lines we won't cross with humor. But this cartoon reflects what many soldiers in the field feel towards the civilian leadership if the stories Military Times is any indication.

SO I applaud Toles - a pulitzer prize winning cartoonist and in this case a very well done cartoon in that it raises the question if you're smart enough to look beyond the obvious surface drawing... and that is the Bushies have not done all they can to protect our troops and continue to live in denial about the stress and emotional state of the continual redeployments. It showcases just how out of touch they are with the grunts on the ground. Which has been the story all along.

And while I disagreed with the Handel skit on the grounds it made no point other then to make fun of the dead and dying and how the badly the Saudi's need better crowd control - I never suggested he should be censored. One thing at least here - is we all agree on the freedom of speech and this is one of the things I think the Joint Chiefs should try to learn.

You've served on the same ship as John M. was on, now you have two kids  serving. My complements if true, somehow I just don't believe a word.

Thanks for your opinion nodding head opinion on how the Bush Administration mistreats the troops.

What someone finds funny or not funny here is not the point. I do not find Toles's toon funny, somewhat. The point is the Tole's indicts himself more clearly with its own message of guilt. The message is lost except to the haters like you.

Thanks for your opinion on how out of touch the administration is concerning military personnel.

Who cares if you disagree with Handel's skit? You can't see the point, that's the problem that can come with being a narrow minded bigot. You don't think it's funny; it has been noted. You whine and complain about one satire, you applaud another, hypocrite. Like what you want, stop crying when it's something else. You would make an excellent Fascist. What I am I saying, you lean so far Left you already are.

For one thing - I made the mistake earlier when I showed a picture of my Step Son in uniform just before shipping out to Iraq and was still called a Liar. My other son is in the Marines and I feel no need to show you proof of that. As for my time on the USS Forrestal, with the airwings CVW-17, CTF-60, CDG-12 and CCG-6 who accompanied us on the '78 Mediterranean Deployment was both an honor and a privlidge. If you don't understand those abreviations - look them up. And if you are really ambitious - see if you can find where their stationed and look for their various depolyments those 30 years ago.

We were based out of Mayport, Florida back in the late 70s, Right along side the USS America - CV-60. I was an aerographers mate reaching the rank of E4. If you are really having a hard time with believing this I am willing for the sake of my credibility scanning in my Med Cruise yearbook with my photo. As well as pictures of my son in Boot and afterwards. But publically - I'm through with that.

So did you serve or are you another one of those mindless armchair warriors who feel good about other people dying for you in Iraq?

Back to topic - I really, really could care less what you think Stealth about much of anything - I have time to babble because my computer is rendering in the background with an animation for the US NAVY. But seriously, Your own creditbility is worthless as a 5 cent cigar in my book by the simple fact you are incapable of even checking the basic facts on any given topic, even when the links and facts are layed out before you - and not by just me - but by others in here.

You can believe what you want about this government - but I prefer a high level of skeptisim - something I imagine you probably had (if you're old enough) to have had about Clinton.

Toles expressed an opinion - one I agree with. The cartoon was not funny - it was not meant to be. It was the kind of thing any truly thinking person would conclude after looking at the history of the administration and how it over ruled the military on Iraq from day one when they insisted on not listening to the brass on troop numbers for the invasion and the security of the country after we won the war. We made mistakes as Bush admitted repeatedly over the last few months because they cannot listen to those who know best. Katrina is yet another example but I suppose you disagree with that too?

if you can't, I can't help it you are so stupid not to see that.

As for hypocracy - no such thing. Handel made fun of hundreds of dead muslims for the sake of humor - it was meant to be funny - it was comedy. A political cartoon is rarely funny when making a salient point about any particular subject. Toles was not being funny.

Sorry you don't get it... must be something about being a mindless toady. As for the facist comment - you must have your head so far up John Ls ##### that you are starting to sound like him. Would a fascist be willing to vote for McCain? Would a facist be willing to let the government have the ability to spy on US citizens as freely as Bush is now able to do...something I'm sure you support.

You take the Cake, calling me a facist is like calling you intelligent. the two just don't go together.

Now your Turn Stealth - throw it at me - this is kinda fun actually trading insults and quips with a bunch of morons! oops - did I just say that?        

LOL! Greyman you actually grew some. You have managed to convince me you were in the military. I had my doubts, because of the way you conduct yourself in this forum. ....

...looking at the history of the administration and how it over ruled the military on Iraq from day one when they insisted on not listening to the brass on troop numbers for the invasion and the security of the country after we won the war." [/color] I seem to recall that the administration said they followed the recommendations of the military commanders; that is a fact as far as I know....

Cheerleaders like you are hypocrites. Why did you bring the subject up? So you could see how others would react when the shoe is on the other foot. Translation you felt like it. Funny, how an ex-military man like yourself would raise a hue and cry about Muslims, but endorse a cheap shot using war casualties against our Vets.

"You take the Cake, calling me a fascist is like calling you intelligent. the two just don't go together."??? You are right on top of it as always.

What you think of me is of no concern. The difference between you and me is: you try to win battles, (well at least 65% of the time), but don't care much for winning the war. Against you I win the battles, and the war. 

"So I must say I am tired of the Shinseki argument being bandied about day after day in the press," Rumsfeld told members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

General Eric Shinseki was the army chief of staff who told Congress before the US-led invasion of Iraq two years ago that about the same number of troops would be needed to stabilise Iraq as to invade - several hundred thousand, by his estimate.

His warning was dismissed at the time by Rumsfeld and Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, deepening Shinseki's estrangement from the Pentagon's civilian leadership.

Some critics, including retired generals and other experts, have blamed the rise of the insurgency on the Pentagon's failure to deploy enough troops to quickly secure the country after the invasion.

Looting and lawlessness swept Baghdad and other parts of the country after the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein, often as US forces stood by.

The crux of the complaint against the secretary is this: Whenever Rumsfeld has faced a choice between doing more in Iraq or doing less, he has done less. When, during the pre-invasion planning, the State Department sent a team of Iraq experts to the Pentagon to help prepare a major reconstruction effort for the aftermath, Rumsfeld turned some of them away. As a result, "there was simply no plan, other than humanitarian assistance and a few other things like protection of oil and so forth, with regard to postwar Iraq. There was no plan," retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former secretary of state Colin Powell, explained in a recent speech.

When Army generals called for more troops to occupy the soon-to-be-leaderless country, Rumsfeld pushed for fewer. He cut the time for training National Guard units, including the ones that wound up photographing themselves with naked prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.