February 02, 2006
A Tale of Two Cartoons
Welcome Michelle Malkin readers!
By now, anyone who doesn't live under the proverbial rock knows that all of Europe is in an uproar regarding cartoons published in a Danish newspaper last fall depicting unflattering portraits of Mohammed. Even if they were respectful it would be considered blasphemy by Muslims, because any depiction of Mohammed is forbidden according to Muslim tradition. Muslims are in an uproar, protesting, lighting Danish flags on fire, and calling for a boycott of Denmark.
Now, European papers are printing the cartoons in a show of solidarity, namely, democratic societies and freedom of the press. (All American ideals, I might add.) Some are asking when American papers will print the cartoons.
I don't think they will. The mainstream American media has been kowtowing to Muslims and other special interest groups for years. If it's anti-Western civilization or anti-America, then the MSM is very respectful of it. They wouldn't dream of offending anyone, as that's how progressive-type folks behave.
Unless, of course, it's the U.S. military and/or the Bush administration. The Washington Post published an editorial cartoon by Tom Toles that was so offensive in its depiction of a wounded soldier being "attended to" by "Dr." Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually wrote a letter to the editor expressing their disappointment. So far, there has been no official comment from the Post, although they printed the letter.
Some on the left will probably cry that the Joint Chiefs are trying to subvert the First Amendment rights of Toles and the Washington Post. That, of course, is ridiculous. They wrote a letter to tell the Post how they felt about the cartoon. They didn't have the newspaper offices stormed by soldiers or special agents and its staff taken away in chains while the building was set on fire.
So there you have it. American papers aren't afraid to print controversial cartoons that feature our military in unflattering circumstances. They aren't afraid to offend our troops and their families. Will they take up the cause of Denmark and show solidarity with their European counterparts in the name of free speech? Will they risk upsetting Muslims?
I doubt it. But I could be wrong.
Michelle Malkin and Tammy Bruce have more.
Show Comments »
After reading Michelle Malkin's coverage, I am slightly confused.
Is printing offensive cartoons ok, or not ok?
Her coverage and comments on the Danish issue seems to suggest that it's not only ok, but a showing of one of the freedoms that we are fighting for.
Conversely, her coverage of the Washington Post cartoon suggests the post should apologize for printing something considered to be inapropriate and offensive to the military.
So which one is it?
Posted by: Jon at February 2, 2006 10:51 AMPam:
Take a look around. American media outlets are just starting to notice the story, so they're printing it. Several newspapers contain descriptions of at least one of the cartoons. Also, American editorial cartoonist Daryl Cagle has been covering it at his blog for several weeks now ... although he was rather disappointed in the cartoons.
--|PW|--
Posted by: pennywit at February 2, 2006 01:21 PMI add: Recall that the story just broke in the American media. Give it a day, and you'll see American editorial cartoonists adding their own graphic thoughts.
--|PW|--
Posted by: pennywit at February 2, 2006 01:23 PMSo Cool. Linked at Michelle Malkin. You are my blog heroine. When I grow up I want to be just like you. :)
Posted by: Mrs. Media Matters at February 2, 2006 01:27 PMSome on the left will probably cry that the Joint Chiefs are trying to subvert the First Amendment rights of Toles and the Washington Post
Straw Man, anyone?
Methinks General Pace doth protest too much, but it is interesting to see the future defense contractor executive/Fox News 'war expert' put his loyally reactionary foot in his mouth. The cartoon is clearly not belittling wounded soldiers; it is taking a well-deserved shot at a civilian administration that has needlessly and callously sent thousands of soldiers off to be wounded in the manner depicted.
Pray tell: in the light of all those unnecessary deaths and dismemberments (not to mention those VA budget cuts, which Gen. Pace conspicuously avoided mentioning) is there no righteous indignation to spare for that administration?
Congrats on the Malkin-Lanche! I'm kinda torn on this one; I don't think the protests are wrong per se, just the form they're taking. Boycotts fine, death threats not.
Posted by: Brainster at February 2, 2006 05:18 PMThanks Pat. I can see where you are coming from, and I agree with you in some ways. Boycott--fine. Didn't some of us call for boycotting of French wine back in 2003? It's the violence, death threats and bully boy attitude I don't like. Boycott and petition all you want, but once armed men begin storming buildings and making demands and fatwahs are issued, that's where I draw the line. I also don't think that blatant attempts to offend are in good taste, but hey, that's the included in price of freedom!
Posted by: Pam at February 2, 2006 06:40 PMHey Church Secretary,
You deride our "civilian administration" that has "needlessly and callously sent thousands of soldiers off to be wounded". I'm sure if we were ruled by wholly military administrators you'd be pleased as punch.
Posted by: Cardinal Martini at February 4, 2006 07:18 PMChurch secretary...that's a good one. I'm rolling over here! Thanks for your erudite commentary.
Posted by: Pam at February 6, 2006 09:44 AM
