Not surprising ... The Fourth Estate has morphed into the Fifth Column of our enemies. They are at least consistent. This, of course, explains why they have been the propaganda arm of the DNC for these many years.

I subscribed to The Washington Post for many years. I don't anymore. This kind of thing is one of the reasons.

However one feels about the cartoon, the Pentagon has no business interfering in civilian publications. If readers were offended, they should be the ones writing in (and I suspect many will). The Joint Chiefs of Staff have far more pressing matters to be focusing on at the moment.

I understand the point Toles was trying to make. Dumb approach. One does wonder where the editors were on this one. I mean, we always keep hearing about their quality control role as the reason media like the Post are so superior to bloggers.... um, anyone home over there? Bueller? Anyone?

Ben,

The Joint Chiefs work in Washington. They ARE offended readers, writing in - and they absolutely have every right to do so.

I'll add that publicly standing up for those who have served in the military and been wounded in the line of duty IS one of the pressing matters a competent military leader should be expected to take time for.

Let me offer a thundering disagreement with Mr. Regenspan. Interfering in civilian publications? Interfering?!

I think not!

Let's not forget, Mr. Regenspan, that before the Joint Chiefs are warfighters, they are citizens of these United States, every bit as much as I am, or the publishers of the Washington Post, or (presumeably) Mr. Toles. The notion that writing a letter of disagreement-- especially one that bends over backward to recognize the Post's right to publish whatever they want-- that expressing one's negative opinion constitutes interference is one I find atrocious.

The Joint Chiefs threatened no legal action. They threatened no action of any kind. This does not constitute interference. On the contrary, this consitutes civil discourse which is something, I've always been told, we strive to encourage.

How have we gotten to the point where it considered bad form for those who fight and die to protect our freedoms to actually take part in them?

Good for the Joint Chiefs, and as a vet I say it's about damn time.

A cartoon published in the major newspaper of our nation's capital which is designed to undercut morale of troops during wartime is a pressing matter for the Joint Chiefs and they have every right to respond, both in their official capacities and as citizens.

The extreme rarity of them doing so should underscore to everyone here and at the Post just how egregious an offense the publication of this cartoon was.

I say that specifically as the wife of a retired military officer and the close relative of many others, enlisted and commissioned who have served our country well and at personal sacrifice - including lifetime disabilities incurred during combat.

Ten to one Toles and the Post go whimpering about the military trying to stifle their freedom of speech.

The cartoon in question may be found at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=01292006. Unfortunately, its clear from the Post's publishing it in the first place that their editors found it acceptable and at least somewhat tasteful.

Interesting that the "disabled vets are sacred" meme was trotted out by leftists often during the Max Cleland campaign, but apparently discarded once it ceased to be useful. Though given the protests outside Walter Reed hospital, this cartoon can hardly be surprising.

>>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.

Oh, I don't think they're "making light" of them at all. The intent of the cartoon is not to mock the wounded soldiers, but to portray Rumsfeld, et. al. as heartless scumbags who are sacrificing the lives and livelihood of the brave soldiers to no useful purpose.

Soldiers often die and suffer pointlessly. Worse, many soldiers die and suffer in the service of evil. Very few soldiers decide what army to join based on well-thought out moral and ethical principles. Those that aren't enslaved usually just join the army of their nation of birth. Hence the matter of whether a given soldier is a hero, chump, or demon is largely a matter of luck.

Actually, T. J. Madison, a surprising number of those who volunteer to fight in America's Armed Forces are actually not citizens before they put on the uniform, and in some cases have never set foot on American soil before they begin basic training. And yet they still think the idea and the reality of the United States is something they are willing to risk all to defend. There is no promise of Heaven and houris for such as they, and no recruiting stations in those faraway lands, yet they come, determined to help protect those they have no ties to but that of an ideal.

Men and women such as these are not likely to allow themselves to be sent on pointless and evil missions, nor to stay in the Service when they could go far in the civilian world with their demonstrated drive. And yet they do so, in large numbers, which suggests that your analysis contains a few glaring errors.

>>Actually, T. J. Madison, a surprising number of those who volunteer to fight in America's Armed Forces are actually not citizens before they put on the uniform, and in some cases have never set foot on American soil before they begin basic training.

I would still guess that worldwide the percentage of foreign volunteers in national armies is rather small. Since US citizenship is rather more valuable than many others I wouldn't be surprised if the US percentage is higher than average.

You are quite correct to point out that ideologically motivated foreign volunteers are not insignificant. I seem to recall that the Waffen SS having a large number of volunteers from the Scandanavian countries. IIRC they formed the core of the 5th SS "Wiking" division. Whether or not they joined on the basis of well thought-out moral and ethical principles I leave to you to decide.

>>And yet they still think the idea and the reality of the United States is something they are willing to risk all to defend.

Unfortunately they're also willing to risk my money right along with their lives. Oops.

>>Men and women such as these are not likely to allow themselves to be sent on pointless and evil missions, nor to stay in the Service when they could go far in the civilian world with their demonstrated drive.

I certainly hope so. Perhaps in the future these brave volunteers would be so kind as to restrict their noble missions to those funded through non-coercive means.

As offensive and tasteless as I find the cartoon, I find the insinuations in T.J. Madison's post far more disturbing.

Regardless of how one may feel about the war in Iraq, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs, or the Washington Post, drawing a parallel between the men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces and a division of the Waffen SS is scandalously inappropriate. The Waffen SS were engaged in destruction and genocide. U.S. soldiers are attempting to rebuild a nation in Iraq. You can argue about the approach and its efficacy of the US mission in Iraq, but you cannot (without stretching credulity beyond the breaking point) argue that these two disparate groups have much more in common than both wore uniforms.

I think most of us understand that Rumsfeld, not the American soldier, was the target of Toles' pen. He made his point, but he made it in a manner that is offensive and tasteless to a large part of his audience. He succeeded in getting the people who already agree with him to smile and nod their heads, but he sacrificed the opportunity to use his talent to convince others. Any half-assed college newspaper cartoonist can do that. It is a little sad to see someone in Toles' position do so.

T.J., as to your discomfort with the way your money is spent, I empathize. There are many things for which the U.S. government pays that I find morally objectionable, and it frustrates me that my hard-earned dollars are used to support them. If you wish to argue that the money spent on the US armed forces or the war in Iraqis ill-spent, may I suggest that doing so in the context of this particular thread will win you few converts. The tone of your comments - which appear to equate your sacrifice of a few (replaceable) dollars to Uncle Sam with the sacrifice of the lives and limbs of soldiers - certainly struck a bad chord with me, and I venture with others who read them.

You are clearly someone with passionately held beliefs, just as Toles is. My suggestion to you both is that you'll do yourselves greater service taking more care with how you express them.

David, You have to expect that kind of thing from TJ. As I've said elsewhere I doubt even he believes half the crap he spouts here.

In response to : T. J. Madison on February 2, 2006 03:55 AM
"Oh, I don't think they're "making light" of them at all. The intent of the cartoon is not to mock the wounded soldiers, but to portray Rumsfeld, et. al. as heartless scumbags who are sacrificing the lives and livelihood of the brave soldiers to no useful purpose."

It's amazing to me how TJ uses his own leftist anti-war fog to insert his personal feelings into his analysis, that are not present in the cartoon.

Clearly, Rumsfled has said "battled hardened forces" publicly,( One wonders if TJ was aware of that. ) indicating the increased strength and effectiveness of the US military due to experience, in response to false complaints from the left about our military weakening.
The chart on the end of the bed in the cartoon shows a declining graph marked U.S. ARMY, that also carries the indication that our forces are weakening.
The small characters at the bottom indicate the oft heard leftist reporter query about, " spread to thin ", along with a chide on the Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and rendition false complaints of the left, indicating a weakness in the former as well.

Clearly the entire cartoon completely omits TJ's self induced fantasy ideation of "...sacrificing the lives and livelihood of the brave soldiers to no useful purpose. "

It is amazing to me how the erring left gets so ahead of itself, and makes things up out of whole cloth, while trying to "correct" someone else, all the while remaining enamored of their own "analysis".

What a wasted lying spew TJ treated me to. I am all too often treated to such carping idiocy by the left. I always enjoy pointing out to others just how foolish many of these emotionally charged nay sayers have become. It is much to easy to point out the flaws, especially when the evidence is so readily available like it is here in this link laden thread.

I wish I could say these type people don't shame the USA, but all too often they are one of our citizens as well. In the long run, our great tradition of free speech has turned out to be a brilliant method of discourse, since the foolish are more than willing and prolific in showing the rest of us exactly what we should not subscribe to.

If TJ had simply stated his sickly opinionated feelings as he did in his last paragraph, it would be passable as perhaps the truth, but one finds to launch into debauchery a leftist usually needs to feel that someone else started the tainted thought process, thereby excusing the outburst, and if no such thing is present, a lie (about the cartoon in this case) intends to be sufficent to cover up the desired launching of the screed.

Two wrongs, do not make a right.

Ahem,
The central theme of the cartoon is that Rumsfeld is an #@*^, which he is. They repeatedly deflect criticism of the civilian leadership by implying it's a criticism of the troops.

In fairness to TJ, while he certianly is an extremist, and also anti-Iraq-war, he is just as certainly no leftist.

Max, I can only imagine that there are a billion ways to demonstrate that Rumsfeld is an a** that don't play on wounded soldiers. If GWB rolled wounded soldiers in wheelchairs out as props for the SOTU, you'd shred him - rightly.

There are some things civilized people don't do.

A.L.

Lets put it this way, if there was a cartoon attacking ABC by featuring Bob Woodruff on a surgeons table, that would be in incredibly bad taste, right?

The cartoon is anti-Rumsfeld, no more, no less. What is the big deal?

"The cartoon is anti-Rumsfeld, no more, no less. What is the big deal?"

Well... if a cartoon was calously tossing in Holocaust victims, or lynched civil rights workers, or Katrina victims to get a dig at Rumsfeld would that be ok? If Rumsfeld was dipicted standing on top of Aushwitz saying "see, things could be worse", is that no big deal? Obviously the context can be offensive no matter who the ultimate target of the parody is. The fact that so many people dont 'get' that exploiting wounded soldiers like this is extremeley offensive is a symptom of the problem. There is a chunk of American society that includes most of the MSM that just doesnt 'get it', that soldiers are real people and can be real victims of tragedy. Its the same mentality that causes a bunch of journalists to suddenly come to some epiphany about the Iraq war because Bob Woodruff was injured. If its a bunch of red-state rambos its no big deal, but a J-school grad and one of the establishment? My god Iraq is dangerous.

I read Toles every day, and that one did not even raise my eyebrow. It's completely typical for him.

Those military hats carried out orders that have killed thousands and injured even more. I don't blame them for being mad when that's pointed out!
I don't like being reminded either when I'm lost -I always think I'll find my way out of it - somehow. But when you are lost in war the only way out is to keep killing.
Remember the names that signed the letter to the Post - most will be promoted and gone in two years - but their impact on people's lives will last forever.
PETER PACE, General U.S. Marine Corps, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
EDMUND B. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., Admirial, U.S. Navy, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
MICHAEL W. HAGEE, General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps
PETER J. SCHOOMAKER, General, U.S. Army Chief of Staff
MICHAEL G. MULLEN, Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations
T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, General, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff

Seems that everyone here has overlooked something about this cartoon.

"Note that the patient is clearly labeled "U.S. ARMY" and represents neither an individual soldier nor any of the many other human beings killed and maimed due to the ongoing war..." (from busy, busy, busy).

So what's all the fuss about then?

"Remember the names that signed the letter to the Post - most will be promoted and gone in two years"

Its immediately clear just how much you know about the military. For future reference the JCS are all O-10, they have nowhere to be promoted to.

"Seems that everyone here has overlooked something about this cartoon."

Are you suggesting something cant be insulting unless it attacks a specific individual? Kinda hilarious the mental hoops the people who brought us Political Correctness will jump through to be able to toss mud with a clear conscience. You know darn well if this clip was using gays or minorities as a prop there would be hew and cry from Burkeley to Manhattan. And rightly so.

"Are you suggesting something cant be insulting unless it attacks a specific individual?"

No.

But on the other hand, the cartoon doesn't attack ANY specific individual (other than Rumsfeld, as pointed out above).

If there are any mental hoops involved here, they're being held up by Robin et al. for people to jump through after needlessly riling them up about the alleged disdain in the "liberal media" for the "troops".

Andy, basta, enough.

Things have common meanings, and while it's a common dorm-room exercise to deconstruct common usages and demonstrate that people are wrong to process and react to them, it's an exercise best done in a dormroom, not in a public forum.

If you want to argue that it's OK to do what the cartoonist has done, great go right ahead. But please don't play the game of parsing meaning into meaninglessness.

A.L.

"But on the other hand, the cartoon doesn't attack ANY specific individual"

What other hand? If somebody made a cartoon using 'jews' as a prop, theres isnt ANY specific individual either. The point is you shouldnt go around using a vulnerable group in a blase fashion to takes political jabs.

You'd think I'd have learned by now not to get in the way of people's desire to express self-righteous anger...

You'd think. If you run into Cindy Sheehan pass that on.

Mark, c'mon. Did your son die in Iraq?

I see a lot of anger being directed her way, and I've got to say it's disturbing.

"Mark, c'mon. Did your son die in Iraq?"

No, but 2400+ plus other Mother's did and I don't see them on CNN every week. All this absolute moral authority makes my head spin. She gets a pass for meeting with Hugo Chavez, does that apply to Kim Jung Il as well? How high on the self-righteous anger/hang out with a dictator scale does her loss entitle her?

Thanks Mark for pointing out my mistake, Let me know if you think this new wording is more accurate?. Thanks John Q.

from John Q Justice on February 2, 2006 06:08 PM
""Remember the names that signed the letter to the Post - most will be promoted and gone in two years""

>> From Mark Buehner on February 2, 2006 07:34 PM
"Its immediately clear just how much you know about the military. For future reference the JCS are all O-10, they have nowhere to be promoted to."

John Q Justice
I stand corrected. Here's the new wording.
Remember the names that signed the letter to the Post – in two years most will cash in as defense contractors, divvy up that $240 billion war pie, - and continue to have a profound impact on people's lives.

Old Post
#24 from John Q Justice on February 2, 2006 06:08 PM
Those military hats carried out orders that have killed thousands and injured even more. I don't blame them for being mad when that's pointed out!
I don't like being reminded either when I'm lost -I always think I'll find my way out of it - somehow. But when you are lost in war the only way out is to keep killing.
Remember the names that signed the letter to the Post - most will be promoted and gone in two years - but their impact on people's lives will last forever.
PETER PACE, General U.S. Marine Corps, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
EDMUND B. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., Admirial, U.S. Navy, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
MICHAEL W. HAGEE, General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps
PETER J. SCHOOMAKER, General, U.S. Army Chief of Staff
MICHAEL G. MULLEN, Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations
T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, General, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff

In reply to : from Max on February 2, 2006 03:10 PM
"Ahem,
The central theme of the cartoon is that Rumsfeld is an #@*^, which he is. They repeatedly deflect criticism of the civilian leadership by implying it's a criticism of the troops.
"

Another lefty who curses SECDEF. Can't blame you when Rumsfeld destroys the dummy reporters with their stupid camoflauged questions in his responses. I enjoy watching him toss the proverbial pie in face after face of reporters sitting before him, even as the others laugh aloud until it is their turn.

No doubt however, the idea is that our troops are not battle hardened, characterized by the small minority whom were injured, and not by those with vast expertise now gained.
If that be the case, then of course the many months spent training and battle hardeneing the new ING in Iraq is a wasted effort as well ?
Of course, the babbling left wants everyone to believe the former, so this smart aleck cartoon actually depicts the left's current public stance.

Practice makes perfect is no longer part and parcel of the whining near commie crybaby crew.

The thin forces and their falling numbers and the lack of retention and the failed recruiting goals, all pointing toward the lib left theme of an incapable military.
In between all that we hear and have heard even before going into Iraq, the definitive disaster and endless quagmire and gigantic loss we would endure.
One clearly sees the red line chart going downward.

We've heard recently, " We cannot win ", and " We are actually a target in Iraq ", by Murtha and others, who never disclose why our fighting forces actually being a target of the enemy is something that sends fear through their stateside being suddenly, as if that's some sort of new revelation.
Unfortunately, they border on outright lies, as in fact the Iraq people and the Iraq volunteers lining up to defend their nation are REALLY THE MAIN TARGET OF THE TERRORISTS, and the Iraq deaths and injuries prove that, which far outnumber ours, as do the daily press reports prove the same.
Try to find a left wing dissenter who notices that or comments upon it. It's right in their face, and they try like hell to pretend they never notice. If they do notice, they scream all the deaths are Bush' fault. That of course removes the terrorists from any wrong doing, at least in the lefts tiny twisted delusional brain.

I am aware of the lefts problem. We heard enough about Iraq people in lines waiting for ING training or voting, being targets of the terrorists, to have a more than vague ideation that US military was protecting the Iraq people, and was not the preferred target of the terrorists.( Wisely so, one certainly can agree.)

This fact is not to be allowed by the left, therefore the idea that US troops are the main target must be driven home to the public. The left needed some high profile liars to send that message, and they did not completely fail in their attempt.

This cartoon is an extension of that anti-war rhetoric and pile of lies. It shows declining forces, spread too thin, and for you, the " evil " Rumsfled callously disregarding that "fact".(that fact is a lie of the left, as retention and experience are way higher than during the initial phase into Iraq)

I canot stand the left wing lunatics we have in this nation anymore. Since Batthist former torture artists are also part of the problem in Iraq, and they are murdering dozens of Iraq citizens weekly, one wonders how the left loons find no time to put down those terrible demons murdering their own brothers and sisters.
Rumsfled, instead, is the emeny to them.

How many lies fit in their skull all at once, I wonder ?

So much for a sense of humor.

Robin
the President in his state of the union speech decried the leaking of knowledge of NSA intelligence intercepts as a crime and a danger to our security. How can you defend that and your critique against the cartoon as undermining the morale of the military when the most dangerous situation we face now is Iran's nuclear program when the President has allowed his aides and the VP's to disseminate Mrs Plaume name to the press w/ her field of expertise Nuclear proliferation and still keep these men in the White House. then today the head of all the intelligence agencies told the Senate Intelligence committee the leaks were undermining intelligence morale.
You can not have it both ways.
The President is a traitor and his supporters whom not recognize his hypocrisy a cancer on the society.

I liked the cartoon. I found it mordant. It's Rumsfeld who used the phrase battle-hardened to describe the military he has led into the IraqWagmire.

In reply to : from Robert M on February 3, 2006 01:42 AM

Well, that was a good laugh. Thanks. It's nice to mix and match, but keeping more facts in mind always helps sort out the foolish rhetoric.

"decried the leaking of knowledge of NSA intelligence intercepts as a crime and a danger to our security"

Yes, since other reports have informed us no less than 10 attacks directed toward US soil have been averted with this program.
One simply recalls how Osama bin Laden continued to use his cellphone until the press leaked he was being tracked.
Like any other group, security problems are generally addressed after facts come to light that require a change in current procedures.

We all know from many 911 reports that Al Qaeda barely slipped through airport security for instance, and certainly could be considered merely lucky, instead of stealthily preemtpting what could be considered expected encounters in the security channels. Same with INS and Al Qaeda, the FBI and CIA, as well with the barely missing pickups provided by enforcement of the Church commission Jamie Gorelick "wall".

So we know, Al Qaeda doesn't change behavior as a rule, until generally speakig the press leaks something they were unaware of.( One can discount firsthand battlefield experience in this scenario, although remain charged of the fact that the press was limited in it's reporting of our forces positions and numbers, so as not to tip off the enemy )

"President has allowed his aides and the VP's to disseminate Mrs Plaume name to the press w/ her field of expertise Nuclear proliferation and still keep these men in the White House"

Well, first of all the President apparently didn't allow it, as the facts tend to show. He called for those involved to come forward, and now it turns out Mr. Fitzgerald was incorrect in his big press announcement where he claimed Libby was the first to disseminate Plames' name outside government agencies, as the "Deep Throat" reporter has come forward and confirmed he already knew her name, after Fitzgerald made a fool of himself. That goes without mentioning Novak's much older public assertion that her identity was widely known in the left press DC champagne party circuit.
One can also clearly see that the Plame leak was NOT an illegal act, but this current NSA leak DEFINITELY IS, and NOONE has argued otherwise.

That alone puts your complaint on terribly, terribly weak footing.

We found Joe wilson was a liar, the Senate called him on it, that his report to the CIA bolstered the yellowcake uranium purchasing attempts,
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html/

and his wife not overseas in deadly danger, but driving into CIA HQ in Arlington, Virginia, USA, in full view of the public for YEARS.

On the other hand, this NSA program initiated by this great defender of the USA citizens, President Bush, has already saved the Brooklyn Bridge from destruction, with who knows how many lives and vehicles and costs to us all. An attack on the Seabrook nuclear power plant of Massachussets, among others, yet to be told.

The traitor is clearly not the President, but we do have traitors who live in their own worlds of insane illegitimate complaining modes, unaware and unwilling to become informed of the facts, and incapable of making proprtionate diagnosis of the implications and assertions that should easily result from such an amalgamation of important publicly available information.

Think for a minute : When CIA analyst Michael Scheuer wrote a book under the pseudonym “Anonymous,” someone soon revealed his real name in print. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed.
LOL - I guess the left wing press wasn't up in arms because they wanted him all over their talking head "expose Bush" shows, which he soon did do.

I'm so disappointed by the left wing loons.

Shall we put some press lefties in jail for exposing the CIA rendition programs, and even to the point of picturing planes used with tailfin numbers enumerated ?

Yes, we actually should, but the left controls the process, and can apply or not apply tremendous pressure to the government to act.

One, if paying attention, has become more than aware that the CIA contains some very left political elements, no doubt entrenched since the Church commission's easier softer tamings of the 70's and beyond, willing to compromise national security for political and save face goals, easily finding the left cohorts in the press and the bureaucracy former and current, as more than willing accomplices.

Uhmmm... Robert - What the hell are you saying? You're talking gibberish.

Was the "cartoon" offensive? Yes.

Is that a crime? No. In fact, in America, it's considered one of our "Liberties" - freedom of speech.

Was it over the top? YES.
Now, this is personal because I also have the Liberty of "freedom of speech." The cartoon was disgusting and completely insensitive to the soldiers. Never mind that it tries to cap Rumsfeld. Toles was self-deprecating and arrogant about his own "personal" view and insults thousands of veterans. It appears that the left leaning liberals are incensed when "PC" isn't used to describe their charlatans, but when the soldiers get slapped, it's OK - they're "enslaved" anyway. Right TJ?

BTW, TJ - things like "Unfortunately they're also willing to risk my money right along with their lives. Oops." is also considered over the top.
While this is basically a conservative forum, Democrat ideas are welcome for discussion.
You're not worthy of being a Democrat - you may have even fallen from the Left Wing platform. Your comments are extreme and infantile and simply serve to piss people off with no intelligent point to it.

"Remember the names that signed the letter to the Post – in two years most will cash in as defense contractors, divvy up that $240 billion war pie, - and continue to have a profound impact on people's lives"

Well, Pete Schoomaker came out of retirement to serve again when called to the Joint Chiefs. I know that must be really conflicting with your worldview of the military being either a bunch of hopped up baby killers of mercenaries in waiting, but strangely some of these guys are actually damned fine people who have served more than the rest of us put together. Why dont you lay down the hash pipe for a minute and google some of those names you so brazenly sling mud at and find out a little something about these men? You might want to check those little peices of metal pinned to some of those guys upper bodies if you get a chance. Terms like 'Legion of Merit' and 'Bronze Star' might pop up now and again that you might take note of.

"President has allowed his aides and the VP's to disseminate Mrs Plaume name to the press w/ her field of expertise Nuclear proliferation and still keep these men in the White House. "

Christ.

-Provide one shred of evidence Bush 'allowed' any such thing. Do so and collect your Pulitzer.

-Plame was about as covert as James Bond. SHE WORKED OUT OF LANGELY. God forbid some genius counterspy agency should follow her to work one day or check her mailbox to see where her check was issued from.

-The reason Plame didnt go overseas anymore is because her identity had already been compromised by the traitor Aldrich Aimes in 1997.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff had and have every right to write this letter. All these men have been there and done that!!! All these men have seen war and lost soldiers. Unless you have been in war you have NO RIGHT to speak about what soldiers are going through or have the right to draw a cartoon about soldiers. TOLES should be taken to Iraq and see what battle hardened is all about...screw him and the post. HOOAH to the Joint Staff....they are all soldiers and have every right to send the post this letter. General Peter Pace is a soldiers soldier....it is obvious that he loves soldiers or he would not have taken the time to write this letter. Thank you Sir.

You're side arguing this point on Fox.

You're either extremely stupid (the cartoon is not about soldiers) or simply exploiting what you think is another opportunity to project your Right Wing propogada. Either way, you're a danger to America. Pure and simple.

"You're either extremely stupid (the cartoon is not about soldiers) "

The democrats are constantly telling us there aren't enough soldeirs or force, and Iraq cannot be sustained properly, and that Iran could not be invaded, that the forces are stretched too thin.

The cartoon even uses the too thin analogy. It uses the dropping Army chart graph. It uses the play against experienced battle hardened forces and uses the symbol of a quadruple amputee to display that force hardening.

The truth is you'd have to be a complete moron if you think this cartoon isn't about troops. You can also get a good Rumsfeld hate chuckle out of it, but that doesn't mean it's just black or white and about one single thing.

Please stop being a one issue blind partisan.