He didn’t say their lives were a waste he said their lives were wasted. There’s a huge difference.
He was wrong to apologize. Those lives HAVE been wasted and there’s nothing offensive about saying so.
What’s disrespectful about noting that an adminstration has WASTED invaluable human lives? It would be disrespectful NOT to point it out. What you either don’t get or are pretending not to get is that saying something has been wasted is not the same thing as saying it was worthless. If I flush a diamond ring down the toilet then it’s perfectly fair to say I’m wasting that ring. It’s a statement that has no bearing at all on the VALUE of the ring.
It’s typical of the current state of the political right that conservatives would get more up in arms about someone decrying a massive waste of human life than they are about the waste itself.
I see that a lot of people are willing to pretend to misunderstand something just so they can gin up phony indignation. Those people deserve neither explanation nor apology.
Speaking of chilling rhetoric, someone recently sent me a link to a YouTube video of the dirtiest TV campaign ad ever aired - the 1968 spot with the little girl picking petals off a daisy, only to be interrupted by a voice counting down to zero and the blast of an atomic bomb, followed by a warning of how critical it was to vote (against the conservative, finger presumably poised on the button, Goldwater).
I don’t think the Right has any monopoly on campaign sleaze.
I find the cartoon in the OP dumb for various reasons stated above.
What you appear to be not getting is that there is a mindset, (one that Mr. Moto is explaining, not defending), that refuses to make the distinction that all of we right-thinking posters on the SDMB make.
One may shake one’s head over the obtuse thinking that such persons employ, but it is simply silly to get all excited that other people think that way and then transfer your impatience from theose who hold such views to those who point out that such views are held. (Shoot the messenger!) Your approach is similar to someone who heard that a life had been wasted then complaining that the messenger of that fact considered that life to have been a waste.
Welcome to the world of (bad) politics.
I would agree with you except for the fact that Mr. Moto said this in his second post.
That’s not relaying a message, it’s twisting one.
First off, I thought editorial cartoons were supposed to be thought-provoking in a funny way and not just mean spirited detritus. It didn’t even look like Shelton tried to employ wit here. So I can’t even call it lame because to do so would imply that he was trying to be funny and failed. He was only trying to be mean.
Secondly, I seriously think the whole “wasted” thing just reveals how desperate some people are to draw the public’s attention away from the real issues at hand. Um, like how our soldiers are actually being wasted over there. “Squander”, “wasted”, “sacrificed”, “blown to bits for no good reason”: insert one for the other and the idea is the exact same. Obama touched on a sensitive spot for the Republican party and rather predictably, the GOP responded by protesting semantics. It’s unfortunate that Obama buckled under pressure and apologized for something that is simply a fact. He was right when he said the soldiers are being wasted and he shouldn’t have to use euphemisms for the truth.
And now Shelton is preseverating on the “wasted” thing, too. Sad. The ironic thing is that the soldier in the cartoon is shown as a dying victim! Not as a hero defeating the evildoers and paving the way for peaceful Democracy. But as just one more addition to a rising body count! Thanks for the reminder of what this war means for us, Shelton.
nitpick
The anti-Goldwater ad was 1964. Point taken all the same, though.
Underhanded and also unoriginal. There were similar cartoons in 2004 featuring OBL wearing Dean or Kerry buttons. I suspect the cartoonist probably just took an old cartoon from three years ago, whited out Dean’s or Kerry’s name, and wrote in Obama’s.
Anyway a few months ago, The Onion started “editorial cartoons” that are, of course, parodies of the clueless right-wing hackwork seen in many newspapers. The odd thing is (as seen in this recent example) the parodies seem scarcely different from the real thing.
The scared Lady Liberty in the background reminds me of the running gag in Our Dumb Century depicting political cartoons showing whatever threat is plaguing the nation at that point in time (Nazis, commies, hippies, etc.) strangling the Statue of Liberty.
Crummy cartoon.
I think it’s a deliberate misunderstanding of Senator Obama’s words. Par for the course.
I wish I saw this kind of condemnation from the board in general directed at left-wing cartoonists that cross the line.
Give some examples, and maybe we will.
It was also resurrected by MoveOn.org during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the line “These are the stakes…” was used by Republicans for the 2006 elections.
Fearmongering is a tactic often used by both parties. Another fine example, from 1988: Willie Horton. Of course, the Willie Horton ad was true, but George H.W. Bush used it to great effect by making people scared of Dukakis’ reputation on crime.
Man, those are just painful to read. The depths that satire has to go to these days to stay in front of the sad reality…
Nothing, of course, is stopping you from complaining on this very board about any cartoonist you might find objectionable. Except, perhaps, a need to feel persecuted.
You are naturally free to Rip Tom Toles a New One at any time.
It’s nice to see that reading comprehension is still alive and well on the board.
Immediately below the line being thrown back at me, I wrote:
He was right to do so, because it clarified his remarks significantly and made subsequent attacks on him look as silly as this cartoon.
I’m not going to take Senator Obama to task on this. Politicians misspeak all of the time, and how they react when they do is often a clearer indication of their character than their original words.
Obama cleared the record quickly and honestly. He didn’t stupidly dig in his heels like John Kerry did. He didn’t refuse to apologize until political allies took him to task, like Dick Durbin did. He handled this in absolutely textbook fashion. He is either a born politician, has very good staff, or both.
He was wrong to do so. His remark needed no clarification and it was a mistake for him to legitimize any phony outrage about it.
You’re not going to take him to task for what? What did he say that he could even theoretically be taken to task for?
Obama did not misspeak. He spoke clearly and correctly the first time.
He had nothing to apologize for. Validating the bullshit indignation was his mistake.
And again, that is why he is where he is, and you are commenting anonymously on a message board.
A senator can’t speak like a Kos kid. Hell, he can’t even speak like we do, and we’re not as bad as some.
You can’t spell politics without politic, you know.
You know perfectly well that that isn’t what “wasted” meant in the context he used it in. I notice that you are now pretending that it’s how “other people” might perceive it, but in the above quote, you took the stance yourself. Planning on retracting that, or are you standing by it?