PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Editorial Cartoon Was Disrespectful

Posted: March 21, 2012 at 3:57 a.m.

On Thursday, March 15, this newspaper published a political cartoon on the opinion page that should bring shame on everyone involved in deciding to print it.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 03/21/2012

There's plenty of shame to go around, but I'll defend that cartoon and the newspaper that published it. Perhaps it would have hit home more accurately if the military man before the mirror had the reflection of a pro-war enthusiast over his shoulder.

The mission in Afghanistan is hopelessly mired in the muck of a hated occupation. There's been too much death and destruction, too much high level incompetence, too much urinating on corpses and too much Koran burning to salvage anything our nation can be proud of.

Our troops went in there to neutralize Osama bin Laden's al- Qaeda, but the mission failed absolutely. It was a failure of leadership.

That cartoon does not denigrate the troops; it exposes the futility of military violence and the complicity of those who are always eager for a new war.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

March 21, 2012 at 11:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who instituted the dumbest move the City of Springdale could ever have undertaken?
Moving part of the Farmer's Market to Shiloh Square is pure foolishness. It will not "help downtown business" since there are so few remaining.
It will lessen sales and cause confusion.
Shiloh Square features very limited parking and is not handicapped friendly with stairs and steps required for entry. You have closed off the alley entrance to the rear of Shiloh which would have allowed entry by handicapped persons.
This is a stupid move made by foolish, thoughtless people.

Posted by: cdawg

March 22, 2012 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It was the paper's prerogative to publish the picture however vile and disrespectful it was. Those of us in uniform have come to expect much worse from the Leftwing who has seemed to forget the whole reason we are in Afghanistan.



"The mission in Afghanistan is hopelessly mired in the muck of a hated occupation."

All the locals I interacted with over two tours loved having us there. To them, it is either us helping them help themselves or the Taliban dictating terms of living to them.

"Our troops went in there to neutralize Osama bin Laden's al- Qaeda, but the mission failed absolutely. It was a failure of leadership."

That is a completely false statement and the US continues to neutralize enemy personnel on a daily basis.


"the futility of military violence.."

Like the kind that ended World War II?


RE- "The author should have used Uncle Sam instead of a U.S. soldier. Or Geo. W Bush."

Perhaps the picture should have used an Islamofacist or the Liberals that are so quick to defend said terrorist's "civil liberties".

It seems the people that have the most to say about war, either for or against, are the ones that know the least about it.


Posted by: Tankersley101

March 22, 2012 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Shiloh Square: just where is it anyway? I guess it doesn't matter because apparently I won't have access with my handicapped license plate. I would have expected this in Fayetteville but I thought better of Springdale. Wrong again.

Posted by: Oldearkie

March 22, 2012 at 5:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oldearkie and cdawg,

The only time the market will be on Shiloh Square is mondays. All other days will be at the regular spot.


Posted by: Tankersley101

March 22, 2012 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TANK: "the picture... vile and disrespectful... expect much worse from the Leftwing...">>

I didn't see the cartoon but from the description:

"...troops... looking at himself in a mirror... “Confronting our worst enemy in Afghanistan.”

One can see how it could be read to play upon a favorite human fallacy: guilt by association. As if all the troops should be associated with the behavior of one soldier, or a few. That's the reading Tankersley sees as he typically reaches to blame it on "liberals." There is a more complex reading our conservative friends are missing. That is, as successful as certain actions may be, and Tank's observation may be exactly correct, what may in the end undermine it, and thus actually be effectively "our worst enemy," is the fall out from the enormous mistakes of: defiling and urinating on bodies, mass burning of Qurans, and a drunken soldier going on a murder spree (etc).

This is most certainly what the cartoon intends to convey.

FRANK said: "the futility of military violence..">>
TANK: Like the kind that ended World War II?>>

It's instructive to see how far back (67 years), and the great piles of examples of "military violence" Tankersly chose to skip over, to get to his "non-futile" counter example.

TANK: "Perhaps the picture should have used... Liberals that are so quick to defend said terrorist's "civil liberties".>>

As much as conservatives go on about love of the Constitution, it's always amazing the extent they are either ignorant of it or are pleased to chuck it under the bus when it's clearly stated principles go against their emotion based politics.

The SCOTUS, the handful of people who have the sole task of interpreting the constitution, are the ones who say "all persons" have the civil liberty of due process. And this conservative court should be commended for reading what the document plainly says, and getting it right. Observe:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive *ANY PERSON* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to *ANY PERSON* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [CAPS mine].

If "any person" isn't clear enough, we have a recent ruling from the supreme court when conservatives tried to be tricky about it: "Boumediene v. Bush"

These people are not citizens and the US supreme court says they are entitled to due process. Why? Because we are supposed to conduct ourselves with standards higher than those used during The Inquisition.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 22, 2012 at 9:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


The reason American Soldiers are in Afghanistan is because the place was and still is harboring terrorists. , some of which were responsible for 9/11 in one capacity or another. I never said going there was Liberals fault.


"Oh yeah, maybe it's because the bin Laden and Bush families have been business partners for decades."

What a bunch of unfounded bull.


"it was Geo W Bush's watch that allowed cave dwellers to hijack not only the airplanes but also the entire U.S. defense network."

What? Are you, a Liberal, saying there is connection between Afghanistan and Iraq? For the record, I never have.

Either way, do you think FDR is to blame for Pearl Harbor? Would you have buried your head in the sand like a coward and not wanted to fight for America back in 41' as well?

These are just some things to ponder. Don't worry yourself about it too much. We have an all-volunteer force these days.


Posted by: Tankersley101

March 22, 2012 at 10:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


This may be of interest to you. The whole thing can be found at

December 15, 2011

"A new law approved by Congress and signed by Barack Obama yesterday essentially negates the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirement for a warrant prior to arrest, and the prohibition of arrest and detainment without due process of law.

Called 'the National Defense Authorization Act' (NDAA), the new law allows the military to detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. For the first time since the Civil War the U.S. military will have the authority to engage in the pursuit and detention of suspected criminals on American soil."

"...But it was Obama himself who demanded that the provision of the detainment of enemy combatants apply to U.S. citizens to begin with."

Is that the "standards" you were preaching about?


"As much as conservatives go on about love of the Constitution, it's always amazing the extent they are either ignorant of it or are pleased to chuck it under the bus when it's clearly stated principles go against their emotion based politics."

The same could be said about Liberals.


Posted by: Tankersley101

March 22, 2012 at 10:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TANK: "This may be of interest to you [examiner article]... "A new law approved by Congress and signed by Barack Obama yesterday essentially negates...">>

Notice the weasel word "essentially," in the very first sentence.

It's much more complex and nuanced than your breezy conservative article lets on. Actually, wiki has a very nice, well referenced explication of the issue:

Scroll down to:

"Legal arguments that the legislation does not allow the indefinite detention of US citizens"

And: "Legal arguments that the legislation allows indefinite detention"

Fair and Balanced, just like your FOX News promised to be but never has been.

President Obama noted his understanding of the issue in his signing statement, which is:

"...that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF". The statement also maintains that the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law"." --ibid

TANK: "The same could be said about Liberals.">>

Well then, that would make it okay wouldn't it? It's "tit for tat," rules of the sandbox. Learn about the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy here:

I have no interest in what "could be said" but rather what can be demonstrated. Unlike your mere assertion, I backed up my claim up with a specific, referenced and well known example of conservatives being on the wrong side of what the SCOTUS says the Constitution means (and it plainly says, for you literalists). Those who are accused of the charge terrorism, have some right to due process. So says the supreme court. This shows that your attempt to throw this:

"Liberals that are so quick to defend said terrorist's "civil liberties".

Is to argue directly against what the Constitution actually says and means. So another swing, miss and more importantly, glimpse of conservative hypocrisy.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 23, 2012 at 12:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


Who is weaseling? If you (libs) don't like how things are going you change the rules (i.e. negate amendment to the Constitution starting specifically with the application of said document to American citizens in order to take the moral high ground vs. enemy combatants). So as long as the administration "understands" their sponsored negation of the Constitution and vow not to use that negation in a manner in which they could via this new law if they so choose, libs are better or more than correct than conservatives ? That sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Weak sauce, sir. Weak sauce. By the way, the 14th Amendment was never meant to be applicable to enemy combatants. It is called war for a reason.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 23, 2012 at 8:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "Who is weaseling?">>

Anthony Martin, as I quoted in the first sentence of the article you cited.

TNK: "If you (libs) don't like how things are going you change the rules">>

Mere assertion. I back up my claim with a specific example.

TNK: "(i.e. negate amendment to the Constitution...">>

Show this.

You claimed: "Liberals that are so quick to defend said terrorist's "civil liberties".

And I've shown the Constitution says they have these civil liberties. Those who go on about their love of the Constitution, should be standing *with* these liberals and insisting the Constitution be followed. Where are the conservatives?

We have Congress Womack ignorantly screaming at a constitutent:
"How can you sit here and defend due process for people who aren't even citizens of the United States of America?"

And then we have you giving lip service to the Constitution but clearly folding when it actually comes to the difficult part of following through on using its principles. You chastise liberals for following the constitution! That's hypocrisy with bells on.

TNK: "as long as the administration "understands" their sponsored negation of the Constitution...">>

Question begging. Professor Obama taught Constitutional law, so it's reasonable to consider that he probably knows more about such things than you. It's not clear you would qualify to take one of his classes.

TNK: "[if they] vow not to use that negation in a manner in which they could via this new law if they so choose,...">>

If this law gets used outside of the bounds of the Constitution, SCOTUS will be there to set it straight. That interpretation is their job, not your job.

TNK: "libs are better or more than correct than conservatives?">>

They are asking that the Constitution be correctly enforced, which according to SCOTUS, means these people, being "persons," have some right of due process. You are providing a prime example of how conservatives cowardly argue against following the Constitution, when it's emotionally and politically uncomfortable.

TNK: "the 14th Amendment was never meant to be applicable to enemy combatants.">>

The SCOTUS says it applies. As laid out clearly in the Constitution, they have the sole task of deciding what the Constitution means, you don't.

TNK: "It is called war for a reason.">>

Even rules of war don't allow for indefinite detention without due process. And you didn't say "enemy combatants" you said "terrorists." Considering (as I have shown), 77% of fatalities caused by domestic terrorism come from political whackjobs on your conservative right, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss their right to due process. But if you do, liberals will be there to set you straight.

liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded” --American Heritage

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 23, 2012 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

WRONG AGAIN, Tankersly:

"Shiloh Square location will be open Mondays from 4 p.m.
to 7 p.m. and Saturdays from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m."
--PAULA BOLES / Springdale
Perhaps some reading comprehension is in order for you.

Posted by: cdawg

March 23, 2012 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


I regularly read your references, but what did you mean by "And you didn't say "enemy combatants" you said "terrorists."? What is the you and me?



Posted by: Tankersley101

March 24, 2012 at 10:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


If you are gonna use all caps, perhaps you should spell my name correctly. T-A-N-K-E-R-S-L-E-Y.


Posted by: Tankersley101

March 24, 2012 at 10:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


You have link for that rebuttal?

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 24, 2012 at 10:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Were the al Qaida that big a threat? Article in Army Times says no:
Tank says there are still terrorists in Afghanistan. BUT
"In December 2009, as Mr. Obama was deciding whether to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, reported that senior U.S. intelligence officials estimated about 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan.
On June 27, 2010, CIA Director Leon Panetta gave an estimate on ABC’s "This Week" that has been cited frequently.
"I think the estimate on the number of al Qaeda is actually relatively small," Panetta said at the time. "At most, we’re looking at 50 to 100, maybe less. It’s in that vicinity. There’s no question that the main location of al Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan."
Are 50 leaderless people a true threat to the U.S. that we should hunt down every last one of them at the consequent cost of blood and treasure?

Posted by: Coralie

March 25, 2012 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cartoon: you people just don't have enough to do. go volunteer somewhere.

Posted by: Oldearkie

March 25, 2012 at 6:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "what did you mean by "And you didn't say "enemy combatants" you said "terrorists."? What is the difference...>>

They are not synonymous. You said:

"Liberals that are so quick to defend said terrorist's "civil liberties".

I simply pointed out when you switched terms and started using "enemy combatant" as a synonym for "terrorist." This confusion is understandable considering the politics that have surrounded this phrase for some time.

You know what "terrorism" is, so a terrorist is a person who commits acts of terrorism. An enemy combatant, at its most literal (of course) can be an "enemy" engaged in "combat."

Wiki has a good blurb on this. If you just read the first paragraph they cover how the term has been used historically, then under Bush's new definition, and now under Obama who has discarded the Bush administrations usage of the phrase:

Aside from the fact that it is unconstitutional to deny these persons some form of due process, and those arguing for them having some form of due process are the ones supporting the Constitution, the larger problem with your claim of:

"Liberals that are so quick to defend said terrorist's "civil liberties"."

and Congressman Womacks similar comment, is that it begs the question of whether a person is in fact a terrorist in the first place. If due process shows they are terrorists then we have nothing to fear from confirming it properly. If we can't confirm it properly, then calling them terrorists, is an unwarranted assumption and commits the fallacy of begging the question.

And note:

"86%: ... Percentage of prisoners reportedly turned over to coalition forces in response to a bounty offer" (pg. 11)

"...part of the problem is that we're also dealing with people who have never been given a trial. And we know that many of the people in Guantanamo Bay were not terrorists. At one time, we were offering thousands of dollars for anyone that could give us someone they said was a terrorist, and many of them ended up at Guantanamo Bay.
And so we need to be cognizant of the fact that a nation like ours can't hold people without a trial and retain our credibility." --Johnathon Turley, professor of law, The George Washington University Law School

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 25, 2012 at 7:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


The Taliban is a huge terrorists body in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A perfect example of their terrorism is the night letters they use to control poeple through fear. So, it's not just about al Qaeda.


One of the problems with those bounties mentioned in the Time piece you cited is some people "turn in" their familiy members or failed business partners on trumped up charges. I have seen that several times.



Posted by: Tankersley101

March 25, 2012 at 9:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Also, concerning the Army Times (or any other version of the Military Times).... Most folks in the military consider it a grocery store tabloid. In fact, a lot of us hate it as much as the Left croud on this site hates Fox.



Posted by: Tankersley101

March 26, 2012 at 4:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ten, fifty, or a hundred terrorists, all are dangerous. It only took one to kill a large number in Oklahoma city. How many terrorists does it take to build a bomb? How many does it take to poison a city water supply? The only safe terrorist is a dead one and may they all become safe. And Tank, you have noticed that whatever you say is an "allegation" as opposed to what some allege to be facts. If it comes out of the government it is most definitely a fact, but if a conservative says something it is an allegation. And have you noticed that liberals never lie? They are a paradigm of honesty and virtue! Why, they even cite Wikipedia as if it were written by someone with impeccable credentials. Most likely some of them are contributors to Wikipedia...but that is just a speculative possibility. It is a fact that Wikipedia will take contributions from writers who may or may not be qualified to contribute factually.
Isn't it strange that a soldier who has had a brain injury in one of four tours of duty should be immediately executed, but when a Muslim Major in the US army goes on a killing rampage claims stress from listening to soldiers relating their battlefield experiences caused him to commit his crime? It has been two years and there is yet to be a trial. The current case of the soldier being charged with killing civilians will probably be over before this other one comes to trial.
Tank, hang in there, but you may have noticed that there are some who are always eager to take the opposite view if a conservative who is loyal to his country says it. It's too bad that you and I don't know everything there is to know about any and every subject that is brought up! We could write a book and pay some publisher to print it.

Posted by: kinggeorge

March 26, 2012 at 11:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mrd: "Wikipedia will take contributions from writers who may or may not be qualified...">>

Wiki is a secondary reference, and when a person refers to it, they are referring to comments that are, almost without exception, backed up with carefully referenced, mainstream and independent, linked and verifiable, footnotes. Avoid the genetic fallacy when making your points.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 26, 2012 at 11:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Comment removed for repeated name calling. It was fine other than that.
-Caleb Fort, online editor

Posted by: cfort

March 26, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mr D., nobody has been "immediately executed." You are running ahead of the facts.
A number of "terrorists" originally incarcerated at Guantanamo were soon released for lack of any evidence. I remember that several of them were young teenagers, 14 or 15, and several were toothless old men. They'd been caught up in a sweep.
I know a person who is a Wikipedia editor, and there is quite a process to go through. If you put an article up there, others who have some expertise on the subject will soon find it and critique it or insist on changing it.

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2012 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm posting this link to see the reaction, not because I necessarily believe this theory.
Many Afghan people apparently believe that there was more than one person responsible for the massacre, and in the news article today, it said that the alleged killer went out twice, returning to his base between killings in two different villages--which seems curious..

Posted by: Coralie

March 26, 2012 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Phillip: "Limbots and other ilk seem to think "Liberal" is a pejorative.">>

Eleanor Roosevelt once referred to this tendency among conservatives:

"Long ago, there was a noble word, LIBERAL, which derives from the word FREE. Now a strange thing happened to that word. A man named Hitler made it a term of abuse, a matter of suspicion, because those who were not with him were against him, and liberals had no use for Hitler. And then a man named McCarthy cast the same opprobrium on the word. Indeed, there was a time --a short but dismaying time-- when many Americans began to distrust the word which derived from FREE. One thing we must all do. We must cherish and honor the word FREE or it will cease to apply to us.” --Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 27, 2012 at 10:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


RE "Or maybe there's a recessive gene at work ... "

Not recessive enough.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 27, 2012 at 2:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What was this brawl about? I'm lookin' fer one!

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 29, 2012 at 1:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )