IRAQ: Lawmaker: Questioning of Cartoonist Wrong

Yahoo ^ | Tue, Jul 22, 2003 | AP

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

WASHINGTON - The Secret Service (news - web sites) used "profoundly bad judgment" in seeking to question a Los Angeles Times cartoonist over a political cartoon depicting a man pointing a gun at President Bush (news - web sites), a senior House Republican said Tuesday.

Rep. Christopher Cox (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the Secret Service owed Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez an apology "and the public is owed an explanation both of how this happened and why it will not happen again."

The use of "federal power to attempt to influence the work of an editorial cartoonist for the Los Angeles Times," Cox said in a letter to U.S. Secret Service Director Ralph Basham, "reflects profoundly bad judgment."

The Times, in an article in its Tuesday edition, said a Secret Service agent visited the paper's Los Angeles office for what he said was a routine inquiry following the publication on Sunday of Ramirez' cartoon. The agent talked to a Times attorney but was told he could not speak to Ramirez.

The Secret Service is responsible for looking into any perceived threats against the president.

The cartoon is a takeoff of a chilling 1968 photograph from the Vietnam War showing Vietnamese police Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a man he said was a Viet Cong in the right temple on a Saigon street.

In the cartoon, the man pointing the gun at a caricature of the president has "politics" written across his back, and there's a sign on the street scene in the back reading "Iraq (news - web sites)."

The Times quoted Ramirez as saying he was not advocating violence against Bush but trying to show that the president is the target of political assassination because of his State of the Union address when he used faulty intelligence to back up claims of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

"The published work on its face was well within the ample bounds of any federal law which the Secret Service is charged with enforcing," Cox said.

Secret Service spokesman John Gill said the service "is responsive to requests from members of Congress, and we will be responsive to Chairman Cox's request."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[sinkspur]

Ramirez was extremely irresponsible in his depicture.

Cox, IMO, is also irresponsible. The Secret Service has to investigate any "perceived" threat.

This was definitely a "perceived" threat, no matter the political sympathies of the cartoonist.

[jwalsh07]

Cox, IMO, is also irresponsible. The Secret Service has to investigate any "perceived" threat

Ditto.

[Keith in Iowa]

The cartoon is a takeoff of a chilling 1968 photograph from the Vietnam War showing Vietnamese police Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a man he said was a Viet Cong in the right temple on a Saigon street.

In the cartoon, the man pointing the gun at a caricature of the president has "politics" written across his back, and there's a sign on the street scene in the back reading "Iraq (news - web sites)."

The Times quoted Ramirez as saying he was not advocating violence against Bush but trying to show that the president is the target of political assassination because of his State of the Union address when he used faulty intelligence to back up claims of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

When put in this context, the cartoon was spot-on. Most people, however, are bilssfully ignorant of the context

[livius]

I agree. I understood the cartoon when I saw it, but even so, I didn't think it was appropriate. And, btw, despite the overblown press reaction, the Secret Service didn't haul him away or hang up up by his thumbs.

Actually, I wish they'd pay a visit to the authors of those two awful cartoons, Doonesbury and Boondocks, who come perilously close at times to actually advocating assassination not only of the President but of Republicans in general.

[Publius6961]

The Times quoted Ramirez as saying he was not advocating violence against Bush but trying to show that the president is the target of political assassination because of his State of the Union address when he used faulty intelligence to back up claims of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Well, I tended to side with Ramirez when I first saw the thread on FR, swimming against the current, so to speak.

But the longer I thought about it, the less appropriate it became, because in the original photograph, the man being executed had perpetrated terrorist random murder against Vietnamese civilians.
Hardly a parallel worth developing.

[sinkspur]

Political cartoons are like jokes.

When you have to explain them, or "put them in context," they're first-class duds.

[Publius6961]

When put in this context, the cartoon was spot-on. Most people, however, are bilssfully ignorant of the context

As, apparently, are you.
As I explain in post #8.

[Kevin Curry]

And the Op-Ed editor was more than irresponsible--he was culpable.

The Op-Ed editior should have never allowed such a rash, ill-considered, and easily misconstrued cartoon to be published. That he gave it the green light suggests that he intended to cheer the liberal readership of the LA Times, dismay the Republicans, and embarrass conservative cartoonist Ramirez.

[Nathaniel Fischer]

He's among the most conservative Republicans in Congress. (and there is zero chance of a primary challenge succeeding)

[ladyinred]

I agree with you. I sure didn't get the cartoon. I saw it as a threat and so did others.

[Kevin Curry]

Or all of the above.

[Publius6961]

Political cartoons are like jokes.
When you have to explain them, or "put them in context," they're first-class duds.

Although I agree fundamentally with you about this particular example, I must disagree here.

Political cartoons are more wit than humor, and totally different rules apply.

Here, active mental engagement is essential, and if you're not equipped to play in that sandbox stick to the regular comics.

[Nathaniel Fischer]

I have no doubt he'll support Bush.

[sinkspur]

And the Op-Ed editor was more than irresponsible--he was culpable.

And no retractions or explanations from the Op-Ed editor, either, I'll bet.

[GranpaVet]

Yep. For some of us it was like a cartoon flashback. Still don't know what to think of this flap though. Ramirez supports the President so this is overkill. Did not like the cartoon though. Tasteless.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. I like Chris Cox, but I totally disagree with him. To draw a "cartoon" of someone pointing a gun at Bush is waaaaaaaay over the top to me.

And .. even as much as I detested x42, I still would not sanction a cartoon of this ilk.

[weegee]

Many political cartoons serve as political propaganda. Use of a "controversial" image in a different context may fail to make the point that the cartoonist is persuing...

the immediate connection that is made in the viewer's mind will overpower what the cartoonist is trying to say.

Or as said in Spinal Tap, "There's a fine line between 'clever' and 'stupid'."

[sinkspur]

Here, active mental engagement is essential, and if you're not equipped to play in that sandbox stick to the regular comics.

In this particular case, active mental engagement led the Secret Service to perceive a threat. As did thousands of other mentally engaged people.

Ramirez laid an egg with this one.

[Grut]

I got the point of the cartoon because I remember the original photo; I also remember that the man killed was widely if wrongly regarded as a 'victim', so the cartoon is clearly sympathetic to Bush.

All that aside, I also thought it wasn't a very good cartoon; it was tasteless and heavy-handed and depicted Bush's critics as being far more vile than they are. Not that they aren't vile, they're just not that vile.

As for all the Freepers who're rubbing their hands together and chortling "Ooo...ooo... he's gonna learn a lesson...", they might want to think about the 'lessons' a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist at one of the Nation's most influential papers can teach the Bush administration about not torquing off people who buy ink by the barrel and electrons by the pound.

[lainde]

bttt

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not that they aren't vile, they're just not that vile.

I think they are that vile !!

[mad-genius]

I laughed at the cartoon. I was insulted by the S.S. failure to understand and respect freedom of speach as applied to the cartoon in question.

Any notion that a prizewinning journalist is threatening the President through a cartoon is assinine. That kind of thinking is an indicator that "something is rotten in Denmark".

There are those who are impaired in understanding metaphore and abstrac humor quickly. Many go into police or security work. Apparently others become true believers for political causes.

[breakem]

Perceived threat. LOL! Not even close. I'd like to know which supervisor in the USSS interpreted this cartoon as a perceived threat, so I can call for him or her to be fired for percieved ignorance.

[sinkspur]

I'd like to know which supervisor in the USSS interpreted this cartoon as a perceived threat, so I can call for him or her to be fired for percieved ignorance.

Well, friend, here we disagree.

Pointing a weapon at the head of the President, even in jest, is a perceived threat, even in a cartoon. Chris Cox is defending a constituent. Poorly, IMO.

Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Can't threaten the Prez, even ironically.

[breakem]

HHowdee!

If there was a threat in the cartoon I'd be the first to yell fire.

Depicting the president's Iraq effort being killed by politics (read liberals or democrats) is far from a threat.

The USSS has a responsiblity to check out threats. They also have the responsibility to have someone with a triple-digit IQ making decisions and not reacting like knee-jerk idiots.<p.I don't know the latest, but I heard the LA Times refused them entry. I hope they continue to do so even to the point of jail. Someone has to tell the emperor when he's going to catch pneumonia.

[breakem]

going to bed, I'll try to catch up tomorrow.

[sinkspur]

Depicting the president's Iraq effort being killed by politics (read liberals or democrats) is far from a threat.

Lots of other ways to do that, though, granted, not as shocking.

Poor choice by Mr. Ramirez. He'll be more careful next time.

[mad-genius]

I laughed at the cartoon. I was insulted by the S.S. failure to understand and respect freedom of speach as applied to the cartoon in question.

Any notion that a prizewinning journalist is threatening the President through a cartoon is assinine. That kind of thinking is an indicator that "something is rotten in Denmark".

There are those who are impaired in understanding metaphore and abstract humor quickly. Many go into police or security work. Apparently others become true believers for political causes.

[breakem]

I think the cartoon showed bad judgement and is tasteless at best. On the other hand it is a very creative use of a liberal icon to skewer liberals.

My negative characterizations however do not include it being a threat in any way. I would think that someone with the USSS could tell the difference.

[Gritty]

Secret Service spokesman John Gill said the service "is responsive to requests from members of Congress, and we will be responsive to Chairman Cox's request."

My question is, was the USSS being responsive to a "request" from a member of Congress by investigating Ramirez in the first place or was this wholly their own silly idea?