Political cartoons are essentially a license to take cheap shots.
Ridicule is a weapon appropriate for the powerless against the powerful. But in our culture, it has been the MSM -- all powerful until recently -- that has used cartoons against conservatism and other grassroots sentiment.
American politics has grown so vicious; world politics seems to edge closer everyday to the use of WMDs. Debate need to be carried on with seriousness, fairness, and a decent respect for others, not with crayons.
And the neurotic reponse of the Muslims illustrates that Americans are neither wrong, nor racist, when they hazzard to suggest that there are too many Muslims in the world who wish to do non-Muslims harm, something I believe, the cartoons signified, especially with the cartoon that depicted a cartoonist at work on a cartoon he knew would address that truth.
But you write: world politics seems to edge closer everyday to the use of WMDs. Debate need to be carried on with seriousness, fairness, and a decent respect for others, not with crayons.
When the culture of the offended in this case nurtures them on hate and when their radios are playing the number one song, "I hate Israel" as their kin are flying missiles into skyscrapers, I hazzard we forego conversation altogether, as experience has shown that the other side is not encumbered with Hamlet's dilemma: rightly to be great is not to fight without great debate.
A cartoon illustrates what has already been spoken. In the case of the amputee, our troops are portrayed as victims, and illustrates how the media "supports our troops". The Wapo's response or lack thereof suggests that it would be pointless to tell them that there is a 2x4 in both of their eyes, even as they tell Americans not to hate.