Eloquently written:
This is not an issue of a newspaper's right to publish such a cartoon. Certainly it has such right, and I'm sure every Marine would acknowledge the same. But ideas matter. History matters. The Mohammed cartoons were published as part of a debate over whether the free media self-censored out of fear that criticism of a radicalized religious mindset would draw retribution from Muslims -- an assumption immediately validated by the ensuing riots throughout the Muslim world. By contrast, the publication of Benson's cartoon enabled editors at The Arizona Republic to take a cheap shot at the United States Marines while they confidently assumed they'd face no beheadings as a result.
It is some sadistic irony that they defame the very people who are responsible for their freedom to publish such trash.
Quite disgusting the Arizona Republic resorts to regurgitating Al-Qaida talking points. Just who's side are they rooting for anyway?
I agree. Here's another, less eloquent, letter:
I am sickened and repulsed by your "cartoon" defaming the U.S. Marines and their symbol. You take the gift of freedom bought for you by the blood of men willing to fight on your behalf and disgrace yourself by spitting on it. Change that "p" in "spitting" to an "h", to be more precise.
And spare us, in the coming days, your kneejerk reactionary comparisons between Americans who loathe your execrable editorial tastes and the Muslims who rioted and killed over a cartoon -- you'll only prove Ann Coulter's theories about the media.
On second thought, go ahead and try to make that case, since it's an election year. And you wonder why the grownups won in 2004? Democrats wouldn't defend their own mothers, much less their constitution.