Response to the Washington Post...

Emily Messner of the Washington Post quotes my attack on the journalistic outlets claiming to cover the cartoon controversy, while opting not to show the cartoons. Here's what she writes:

The Petty Larseny blog says that "American and western media outlets that cover the cartoon controversy without showing the cartoons are cowardly, hypocritical, un-American and sometimes all three. The notion that they might cause offense is, itself, offensive."

I hope the Petty Larseny blog and others who take that position would also defend other cartoons that some people find offensive, such as the widely-misinterpreted Tom Toles cartoon depicting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as stretching the military too thin and not being concerned enough with the number of war wounded and the severity of their injuries. (Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt addressed both the Toles and the Prophet Mohammed issues in a column earlier this week.)

I'm not sure whether Messner is genuinely uncertain of the position I and others of like thinking on this issue would take, but I'll try to be as clear as I can be: Yes, I would defend every cartoon that any person found offensive. I don't care whether Tom Toles draws me as a quadruple-amputee getting gang-raped by Jesus, Mohammed and Dakota Fanning, I will defend it. Hell, I promise to post a link, okay?