Posted on 02/04/2006 6:40:55 AM PST by doctora
February 4, 2006 -- Why did the Bush administration need to insert itself into the increasingly violent worldwide protests by Muslims upset by the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed?
And, having chosen to issue an opinion, why did the administration take a position that is, frankly, shameful and wholly antithetical to the basic freedoms that Americans hold dear?
Even as European and Asian leaders appealed for calm and understanding in the wake of escalating violence, the State Department yesterday came out foursquare in support of the demonstrators — and condemned the "offensive" cartoons.
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," said department spokesman Kurtis Cooper. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility."
He'd have done better to call instead for respect for freedom of the press, rather than kowtow to rampaging mobs attempting to intimidate newspapers worldwide.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
You don't understand the civil service system very well. This guy was low on the totem pole, and very likely is covered by civil service regulations. Only the higher ups can be replaced when administrations change. Generally, in other departments, that's a mostly good thing, as it provides for some level of expertise and continuity. But at state, which needs to be even more attuned to the current Administration than even DoD, it does cause some major difficulties.
Come Monday, you can say that. But this story only broke late Friday. Give the folks a chance to respond before you get your knickers too much in a wad.
At least if Condi and the President do disagree, how'd you like to be the guy called in to Secretary Rice's office for a little ass chewing demonstration? What a nice thought.
So the criteria of allowed speech depends on the militancy of the offended party?
If I or you are offended by something the media does or says, no big deal because we are not, at least I am not, going to go on a rampage.
What if I announced that I will go on a rampage the next time the media offends me. Still no big deal, because some cop will blow my head off.
But if I can get millions to go on a rampage with me, then throw free speech out the window.
So you're only for selected free speech. You can only offend the weak and sane.
I don't use hate as an emotion a whole lot Tom. I've just learned over the years that being polite is a lot more pleasant than being rude. I think my grandmother put it like this, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
One of the dumbest excuses found much too frequently on FreeRepblic to excuse our side.
Why always stop at Clinton, maybe it was a holdover from Bush I or Eisenhower even?
We need not piss on our Constitution so as not to piss off a few Moslems are are fighting with us, for what, for among other things, the right to Free Speech.
I have never heard a State Dept say "the HOLY Bible" and I will bet you never ever hear that expression from Rice in her official capacity.
I have heard both the State Dept spokesman and Rice refer to "the HOLY Koran"
"What I heard was a call for common sense. Printing inflammatory cartoons that are offensive to a militant and terrorist religion is only asking for trouble."
Sorry to pile on, but the minute we decide to limit our speech based on what some refugees from the 7th century might think of it, we're @#$^ed.
On a personal level, I'm more than happy to see Europeans stand for their free speech and have this predictable response from the Islamists open many Europeans' eyes.
Did the NYPost print the cartoons in "solidarity" of Free Speech or were they afraid?
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
"These cartoons are a crucial line in the sand for the West in its defense against a resurgent Islam. A line we must defend with everything in our power."
Huh? It's a cartoon, published by a free press. Our government shouldn't have anything to say about it.
can somebody help me copy and paste a previous quote so that its in italics?
I just love people who worship politicians.
If it's positive, the politician get all the credit.
If it's negative, the fault is the secretary to the secretary of the undersecretary to the deputy of the secretary.... who anyway was appointed by Clinton and can't be fired because he is eating a crunchy cereal.
MY tagline is to differentiate between Republicans and the Bushies who are not Republicans in my estimation. They are a group of people who have their own agenda just like the Clintons have an agenda.
A few years back I started a thread on Fr about the 5 political parties we have-Democrats, Bushies, Republicans, Socialists and Clintonistas and how they are intermixed. Here is an excerpt:
If only the Republicans weren’t so stupid and politically inept, and would stand up to the Socialists who are ruining our country. The good news for the gutless inept Republicans is the Clinton haters, the pro Bushies and ex-democrats (like myself) have been united against the Socialists and Clintonistas because of their anti- Americanism and shenanigans.
The Republicans are presently in charge of the House, Senate and Governorships - no thanks to the political acumen of the Republicans. The Bushies have the Presidency.
The Bushies didn’t repeat Ross Perots very expensive mistake. They used the Republican Party ladder to get to the top. Actually fooling Republicans isn’t very difficult.
The Bushies push their agenda, which leaves the Republicans confused. For example: Some Republicans are totally bewildered by Bush’s not securing our border with Mexico, and allowing thousands of illegals to cross every day.
And the President making stupid statements like “Islam is a religion of peace” or ‘’we worship the same God.’’
A major example is the Bushies incredible socialistic Medicare spending bill just passed, that robs the young to pay for the olds medical bills.
Well if you think the Bushies are Republicans you are bound to be confused.
What a remarkably cowardly take you have on this issue.
This morning on Washington Journal, another quote from a different State Dept. spokesman was read. It was much more in line with most of the thoughts on this thread. I can't remember which paper it was from, though. I'll see if I can find it.
Truth is the truth, like it or not.
Ignoring how one can pretend their fantasy is truth, lets say you are right.
Know what, it's worse.
If Bush after being President for more then a full term, still has Clinton holdovers, espousing Clintonian policy- which is different then what would be his policy- for the US State Dept, both Bush and Rice should be gone for gross incompetence.
But according to you is it just at State or are Clintonians also making policy at Treasury, Agriculture, etc?
You may be right. I'm sure it was a Clinton holdover who allowed the Medicare Prescription Drug mess, it certainly couldn't be a Republican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.