Here is another one:
notice the background pictures
Posted on 02/04/2006 2:07:02 PM PST by Cap Huff
Excerpt from Daily Press Briefing:
QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just --
MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen any -- first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven't seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I've seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.
Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy -- democracies around the world -- and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.
We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may -- like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.
For example -- and on the particular cartoon that was published -- I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.
QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see -- that's what you're asking?
MR. MCCORMACK: We would -- we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.
QUESTION: So basically you're just hoping that it doesn't -- I'm sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they're doing and you just hope it doesn't get worse?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I --
QUESTION: You just hope it doesn't escalate.
MR. MCCORMACK: I gave a pretty long answer, so --
QUESTION: You did. I'm trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews -- or it was the Egyptians -- this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was --
MR. MCCORMACK: I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.
QUESTION: Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but --
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.
Yes.
QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that's the use of the word "unacceptable" and "not acceptable," exactly what that implies. I mean, it's not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say "unacceptable," it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.
MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is -- our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.
QUESTION: It's just the one word "unacceptable," I'm just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn't you say?
MR. MCCORMACK: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you caution America media against publishing those cartoons?
MR. MCCORMACK: That's for you and your editors to decide, and that's not for the government. We don't own the printing presses.
QUESTION: Sean, these cartoons first surfaced in late September and it's following this recent election with the Palestinian Authority. The EU mission was attacked or held, in effect, by Hamas yesterday near Gaza City. And the tact of some of these European newspapers, again, are to re-publish -- these cartoons. Is the election mood -- is this what is possibly fueling this and what is our media response to this, a la, what Katherine Hughes may or may not do versus international State Department and government media to the Muslim world, including Indonesia, Asia, and the Middle East?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think your colleagues really want me to repeat the long answer that I gave to Teri, so I'd refer you to that answer.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, George.
QUESTION: Getting back to your next question, nobody doubts the right of newspapers, et cetera, to print such drawings as appeared in Europe, but is it the responsible thing to do -- or is it -- or would it be irresponsible to do what the European newspapers did because of the sensitivities involved?
MR. MCCORMACK: George, we, as a Government, have made our views known on the question of these images. We find them offensive. We understand why others may find them offensive. We have urged tolerance and understanding. That -- all of that said, the media organizations are going to have to make their own decisions concerning what is printed, George. This is -- it's not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed.
QUESTION: You're not dictating -- everybody knows you can't order people not to --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: -- print this or that, but you might have on your hands the same kind of problem that the Europeans find --
MR. MCCORMACK: You're right, you're right.
QUESTION: -- now. So, I just thought that there might be a word or two saying -- you know, that -- you know, you should do your best not to incite people because this -- you're dealing with deeply-held beliefs.
MR. MCCORMACK: You're right. You're right. You are dealing with deeply-held beliefs and certainly, we have talked about the importance of urging tolerance and appreciating differences and to respect the fact that many of -- millions and millions of people around the world would find these images -- these particular images offensive. But whether or not American media chooses to reproduce those images is a question for them, for them alone to answer, not for us.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm, yes.
QUESTION: Forgive me if you maybe addressed this, because I was out of the room filing on some other stuff, about Rumsfeld's remarks about Chavez?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think we covered that one.
Yeah, well, let me help ya'll not forget what this moron did. Here's a list of video links regarding Islam, Muslims and terrorists.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2006/02/islam-religion-of-peace-video-gallery.html
What exactly SHOULD he have said in answer to these questions? "The cartoons are accurate, Mohammed was a piece of sh*t"?
That would go over REALLY well with our Muslim allies like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
I think a lot of people are overreacting to this statement, and most aren't even reading the whole thing.
The state department should agree with the Muslims that no images should be printed but for diffeent reasons; saying they are against the sensationalism and attention given to child molesters and ask if the pubic is comfortable with the fact that the prophet Muhammad married a six year old child, when he was 55 years old? Do you think this is a good story to tell children?
We must notify our government that we the people are not ready to become subservient and pay our dhimmi tax, and wear our dhimmi clothes. If this keeps up, the tree of liberty could get watered....
Here is another one:
notice the background pictures
BRUSSELS JOURNAL.com: "'THE WAR IS ON'" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Yesterday (Thursday) Mullah Krekar, the alleged leader of the Islamist group Ansar al-Islam who has been living in Norway as a refugee since 1991, said that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons was a declaration of war. "The war has begun," he told Norwegian journalists. Mr Krekar said Muslims in Norway are preparing to fight. "It does not matter if the governments of Norway and Denmark apologize, the war is on.") (February 3, 2006)
ISLAMONLINE.net: Cairo - "WARNINGS CARTOONS RISK VIOLENCE" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "The blasphemous cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by a Danish daily and other European newspapers are risking to trigger acts of violence around the world, officials and commentators warn." (February 2, 2006)
Christians aren't supposed to be offended about the crucifix in a bottle of urine put on public display, financed with tax money provided by our own government.
But don't offend the "minorities", especially muslims, because, according to the same government, that would be wrong.
I must have gone down a rabbit hole, like "Alice in Wonderland" and wound up in the land of the insaned.
Has State Department surrendered to the muslims as yet?
Looks like Condi Rice has quite a bit of disciplining t do there.
MORE LAZY REPORTING FROM THE MEDIA
He thinks it is probably lazy reporting.
But look at how AFP headlined a brief story on the subject:
US blasts cartoons of Prophet Mohammed
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the beliefs of Muslims," State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said when queried about the furore sparked by the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper.
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility," Higgins told AFP.
Notice that AFP creates the impression in the headline that the U.S. has BLASTED the cartoons as though we are trying to censore them. THIS STATEMENT FROM HIGGINS WAS GIVEN IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY AND IN NO WAY IS TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THEY SHOULD BE CENSORED.
Notice also in the Daily press briefing how the reporters kept trying to get MacCormack, the spokesman to say that the U.S. would take some action.
It is my impression that the press is trying to create a controversy, and I'm afraid that a lot of people may be jumping to the wrong conclusion about the U.S. official position. It is getting late where I live, and I may not be on the forum much longer tonight so I may be a while in making any responses. I expect to be back on Sunday sometime so
I did that already.
202-456-1111. WH comment line.
THAT picture makes me physically ill....
Please take a look at the links in my #12.
That is not what he was trying to say.
Please read the links in my post #12.
So just where did the State Department get it wrong? They stand up for free speech. They recognize that the cartoons offended Muslims. They tell the idiots in the Middle East to look to their own portrayals of Jews and Christians before going off half cocked about the Mohamed cartoons. And they call upon everyone to settle down.
But all we got from press reports was the fact that the State Department seems to be condemning the Danes and other European publications for running the offending cartoons and an obligatory nod to the First Amendment.
And Powerline blog says:
McCormack's statement seems to me considerably closer to striking the correct balance than the press reports yesterday indicated, perhaps the best that could reasonably be hoped for under the circumstances.
Additionally, Little Green Footballs (and elsewhere) points out that in three different news wire reports, the same statements are attributed to three different people.
I know we'd all be shocked to discover our media had reported poorly, incompletely or tried to lead us all to the wrong conclusions, yesireee...
Yes, something is wrong. Please read what Rick Moran says about this "Janelle Hironimus." Follow the link in my post #12 about the lazy reporting.
I think the press ambushed some State Department people and spun up some statements (probably pretty innocuous) and tried to make it sound like the U.S. was BLASTING the cartoonists, and siding with the violent demonstrators.
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.