Posted on 02/04/2006 2:07:02 PM PST by Cap Huff
Good to "see" you, Eurotwit. You have a great weekend, too.
Will do; I'm slamming a few threads about this matter.
Thank you, FreeReign. This snippet is missing from the quote at the top of this thread. I am certain that it was just a minor oversight from the media.
Cap, this does put this into to proper perspective for me. I apologize for my rant at you.
Man, that press conference with the US State Dept is great dialogue, ain't it?
Excerpt from http://www.theaustrailiannews.com.au
I'd rather listen to a dog take a dump than a state department puke.
I don't have a lot of time right now to parse every word in detail, but I do think we can look a bit at the context.
Suppose you were a LtCol serving in Iraq, responsible for the lives of several men and women serving in a predominantly Muslim country. You're spending a lot of time dealing with local sheiks and perhaps local religious leaders, trying to work through delicate issues. Would you want our State Department to come out with a statement like, "We fully support the right of Danish cartoonists to publish whatever they want concerning Mohammed, and we vigorously condemn any attempts to stop them."
Do you think that would make your job easier or harder?
Notice that Sistani has taken a moderate stance on the issue. We need that to continue.
Notice also that the Danish troops in Iraq had a fatwa issued against them (I'm deeply upset by that by the way). We can't afford to have that happen right now to our military.
I think the State Department made a reasonable attempt to make the best of a bad situation. I'm not entirely happy with the position, but it will have to do for now.
Most normal people don't take to the streets. It's the freeks that do, even in our country. And it's our MSM that has a long history of displaying freekish street rioters as common.
I ask you how many Muslims were in the streets around the world rioting because of a stupid carton? Now, subtract that number from 900 million.
Meanwhile, many Muslims around the world express their "outrage" in such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan by joining in us in the War on radical Islam.
MSM doesn't like that.
Here's how I understand that statement. He is speaking for the government now, 'We find them offensive'. He put in his 2 cents worth. He should have said this is a first amendment issue and let it go, but he didn't. He sided with the burn baby burn islamist that are torching whatever they feel like torching in the name of offended islam. They can turn to our SD and say, looky, the US government agrees with us.
As far as his statement that 'OTHERS' may find them offensive, who but the islamist finds them offensive?
Where am I wrong in my analysis of his statement?
"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."
Nevertheless, the State Department is a pack of Weasels and always has been. They seem to bend over backwards to serve anyone but the U.S.
No need to apologize. We're all just trying to work through this thing. We're all emotional about it, and rightly so. This is right at the faultline in a life or death struggle of civilizations. Wretchard at Belmont has some thought provoking perspectives about where we are at in this situation:
http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/
He's timing out on me right now, but look at his entry on William Manchester. It is awesome, and unsettling.
It's a good thing Capp Huff posted the full context, isn't it.
Pack of weasels? Yes. There have been far too many weenies with their own agendas over there. I don't trust them very far, but I trust the MSM even less. In this case, I think the press is getting the best of us.
Ya think? After reading comments about it for the past day or so, and now seeing the transcript, I feel some of us live in an alternate universe.
Man, that press conference with the US State Dept is great dialogue, ain't it?
Excerpt from http://www.theaustrailiannews.com.au
I wonder if the physical exam for State Department employees requires candidates to posses no testosterone?
I would imagine that he had seen the cartoons, but would not want to admit it in that context. Nevertheless, one would not have had to have seen drawings to find their content offensive. There have been several anti-Christian so-called works of art that I have not seen, but from reasonable description of their content, I find them offensive.
He had to say something and he gave it a reasonable, but not perfect shot.
With a caveat.
a warning enjoining one from certain acts or practices.
In my opinion, he was saying go ahead, the first amendment is there, but remember, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so be forewarned. That sounds an awful lot like appeasement to me.
We have newspapers in this country giving away security secrets and I haven't heard the SD come out on that issue yet. On the other hand, we have islamofacist that want us dead and they're walking on egg shells so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities.
I would like to ask Mr. McCormack, just how does he arrive at a 'minority' designation of billion + Muslims?
Even if they were a "minority', why should their beliefs supersede our rights?
it does give the perspective we have SD in positions to piss on the public, and laugh about it.
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.