Posted on 02/03/2006 1:31:35 PM PST by thierrya
US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute Fri Feb 3, 2006 3:28 PM ET
By Saul Hudson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States backed Muslims on Friday against European newspapers that printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could help America's battered image in the Islamic world.
Inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States sided with Muslims outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
American Muslims welcomed the U.S. position, although it stopped short of urging American media not to republish the cartoons that include depicting Mohammad as a terrorist.
Cooper said he had no comment as to why the United States chose to pass judgment in a dispute that ostensibly does not involve America.
But the United States, which was founded by immigrants fleeing religious persecution, has previously spoken out against publications offensive to believers of other faiths.
"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
The United States, which before the September 11 attacks was criticized for insensitivity to the Islamic culture, has become more attuned to Muslim sensibilities.
Accusations last year that U.S. officials desecrated the Koran sparked deadly riots in Asia and heightened that awareness.
DIFFERENT RESPONSE IN U.S. AND EUROPE
Major U.S. publications have not republished the cartoons.
In contrast, some European media responded to the criticism against the Danish newspaper that originally printed the caricatures by reproducing the images and fueled anger that has led to boycotts of Danish products and widespread protests.
The U.S. response contrasted with European governments, which have tended to acknowledge the tension between free speech and respect for religion but have generally accepted the newspapers' rights to print the cartoons.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, told Reuters he welcomed the U.S. position.
The State Department reaction "was a strong statement in support of Muslims around the world. It's a reflection of the concern felt by millions of Muslims and I think it will be appreciated," he said.
"It is support for an understanding that with freedom comes responsibility."
But Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a Bush administration critic, said the United States was responsible for creating far more anger in the Muslim world because of its invasion of Iraq.
"The United States is the last nation that should caution against unnecessarily inflaming sentiments in the Muslim world," he said.
The U.S. criticism of the newspapers also comes after the Pentagon complained over a Washington Post cartoon.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff sent an unusual letter to the editor published on Thursday, denouncing as "reprehensible" and "beyond tasteless" a cartoon earlier in the week portraying Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as insensitive to U.S. troop casualties.
The cartoon portrayed a soldier who had lost his arms and legs with Rumsfeld at his hospital bedside saying, "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'"
(Additional reporting by Caroline Drees)
I just checked out a photo of that figure of old Mo on the Supreme Court. The sculptor has him dressed like a judge, and looking like George Washington. Not much of a representation of the Prophet I guess. But he is depicted with Koran in hand. Since he couldn't read or write, I don't know what he was supposed to be doing with it. Might be useful for beating his wives.
Obviously they are not making either very clear. Best they should just keep their mouths shut.
She is, and so is President Bush, but they aren't God and do not have their eye on every sparrow (or buzzard) that falls. We'll have to watch what they do and say themselves in reaction to the statement of this State department spokeslime.
We know with some certainty that State is rife with Clinton holdovers, globalists, socialists, traitors, moles, Arab Street denizens and probably a spy or two.
However, the State Dept. SPOKESMAN himself wouldn't have opened his mouth on this without the permission of Pres. Bush through Secy. Rice.
State is our Achilles heel. A thorough house-cleaning was never done. However, this stupid position on the cartoons comes right from GW's hopes to make the Islams like us. They will not appreciate this olive branch. The Administration should have kept its nose AND mouth out of this brouhaha.
There goes a big part of the base again. Sheesh!
Leni
bttt
The sad part about all this, the cartoons are probably some of the most factual information currently on the internet regarding islam!
Don't be so certain. Is he the chief spokesman, or one of lower rank? Is he a poltical appointee, or a civil servant?
To answer my own question, he's a "Press officer" who works in the office of Press Relations, under Chief Press Relations Serv. Julie Reside, who in turn works for the Director of Press Relations Tom Casey, who works for either one of the Deputy Assistant Press Secretaries or the Deputy Press Secretaries, who in turn work for the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Robert A. Tappan, who works for Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman Sean McCormack, who reports through Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Huges (A name you might recognize) who reports to Secretary Rice .
So most likely he's far enough down the pecking order to be a civil servant, and thus only nominally responsible to Secreatry Rice. In any event, he's far from the spokesman for the State Department, at best he's a spokesman for a small subsection of it.
See the State Department Directory and the State Department Organzation Chart.
Yeah, no kidding! It's when I read crap such as this that makes me wonder how long it will be before this nation is controlled by Muslims.
Our State Department sucks. They better learn which side they are on.
Disagree, this was free, a classy thing to say.
Not commenting on the behavior of the people, just that respect for folks belief is good.
Not sayin Jihadists got a point,or that we are gonna stop huntin' 'em down to kill 'em.
There are one billion Muslims folks.
Vast majority don't buy Jihadism.
Remember too, it is State, diplomacy, for free points.
A freebie.
Classy thing to say.
Ties into Bush's wise point and fundamental premise/hope,that we can learn to live together.
This is not a war against one Billion Muslims.
It is a war against jihadist Islamofascist idiot terrorists.
We still gonna kill them when we find em.
Most avidly.
Are you implying he was so far down in the spokespeeple pecking order that no one in the world would pay attention to what critical things he was saying because he's a nobody?
Or are you implying that he was a rogue low-level spokesman shooting off his mouth without authorization from above?
Funny, I've seen no reprimand to him for saying what he said. I've seen no denials from the State Dept. or the White House in contradiction to what he said.
Obviously, then, this spokesman spoke on the issue with permission from the highest level.
More than likely he may have been low enough on the totem pole to be assigned the task of outlining the U.S. policy while at the same time charitably serving as the Administration's lightning rod for incoming flack from outraged citizens.
There is very little that is not planned ahead of time in the political Big Leagues.
Leni
I'm saying it's possible, not so much that he was a rogue, but rather that he was speaking for a small faction within state, and not for the higher ups. If the people he is spokesman for authorized his statement then they'd be the ones who would be rightly reprimanded. But you'd likely never hear of it. It's quite possible that no one authorized or endorsed what he said, because it was a response to a question, not part of a prepared statement.
This guy is so far down I don't think there is anyone under him. Maybe some admin types to type up his releases. I didn't have time to try to figure out exactly which entities within the State Department he is spokesman for, as it seems the "Press Officers" each cover certain organizations within the State Department. It's on the directory listing, but you'd have to cross check that with the org chart or with the headings on the sections of the directory.
Funny, I've seen no reprimand to him for saying what he said. I've seen no denials from the State Dept. or the White House in contradiction to what he said.
And it's been how long since he made the statement? The Story is datelined Fri Feb 3, 2006 3:28 PM ET, and it doesn't really give the context in which the question was asked, nor when it was made. Was it a formal news conference, a telephone interview with someone the Reuters person knew would be sympathetic to the Muslims? Followed by a call to CAIR for their "reaction". You see any formal release or statement on the State Department site? I didn't but I'll check again....It wasn't in either today's, yesterday's or Wednesday's daily briefing, as those were conducted by THE state department spokesman, Sean McCormack.There was no formal release on the subject either.
Cutting to the chase, if you read or hear that the White House denies they're agreeing with the outraged Islams in this affair, give me a ping.
Leni
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.