State Department Response to Cartoon Controversy

U.S. Department of State Press Briefing ^ | 3 February 2006 | Sean McCormack, Spokesman

[ARealMothersSonForever]

That is not what he was trying to say.

Please elucidate, oh mighty sage. Exactly what is he trying to say? Perchance it is a dhimmi "tariff". Or even that it is acceptable to stifle American media so as not to offend the sensibilities of people that have openly and overtly declared a war against us? Extra credit for being concise.

[indcons]

Good points....thanks for the clarifications.

[Hawk1976]

Gee, those idiots at the state department are just as bad as any enemy we have. He should have said freedom of speech means you can say what you want, even if it offends others.

Instead it looks like he was saying WE find them offensive. WHY? I don't know about him but I have more sense than that.

It doesn't matter, so it's cartoons this time. Seriously is there a point where muslims aren't running through the streets with rocks and torches?

[Cap Huff]

I think you've got it right.

The press is spinning this, and I'm afraid some bloggers, and more than a few freepers saw "US blasts cartoons of Prophet Mohammed" and believed the headline, the spin, and have gone off half cocked.

[goodwithagun]

Let me get this strait. They can kill us but we can't publish "offensive" cartoons of them. I think we are getting screwed.

[Cap Huff]

"we can't publish "offensive" cartoons"

That is not what the State Department spokesman said or implied. He said that the decision to publish something like this is solely the decision of the editor.

[Cap Huff]

Here's what he said:

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.

[Eurotwit]

I don't like the US State Departments respone, but I understand it.

McCormick's statements in context are a lot better than what was earlier published.

I watched a clip of his statements on BBC World at the same time I was on the first thread about this. I though. What the hell, this is way better than what has been published on this thread.

On the balance of things, I think it is somewhat healthy for Europeans to deal with this. Largely, it is a European issue, CAIR nonwithstanding, and Europe needs to solve this if Europen civilazation is to have a future on the European contintent.

I appologize for the hyperbole.

I have had a few Carlsberg's tonight :-)

Cheers.

[KJC1]

Thank you for sticking around, because I find it frustrating that so many people are not reading the statement and what it does and does NOT say.

Sheesh. The DUmmies are already fueling their new lie to spread, which is "Bush is siding with the torchers." Sadly, that lie is getting too much steam here on FR.

[Peach]

This is not nearly as bad a response as the media have tried to portray it. Thanks for posting the full transcript.

[Cap Huff]

Yes, I too am not entirely thrilled with the State Department response, but I see how the press is distorting the position for their own purposes.

Enjoy the beer! Its Saturday night!

[FreeReign]

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.

Yes, the comment you posted from that blog is right on target.

[Cap Huff]

Yes, its about midnight where I live. I'll have to go soon, but I do hope the word gets out that we're most likely being manipulated by the press. At least they are trying.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

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.

The parsing of words is being defended by you. Cap, I respect you, and genuinely appreciate your stance. For the life of me, it is difficult to interpret the State Department position as supportive of the inalienable right to free expression. Seriously, I would appreciate your breakdown.

[Cap Huff]

My pleasure. Please do spread the word about the details of this position. Thanks.

[Eurotwit]

I agree. I was very angry when I saw the first post on this, then I heard McCormick's comments I was somewhat heartened.

He made a very strong defense for freedom of speech.

Have a great weekend, Peach.

Cheers.

[TankerKC]

Neil Boortz has a good rant on this:

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[xcamel]

I believe the deputy dimwit at the state dept. that made the first comment had the last name of "Kurtis"

[FreeReign]

For the life of me, it is difficult to interpret the State Department position as supportive of the inalienable right to free expression.

McCormack | Excerpt: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.

[processing please hold]

As I stated on another thread, when the SD came out with their first statement, I called the WH yesterday and said quiet a few things to the lady taking calls. I was very irate with her. Kept it on the line, but let her know what I was so angry about.