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.
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.