[processing please hold]

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.

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?

[FreeReign]

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.

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.

It's a good thing Capp Huff posted the full context, isn't it.