[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.

[processing please hold]

at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views.

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.