If it's such a no-brainier that the U.S. should have been represented by someone of consequence at that rally, then why did every one of those people he referenced in his article decide not to attend?
Seriously, obviously it was the powers on high. The only reason I can think of I mentioned on a thread last night. Obama made that statement about "the future does not belong . . . ." (and I included the whole thing which included other peoples and religions) to those who satirize the Islamic prophet.
Since that Charlie publisher made their living on trashing other religions and cultures with cartoons (some question if one who lampooned Jews was fired, I don't know). Anyway, I think they didn't like that but we could have gone in support of the Jews in the supermarket.
That's why I used the word transcend. Many there may not have liked satirical cartoons, I don't know, I wouldn't circulate them publicly but might chuckle privately over some, some had political conflicts, but it's way more about that, freedom to make them which I would have to defend.
Or they could be sending some other message only they know.