Politics

Another Post I have recovered from my corrupt backup database files. Woo Hoo Outdated now but what the heck I wrote it.

Conducting a search for information relating to the cartoon situation brings up sites that refer to this statment attributed to Kurtis Cooper at the State Department.

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of Islam’s Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

“These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims,” State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. “We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”

I have searched all over and can not find any reference to this statement. It is not in the Daily Briefing and if it is I sure can not find it. Perhaps I missed it?

Meanwhile, the list of worldwide news sites that are covering the reaction to this story is buiding. Editorials and blogs are debating the issue. America v Europe. Europe v Muslims. But, I still can not confirm that anyone at our State Department made any statement close to this. Time will tell.

Now, once again, I am left wondering whom to believe. Is the rest of the world misquoting , creating propaganda, or misinformed? If they are misinformed, who or what, is responisble for the initial distribution of the bad information. If the information is correct, why can I not find documentation to something a State Department Spokesperson has said as easy as I can locate what someone across the globe has written.

I will keep looking.

Here we go. If we got this upset over domestic spying issues . . . it seems cartoons are drawing attention to the issue of censorship.

Syrians set fire to the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus in protest at the publication of newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Denamark and Norway have condemned Syria for not stopping the attacks on their embassies over the publication of the cartoons.

“Across the continent, nearly two dozen other newspapers have joined in defending that principle. While Islamist clerics proclaim an ”international day of anger” or declare that ”the war has begun,” leading publications in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have reprinted the Danish cartoons. But there has been no comparable show of backbone in America, where (as of Friday) only the New York Sun has had the fortitude to the run some of the drawings.

Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended. Today the censors may be coming for some unfunny Mohammed cartoons, but tomorrow it is your words and ideas they will silence. Like it or not, we are all Danes now.”

Complete Article: Boston Globe

EDIT INSERT: I must admit that this is gettting way out of hand. The 12 cartoons with caricatures of the prophet Mohammad (considered blasphemous by Muslims) were originally published by The Jyllands-Posten daily, one of Denmark’s largest newspapers, on Sept. 30, 2005.. Why now?

Daily Press Briefing from the State Department; they did discuss the Danish cartoons – scroll down:

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.

The American population bases many of their decisions on what they have read, heard, or viewed on television.

How many citizens have read the “Information Operations Roadmap”?

Except:

“information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa”

“the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices.”

Off and on little bleeps concerning Bush’s early plans to attack Iraq have been discussed. Now, A memo has been released about this very subject, with little if no coverage in American news. Cold Flute has a great blog article, More Memos from the British, by Poechewe, on this subject.

The present administration has taken advantage of the fury of fear that Sept. 11th created in the American population. Bush has ordered the NSA, FBI, Pentagon, and the CIA to expand domestic spying operations to levels we have never seen before.

As always I question the validity of the information and dis-information that shapes my opinions.