General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Denounces Anti-Islam Film as "Reprehensible" in Powerful Statement
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:38 PM - Edit history (2)
..given at the State Department in front of an evidently Moroccan audience. This begs the question, will Mitt Romney scurry out to demean our Secretary of State for denouncing the anti-Muslim film?
"The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message," she said at the start of talks with senior Moroccan officials. "To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage."
Just posted at National Journal:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear on Thursday that the U.S. government had nothing to do with an anti-Muslim film she personally finds disgusting and reprehensible as protests over it spread to Yemen after assaults on embassy compounds in Egypt and Libya.
"The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video," Clinton said alongside Moroccos Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Saad-Eddine Al-Otmani at the State Department. ... We have the greatest respect for people of faith this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to promote rage."
Clinton stressed that the U.S. has a history of free expression, and the government does not stop individuals from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be, Still, Clinton said, violence in response to speech is not acceptable."
There is no justification, none at all, to respond to this video with violence," she said. "We condemn this violence in the strongest terms.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/clinton-u-s-government-had-nothing-to-do-with-anti-muslim-film-20120913
Will continue to look for further transcript or video of this powerful speech. And all I can say is, "Hillary 2016".
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)nor he will not smack them down.
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)the violence that is occuring. She was simply breathtaking in her poise and statesmanship.
I only hope the full video is released soon !
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)simple and to the point.
sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)living under a government that controlled every aspect of their lives. Their governments did determine what movies and videos were released. So, not fully understanding our democracy and laws, they hold our government responsible for the release of this video/film.
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)she hit exactly the right notes.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)K Gardner
(14,933 posts)ananda
(28,864 posts)nt
jillan
(39,451 posts)times where you should stop and think if your speech could cause harm to fellow Americans here and abroad.
Something like that... something that just states that words have consequences, without taking issue with the first amendment.
Yes it is a fine line to walk.
But - Dubya had no problem walking that line.
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)JohnnyLib2
(11,212 posts)My wife and I are in the same age group and well aware of how women were typically perceived as her public life began.
She's made a remarkable change in the role of women......
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)I think, was the best thing that could have happened to her. I do hope she will run in 2016.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)alfredo
(60,074 posts)K Gardner
(14,933 posts)as we speak. The actors were not informed they were going to be "dubbed over" and the film was produced under a pseudonym.
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)This all looks murky and suspicious to me. But then I have my tinfoil hat on today.
longship
(40,416 posts)R&
Ebadlun
(336 posts)There are at least two different concepts in it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)K Gardner
(14,933 posts)Mohammed knows there is no comparing the two.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)K Gardner
(14,933 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)What's your point?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)lapislzi
(5,762 posts)Everyone is free to offend. I like to think of myself as an equal-opportunity offender. I dislike all religions just about equally and find them all ridiculous. I'm not afraid to say so, even though I know that somebody will find even the mildest criticism offensive. If I let fly with what I really think about religion, I'd have no friends at all except for a few like-minded atheists.
Put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Maybe the civil war had some freedom of speech going on too. I am not ok with making an exception for freedom of speech because some assholes decided to murder. We've had enough of our rights taken away and or minimized. As for your petty attempt to insult me with your "Put on your big boy pants" I'll take it for what that is ...childish.
...and the government does not stop individuals from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be, Still, Clinton said, violence in response to speech is not acceptable."
Not sure I understand your point since you are free to call what Maher did vile and reprehensible as well.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)You may not like it, but it's perfectly OK to make a film ridiculing anyone. It was perfectly "OK" to make the "The Innocence of Islam," but it is inflammatory and offensive.
A film ridiculing Jesus would likely elicit the same condemnation from Secretary Clinton, especially if it could be linked to violence and loss of life.
Sorry, but nobody has the right not to be offended. That "right" doesn't exist. There are adult ways of dealing with your offended state, and violence should not be on that list.
What is your game?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I blame the murderers.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)K Gardner
(14,933 posts)this statement.