Whodunnit?
A very sobering account of how the moderate Muslim leadership in Europe started the current 'row' over the offensive cartoons. As opposed to my childish display below.
But tell me what is more offensive, my baiting Muslims and idiot liberals, or this:
Keen to "globalize" the crisis to pressure the Danish government, Mr. Abu-Laban and his colleagues decided to send delegations to the Middle East. They prepared a dossier to distribute during the travels. The document, which exceeded 30 pages, featured copies of the published cartoons and Arabic media reports about the controversy. It also contained a group of highly offensive pictures that had never been published by the newspaper, including a photograph of a man dressed as a pig, with the caption: "this is the real picture of Muhammad."
Or perhaps this (via instapundit):
Speaking by phone, AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll told The Chronicle, "The cartoons didn't meet our long-held standards for not moving offensive content. The AP is not just an indiscriminate warehouse for information. We put a lot of care into what we put on the wire."
The first is from a Wall Street Journal article discussing a very concerted effort involving 'moderate' Muslim governments and 'moderate' Western Muslim leaders to incite violence against the West. The second is the mealy-mouthed response of the Associated Press, quoted from a post from Harry Shearer at the Huffington Post as to why the AP won't run the cartoons in question.
Harry's point (not understood by more than a few of the commenters to his post), was that the AP was low enough to run pictures of Janet Jackson's nipple for titillation, but an important event in history didn't rate. Kudos to Harry; who, if memory serves, is not a Nixon republican. He gets this one.
