I am not distressed that the cartoons were published. If I were I’d phrase it differently. I would come out directly and say I was distressed that the cartoons were published. That places the burden of my distress on the creator and publisher rather than on those who took the simple cartoon so harshly.

Being distressed that there are crude animals roving the Earth who are capable of making a simple minded cartoon into death threats and riots is completely rational. Stopping people from creating and publish such cartoons is not. The onus for change is on those who are distressed.

{^_^}

I’d only give him a pass if he ended with “… now what about an apology for the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Turks?”

Blake on April 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM

What’s up Blake? Don’t you mean the Armenian genocide perpetrated on the Turks?
[Pre-snip of 500 lines of Turkish anti-armenian propaganda]

For those who are too young to remember this pre-blog Usenet event, take a look at: Serdar Argic or Usenet Spam

Frankly, I think Michael van der Galien’s insinuation of poll driven venality is pretty sleazy. Rasmussen was a beacon of sanity during the cartoon brouhaha. He drew clear lines in the sand that virtually no one else was willing to defend, and, contra van der Galien he did so at considerable domestic risk. How quickly we forget that Denmark has also been one of the only countries whose commitment to the mission in Iraq was unwavering!

Reagan may have issued some strongly worded statements, but as I recall, he was also pretty clear about not cutting off your nose to save your face by bad mouthing your allies. The current exercise in self-righteous outrage is perversely myopic on almost every level.

Rasmussen’s non-apology apology undercuts Islamist ability to stoke the fires against the Turkish government. It saved them the need for further public posturing, posturing which could only be a serious impediment to their unreserved participation in NATO operations. Like it or not, we need Turkey! It is a political and geographic lynchpin in the Middle East. Let’s not forget, it’s also one of the few countries in the region that has had a working relationship with Israel, a relationship that has become increasingly fragile.

Not only did Rasmussen just allow the current government to save major face by helping defuse internal Turkish controversy over his leadership of NATO, he did so a the very slight cost of throwing the Islamists what amounts to a rhetorical bone. Considering what will be gained in return, it’s the smartest bit of real diplomacy in action that we’ve seen for quite awhile. Alienating Turkish leadership does note serve our best interests. A secretary general of NATO who actually understands that does.

http://countrystudies.us/turkey/89.htm

Gives history and reasons for the delays in making Turkey a full member of the EU.

…

Specifically cite where he compromised in the manner you said he did…

Bizarro No. 1 on April 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM

He didn’t just state that, in a free society, cartoons will be drawn

“I respect Islam as one of the world’s major religions as well as its religious symbols,”

Why does he have to respect islam? What is there about islam that deserves respect? Nothing. This is a violation of his principle of secular, civilian government (assuming that he claims to hold such a principle).

”I was deeply distressed that the cartoons were seen by many Muslims as an attempt by Denmark to mark and insult or behave disrespectively toward Islam or the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing could be further from my mind,” Rasmussen said…

So what if it was an attempt by “Denmark” (as in the general feeling of Danes) to insult or disrespect islam? Would that make it wrong? Not if someone cherishes the notion of individual freedom. And this also violates any alleged principle of national sovereignty, letting Danes’ attitudes be cowed by non-Danish muslims.

This was a capitulation. Plain and simple.

btw, you just ooze thoughtfulness and intellectualism. Did you know that?

Bizarro No. 1 on April 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Yes, I do know that. You, however, go off on tangents, demonstrate an inability to identify and focus on the issues being discussed, and get a boner over Coulter and Malkin.

If individual freedom, national sovereignty, and secular, civilian government are his principles, then he certainly did compromise them, and worse.

progressoverpeace on April 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Specifically cite where he compromised in the manner you said he did…

Are you on drugs?

Blake on April 6, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Duuuuuuuuuuude, I recently drank a cup of caffeinated cola. Faaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrr out, man!!! Is that trippy enough for ya?

btw, you just ooze thoughtfulness and intellectualism. Did you know that?

Compromising your principles is, though, and Rasmussen didn’t do anything of that sort in his ‘apology’.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM

If individual freedom, national sovereignty, and secular, civilian government are his principles, then he certainly did compromise them, and worse.

So you think that there is only two ways to be political…Ann Coulter or Ronald Reagan.

You shouldn’t assume an ‘either/or’ there; I was merely contrasting their persuasive abilities.

No one in her/his right mind would believe that on any given issue that they’d agree upon, Reagan wouldn’t get more political support for it from his opposition than Ann would. There is a good reason for that, isn’t there? warmth > coldness

And you think that RR was always diplomatic…like when he said “Tear Down this Wall”…

He was brutal on the regimes that he considered evil…He ridiculed them, threatened them, challenged, and he never backed down. Always from a position of strength…he understood negotiations. You negotiate from strength, not weakness, and our enemies understood it…Just ask Kadafi.

right2bright on April 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM

There’s a time and place for harsh rhetoric. Being tactful and diplomatic by knowing when to hold your tongue isn’t a sign of weakness. Compromising your principles is, though, and Rasmussen didn’t do anything of that sort in his ‘apology’.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Put down the crack pipe!

Something nobody mentioned yet: if he said this years ago he would have saved his countrys businesses billions. Instead, he acted tough. Why? Domestic politics? Reelection?

I would imagine Rasmussen did not want to alienate his coalition partners, the Danish People’s Party. The boycott was unsuccessful in the end. The lost revenue was offset by the Buy Danish campaign.

Short of AFR declaring: “Islam sucks”, I doubt many in this crowd could would have accepted any he said.

Unfortunately, it looks to be that way, doesn’t it?

The man is the best choice to lead NATO that we could have and they fail to see the forest through the trees. I don’t often disagree with MM, but this time I do.

Renwaa on April 6, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I am with you on this. What relatively tactless people like MM and Ann Coulter don’t understand as well as people like Reagan and the Apostle Paul did is the adage ‘you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.’

Wow, he’s not hard on the eyes”

caygeon on April 6, 2009 at 11:45 AM

You and Silvio Burlosconi agree:

On his first meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 2002, Berlusconi complimented him with the words: “Mr Rasmussen is not only a great colleague, he’s also the best-looking prime minister in Europe.”

He added: “He’s so good looking, I’m even thinking of introducing him to my wife.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7715016.stm

Turkey is a NATO member, and has been for over 50 years.

starfleet_dude on April 6, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Thanks. I thought so. But the other day I read something that stated they weren’t. I should have double checked myself. So, eff ‘em. There is no reason for them to act like a bunch of islamo-nuts.

If you want to argue that if Ronald Reagan would have accomplished as much as he did politically having Ann Coulter’s personality instead of having the one he did possess, be my guest. Be surprised only if I don’t laugh at you then! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on April 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Are you on drugs?

If you want to argue that if Ronald Reagan would have accomplished as much as he did politically having Ann Coulter’s personality instead of having the one he did possess, be my guest. Be surprised only if I don’t laugh at you then! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on April 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM

So you think that there is only two ways to be political…Ann Coulter or Ronald Reagan.
And you think that RR was always diplomatic…like when he said “Tear Down this Wall”…

“The years ahead will be great ones for our country, for the cause of freedom and the spread of civilization. The West will not contain Communism; it will transcend Communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we’ll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.”

“It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history…. [It is] the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”

It was an act of barbarism born of a society which wantonly disregards individual rights and the value of human life and seeks constantly to expand and dominate other nations.”

“My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

He was brutal on the regimes that he considered evil…He ridiculed them, threatened them, challenged, and he never backed down. Always from a position of strength…he understood negotiations. You negotiate from strength, not weakness, and our enemies understood it…Just ask Kadafi.

The turks want to join NATO more than we want the turks to join.

Turkey is a NATO member, and has been for over 50 years.

He didn’t acknowledge that the Danes did anything wrong, he didn’t say he respected Islam’s tenets, and he said he’d pay attention to different people’s sensibilities during his tenure. Big whoop!

What was detrimentally conciliatory about that ‘apology’ – he said nothing of substance?! What are MM and Michael van der Galien upset about anyways? Oh, I see, they don’t like that he wasn’t as harsh as they wanted him to be!

What I gather is that they doesn’t understand diplomacy very well.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Short of AFR declaring: “Islam sucks”, I doubt many in this crowd could would have accepted any he said. The man is the best choice to lead NATO that we could have and they fail to see the forest through the trees. I don’t often disagree with MM, but this time I do.