Is this true about Bill Cllinton?????

[neverevergivein]

Here is an article that states the Clinton wants the publishers that printed the Mohammed cartoons CONVINCTED of a crime. Someone debunk this for me. Sorry, regardless of how you feel about the taste of publishing them, there is NO WAY we can call that criminal. Is there?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C18%5Cstory_18-2-2006_pg1_7

ISLAMABAD: Former US president Bill Clinton on Friday condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers.

[Totally Committed]

1. I read this the other day...

He feels, if I understand his thinking, that it would show us to be sensitive to the Muslim cultures who oppose these cartoons.

No further comment.

TC

[sui generis]

2. I only heard him say that he "condemned" the publication

as irresponsible.

Just the same, no sovereign nation should ever be forced to place freedom of religion above freedom of speech. I disagree strongly with Clinton on this one.

The real problem has nothing to do with fucking cartoons.

[OKNancy]

3. Discussion last week on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2466839&mesg_id=2466839

[neverevergivein]

4. ooops, guess I missed that

thanks for the link. Still disappointing. But I'll wait until we find out more.

[HardWorkingDem]

5. Let's see...does that mean the Islamic religious fellow who...

created a dossier with ADDITIONAL and more pornographic images and then sent this around the world for others to see?

According to Time magazine and 60 Minutes, a religious leader gathered additional graphics and sent them out to sort of piggyback on the printed 12 images.

There is a great deal more to this story than most are reporting.

[NativeTexan]

6. I DON'T see ONE QUOTE....

....in the entire article. Just "he saids". Probably taken out of context. If not, I can guarantee you that whatever his answer was, it was based on real thought and study. Not some lobbyist whispering in his ear about what to say.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. I have to part ways with him on this one

You either have freedom of speech and expression or you don't.

Good taste, sensitivity, etc. are nice, but in a free society they have no legal standing.

This is a clash of cultures and creed. Freedom of expression is valued less than religious dogma in some cultures. If we give in to that now, what can we look to when the Christian right wants to do the same thing?

[11cents]

8. No.

As was pointed out in the previous thread, there's no quote in any article where Clinton says the publishers should be convicted. (If he had said that, it would have been major news here!) This article, and only this one, added the false paraphrase "and urged countries to convict the publishers."