Has John Kerry made any statements about the Danish cartoons?

[beachmom]

I haven't heard anything, but here is a recent Andrew Sullivan post (www.andrewsullivan.com):

A Danish reader writes:

"Allow me to illustrate what we're up against here and why the people of Denmark have every right to refuse to tolerate or appease Muslim intolerance. Back in the 1980's I covered a murder trial for a Copenhagen tabloid. The victim was a woman from a family of Kurdish guest workers newly arrived in Denmark from Turkey. Her crime was to divorce her husband in order to support herself and their children through honest labor. By doing so, she violated the family's so-called "honor" and enraged her father in-law to the point where he ordered his two youngest sons to revenge this blatant violation of his patriarchal prerogative. Returning home in the early morning hours after a night spent cleaning offices she was set upon by her teenaged brothers in-law who stabbed her repeatedly before leaving her to bleed to death in the street.

Now try to imagine the impact of this horror in Denmark, a country with very low crime rates and also one of - if not the most - advanced countries in the world in terms of equality between the sexes. Danes have a long and proud tradition of tolerating and protecting minorities whether they be religious, sexual or otherwise. When Protestants from the 17th century fled Catholic persecution in - what was then - the Spanish Netherlands, they were welcomed with open arms in Denmark. Jews have practiced their religion freely in Denmark and were so seamlessly integrated into the national fabric that looking the other way and pretending not to notice simply wasn't an option for their Christian compatriots when the Nazi occupiers came knocking on Jewish doors in 1943. What I'm trying to say here is that Danes have a proven track record of openness, fairness and tolerance. We are however most intolerant towards those who would limit or abolish those freedoms we simply take for granted."

I have to say I am ashamed that the West has not been more forthright in defending the Danes. That idiots like John Kerry and Bill Clinton would call standing up to Islamist intimidation bigotry appalls me. The West has a right to say that all its citizens have an inviolable right to free speech, and that all its female - and gay and Jewish - citizens have a right not to submit to medieval barbarism. Period.

I'm just going to put my cards on the table: I 100% agree with Andrew Sullivan on this issue. I support freedom of speech, both the good, the bad, and the ugly. I agree that the world is full of shades of gray, but either you're for freedom of speech or you're not. And it angers me that a bunch of extremists start lighting things on fire and killing people, and that means that we have to lie down, and do what they say. Dennmark is a VERY liberal country, and I think * is a total wussy (and we can discuss why Andrew Sullivan isn't criticizing the POTUS instead of a former president or former presidential candidate, but I digress) and Bill Clinton, too. Since I have not read any statements by JK, I will reserve judgment on that. But if his answer is similar to the other two, then I will have to respectfully disagree with him on this issue.

[TayTay]

1. This is all I found and it's very incomplete.

“These and other inflammatory images deserve our scorn, just as the violence against embassies and military installations are an unacceptable and intolerable form of protest,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). ----
Bush Shifts on Muslim Protests; Violence Is Criticized, Not the Cartoons
Jim VandeHei
Source: The Washington Post
Date: February 09, 2006

For what it's worth, the cartoons are deeply offensive to some people in the Muslim faith. (Most people in fact. That faith does not allow depictions of the Prophet and link such things with idolatry.)

I think it is also true that the certain violent extremists within the Islamist/Separatist movement are flaming the fires of this for political reasons and to gain adherents for their cause.

I echo what Sen. Kerry said. The cartoons are offensive and I would not champion them and I certainly would never champion violence of any sort. And I think that we are being 'played' on this by violent factions that just want to enflame a deeper hatred against the West. (There was free speech. The cartoons were printed. That fulfilled free speech. This is the reaction to that free speech. It is ugly, violent and is fanning the flames of hatred. That is the paradox of free speech, which, like so many other things, exists in a genuine grey area.)

[MH1]

2. There's a long way from "inflammatory...deserve scorn"

to "bigotry".

One could hardly expect Sullivan to provide a link to Kerry's or Clinton's alleged statements, though, huh.

Although I have to say, I tend to lean more toward "free speech" on this one myself. OTOH, there's a point where all sides should just settle down and go back to their respective corners for awhile, and stop demanding to exercise their rights at just this particular moment. (Like Sharon insisting he had the right to take a contingent of Israeli soldiers with him to visit a holy site, knowing that it would piss off the Palestinians - thus triggering the post-Oslo intifada and creating a more favorable political climate for his own election to prime minister....never mind the death, destruction, and suffering caused by him exercising that "right").

[TayTay]

3. Well, that plus Andrew Sullivan is mixing apples and oranges

He is mixing up the idea of honor killings with what happened when the cartoons were published. One did not cause the other. Sullivan is taking a page out of the Rove playbook to confuse, confuse, and confuse and hope that the audience only sees violence=cartoons=loony people.

I disagree. This issue is much more involved than what Sullivan posted about. (And since when do Rethugs give a damn about the honor killings in Pakistan or anywhere else where a repressive regime is helping DickHead Bush to wage his war. Sullivan is brave when it comes to a blanket condemnation of such abuses of the rights of women. Now, has he taken the Bush Admin to task head-on for not bringing this up every single day to the leaders in Pakistan or is he content to make comments about the absolutism of free speech knowing that he doesn't have to be in the way of any consequences of that 'free speech.' It's easy to do from afar.)

[ginnyinWI]

10. If the cartoonist had had any idea of the reaction

to these cartoons, he probably wouldn't have done them. You don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But equally to blame are the Muslim leaders who deliberately fanned the flames. Kind of Rovian. According to the radio show "On Point", it took them several months to get this particular fire going. Nice job, guys. :sarcasm:

So there is blame on both sides, but more on those Muslim leaders. And knowing the reaction it got, it's right that other Western media don't publish them. There are other kinds of things censored and nobody complains, like Nazi symbols, which are illegal in Germany. Most of the time these things aren't so harmful, but you never know who is going to try to exploit them. Muslims here in America and elsewhere aren't starting riots--further proof that some group has deliberately made it worse for their own political benefit.

The real victims are the everyday Muslims in the Middle East who have been used as pawns. Some of them are getting hurt and killed over this.

[karynnj]

4. Your point is well taken that he doesn't go after Bush

It may be that he implicitly is giving Democrats more credit for tolerance and for standing up for personal rights. His use of the word "idiots" is disgusting.

I think though - HE is far in the minority here. Kerry's statement is very well balanced. I have absolutely no problem with it. Freedom of expresson absolutely doesn't preclude people from saying the resulting expression is disgusting (or deserving of scorn). Kerry is using his freedom of expression to say the cartoons are deserving of scorn. He's not saying they shouldn't exist. It might be that Kerry's own respect for both other people and for religion makes these cartoons offensive.

Sullivan over states his case by saying "The West has a right to say that all its citizens have an inviolable right to free speech, and that all its female - and gay and Jewish - citizens have a right not to submit to medieval barbarism. " I think Sullivan"s knee-jerk Libertarian support of freedom of expression makes him interpret Kerry's comment that implies the cartoons are offensive to him to not defending freedom of expression - which Kerry is not addressing. Kerry does after all criticise the violent Muslim response.

[wisteria]

5. I will just add my 2-cents in here.

Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to consider the impact and consequences your speech will have on others. Take for instance, pornography, which is offensive and we therefore, balance this freedom of speech/expression with laws deterring it and regulating it. I think the cartoons were in very poor taste and were done for shock value and a laugh without any responsible thought on the impact they might have and have had. When you consider the precarious situation in the Middle East,IMO made worse by Bush, and the a clash of cultures,it was not going to take much to ignite a powder keg of trouble. The ME does not share or understand our values or our freedoms and we really don't understand theirs,(I am in no way defending their barbarianisms and violence) so we shouldn't be outraged they are so thinned skinned over these cartoons. Yes, this has become political for a some in the Middle East, but they saw an opportunity and they seized upon it. They are playing a dangerous game and are waiting for the US to say something or take some action that will in fact make the situation worse and add to the hatred already displayed against us. I don't think in this situation and this situation only, we need to be so vocal about defending freedom of speech. To do so, IMO, is the irresponsible thing to do. I don't think we should be applying the idea of a tit for tat scenario here -not over this current situation anyway.

[MH1]

6. Then there's this...(pegging the irony meter)

Scrolling down on Sullivan's blog, I found this post:

Quote for the Day II
08 Feb 2006 12:38 pm

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong," - G. K. Chesterton.

So...shouldn't Sullivan include Chesterton in his complaint about calling certain reactions "bigotry"?

Still haven't found any original source (and context) for the Kerry quote though.

[beachmom]

7. Well, that's the beauty of Sullivan, isn't it?

Which is why I tend to read his blog. He's one of the few conservative voices to routinely condemn the * administration, and often has great links where I learn a lot. Having said that, he seems to have a blind spot regarding Democrats (recently he said he "loathed" John Kerry, so idiot isn't so bad -- hey I'm developing that thick skin as Tay Tay urged!). But I have accepted that, as far as his opinions go -- but with this entry, I didn't feel he had the facts to back it up, which was why I came to ask you guys (thanks, Tay Tay for the quote). Maybe Sully is confused about which Democrat said what (he did have Bill Clinton's quote, which I didn't like -- it was more talking about bigotry, while not discussing the violence of Islamic extremists).

I have to think more about this as to how I feel about Kerry's quote -- basically, he condemned both sides, but you know, I guess I can't equate the two. One was simply ink on a newspaper, the other side was VIOLENT acts. You know, I was HIGHLY offended by that Economist op-ed about Kerry, but you didn't see me burning something down now did you? I posted about it here, discussed it with you all, and wrote a letter to the editor. Moderate Muslim groups could have called a press conference, aired their grievances, and said "hey, we need to talk about this. We need to have more dialogue and to educate Westerners that the terrorists are NOT representative of average Muslims". Maybe they did this, but they were drowned out by the radicals (who by the way, want us ALL dead, regardless of who we voted for in '04). In the past, the NYT printed "Piss Christ" and the Hail Mary made out of dung, which had to have offended some Christians. We all know about the blatant anti-semitism often found in Arab newspapers. But you don't see Christians and Jews inciting violence as a result to those cartoons, now do you? I just don't like bullies.

In regards to free speech, the only free speech banned is when it can cause harm (like a person yelling fire in a crowded hall), when it specifically asks for violence (telling someone to kill others), or in the case of child pornography and hard porn, when the speech itself causes harm. These cartoons don't fall in any of these categories. And have you looked at them all? There was one, that showed a man (Mohammed maybe?) at the heaven's gates and all these terrorists are lined up, and he's saying "sorry, we've run out of virgins". Maybe I'm the biggest jerk in the world, but I chuckled at that one. Why do we have to be "sensitive" to extreme jihadists? Their ideology is utterly incompatible with liberalism. They don't even view me (a woman) as a person, and they would think nothing of killing my children if it furthered their "cause". I think it was John Kerry, who when asked a question at his Georgetown speech in October said that we might be able to talk to some of the insurgency in Iraq, but he said that the Jihadists -- well, they just needed to be (and then he pauses) and says a word that really meant "killed and destroyed".

But the Danes have their own baggage, including some anti-immigrant laws as of late, so I can understand the reticense of some of you in regards to these cartoons. I wish this could be a perfectly "pure" argument -- where the people drawing the cartoons didn't have a tawdry agenda, too, but I just can't equate drawing a cartoon with burning stuff down and being violent. And to clarify, the part of my post that's in italics was an e-mail from a Danish reader. Andrew only wrote the last paragraph, and he has been covering this story for over a week which I urge you to read (and he does share some e-mails that disagree with him). At one point, he wrote that the Left and Right should come together on this one -- it's really about a group of extremists attacking our Western core values of an open society including free speech, no matter how much you hate it. I agree with him. I think the Left does need to step up to the plate on this. I'll give JK a C for his comments, and * an F.

[sandnsea]

8. It wasn't that simple though

A complete timeline is at the Wiki link and explains how this unfolded. The thing that strikes me is that the issue was pushed and pushed and pushed. Muslims didn't respond with riots at the first printing of these cartoons, which is what the media makes it out to be. They've also been condemned by all the Islamic countries, 17 of them, and not pushed by Iran and Syria the way Condoleeza is saying. That is an out and out lie. Also, Denmark has hate speech laws and it is against their law to print anything that ridicules or demeans ANY religious icon. A judge ruled that free speech was more important than the law, but it is still a law in Denmark. I'm sure the Muslims IN Denmark expected Danish law to be upheld. That is also Islamic law, the religious icons themselves can't be ridiculed, Moses, Mohammed, Jesus; not the whole of the Arab world. The Danish cartoonist could have expressed an opinion that Islam was a murderous religion in 1,000 ways without using the specific image of Mohammed.

I'm pretty much a no-holds barred free speech advocate. I wouldn't want to see anybody locked up over these cartoons. But I do think they were designed to provoke originally and that many of the reprintings were too. If you want to live in a free society you have to accept a certain amount of responsibility. It's like Janet Jackson's boob. I think that was protected artistic expression, but it is deemed inappropriate speech in this country and that's the way it is. Same with depictions of Muhammed, it's pornography to them. If we're all going to live on this planet, we can learn to respect some basic ground rules and I would think not printing offensive images of Mohammed would be the least we could do.


Sept 30
The cartoons of Islamic prophet Muhammad are printed in the Danish daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.
Oct 14
Protest in Copenhagen
Oct 17
Egyptian Newspaper El Fagr publishes six of the cartoons during Ramadan with no apparent adverse reaction
Oct 28
Danish police contacted, it’s against Danish law to ridicule or insult dogmas of worship..
In November, another Danish newspaper, WeekendAvisen, published an additional ten satirical cartoons of Muhammad.
Nov 3
The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung publishes one of the cartoons.
Jan 31
The Icelandic newspaper DV publishes six of the twelve cartoons.
The German newspaper Die Tageszeitung publishes two of the cartoons.
Feb 1
The French newspaper France Soir publishes the cartoons, adding one of their own.
German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch newspapers print the cartoons.
Feb 2
Other newspapers around the world begin printing the cartoons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

[Mass]

9. Well Sullivan is off base

1/ He is wrong about the context. The people who published this cartoon had their own agenda, the one of a right-wing xenophobic party. They certainly deserve their freedom of speech as much as others and there is no doubt that the reaction in the ME was largely manipulated and exagerated. This said, dont forget that the cartoons were not protesting against extremist islamism. They were protesting against all of Islam. So, they deserved scorn as much as any other cartoons defaming a group of people because of their racial or religious belonging.

2/ While Bush's answer was off base, Kerry's answer (at least the one TayTay posted) was perfect IMHO. It both reminded that the cartoon was racist and that the reaction was unacceptable.

[beachmom]

11. Okay, now I'm freaking out!

I read the Wash Post article Tay Tay cited, and found myself agreeing more with * and Condy, than with Kerry. I think it's time to turn off the computer, and contemplate this for a while. Because, this is the first time EVER that this has happened to me in the entire history of * v. Kerry.

Bless me Father for I have sinned . . . .

[TayTay]

12. You haven't sinned, you're thinking something through

That is a great and wonderful thing. (Remember: Our side encourages you to think things through. You are not supposed to be a mindless automaton that accepts without question what anyone, me included, tells you.)

I just think this is much more complicated than just 'Free Speech' as an absolute value. (There are NO absolute values. The world is grey.)

[karynnj]

20. Consider that the Bush shift is to blame Iran and Syria

Two countries that he has blamed for everything in the last several months. It may well be that various religious and political leaders pushed this. It is also true that this hit a nerve. The difference between the Bush and Kerry statements is that Bush ONLY condemns the reaction while Kerry
sympathises with Muslims who were hurt and that Bush states that Syria and Iran are behind the reaction.

Kerry is far more sensitive to the fact that these cartoons did hurt some people who felt they were being demeaned and their religion mocked. If he were President, it is that sensitivity that would help him reach other people. He also didn't ask for censorship and used tougher words for those reacting with violence.

I really liked Kerry's answer - especially because it reflected who Kerry is. I think he cares enough about pacifying the ME that he wss frustrated that someone would publish something that has relatively little merit but was likely to inflame a bad situation. This is not far from the Kerry who slammed DOMA as a nasty gay bashing bill. Both did little and both diminshed people on the basis of who they are.

[karynnj]

16. I agree completely with your 2 and was educated by your first point

I had no idea of who in Denmark started this.

I liked Kerry's response. It likely reflected exactly what he thought and he wasn't trying to fit into an ideological box. The pictures clearly inflamed the ME, they are offensive and racist. His words against the reaction were stronger and should have been.

[ProSense]

19. Well said! n/t

[Mass]

13. For more perspective by somebody who has studied a lot the ME

This is excellent and describes all the implications of the situation in a way that is a lot more thoughtful than what Sullivan does.

In this context, Kerry shows an understanding of the situation that is much greater than * or Rice (I have no idea what Clinton said).

recognizehttp://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/09/culture/index_np.html

eb. 9, 2006 | The global controversy over the Danish caricatures of the prophet Mohammed continued to spin out of control this week, as Iraqis demonstrated for the withdrawal of Danish troops, and Afghans attacked NATO soldiers, leaving four dead and dozens wounded. The dispute has typically been treated in the Western media as a further sign of the fanaticism of Muslims. But the tempest did not arise out of nowhere. Muslim anger has been greatly heightened by the widespread belief that at best the West has treated the Islamic world unjustly and at worst launched a war against it. Moreover, the caricatures have most often been deployed by Middle Easterners and Muslims in disputes with each other -- disputes that have been sharpened by the Bush administration's blundering interventions in the region. Western attempts to cast the issue as one of freedom of expression display an ignorance of the local context of these conflicts, which are not mostly about religion so much as they are about religious nationalism and about power struggles within Muslim societies.

After the cartoons were published on Sept. 30, right-wing Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen reacted to the angry response by refusing to meet with ambassadors from Muslim countries and sternly lecturing Muslims on their need to put up with the caricatures. He finally sounded a more conciliatory note this week, complaining of a global crisis. He was clearly worried, like another Dane, Prince Hamlet, about what would happen "if the rest of my fortunes turn Turk with me."
...

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. Andrew Sullivan isn't very thoughtful

This exemplifies why I don't find value in his or any other conservative's writings. It's a deception to think that any of them are sane or agree with you. Kerry doesn't condone Muslim violence and there isn't a quote that proves it. Meanwhile, Sullivan ignores that Bush's first reaction was that the cartoons were wrong and insulting to religion.

I think the fundamental error here is in using Andrew freakin' Sullivan to launch a criticism of Kerry. He's no more honest or fair in his hatred of Kerry than any other whining Republican op-ed writer, so why take him seriously?

[ProSense]

15. Does everyone support the freedom of speech

of the KKK and Pat Robertson?

[Mass]

17. In most European countries, Nazi speches and books are forbidden.

I would guess it is the case in Denmark also.

[JI7]

18. yes

that's why anytime they spew their crap rather than demanding they have their legal right taken away for saying those things, i condemn what they say.

[beachmom]

21. This is Europe's problem -- they limit freedom of speech in

certain cases, which is what exposes them to hypocricy in this case. This is one of the things that distinguishes America from other parts of the West -- the first Amendment is very clear that even speech that we find dispicable is covered and legal. Perhaps I am imposing American values onto Europe which is inappropriate. But remember when the French banned head scarves at schools a oouple of years ago? In that case I sided with Muslim girls, that this was a violation of their freedom of religion dictating what they could or could not wear at school. In Germany, teachers in Bavaria were forbidden from wearing headscarves while teaching -- I had a fight with my mother in law defending a Muslim woman's right to wear a scarf at the workplace. In all of these cases, I was imposing American values on Europe, and finding that I angered people. In this case, it seems that I am siding with the Europeans, but not in their xenophobia against Muslims (which is fundamentally against my values), but in defense of the right for people to write or draw what they want without being hurt or jailed.

WEL -- This is just me but I believe in avoiding like the plague "drinking our own Kool Aid", if you will. Right wing hackery is pointless to read or listen to, but there are some thoughtful conservatives (and I think Sullivan is one, except in regards to Dems as I've stated before), and I simply cannot only listen to left wing/liberal voices because it may lead me to missing out on insights I wouldn't otherwise find. (P.S. -- that Economist piece on Kerry was RW hackery, but I cannot universally condemn every article in that magazine, some of which has been cited by liberals like an excellent article about the decline in meritocracy in America). I do go to liberal outlets, and come especially here, for a pick me up, but for me it would be a mistake to think ours is the only "reality".

Just an FYI that I met many conservative people in Europe, and every last one of them hates *. I think we should be wary when a politician is labelled "right wing" in Europe and think it's the same as a right winger here. Most completely support a large welfare state.

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. It's a mistake to think that you need to read RW swill

To get a sense of "balance." That's like saying that you have to read "Tour of Duty" and "Unfit for Command" to get the full story on Kerry's service in Vietnam, because one or the other can't contain all the truth.

The idea that the truth lies somewhere in the middle is a logical fallacy that has helped the Republicans build a case for spewing their lies and then presenting it as part of a "balance." I'm pretty sure I don't drink any "kool-aid," thanks, by reading thoughtful articles in magazines like the American Prospect or the New Yorker or the Atlantic. Do I have to read the Weekly Standard to know that what they believe is wrong? I don't think so.

Time and Newsweek are a good place to go for the kind of "balance" you seek because they do at least try to fake being impartial and don't openly advocate for the numerous logical fallacies of the right-wing. I think it's a mistake to assume that you can gain anything of note from conservative commentators that you couldn't gain anywhere else, minus the spin.

Anyone who would say he "loathes" John Kerry is useless to take seriously. You're only falling for their kool-aid if you think someone like that is "balanced." I also don't really like your insinuation that you think things out more than I do because I see no value in reading conservative tripe.

[beachmom]

24. I didn't mean to insinuate that, but I guess I did. For that I am sorry.

I guess I think it is good for the soul to read a POV that is the opposite of your own IF it is a serious article with facts that add up to back it up. I think that what you are saying is that such a conservative piece does not exist (that it is all propaganda), so that I am wasting my time. You may be right about that; I am not sure. I completely agree with you that the Weekly Standard is just bulls*** and would never listen to Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or the like. Time and Newsweek are really just entertainment magazines with a couple of news articles, so I just usually will look into an on line article here and there. But I will look into the American Prospect at the library, as you have said good things about it (I already get the New Yorker and the Atlantic).

[sandnsea]

26. 6 of 1

I think Andrew Sullivan is one of the more honest conservatives out there, but falls for right wing swill too often. It's because they have a real knack for following the line of least resistance, but that doesn't always make it right. I was going to say as you probably know with your kids, but I think yours is still too little to make that analogy, just wait!! :)

On the broad scheme of things, yes they have the right to print whatever piece of crapola garbage they choose if you believe in that very broad interpretation of freedom of the press. Yes rioting over cartoons is absolutely utterly ridiculous.

But that's OUR culture. In order to fully appreciate this situation, I have to step into THEIR culture and that includes those who live in our own country. I truly believe they view defiling Mohammed as repulsive as a snuff film or some other piece of pornography. Imagine how you would feel if you saw your sweet little child defiled in some horrific manner, I'm gathering that's the reaction to the defilement of Mohammed from the Muslim world. Certainly we have freedom of the press and, within the bounds of law, defend people's rights to print some pretty awful stuff. But the caveat is that it is generally NOT in the mainstream because the mainstream would strenuously object. As I've said elsewhere, think Janet's boob or Sambo restaurants or even sexist jokes in the work place. We censor truly offensive material all the time. The fact that we don't seem to get it with Muslims and Mohammed says as much about US and our intolerance as theirs. The way I see it, here's another perfect chance for a true leader to build a bridge to help marginalize terrorists, and we choose to inflame for war instead. Another opportunity blown.

[sandnsea]

25. We also condemn it

Nobody stood up and supported Robertson's recent idiotic statements against Sharon, or his calling for the assasination of Chavez. The entire globe condemned those hateful remarks. If he'd drawn a cartoon, we'd have condemnded it too. That's why there weren't riots, that kind of hate speech is globally condemned. But when it's depicting Islam as murderous thugs, no problem in the western world, even when it goes so far to use their own prophet to do it which is specifically forbidden in their religion. That's why there are problems, the world didn't react and demand an apology the way they did when Robertson offended Sharon.

[ProSense]

27. Well said! n/t

[karynnj]

28. and Kerry (and Teresa) forcefully condemned anti-semetic

Holocaust denying statements by the President of Iran. There is no lack of consistency.

[sandrakae]

22. This is Bull. I hardly think any of us would miss a John Kerry quote.

This person is talking out their ass.