Statement from the newspaper that removed Hillary Clinton from the White House photo

Here is the statement from Der Tzitung:

Full statement by Der Tzitung.

The White House released a picture showing the President following “live” the events in the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, last week Sunday. Also present in the Situation Room were various high-ranking government and military officials. Our photo editor realized the significance of this historic moment, and published the picture, but in his haste he did not read the "fine print" that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes. We should not have published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and apologies to the White House and to the State Department.

The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel. The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in '00, and when she was re-elected in '06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.

We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.

All Government employees are sworn into office, promising adherence to the Constitution, and our Constitution attests to our greatness as a nation that is a light beacon to the entire world. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. (See below.) That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press! In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.

We are proud Americans of the Jewish faith, and there is no conflict in that, and we will with the help of the Almighty continue as law-abiding citizens, in this great country of our's, until the ultimate redemption.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/hillary-clinton-audrey-tomason-go-missing-in-situation-room-photo-in-der-tzitung-newspaper/2011/05/09/AFfJbVYG_blog.html

Apologies if this has already been posted.

S

and this was definitely a track in.

... for their uncanny penchant for getting a boner every single time they see any woman, anywhere.


This photo makes Chasidic Jews horny.

Pardon my ignorance - but what is that photo?

That's Terry Jones as Mandy Cohen, the mother of Brian Cohen in Life of Brian.

Been a very very long time since I've seen that film.

So uptight, so self-righteous! I used to see their children walking home from school (I guessed)--dressed in heavy black suits on a very hot day. Men walking around with those little curlie-Qs sticking out from under their top hats, serious expressions, humorless; I bet they wear hairshirts under all that clothing. Sheesh.

to Opus Dei Catholicism. There seems to be in some religulous types a loathing of their own humanity.

we are not allowed to publish pictures of women.

What about men? Don't we need to be modest with them too?

Last I heard, Sec. Clinton was Methodist.

What that newspaper did was extremely disrespectful to Clinton and ALL women. Shame on them.

if they can't publish photos of women they shouldn't publish photos of men. Otherwise they are discriminatory shitheads. Which apparently they are, to think they can get away with this lame 'apology'.

fucking disgusting bigoted asswipes.

"Do not change?" "Do not change"--a MAJOR historical artifact?

Pardon me, but G ZUZ.

It's not like she was in her underwear or nekkid.

What is immodest about a photo of a fully clothed woman doing her job? How is that any different from a picture of a fully clothed man doing his job?

them from attempting to alter history--because that photo is history--to eliminate
the presence of high ranking women based on their 'laws of modesty'?

Methinks they need to come into the 21st Century.

Their attitude toward women says more about their immaturity than I could do.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

But do you think they believe it or is it just an excuse?

Their sacred hierarchy is the same as for conservative christians: God above Man above Wife. That looks "lower" to me. As for it being an excuse, they might possibly think they're "glorifying" women and setting them on a pedestal and all the usual rot but as for their exact words "lower status," sorry it's an out and out lie.

use of a name in a military mission (a successful mission), and will not accept an apology for what was probably an honest error by a photo editor.

Just freaking amazing.

The picture was altered on purpose. However the statement acknowledges that, from their perspective, the correct thing to have done was to not run the picture at all rather than alter it.

not hang onto this pseudo outrage for days.

I'm sure there will be a new one tomorrow.

when it was actually deliberately done. Actually, I think it demonstrates their contempt for women so clearly which is worthy of sustained outrage but I won't hold it against anyone who forgets about it when this particular event fades from sight. Their apology doesn't disguise their blatant misogyny and you can't apologize that away imho.

"we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive."

They don't apologize for being offensive but only "if this was seen as offensive". Not an apology.

"We should not have published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and apologies to the White House and to the State Department."

Is there the most remote of possibilities that the apology sent to the White House and the State Department was not included in the published statement?

If there were a way to harness the energy from the outrage here, the US would no longer be oil, or coal, or wind, or solar dependent.

an "honest error"?

Could happen to anybody. Totally inadvertent!

really change anything from an historic perspective.

There are thousands of copies of the original all over the internet. There will be books written, and that picture will probably appear in those books, perhaps even with a footnote telling of the modified photo.

That one photo will not change the world.

Geronimo was the code word for bin Laden, the most feared and hated terrorist on the planet.

Obama himself revealed this truth on Sixty Minutes last night.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"elevating" women by doing stuff like this (such as disappearing them from pictures because they just, well LOVE them sooooo much...), they must actually believe we are fools.

Nobody is fooled.

"Why would anybody look for Hillary Clinton in that famous pic?"

out of nothing but respect for those women, of course....

I ass-umed they had just cropped the picture.

But they photoshopped her out, what the hell?

there was something wrong.

That's a big void at that table in a tense room where many are still standing up.

WHAT "laws of modesty"?

WHERE in the Torah is any of that garbage?

WHO was the first dimwitted troll who decided that men were so incapable of self control of any kind that even to look at a picture of a woman would undo them?

BLEH! BLEH! BLEH!

..."which in no way relegates them to a lower status".

Right. Because erasing the evidence of someone's participation in a historic event in no way relegates them to a lower status. Unless you think that changing their status to NOTHING is the same as LOWERING their status? Why would you think that? Pshaw!

:sarcasm:

stupid policy

Just Transformed Middle East Politics"

I mean, what the hell? I'm trying to envision what they did to get around THAT sticky fact?

a fly on the wall when they discussed it...

:rofl:

That's because they view women as either sex objects or incapable of holding their own against men.

Men need not be "modest" because they are the ones who make the rules and they determine that they should have the freedom to participate fully in society, while women are nothing but the objects of affection of men.

Fucking assholes.

She who must not be photographed.

If you make ice cream out of horseshit, do you expect it to taste like chocolate?

-Hoot

with the United States Secretary of State, do they publish a photo showing Bibi talking to the thin air?

Or that she even existed?

Caused a minor stir at the time, I believe.

women? They should be ashamed and embarrassed about their stupidity. They are showing themselves to be the idiots they clearly are.

Gender equity is not especially prominent.

:grr: