It wasn't because of a kitten at all. DC just lacks courage to be honest

In this earlier post, I noted the hilarious claim by DC that they nixed the original story in Superman #712 that it was replaced because of a kitten-rescuing scene. But now, in this posting on leftist Comics Alliance, Chris Sims, the man who implied he doesn't believe there's such a thing as sharia, despite their being evidence available and clearly doesn't want to research the Koran or any of its meanings in Arabic, has posted a picture added to issue #713 where there is a kitten-rescuing scene. And he says:

According to Chris Roberson, who wrote both Superman #712 and #713, the latter was actually printed the week of June 22 when the controversy (and rumors) arose, and a Krypto fill-in story appeared in place of the original story about a teen Muslim hero confronting anti-Islamic prejudice. All of which means that things were well in place by the time any eyebrows were raised over what was, or more importantly what wasn't in this issue. As Roberson said in an email to ComicsAlliance:

Issue 712 opened with a one page sequence drawn by Allan Goldman of Superman rescuing a little girl's cat in San Gabriel, California. When 712 was pulled from the schedule, it was decided that we still needed to show Superman in San Gabriel because of the contest, and so we simply had Jamal Igle draw the same scene as one of the ones he was already doing for 713.

And what does this tell? That DC just simply doesn't have the courage to admit that they pulled it because they realized that many decent Americans could get very, very angry if the story is as negative to Americans as previous signs suggested. As I'd speculated before myself, this could be the story which DC may have reconsidered after the backlash against their story where the Man of Steel was depicted giving up US citizenship, yet nobody at Comics Alliance seemed to want to note that, possibly because they don't like Glenn Beck and staff.

At the awful Death & Taxes, moonbat Andrew Belonsky, after bringing up the origins of Sinbad, ends his article with:

...that was the 1990s, before the States had succumbed to rampant Islamophobia and DC had to worry about conservatives decrying the Man of Steel’s anti-American agenda.

Oh, gross. So now he's suggesting he sees nothing wrong with anti-Americanism either? And we thought the Daily KOS was bad enough. Belonsky, of course, is another apologist and propagandist who doesn't want to research the Koran, or even tell what's inside. He also doesn't like Seven Eleven's free slurpee day, and seems to think they're the reason for obesity in America.

Again, I have to wonder likewise why people like those who're hostile to Israel to boot would ever want to have anything to do with the creations of its descendants, though it is rather amusing to see them beclowning themselves by buying and reading the creations of members of the very community they're so scared of. Why indeed do they read the works of Jewish writers if they don't like them? Quite a mystery indeed.

Update: to make matters worse, even if this story isn't being hostile to American values per se, it's still got something really stupid inside:
Oh for crying out loud. Just what we need, Clark giving up his Superman costume?!? Maybe it's not as bad as if he were to give up on Americanism, but it's still very galling nevertheless. They really do know how to turn off fans, don't they?