Senate Report Concludes the Benghazi Attacks Were Preventable

[Yurt]

Not to distract from O's deception, which frankly to me is not a big deal in that it didn't get people killed, and seeing Mitt make a political football over terrorism is not something I'd like to see, but I just don't view the Allah films as 1st amendment issues. There's not dispute the films did lead to riots ... elsewhere. The 1st does not protect speech designed to inflame violence. The filmmaker needs to see a cell. jmo.

so because a few wackos get violent, you throw out the 1st amendment.

seems cowardly to me. it was not an incitement to violence under the law. you need to learn the difference between psychos and regular people.

In my view, any speech that is intended to inflame passions on issues that could be expected to cause violence should not be protected speech. That includes urine on crosses, Klan marches in Skokie, flag burnings, videos mocking Islam, and the whacko Kan church protests.

But have a nice day.

fair enough. but imo, you are severely limiting speech by your standard. the reasonable person would not be incited to violence over that speech. we should not limit our speech based on zealots.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not to distract from O's deception, which frankly to me is not a big deal in that it didn't get people killed, and seeing Mitt make a political football over terrorism is not something I'd like to see, but I just don't view the Allah films as 1st amendment issues. There's not dispute the films did lead to riots ... elsewhere. The 1st does not protect speech designed to inflame violence. The filmmaker needs to see a cell. jmo.

so because a few wackos get violent, you throw out the 1st amendment.

seems cowardly to me. it was not an incitement to violence under the law. you need to learn the difference between psychos and regular people.

In my view, any speech that is intended to inflame passions on issues that could be expected to cause violence should not be protected speech. That includes urine on crosses, Klan marches in Skokie, flag burnings, videos mocking Islam, and the whacko Kan church protests.

But have a nice day.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well -- for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so. (Applause.)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly | The White House

 

[Yurt]

FYI:

our free speech does not apply to idiots overseas.

why are libs so ignorant and so willing to defend murderers and terrorists?

 

[Yurt]

Not to distract from O's deception, which frankly to me is not a big deal in that it didn't get people killed, and seeing Mitt make a political football over terrorism is not something I'd like to see, but I just don't view the Allah films as 1st amendment issues. There's not dispute the films did lead to riots ... elsewhere. The 1st does not protect speech designed to inflame violence. The filmmaker needs to see a cell. jmo.

so because a few wackos get violent, you throw out the 1st amendment.

seems cowardly to me. it was not an incitement to violence under the law. you need to learn the difference between psychos and regular people.

In my view, any speech that is intended to inflame passions on issues that could be expected to cause violence should not be protected speech. That includes urine on crosses, Klan marches in Skokie, flag burnings, videos mocking Islam, and the whacko Kan church protests.

But have a nice day.

you have a point about mundane issues, not about global issues. imagine if ghandi took your view, he would have never spoke.

think about it.

 

[Yurt]

While the Committee has completed its report, important questions remain
unanswered as a direct result of the Obama Administration's failure to provide the
Committee with access to necessary documents and witnesses. We believe the
Administration's lack of cooperation is directly contrary to its statutory obligation
to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed and
has effectively obstructed the Committee's efforts to get to the ground truth with
respect to these remaining questions.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

So much for "the most transparent administration".

dems will comment in 1.....2....never

and we still have.........never

 

[bendog]

so because a few wackos get violent, you throw out the 1st amendment.

seems cowardly to me. it was not an incitement to violence under the law. you need to learn the difference between psychos and regular people.

In my view, any speech that is intended to inflame passions on issues that could be expected to cause violence should not be protected speech. That includes urine on crosses, Klan marches in Skokie, flag burnings, videos mocking Islam, and the whacko Kan church protests.

But have a nice day.

you have a point about mundane issues, not about global issues. imagine if ghandi took your view, he would have never spoke.

think about it.

ghandi did not speak to inflame violence

Think about it.

 

[Freewill]

Not to distract from O's deception, which frankly to me is not a big deal in that it didn't get people killed, and seeing Mitt make a political football over terrorism is not something I'd like to see, but I just don't view the Allah films as 1st amendment issues. There's not dispute the films did lead to riots ... elsewhere. The 1st does not protect speech designed to inflame violence. The filmmaker needs to see a cell. jmo.

Let me guess here. If Christians had taken exception to a Crucifix in a jar of urine and rioted and burned down a consulate you would be just as forgiving to them as you are the Muslims?

The truth, in my opinion, is that the attack had nothing to do with a video. It had everything to do with Stevens running guns and the anniversary of 9/11. That is why Obama and Rice lied for days on end. Perfect cover make a controversy about nothing so people forget about the reality. They must really be laughing at us. And I will admit the left is running cover for them quite well.

Sorry it went over your head. I'll try to dumb it down next time.

I seriously doubt you could make it any dumber. The first amendment isn't protection against speech you like, that is not needed. It is protection against speech you don't like and you being able to stop it.

 

[Freewill]

Not to distract from O's deception, which frankly to me is not a big deal in that it didn't get people killed, and seeing Mitt make a political football over terrorism is not something I'd like to see, but I just don't view the Allah films as 1st amendment issues. There's not dispute the films did lead to riots ... elsewhere. The 1st does not protect speech designed to inflame violence. The filmmaker needs to see a cell. jmo.

Let me guess here. If Christians had taken exception to a Crucifix in a jar of urine and rioted and burned down a consulate you would be just as forgiving to them as you are the Muslims?

The truth, in my opinion, is that the attack had nothing to do with a video. It had everything to do with Stevens running guns and the anniversary of 9/11. That is why Obama and Rice lied for days on end. Perfect cover make a controversy about nothing so people forget about the reality. They must really be laughing at us. And I will admit the left is running cover for them quite well.

Who has forgiven the Muslims that have attacked us?

Well just about every liberal I read. Who did they put in jail, the Muslims or the man who made a stupid movie video? Who was condemned in the post to which I replied, the maker of the stupid movie or the Muslims.

 

[bendog]

Let me guess here. If Christians had taken exception to a Crucifix in a jar of urine and rioted and burned down a consulate you would be just as forgiving to them as you are the Muslims?

The truth, in my opinion, is that the attack had nothing to do with a video. It had everything to do with Stevens running guns and the anniversary of 9/11. That is why Obama and Rice lied for days on end. Perfect cover make a controversy about nothing so people forget about the reality. They must really be laughing at us. And I will admit the left is running cover for them quite well.

Sorry it went over your head. I'll try to dumb it down next time.

I seriously doubt you could make it any dumber. The first amendment isn't protection against speech you like, that is not needed. It is protection against speech you don't like and you being able to stop it.

I'd have to use crayons for you. Don't have a nice night.

 

[Freewill]

so because a few wackos get violent, you throw out the 1st amendment.

seems cowardly to me. it was not an incitement to violence under the law. you need to learn the difference between psychos and regular people.

In my view, any speech that is intended to inflame passions on issues that could be expected to cause violence should not be protected speech. That includes urine on crosses, Klan marches in Skokie, flag burnings, videos mocking Islam, and the whacko Kan church protests.

But have a nice day.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well -- for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so. (Applause.)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly | The White House

Where in that speech did Obama once denounce the Muslims? It is like they are treated as children that are going to misbehave if someone offends them and that's OK because after all they are just kids.

 

[Freewill]

Sorry it went over your head. I'll try to dumb it down next time.

I seriously doubt you could make it any dumber. The first amendment isn't protection against speech you like, that is not needed. It is protection against speech you don't like and you being able to stop it.

I'd have to use crayons for you. Don't have a nice night.

You proved me wrong, you made it dumber.

 

[Yurt]

In my view, any speech that is intended to inflame passions on issues that could be expected to cause violence should not be protected speech. That includes urine on crosses, Klan marches in Skokie, flag burnings, videos mocking Islam, and the whacko Kan church protests.

But have a nice day.

you have a point about mundane issues, not about global issues. imagine if ghandi took your view, he would have never spoke.

think about it.

ghandi did not speak to inflame violence

Think about it.

and the british would agree with you...

 

[1776]

Oh wait....Obama and Hillary claimed it wasn't "their fault."

 

[Plasmaball]

interesting how no dem has touched this. why the ongoing coverup by obama?

why would it be a cover up?

why would obama fail to provide information he is legally required to?

Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney publicly testify?
Because sometimes they just don't have to. Does it make it right? No, but what you going to do?.

 

[Plasmaball]

yet the senate report said he is.

do you enjoy lying for your master obama?

that could be grandstanding...or not

must defend obama. obama could be covering up...or not.

idiot

why is he withholding information? that he is legally obligated to provide?

will you jakestarkey this and not answer the question?

Because he can..

 

[percysunshine]

why would it be a cover up?

why would obama fail to provide information he is legally required to?

Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney publicly testify?
Because sometimes they just don't have to. Does it make it right? No, but what you going to do?.

Scooter Libby went to jail.

Who will go to jail in the Obama administration?

Nobody. The Obama clan is above the law.

 

[Plasmaball]

why would obama fail to provide information he is legally required to?

Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney publicly testify?
Because sometimes they just don't have to. Does it make it right? No, but what you going to do?.

Scooter Libby went to jail.

Who will go to jail in the Obama administration?

Nobody. The Obama clan is above the law.

That has nothing to do with them not being public.

 

[aaronleland]

Oh wait....Obama and Hillary claimed it wasn't "their fault."

His response to the attacks was terrible, but it doesn't make it his fault. The fault lies with the attackers alone.

 

[percysunshine]

Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney publicly testify?
Because sometimes they just don't have to. Does it make it right? No, but what you going to do?.

Scooter Libby went to jail.

Who will go to jail in the Obama administration?

Nobody. The Obama clan is above the law.

That has nothing to do with them not being public.

So nobody goes to jail over anything?

At least the Clinton administration had a suicide.

Why is the Obama administration above the law?

 

[progressive]

Of course Benghazi was preventable, as was 911, or Iraq, or any accident.