AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (27 comments)

  1. why does this matter? Where was the witch-hunt to track down the folks who trumped up WMD “analysis”?

    Bush and Cheney changed WMD “talking points” and thousands of people died and what exactly was done about it?

    1. Can you point to any evidence that pre-invasion Intelligence Community talking points said “no WMD”?

      Bush may have been wrong, but there is no evidence that he lied. On the other hand, there is all kinds of evidence that Obama lied. Hmm, that rhymes: “Obama lied, an Ambassador died.”

    2. If you are going to use the tired old Bush lied tactic then you have to include Clinton as he said, before Bush, that they had WMD. You might also include the intel agencies of the UK, France, Israel, Gemany etc…

      1. For sure. Look at Ronald REagan and Iran Contra (out of the loop) or Clinton and the Cole,

        Intel in Middle East terror attacks has not been particularly good for any POTUS over more than a dozen attacks on US facilities.

        So why is this one different? We do not know for sure if Bush lied but we know thousands of people died because of that faulty analysis and the subsequent conflict that ensued afterwards.

        I just don’t how this incident is that different from prior incidents under other POTUS.

        1. But we do know that the consulate was attacked previously and had a hole blown in the wall. Can you imagine that little tidbit of tnfo not making it to Obama’s desk? We know that the head of security in Libya asked time and again for more security especially in Benghazi and was turned down and returned home. We know that Amb. Stevens himself on several occasions told DC that Benghazi was not safe and he was ignored. We know that the UK shut down there ops in Benghazi due to an attempt on there Amb. and even the Red Cross closed up shop there. We know that after all this 4 Americans were left to die by this admin. You are not the first I have heard say “But what makes these 4 so important”. I would like for you to go to the home of the families of any of the 4 kileed and ask them that. By uttering that statement you all but justify thier deaths…it’s disgusting. If it had been your son who was killed would you be saying…”Well others have died, so I really don’t need to know what happened because these things happen”?

          1. what we “know” is that Consulates throughout the middle East have been attacked during the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years – and people killed – and no partisan witch-hunt ensued.

            why this time?

            why is this POTUS any more (or less) culpable for this than previous POTUS were for the dozen or so other attacks on their watch?

            answer: – the GOP has chosen to politicize it .

    3. If you are pursuing that line then you have
      To go back to Clinton who said Sadaam had WMD.
      From where did Syria get it’s WMD if not from
      Sadaam? It’s a lie to say Bush changed talking points
      they were world accepted as fact by intelligence communities through out the world going back to
      Clinton era, do your homework get your facts straight!
      Why Benghazi matters, four Americans dead, an
      appalling breakdown in security and intelligence
      that needs to be fixed so it does not happen
      again. These Americans begged for help repeatedly
      and we’re ignored. Back to your Bush lie, ” He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has done
      ten times since 1993.” Sandy Berger National Security Adviser Feb 18, 1998.

      1. re: Clinton lied before Bush

        where was the “investigation” for either?

        that’s the point. previous POTUS – messed up intelligence and that’s the answer – no accusations of the POTUS “lying” watergate style or changing “talking points”.

        why?

  2. Spin it all you want but the politics of it all is in Obama’s lap. Would you send someone (Rice) out to the Sunday shows who in his own words did not know anything about it. Petraeus was in town, he didn’t go; Clapper was in DC, he didn’t go. He continued the BS story of it being the fault of a video for two weeks even though he knew that was bull. His lame ass assertion that “I have always said it was terrorism” is just that, lame. Even Crowly corrected herself after the debate although hardly anyone saw it considering it was on CNN. His pompous defense of Rice and “let them come after me” statement was all for show as his stand on Benghazi is…you can ask me all you want and I won’t answer. If you can’t see that, nothing I can say will help your Kool-Aid consumption. The truth is being hidden, plain and simple but that’s OK….he has never let the truth stop him before.

    1. Would you send Colin Powell out to “sell” WMD ?

      How about Reagan ” out of the loop” in Iran-Contra?

      It is not Obama’s shining hour by a long shot but in comparison with how other prior administrations ALSO handled such incidents – not that unusual.

      Bush had a half dozen attacks on US diplomatic sites during his administration and what kind of “investigations” took place to figure out why Bush “failed” to “protect” the sites attacked under his leadership?

      this is GRADE A Partisan politics by the folks who were opposed to Obama from the get-go and who now simply cannot accept that he is still POTUS so now they’re throwing hail Mary’s.

      it’s pathetic.

  3. “The intelligence community – not the White House, State Department or Justice Department – was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.”

    “The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.”

    “First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources,” the official said. “Second, when links were so tenuous – as they still are – it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don’t set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages.”

    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/?hpt=hp_t2

  4. Pathetic is pointing to one incident to justify another. It’s like saying the Booth was justified shooting Lincoln because of the Civil War. I’m sure, considering you are so logical and fair minded, that you just sat back and took a la-de-da attitude to Bush because attacks happened under Clinton and Carter as well, right? Yes, I have never liked Obama because I was smart enough to see the Hope and Change was and is not a plan…it was and is a line of bull aimed at the half of the population that believes menopause is a btton on thier DVD player. 4 people were left to die by an incompetant admin. to protect the POTUS’ policy of “normalization” in Libya and his mantra the AQ is on the run and we don’t have to worry. You may be OK with 4 dead Americans and willing to sit back and worship at the feet of Obama but I am not. Maybe you would feel differently if it was your son that died but like most who are blinded by his oratory I doubt it. Enjoy the upcomming recesion and higher unemployment. I’m sure you and your ilk will find a way to blame everyone except Obama.

    1. re: ” Pathetic is pointing to one incident to justify another.”

      no, “pathetic” is treating POTUS differently depending on your partisan leanings.

      the world is a dangerous place. Bad stuff happens. It”s impossible to protect everything all the time and mistakes are made in judgement by people in the field.

      Reagan put Marines in Beirut against advice and Marines died.

      Poindexter and North ran amok and Reagan said he was “out of the loop”

      Bush was “shocked” that his commanders presided over
      Abu Ghraib, Bush instituted torture then lied about it then told SCOTUS is was out of their jurisdiction.

      I can go on and on here but this is nothing more than blatant partisan politics.

      It IS important to find out what happened and why and hold people accountable BUT when you are blaming the POTUS BEFORE you really know the facts, you know what this is really about.

      1. LarryG, you do raise excellent points, gives me cause to stop and think. Am I guilty of conflating my disapproval of Obama with his being culpable of horrible handling of the Benghazi attack? (No sarcasm here even though it may come across that way. Really wondering)

        Let me think it out:

        1. President does not hold any appearance to inform the American people of what happened to our people in Benghazi that horrible night. We hear that the SEALs were laser “painting” the attacking mortar site because they had confidence that a drone or jet was enroute to help them, but none came and the mortar took their lives. When the President was pressed on it he said, and i paraphrase: I gave orders that night that everything was to be done to help our people. He responds aggresively to Senators Graham and McCain to ‘come after’ him rather than Ambassador Rice with regards to her talk show appearances that appear to have been a disinformation effort. They have tried to get information from him, written numerous times asking him pointed questions, he has not responded and he takes no meetings with them. The President appears to be stonewalling here and that may be part of my negative response to him on this.

        2. Along the lines of the first point is that the press, apart from Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin and Catherine Herridge, rather than investigate and put the issue to bed appear to be IN bed with the Administration and lack all curiosity on how the event was handled that night in the Situation Room. This is big for any conservative because we all know the rudeness with which the mainstream media would be tearing into the President if Republican. Not that we’d want that nastiness for the President, but the press can hold a politician accountable for information while still being respectful.

        3. Finally, the Freedom of Speech challenges tangled into this narrative with regard to the Youtube video and the filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, are huge to me. You may disagree with me on this, LarryG, but offensive speech is the very speech that must be defended as has been the case throughout American history.

        I understand, and agree with, your point and your illustrations that in this dangerous world mistakes, indeed horrors, do happen. It is just, well, let me ask you is it that you wish for all the questions to stop?

        1. re: The President told….” Did Reagan tell us about Iran Contra? How about Clinton and the Cole?

          re: laser painting… do you REALLY think this kind of speculation without facts is not partisan?

          re: the press. I listen to them all and my impression is that FAUX has an agenda. They pretty much presumed from the get go that it was a conspiracy/coverup and spent most of their time blathering about supposed smoking guns that “proved” that …for instance, Susan Rice …”lied” as if ANY spokesperson of ANY POTUS administration has NEVER BEFORE give a POTUS perspective that may put a better picture on something than there really is. But this is normal for most POTUS. Have you listened to Bush, Powell, Rice and others justify their WMD?

          How about Reagan who was “out of the Iran Contra loop”?

          this is what I mean when I say are we really comparing what different POTUS typically did on incidents like these.

          Bush had about a dozen attacks on US embassies and consulates during his term and how much did we hear about them? Can you remember if Bush “failed to provide security” in those attacks? I bet not.

          re: freedom of speech – I have mixed feelings about things like this and my view is that from a principle point of view – we should have freedom of speech but from a practical point of view – if you KNOW it’s going to cause a riot or worse – like shouting fire in a theater – what are you going to do?

          that’s not an easy issue to resolve – NO MATTER WHO is POTUS.

          I mean George Bush was holding (subsequently determined to be innocent) people in secret without charges against them… was that worse?

          1. Well, your calling Fox News by the liberal knee-jerk moniker -FAUX- tells me you are not serious about cutting through the partisan smoke. I admit to strongly disapproving od the President, but I wanted to get information from you to see whether I could be going way wrong in my opinion.

            Re Bush and detentions – as of June 2012 the President has ordered five times as many drone strikes as Bush, and Bush has stopped but the President is still going on with th program. I know most folks even troublemakers’d rather be detained than dead.

            Reagan gave an address about Iran-Contra. Part if it is as follows :

            “For the past three months, I’ve been silent on the revelations about Iran. And you must have been thinking: “Well, why doesn’t he tell us what’s happening? Why doesn’t he just speak to us as he has in the past when we’ve faced troubles or tragedies?” Others of you, I guess, were thinking: “What’s he doing hiding out in the White House?” Well, the reason I haven’t spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion. There’s been enough of that. I’ve paid a price for my silence in terms of your trust and confidence. But I’ve had to wait, as you have, for the complete story. That’s why I appointed Ambassador David Abshire as my Special Counsellor to help get out the thousands of documents to the various investigations. And I appointed a Special Review Board, the Tower board, which took on the chore of pulling the truth together for me and getting to the bottom of things.”

            There is video at the link.

            Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/10/president-ronald-reagan-address-on-iran-contra/#ixzz2DCQx3k66

            He acknowledges that there is a price to be paid in trust from the American people by not speaking about the events. Perhaps th President himself will come and speak n the events thus putting speculation to rest with the facts.

            And finally, I can’t go there with you on Freedom of Speech in this case. I cannot believe I hear a US President and his Administration apologizing for our very Freedom of Speech. That, inalienable right us not granted to us by the government, but the government must defend it as the government members take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. So wouldn’t it follow that the President needed to boldly defend Freedom of Soeech in this instance, that, or simply ignore the idea of a provocation and simply condemn the violence?

          2. so Reagan waited 3 months and Obama cannot?

            I did use FAUX …it’s gotten to be a habit I guess. I watch them MORE than I watch the others because I do want to understand where they are coming from.. but I have concluded that they strongly oppose this POTUS and their coverage is exceptionally biased. They hammered the Bengazi issue over and over before and after the election openly equating it to Watergate.

            Watergate? WTF? Mistakes were made – yes. Mistakes that are very similar to mistakes under prior POTUS and Reagan not only waited 3 months, his essential defense was that he was “out of the loop”. Bush’s excuse was that the intelligence agencies screwed up on WMD.

            there is no sense of proportion on this with Obama’s opponents who include FOX news. They are looking for every thing they can find to use as a weapon again him.

            Do you listen to Hannity? I do. Tell me what you think about his “news” coverage.?

            I’m not sure if I am tracking you on the freedom of speech issue… not even FOX is hammering this.

  5. Sure, Saxby—it was revealed to him by god.

    1. re: free speech:

      ” Congress members ask FBI to shut down Hamas Twitter account”

      http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/24/3685616/congress-members-fbi-hamas-twitter-shut-down-idf

      thoughts?

      1. First of all, of course the President can wait three months. I said that if, or once, the President comes to the American people and speaks about the horror of Benghazi, then the issue can be put to rest in some way. That s why I was happy to see the Reagan speech. Reagan, however, acknowledged that there was a price to be paid for his silence. And so, the President too, and his supporters are enduring that “price” as some people lose trust, or perhaps did not trust in the first place, and try to make some sense out of the little information coming out via the Jennifer Griffin and Catherine Herridge reports.

        Re: Freedom of Speech – that is not via the news, for me it is extremely important as a bedrock of our rough and tumble society.

        So, with regards to the article on the Congress members and twitter and Hamas. Some parallel to the President requesting Youtube to examine the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula video to see whether it violated the terms of service and should be removed. Similarities stop when you read the linked article and in the beginning of the article it states the Hamas is a designated terrorist group, not American citizens; the filmmaker, flawed as he was, is a private American citizen. As such, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula enjoys the God given, unalienable right to Freedom of Speech as stated in our Constitution.

        Too, I am not sure, but I believe the US is still in a state of war against terror? As such, we view terrorist organizations as a danger and our government has the responsibility to disrupt their communications and instruments if planning?

        And the article states that some, not all, Congressmen have asked the FBI to shut down the twitter accounts of the terrorist group. We cannot know how much effect that request will have downstream with the FBI and with twitter. Meanwhile, our national leaders toreinto a Youtube video on the national stage as if America’s Freedom of Speech s an irksome problem. This is harsh. Also, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is in prison. Seems terrible to me.

        1. re: Reagan and “explaining” I think in three months we will have a lot more info about what happened and we’ll know just as we did with Reagan that not every single thing that occurs or not is directly attributable to something the POTUS said or did. I’m not excusing anything – just saying that POTUS sits on top of an enormous network of players and as with Abu Ghraib – trying to say that it was solely the POTUS behind it just does not ring true.

          re: freedom of speech and Hamas and terrorists.

          How exactly would you determine whose Twitter account should be shut off?

          If the US merely labels you as an individual as spouting terrorists principles is that sufficient?

          does the person who is shut down have to be a card-carrying terrorist or what?

          Terrorism by it’s very nature is not tied to the policies of a nation state. It’s more of a movement with a lot of different kinds of players. Do they all lose their rights?

          1. Maybe the President will speak on the Benghazi slaughter. Maybe. Surely, as he has already publically stated that he gave an order that everything was to be done to help the Americans under attack in Benghazi, he can elaborate somewhat on that as well as on what he did and with whom he met during that evening in the Situation Room?

            Why challenge sitting Senators to “come after me,” when those very Senators have been trying to get together with him and ask some questions only to be met with no response at all? It seems that President hadn’t even put them off by asking them to wait for results of investigation; he simply did not reply. Yet, then he very publically demands in a press conference that they “come after him?” Odd.

            I must repeat, that I am not a supporter of the President at all, but I want to understand how one does view these events. I do not, as you say, blame the President for Benghazi. Just would like to have it made public what was behind the situation of the savage attack and the vulnerability of an American diplomatic mission that had apparently been requesting more security since the summer.

            Another set of questions arise about why Ambassador Stevens was there at all.

            Reports come out that say our Ambassador met with Turkish officials and together they were getting weaponry left over from the Libyan uprising into the hands of the Syrian opposition. Myself, I want answers to whether our government is arming the very same organizations we have American boys fighting against in Afghanistan? If that were true, it would surely break America’s heart.

            The FBI being asked to shut off the twitter accounts of officially recognized terrorist organizations is kind of a hypothetical, as right now nothing is going to come of it, most likely. As I see it, isn’t it that the organization in question is not American citizenry, is recognized as an enemy of our nation, and is suspected of conspiring to wage violence and war. Is not this far outside the realm of an American citizen’s Freedom of Speech right to ugly, ugly speech. An American is in prison ostensibly for probation violation, but long before he was imprisoned he was exposed and endangered by the American government, which is tasked with protecting the Free Speech right of her citizenry.

          2. re: ” Why challenge sitting Senators to “come after me,”

            because they were going after a spokesperson who spoke according to what she was given – like ANY spokesperson has done many times in prior POTUS administrations.

            The POTUS was not “putting off” Senators reasonable requests – they were screaming meemies blathering on FOX night after night that there was a de-facto cover-up/conspiracy … how would YOU react to that kind of “requests”?

            This kind of incident is not uncommon. Every POTUS prior to this one has suffered such attacks multiple times but never before has the President been accused of “failing” because of the incident nor “covering it up” because he did not immediately come forth with all details..

            this is pure partisan politics, nothing else.

            re: why was Steven’s there essentially with a totally inadequate security force?

            good question. answers need to be provided but does anyone think this POTUS issued a direct order for him to go there with a inadequate security force when the Ambassador himself KNEW that help was not going to be immediately available?

            re: freedom of speech..

            cut to the chase here.. if someone is uttering something that is perceived as a terrorist threat – do we cut off their access to media that they’d use to utter such threats?

            yes or no..

            bonus question: do you think the US is the sole arbiter of what is “legal” speech in the world and on the internet?

  6. Reply to: LarryG | November 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    because they were going after a spokesperson who spoke according to what she was given – like ANY spokesperson has done many times in prior POTUS administrations.

    — LarryG, so? Said spokesman is a big girl. She, too, like any spokesman before her, must then be big enough to endure the slings and arrows of critics, just as any Presidential spokesman must. For pete’s sake, when one enters the arena of politics and the media he enters deep in the rough and tumble… politics ain’t beanbag…and all. Actually, again, call me partisan, to mean I hope one who does not support the President and his policies, but in the President’s chivalrous defense of his spokesman he himself was, in a way, belittling her.
    …..

    The POTUS was not “putting off” Senators reasonable requests – they were screaming meemies blathering on FOX night after night that there was a de-facto cover-up/conspiracy … how would YOU react to that kind of “requests”?

    —– LarryG, I will give you the drumbeat of the nightly commentary, and here I had meant to agree with you a while ago. There is, however, a difference between that and the protocol of sitting Senators requests to the President. In fact, during the President’s challenge at his press conference I was thinking that exact same thing, was he actually responding to that drumbeat rather than to the Senators and their request?
    …..

    This kind of incident is not uncommon. Every POTUS prior to this one has suffered such attacks multiple times but never before has the President been accused of “failing” because of the incident nor “covering it up” because he did not immediately come forth with all details..

    this is pure partisan politics, nothing else.

    —LarryG, do you mean by saying, “pure partisan politics” one who opposes the person and policies of the President at that time? Surely, you and I will have a difficult time seeing eye to eye with regards to whether “our” President were treated more antagonistically than “your” President. Thus, discussions have to be at a rational level.

    ……
    re: why was Steven’s there essentially with a totally inadequate security force?

    good question. answers need to be provided but does anyone think this POTUS issued a direct order for him to go there with a inadequate security force when the Ambassador himself KNEW that help was not going to be immediately available?

    —LarryG, never said it, or heard it said, in that way.

    ……
    re: freedom of speech..

    cut to the chase here.. if someone is uttering something that is perceived as a terrorist threat – do we cut off their access to media that they’d use to utter such threats?

    yes or no..

    —LarryG, that is not what I said, but Freedom of Speech does not cover the commission of crime. It never has.

    Making offensive art – not a crime. … Yet.

    (UN is said to be considering making it a crime)

    Why in the world did the President and Secretary of State continually make references to this darn video? Americans are wonderfully able and generous in making art that offends against all religious beliefs. So, the heck, what?


    bonus question: do you think the US is the sole arbiter of what is “legal” speech in the world and on the internet?

    —LarryG, ha, bonus! I fear I won’t do well here because I strive to be rational and Free Speech gets into my emotions.

    I do not think of the US being an “arbiter” of “legal” speech. Rather, the US government has no place holding up the video, the result of a US citizen exercising his Free Speech rights, and tearing into that video with disparagement. These government officials took the oath to defend and protect the rights contained in the Constitution, one of which is Freedom of Speech. Either defend the video or simply ignore it and condemn the violence.

    1. re: ” LarryG, so? Said spokesman is a big girl. She, too, like any spokesman before her, must then be big enough to endure the slings and arrows of critics,?”

      really.. show me the last spokesperson that they went after in that way.

      re: – the Senators “requests”. Do you listen to FOX news?
      O’Reilly, Hanity, etc? do you see their commentary and the Senators coming on to FOX as “requests”?

      re: Partisan – I look at how previous POTUS were treated with similar circumstances… of terrorist incidents…

      re: POTUS orders and “I never saw it that way”.

      Again, do you watch FOX news or not?

      re: jawboning the video verses shutting off twitter/internet access to those you do not agree with and call their speech – prelude to a crime..

      can the US impose it’s Constitutional rationale for free speech – across the world on the internet?

      Bonus Question – what is “inflammatory” speech?

      does that justify govt actions against those uttering “inflammatory” speech?

      1. Still, there remains, or should, a line of demarcation between the media and the Senate. Though the primary media seems to be aligned quite closely with the current administration, dangerously close.

        So, if the President were to call out the Senators for the “sins” of Fox News, that clearly is illogical and overly emotional ( the phrase “hissy fit” springs to mind wherein one lashes out in psychic pain with no accuracy in targeting).

        You may disagree, but I believe the media was pretty darn rough on President Bush and on anyone who was aligned with him on policy.

        Yes, I watch Fox News, most of what I watch is commentary and analysis ( man, is there lots of analysis ). But, for news reports, investigative reporting by Jennifer Griffin and Catherine Herridge are the quality we once would see in the mainline press.

        The networks and major newspapers are giving the Benghazi story a real good leaving-alone.

        What is your position then re basic Freedom of Speech?

        Why do you say I advocate shutting off media access “those I do not agree with?” Also, I do not control what is considered a crime, that is the gummint’s business – so criminal conspiracy is a crime, inflammation of feelings is not a crime – prelude or otherwise, it seems to me.

        You are fine with abridging the rights of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? Do you think anyone making a wisecrack about the religion of Islam is fair game for getting his rights revoked?

        You ask such a thought provoking question, which I had misread at first. That is whether the US can impose its Constitutional “rationale” (what? It is our right) of Free Speech across the world via the Internet… Well, I gotta think around the edges of this for a time.

        1. re: Still, there remains, or should, a line of demarcation between the media and the Senate. Though the primary media seems to be aligned quite closely with the current administration, dangerously close.

          but that’s not the case. It’s basically what the right and FOX news claim but is not substantiated at all. What exactly are you calling the “primary” media? Isn’t FOX the most heavily watched cable show?

          “So, if the President were to call out the Senators for the “sins” of Fox News, that clearly is illogical and overly emotional ( the phrase “hissy fit” springs to mind wherein one lashes out in psychic pain with no accuracy in targeting).”

          he’s calling them out for their actions of which they chose to pursue on FOX. There is no hissy fit here other than McCain and his fellow neo-cons.

          “You may disagree, but I believe the media was pretty darn rough on President Bush and on anyone who was aligned with him on policy.”

          they WERE rough on him and not just for one thing. Try WMD, Abu Ghraib, renditions, torture, holding people in secret without charges, etc. When you do stuff like that – blaming the media for it is silly.

          “Yes, I watch Fox News, most of what I watch is commentary and analysis ( man, is there lots of analysis ). But, for news reports, investigative reporting by Jennifer Griffin and Catherine Herridge are the quality we once would see in the mainline press.”

          I like those two and I like Chris Wallace and Sheppard Smith for honest reporting but when you say “commentary”, who are you talking about and do you see any of these people on the “commentary”?

          “The networks and major newspapers are giving the Benghazi story a real good leaving-alone.”

          no they are not. They’re reporting it – but not like FOX news is.

          “What is your position then re basic Freedom of Speech?

          Why do you say I advocate shutting off media access “those I do not agree with?” Also, I do not control what is considered a crime, that is the gummint’s business – so criminal conspiracy is a crime, inflammation of feelings is not a crime – prelude or otherwise, it seems to me.”

          what I’m saying is that there needs to be consistency in one’s opinion – that the views need to be the same no matter who is POTUS.

          “You are fine with abridging the rights of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? Do you think anyone making a wisecrack about the religion of Islam is fair game for getting his rights revoked?”

          who said that? Not me? I’m asking what the policy should be – across the board – for everyone – not just one guy whom you support or not.

          “You ask such a thought provoking question, which I had misread at first. That is whether the US can impose its Constitutional “rationale” (what? It is our right) of Free Speech across the world via the Internet… Well, I gotta think around the edges of this for a time.”

          I appreciate you recognizing that and I suspect that you’ll see how futile it is for the US to think they can do any more than any other country can do – other than make rules for their own country and if you think about
          that – … things get interesting real quick.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content