That's absolute bogus, and sheer intellectual dishonesty.
In WWII, there were indeed severe limitations on freedom of speech. But not of the kind that Graham envisages. Back then, nobody, I mean NOBODY, would have prohibited you of burning a copy of Mein Kampf, nazism's 'holy book'. On the contrary, you would have gotten pats on the shoulder.
You would, on the other hand, have been made to shut up, or even imprisoned, if you would have publicly (or not so publicly) disclosed crucial info on, say, Operation Overlord, prior to D-Day. And rightly so.
It's the same here. I am all for limiting Terry Jones's freedom of speech if he announces that he will put the plans for Operation Red Sand on the internet. As for burning korans however... agree with Jones and Sapp or not (I agree with them), but if the reaction of muslim mobs to a quran burning half a world away is to attack UN workers and actually butcher people trying to put their islamic hellhole of a country on track for the 21st century...
... then paying lipservice to the killers like General Petraeus did is in a way justifying the murders. Legitimizing it. I don't think the parents of Lt Col Siri Skare, the Norwegian military pilot who was among the victims, are that enamored with Petraeus' cautious wording.
A fitting reaction to muslim mobs' rioting like the one in Mazar-i-Sharif would be, for instance, a stream of hot lead at a huge rate of fire. A fitting response to Karzai would be "Shut the fuck up you incompetent, and finally do something useful."
Apart from the business end of SAW guns and sound advice, a good reaction would also be:
Hat tip reader Leo Norekens.