44 Percent of Republicans Think Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in the Next Few Years

Revolution map
Map of former USA from NBC’s “Revolution”

The most recent national survey of registered voters from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind finds that attitudes regarding the perceived likelihood of an armed revolution to protect liberties are influencing the debate over gun safety legislation.

Supporters and opponents of gun control have very different fundamental beliefs about the role of guns in American society. Overall, the poll finds that 29 percent of Americans think that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. However, these beliefs are conditional on party. Just 18 percent of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary, as opposed to 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents.

Only 38 percent of Americans who believe a revolution might be necessary support additional gun control legislation, compared with 62 percent of those who don’t think an armed revolt will be needed. “The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for,” said Cassino. “If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”

This is one poll that I hope is wrong. Almost a third of Americans believe a bloody revolution is coming soon to our country? Nearly half of Republicans believe it?

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on May 7, 2013 - 6:34 pm

    Wow!

    I agree! We need an armed revolution!

    Republicans should shoot themselves!

    Give peace a chance.

  2. #2 by cav on May 7, 2013 - 7:45 pm

    Took the words right outta my mouth.

    Oh, and isn’t it interesting how maps change?

  3. #3 by brewski on May 7, 2013 - 8:31 pm

    You will be the first one to take up arms when the Ponzi scheme of social security collapses like all Ponzi schemes do. You will be surprised, then mad, then armed.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on May 7, 2013 - 9:22 pm

    brewski obviously doesn’t have any parents. That makes him bitter enough to use the last box.

  5. #6 by brewski on May 7, 2013 - 9:48 pm

    My parents have been married for 55 years, and counting.

    • #7 by Larry Bergan on May 7, 2013 - 11:20 pm

      Prove it!

      Your parents don’t exist, and neither do you!

      Can I find you in Nigeria, Belgium, France, Germany, Peru, Argentina,?

      Where can I find you?

      You don’t exist.

  6. #8 by Larry Bergan on May 7, 2013 - 11:08 pm

    It doesn’t matter that Al Gore only has less then half of Romney’s wealth.

    What matters is motive.

    What has Rmoney done to protect the earth for your parents and their children?

    You!

  7. #9 by brewski on May 8, 2013 - 7:52 am

    Gore hasn’t done anything to do that. His home has a huge carbon footprint and he profited by selling to petro-monarchy. The worst thing is that you believe he had done something.

    “Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).”

    • #10 by Larry Bergan on May 8, 2013 - 5:05 pm

      Yeah, I’ve heard about Gore’s energy gulping castle before – every time his name comes up. You forgot to mention George W’s solar panels though.

      You’re slipping, brewski.

      • #11 by brewski on May 8, 2013 - 6:48 pm

        So you admit that Gore is contributing to global warming admit he is as rich as Rmoney, and you admit that he is a lying hypocrite. But you still support him.

        You’d make a good Mormon. You’ll believe anything.

        • #12 by Larry Bergan on May 8, 2013 - 7:28 pm

          So now it’s getting personal.

          I grew up as a Mormon, but wouldn’t have voted for Mitt Romney if he gave me his entire undisclosed fortune.

          Al Gore had to take off his shoes at the airport.

  8. #13 by Nathan Erkkila on May 8, 2013 - 1:06 pm

    Somehow I kinda hope they do because I am getting sick and tired of listening to them.

  9. #14 by Nathan Erkkila on May 8, 2013 - 2:31 pm

    Oh boo hoo. I’m sorry that you are an ever increasing minority, but shut up. If the federal guns don’t kill you, then hopefully you’ll learn humility.

  10. #15 by HappyHeathen on May 8, 2013 - 4:40 pm

    These Teavangelists are all hat and no cattle just like Rick Perry in Texas, declaring independence out of one side of his mouth while clamoring for government funding out of the other. If there were some sort of armed revolution declared you’d have a hand full of bat crap crazies like Ted Nugent show up and the rest would be asking for a pass to the bathroom to clean their shorts.

    Did I mention Rick Perry and no cattle?

  11. #16 by Larry Bergan on May 8, 2013 - 5:12 pm

    When Ted Nugent’s shorts get shit, it’s for a reason and usually takes about two weeks.

    I love bringing this up, every chance I get!

  12. #17 by cav on May 8, 2013 - 8:13 pm

    “You say you’ll change the constitution

    We all love to change your head
    You tell me it’s the institution

    You better free your mind instead”

    • #18 by Larry Bergan on May 8, 2013 - 8:35 pm

      John Lennon was a bitter/great man!

  13. #19 by Richard Warnick on May 8, 2013 - 10:19 pm

    If this post had a point, it was that I hope there is something wrong with this poll.

    Seems to have become an exercise in free association. Or disassociation?

  14. #20 by cav on May 8, 2013 - 10:38 pm

    Oh, so we were supposed to write about poll validity, or that polls could be structured to show that 64% of the republicans are clinically insane whereas only 62% of the dems are similarly afflicted.

    Now, I find it interesting that, given the numbers above, 44%R and only 18%D fear immanent revolution, reveal another startling item. The two camps seem to suffer different kinds of mental illnesses.

    I’ll conduct further research as soon as I shut the water off in the potato patch.
    :-)

    Lurkers, if there are such creatures, should definitely feel free to comment. Let’s make this blog rival Reddit!

  15. #23 by Larry Bergan on May 9, 2013 - 12:29 am

    cav:

    Thanks for chipping in!

    Words still matter!

    • #25 by Richard Warnick on May 9, 2013 - 10:55 am

      Um, no. They aren’t going to sell a lot of those bumper stickers.

      BTW can you observe the contrast between the patriotic (and maybe too uncritical) Democratic response to the unprecedented 9/11 attacks in 2001 and the hyper-partisan Republican witch-hunt over the Benghazi attack, which though tragic, was hardly unprecedented? There were a dozen terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the Bush administration, for example.

  16. #26 by brewski on May 9, 2013 - 11:10 am

    It isn’t the existence of the attack which is the question or the issue. It is the lying, the coverup, the retribution, the lack of accountability.

    • #27 by Richard Warnick on May 9, 2013 - 11:39 am

      Nobody lied or tried to “cover up” the Benghazi attack. There was no lack of accountability. An immediate investigation was ordered by the President.

      Have you forgotten this?

      “The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the rose garden and I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror, and also said that we’re going to hunt down those that committed this crime,” he said.

      “You said in the rose garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror?” Romney asked. “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

      Romney appeared to scent blood and pushed Obama to repeat the claim.
      The president responded: “Get the transcript”.

      At that point the CNN moderator, Candy Crowley, waded in to say that Obama was right, leaving Romney fumbling for a response. The president chimed in with: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”. It drew one of the few bursts of applause during the debate.

      Right-wing Republicans are amazing. Humiliate them, and they come back for more!

      My question, which you ignored the first time, is: Can you observe the contrast between how the Dems reacted to the 9/11 attacks and other, smaller terrorist attacks during the Bush administration, and the hyper-partisan Republican witch-hunt on Benghazi?

      I could ask, where was the accountability for the 9/11 attacks? Bill Maher was the only guy who got fired, as I recall.

      Speaking of accountability: Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security

    • #28 by cav on May 9, 2013 - 3:56 pm

      Oh, he’s not perfect, but he’s far better than any other system we’re likely to vote in. Or something.

  17. #29 by brewski on May 9, 2013 - 1:04 pm

    1. Obama did not call the Beghazi attack and act of terror. He made a general statement about terror.

    2. This is what a cover-up looks like:

    Just ask Nixon.

    3. As for accountability, there has been none. Hillary is still considered the front runner for the Demo-cronyist Party.

    4. Immediate investigation? Ooooooooooh. You mean just like the financial fiasco investigation and all the criminals who have been put in jail?

    I already answered your question.

  18. #30 by Nathan Erkkila on May 9, 2013 - 1:25 pm

    Brewski. Maybe you should have called Bush out after 9/11. But that doesn’t matter because he is a republican.

  19. #31 by brewski on May 9, 2013 - 1:48 pm

    Why Bush any more than Clinton?

    Richard has retreated in a humiliating way from his former “it happened on his watch” mantra. So according to Richard, that doesn’t count any more.

    If that is our standard, then Obama needs to answer for Boston, Ft. Hood and Benghazi.

    Clinton needs to answer for the 1993 WTC, USS Cole, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam in addition to the preparation for 2001 WTC.

    Fair is fair.

    • #32 by Richard Warnick on May 9, 2013 - 3:44 pm

      brewski–

      President Bush was unique in his desire to duck responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Not only did he fail to order an investigation, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission and tried to obstruct it. As far as I can tell, the Bush administration has been able to evade any kind of accountability – political, civil or criminal. To this day, Bush supporters claim “he kept us safe,” contrary to all the facts. IOKIYAR.

      Bob Cesca: 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

      Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could’ve been raised about the Bush-era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm’s way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years).

      The Clinton administration initiated investigations of every terrorist attack. They caught and convicted Ramzi Yousef, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, Wadih el-Hage, Adel Abdel Bari, Mohammed Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed. Many others indicted in 1998 for the embassy bombings were later captured or killed. President Clinton took full responsibility.

      Likewise, President Obama has claimed responsibility for everything that has happened on his watch. There has been no denial, no “cover-up,” no whitewash. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton accepted her responsibility for the lack of security in Benghazi.

      Of course, there have only been NINE congressional hearings on Benghazi so far. Maybe we need more, in order to find out all the facts.

      The level of hypocrisy exhibited by the Republicans on the hyper-partisan Benghazi witch-hunt is absolutely mind-blowing. For example, Senator McCain thinks that it ought to be a crime to say something on a Sunday talk show that turns out to be wrong. But that describes McCain’s career for the past decade!

  20. #33 by cav on May 9, 2013 - 3:41 pm

    Why Obama any more than Bush?

    Why US any more than the revolving-door slime?

    Fair is fair, this marketplace, not so much.

  21. #34 by brewski on May 9, 2013 - 10:16 pm

    Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice lied nose to nose, face to face, six inches looking into the eyes of grieving mother Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith.

    They told her on September 14th that her son’s death was the result of the youtube video, when they knew that was a lie.

    They should all resign today. Hillary, should get down on her knees in front of Mrs. Smith and beg for forgiveness.

    Facts are facts.

    • #35 by Richard Warnick on May 10, 2013 - 10:32 am

      Facts are facts, except when they aren’t. Then they are bullshit.

      “Have you heard from anybody in the Obama administration?” Tapper asked.

      “I got one telephone call from a clerk that was a couple days after it happened,” Smith replied.

  22. #36 by brewski on May 9, 2013 - 10:25 pm

  23. #38 by Nathan Erkkila on May 10, 2013 - 12:15 am

    Yes Brewski. Keep wasting your time trying to make yourself feel better. Obama won reelection, the democrats have a senate majority, the popularity of the GOP is deteriorating rapidly and you know that there is nothing you can do about it.

  24. #39 by brewski on May 10, 2013 - 8:27 am

    Nathan, you are very wrong about me. I have voted for and do vote for candidates from various parties, including Democratic. So your partisan assumptions about me are factually wrong. Your posts only demonstrate your narrow partisanship. Try again.

    BTW, Obama winning the election does not excuse his lying to Mrs. Smith.

  25. #40 by cav on May 10, 2013 - 9:13 am

    Understanding the Benghazi brouhaha requires you to understand the 2011 NATO invasion of Libya.

    But, why should the average Joe have any such understanding? After all, the western press has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide the material facts from the American citizenry.

    So here’s a quick sketch.

    Bypassing the CIA / MI6′s 40 year efforts to oust Colonel Qaddafi after he dethroned King Idriss in 1969, I’ll only suggest you can think of other countries where the British – American alliance has activated coups d’etats (Iran, Iraq, to name but a few).

    Beginning in the 70′s, the ‘rogue’ Qaddafi dedicated a sizable portion of his energies to restraining excessive exploitation of Libyan hydrocarbons – keeping the cartel’s control of hydrocarbon stable and pricing uninterrupted.

    Enter the Reagan / George H. W. Bush regime. Suddenly the cartel wanted unlimited access to Libyan hydrocarbons. Qaddafi decided not to give. Then began the propaganda effort to paint Qaddafi as a state sponsor of terrorism (and i suppose he was, but only in the sense that he gave the US, the UK and NATO access to Libya to train terrorists – the IRA, the Tamil tigers, all the others created by Operation ‘Gladio’).

    Reagan, functioning as G.W.H. Bushes automaton, ordered a strike (an act of war) on Tripoli using F111s launched from Lakin-Heath AFB in the UK. The objective was to exterminate Qaddafi because of his knowledge of UK – USA terrorist training camps in Libya.

    Qaddafi / Libya had nothing to do with Pan Am flight 103. that was a DEA / CIA op intended to eliminate DEA /US Army personnel who had learned of USA – UK / Mossad drug trafficking of opium from the Bekaa Valley.

    Now, for an interlude. Let us consider the Libya unconsidered by the propagandist British, American / European press.

    Libya was a unique state of the African continent – it had no debt, no controlling by the IMF, the world bank. It, ostensibly a desert country, had developed an aquifer and had a pipeline delivering potable water. It was becoming an oasis, in fact. It also had maintained rigorous control of hydrocarbon production. Qaddafi was not allowing the cartel to rape Libya for hydrocarbon extraction. It also had a considerable quantity of gold bullion, not held in us or EEC controlled banks (you might ask, now, what became of that gold?).

    Among all the African nations, Libya may have been the only free agent.

    But Qaddafi made two mistakes….

    1. In 2011-2012, he declared an increase in royalties to Libya for hydrocarbon extraction. And

    2. … His critical crime[?]! He announced that he no longer would accept worthless fiat currencies (USD, EUROS) as payment for Libyan hydrocarbons. ONLY GOLD BULLION WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. And that is why it was that the EEC (NATO) nations were the first and most hostile nations calling for an invasion of Libya – they did not have any gold. It was long gone, no matter what their fraudulent books declared.

    The purported American ambassador was a ‘spook’. He was given diplomatic credentials – on the thinking that this would protect him. It did allow him the luxury of buying gangsters throughout the Islamic world so as to Qastrate Qaddafi (think Kermit Roosevelt and Iran in the 1950′s). His mission was so crazed that he went so far as to arm Salafist Tuareg infiltrating from Mali. Qaddafi had always been their opponent. And moreover, they loved the idea of removing Qaddafi and being given lots of munitions so that they could continue their decades long insurrection in Mali. After the completion of the coup, the murder of Qaddafi, the purported ‘ambassador’, attempted to retrieve the munitions from the Benghazi gangsters and the Tuareg who recognized that if they gave up those munitions, that assassination squads from the delta force, sas, sbs, et al were going to eliminate them. Thus, they struck first.

    That is likely closer to the real story than anything exposed by the media so far. A story that neither republicans, democrats nor libertarians would really dare explore, because it is just another story of American gangsterism / terrorism.

    And the republican outrage is just theater. They do not want any thorough investigation into this episode unless it’s sole victims are their political rivals – Obama and Clinton.

    • #41 by brewski on May 10, 2013 - 3:44 pm

      That sounds like a great movie script except that in August 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing and agreed to a $2.7 billion settlement.

      I suppose Gaddafi really works for the CIA/MI-6 and is just pretending to be crazy. It’s all part of his cover.

      That would explain the Cynthia McKinney connection.

      • #42 by cav on May 10, 2013 - 4:28 pm

        Next thing you know it’ll turn out those protesters in Madison didn’t do millions of dollars of damage with masking tape on the capitol walls.

        And Issa’s FAIL means true pictures of the kind of bargaining chips thrown into that negotiation will never surface either. Outside his scope.

        Needless to say Qaddafi was probably made an offer similar to that offered the Taliban in negotiations with the Texas Oil Admin – an offer that couldn’t be refused.

    • #43 by Larry Bergan on May 11, 2013 - 3:05 pm

      Gee cav; Just what I needed. Another complex, and unbelievable American war story. :)

      Sounds about right though. Actually it sounds exactly right. As far as I know, we’ve yet to have a straight-forward reason for attacking anybody.

      Just ask Smedley Butler. They sure don’t make them like that anymore.

      So just who are these 44% of republicans arming themselves against? Do they really know?

  26. #44 by Richard Warnick on May 10, 2013 - 10:12 am

    Darrell Issa: Benghazi Hearing Came Up Empty

    Remember, this was the Big One. This was the hearing that Faux News Channel said would result in President Obama’s impeachment. After the failure of eight previous congressional hearings on Benghazi.

    • #45 by cav on May 11, 2013 - 4:54 pm

      And remember how speedily, thoroughly and transparently the investigation into Bush the Lesser flying the bin Laden family out of the U. S. on Day 2 of September The 11 was conducted?

      Me neither.

      • #46 by brewski on May 11, 2013 - 10:43 pm

        Yes, there was, and her is the answer:

        And ultimately the 9/11 Commission would offer the following commentary on the issue:
        Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States
        Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:
        (1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?
        First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.
        Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at theWhite House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us,“I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me.” Clarke added,“I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.”
        Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it. The President andVice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.
        Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI’s requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.
        The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures.They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.

        Chapter 10, 9/11 Commission Report

        • #47 by cav on May 12, 2013 - 12:26 am

          I take it you’re referring to the same 9/11 report whose reporters incredibly entertained Bush and Cheney – discretely Bible (or was it the Koran) sworn before they unequivocally revealed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

          Another one I missed. Musta been napping.

    • #48 by Larry Bergan on May 11, 2013 - 5:38 pm

      I wouldn’t trust Darrell, (police radar detector salesman/car thief ), Issa – if that’s his real name – to shine my shiny black shoes.

  27. #49 by brewski on May 10, 2013 - 11:48 am

    No, you’re not paranoid, it’s just that the government really is against you:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-conservative-groups-2012-election/2149939/

    • #50 by Richard Warnick on May 12, 2013 - 10:40 am

      Why were partisan political groups applying for tax-exempt status?

      • #51 by brewski on May 12, 2013 - 12:46 pm

        Ask the DNC

        • #52 by Richard Warnick on May 13, 2013 - 8:46 am

          Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not tax deductible.

      • #53 by cav on May 13, 2013 - 9:31 am

        If the IRS was going against lefty organizations, you can bet there would be no outcry from teapartiers.

  28. #55 by Richard Warnick on May 10, 2013 - 11:53 am

    • #56 by Larry Bergan on May 10, 2013 - 7:54 pm

      Inhofe couldn’t get a job dressing up like the statue of liberty and dancing around outside a tax preparation office. I feel sorry for him.

      “Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as the most serious, the most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said…

      By the rest of them, I guess he means every phony charge that was made concerning the Clinton’s and Obama which only wasted our Goddamned time. This is just the current one. Right Inhofe?

      Where do they find these rats and how do they make it to the senate!

      [Nothing against kids who dress up and solicit for tax preparation! Besides, they probably make more then I do, but I still feel sorry for them.]

  29. #57 by brewski on May 10, 2013 - 3:27 pm

    You are defending lying to a grieving mother and telling her that she doesn’t count as a family member?

    You are sick.

  30. #59 by Richard Warnick on May 10, 2013 - 3:39 pm

    The delusion thinking is spinning out of control. Republican strategist: Benghazi ‘much worse’ than 9/11

  31. #60 by cav on May 12, 2013 - 9:39 am

    Good morning all you contentious ‘flippers’.

    There are few things in the world I can count on, but one of them is that the Republicans in the House and Senate will always do the opposite of what is decent.

  32. #61 by cav on May 12, 2013 - 8:54 pm

    My son just sent me this.

    https://blu152.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messageId=b284cee3-bb70-11e2-8d9f-002264c1cd16&Aux=2004|0|8D01D949886B410||0|1|0|0|1|5,53&cid=5081efa2b7e37bd4&maxwidth=220&maxheight=160&size=Att

  33. #62 by cav on May 13, 2013 - 9:08 am

    The whole Benghazi thing IS completely the Dems fault.

    This is precisely the kind of sh*t that happens when one of our major parties is completely comprised of paranoid lunatic criminals and the other party does not make that point loudly and over and over again.

    A proper party would be shaming these a**holes on a daily basis.

    • #63 by Richard Warnick on May 13, 2013 - 9:45 am

      The Dems control the Senate. In a sane world, there would be a special select committee dedicated to investigating the deaths of 4,000 Americans in Iraq.

      The Truth About The Right’s Latest Benghazi Attacks
      Issa: Obama Covered Up Benghazi Terrorism By Calling It An ‘Act Of Terror’

      • #64 by brewski on May 13, 2013 - 7:27 pm

        1. Obama did not call it an act of terror.

        2. If he did call it an act of terror then why did he tell Pat Smith it was not?

        3. If he did call it an act of terror then why did the spin bullshit spewed by Susan Rice say it was not?

        You have no answers.

        • #65 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 8:46 am

          Two days after the World Trade Center was obliterated, George W. Bush said, “And it was just a sobering moment for Laura and me. But we again thank the hospital, the docs, the nurses and, of course, again tell the families that the nation prays for those who have been injured by this unbelievable act of terror.”

          Think Progress:

          On the day following the Benghazi attacks, Obama appeared at the White House Rose Garden alongside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks, Obama referred to the incident as an “act of terror” and used the phrase again at a campaign rally the day after in Denver, CO. “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished,” he said.

          Where is this so-called “lie”? There is no difference between an act of terror, an act of terrorism, a terrorist act, and a terrorist attack. Can you quote what the President said to Pat Smith? She claims he told her, “I will get back to you.”

          United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice repeated talking points that turned out to be wrong. But she emphasized, “[F]irst of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.”

          Senator John McCain is on Sunday talk shows almost every single week saying things that are factually wrong. He is in no position to criticize.

          “Benghazi” is shorthand for “hyper-partisan bullshit.”

  34. #66 by cav on May 13, 2013 - 7:40 pm

    It’s a vast left-wing conspiracy! There’s no other conceivable possibility.

  35. #67 by brewski on May 13, 2013 - 8:01 pm

    It’s really not that complicated. There is no conspiracy and no secret. The State Department fucked up. Obama fucked up. Since it was 6 weeks before the election they didn’t want to admit they fucked up. So they do what invertebrates do and they lied. Now they are trapped in their lie and they can’t get out.

    • #68 by cav on May 13, 2013 - 8:36 pm

      Of course you have links for the invertebrate lying part – probably going back to the Chimps administration.

      Whatever, keep em. The opinions of Glenn Beck and Donald Trump have little currency here.

      • #69 by brewski on May 13, 2013 - 9:22 pm

        Are you trying to assert they didn’t lie? Are you kidding? The opinions of Trotsky and Goebbels have little currency here.

  36. #70 by brewski on May 13, 2013 - 9:20 pm

    Obama keeps making it easier and easier:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/us/justice-ap-phones/index.html

  37. #71 by brewski on May 14, 2013 - 8:25 am

    Let me lay it out for you:

    September 11, 2012:
    US diplomatic post in Benghazi attacked by al Qaeda militants.
    State Department’s Gregory Hicks, then the No. 2 American official in Libya, spoke with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at 2 a.m. on the night of the attack. Hicks briefed Clinton and her senior staff on what was happening on the ground at the time. Hicks and the other American officials in Tripoli knew that the government facility in Benghazi was under terrorist attack. Minutes after the siege started, Hicks spoke with Ambassador Stevens himself, who told him, “We are under attack.” Hicks was reporting these details, in real time, to the State Department in Washington.

    September 14:
    Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all tell Pat Smith that the death of her son Sean Smith, was caused by a YouTube video.

    September 16:
    Susan Rice said the deaths were the result of a spontaneous demonstration against the YouTube videos

    September 25:
    Barack Obama gives a speech at the United Nations blaming the YouTube video

    Meanwhile, the White House is targeting the Associated Press and using the IRS to go after anyone who opposes them.

    May 5:
    Obama gives speech at Ohio State telling students that they need to ignore those voices who warn about government tyranny.

    Can you say “Nixon”?

    • #72 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 9:15 am

      Fact check:

      1. Ansar al-Sharia is the group that claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attacks, not al-Qaeda.

      2. Embassy staff in Tripoli describe Gregory Hicks as incompetent. According to eyewitnesses, he was in a daze while other senior Embassy officials organized the evacuation from Tripoli to Germany. “At one point [Hicks] wandered past the huddled State evacuees, muttering to himself, and just sank into a couch.” His testimony to the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform was self-serving.

      3. Pat Smith’s account of the conversation she had at the Joint Base Andrews ceremony with President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton varies:

      Version 1:

      “I cried on every one of their shoulders,” she said. “I couldn’t believe how they made me feel. They made me feel so wonderful.”

      Version 2:

      “I told Obama personally, I said, ‘Look, I had him for his first 17 years and then he went into the service, then you got him,’” she recounted. “I said ‘You screwed up, you didn’t do a good job, I lost my son.’ And they said, ‘We’ll get back to you. We — I promise, I promise you. I will get back to you.’”

      I can’t find the version where she says they blamed her son’s death on a YouTube video.

      4. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in her Sunday talk show appearances, emphasized repeatedly that the FBI was investigating the Benghazi attack and that nothing could be known for certain right away.

      5. At the United Nations, President Obama was clearly referring to the attack on the U.S. embassy in Cairo. There is no embassy in Benghazi.

      There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

      Poll Finds Americans Aren’t Buying GOP Benghazi Witch-Hunt

  38. #73 by brewski on May 14, 2013 - 9:48 am

    You need to move to Chicago because clearly you understand the tactics of throwing the career diplomats under the bus, attack the grieving mother, refer to opinion polls under the heading of “fact check” and other tried and true techniques of the violent left.

    BTW. Thinkregress is slightly less credible than the Blaze.

    • #74 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 10:01 am

      1. If Susan Rice was thrown under the bus, it was joint effort of the Republicans and President Obama.

      2. Pat Smith has said different things at different times. But when did she say the things you claim she said? Quote, please.

      3. Polls show that people aren’t buying the Benghazi witch-hunt. Clearly NINE congressional hearings aren’t enough.

      BTW the DOJ, not the White House, went after the AP. If the GOP does not approve, then why did they filibuster the shield law bill?

      The IRS was simply doing its job. They have to investigate partisan political groups that claim tax-exempt status. You know that the White House was not involved.

      • #75 by brewski on May 14, 2013 - 11:23 am

        1. Whether or not Thinkregress allegedly talked to former State Department employees who didn’t like Hicks is totally irrelevant to the point or to any point. The only point is that on 9/11/12 at 2am Hillary was told that the post was attacked and that there was no reason to believe at all that there was any “demonstration” about anything. See the Huffington Post.

        2. Of course Mrs. Smith said good things about the President and Hillary back then. That was before she learned that she had been lied to. So of course she is changing what she is saying since what she has learned has changed. I used to think Obama wasn’t a total imbecile at one point too. So what? I have learned that he is now so what I say has changed.

        See at time 2:55
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLaiubDCx9M

        3. Fuck polls.

        4. You are the only person on the planet who believes “The IRS was simply doing its job.” Obama doesn’t believe it. The IRS doesn’t believe it. If they were just doing their job then why did they apologize if they had nothing to apologize for?

        You have revealed yourself to be a low-budget partisan hack who isn’t even very good at it. If you are going to lie and be immoral then don’t do it in such a way that is so easy to get humiliated and caught. Try a new subject that isn’t so easy to prove your lies.

        I’m sure the DOJ just made it up on their own and no one from the WH had any idea………….cough.

        • #76 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 11:46 am

          1. The point is that Hicks was incompetent, and was reassigned for that reason. You ignore the fact that the crisis in Cairo erupted first, and Egypt was a bigger concern than Libya – possibly leading to confusion in Washington, 5,000 miles away.

          2. In the Faux News Channel interview with O’Reilly, Smith also said “They all said they would check it and get back to me.” Contradicting her “nose to nose” statement moments earlier. So she gave two different versions of the story in one interview! BTW I thought you never watched that channel.

          3. Let’s “un-skew” those polls, right? Worked for Romney.

          4. Look, I once volunteered for a genuine non-profit educational group that waited years to get approved for tax-exempt status with the IRS. These political partisan tea-party groups all got approved within months, because the partisan right-wing Supreme Court made the law meaningless. There is nothing to apologize for, and the IRS should not have apologized to the right-wing noise machine.

          I’m searching for the truth, amid an unprecedented outpouring of lies from the right-wing media. That’s not easy – doing the best I can ;-)

          Still waiting for the congressional investigation of the 98 people who died in attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions during the Bush administration.

  39. #78 by brewski on May 14, 2013 - 10:00 am

    “Hicks matters not because his testimony reveals that the outcome on the ground per se would have been any different. He matters because none of us knew about his requests or role until a few days ago.

    That is unacceptable. I don’t know Hicks, but he has a distinguished record of service. Thus far, his account — which will be discussed at length today in U.S. Senate hearings — has largely been substantiated by spokespeople for the Pentagon and Department of State. He may be angry and wants to set history right about what happened, when. I don’t blame him for this at all and hope that he manages a judiciousness in his commentary that helps the public achieve what it deserves — the truth.

    But the administration needs to step back and ask how is it that Hicks, no matter what his story might have been, was never offered as part of the story.”

    Huffington Post

    • #79 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 11:11 am

      brewski–

      I don’t know why I bothered to look, but I found your un-sourced material in an article by Steve Clemons in The Atlantic. Maybe it was linked in HuffPo, if so I didn’t find it. There is a simple answer to Clemons’ question.

      I read the unclassified version of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board report (PDF), and sure enough Hicks isn’t mentioned. OTOH I find it hard to believe that he was overlooked when Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen led the investigation. Perhaps the classified version goes into more detail and mentions Hicks. Other people who were on the scene in Tripoli suggest that Hicks was incompetent and mostly a bystander to events, so maybe that’s why he wasn’t mentioned.

      • #80 by brewski on May 14, 2013 - 11:29 am

        It doesn’t matter if Hicks was incompetent or not. What matters is that he told Hillary at 2 am on 9/11/12 that the post was attacked and 3 days later she is looking into the eyes of the grieving mother and LIED TO HER!

        What is your obsession with Hicks’ management style when that has nothing to do with anything that HILLARY LIED and PEOPLE DIED!

        • #81 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 12:49 pm

          It’s ironic given Hillary Clinton’s “3 AM Phone Call” ad from the 2008 Democratic primary election. She was notified of the Benghazi attack at 4:00 pm (10:00 pm in Tripoli). If Hicks called her four hours later, that may be true but irrelevant. Anyway, he was in no position to know who was attacking Americans in Benghazi or why.

          I already made the point about how the Washington folks were already engaged in dealing with embassy attacks in other countries, in which the attackers clearly used the video as a convenient excuse.

          [T]he U.S. embassy [in Cairo] was “under assault” by crowds trying to scale the wall. American embassies in Yemen and Tunisia were also facing a “serious threat. Clinton personally called the president of Tunisia, she said, to “beg him to send reinforcements, which he did, to finally save our embassy.”

          Out of Pat Smith’s multiple accounts of what was said to her on September 14, you select one that suits your unfounded accusation. Putting it in ALL CAPS does not make it true.

          • #82 by cav on May 14, 2013 - 1:22 pm

            BUT THE LIE WAS HAND WRITTEN PERSONALLY BY GOEBBELS HIMSELF!!!!!

            Or was that Trotsky? Confusing. Check the time-stamp again – surely it’s 2 a.m. somewhere on the Planet.

          • #83 by brewski on May 14, 2013 - 1:29 pm

            Your quote from Pat Smith was from September 18, 2012, before she knew she had been lied to. Which part of that don’t you understand?

  40. #84 by cav on May 14, 2013 - 11:36 am

    The Issa committee shunned Pickering, so who knows what kind of ‘cherry picking’ went on from the very beginning. I dare say it was not what it is represented as being.

    The Wankerific Washington Post “fact checker” Glenn Kessler gave Obama “4 pinocchios” for saying he called Benghazi terrorism. See… Obama called it an “Act of terror” instead of “terrorism” – so he is a filthy GD liar.

    The racism / sexism in pursuit of political outcomes really reeks.

    • #85 by cav on May 14, 2013 - 11:49 am

      Issa: “So I think when you look at official correspondence from the
      President through the acting ambassador to the president of Libya, which came out in our hearing and was testified to under oath, the words that are being used carefully – like you just said, act of terror – an act of terror is different than a terrorist attack.”

      This is the scandal that will reverberate for months, too; while absolutely nothing else gets done in D.C.

      Why do we pay these people?

  41. #86 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 2:00 pm

    brewski–

    You actually wrote:

    Your quote from Pat Smith was from September 18, 2012, before she knew she had been lied to. Which part of that don’t you understand?

    In other words, you admit that Smith changed her story of what she said and what was said to her on September 14. She is a Faux News tool.

  42. #87 by cav on May 14, 2013 - 3:29 pm

    Oops: ABC’s Benghazi ‘scoop’ was based on fabricated email

    The real email:

    All –
    Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

    There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

    We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

    That’s very different than the version ABC’s Jon Karl (R) reported.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209042/-Oops-ABC-s-Benghazi-scoop-was-based-on-fabricated-email

    Republicans are experts at hardening mis-impressions.

    • #88 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 3:54 pm

      “Congress and people who are not particularly informed.” That’s redundant.

      • #89 by cav on May 14, 2013 - 4:33 pm

        Congress knows, or they ought to know, but instead many of them are too busy playing games to get anything right.

        I think we can blame people not being particularly informed on the Mainstream media (Fox ‘news especially).

        • #90 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 4:52 pm

          Poll: Some voters outraged by Benghazi don’t know where Benghazi is

          One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don’t actually know where it is. 10% think it’s in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.

    • #91 by Richard Warnick on May 14, 2013 - 5:03 pm

      Matt Gertz, Media Matters:

      ABC News is now claiming that its Benghazi “exclusive” was based on summaries of emails between administration aides, not the emails themselves — an assertion belied by their earlier reports.

      …It seems reasonable for readers to assume that when, for instance, a reporter publishes a direct quote attributed to a White House staffer from what is described as “an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m.,” the reporter is producing the actual words the aide wrote. Now ABC News is claiming that that is not the case.

  43. #92 by Larry Bergan on May 14, 2013 - 6:44 pm

    The “mainstream media” should probably fan their ass with their dominant hand; trying to disperse a fart before anybody shows up.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: