Christie's guilt is still unproven, and again if he is guilty I will be the first to say he
should face the consequences.
I will say this for him, he was willing to face it head on, not claiming he read it in the press, LOL, and he faced the charges in front of the press answering every question for an hour and a half including apologizing profusely.

I doubt the Rose Garden has been open for that much questioning or answering time about the many scandals in the last 5 years. :D

Wrong. I started this thread to make fun of Jim.

-spence

And your jests proved to be unfounded, since I said that if Christie ordered this, he's unfit to serve the public. Since you dodged my question, allow me to ask again,. Spence, what do you think of the fact (and it is irrefutable fact) that Hilary lied to our faces about getting shot at, at the airport in Kosovo or somewhere? And her excuse for lying, that she was tired? Does that excuse hold water?

I mean, if sleep deprivation cause her to lose the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, what the hell is going to happen when she gets calls from the Situation Room at 3 AM? If she is suffering from exhaustion-induced psychosis, is she going to order the Marines to invade Portugal?

Let's lay down our cards, Spence. Let's see who the fanatic is who cannot be critical of those who share our political ideology. Hint - it's not me.

You started this, let's take it to its logical conclusion, shall we?

I await your reply...

Let's be fair, Christie doesn't share your "political ideology".

Me? You think? I would think I agree with him on most of the issues, and for sure I admire his willingness to speak honestly and correctly about what needs to be addressed via the labor unions.

I was a huge supporter of his for a presidential run. If he had anything to do with ordering the lane closures, I want that to come out, because in that case, i would never vote for him in the primary.

Hope all is well Paul.

Jim

Yoo-hoo, Spence? Yo, Spence!!

Can't I work a bit? It helps to pay the bills.

My jest is not unfounded as I never claimed you'd profess your fealty.

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death. What's next? Biden's plaigerism and Wright's "chickens coming home to roost"?

What's interesting here is that you actually have a scandal broken with a smoking gun versus Obama's "scandals" that are highly manufactured.

What remains to be seen is if Christy can make it through this. I'd like to think he's being honest but the number of close aids that were involved makes that difficult. You know the guy is running for POTUS and you don't warn him of an ethics violation that could likely submarine his campaign?

This along with the Sandy story could very well spell doom. He's lucky it came out now.

-spence

Kindly refresh my memory? Tell me how that lie actually makes her MORE suited to be POTUS than if she told the truth?

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

This "scandal" is actually more hilarious than SNL would portray it. No doubt they will. It's that there are those flashbacks of Christie (that name just doesn't seem to fit him) walking with Obama after Sandy and praising him, and being able to "reach across the aisle" and be "bi-partisan," and bashing tea partiers and "right wing conservatives." I can't help but snicker as I write this. He bashes and shuns those who should be his allies and cozies up to those who he supposedly runs against. Has he learned anything now? Those cuddly little puppy dogs that he would befriend are now furiously biting at his ankles, and soon the wildebeest that he is will fall and become prey to his own lack of principle.

Or, as you say, he's lucky it came out now. That is, of course, how "scandals" die, isn't it? Just let time pass and they go away. And if anyone brings them up, just ask haven't we "beaten them to death?", and say it's old news. Poof. And if that doesn't quiet the old news chatter, just sarcastically repeat the scandal's names as if that, like voodoo, cleanses them of any force or validity. Right. So, since all scandals are "manufactured" (played up big by the media to give them "legs," or given a mere mention, if anything, and dropped from the conversation to wither and die) they can be dismissed by time and lack of attention.

But my laughter is cynical here, tinged with a bit of joy. The establishment Republican willingness to play the progressive game is the same self-destruction that Christie is experiencing now. He has no true friends, neither among them, nor from those across the aisle, nor most of the media. He might actually now be the very candidate that the Democrats would like to run against. Not someone with the virtue and principle to inspire the majority of Americans who want something other than more of the same, but someone not too unlike themselves, but damaged, marginalized, destroyed, and a destruction brought about by appeasing them rather than truly fighting them.

When the Republican party can muster itself to being a true opponent to the progressive ideal of huge government and our dependence on it . . . can actually stand for the principles that made us "exceptional," made us the place for individuals hungering for freedom, not a bee hive society . . . when it can articulate such principles as well as act on them rather than concocting "strategies" for so-called victory such as funding and letting Obamacare grow so that most will hate it and then vote the Dems out . . . then it will be a truly different choice for the people. And it will have a reason to exist.

As it is now, Democrat lite is a losing proposition . . . even if they win.

Mea culpa. My above post went too far. Christie, I don't think, actually "bashed" right wingers. He's too accomplished a politician to do that. His profession to be "conservative" while acting more as a "centrist" makes him appear to "conservatives" to be soft on principles. He appears to talk "right" but slide "left" when the dust settles. And that is what the "conservative base" sees as a sort of slap in the face, and what makes that base suspicious of his bona fides as a leader. But if he can't convince that base, and if it distrusts him too much, he might, despite his reputed popularity, have a tough time winning the general election for President.

And his willingness to work with the left would probably lead us further down that road, just more slowly. If the Dems were actually willing to work with "conservatives" there might also be a slow down in the direction we're going, But their success in rapidly "transforming" America is built, not on compromise, but on the opposite.

So it appears that the unwillingness to "compromise," while talking it, is the means to success. That the Repubs try to be agreeable appears to make them weak, so they get rolled over without fear of retribution. Harry Reid boldly used the "nuclear option" to bar the ability of the minority to filibuster court nominees, so Obama can freely fill vacancies at record speed with the type of judges who will help further the progressive agenda. And what do the Repubs do? They promise to restore the filibuster power when they win. Brilliant. Instead of using the power to ram through their type of judges, they'll go back to having them denied. And we go further down the road.

So Christie may weather the storm. If he does, and if it makes him stronger and an even stronger candidate by beating his attackers, will he act as tough as he talks, or will he talk and slide?

"The ties to al Qaeda were fabricated by a corrupt journalist to sell a story"

Interesting. The US Senate, which last time I checked was run by the Democrats, issued a report saying definitively that there were ties to Al Queda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...nghazi-report/

Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1028711Our presidential front runner, Mrs Clinton, said during the hearings "what difference does it make" who was responsible. HOW ABOUT THIS...the difference is, the truth tells us accurately, who we need to go after to seek justice. That means nothing to the woman who was in charge of the department that lost 4 of its employees?

I don't get the liberal willingness to let politicians get away with absolutely anything, especially if their name is Kennedy or Clinton. I truly do not get it.[/QUOTE]

So when she made that statement, was she refering to "who was responsible" as you indicated b/c the way you wrote that it sounds like she didn't care who was responsible?

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new. It's been known for some time that participants in the attack had some level of linkage to groups claiming to be al Qaeda in north Africa, but there's still no evidence of material involvement by those groups or involvement by core alQaeda in Pakistan.

Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda.

To Paul's response...she said those responsible would come out in the investigation but the priority should be on the initial actions necessary to protect out people. Funny, Jim never posts the entire remarks...

-spence

When you look at Christy's record on many issues he certainly looks like a conservative. That's he's not as rabid a partisan as the tea party would like doesn't diminish his own beliefs.

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee. A hard change in course to the right from what's been established by both parties over the past decades would be seen are more progressive than what we have today.

-spence

"the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats"

The Senate Intel committee has a chairperson who runs the committee. That chairperson is Diane Feinstein. Ms Feinstein is a Democrat. Therefore that committee, like every single senate committee, is run by the democrats. Am I going too fast for you?

There are 15 members of the committee...7 Republicans, 7 democrats, an an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Stop embarassing yourself.

Nebe said that the link to Al Queda was fabricated by a reporter. The report issued by the senate intelligence committee, run by those in your party, seems to contradict that.

"Anyone can raise a black flag and claim to be alQaeda."

That's true. Presumably, however, the Senate intelligence committee has some ability to differentiate between genuine Al Queda, and some wannabe. If that's not the case, perhaps Senator Feinstein is in over her head.

Let's assume that all she was indifferent to, was the motivatiuon behind the attackers. How is that still not crucial? If the attack was a response toi a video, then we know we can avoid future attacks by stepping up security when such videos come out. If the attack was a pre-meditated terrorist plot, we avoid future attacks by killing the members of that terrorist group.

Those are very different scenarios Paul, each of which having a completely different response. I don't believe that you disagree with that statement. It's stupifying that the SesState, and presumptive presidential nomine sees no reason to split those hairs.

WHere am I going wrong Paul? No sarcasm, that's a sincere querstion. Politics aside, I don't see how her question doesn't raise serious questions about her ability to serve at that level.

As an aside, blaming the attack on a video, is blaming the attack on a goddamn American citizen, since it was an American who mnade the video. SHe is supposed to be looking out for Americans, not throwing them under the bus to deflect blame for an attack.

I don't blame her for the attack. In this age, you can't stop them all. Her response was astounding.

jim you quoted fox, how dare you....how about CNN?
Spence, once again you are totally WRONG a

CNN) -- The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.Separately, the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel -- that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe.

Moreover, it said that people linked with various al Qaeda-related groups in North Africa and elsewhere participated in the September 11, 2012, attack, but investigators haven't been able to determine whether any one group was in command.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

carry on - and BTW, you people are all insane.

Read what she said. I don't think you have ever read a transcript.

"Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

So she said she wanted to know what happened, prevent it from happening again, and bring them to justice.

Frankly, spending this much time on a sentence or 2 in a hour??? long questioning is silly.

We tried that with McCain and Romney, didn't work out that well. I suppose the answer isn't to nominate a more radical conservative, but rather to nominate someone who won't let the Democrats and the media (sorry for the redundancy) launch unfounded attacks, one after the other. We need someone who (1) has appeal to independents, and (2) isn't afraid to throw an elbow back when attacked. That was Christie.

"it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice"

Apparently you didn't read my last post. This quote from Clinton is idiotic. It is stupifying in its absurdity. The tactical response, in terms of preventing a future attack, is very different depending upon whether it was a reaction to a video, or a premeditated terrorist plot.

Paul, what about the fact that suggesting it was because of the video, is throwing an American citizen under the bus? As well as inviting Islamic radicals to declare a fatwah on the poor guy?

Obama should have been impeached for LYING and if Christy is lying about not knowing what happened then he should be impeached too....or maybe he should get a pass as did Obama.....LMAO

I read your last post. You changed what you said about the statement from her not caring about who was responsible to whether she was concerned with the motivation. She said "It is our job to figure out what happened". Don't you think that would cover the motivation?


I hate to say it but this is why I usually ignore your posts.

OOPS!.....if christy is only misleading then he should be forgiven

Read my lips:rotf2:

Unlike other Senate Committees the Intel Committee that Feinstein Chairs is fixed in the balanced of its membership -- by design -- to produce a bi-partisan product. Often times Senators don't agree but what the group publishes is what they do agree on. The report was a bi-partisan report.

I'm not responsible for Nebe's posts.

Well, it sounds like those with access to the secret intel were able to make that distinction and didn't come up with anything new.

-spence

Funny, you said I'm wrong...even changed the size of the font for emphasis...then in your rant don't post anything that contradicts what I've said.

If you need any help cleaning your screen I'll send someone over. Know a lot of people down there...

-spence

You know what? I'll concede to you, that it's inappropriate to suggest that she doesn't care who did it. She seems to not care about why they did it, and the why has critical ramifications that, despite the fact that I mentioned it twice, you won't comment on.

You are also choosing not to comment on the fact that the administration blamed the attack on an American citizen.

"I usually ignore your posts"

It seems it would be more accurate to say that you ignore the sections of my posts that make your side look bad.

You said that commottee is not led by Democrats. The chairperson is a hard core Democrat. I can't say it any more clearly.

"fixed in the balanced of its membership"

There are 8 members who caucus with the Democrats, and 7 members who caucus with the GOP. 8, I believe, is greater than 7.

The bi-partisan report sems to refute Nebe's claim that the link to AL Queda was fabricated by a reporter.

Since you won't remind me of your opinion, I searched it. Here is what you said about the fact that she lied about sniper fire, then said that she lied because she was tired. Here is an exact quote from you...

"I'm not sure that really matters. A lot of fairly honest people are guilty of sensationalizing things along the way."

So Spence, your idea of "beating something to death", is to say that "it doesn't matter", and that's that?

Whether she is honest, or a blatant liar, "doesn't really matter" to you, as long as she's liberal.

Ha, "hardcore" Democrat. Feinstien is known as a moderate in the Senate. You want to make it sounds like because the Dem's have a senate majority that adds legitimacy to the findings...guess what? It wouldn't make a difference. It's also why the same committee didn't thrash Bush over Iraqi intel...

-spence

She didn't say she "lied" because she was tired, she said she misspoke because she was tired.

I don't think she was trying to mislead anyone, she just conflated two stories. Flip a few words around and it all make sense.

-spence

Spence, what were the two stories she conflated? Please share.

One does not accidentally misremember getting shot at by snipers. Spence, was she referring to another time when she actually got shot at? Or has she never been shot at? If she claimed she got shot at in one place, but it actually happened in another place, that's one thing. If she has never been shot at, but claimed she has, that's something else. If one has been shot at nineteen times, but they claim it was twenty times, that's one thing. If one has been shot at zero times, but they claim it happened once, that's another thing entirely. It's not something you have trouble distinguishing between if it happened zero times or one time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, exactly. That is all it takes to be an Al Qaeda affiliate with "some level of linkage."

You should read the NYT article again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was quoting the New Yorker article. And I was not doing so to buy whatever larger premise the article advocated. The article was vague enough not to do so anyway. But what I quoted is valid beyond whatever else the author intended. And her intention was, beyond whatever else she may have intended, to say there was a screw up by the administration. She just didn't like the insistence that the "participants" in the attack had to be called Al Qaeda. She certainly didn't prove they were not. But what she said is damning to the administration. And Most sources say that Al Qaeda was involved. And there is testimony that the administration new right from the start, before it claimed that it was "sparked" by a video, that it was a terrorist attack. NOT a protest against the video gone bad.

You should also read the senate report then. It doesn't place blame on the admin for any manipulation of talking points and doesn't discount the idea that the video was a factor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do you mean by "benefit"? Just winning? "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" I know, it's the Bible, one of those stupid little guide books that Nebe frowns upon. But it has a lot of good lines, and that one says a lot to me. I don't know what the soul of the Republican Party is now. That of the Democrat Party is obvious. I realize that you believe both parties should be mostly similar. Not even certain in how you would like the Republican Party to be different. Does "Republican light" mean more or less like the Democrats, but just not let them go too far into the socialist stratosphere? At least not right away--just slow down a bit?

And I don't know what you mean by "what's been established by both parties over the past decades". You call it more "progressive than what we have today." So is that it? Democrats progressive--Republicans progressive light? Well from the way the Repubs keep giving, after sputtering complaints, in to Dem demands, I think that is what we have today. I don't know how that has changed over the past decades, its even got more "progressive." I would think you should be happy with the way it is.

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.

And hasn't there just been some declassified testimony by a general that the administration was told pronto, before the administration kept blaming the video, that it was a terrorist attack, not a response to a video? Not hearing much about it. Maybe just dreamed it.

Could have been avoided? Well, that's a surprise. The review from a year ago already took State to task for systemic problems that contributed. Stevens turned down two offers for more protection from the military and at other times requested more from State. It appears to have been a confusing situation. What else is new?

The new Senate report reads.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning."

This follows the initial evidence that the video was a catalyst exploited by heavily armed extremists. Didn't Obama use the word "terror" just the following day?

What may be new in the report is that it goes deeper into into a potential military response finding there were no feasible options.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, poor planning (as opposed to the better planning by the Al Qaeda brand) will result in "no feasible options".