|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 14, 2014 16:27:22 GMT
I believe this is "fair play" in addressing "Bridgegate" under Gov. Chris Christie.
The only failure of the Republican argument is where they've been stating:
news.yahoo.com/republicans-defend-christie-bridge-174050629.html
First and foremost is that neither Christie or Obama have been linked to a "scandle" at all. There has been no connections established between Gov. Chris Christie and the blockage of the bridge nor has there been any connection between President Obama related to either the events in Benghazi or the IRS targeting of groups heavily involved in political activism by the IRS. If anything improper was done it occured it was done without the knowledge or consent of either Christie or Obama. Next is the fact that the House Republicans have had hundreds of hours of testimony related to both Benghazi and the IRS so it's not like the matters haven't been addressed far more extensively than the investigations into "bridgegate" under Gov Christie.
Being neither a Democrat or Republicans, and based upon what I know about each case, I believe that Christie and Obama should both treated identically as they were not personally involved in any "scandals" that are noted. They weren't personally involved and that's how both should be treated politically.
Old saying: "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."
|
|
newsman
Scribe
Posts: 37 
Politics: Independent
|
Post by newsman on Jan 15, 2014 18:38:51 GMT
The GOP is right about the Chris Christie bridge scandal being nothing like Benghazi or the IRS scandals. The Chris Christie bridge scandal actually happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jan 17, 2014 20:04:31 GMT
But they weren't treated the same. Christie has been the opening storyline for weeks now on a scandal that affects one state. Obama has the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and his abuse of power regarding Executive Orders.....all of which, affects the entire country. But I don't recall any mainstream media outlet covering any of them non-stop, 24/7 as they have the Christie scandal. It's clear to me that since they seek to protect Obama and Hillary, they choose not to make those very important issues a focus of scrutiny.
There's also the little thing of Obama and Hillary not cooperating with all those investigations mentioned. That's why there needs to be an Independent Investigator....because clearly they refuse to investigate themselves and/or cooperate with others trying to do so. Perfect example: Eric Holder appointing a big Obama political backer to "investigate." |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jan 17, 2014 20:21:31 GMT
There are several FACTS about the Benghazi scandal that one cannot dispute:
1) The Bi-Partisan Senate Investigation's conclusion is that the attack was preventable.
2) There was PLENTY of warnings that went unheeded.
Months before the attack — beginning in June — U.S. intelligence provided several reports about the deteriorating situation in eastern Libya and the “growing ties” between al-Qaeda and local terrorists. A Pentagon slide that was part of the report was entitled “Terrorism: Conditions Ripe for More Attacks, Terrorist Safe Haven in Libya.” A July CIA report (heavily redacted in the Senate report) discussed the founding of Ansar al Sharia and the rise of other al-Qaeda affiliates.
All of this contradicted the Obama campaign narrative that “al-Qaeda was on the run” and the subsequent TV appearances by then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice with her sanctioned talking points blaming the deaths on a protest of an anti-Muslim video gone horribly wrong. It also explains why Hillary Clinton personally told one of the mothers of the slain Americans, "We'll get the person who made that video." All of the Generals and even Panetta who were first to brief the president said they mentioned nothing about a video. In fact, Panetta said there was no doubt in his mind it was a terrorist attack.
3) Hillary got that 3am phone call, and she didn't respond. She is clearly unfit to be president.
IF ALL these things don't make Hillary and Obama responsible; I don't know what would.
And IF ALL these things don't spell out an attempt to cover-up their failures, I don't know what would.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 18, 2014 12:05:46 GMT
There are several FACTS about the Benghazi scandal that one cannot dispute: 1) The Bi-Partisan Senate Investigation's conclusion is that the attack was preventable. 2) There was PLENTY of warnings that went unheeded. Months before the attack — beginning in June — U.S. intelligence provided several reports about the deteriorating situation in eastern Libya and the “growing ties” between al-Qaeda and local terrorists. A Pentagon slide that was part of the report was entitled “Terrorism: Conditions Ripe for More Attacks, Terrorist Safe Haven in Libya.” A July CIA report (heavily redacted in the Senate report) discussed the founding of Ansar al Sharia and the rise of other al-Qaeda affiliates. All of this contradicted the Obama campaign narrative that “al-Qaeda was on the run” and the subsequent TV appearances by then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice with her sanctioned talking points blaming the deaths on a protest of an anti-Muslim video gone horribly wrong. It also explains why Hillary Clinton personally told one of the mothers of the slain Americans, "We'll get the person who made that video." All of the Generals and even Panetta who were first to brief the president said they mentioned nothing about a video. In fact, Panetta said there was no doubt in his mind it was a terrorist attack. 3) Hillary got that 3am phone call, and she didn't respond. She is clearly unfit to be president. IF ALL these things don't make Hillary and Obama responsible; I don't know what would. And IF ALL these things don't spell out an attempt to cover-up their failures, I don't know what would.
1) Everything is theoretically preventable. WW II was preventable. The Vietnam War was preventable. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict was preventable. The attacks of 9/11 were preventable. The Benghazi attacks were preventable. "Bridgegate" was preventable.
2) There was intelligence, logic and reasoning that could have prevented all of the above "preventable" historical events.
3) Of course Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president just like Obama, Bush, Romney, Christie and, of course, our Canadian-American Senator Ted Cruz or former Panamanian-American Senator John McCain that aren't even natural born US citizens as they were both born in foreign nations.
For Hillary though there is another question that really needs to be asked:
LOL
|
|
newsman
Scribe
Posts: 37
Politics: Independent
|
Post by newsman on Jan 22, 2014 23:45:23 GMT
The GOP is experiencing the "boy who cried wolf" effect.
The Christie scandal actually started in Sept but did not make headlines until actual evidence of wrongdoing came to light in December.
That should be a lesson for the right. Wait for actual evidence before claiming there is a scandal.
|
|
