Maybe, but like I said, if it had turned out well, they would have all
No one working on the operation for the US intended that. So it didn't
turn out well. The whole Second Gulf War didn't turn out well,
thousands of Americans died and even more Iraqis on our side, but no one
was or should have been prosecuted for a plan to do a good thing that
didn't work out well. Same thing for the Viet Nam war.
Now you've changed the subject from prosecuting someone to liking
failure. No one likes failure but it's no reason to prosecute someone
intending to do a good thing.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:58:00 AM UTC-5, dgk wrote:
That's a bold faced lie. US intelligence agencies all agreed that
Saddam had WMDs. So did British, French, German, and Israeli intelligence.
We know for a fact that Saddam had them in the past, because he used
them against Iran and his own people. On the eve of the war, with
400,000 allied troops ready to invade, Saddam still refused to cooperate
with the UN weapons inspectors and Hans Blix said so in his final report
to the UN.
Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't make something a lie. Intelligence
is never perfect. Do we know what's going on in North Korea? Iran?
We have our best estimates, but no one knows for sure. It was never up
to the US or the UN to guess what Saddam did or did not have. Per the
agreement he signed to end his rape of Kuwait, Saddam had agreed to fully
account for all his WMDs, allow full inspection of all facilities,
interviews with any people involved, etc. He never complied, instead
playing games with the inspectors, denying them access to key facilities,
kicking them out of the country, then letting them back in, firing missles
at coalition aircraft, etc.
Not only Bush believed he had WMDs, but so did all the leading Democrats:
Hillary, Bill Clinton, Kerry, Harry Reid, etc. Had Bush not done anything
and it turned out Saddam had WMDs and he used them, then you'd be citing
that everyone knew the threat existed, yet Bush did nothing and should
Then Bush officials should have known better when the first gun walking
sting began under his watch in 2006. It always surprises me that the
Republicans seize on F&F as proof of Obama's malevolence when the dubious
technique of gun walking
was hatched under Bush:
<ATF Special Agent in Charge, Bill Newell, supervised the Bush era Wide
Receiver gunwalking operation and some of the later gunwalking cases,
including Fast and Furious. Operations Castaway and Too Hot to Handle are
among a dozen or so other cases ATF operated that allegedly employed
gunwalking in recent years including Florida, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona.
In the Hernandez case, started under the Bush Administration in 2007.>
Besides, when did the US ever worry about sovereignty concepts interfering
with a national security goal? (-: It's a stretch to believe that either
President Bush or Obama knew the slightest details of these most-likely
*very* highly classified gun walking operations. AFAIK, no witch-hunter on
either side of the aisle has been able to prove otherwise. The reality is
that they could not reasonably be expected to know details of all ongoing
programs given the size of the Justice Department and the Federal
That's precisely why comparing Benghazi or the IRS's handling of political
groups applying for tax-free status or Fast & Furious (BIFF) to Bridgegate
is so specious. They are completely different animals because the actors are
so remote from the person being blamed in one case and so close to each
other in the CC case. And the CC case involves malice.
Reports I've read based on cellphone records say Christie appears to have
spent much of the day with his deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly *while*
she was running the Bridgegate operation. She was chatting on her private
phone doing government business (a violation of NJ's open government laws
according to one report I read) with her co-conspirators while she was
physically traveling around with Christie, at least according to the
timeline being assembled by investigators.
Even if Christie was completely unaware of what his DCoS was doing, the fact
that she was doing it right under his nose implies a scary level of
cluelessness on his part. That's not going to play well for him no matter
what, and it always makes people wonder if Kelly's taking the fall to
protect him. After what happened to Scooter Libby, I see fewer underlings
willing to take on serious consequences for their bosses. Yes, she could
even *be* the real mastermind behind this bird-brained scheme but I doubt
it. Emerging facts suggest this was neither an isolated instance nor the
work of one lone wolf.
<<Jeff Tittel, of the NJ Sierra Club, said to the Daily News, "The
administration doing this doesn't surprise me. Bridget Kelly - that does
surprise me... I don't believe she would do this on her own. I just don't
see her having this kind of side to her." And Salon's Steve Kornacki, who
knows her from covering NJ politics, said, "Having known her for years, I
have a hard time believing Bridget Kelly ordered this by herself.">>
I suspect a pretty thorough picture will emerge over time about who knew
what and when aided by GPS logs, email logs, phone logs, keycard access
records, etc. It's pretty dumb to do stupid things in the modern era when
automatic logging of actions is occurring in ways people hardly think
I agree with Wisniewski: "It strains credibility to say that somebody in as
high a position as a deputy chief of staff, somebody in as high a position
as the governor's principal press spokesperson, somebody in as high a
position as his campaign manager - all those names are in these e-mails -
did not ever communicate this to the governor."
Christie supporters are spinning themselves dizzy trying to isolate him from
the growing controversy but more and more people are expressing doubt
(according to a recent poll) that he was unaware of what his top staffers
were doing. When such highly placed officials (some of whom expressed
reservations about the closures) DON'T seek to confirm this is something the
governor ordered, then there's good reason to believe they felt he either
knew of the closures or even ordered them.
I am sure Obama's smiling if only because Christie's troubles have replaced
the ACA web troubles as the nation's number one news story. (-:
If *you* were being asked to do something very stupid and possibly illegal
in your bosses' name, wouldn't you want to confirm it was something he
really wanted done before possibly sinking his political career? That's why
I find it very odd that *none* of those officials, apparently very close to
CC, said a peep to him about their reservations.
Something still doesn't smell right here but I suspect as the investigation
widens, someone will blink and spill the beans. Meanwhile other
investigations are opening - ones that promise to drag out over months if
not years - making Christie's political survival a very open question. As
you well know, it means that just when CC might think Bridgegate has blown
over, the whole news cycle will begin again as investigations conclude and
reports are issued. He's gotten himself pretty deep in the kimshi in very
short order. If it's true that there's no such thing as bad publicity, he'll
CC's stuck in a very bad place with the threat of "gifts that keep giving"
(active investigations). Others have survived worse, so there's still a
chance this won't cause lingering harm, but every day new items appears that
seem to reduce the chance he'll come out OK. Even his acknowledged mentor,
former NJ governor (and huge landslide winner) Tom Kean has expressed doubts
about CC's political future (after CC went after Kean's son Sean to get him
But was continued under Obama who, under your own scenario should
have known better. Also, Obama's FF was larger running (as far as I can
tell from the Wiki page) nearly 1000 guns. I\. Under the previous
Operation Wide Receiver, there had been a formal ATF contract with the
cooperating gun dealer and efforts were made to involve the ATF Mexico
City Office (MCO) and Mexican law enforcement. Under Operation Fast and
Furious, at the ATFs insistence the cooperating gun dealers did not have
contracts with ATF, and MCO and Mexican police were left in the dark.
So, the Bushes at least attempted to keep everyone in the loop
while the Obama time did not even attempt to pretend that there was
cooperation with US Law Enforcement, let alone including the Mexicans.
Participants included in FF planning were Deputy Attorney General
David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, acting ATF
Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal prosecutors in the
Southwestern border states. They decided on a strategy to identify and
eliminate entire arms trafficking networks rather than low-level buyers.
The main difference is one is a person you like and the other isn't.
Rest are superficial.
General David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer,
acting ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal prosecutors in the
Southwestern border states never got around to discussing this with the
AG and the AG wouldn't bring it up with the Pres?
Okay. No lack of evidence is now evidence?
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
Should have, could have. The program was both conceived and started under
Bush. Like it or not, he gets to share in the blame, especially if you
believe Obama does. More importantly, do you really believe that if the ATF
hadn't "walked" those guns that the Mexican cartels wouldn't have just given
up and failed obtained them elsewhere? That's so extremely unlikely it's
foolish to even consider.
You're omitting something very important to your complaint that the Mexicans
were being "left in the dark." That's the realization that anything the
Feds shared with the corrupt Mexican police would almost immediately be
shared with the cartels that had those Mexican cops on their payroll. The
secrecy was mean to protect the operation, not simply to "diss" the
Mexicans. You can try to phrase it as a dig against Obama, but it was both
the smart and necessary move if F&F wasn't to be made totally worthless by
Yes, the Bush folks kept the cartels in the loop, although inadvertently.
You're making a strong case for Obama's people being smarter because they
discovered and patched the leaks that were compromising the operation. The
ATF was tired of having their plans revealed to the cartels soon after the
Mexican authorities were told.
Charitably, I'll say that the Bush folks just didn't know the scope of the
corruption when they entered into partnerships with the Mexican authorities.
By the time the ATF learned their secrets were being relayed to the
criminals, they stopped that sharing - with very good reason. So yes, F&F
*did* keep Mexican officials "out of the loop" but for reasons of
self-preservation. Recent revelations about compromised "revenge squads"
merely confirms the porosity of the Mexican authorities.
So? The list includes neither Bush nor Obama, as I've said. Attempts to
connect either have been, and will continue to be, futile. You can create a
nearly identical list to connect to the "Wide Receiver" program begun under
Bush. So what? Gun-walking was an attempt to end the slaughter of Mexican
citizens. Christie's team had no such good intentions. Their acts were
malicious from day one. That's a critical difference you seem very intent
The point I am making and one you haven't really refuted is that this idiocy
was *born* under the Bush administration with "Wide Receiver" and merely
continued under Obama's:
That's fairly insulting, Kurt, because it requires you to purposefully
ignore what both Micky and I have BOTH pointed out, repeatedly now, that
there's a profound underlying moral difference between the two cases.
F&F was an attempt to stop the 100's of killings in Mexico that were done
with guns purchased in the US. Bridgegate had no such "good" motive. It
was simply an attempt to punish some political enemy (we think) by
inconveniencing 1,000's of citizens, both Democrat AND Republican. It was
100 times more stupid than gun walking ever could be because it was absent
any good intentions.
Yet you label that vast difference in intent as "superficial." The truth is
it goes directly to the heart of the preposterous attempts to compare the
two "operations" as equal. Or worse, trivialized to a claim that the
difference is only based on personal "likes and dislikes." Those are
absolutely unsustainable charges. F&F was an attempt to do good gone bad.
Bridgegate was an attempt to do bad gone very much worse. Agent Terry would
most likely have been killed with a different gun if F&F did not exist.
If I were taking your "one person I don't like" argument seriously, I'd
blame Bush for ALL of the gun-walking programs the were designed and
implemented under his watch. But I am not, because fairness demands both
administrations share the blame equally. Christie's people, however, share
the blame for their stupidity with NO one. Bridgegate wasn't a program
started under Christie's predecessor. It was the brain-dead brainchild of
Christie's hand-picked his top lieutenants, perhaps all by themselves,
AFTER it went bad, yes. Before that, I doubt it was widely discussed or
discussed at all because it produced few stellar results. Besides. it is
one of 100's of program Federal agents are running at any given time.
Besides, look at all the distractions Obama has to deal with, what with Fox
trying to make Benghazi into the crime of the century (epic fail, BTW), the
IRS, the Tea Party shutdown and dozens of other diversions he had to face.
Winding down Bush's $4T wars, trying to close Guantanamo Bay. If you
really want him to pay attention to relatively small program like F&F then
why keep distracting him? (-0:
The bottom line is that gun-walking seems to stayed completely OFF Bush's
radar back when it was "Wide Receiver" but you apparently won't extend that
reality Obama. Is there a record of Bush being briefed on Wide Receiver I
am unaware of? So why would Obama be liable for knowing something about
what started under his predecessor that his predecessor didn't even appear
to know about? That's where the "because you don't like him" standard
*actually* applies in this discussion.
Gun running was never an issue until the right wing witch hunters thought
they could hang Agent Terry's death on President Obama. A border agent
died, and that's a tragedy, but to think his killers would have had NO guns
and there would be no death if not for F&F is, well, pretty damn ludicrous.
The gun walking cases could have just as easily gone bad when Bush was
president. That they didn't is just dumb luck. The cartels were getting
guns long before "gun walking" and they're getting them now that those
programs have been shut down. It was a dubious tactic that was planned and
started under Bush and went bad under Obama. But it can't realistically be
compared to a malicious act aimed squarely at NJ citizens.
We're evaluating what is clearly a conspiracy to commit a malicious act
against the citizens of NJ. If no one opposed that act, it tends to imply
those acts are not out of the ordinary for that organization. We have
evidence in the wiki article that F&F agents DID complain about the program,
because it WAS so unusual and potentially dangerous, to no avail. But
there's no record (yet) of anyone saying "did the governor really want
this?" That certainly can have evidentiary value when it comes to proving a
conspiracy. When a subordinate is asked to do something morally repugnant,
as when Nixon ordered Richardson fire Cox, a man of character resigns rather
than do something immoral. And Richardson did quit rather than carry out
Nixon's order meant to forestall the growing Watergate inquiry.
If Christie was the guy he wants us to believe he is, then he would have
welcomed a subordinate taking him aside and saying "We're doing a very
stupid thing - are you sure." But no one did. You may not like that people
are drawing conclusions about that so called "lack" of evidence but it's
evidence that Bridgegate was "business as usual" for the Christie people.
They didn't protest (for the most part, it seems); they just warned other
"no email" because they *knew* they were doing wrong. That's just SO
different a case than F&F.
How could so many people do this with no one being able to predict the
massively bad fallout and risk to CC's career? Defies belief. You would
think they would be falling all over themselves to warn him "this might end
badly" and become heroes by sparing him this ordeal, but that, very
curiously, did not happen. The right can spin it like an F5 tornado, but
the most charitable assessment is still bad: "A dysfunctional organization."
The least charitable is that Christie is a revenge obsessed thug.
We both can be sure that in the coming weeks we'll be learning more and more
about this, particularly, as someone else noted, if there are arrests and
someone decides they're not going down alone. Three *major* staff players
were involved according to just the emails released so far. One of them
(Kelly) was traveling with Christie while she ran the operation. And though
the right is trying very hard to downplay the fact, they are all VERY close
associates of Christie, not SACs in the remote Southwest who probably never
met either Bush or Obama.
There was no "good intent gone bad" with Bridgegate. Comparing the two
programs is just completely bogus. Unless, of course, you can point to some
part of Bridgegate that was at least *supposed* to benefit the citizens of
apparently this is yet another indicator of the mind control exhibited
many times where the Dems were unable to control themselves and just HAD
to follow the GOP's lead. Just to clarify, is it the Obama-era guns
that would have gotten into Mexican hands otherwise? Otherwise, it
would seem that you are now arguing that the gun walking wasn't such a
bad thing after all.
hadn't tried to do.
You are making things us as you go along. Since (1) there is nothing
I have seen up to this time that there were leaks or even if there were.
Even if there were, that woudl seem to indicate that the cartels were
incrediably stupid to get guns, that under your leak scenario, they knew
had been tagged by the cops.
You really are trying way too hard to excuse the Obama
administration for redoubling the efforts
gonna jump at the chance to buy guns that alledgedly have an ATF agent
and a Mexican cop attached to it. Makes perfect sense to me.
Which I am not trying to refute in any way shape or form. I am
merely refuting the idea you have stated over and over (including above)
that because it was started in the Bush Administation it some how
absolves the Obama's continuation and expansion.
can't directly link (I will give you as of yet.. it may change) Chirstie
to this either. You say that his top people knew so he must have while
(to steal a phrase) purposefully ignoring that there were at least as
many highly placed people in the Administration who knew about FF. Yet
somehow you KNOW for sure that they never talked to the Pres, yet you
KNOW for sure they blabbed up one side and down the other to Christie.
think the honchoes in the Obama administration told him about FF, then
how is it that you automatically assume Christie knew about with about
the same amount of evidence for both.
Most of which occurred 2-3 years after F&F.
I have done nothing of the sort. I have stated so a couple of time.
I was trying to suggest that continuation and expansion of the program
during O's time in office was not absolved because a similar program was
seen under the Bush Administration.
And yet it occurred.
himself as Bridgethingy (I have made a personal pledge to stop Xgating
everything). Which is to, say, at this time, not at all.. at this time.
And you have proof that this was ordered by CC?
executive can't know everything. If you have proof that CC knew about it
and/or ordered it, then bring it forth, my man.
You may not like that people
conspiracy is the surest evidence that the conspiracy is actually
occurring? There is at least as much "so called 'lack' of evidcence", as
we have noted in FF. Yet you still are more than happy to leap to
conclusions. Which sorta reinforces the selective perception charge
levied above (g).
then, someone in the administration go to Obama and say the same thing.
That there is no way this can end well.
the executive knew or should have known and when they should have known
it. You gave a pass to FF and Obama that aren't willing to give to CC. O
is innocent until proven guilty whilst CC is guilty until proven
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:51:09 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
Then you equally agree that restricting magazines to 7 rounds, denying
people the right to a gun based on what kind of stock it has, etc won't
have any effect on crime in the USA either, because criminals will just
get them anyway, right?
It apparently was totally worthless, unless you believe sending
2,000 guns down to Mexico without any tracking devices, not actually
tracking them, and then AFAIK not making any arrests of those they
apparently were targeting worked. And as far as not telling the
Mexicans, how the hell are you going to prosecute those criminal
enterprises in Mexico where the guns were going, if you don't tell
the Mexicans? Hell, the evidence the US gathered, if it came to
prosecution probably wouldn't stand up in court. Imagine in the
USA if the Mexican police showed up one day and said we have
obtained this evidence against the mob. How long would it take
a good lawyer to tear that to shreds? And even sillier, the
US govt can't prosecute those involved, they had to tell the
Mexicans at some point. If the Mexicans wanted to protect the
cartels, they could just as easily do it at that point.
Nice cheap shot a Bush. Where is the evidence that Bush kept the
cartels in the loop and that the cartels didn't also know about
Fast and Furious under Obama?
You're so biased and stupid, it's beyond belief. If fast and furious
was so successful, name one higher level person prosecuted. There
were none, despite the fact that they let all kinds of high power
weapons freely flow into Mexico, 2,000 of them. Only a few hundred
have been recovered. And besides a US border agent being killed,
there were 150 Mexicans killed at similar gun fights where some
of those ATF run weapons were found. How's that sit with you?
That's a "smarter" operation? Good grief, you're an idiot.
Which obviously was a violation of Mexican law, the total program
was a failure, the weapons were used to kill scores of people.
And exactly how smart is it to piss off your biggest resource in
the war against drugs. What did the idiots running this think
the Mexicans were going to say one day when and if they finally
told them what they had been doing? Gee, thanks for helping us
out. What do you think the USA reaction would be if Mexicans
shipped in 2,000 high power weapons here secretly for years and
then one day finally told us about it? You think that would go
over just peachy keen? Which makes one wonder what the real
motive to Fast and Furious was. No tracking devices placed in
the weapons. No idea where they went. Obvious big problems
with the Mexicans if they finally fess up and tell them what they've
been up to. And you call that "smarter"? What a partisan hack.
Well, yeah, when you have both Holder and Obama stonewalling
the whole thing. Obama even used executive privilege to protect
Holder from turning over evidence. How's that sit with you libs?
If they did nothing wrong, there is nothing there to hide, why
are the hiding behind executive privilege on an operation that
everyone knows about because it's public? Any reasonble person
You can create a
It's kind of like Hillary saying "What difference does it make. Four
Americans are dead" why does it matter who killed them and why.
Gun-walking was an attempt to end the slaughter of Mexican
And it help kill one American border guard and 150 Mexicans.
Christie's team also didn't kill anyone. And so far, Christie
is cooperating fully. He FIRED people. Four of them are gone.
Who did Obama hold accountable for F&F? Fire anyone?
Their acts were
That's one difference, among many others. How about IRSgate?
That wasn't malicious and politically motivated? And don't tell
us nothing wrong was done. We all saw the IRS officials plead
the fifth before Congress. The difference there is that IRSgate
is being investigated by the very administration that was
responsible for it. Just a week ago, they *finally* appointed
a lawyer to lead the investigaion, a lawyer that donated $6K
to Obmama's campaign. Christie is being investigated by the
US Attorney, who works for Holder, is a Democrat fund raiser.
See the differences? Or are you such a partisan hack that
your brain has gone dead?
Yes, here we are 5 years later and it's all Bush's fault.
The economy still sucks, despite the Democrats having control
of the House and Senate for the first year and a half. They
got their recovery program, Obamacare, green energy, everything
they told us was necessary for a booming economic recovery.
Instead, last month we created a whopping 75,000 new jobs.
You need several times that to keep up with people entering
the job market. But, heh, that's all Bush's fault too.
Obama told us he has Al-Qaeda on the run. I guess that's true
if you mean running all over the world, causing chaos in Libya,
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.... yeah, they're on the run
all right. But, heh, that's Bush's fault too, right?
It's not insulting at all. It's the truth. And F&F isn't
Obama's only scandal:
No one has been held accountable for any of that. And you know
what's insulting? You sitting here, lying and trying to tell us
that security at Benghazi was adequate. It's insulting to anyone
with connected brain cells, and particularly to the families of
those that died that day. And to those families even know what
Obama did from 5PM, when he was told the consulate and ambassador
were under terrorst attack? What he did from 5PM until 8 hours
later when 4 Americans were dead?
And those F&F guns were used to kill 150 or so Mexicans.
With the administration stonewalling F&F, exerting executive
privilege, we don't even know what the real motive may have
been. Bridgegate also didn't kill anyone.
Only because you're totally biased in your evaluation. If a Republican
did it, why then it would be horrific. You libs still blame Bush
for everything and anything he did with good intentions.
No they are very real.
F&F was an attempt to do good gone bad.
Then you're all for appointing a Republican special proscutor
to look into IRSgate, right? That would make it equal to the
Christie's people, however, share
Then tell Obama to stop exerting executive privilege if those
discussions, documents, etc don't show there was anything done
that was wrong.
Besides. it is
Oh, poor, poor Obama. Out of all the media, there is just Fox that
occasionally brings up Benghazi. My, my, what a heavy burden that must
be for him to bare.
The IRS is part of his administration and it sure looks like it
was used for political purposes. Best evidence of that so far
is people pleading the fifth.
Well, we tried to tell you he wasn't up to the job. My God.
The Tea Party? He has to deal with that and it's too much for
him. Glad you admit it.
We had 7 years of war under Bush. Obama's clock is now
passing 5 years. So, I wouldn't crow about that.
Well that's another example of either lying or incompetence.
He told you libs he was gonna close it day one. Five years
later, it's still open. Incompetent or liar, which is it?
No one said he should have paid attention to it or that it
should be on his radar screen. But if he wasn't paying attention
to it and there is nothing to cover up, then why the hell is
he exerting executive privilege regarding requests for documents
No one said Obama knew or should have known about F&F. But if
he didn't then why is he exerting executive privilege?
So you agree that bans on high capacity magazines, "assault weapons",
etc are equally useless because criminals will get them anyway, right?
Funny, but I seem to recall that anytime there is some illegal use of
a gun where 5 people are dead, you libs are bitching about how gun
control would prevent it. So, which is it?
I would say it was far better controlled, the number of guns involved
was a fraction of what Holder shipped, and they had the Mexicans
cooperating in tracking the weapons. In the case of F&F, they just
sent 2000 guns into Mexico, no tracking devices, no Mexicans told
to keep an eye on them, etc. See the difference?
The cartels were getting
You're totally speculating about what Christie may have known.
At the same time, you don't want to know what Holder and Obama
knew about F&F, otherwise you'd be bitching about Obama using
executive privilege to withhold information. Now if a Republican
ever did that, you'd be here bitching about a cover-up conspiracy.
We have no evidence in F&F because Obama used executive privilege to
keep it from being released. See how that works?
That certainly can have evidentiary value when it comes to proving a
Hmmm. You think maybe that's why Obama is asserting executive privilege,
just like Nixon tried to do? Oh, but Nixon couldn't get away with it
because he had a Democrat special prosecutor after him. See the difference?
Pure speculation. As Kurt said, no lack of evidence becomes evidence,
because it's a Republican. How about the lack of evidence of what Obama
did or didn't do from 5PM on when he was told that the consulate was
under attack? We know that evidence exists. Shouldn't it be produced?
IT's real simple. What the Obama do for those 8 hours.
If what was done in F&F wasn't wrong, why are Obama and Holder
hiding behind executive privilege? What should we infer from that?
How did Benghzazi go unprotected? In that case there is a pile of
cables, emails, etc asking for more security, describing the deteriorating
security situation, the increasing violence. One of the last cables
Stevens sent was titled "The Guns of August". He talked to Hillary
regularly. If we're to infer that Christie must have known about
a bridge closing, exactly how credible is it to believe that Stevens
didn't tell Hillary directly that he needed more security? See
how it works when you can speculate?
The right can spin it like an F5 tornado, but
If he gets the nomination, I can't wait for that "thug" to
debate Hillary. That's why the libs are out to destroy Christie,
because they know he's no Romney. i can't wait to hear him
ask her about "With all due respect, what difference does it make?
You have 4 Americans dead"
Imbecile. She was his deputy chief of staff. The emails were what,
5 mins over a month or more?
Holder, Hillary, Sebelius, etc, those involved in Obama;s
fiascos aren't close associates of Obama?
OK, compare it to IRSgate if you like. What part of that was going
to benefit the people of the USA? And if it wasn't an illegal, political
action, why are top IRS people lying and taking the fifth?
Oh, and as far as retaliation, I understand a new book is out
that has Hillary's enemies list on it.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:51:09 -0500, "Robert Green"
So there was only one US agent killed?
More Mexican police had died in the drug wars than Americans were killed
in the second Iraq war, going on at the same time. Thousands of them.
And this was before Mr. Obama became president. Did they borrow the
F&F guns in advance, to try them out, or maybe rent them? From
Democratic campaign workers (since GWB was President? Surely the drug
runners etc. didn't have their own guns.
After all in the Westerns, you never see the Mexicans running a gun
factory, or the Indians either.
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:09:02 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Just because they are obtaining guns from various suppliers,
doesn't mean the USA should become one of them, supplying 2,000
guns, with no tracking devices, not informing the Mexican
authorities and having no idea where they went?
What would the libs be saying if one of those
guns wound up in a school shooting and it were a Republican
president who did it?
And before you say, but Bush had a similar program, in Bush's
case it was a few hundred guns, they informed the Mexicans so
they could be tracked in Mexico, etc. Those F&F weapons were
involved in 150 murders in Mexico.
The libs want it both ways. When someone gets shot in the USA,
they want a ban on assault weapons, high capacity magazines.
The gun rights people say the mag capacity won't matter, for
among other reasons there are hundreds of millions of high
capacity mags out there, you can easily fab them, etc and
most importantly, criminals will get them anyhow. But funny
thing, when it comes to F&F and people are getting killed,
then they use the "but criminals will always get guns anyway"
The main problem with F&F is that you once again have this
administration investigating itself, refusing requests of
Congress for information, dragging it's feet, not holding
people accountable. Obama has
even invoked executive privilege to prevent handing over
requested documents. How's that sit with you?
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:54:15 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
Oh please. The BS talking points to try to spin Benghazi as a protest
over a movie that turned violent were created in the White House on
a Sat. We still don't know who all was involved, because Obama has continued
to stonewall it. That is clearly at least in the same class as
the Christie bridge closing, except of course that 4 Americans died.
And unlike Christie, Obama hasn't fired
anyone for the inadquate security, the attempt to spin it as something
other than a terrorist attack, etc.
In the case of the IRS, we know Lois Lerner plead the fifth, just like
the Port Authority official just did in the Christie affair. We also
know that unlike the Christie affair, where the US attorney is quickly
on it, in the case of IRS only last week was someone finally appointed
at DOJ to lead the investigation. That's 9 months later. The FBI
only started to interview Tea Party people who were screwed by the IRS
in the last few days. In the case of the Christie thing, 4 people are
gone, one directly fired by Christie, two resigned in disgrace. Who
exactly has Obama fired? See the difference?
Please, the most damning stuff is a few snippets of emails or
texts: "Time for some traffic problems in Ft Lee" "Got it"
From what I've seen that occured at like 7:30AM and took 15 secs.
So, later in
the day she's with Christie and that's supposed to prove something?
Good grief. She was his deputy chief of staff, she was supposed
to be with him.
BTW, where was Obama and what did he do from 5PM when he was
first notified that the consulate was under terrorist attack?
Doesn't America have a right to know? Why don't you start
speculating on that for a change?
Oh please. It's not like she was having a conference room full
of people plotting the thing. All she sent were a few short
emails. We have those. Where are the records of what Obama and
Hillary were doing from 5PM on, while they knew that the consulate
was under terrorist attack?
That's not going to play well for him no matter
Mabye we'll see what Lois Lerner finally has to say too when
they put the screws to her. But maybe not, unless the Republicans
demand a special prosecutor, which should have been done a long
time ago. You have Obama and his boys investigating themselves and
taking their sweet time doing it. The lawyer finally appointed last
week to head the investigation donated $6K to Obama's campaing.
How's that sit with you libs? In Christie's case he has the US
Attorney for NJ investigating him and he's a Democrat who was a
fund raiser for Hillary. Obama gets to investigate himself.
Republicans get investigated by loyal Democrats. See the difference?
Yes, she could
What? Are you a mind reader now? You told me yesterday I had
no right to say the security in Benghazi was totally inadequate
and everyone knows it, because I'm not an expert in the field.
Yet here you are, hypocrite at large, freely speculating and
bitching about anything and everything. See the difference?
Who cares. Jeff Tittel is an environmental extremist whacko.
He would say anything to help tank a Republican.
Bridget Kelly - that does
Feel free to throw in anything else you like. It's pure speculation.
But I'm not allowed to say that security in Benghazi was inadequate
because I'm not a security expert. You really are an arrogant imbecile.
Why not? Democrats get away with it all the time.
Fast and Furious
Who got fired for any of them?
It's hard to believe we still don't know what Obama did from
5PM when he was first informed the consulate was under terrorist
attack, until 8 hours later, when 4 Americans were dead.
It's hard to believe that Ambassador Stevens didn't express his concerns
that were in many cables from Benghazi about the desperate need
for more security to either Hillary or OBama in a phone call.
It's hard to believe that Hillary could shout at Congress, when
they were trying to determine what happened that night "With all
due respect, why does it matter? You have 4 Americans dead"
But you have all those and plenty more.
What reservations? I haven't seen anything to suggest they ever
had any reservations. And why not say anything to Christie? I guess
for the same reason no one says anything to OBama. He has told us
many times he first heard about scandal X watching TV.
Keep jerking off and having a swell time over it. I can't wait
to see what's waiting for Hillary when her time comes. That
"What difference does what happened make?" clip should make a
You'd think Obama's polls would be at 25% approval by now too.
I guess if he can survive all his many scandals, so can Christie.
BTW, I see the taxpayers just spent an extra $450K to fly Mama Obama
home separately because she wanted to spend a couple more days
in the sun. How nice and compassionate. We have record numbers
on food stamps, record numbers of people leaving the work force,
unprecedented budget deficits, and she just keeps running up the tab
and eating cake on Waikiki beach. Of course you won't hear that
because the lib media are all in the tank for Obama. They are out
to get Christie. See the difference?
BTW, did you know the GWB was supposed to be stone clad, but iirc they
ran out of money.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:54:15 -0500, "Robert Green"
This would be a good defense if her name were not BRIDGEt Kelly.
Now if his name were BRIDGES Christie, I would blame him.
"Christie says he fired Kelly immediately and without speaking to her on
Thursday after he saw the e-mail printed in a newspaper. "
What if her answer would have been, "I never sent that". What if she
had left her computer unguarded and someone else sent it?
I think you should always ask. In fact if I ever get to supervise
anyone who did wrong, other than the ants on my sidewalk, I'd want them
to write a report first. Then you have them either lying or admitting
I haven't heard anything about a class action, but it seems to me that
everyone stuck in traffic for more than an hour total (let alone 4, 8,
12, hours over 4 days) has a real claim. Salaries are somewhat higher
in NYC, and I don't think anyone is commuting from NJ just to be a
counterman at Roy Rogers, so surely the average salary is 30,000 or
higher, maybe 40 or 50,000.
Let's assume 40,000 dollars.
How many people were stuck in traffic? Only people from Fort Lee plus
north and south of Fort Lee, or were there people from the west also.
How many people take the bridge, going east? 145,000 per day, 90,000,
150,000, quite a variation, plus none separate weekdays from weekends.
Lets' say 100,000 per weekday going east
Was it just Fort Lee etc. Let's say 10%, 10,000 per day, but lets be
cautious and say 5000 cars per day, x 4 days = 20,000 car-days x (let's
be cautious) 2 hours a day = 40,000 car-hours x 20 dollars an hour
average income = 800,000 dollars. I thought it would come out to more.
Maybe my math was bad or my estimates were too low.
But even 800,000 is not peanuts. Won't there be someone suing everyone
who has resigned, plus maybe the Port Authority, and won't everyone who
has resigned be jointly and severally liable for the whole amount
(though together won't have to pay more than that amount.) .
I've seen a couple tv small claims court cases where the judge said that
if you didn't lose salary, because you had annual leave, you weren't
entitled to be reimbursed, but that sounds weak to me. I think it
woudlnt' be hard to show that the loss of annual leave is the same as
the loss of money.
I guess this is obvious, but since I never get the obvious, I'll assume
someone else might not either. If this is true, that he didn't speak
to her before firing her, there is one obvious possible explanation,
that he knew she sent the email or or at least knew that she was
involved in screwing up the traffic.
But I'd like to hear what his answer is.
As a former reporter, and as cynical as they come, it was the first thing
that came to *my* mind. Ask a reporter how they can tell when a politician
is lying and they will answer: "because their lips are moving!"
It reminds me of a homicide case where the DA suddenly announced there WAS
no case because the alleged victim had been found alive. The doors to the
courtroom opened and someone thought to be the victim walked in and everyone
in the courtroom turned around to see - except the defendants because they
knew that they had killed the victim.
I wouldn't put *anything* past a man with Presidential ambitions who saw
that hope in critical condition after being run over on the George
says: We need the full truth from Chris Christie:
<<At a dramatic press conference last week, the New Jersey governor tried to
apologize and said he had no advance knowledge of the lane closings on the
George Washington Bridge. But he came across mostly upset that his senior
staff had lied to him instead of upset that the citizens of Fort Lee, New
Jersey, suffered during days-long politically motivated gridlock.
Plus, no amount of talking would mute the lingering questions: Even if
Christie hadn't ordered the lane closings (a significant and still-to-be
verified if), why wasn't he at least digging into the truth of the story in
October and November, when the press and state legislators certainly were?
Saying he just didn't know just doesn't seem credible.
Moreover, the incident has taken a toll on his personal reputation. A year
ago, 70% of New Jerseyans held a favorable personal impression of Christie.
Today, that number is just 44%. And cementing the sense that Christie hasn't
told the full story, 51% of New Jerseyans said they believe Christie hasn't
been completely honest yet about what he knows about the bridge closings>>
I agree with this assessment. CC came clean only after the evidence
starting becoming irrefutable that his staff had been involved. Up until
that point it was pretty clear he hoped it would all blow away. Now it's
going to blow away his presidential hopes. If Kelly or one of the other
staffers has evidence linking Christie, my guess is that they will sit on it
until Christie's locked himself into a position of total denial.
Sad times ahead for the fading "Great White Hope" of the Republican Party.
Now we're left with Tea Partiers like Ted "I am NOT a Canadian" Cruz and
Marco "I was for immigration reform until I was against in" Rubio. In their
worst nightmare the TP can look forward to 8 years of Hillary Clinton and 8
more of Chelsea. (-:
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:45:18 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
It reminds me of Obama. Funny thing though, I never see you
here talking about his lies.
The doors to the
Of course you have no similar concerns about Obama and:
Fast and Furious
Obamacare fiasco and lies
So, of course you're demanding the similar full truth from
Like who ordered the editing of those talking points on
Benghazi, striking out all references to terrorism, Al-Qaeda,
etc at the WH the day before Susan Rice was sent out to 5 Sunday
Like what Obama did from 5PM when he was first notified the
consulate was under attack, until 8 hours later, when the
ambassador and 3 other Americans were dead
Like why no one was fired for the total lack of security at the
Like what's in those Fast and Furious documents that he used
executive privilege to block access to?
And where oh where are you with similar concerns in the case
of Obama? With Obama, the administration just investigates itself
for years, then like Sgt Schultz, they find nothing. When is
Obama gonna come clean on Benghazi?
Sure, speculate freely. But you told me the other day to sit down
and shut up when I said the security at the consulate in Benghazi
was totally inadequate, because I'm not a "security expert".
The fact that security was totally inadequate is a well established
FACT. Just ask Diane Fienstein, even she agrees.
Why is it that you're so fascinated with Republicans and have no
similar fascination with any Democrats, like Obama and Hillary?
I can't wait to see Benghazi used against Hillary. That little
clip from her testimony, "With all due respect, what difference
does it make, 4 Americans are dead....", should make a great
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:45:18 -0500, "Robert Green"
Yeah, that's what I noticed and said here.
Now of course, if he knew about it in advance, she probably didnt' lie
to him, So if he knew in advance, why wouldn't he be pretending to be
upset about the citizens of NJ? I'd say that, assuming he knew in
advance, it might be harder to lie and pretend to be upset than to lie
and pretend someone has lied to him. Because someone probably had lied
to him some time in the past, and he could call up that memory. I
think that is the Stanislovski method, also called The Method, used by
Method actors. (Although I may have that part backwards.)
But he didn't have a prior experience with someone messsing up traffic
for NJ, so it was harder to look sincere when complaining about that.
Just a guess.
But if he's innocent, that's a shame.
Yeah. It only takes 5 minutes to write a letter renouncing Canadian
citizenship, but he's hired lawyers and expects to do so some time this
year, 2014! I guess if his presidential race doesn't go well, and
there's another Viet Nam war, he wants to be able to go to Canada
without applying to be a landed immigrant. This really doesn't make
sense, because even if he peters out before this election, there's
another one in 4 years,
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:32:56 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
He gave his answer. What more do you want? He saw the
emails reported in the media. Extensive emails not only from Kelly,
but the 3 others that were involved. If you look at them, the
evidence is overwhelming that there was serious wrongdoing
involved and she was part of it He had told his staff a month
earlier that if they
knew anything at all about the bridge affair to tell his
chief of staff and/or counsel. They all denied knowing anything.
Clearly there is plenty of evidence to justify a firing.
This isn't a criminal case, where you need a trial, questioning,
beyond a reasonable doubt. Christie had the authority to fire
her for any reason as long as it's not in a protected class,
eg age, race, etc and he did.
Excellent point. One could certainly make the case that he fired her
without talking to her because he already *knew* she was guilty. Why would
he know that? One obvious answer is that he directed the operation. A more
reasonable response from him would be to say he would suspend her and
investigate further, as you suggested.
A long time ago I applied to head up a campus bureau that provided services
for victims of sexual assault. During the interview I was asked what I
would do if someone accused a bus driver for the organization of
harrassment. I realized as soon as I said "I would interrogate him . . . "
that the interview was over because "interrogate" was not in keeping with
"innocent until proven guilty." Christie seems to have made a similar
What if all those folks had a weekly card game and "bridge trouble in Ft
Lee" just meant they were going to play an aggressive game of bridge in Ft.
Lee? <doublewide grin>
I think the funniest part of this whole sad affair is the proof that CC
really *is* a bi-partisan sort of guy (or at least his staff his). They
punished Democrat and Republican alike with their hare-brained scheme. You
couldn't make a more pointless point because in the end, the person most
likely to be seriously punished by Bridgegate is Christie himself.
I would never underestimate the ability of starving lawyers (NJ has many) to
find some way for anyone who can prove they were on the bridge to receive
some token settlement. Hell, Christie might do what lots of other
defendants do in similar situations - pay out to avoid further bad
publicity. If he's involved, a civil suit naming Kelly might be all it
takes for her to crack and drag him into it. She could do that even if he's
not really guilty because these sorts of sordid affairs have the potential
for even innocent bystanders to get hit with blowback.
Damn straight - in fact I would say that leave is more important than money.
If I was short of money, I could (and did!) work as a consultant on the
weekends. If I ran out of leave, nothing could offset that loss.
The bottom line here is that you can't trust politicians to tell the truth
when their own neck's on the block. In the spirit of bi-partisanship,
Weiner lied about showing his weiner, Clinton lied about leaving his semen,
Craig lied about having a "wide stance" in the men's room, Nixon assured us
he was not a crook, Edwards lied about having a mistress, Blago lied about
having a brain <g> and the beat goes on, the beat goes on.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.