I don't like Christie and I won't vote for him. Nevertheless, this
entire episode is illuminating. Christie's little Bridge incident is
headline news for days, tons of investigations, the full MSM witch hunt is
ongoing.Obama and any of HIS scandals? Like the IRS, Benghazi, Fast
and Furious, etc? Crickets.This is why we need Republicans in
government. The media hates them, so will actually do their job exposing
political stuff, like they are with Christie right now. Democrats in office?
The government can literally let people die or kill them and get hosannas and
phrases like "We all thought he is the Messiah!" --quote from Barbara
Walters. If you like accountability in your government, vote Republican. If
you like media shilling and coverups, keep voting democrat.
IMO for the most part these "Scandals" (as the network news calls them)
don't exist because they need to exist (because government or the people
would suffer if they were not investigated)... they exist because some powerful
people in the media WANT them to exist.The use of the money for the
New Jersey tourism advertising campaign was OK'd at the time. That will
come out eventually... but not before the media has had their fun with it (and
Gov Christie has suffered the full affect of the media and the politicians
playing their games with it).It's too bad that when one of
these "scandals" dies... the media never covers that, or at least not as
much as they do when they don't know all the facts... and they can
conjecture anything they want on the air.Bridge-Gate has already
been handled... but some people in the news media won't let it go. They
will continue wondering (on the air).. if there isn't more to this story
than we know.There will always be some hint of innuendo coming from
the media even after it's explained.
" Like the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc? Crickets."Take Benghazi. Are you saying that there have not been media investigation,
or congressional investigations or FBI investigations or Senate armed services
investigations? I recall hearing about non-stop investigations.
Hardly Crickets. You just didn't hear what you wanted.
JoeBlow: Indeed, what I heard was endless charges of "Republicans are
politicizing this! Witchhunt against Poor Hillary! What difference does it
make?" There has been exactly ONE Mainstream media reporter who has
done any true investigative work: Sheryl Atkinson of CBS. Everyone else has
been trying to shove it under the rug. They are forced to cover it because the
Republicans are trying to push it, not because they want to. And
why shouldn't the Republicans push it? Only the murder of a US Ambassador
who spent months begging for increased protection. A rush to blame something
completely unconcerned. Jailing a man who was innocent for almost a year.
Lying to the world. Yet somehow, this is a Republican "made up scandal"
according to the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself). If Nixon had done
what Obama has done over Benghazi, he would have been sentenced to death.
re:Vanceone"Obama and any of HIS scandals? Like the IRS, Benghazi,
Fast and Furious, etc? Crickets."A simple search of "Chris
Christie" and "bridge" also came up in 30 New York Times articles
and 27 Washington Post articles, and 778 times in newspapers and wire stories
across the country.We decided to focus on the week after the attack
on the U.S. consulate in Libya, which occurred Sept. 11, 2012. It’s a
little bit longer of a time period to track (the Christie news broke mid-week so
we have just four days of search results), but stick with us.Using
the same news outlets we tracked for Christie, we found 250 transcripts that
mentioned "Benghazi." Again, CNN led the way with 100 mentions.There were more than 2,800 stories that contain "Benghazi" in
newspapers and wire services, though that also includes international
newspapers. Domestically, the New York Times wrote 69 stories and the Washington
Post had 49.Mainstream news outlets also gave airtime and space to
Republicans who alleged a cover up on the part of the administration. During
Oct. 18-25, 2012, when accusations were especially frequent, CNN and MSNBC
referred to "Benghazi cover up" a combined 13 times."(Politifact)
TruthSeeker: I never said they didn't cover it, I said they whitewashed it
and did their best to defend the administration. There's a huge difference
between "Republican Christie Scandal! Embattled Republican fends off charges
of political malfeasance!" and "Republican drum up outrage for political
gain, while Administration sets record straight" headlines. I
don't honestly know, but it sounds like you are trying to say that the
media is not an arm of the Democratic party that pretends to be objective.
Everyone knows that. It's why there is so much bitterness and hatred
towards "Faux News"--it's the one major network that isn't
full of Democratic Party sympathizers, toadys, or relatives of them. Still, just compare the Christie scandal with Benghazi. In Christie,
it's the reporters digging and reporting. In Benghazi, it is the opposing
party who is doing the digging and providing information to the media--they
aren't doing anything on their own. Why, it's like they don't
want to find out the truth, isn't it?
I hope this doesn't take anything away from the Benghazi investigation.
Re: "Whether or not Christie is the GOP nominee in 2016, the coming
political roller-coaster should be extremely interesting to follow."Yeah, particularly since Christie has demonstrated he can give as well
as he gets.It will certainly be entertaining to watch him blast back
at the disingenuous, Soros-funded, Hillary-controlled, captive-media
propagandists that have already begun the 2016 presidential campaign.Let the mud fly! In both directions!
re:Vancone"TruthSeeker: I never said they didn't cover
it,"The term "crickets" implies silence. I
don't know where you were, but the media (not just Fox) covered the
Benghazi and conspiracy story for weeks. (Although later there were competing
news events such as the upcoming election and Hurricane Sandy). "In Christie, it's the reporters digging and reporting."Except the reporters at Fox. Actually, the New Jersey Assembly launched
an investigation into the bridge closure back in Nov. When did you become aware
of the bridge issue? The media was digging and reporting on
Benghazi, and Congressional committees, headed by Republicans held hearings on
Benghazi, covered by the media, for weeks and weeks--including interviews with
Republicans. The FBI immediately launched an investigation after Benghazi.
There is a huge difference in the national security sensitivity and public
information involving a secretive CIA operation in a foreign land and a public
bridge closure within the U.S.But, thank you for sharing the
Fox/Limbaugh/etc version today.
I agree with procuradorfiscal... If you are looking for entertainment... he
would be a good candidate. If you are looking for a great President... not so
much.Maybe we should make him Vice President. Then we can be
entertained by his antics (like we are with Joe Biden)... but we don't have
to worry about him shooting himself in the foot with his silly comments in front
of foreign dignitaries. Joe is also known for controversy (remember the
plagiarism incident he denied but was later proven without a doubt). Or some of
his totally befuddling comments over the years. Didn't hurt HIS political
aspirations. Just made him a more entertaining target for the media.So for entertainment value... Christie is great. But do we really want him
running the country and meeting with our allies entertaining them with his
3-stooges type banter? I don't.Of course the media loves him.
They want interesting. They want controversy. They want scandal. They want
innuendo. They want people who shoot from the hip, try to be funny, and
stumble frequently (like Gerald Ford and George Bush) that give them something
funny or contraversial to write about.
This really is second rate corruption and payback. It's new jersey; they
can do better than that.
"...Faux News"--it's the one major network that isn't full of
Democratic Party sympathizers, toadys, or relatives of them...".Just full of Republican Party sympathizers, toadys (sic), or relatives of
"it sounds like you are trying to say that the media is not an arm of the
Democratic party that pretends to be objective. Everyone knows that."Vanceone, that is a very odd comment. "Everyone knows that." I
mean that is just strange. Perhaps you don't understand what
"media" means, and you don't understand what everyone knows.
Amazing that Christie has spent more time answering press questions about a
traffic jam than Obama, Clinton, Panetta, ect. have spent answering about all
SCfan,Democrat scandals don't count. Only Republican scandals need
to be run out for daily cometary and in depth analysis by the political
contributors of the various networks. The rest only come up when they
can't be covered up anymore, and then go away as soon as possible. The
rest need to be milked for all they can get out of them.A traffic
jam, and advertising campaign... of course those need to be in the news daily
for weeks.But 4 Americans (Including an Ambassador) killed in a
terrorist attack... just send out somebody to explain on all the Sunday
political shows that it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was just a protest
that got out of hand... and accident really. And then let it drop off the
radar. And when that story turns out to be completely false... try to keep it
off the air as much as possible, and if you must discuss it, deflect it as much
as possible, or just focus on nits and details not the incident itself (to avoid
any blowback to any Democrats). But if it's a Republican..... Get all you
can out of it!
VST, I'm going to just take a wild guess that you haven't read the
report. Can you provide the quotes from Dempsey and Panetta's testimony
that says what you claim? Can you also refer to the parts of the
report that discuss the information dealing with rather the attack was terrorist
driven, or a reaction to a protest. I'll tell you, it's not quite what
you are saying.
No, I understand, but you said Dempsy and Panetta testified THEY told the
president this. But as you show in your second post they didn't testify to
this, General Ham testified that HE told Panetta and Dempsy this, Dempsy and
Panetta did NOT testify they told the president this. But it's moot anyway.
The CIA was giving different information during this time. In other words the
White House was getting conflicting information. Frankly. I
don't think people still know what happened over there or why. I know,
there are a lot of different people claiming to know. But as far as I've
seen there is NOTHING definitive.