freeman3 wrote:but don't criticize Obama.

geojanes wrote:But Obama's mess-ups doesn't have anything to do with Chris Christie's mess-ups. Why are they being conflated? It's confusing.

freeman3 wrote:Finally, the claim that liberals hate the Constitution is ridiculous. Without liberals you wouldn't have a Constitution. You might want to read some 17th and 18th century history...

geojanes wrote:Thanks Freeman, that's a better summary than anything I wrote.

freeman3 wrote:but don't criticize Obama.

If I haven't been clear to date: There is plenty to criticize Obama for: there have been shocking levels of incompetence (e.g. the health care fiasco) and broken promises (e.g. Guantanamo). Does Obama get enough flak for his mess-ups? Probably not, but it's not like anybody is saying he's been perfect, or at least I don't hear that.

But Obama's mess-ups doesn't have anything to do with Chris Christie's mess-ups. Why are they being conflated? It's confusing.

“After Benghazi on 9/11/2012, the Obama administration tried very hard to discourage Fox News Channel from reporting on it. The effort was obstruction – pure and simple.”

“They tried to prevent the truth from coming out and the Administration tried just about everything to discourage Fox from investigating and reporting,” she continued. “All the American people wanted, and all I ever wanted, was just the facts – why did 4 Americans die? What happened?”

“The Obama Administration put out that phony video story — but who could not have been suspicious of the Administration after hearing that?” Van Susteren asked. “Frankly, if they had been candid on day 1, the Benghazi story would have been over in short order. It would not be to the point we are now: with a Senate Bi Partisan Intelligence Committee report with the very painful conclusion that the murders at Benghazi could have been prevented.”

Van Susteren gave examples of how the Administration tried to prevent Fox from telling Americans the truth:

In the early days after Benghazi, the State Department omitted only Fox News Channel from its conference call to all the media when it claimed to be answering questions about Benghazi for the media. Our friends in other media outlets were scandalized that Fox was not included and told us all about it. They were suspicious of State Department forgetting us/Fox and courageous to tip us off. The State Department claimed it was accident and not intentional.

And then shortly thereafter, there was the CIA briefing about Benghazi at the CIA for all the networks – except one: Fox News Channel. The CIA would not let Fox News Channel attend. [...]

And there were many times in the months and years since September 2012 when Obama Administration officials would make comments to suggest that Fox was just doing the Benghazi reporting for political reasons. The Administration was doing what it could to deter and demean the Fox News Channel investigation. They did not want to give us the facts — so their strategy was to attempt to belittle and demean our reporting.

[After taking a swipe at the New York Times for issuing an analysis that has since been completely debunked by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, Van Susteren wrote of attempts by a friend of hers within the Adminstration to get her to silence Fox’s Jennifer Griffin]:

[M]y friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?

In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first.

Knowing Griffin to be one of the best investigative reporters in the business, Van Susteren demanded her friend offer proof that her colleague was wrong. None was forthcoming:

I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly. My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, no Christie + no Ryan = no thread.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, no Christie + no Ryan = no thread.

Cool, so you'll avoid it and use the Benghazi thread for your comments about Benghazi?

Oh.

Doctor Fate wrote: First, we've yet to establish Christie knew about Bridgegate.

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, as soon as you all stop pretending:

1. Christie's alleged malfeasance is more significant than Obama's demonstrated malfeasance.

2. That Ryan is a potential candidate. There is no evidence, other than polling, to demonstrate that.

3. That Bridgegate is the crime of the century.

4. That Christie "had to know," but it's not reasonable to believe that Obama did know--even though that's already been proven. He knew about Benghazi in fifteen minutes.

Now, if you're fine with those, we're good to go.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote: First, we've yet to establish Christie knew about Bridgegate.

Well, you're the one who always talks about leadership: if you're a leader and you have the people closest to you doing this nonsense, then you're not a leader, you're a puppet. So from a political standpoint, it hardly matters if he knew. He's either a criminal or a puppet: either way he's done.

On Obama, you're focusing on the lies that were done, mostly, after the fact, and had no bearing on the event. On Bengahzi, they were caught trying to minimize a serious event, shame on them, we expect better. But to paraphrase Hillary, lying or catching them in a lie to minimize the event doesn't change the fact that these Americans are still dead. Nor did these lies cause them to become dead.

On health care, let's assume he knew that people could lose their doctors and plans. Did he lie to hurt people who voted Republican? Did he lie because he had a personal financial interest in the lie? Or did he lie for political reasons, to help him get legislation passed that was important to him (and perhaps to the good of the country?) A politician caught lying has a "dog bites man" quality to it, doesn't it? It's not good, we should be angry, but if a politician went away for lying for political reasons, well, we wouldn't have many politicians, would we?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, as soon as you all stop pretending:

1. Christie's alleged malfeasance is more significant than Obama's demonstrated malfeasance.

I never said it was. I just think it is of interest given that not long ago he was a potential hopeful, and there are plenty who like him.

2. That Ryan is a potential candidate. There is no evidence, other than polling, to demonstrate that.

Well, if he's polling well, he is more likely to be convinced to stand.

3. That Bridgegate is the crime of the century.

Who said it was? It's a pretty low thing to do (even if it were just the staff who did it), but it's not up there with Assad's regime killing thousands of civilians.

4. That Christie "had to know," but it's not reasonable to believe that Obama did know--even though that's already been proven. He knew about Benghazi in fifteen minutes.

You mean when he talked about terror the next day he was showing that he knew it was a terrorist act? This is not some devastating revelation, DF.

Now, if you're fine with those, we're good to go.

Yep, now those straw men are quickly turned to ash, perhaps we can walk away from the thread unless it's to discuss Paul Ryan or Chris Christie?

Doctor Fate wrote:2. It certainly appears that there was more than incompetence that led to these attacks. The "best" defense I've seen so far is to, essentially, blame Stevens.

Doctor Fate wrote:He lied because he had to run for reelection. If he said, "This program is going to cause some of you to lose your insurance. It's going to cause some of you to lose your doctors. All of this will be over and above 'normal' turnover. Additionally, we're going to see unexpected results--cancer patients being forced to abandon treatment, for example. I can't even tell you how much chaos there's going to be, but some pain is inevitable. It's called 'change' people, grow up," would he have been reelected?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, as soon as you all stop pretending:

1. Christie's alleged malfeasance is more significant than Obama's demonstrated malfeasance.

I never said it was. I just think it is of interest given that not long ago he was a potential hopeful, and there are plenty who like him.

Plenty "liked" Giuliani too.

2. That Ryan is a potential candidate. There is no evidence, other than polling, to demonstrate that.

Well, if he's polling well, he is more likely to be convinced to stand.

He doesn't poll "that" well. He registers, but it's not like there's a "draft Ryan" movement. And, again, who was the last sitting member of Congress to be elected President? (Answer is Garfield, btw)

3. That Bridgegate is the crime of the century.

Who said it was? It's a pretty low thing to do (even if it were just the staff who did it), but it's not up there with Assad's regime killing thousands of civilians.

It's gotten more attention here than Syria, so you make the call.

4. That Christie "had to know," but it's not reasonable to believe that Obama did know--even though that's already been proven. He knew about Benghazi in fifteen minutes.

You mean when he talked about terror the next day he was showing that he knew it was a terrorist act? This is not some devastating revelation, DF.

I'm trying to be patient. However, that's a lie. It is a LIE. He mentioned "terror." He did not connect it to Benghazi.

Be as patient as you like, but if you are going to accuse me of a lie, you'd better be telling the truth yourself. The statement in the Rose Garden can be read here - [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya]Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya

Except they were only straw men when you turned to dishonesty.