Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Clinton lauds Chris Christie
CNN ^ | June 14, 2013 | Ashley Killough

Posted on 06/15/2013 3:22:10 AM PDT by Innovative

"The enduring image most Americans have of you is standing there in your jacket, grieving with your people, working with them and working with the president," Clinton said to Christie during an onstage discussion at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in Chicago.

Christie drew sharp criticism from his own party for putting aside politics as he stood side-by-side with President Barack Obama, who was up for re-election in mere days, when the president traveled to New Jersey to survey the destruction.

Despite their political disagreements, Christie and Obama have maintained that relationship, and Christie again openly embraced the president's visit to the shore last month.

Consistent with Christie's independent outspokenness - a trait that has lost him favor among many conservatives in the GOP - Christie fervently made the case Friday that government is needed in times of crises.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: christie; clinton; elections; nj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
Can't imagine why any conservative would still support Christie...
1 posted on 06/15/2013 3:22:10 AM PDT by Innovative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Bubba just gave Christie the kiss of death.

2 posted on 06/15/2013 3:26:50 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Christie didn’t even bother to show up for the “Faith and Freedom Coalition” conference.

A political tightrope: Christie appears with Clinton while religious conservatives talk issues

“In Washington the same day, evangelical conservatives gathered for Ralph Reed’s annual Faith and Freedom Coalition conference. Republican presidential hopefuls tackled heated issues like abortion and immigration — policy debates that may shape the future of the GOP. Activists attending the conference questioned Christie’s priorities.

Seven hundred miles from the conservative gathering, Clinton and Christie praised each other during a friendly 40-minute conversation about New Jersey’s recovery from the storm at the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting.”

3 posted on 06/15/2013 3:30:52 AM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

This is just the set-up phase, ffolkes.

A new “coalition” is forming, one in which the nation may be governed in the “post-Obama era” by a cadre of elite and bipartisan functionaries. It shall not matter who is nominated, or who else attempts to run. This is a pre-emptive strike against those forces who would dismantle the rickety superstructure that has been erected by the various progressives over the past century or more.

Now such a cadre has been more or less in place previously, and was once at its strongest when Nixon was taken down, to be succeeded by Ford, who had legislative experience, but little in the way of administrative expertise. Ford was replaced in short order by the Carter Administration, another gang that couldn’t shoot straight, but managed to bollix things up so badly that the American public could see, for at least a little while, that whatever was going on, was not good for anybody.

We are at another juncture where what is going on is not good for anybody, but so many fewer of the people can or will look at the situation and correctly assess it, there may be little hope for the Republic.

One course I have always considered, but gets poo-pooed by others, is secession of the “red” districts from the territory formerly known as “the United States of America”, not on a state-by-state basis, but by congressional districts. Then, the multitude of “blue” districts would be scattered and isolated, sometimes by great distance from each other, while the “red” part would form an almost contiguous area, pock-marked by these small and scattered “blue” districts.

Much like Danzig was separated from Germany when Poland was carved out of the eastern portion of the German Empire and the Habsburg and Tsarist empires when those entities collapsed after the First World War. For the first time in a very long while, Poland was free of foreign domination.

Of course, they muffed it, and it was again a major battlefield only a couple of decades later. But they had the finest horse cavalry in the world at the time.

Not that it was effective against panzers.

4 posted on 06/15/2013 3:51:34 AM PDT by alloysteel (When did the government suddenly become our psycho ex-girlfriend? - Jay Leno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

“Bill Clinton lauds Chris Christie”

Should read “Low life scum lauds low life scum.”

5 posted on 06/15/2013 3:55:15 AM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
For those who may have forgotten what kind of a President Bill Clinton was:

1) Clinton’s own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:

``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people’’ –- Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993

``We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…that we forget about reality.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful’’’ by Debbie Howlett

“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly… that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare… However, now there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.” – Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995

2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:

It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese People’s Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clinton’s decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.

The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that “the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities.” Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to America’s security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business – a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.

3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:

• On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that day’s grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese “chemical weapons factory,” and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.

Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clinton’s action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.

Clinton’s pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they weren’t a total loss.

•On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."

Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session – when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clinton’s chances of dodging impeachment.

The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.

Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: “We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.”

Whether or not one buys Clinton’s assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harm’s way for purely political reasons.

4) Clinton’s reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:

Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was “only about sex.” But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.

To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?

What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising America’s real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?

Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.

And don’t even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.

6 posted on 06/15/2013 3:55:44 AM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Sounds like Bubba used his famous cigar on Christie.

And Christie loved it.

7 posted on 06/15/2013 3:58:45 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues?

The same type of leverage apparently exerted by Obamamugabe on Chief Injustice Roberts.

8 posted on 06/15/2013 4:03:07 AM PDT by peyton randolph (FUBO and his wookie beard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Why does that picture scream “turd tapper”?


9 posted on 06/15/2013 4:10:17 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
Why does that picture scream “turd tapper”?

The problem I have with it is the lies, deceit, and potential for blackmail.

His law firm certainly was pro-gay, and he did pro bono work for gay rights cases, i.e. Roberts had no reason to stay in the closet in libertine D.C. except to rise to judicial power. The same dirty trick worked with Poofter Souter and undoubtedly at least one of Obama's nominees to the Supremes..

And that creates blackmail material for anyone trying to sway the Supreme Court's decisions.

10 posted on 06/15/2013 4:22:53 AM PDT by peyton randolph (FUBO and his wookie beard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

11 posted on 06/15/2013 4:31:17 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Any idea who his “boyfriends” are?

12 posted on 06/15/2013 4:38:02 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Democrats: Robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
'Christie fervently made the case Friday that government is needed in times of crises.'
Right Governor. Like when 'the government' rebuilt Chicago after the fire. And like when 'the government' rebuilt San Fransisco after the earthquake.

Yep you're right 'gov'! We need 'the government'. Oh?!? .. wait a sec ... uh ... never mind.

13 posted on 06/15/2013 4:51:39 AM PDT by Condor51 (Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Of course the dems are going to promote a RINO who couldn’t win a foot race even if he was the only one running.

14 posted on 06/15/2013 4:54:06 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Well, we know who the dems want to run against next election. Could we choose someone different this time?

15 posted on 06/15/2013 4:59:21 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Christie looks out for Christie. He will switch parties if it will get him elected. dump him.

16 posted on 06/15/2013 5:02:48 AM PDT by I want the USA back (If I Pi$$ed off just one liberal today my mission has been accomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

If Christie were of another sex he’d be in bed with Clinton.

17 posted on 06/15/2013 5:06:20 AM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
That applies to both Clintons.
18 posted on 06/15/2013 5:08:23 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

He brought this on himself, but honestly you guys are being played. By Clinton saying this the Dems are doing nothing more than driving Christie further away from the GOP. They know he’s a real threat and are playing everyone to ensure he’s pushed toward them.

19 posted on 06/15/2013 5:25:16 AM PDT by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
This is just the set-up phase, ffolkes.

I have a hunch you may well be right, alloysteel. If I were a highly placed statist, I'd be inclined toward letting the leftist extremists finish demolishing the "antiquated" structure of our constitutional republic, then shunt aside the demolition teamw and turn to the serious business of erecting a neo-aristocratic, neo-fascist, neo-European Union closed market economic, social, and political state.

I concede I've used the prefix "neo" too many times in a single sentence. I don't know who's who, still less what's coming. My suspicion is a fairly small number of very rich, very social status-conscious, very well connected people have a deep, abiding aversion to laissez faire capitalism's loud, disorderly, unpredictable open economic markets and the American constitutional republic's equally loud, disorderly, unpredictable political and social markets. The self-appointed best people—probably not leftist extremists at all, but Mussolini-style statists—intend to:

• Aggregate existing large scale wealth and exercise state control of sizeable business to reduce and ward off competition from upstart newcomers.

• Impose supra-state control over individual nations to reduce political and economic unpredictability and keep international affairs orderly and amenable to the requirements of sizeable business.

• Reestablish a rigid pre-industrial revolution social pyramid with the self-appointed best people in charge and the vast majority content with carefully controlled economic usefulness and limited consumerism. The old rich are always adamantly opposed to the new rich; further, I suspect we Americans are largely oblivious to the tenacity of European aristocratic notions. More than a few of the time-honored best European families are 1,000 years old, and bitterly resent people from the lower class making their way upward on economic and social ladders. That's not to say we don't have people in America with aristocratic pretensions and aspirations, but our wannabe social, political, and economic aristocrats go back at most hundreds of years, and aren't established by law or de facto law.

• Keep war a thing of the past as much as possible. I believe the self-appointed best people in Europe lost a great deal during World Wars I and II, and formed the European Union to make Europe economically competitive with the U.S. and reduce the likelihood of imperialistic wars, wars of conquest, national wars, regional wars, and other exercises in mass destruction. War is terrible for banking, and bankers the world over would much rather simultaneously compete and cooperate with one another than lose their investments to warfare. I have a hunch the self-appointed best people in the U.S. are in whole-hearted agreement, and intend partly to emulate the E.U. model, partly improve on it.

Ultimately, Marxists are looters, armed robbers, extortionists, rapists, arsonists, and the like: people who can do the dirty work of tearing down the old order, though by no means people who could create or build or manage or lead the new order. Could the self-styled "progressives" be shoved out of harm's way and replaced by an oligarchy of self-appointed better people? I doubt it would be at all difficult, especially considering:

• Both Congress and the Supreme Court have degenerated into glorified rubber stamps for the Executive branch.

• The prodigiously large, powerful feral government bureaucracy is wholly the creature of and loyal to the Executive branch. The U.S. military has degenerated into nothing grander or more independent than a component of the bureaucracy.

• It probably wouldn't be difficult to keep the outward form of our lost constitutional republic intact. Elections could still be held, though both candidate rosters and vote totals would be carefully managed from the top of the pyramid. It wouldn't be necessary to rescind the Bill of Rights: merely prevent the vast majority at the bottom of the pyramid from exercising selected rights such as freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms by "emergency economic rescue" or "temporary national rescue" legislation.

• An economic disruption could strike fear into the hearts of the "low information voters" and the whole of the so-called "welfare" constituency. Fear could easily generate silence, and silence could suffice as the famous "consent of the governed," especially if a man on the white horse miraculously succeeded in restoring some portion of economic prosperity. Too much prosperity too soon would be seen by the self-appointed best people as disorderly; closely limited, regulated prosperity, by contrast, would probably keep resistance quiet and isolated.

Where does Islam fit in all this speculation? I'd guess the self-appointed best people of Europe and the quietly, but radically altered United States would be glad to divide the world into what used to be called "spheres of influence" with the richest and most politically powerful Islamic movers and shakers. Neither Europe nor North America need be dependent on oil from Islamic states any great length of time, so if the jihadis were to remain overtly antagonistic, Europe and North America could mount a reverse OPEC embargo and force the Islamic states into acquiescence. Would Iran sit down, shut up, and mind its manners? If not, a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia could probably solve the Iranian problem PDQ. I can't imagine the self-appointed best people would mind if the Islamic states were to console themselves with a united war against Israel.

Japan, South Korea, and other Asian nations are already amenable to closed market or crony capitalism, and probably as averse to war as Europe. Russia, still one of the poorer and more backward nations, would gladly get along to go along with the solidly top-down, rigidly stratified new world order. I can't imagine China wouldn't huff and puff over this, that, or a dozen other details, but gladly go along for the sake of economic development and opportunities to expand its political and military influence.

I believe the self-appointed best people the world over have long and bitterly resented American exceptionalism, open market capitalist wealth and technical innovation, and anti-hierarchic individual and social freedom. I think if the self-styled "progressives" who've eviscerated our constitutional republic in all but name remain in charge, they'll preside over an immediate, sweeping national economic, social, and political disaster that would soon result in secession and the restoration of our constitutional republic. I think it's much more likely the "progressive" oligarchy currently in power will be replaced by an essentially fascist, crony capitalist, aristocratic, rigid oligarchy of self-appointed best people.

20 posted on 06/15/2013 5:26:55 AM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson