- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Are you longing for real scandal? Christie administration delivers

Published: Wed, February 5, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

Are you longing for real scandal? Christie administration delivers

The controversy over New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and the George Washington Bridge traffic jam is significant. It’s not significant because it fuels the Democrats and liberal media with more political ammunition or because it dampens the governor’s chances of winning a 2016 presidential bid. It’s significant because it sets forth before Congress and the public a classic template of what a “real” scandal should look like.

Take, for example, the so-called Benghazi scandal. We all grieve the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and no matter what your sentiments are in regards to the president, the New York Times article entitled “No Al-Qaida Role in the 2012 Killings,” supports Susan Rice’s and Hillary Clinton’s initial testimonies. To make the argument that the deaths could have been prevented is unfair.

Former President George W. Bush could have prevented the 9/11 Trade Center attack had he acted on prior knowledge. The point is this: In spite of intense investigations, no evidence has surfaced yet that even remotely suggests that the president and his staff were engaged in wrongdoing. It’s not easy to manufacture a scandal.

In reference to the so-called IRS scandal, The Akron Beacon Journal published an interesting article by Jeff Tripp last year titled “Undeserved Tax Exemption.” Tripp wrote “by applying for tax status, they (Tea Party) target themselves for review, and it is the responsibility of the IRS to ascertain their status.” As of yet, FBI probes haven’t turned up anything substantial; yet, the conservative media still continues calling the IRS controversy a scandal?

Real scandals have scandalous substance. They just don’t happen. They seed in the upper echelon of power. They breathe. They brew. They grow. They take on a life of their own. When uncovered and exposed, they fester and die.

Warren G. Harding’s administration was so bedridden by scandal that upon his death, (pneumonia) his wife destroyed all his business records. Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency rather than face impeachment charges for his role in the infamous Watergate break-in.

And unveiling center stage before the nation presently is the Traffic Jam scandal, which was aimed at punishing Democratic Mayor Mark Sokolich of Fort Lee, N.J., for not endorsing Gov. Christie during his re-election campaign. Four top people have lost their jobs and 20 subpoenas have been issued as the governor himself has hired a defense lawyer.

Everybody can see how the Bridge, IRS and Benghazi scandals rank in comparison. Finally, this scandal will certainly affect the political atmosphere in 2016.

Alfred Spencer, Warren


1Jerryl(105 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

How long has Issa and his committee been trying to prove
anything with regard to the IRS or Benghazi?

And what has he proven? NADA

Suggest removal:

2Repubs4theRich(124 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

there you go, eivo is out numbered, so switch over to Obamacare. Classic Eivo. You can't say anyone got you off topic either.

Suggest removal:

3borylie(790 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

How long does Governor Christie have to stonewall before this "bridgegate" is in his rear view mirror and he can look into the future? This seems to be the way the dems/socialists/ put their scandals to bed. Deny,deny,deny until it's wrong to keep bringing up the subject of the scandal of the week. Just like President Obama said in his interview with O'Reilly, Fox News is wrong to keep these scandals alive. Is this the way you dems/libs/socialists want government to run?

Suggest removal:

4Knightcap(699 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm with the majority and Alfred on this one. We need another community organizer.

Suggest removal:

5evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

OK, I was wrong. So sue me !

Suggest removal:

6GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Wow, you're really busy cutting and pasting on this story evio.

Suggest removal:

7cathylukasko(116 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Where is the DOCUMENTATION on Gov. Christie? DEMS can't wait to destroy a strong R Presidential candidate who would DESTROY Hillary in a debate! When the DEMS have real evidence- then you can speak!

Suggest removal:

8KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

IF there is documentation that Christie knew about the bridge closures and the motivations, it will come out AFTER the co-conspirators have been granted immunity by the federal prosecutor.

Until that time, his involvement is just speculative.

That the bridge closure was politically motivated and orchestrated by Christie's deputy chief of staff is plain. Whether Christie himself knew and or approved these tactics remains to be determined.

Suggest removal:

9KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein conspired together to get fired because they thought it was a grand opportunity.


Eivo, don't know why you are so positive that there is no documentation. How can you be so sure? Were you involved?

Suggest removal:

1076Ytown(1242 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Reminds me of the scene from Christmas Vacation when cousin Eddie decides to deliver Mr. Shirley to Clark all tied up in a big red bow for revoking bonuses!

Suggest removal:

11YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Since someone insists on quoting 5 words out of context. Clinton's whole quote is: "
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again."

The only reason it matters why someone attacks any of our bases and kills any of our personnel is if you think there are reasons that justify or excuse an attack.

Suggest removal:

12GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

You are equally outraged at the deaths of THOUSANDS.of United States sons and daughters who died because of lies so we could attack Iraq, correct eivo? You are a hypocrite if you don't send an equal amount of money to Iraq War veterans groups. Money much better spent than to some right wing nut job super pac. The
Koch brothers already have enough money.

Suggest removal:

13papa1(662 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Benghazi and the irs pretend scandals have been exhaustively debunked so I wish the rightys would shut up. Christie is toast! he's a big mouth bully who calls his constituents names at town hall meetings. he thinks he's tony soprano. he's finished and I'm loving every minute of his twisting in the wind!!

Suggest removal:

14Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

You said : "There were NO lies so we could attack Iraq"

Are you serious? Or is it that you simply can't remember?

Whatever benefits you suggest is not an excuse to mislead the country into a war.

You are just flat out wrong on this one.

Suggest removal:

15Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Avoid your dreaded left wing media reports and recall the sworn testimony before Congress by the Bush administration that there were WMD's being hidden in the desert.

Suggest removal:

16evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago


Suggest removal:

17Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Your post #36,

Did Hillary Clinton have first hand knowledge? No.

Is Hillary Clinton guilty of repeating the false story of Hussain's WMD's and nuclear weapons? Yes

Where did these falsehoods originate? The Bush administration's CIA coupled with the vivid immagination of Rumsfeld, Cheney.

So,if as you say, there were no lies to rationalize Iraq2.0, where are the WMDs? Where are the aluminum tubes for centrifuges? Where is the stockpile of anthrax? Where is the yellow cake uranium?

And all this relates to Cristie how?

Suggest removal:

18evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

But, but, but.....,


Everyone knows that Benghazi was orchestrated by Christie to punish Booker.

Suggest removal:

19Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

The Bush administration was the origin of the falsehoods.
end of story

Suggest removal:

20GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Post 29 shows how out of touch eivo is. Please state the benefits of the Iraq invasion still being felt today? Iraq is on the brink of civil war. Al Quida is now entrenched in Iraq when they didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion. The deaths of thousands of American soldiers are because of the lies told to the American public.

Keep denying and lose more credibility. Scratch that. We have learned you have no credibility and no ability to think for yourself, only the pablum that is fed to you by the Koch Brothers and Faux News.

Suggest removal:

21Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

If the Bush admin was not the origin of all the Iraq falsehoods, who was responsible?

Suggest removal:

22cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

eivo.....your brain is definitely defective. You should seek some help.

Suggest removal:

23evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Real scandals, real crimes:
Benghazi and IRS conspiracy

Suggest removal:

24SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

If the congress really thought (as you do) that Holder might not adequately investigate the so-called Benghazi and IRS issues, they would be appointing a special prosecutor (now called independant counsel).

Has your favorite congressman, Bill Johnson, called for such an independant investigator? How about Boehner?

Maybe because they are not as convinced (as you) that laws were broken......

Do you know something that they don't?

Suggest removal:

25Jerryl(105 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Compared with Christie and GWB, where there is a federal prosecutor investigating.

Suggest removal:

26SeriouslyNow(192 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Interesting coincidence:
GWB = George Washington Bridge
GWB = President George W Bush

I can see how Republicans get upset when someone refers to the GWB scandal, they are not sure which GWB.

Suggest removal:

27SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Congress (if they want to) can appoint a Special Prosecutor (now call an Independant Council)


If they were really serious, if they really want to get to the truth they would appoint.

That they haven't put their money where there mouth is suggests that maybe they are not so sure that any laws were broken.

Suggest removal:

28GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I have never met someone as clueless as eivo. Get help. Quit being a sheep and think for yourself if you're capable.

Suggest removal:

29Sane1(24 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago


“Rep. Gowdy: CONGRESS Must Appoint Special Prosecutor to Investigate IRS Scandal” - Fox News May 22 2013

“Top GOP Lawmakers: NO NEED for Special Prosecutor in IRS Scandal” Republican leaders in Congress are currently against appointing an independent special prosecutor to investigate the IRS controversy.. House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, and House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Sen. Orrin Hatch, and House Ways and Means members Dave Camp and Charles Boustany, are in agreement. – NewsMax - May 24 2013

Is Bill Johnson calling for a special prosecutor?

Suggest removal:

30Sane1(24 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Exactly right, almost a year.

A year ago the "top republicans were saying no need for special investigator"

Now, some, like Cruz, have switched gears.

What has happened in the past year?

Issa and his committee have been able to find nothing !

Suggest removal:

31SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Maybe Issa could not find any criminality, because none existed.

But that won't deter the conspiracy theorists !

Suggest removal:

32YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Boehner, Bill Johnson and the Republicans that have refused to appoint any special prosecutors should be lauded for using what little common sense members of congress have. Thankfully they're not wasting time or taxpayers money on wild goose chases. It's ironic that Tea Party conservatives are always so quick to advocate spending government money on frivolously re-investigating cases that have been gone through over and over because they don't like the outcome of the previous investigations.

Suggest removal:

33cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

eivo....you should really look in the mirror. I would bet that the original source for all the delusional talking points you espouse are the voices in your head.

Suggest removal:

34YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Your responses in that last post about sums it all up eivo. Seriously:

"Utilized executive privileged to not testify as to what/how weapons got into the Contra's hands.
The President of the US should never have to testify in a trumped up political witch hunt." Does the same thing apply to Obama? Did it apply to Bill Clinton? Would it apply to Hillary Clinton if she runs & is elected?

"Sold weapons to Iran (F-16's/F-14's/C-131's) Smaller handheld weapons such as M16s, grenade launchers, etc...
Every President in history has sold weapons to foreign countries." But every President in history didn't sell weapons to an ENEMY state, pledged to the destruction of America.

Finally, "Bush's actions in Iraq sent a very clear message to tinhorn dictators that if they start believing their own rhetoric and take some action the end result is that they will end up at the end of a hangman's noose. This is not lost on the Ayatollas in Iran or the goofball in North Korea. They can have all the protests they want, wave their fists and burn flags, but if they take any action at all, they lose their country. A powerful deterent that we are still reaping the benefits today."

Iraq didn't act against us, nor was Al Quedia operating in Iraq. (Lest you forget history, Saddam was a crackpot tinhorn dictator- but he locked up, tortured & executed other tinhorn crackpots as quickly and viciously as A North Korean dictator hangs their relatives.) The warlords of Afghanistan did aid in attacking us. Many of the Afghan warlords are still in power. Some are even backed by and supported by us financially & militarily. Yep, they got the message, do what you want & when America does respond with force, switch to their side & all will be forgiven.

Suggest removal:

35YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

"A handful of people agreeing with one another doesn't make a faulty conclusion correct. That is nothing more than group think."

Applies equally to Fox News, MSNBC, The Tea Party, Acorn, etc.

Suggest removal:

36cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

eivo....here's your hero bush speaking about the WMD's.


Suggest removal:

37borylie(790 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I don't know if any of you watch Fox News sometimes or never, but the public wouldn't know what's going on in government if it wasn't for Fox News. Do yourselves a favor and watch Fox for at least one week and then decide if they're fair and balanced. Bret Baier has a great newscast from 6 till 7. Give it a shot if you really want to know if Fox News is for real.

Suggest removal:

38borylie(790 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Eivo, Admire your fight and agree to most of the things you post. However, I learned a while back these dems,libs,socialists cannot even answer some basic questions. Why are they libs? What is their goal and how do they get there? Where does it all end for a lib? Won't or can't answer, just will obfuscate the questions. And it's really time to move on when Cambridge gets involved. Probably a communist with a boat load of red herrings.Take care.

Suggest removal:

39cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

eivo....you said there were no lies for why bush attacked Iraq. You said "NONE, NADA, ZILCH". Well here is your hero bush and his administration telling one lie after another in their own words out of their own mouths.


bor-y-lie....always great to hear from a fan.

Suggest removal:

40GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Eivo, I have never, not once, read any talking points from George Soros, never visited any website from George Soros. You continue to do nothing but cut and paste crap from your right wing nut job sites which are so biased they are to be ignored.

You are also doing what you do on every story you post on, you dodge questions you can't find the answers to on Faux News or Drudge. ANSWER THE QUESTION MYSELF AND OTHERS ARE ASKING-- WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF INVADING IRAQ? You can't. You can't think for yourself, you are an embarrassment to yourself and your family and your lack of ability to think for yourself and not be a sheep is embarrassing to those on the right who actually do have a brain.

Suggest removal:

41cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

eivo....those were their words from their lips and they were one lie after another.

Suggest removal:

42SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Pardon being off-topic for a moment.
I had to step away from this discussion for the past eight hours or so to earn a living.

In the meanwhile eivo has posted 11 times. So tell me evio, are you employed? Is posting on vindy.com your vocation?

Suggest removal:

43walter_sobchak(1910 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I agree with you about the Fox newscast at 6 pm with Bret Baier. The general reporting is not biased and the Fox All-stars are well balanced and give multiple views. Not just conservative views but liberal views as well. However, MSNBC would have you believe that closing a bridge for a few days is about the same as Nixon trampling on the Constitution.

Suggest removal:

44YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Ha-Ha. I laughed so hard I peed myself. It's hilarious how everyone is biased but Fox News. News is business and Fox New's business is a conservative bias. I'm not slamming them. This is America and God Bless them for making themselves a boatload of cash with it.

Suggest removal:

45borylie(790 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

@Ytown, It's not that Fox News is biased or not. It's hearing about things you would not hear somewhere else or read anywhere else. Once you hear about it then at least you can do a little research to see if it's true or not. Not knowing something is worse than biased news.

Suggest removal:

46SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

@ Walter,
You must have not watched MSNBC between the hours of 6 am thru 9 am.
Scarborough is not as extreme as Shultz, but he does a reasonable job of presenting a conservative view.

Suggest removal:

47GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

"I have answered this question so many times that I refuse to do so again."

Dodging again. What a joke and a coward.

Suggest removal:

48walter_sobchak(1910 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I watch MoJo most mornings from 6:00 to about 7:30. While Joe presents a moderately conservative view, they have few additional contributors that do. Maybe Michael Steele but dats it. Now, on Fox, Greta does an excellent job of providing a balanced analysis. So does Megyn Kelley and she is pleasing to the eyes and ears as opposed to Mika, who is smarmy and pompous. One thing about Fox News; if a network is going to have people read and discuss the news, they may as we'll be beautiful.

Suggest removal:

49YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Right you are @borylie. Most people don't fact check their sources though. And the disciple minded faithful of Fox News will never admit that it's part of an Entertainment company 21st Century Fox, whose stock is one of my more profitable ones, thanks to Fox News.

Suggest removal:

50GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Still waiting...

Suggest removal:

51Sensible(118 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

re # 106:
Your decision making is being guided by the "left wing media" ------- how astute

Suggest removal:

52evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

ASTUTE ! How dare you !

I resemble that remark!

Suggest removal:

53YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Unless an email, text or voice mail surfaces showing Christie ordered the closure or knew about it, or actual evidence beyond he said-she said showing he misused Sandy funds, none of this would affect Christie in a general election. It could make it harder for him to navigate the primaries and get the Republican nomination, but without solid evidence of wrong doing it wouldn't change much come November 2016.

The Right wing-nuts will vote for him no matter what, while the left wing-nuts wouldn't vote for him if Washington and Lincoln rose from the dead and endorsed him. Most moderate voters won't consider it at all when making their decision with solid evidence. He'll lose a few of those moderate voters who do consider it just because they've grown weary of the whole "plausible deniabilty" and they feel an executive should know what everyone is doing under him. Those voters will be offset by the few votes he gets for taking responsibility for not knowing and firing those who keep him in the dark.

The irony is pretty much anyone running against Hilary will start ahead in the polls. The on deck candidates ( Romney, McCain, and Gore) haven't won. And any democratic candidate will have to be so far in distance from Obama to win that they can't be in Washington now, or have been there at anytime since 2008.

Suggest removal:

54GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Sarah Palin. You really hate America if you would give that dunce a vote. Then again, a dunce giving another dunce a vote makes sense.

By the way...still waiting for the benefits of invading Iraq.

Suggest removal:

55SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

You need to send that message to Syria's Assad,
Obviously he did not get your memo.

Suggest removal:

56SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

My mistake, I took you literally when you said " if they take any action at all, they lose their country" and 'get a hangman's noose'

You intended to say, if they take action "to attack the US".

Which circles us back to Iraq. Did the US attack Iraq (under GW) because Hussain " took action to attack the US"?

Or was the reason because we feared that he was gathering stockpiles of WMDs, and was engaging in the rhetoric that scared the US?

Suggest removal:

57evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Let's change the subject.....
We should really be focusing on Benghazi

Suggest removal:

58Jerryl(105 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

That's right, if we had a real president, one with real leadership, one with ba*ls, a standup republican the reaction to Benghazi would have been swift and sure.

Nuke the entire country of Lybia, and let God sort 'em out.

Then North Korean and Iran and Russia and Syria and Cuba would really know that we mean business.

Suggest removal:

59cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

This is bush's explanation as to why we attacked Iraq.

Same nonsensical reasoning as eivo. I do realize that eivo will reject bush's words because they are on YouTube and not on the fix noise network so that's really not bush you see there babbling.


Suggest removal:

60walter_sobchak(1910 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

In retrospect, the reason we invaded Iraq was to obviously allow the world's largest oil companies to get their hands on easily obtained oil from Iraq's rich oil fields and to perpetuate the use of US dollar as the currency for purchasing the oil. I believe Sadam was preparing to take any currency just prior to the strike, similar to the Libyan strike. The war was easily sold as the prevention of Iraq from obtaining nuclear WMD's since he already had chemical WMD's and used them on Oran and the Kurds. (We have the receipt for those weapons.) After 9/11, the US people were spoiling for a fight as payback, regardless of whom the enemy was. We wanted an eye for an eye. It made sense to the people and it was the easy political move. While the evidence may have been exaggerated, there is no conclusive evidence that it was purposefully manipulated. British intelligence and US intelligence were in agreement. Both sides of the political aisle promoted it.

Whther invading Iraq was a good choice is debatable since the world is a better place without Sadam but was it worth the cost. I don't think so. A complete military embargo of Iraq would have probably accomplished the same end but with more overall suffering of the Iraqi people. Now, invading Afghanistan is even more problematic since that is where the masterminds of the 9/11 attack were located. But, this was too difficult to accomplish and we probably could have done this by other means.

Now, that I have answered that, it has NOTHING to do with the Benghazi scandal which was a deliberate manipulation of the facts of the terrorist attack less than two months before the general election. Just because some believe that the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libyan invasions were poor decisions does not excuse lying to the American people. And, to equate any of this to a bridge being closed, FOR WHATEVER REASON, for a few days and causing traffic jams, is ludicrous and shameful, whether Chris Christie knew about it or not.

Suggest removal:

61SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

In addition to the American dead and wounded, add some 3-4 trillion dollars (of your taxes and US bonds) plus the estimated 200-400 thousand Iraqis who died.

Mostly in agreement with Walter about the reasons. Was it worth it? - NO.

Were there any benefits, aside from evio's spin trying to channel the thoughts of "tin-horn dictators" - I think not.

Suggest removal:

62SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Regarding Benghazi:
It is worthwhile to review what she said:


Without some documentation or attacker's testimony it would be difficult, if not impossible to know if the attack was pre-planned.

If it was not planned, that leaves spontaneous.

Considering the widespread protests across the Islamic world over the American Bacile's video satirizing Muhammad (and promoted by AmericanTerry Jones), it is plausible that the attack was INITALLY a protest over the video. That more militant Islamist s then took that opportunity to bring in heavier firepower is equally plausible.

(We have subsequently learned that the attack occurred in two phases - the later stages of which involved heavier weapons)

On it's face, without evidence to the contrary (that in fact the attack had been planned days/weeks/months in advance), what Rice said was reasonable.

What has the republicans so torqued about this is that they feel that this so-called lie (or deliberate misrepresentation) cost Romney the election.

One wonders if some Republicans were actually hoping that a terrorist attack would occur to use that against Obama.

My personal view is that Romney would have lost the election regardless - his 47% commentary sealed that deal

Suggest removal:

63Sanjay1976(37 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago


Are you drinking again?

Your comments: " we are still reaping the benefits of George Bush on large scale attacks like the World Trade Center", make no sense whatever.

Suggest removal:

64SansArmes(17 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

To Eivo,

I doubt seriously that you have talked with any of the relatives of those in Benghazi.

I happen to be a relative of an injured, and by that association have spoken with some of the causalities relatives.

With a few exceptions,no one cares about what Susan Rice said. It makes no difference what inspired the attack.

Furthermore, the use of our loss or injury of a loved one to promote a political agenda is repugnant.

Suggest removal:

65SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

"The relatives who lost loved ones should be free to speak up or not speak up as they see fit."

Agreed, they don't want or need you to speak for them.

Suggest removal:

66GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Dear God, you called me that? Way to offend everyone who has family with mental disabilities.

Not one thing you cut and pasted in #113 answers the question that has been REPEATEDLY asked of you and you are either too stupid to answer on your own, or can't find a right wing nut job site to cut and paste from. What were the benefits TO IRAQ that Bush's lies and war were a result of?

Does your family know you post on here and the garbage you spew? For their sake please stop. You are an embarrassment.

Suggest removal:

67GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Also, I'll point this out since this will go way over your head. Have you noticed that even the regular right wing posters on Vindy.com have abandoned you and are not coming to your defense?

Weak and laughable arguments. It's sad that you think nothing about the lives of thousands of American Heroes who had to die due to the ego and lies (talk about a Liar) of a president.

Suggest removal:

68YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I'll answer that one. Halliburton benefited $40billion from Iraq.

The bigger question is how eivo and neo-cons give Reagan no credit for propping up, funding and arming the "tinhorn" dictator Saddam. Or the afgan mujahideen terrorists, including Bin Laden. Since we're dolling out credit, better give it where it's do.

Suggest removal:

69GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

First off, you know nothing of my donations to charity, so again another lie from you

Secondly, at least your not using that offensive term you used in #113. But keep the name calling coming. Very comical coming from a proven lemming like you.

Again, your giving the righties who do have a brain a bad name. They wish you would shut up. As for myself, this is the funniest thing in the Vindicator...better than the comics.

Suggest removal:

70SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago


GoPens question is not an unreasonable one. Note the emphasis is not on the benefits to US or any US corporations.

From # 142 : "What were the benefits TO IRAQ"?

Suggest removal:

71evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I want to change the subject now.
We should really be discussing Benghazi and how Susan Rice stole the election.

Suggest removal:

72GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

"I want to change the subject now"

Meaning--" I got nothing. You guys are owning me, so I'll go back to crying Benghazi"

The laughs keep on coming folks!

Suggest removal:

73SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Your answer to this point is:
Iraq is alot better off without him.
Could you be just a bit more specific?

While pondering that, also consider the your attitude to Obama. Would the US be better off without him?

If so, then would you support an invasion (say by Russia or Canada) to remove Obama, so we could be better off?

Suggest removal:

74SeriouslyNow(192 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Interesting thought, Shedevil.

Shiites and Sunnis, at each other's throats to gain control of Iraq.

Right wing (US) and Left wing (US), at each other's throats to gain control of US.

Not much difference!

Suggest removal:

75evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I really really want to change the subject now.

Suggest removal:

76SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I do seem to recall that Iraq had elections as well.

If those elections didn't meet our standards, well that too bad. 0ther countries aren't required to do so.

Do you have any other response to the questions posed in #153

Suggest removal:

7776Ytown(1242 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Sure would be refreshing to read some adult conversation here rather than cyber bulling of one poster.

Suggest removal:

78SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago


There were elections in Iraq. They may not have been up to your standards, but there were elections. That only one person was on the ballot does not contradict reality.

So I take it that you are now justifying the Iraq war as a freedom initiative, a step to free the Iraqis from a ruler who employed brutal methods to control the opposition party.

How is that different from today in Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, and a half-dozen other nation-states.

Why not invade these countries, to "free the people".

And what made Iraq special. that we committed lives and treasure? Walter was right... it was about OIL.

If we wanted to send a message to terrorists, and " tin-horn dictators" we could have just bombed Afghanistan to hell and back.

Suggest removal:

79SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago


So would you support an invasion by a foreign power to rid the US of it's President?

Suggest removal:

80HappyBob(285 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I seem to recall that Hussain did everything he could to placate Bush prior to invasion.

There was not much that Hussain could do about events that happened ten years previous.

We told Hussain to destroy missles, and after he said he did, Bush insisted there were more, but it turns out that Hussain was telling the truth.

evio says that the "bad" intelligence was gathered under Clinton's watch. As I recall Powell made quite a deal over photos of weapons producing trailers that had just been taken ....trailers Powell suggested were being hidden in the dessert. Turns out Powell was wrong

After 9/11 the US was psychologically set to kick some butt, and wanted control of Iraqi oil. Simple - two birds with one very large (and enormously expensive) stone.

evio, you are just wrong!

Suggest removal:

81GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

"Well, there is just one tiny little difference between Iraq and the US. We vote at elections every 4 years and there is a 2 term limit (I hope) on Presidential terms."

You also posted on another story that Obama was trying to change the law so he could run again.

More drivel from the paranoid right wing web sites you get all of your thoughts from.

Suggest removal:

82GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

By the way, you of all people demanding sources from other posters is a hoot.

Suggest removal:

83Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

I followed the biologic weapons trailers story closely. Here is what I remember:
Powell and Chaney both insisted that they were for the production of anthrax and botulism.

In 2003 (reported in 2005) the pentagon produced a report titled"Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers" they concluded that the trailers that Chaney and Powell had found were actually manufactured in Great Britain for production of hydrogen and were impractical for biologic agent manufacture.

Powell later admitted that he was wrong.

Did Powell (and others) lie , or did they just want to believe something that would advance the agenda?

You decide.

Suggest removal:

84HappyBob(285 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

You want me to "source" my recollection?

Apparently you don't understand the notion of sourcing.

Suggest removal:

85Jerryl(105 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

You say that Clinton's CIA intelligence gathering of 1996 was the basis for Bush's decision making in 2003.

You are strange.

Suggest removal:

86HappyBob(285 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

It's not propaganda of either wing.

It's is MY recollection. Just as I recollect that the mailman came today. It needs no sourcing.

Indeed, you are strange.

Suggest removal:

87evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago


Suggest removal:

88cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

colin powell and condaleeza rice both stated that there were no wmd's in 2001 but bush went along with his farce changed the story and invaded Iraq anyway. My sources are colin powell and condaleeza rice.


Suggest removal:

89Repubs4theRich(124 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

The whole article/report findings http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...
part of the article/report finding
The question of whether the “Iraqi threat” resulted from manipulation, as Scott McClellan and the SSCI majority suggest, or simple intelligence failure, as in the view of the Committee minority, is a key issue for all concerned. A real intelligence failure did occur. This is plain from the Intelligence Committee’s 2004 “Phase I” report as well as that of the Silberman-Robb Commission. (Note 12) The present author argued as much even before those studies appeared. (Note 13) The CIA director of that time, George Tenet, concedes, “In many ways, we were prisoners of our own history.” (Note 14) Retired CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman, observing this analytical effort from the outside, concludes, “The U.S. rush to war against Iraq marked the worst intelligence scandal in the history of the United States.” (Note 15) But intelligence failure was abetted and magnified by the Bush administration’s drive to use charges about alleged Iraqi WMDs as justification for war.

Suggest removal:

90Jerryl(105 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

you said: "I think some of the intelligence was gathered during the Bush administration but more of it was gathered during the Clinton administration while Bill was dealing with Monica."

Bill was dealing with Monica in 1996.

Then you say;"I never said anything about 1996. Where on earth do you ever get the idea about 1996 anyway."

I got it from you.

You are sooooo exhausting.

Suggest removal:

91GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

"blah, blah, blah,"

Congrats eivo! This is the most intelligent thing you've ever posted! The most impressive thing is that it actually comes from your brain and not cut and pasted from anyone.


Suggest removal:

92GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Hawaii? The Liar always went to The Ranch in Texas. Remember, the president who spent more time on vacation than anyone?

Suggest removal:

93YtownParent(324 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Eivo is just bummed that Obama goes on vacation where he grew up, the same way Bush did. He can't stomach the fact that Obusha emulates GW so much.

Suggest removal:

94evio(43 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

Mommy, Mommy !
I just jumped the shark.....again!

Suggest removal:

95SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 1 week ago

eivo's #192 Trolling again?

Suggest removal:

96BoneDigger85(4 comments)posted 7 months ago

Eivo, when were your boots on the ground in Iraq? Because mine were there in 04-05 with 2nd Bde 10th Mountain Div. and I was an intelligence analyst on the ground for over a year. I lost a piece of my humanity out there and observed funeral services for 30 men under the age of thirty during that time. The way you talk about the Iraq war clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of the geopolitical landscape. But I am glad that you have decided that it was all worth it. What did it cost you? Your ignorance is only outweighed by your apathy and your arrogance. Are you really so pinheaded as to think that the Iraq war paid off by unnecessarily deterring nations that were never a serious threat to begin with? Do you actually think that there was any country on this planet that doubted our military superiority? Do yourself a favor and learn critical thinking skills. And do me a favor and stop disrespecting our dead by trying to spout such an uninformed opinion about their sacrifice. While I cannot speak for them, I suspect that most of those wounded warriors you donate to would punch you in the mouth. Do your country a favor and abstain from voting until you get an education and develop critical thinking skills.

Suggest removal:

97GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months ago

@Bonedigger. Thank you for your service to our country. Please disregard eivo and his anti- American views. We are used to his ignorance. You've already fought for this country. You shouldn't have to deal with the disrespect that eivo spews toward American heroes.

Suggest removal:

98GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months ago

@dontbeafool. Thank you for your service to this great country as well.

Suggest removal:

99SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months ago


You missed part of the story - why is Michaels' activities are under investigation at all?

According to CBS: "Lt. Thomas "Chip" Michaels, reportedly chauffeured former Port Authority official David Wildstein through the traffic-congested streets of the city of Fort Lee during the lane closures.

Michaels’ involvement in the controversy came under scrutiny because he exchanged text messages with Wildstein, which were included in the documents that Wildstein handed over to a legislative panel investigating the matter".

There is no suggestion that Michaels spoke with Christie - so no reason for Christie to deny it.

Who coached who in hockey is not the story.

Suggest removal:

100BoneDigger85(4 comments)posted 7 months ago

Eivo, your stupidity is astounding. And at 55 years old you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I thought you were just some 15 year old child of the Westboro Baptist Church. What assessment of of geopolitics or the Iraq war did I give? How can anyone not agree with an assessment I didn't give? Get a clue. I don't know if you are just from Mississippi or Texas or if you are one of the many mentally ill of Youngstown. Either way, I am not the one providing assessments here. I was pointing out that you are ill-informed and an uneducated, mindless dunce. Thank you for donating to wounded warriors. At least the people like you who think that BS was worth it are helping fix those whom they needlessly broke. If one guy gets a new set of legs courtesy of your donation, I don't care what your political motivations are (even if they are the same politics that got him injured to begin with). However, since you are so unapologetically ignorant, I will no longer attempt to communicate with you. Still can't believe you are 55!

Suggest removal:

101BoneDigger85(4 comments)posted 7 months ago

To those who thanked me for serving...it was an honor. I see every day I spent in that uniform as a privilege considering the heroism of so many before me. Like I told people when I was in, I appreciate your thanks but go thank your garbage man. Truth is, if he and the military stopped showing up for work for a month, I think you would likely miss him a tad more. We are all just doing our jobs. I personally thank my countrymen for the opportunity to serve and for their ongoing support for our troops regardless of their politics. I have received thanks and support from so many people on the left and right that it reminds me, we are all American and we are all in this together. If you want to thank me, just keep being great Americans and remember WE are America.

Suggest removal:

102GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months ago

Well said

Suggest removal:

10376Ytown(1242 comments)posted 7 months ago

After Benghazi you still want Hillary to answer that 3 am call?

Suggest removal:

104SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months ago

Contrasting Clinton with Christie , I'd say yes she is better equipped to answer the 3 am call.

Suggest removal:

105GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months ago

Agreed Shedevil

Suggest removal:

106GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months ago

Oh eivo, keep reading those fake news websites and take them for the truth will ya?

Suggest removal:

107cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months ago

eivo....in your last post you confirm that you use BS news organizations and websites for the material that you quote and post on this site. We all already knew that so what's your point?

Suggest removal:

108GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months ago

And your story proves what again? Artists with good taste?

Suggest removal:

109GoPens(397 comments)posted 7 months ago

WHOA now..wait just a minute. You aren't saying that you are in the "common sense middle" are you eivo? You lack any sense, let alone common sense, and and resemblance to you and "the middle"..well that train left the station a long, long LONG time ago.

Suggest removal:

110GoPens(397 comments)posted 6 months, 4 weeks ago

He skipped a meeting with Bush?

Suggest removal:

111GTX66(343 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago

You dimocrats still blaming Bush for everything. Get in the real world 4 people died in Benghazi and no one from the King Obama's cronies will admit to anything. What Difference does it make now. Those words will come back to haunt H. Clinton!

Suggest removal:

112evio(43 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago


Suggest removal:

11376Ytown(1242 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Caught in a lie that it was a protest over a movie, best defense is to claim "What difference does it make".

"...find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we'll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

Hillary, do tell what was going on. And what attempt have you made to find them?

Suggest removal:

114GoPens(397 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago

4 tragically killed in Benghazi. 4,486 tragically killed over a lie about Iraq. No mention of them by the right. Just concern over trying to derail Hillary in '16. Sickening.

Suggest removal:

115GoPens(397 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Keep sticking your head in the sand eivo. One day you'll wake up and grow up.

Suggest removal:

116evio(43 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago


It would all be over in a week!

Mission accomplished.

Suggest removal:

117Elf2(75 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Rumsfeld testifying before congress:

"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. ... His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox."

Suggest removal:

118Elf2(75 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago

A lie is a lie regardless of it's origin.

Suggest removal:

119Elf2(75 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago


So your claim is that Bush is NOT responsible for the Iraq war because it was Clinton's fault,

but Obama is responsible for the 2008-2009 economic collapse because Bush had nothing to do with it?

Suggest removal:

120SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on May 30 2003 that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. “We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons,” said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: “Those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons – they’re wrong. We found them.” It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed – and that they were exported by Britain.

Bush "WE found them" -- so, evio, show me the link to Clinton who left office about 4 years prior.

You are full of poo.

Suggest removal:

121GoPens(397 comments)posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago


Suggest removal:

122HappyBob(285 comments)posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago

George Will's column today says that the Tea Party was thwarted by the IRS because their 501c4 Social Welfare applications were delayed.

According to the Inspector General for Treasury, "...social welfare organizations, may file an application but are not required to do so”. (Inspector General's report 5/17/2013)

If an organization is not required to file an application, any delay in approval is inconsequential, in short the organization is not thwarted.

As far as the 501c4 "scandal" is concerned, there has been no foul.

Suggest removal:

123eevo(51 comments)posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago


Suggest removal:

124SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

Not that it matters much, but Mitch may not be there in 2015.

You seem focused on a repeal vote, how would you feel about a replacement vote?

Suggest removal:

125SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

Have any of the 50 or so "repeal or repeal and replace" bills offered by the GOP sought to do that?

Has anyone prepared a proposal to do that?

It would be interesting to see how it would work out in detail.

Suggest removal:

126SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

So you "have no problem" supporting a plan that could never see reality?

What you said in your earlier post may come to pass, but the GOP (or whomever) needs to have something in place to be a replacement for Obamacare.

I'm not a all sure that ANYONE wants to regress to the days when the insurance companies were dictating to the doctors and policies were rescinded mid-treatment and all that jazz.

Suggest removal:

127SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

So what can you support that be enacted?

Suggest removal:

128eevo(51 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

Reid and the Liar also shut down the government!

Suggest removal:

129SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

Your projected Congress has Reid being replaced with McConnell, so you can't use that as an explanation.

What would you support under those conditions?

Suggest removal:

130SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

So a proposal the would repeal medicaid and Medicare would meet your criteria?

Is that even remotely plausible?

Suggest removal:

131SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

Would you also exclude all american workers who are not citizens by birth or naturalized?

Suggest removal:

132SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

The plan you could get behind is one where an any employed person residing in the US (exclusive of those whose only employment is in the illegal drug trade) would be eligible for free health care insurance.
Eligibility would include non-citizens and non-documented residents.

Would you suggest any earnings ceiling (above which "free" would not apply) or any earnings floor (below which the person is not considered employed ?

Suggest removal:

133SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

RE your post "I would support virtually anything that does not provide free health care to people who do not work or whose only work is selling drugs."

I'm trying to understand the details of the plan that you would support, specifically who would be included and who would be excluded in a free health care.

Trying to list who would be excluded (thus far)
1) people who don't work
2) people whose only work is selling drugs

So I was trying get a clearer definition of 1 & 2.

Regarding group 1: How many hours per week qualifies as "working"?
Regarding group 2: (and I've assumed you mean illegally selling drugs) Would a person who has otherwise qualifying employment AND illegally sells drugs qualify for free healthcare under your plan?

All other people would be eligible for free healthcare, including persons over 65 (working or not) and those that are adjudicated disabled (working or not).

Does that summarize the plan you can support?

Suggest removal:

134SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

I thought you said healthcare, did you mean insurance or healthcare?

Suggest removal:

135Elf2(75 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

he said "free healthcare", didn't say "free health insurance"

Suggest removal:

136SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

Thought we were having a good adult type discussion. Why haven't you responded?

Suggest removal:

137Jerryl(105 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

Seems like he is not interested in having a "good adult conversation". He has been active on other threads.

Suggest removal:

138GailsMom(16 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

When it becomes apparent that he's full of poo, he runs away.

Suggest removal:

139SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

Back in 269 you said "I would support virtually anything that does not provide free health care to people who do not work or whose only work is selling drugs."

Notice you did not say insurance.

Subsequently I've been trying to get the details of a plan for free healthcare that you said you could support.

Then in 276 you say:" I would not support free insurance", and proceed to discuss healthcare insurance.

So I asked you 3 days ago, are you talking about healthcare or healthcare insurance.

You started with your support for free healthcare. Lets finish that conversation before we start on insurance.

Suggest removal:

140SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

more slowly.....

YOU were talking about free health care, that's the beginning.

Specifically, YOU said:" "I would support virtually anything that does not provide free health care to people who do not work or whose only work is selling drugs."

There's no debate at this point, I'm just trying to understand what your "free health care" program
would look like and who it would include.

Suggest removal:

14176Ytown(1242 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

SheDevil: When you sign up for health care at work do you not use the word insurance and health care or health plan interchangeably? Health insurance protects you against medical loss by illness or injury.

Actually, if you want to get technical, health insurance is a term used to also cover disability, long term care, catastrophic coverage.

People should be able to participate in medical HSA's beginning with their first job and continue to contribute to their medical HSA throughout their lifetime, assuming the risk for smaller bills and depend on the insurance coverage for bills that could stand to bankrupt a person. Should they need to use the health insurance, the HSA can be used to draw from money saved into the account to pay for out of pocket expenses. Whenever the insurance plan has a higher deductible the premium costs are lower. The savings in lower premiums can be put into the HSA. When the employer also passes on their savings, the HSA can build rapidly.

Not every person will be able to have money left over in their HSA every year, but for those that are generally healthy, the HSA can grow to be used at retirement or to pass along to their heirs. At a minimum they can provide the funds to pay their out of pocket costs of medical care.

Suggest removal:

142SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

I go to my doctor for health care.
I go to my insurer (or employer) for health care insurance. I hardly ever confuse the two.

I asked eivo: "I thought you said healthcare, did you mean insurance or healthcare?" - almost 4 days ago.

All he had to say was, I mean healthcare insurance. I was confused.

Suggest removal:

143SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months, 1 week ago

1st question.... under your plan would medicare be free?

Suggest removal:

144evio(43 comments)posted 6 months ago

Stupid ass question.
Of course Medicare would be free, you moron!

Suggest removal:

145SheDevil(120 comments)posted 6 months ago

Question too tough?

Suggest removal:

146evio(43 comments)posted 6 months ago

My day is already filled with posting nonsense on vindy.com

Suggest removal:

147eevo(51 comments)posted 6 months ago

The Liar had the IRS create the Flight 370 conspiracy and then ordered the left wing media to cover the made up story 24/7 so they wouldn't cover Bennnnnghaaaaazi. Don't ask questions or you will be audited.

Suggest removal:

148SeriouslyNow(192 comments)posted 6 months ago

You said:"My plan would be to give all those over 65 Medicare."

Give them what?

Suggest removal:

149southsidedave(4780 comments)posted 6 months ago

Nearly 300 comments by a handful of people...very sad.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport