BRZEZINSKI: "But we know Chris Christie and we know that he would have known."
Cards on the table first. I'm no fan of Christie. Yes, he stood up to the unions and resisted (some) tax increases. But he's at best a moderate. On a range of issues from global warming to illegal immigration and especially on terrorism. He's never said he thinks we should end this health care monstrosity. We won't even go into his backstabbing of Romney at the convention and on the NJ Boardwalk. Given that, perhaps these remarks aren't surprising.
How many believe the current occupant of the White House when he claims not to have known about the IRS harassing conservative groups, when he claims not to have known that millions would lose their insurance and their doctor? Look at the number of conservative pundits that think he has lied about these. More important is part of the rationale: the Treasury Secretary knew, Sebelius knew, WH counsel knew. But not him? How unlikely is that, conservative pundits insist.
Rush says the connection is more recondite: the hirelings knew what the WH wanted; they didn't need orders. But is this vindication?
And now we have Christie. His Deputy Chief of Staff orders a massive traffic tie up for four days. We are supposed to believe that Mr. Christie didn't know? A woman that has been with him for years? That presumably knows how he operates and what he believes?
Unlike this WH flak who cohosts on MSNBC, I don't know Christie. My question, however, is this: why are conservatives willing to fill in the blanks in the WH case, but reluctant to do so in the NJ case? Why give Christie a "truth pass," when we are so disinclined to give the WH a "truth pass"?