Why Did Chris Christie Say He Was Appointed U.S. Attorney The Day Before 9/11 When He Wasn’t?
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689230/chris-christie-september-10/At the GOP primary debate Thursday night, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) misrepresented the timing of his appointment to a Department of Justice position by claiming to have been a United States Attorney at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
When Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Christie about his criticisms of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who argues that extensive surveillance programs created in the wake of the attacks violate the Bill of Rights, Christie invoked his personal experience with the attacks and ensuing law enforcement activity.
“I was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state. This is not theoretical to me,” Christie said. In his closing remarks, Christie repeated the claim and date.
Reports from the time suggest that Christie’s nomination to the vacant U.S. Attorney slot in New Jersey was widely anticipated prior to the attacks. But Bush didn’t actually nominate him until December 7 of that year, and he did not assume office until early 2002. The “Meet Chris” section on Christie’s campaign website says that he “served as U.S. Attorney from 2002-2008.”
(snip)
Indeed, Christie directly invokes the fear and shock of the September 11 attacks when he makes the claim on the campaign trail. Christie has repeatedly used the claim to portray civil libertarians like Paul as naïve theoreticians who don’t know anything about getting their hands dirty or seeing loved ones killed by terrorists.
(end snip)
Interesting.
= new reply since forum marked as read
hris Christie Said He Was Appointed U.S. Attorney The Day Before 9/11. He Wasn’t.
BY ALAN PYKE AUG 7, 2015 11:29AM
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/07/3689230/chris-christie-september-10/
Shortly after George W. Bush was officially sworn into office, the ongoing thing of topic was that it clearly seemed the Bush administration more or less put a wall around the house cutting itself off to any or all outsiders -on the outside of the Bush agenda.The wall of course is a figurative thing of a sort but the thing about it is, it was impenetrable-in other words a impenetrable wall of secrecy. The only transparency about what was going down was at that time the wall itself.
It therefore stands to reason Christie's usefulness was sighted before the election in 2000. But all that is part of the mystery .
Unless of course the public really doesn't have a short memory.
So and again, Christie most likely saw himself as being there in shadow but there none the less. He was too close to power to resist grabbing on to it. This is to say it got got him before he got it.
IT GOT HIM.
as in Bush 41 in extension to Bush 43 ,it's called a roving number.
Has to do with Christie rolling the dice.
After all Christie does claim he has nothing to hide .
:large
