Chris Christie: Both Sides Using 'Ground Zero Mosque' As 'Political Football'

So it is possible for a Republican to consider the emotions of 9/11 victims and/or their families while not demonizing all of Islam?

Huge kudos to Christie (and pathetic, craven Democrats like Patterson, and Schumer DO deserve a share of ridicule here) -- and he gets at the central fallacy, that the 9/11 attacks were the work of "Islam" and all Muslims are responsible for them. Despite the emotional content, this argument is very winnable on its merits, but you have to be willing to make the arguments.

"If the motives behind the Cordoba Group were truly benevolent, truly Islamic, once the 9/11 objections arose and made clear to them, they should have been more than willing to honor them by withdrawing the project or placing it elsewhere."

And in doing so admit that the critics are right, that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11, including American (ie - citizens of this country) Muslims. Yeah, I'm sure any self-respecting Muslim (or anybody) would jump at the chance to do that.

Let's face it, if you don't think it should be "that close" to the WTC site then you are implying, pretty explicitly, that all Muslims share responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. If you don't think that then why would you have a problem with this center going up in this location?

The next argument will be, "Well, the guy behind it is pro-terrorist and is getting funding from bad people." First of all, none of that has been proven true. The first charge is based on statements he made that aren't exactly untrue and not at all pro-terrorists. (You don't have to agree with AQ's attacks or even with their existence at all to agree that some of our country's actions in the Middle East - the '53 coup in Iran, our approval for everything and anything Israel does, our embrace of despotic rulers in Arab countries, our invasion of Iraq - have not gone over so well in the Muslim world and have allowed radicals like UBL to find willing recruits by capitalizing on and exploiting our less-than-wise decisions in that region. Admitting that we are not perfect as a nation is not un-American.) The second - the funding charge - is completely unproven and is just innuendo. Innocent until proven guilty, right? So what if Abdul Rauf - an American citizen - truly views himself as a moderate and a bridge builder? (the Bush administration certainly viewed him as such) Because of these false, unproven charges he should change the location of this center and basically admit that his critics were right?

You ask everybody to think about it from the point-of-view of the victims families - and those families are not all in agreement on this issue - and the point of view of a bunch of people who a) didn't lose a loved on in the attacks and b) live nowhere near Ground Zero of even the NY metro area. How about thinking about the point-of-view of the people who want to build this center. Where is your sensitivity towards them? Do they deserve less consideration because they are Muslims?

And yes, at the end of the day, the Constitional issues here matter - A LOT. On that front, the President is right and the folks who want to build this center have the advantage. (not that this should be viewed as a game, although the right and the GOP seem to want to play games with our nation's Constitution and longstanding values)

I would ask Christie how Obama is using this as a political football. His first comment reinforced the right of people to refurbish the building. That's political football? After Politico offered their interpretation of his remark claiming he was walking back
he issued another statement disputng that interpretation.

And this part is laughable;

"I think the president of the United States should rise above that. And should not be using this as a political football, and I don't believe that it would be responsible of me to get involved and comment on this any further because it just put me in the same political arena as all of them."

First; isn't Christie using this as a political football? If not, why not?

Second; he offers a long opinion on the issue then says;

"... and I don't believe that it would be responsible of me to get involved and comment on this any further because it just put me in the same political arena as all of them."

And to the people who post here;

I don't believe that it would be responsible of me to get involved and comment on this any further because it just put me in the same political arena as the rest of you.

Yes, govenor fat and smelly is brave. Might I suggest he have his mouth wired shut? It could do wonders for what once was his waisteline.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

"Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe."

"Superstition is the religion of feeble minds"

Where are the so-called leaders? Where are the real champions of freedom? Where are the teachers of tolerance? This whole issue has become disgusting and pathetic. Allowing christian fascist to control the dialogue of our country is on par of a third world nation. Fucking sick.

Christie/Palin 2012? What a winsome combination.

I'm glad Chris Christie isn't using this as a political football.

As a NJ resident I can tell you that he's pretty darn stupid. But then most of our governors are. Just look at the history of our govs. Not as bad is IL but pretty close. Governmor Krispy-Kreme spend the first week of his governorship talking about how he "would get on his knees and beg Bruce Springsteen to perform at my Inauguration." Bruce ignored him. But his gushing about Bruce has been constant. The guy has wet dreams about sweaty Springsteen croaking "Glory Days." OK. Sick thought. Ughh. Bye...