Politico Reporter Picks Up ‘Bridge-ghazi’ Term

In order to appeal to an extremist MSNBC audience, Politico’s Glenn Thrush shamelessly pumped up the partisanship by giving Governor Chris Christie’s bridge lane closing controversy a “funny” name: “bridge-ghazi.”

During a discussion of Christie’s troubles on the January 13 Alex Wagner show, Thrush jumped in mirthfully using the term “bridge-ghazi,” much to Wagner’s amusement.

It should be remembered that the terrorist attacks on our facilities in Benghazi, Libya resulted in the deaths of four Americans, one of whom was Chris Stevens, our ambassador to Libya. To add “ghazi” to the far more trivial bridge controversy makes a mockery of their deaths.

It is possible that Thrush picked up this term belittling the deaths of four Americans during attacks by terrorists in Benghazis from entertainment site Buzzfeed as the term was promoted as hilarious recently by Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski.

But Politico’s Thrush isn’t the only member of the Washington-based news site to push the loathsome “bridge-ghazi” term. Politico’s Jose Delreal thought is was just a great new way to name scandals.

Worse, the social media team at Politico thought using the hashtag #bridgeghazi was a good idea, too.

With Thrush’s use of the term, Noah Rothman noted its tastelessness. “If the tastelessness of this jab is still too ambiguous for you, your moral compass could use recalibration,” Rothman said.

Of course, MSNBC has been wall to wall with one show after another filled with dubious news about the bridge lane closure controversy since the middle of last week pushing the story to the exclusion of everything else going on in the world.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 20, 2014.
Filed under Asshats, Big government, Chris Christie, corruption, Culture, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    It’s funny. The left heckles everyone about Benghazi being much ado about nothing and a phony scandal. Yet, they link the name to the whole bridge kerfuffle in order to make the bridge thing sound more important. So which is it? Is Benghazi real or are they admitting that the bridge thing is a bunch of bs but they are willing to play it up in order to score some points?

    • Hank_M

      I suspect they’re trying to cheapen the Benghazi scandal by attaching the ghazi to what everyone know is a trivial issue in NJ and perhaps more so-called scandals down the line.
      They’re hoping that no matter how bad Benghazi gets, people will yawn as they are over the Christie bridge lane closing non-story.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Fat, drunk and completely stupid are no ways to go through life, Mr. Thrush.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The fact that the term “bridge-ghazi” works and is in common usage suggests that most people aren’t buying the official story line.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    I’m with most of you, I think. I don’t get the left’s “bridge-ghazi” term at all, largely for the reasons pointed out by Mr. Huston: “It should be remembered that the terrorist attacks on our facilities in Benghazi, Libya resulted in the deaths of four Americans, one of whom was Chris Stevens, our ambassador to Libya. To add “ghazi” to the far more trivial bridge controversy makes a mockery of their deaths.”
    The term is really a non-sequitur. The differences between the 2 events are stark. The results – an armed attack on US soil resulting in 4 dead, including a US Ambassador vs. four days of traffic jams.
    The cover-ups – lying on 4 or 5 Sunday morning national TV shows, a PR campaign including a TV ad in Pakistan and a UN address, which trashed our First Amendment based on a massive lie, all in order to successfully influence a presidential election, “consoling” grieving families with blatant lies as they viewed their loved ones’ coffins, and dissembling, before ultimately throwing a hissy-fit, before Congress vs. clumsy lies given away by incredibly stupid e-mails by underlings.
    There’s nothing comparable about the two events. One is a national scandal of historic proportions, the other is a petty, mean-spirited nothing-burger.

    • jim_m

      Oh, but the left specializes in making light of the deaths of others, except of course when they are standing on their dead bodies trying to pass some fascist legislation.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      But the problem is that Christie’s getting too much traction, politically. It’s time to take him down.

      Any excuse will do.

  • lkreyche .

    It’s pretty simple: the suffix “gate” used to indicate a cover up. Now “Ghazi” indicates a cover up. Yet another comparison between Obama and Nixon. Who would EVER have thought. Hmmm.

  • lkreyche .

    It’s just unfortunate that there has been so much secrecy in the Obama administration.