“…you are engaged in a McCarthyite witch hunt.”

Joe McCarthy was a patriot and was RIGHT!

Wow.

What a bunch of cons you are. What a bunch of American values hating morons you are. What a bunch of forgetful ignorant fools you are.

McCarthy was a hero to you idiots? Liz Cheney getting airtime on any media proves the media is not liberal at all, and only McCarthy loving fools would think it is.

The opposition party is about as dumb as Sarah Palon and as hatefully unamerican as Liz Cheney.

You should be ashamed.

Funny that Cheney’s minute of hate avoids mentioning that her father’s administration did the same thing by using lawyers in the DOJ that had represented ACCUSED terrorists.

Seriously partison hate coming from your side these days thanks to the bedrock ignorance of your party. You are fools.

You should be ashamed.
Posted by Jack Schite 2010-03-09 09:27:52

Funny, I said that about you yesterday. Guess you are incapable of coming up with your own insults.

So tell us all, Jack… what did Joe McCarthy do that was so hideous? Care to stick around and debate today?

This is not Lynne Stewart, who is being prosecuted. This is a defense lawyer, no different than military lawyers representing Gitmo dets in the tribunals.

Liz Cheney should be ashamed of herself. She is as bitter and miserable as Dick.

Liz Cheney should be ashamed of herself. She is as bitter and miserable as Dick.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 09:41:47

Yeah, how dare she hold the Obama Administration to their vaunted promise of ‘transparency’.

Strange that the Justice Department took so long to answer or admit the lawyers past. I wonder what they were ashamed of?

The issue is whether she was ‘right’ about these lawyers. And she’s not, Stan.

If you’re asking whether the DOJ or O-Admin should have been forthcoming, then I would agree. But that doesn’t transform cheney into being right.

But that doesn’t transform cheney into being right.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 09:51:11

She said there were lawyers in the Justice Department that defended al-Queda. And there are.

Doesn’t get much more right than that, Vega. Sorry, but your whining won’t change that.

A case perhaps where the cover-up was worse than the “crime”, but there’s no denying the fact that Holder and Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into revealing that they had hired these people. They’re still covering up what it is they’re actually doing for the DOJ.

Why are Holder and Obama so terrified of people finding out what they and their detainee-representing lawyers are doing?

Posted by Mike_M
2010-03-09 09:55:49

What does it matter what they are doing for the DOJ. Are you questioning their patriotism? What possible explination can you have for this. Those atty’s were doing their jobs in representing members of Al Queda, that is how our system is set up. Let us not forget that John Adams represented the British Soldiers who initiated the Boston Massacre. The American justice system is designed for zealous prosecution AND defense on the part of the various attys. This is a shameful play by Liz Cheney questioning both the patriotism and proffesionalism of this lawyers. Disgusting.

This is a shameful play by Liz Cheney questioning both the patriotism and proffesionalism of this lawyers. Disgusting.
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 10:12:59

Try reading the entire article and it may prevent you from looking like such a juvenile jackass, crthns.
“Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals “war criminals” and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the “al-Qaeda seven” when a Spanish judge tried to indict the “Bush six”? Philippe Sands, author of the “Torture Team,” crowed: “This is the end of these people’s professional reputations!” I don’t recall anyone accusing him of “shameful” personal attacks.“

“What does it matter what they are doing for the DOJ. Are you questioning their patriotism? What possible explination can you have for this.”

I’m not the one that needs to do the explaining. Obama and Holder are the ones stalling, stonewalling, and hiding information that should be openly available. I have no idea what these lawyers are doing, but I do know Obama and Holder seem pretty desperate that nobody finds out about it. Why is that?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 10:15:35

And notice Stan, none of those things have taken place have they. After being investigated by Holder, none of those lawyers were disbarred, none of them have been accused of being unpatrotic, again please explain the rational of accusing defense lawyers of hating America simply because of who they represented?

Nonsense, Stan. She is implying that they were compromised, or collaborated, or shouldn’t be trusted anymore.

It’s a disgusting tactic. More Cheney-legacy-stroking.

I wonder if she feels the same about the military lawyers who are defending the worst of the worst at Gitmo.

I’m not the one that needs to do the explaining. Obama and Holder are the ones stalling, stonewalling, and hiding information that should be openly available. I have no idea what these lawyers are doing, but I do know Obama and Holder seem pretty desperate that nobody finds out about it. Why is that?

Posted by Mike_M
2010-03-09 10:30:03

Did you ask for this same transparency under Bush? Were you concerned who the lawyers were that worked for DOJ and what exactly they did?

This is beyond questioning patriotism. It’s once again playing the treason card to make the base cream.

She said there were lawyers in the Justice Department that defended al-Queda. And there are.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 09:53:25

So what? What exactly is your point here?

This is beyond questioning patriotism. It’s once again playing the treason card to make the base cream.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 10:34:55

So what? What exactly is your point here?
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 10:36:06

You two are certainly in high indignation mode over what started as a simple request.

If either of you were any more than pathetic partisan hacks, you would also be asking “Why is the Obama Justice Department stonewalling this? What do they have to hide?”

If Holder had been forthcoming AND THEN Cheney pushed the issue, then I would agree you have a partisan issue on your hands. As it is, this is a situation created by the ‘transparency’ of the Obama Administration.

And it is interesting how both of you gloss of the exact same situation in the Bush Administration as a mere nothing, while defending the Obama Administration. More Liberal hypocrisy. Imagine my surprise.

“This is beyond questioning patriotism.”

Well we can question your lack of curiosity and blind trust in Obama and Holder for employing Al Qaeda lawyers and then covering it up.

If Bush had hired half of Halliburton’s legal team and refused to say what they were doing (after refusing to acknowledge he had even done it or who they were) you libs wouldbe apoplectic. You were apoplectic for the mere fact that Bush had lawyers doing their jobs.

Sorry, but Obama is not our Messiah. We ask questions.

McCarthy was a hero to you idiots?
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-03-09 09:27:52

McCarthy should be a hero to all patriotic Americans. After all, not only was he right about the communist infestation of our government, he didn’t even know how right he was. The Venona project vindicated him beyond his wildest dreams. Unfortunately, McCarthy’s name has been successfully smeared by liberals over the years to the point where you simply forth at the mouth at the mere mention of it and ignore all the facts that prove how right he really was.

Then again, seeing how you are a raving communist and not a patriotic American, it comes as no surprise that you despise him.

Vega and whats_up are your typical little whiny ass liberal people. Whats_up has zero credibility on this site, and Vega has never won any argument he has entered into.

Both are reluctant to provide proof of any of their wild eye accusations. Both voted for Obama, thus their intelligence should be questioned.

Funnny how this is being deflected into something procedural or insulting because the time they time they took, rather than Cheney’s implication.

That’s the issue here. Either she is right or wrong.

She is making the implication that these 7 lawyers share the values of Al Qaeda, rather than the United States.

Don’t insult your own intelligence by playing dumb. The commercial even has the spooky music.

It’s so cliche’ and flagrant is nearly comical, if it wasn’t so douchebagish.

“The standard today seems to be that you can say or do anything when it comes to the Bush lawyers who defended America against the terrorists. But if you publish an Internet ad or ask legitimate questions about Obama administration lawyers who defended America’s terrorist enemies, you are engaged in a McCarthyite witch hunt.”

This statement is 100% accurate. Let’s see the liberals spin it.

It’s so cliche’ and flagrant is nearly comical, if it wasn’t so douchebagish.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 10:54:37

I thought your time off of posting would have made you less of a pissy little bitch. I guess I was wrong.

1) In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.
2) Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. Finally, two weeks ago, he admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed.
3) So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the “al-Qaeda seven,” and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities — but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.

So in the above chronology, Republicans asked for information from the justice Department. The Justice Department told them to go pound sand. ONLY AFTER ALL THIS did Cheney’s group get involved and make it a point to embarrass the Justice Department.

SO in answer to your question, Vega. YES, Cheney was right!

End of story!

reluctant to provide proof of any of their wild eye accusations

“The Kettle” has sent you a friend request.

“The Kettle” has sent you a friend request.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 10:58:51

Sort of like your proof that Tim McVeight belonged to several mainline Conservative organizations.

You got a question, ask it.

And it is interesting how both of you gloss of the exact same situation in the Bush Administration as a mere nothing, while defending the Obama Administration. More Liberal hypocrisy. Imagine my surprise.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 10:40:41

Did you demand to know what the atty’s in the Bush DOJ were working on Stan? If not you are nothing more than a political hack.

If not you are nothing more than a political hack.
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 11:05:33

It beats being a person attracted to small children, such as yourself.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 10:58:25

Why does it matter what the seven attys are working on? Again did you ask this of the Bush DOJ? You do realize that the DOJ under Bush also employed attys that had defended Al Queda operatives. Were was your demand then? Typical dumb ass conservative.

Wow, just like Barney Frank said, talking to conservatives is like talking to a wall, only the wall has more brains.

Did you demand to know what the atty’s in the Bush DOJ were working on Stan?
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 11:05:33

Was there any crontroversy about those lawyers? Did any Liberal group petition for answers? Did the Bush Justice Department stonewall a request from a Democrat in Congress demanding answers?

What? None of that happened? That’s what I thought you said!

Posted by Jack Schite 2010-03-09 11:08:44

Still waiting on your empassioned condemnations of Joseph McCarthy and all the evil things he did, Jack!

Did the Bush Justice Department stonewall a request from a Democrat in Congress demanding answers?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 11:09:40

All the time Stan, all the time.

All the time Stan, all the time.
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 11:14:19

Proof?

Liz Cheney’s stance is so popular conservative lawyers are taking her to task almost daily. They rightly understand that who you defend means nothing about how you will do your job in another area. This is a losing issue for conservatives and just shows Ms. Cheney’s spite.

Wow, just like Barney Frank said, talking to conservatives is like talking to a wall, only the wall has more brains.
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-03-09 11:08:44

Barney also said Fannie Mae was strong and needed no regulatory reform.

The welt from that bitch slap will go away after a few days.

Fannie Mae was strong until the deregulated banks made bundles of money on risky loans, which Fannie Mae then bought what were supposed to be good loans per the way the system was designed. In your ignorance you blame the victim, as usual, rather than the enriched culprit. Are you really as forgetfully stupid as the name you chose implies? You don’t know Jack.

You don’t know Jack.
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-03-09 11:25:31

Actually, Nixon is pretty sure he does.

Proof?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 11:15:15

Christ you are dumb:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/snow-responds-to-wiretapping-subpoenas/

Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 11:28:24

That was about wiretapping, crthns. We are talking about Justice Department lawyers.

Do try to keep up with the topic at hand.

Here is another example Stan:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Justice_Department_responds_to_House_questions_0324.html

how many more would you like Stan?

Why does it matter what the seven attys are working on? Again did you ask this of the Bush DOJ? You do realize that the DOJ under Bush also employed attys that had defended Al Queda operatives. Were was your demand then? Typical dumb ass conservative.
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 11:08:27

Because there was no SUSPICION of or hint of the posibilty that the attorneys involved MAY be subject to a very major case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In having defended members of AQ/islamic terrorists they may very well have knowledge that would cause their work to be null and void they attempted to prosecute other AQ/islamic terrorists. This is simple LOGIC and standard legal precendent.

That was about wiretapping, crthns. We are talking about Justice Department lawyers.

Do try to keep up with the topic at hand.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 11:30:57

That wasnt what you asked Stan, here was your post:

Did the Bush Justice Department stonewall a request from a Democrat in Congress demanding answers?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 11:09:40

that was all you asked, and yes they did.

how many more would you like Stan?
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 11:31:40

ONE, on-topic, would be nice.

whats_up, since you are providing proof today, can you hook Nixon up with the three years request of the proof Duke voted for Bush? Thanks

that was all you asked, and yes they did.
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 11:33:05

BULLSHIT. Here is what I asked, crthns.
“Was there any crontroversy about those lawyers? Did any Liberal group petition for answers? Did the Bush Justice Department stonewall a request from a Democrat in Congress demanding answers?”

If you cannot deal with a clear concept like the context of the question, then you need to go away!

Because there was no SUSPICION of or hint of the posibilty that the attorneys involved MAY be subject to a very major case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In having defended members of AQ/islamic terrorists they may very well have knowledge that would cause their work to be null and void they attempted to prosecute other AQ/islamic terrorists. This is simple LOGIC and standard legal precendent.

Posted by bthewolf
2010-03-09 11:32:23

Really? Former members of the Bush DOJ also represented Al Queda defendents, wouldnt that have made for the same conflict of intrest? Yet you didnt question the Bush DOJ now did you?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 11:35:48

I understood what you asked and again the answer is yes the BUSH DOJ did stonewall Congress, but you were okay with that, no demands to see the names of the lawyers. Stan your pathetic in your partisianship.

I understood what you asked and again the answer is yes the BUSH DOJ did stonewall Congress, but you were okay with that, no demands to see the names of the lawyers. Stan your pathetic in your partisianship.
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 11:38:15

Oh stop it, crthns. Your childish little whines accomplish nothing.

No one asked any questions about lawyers in the Bush Justice Department. Not Democrats, not Republicans. The only time lawyers in the Bush Administration were mentioned were by Liberals wanting them charged with war crimes for doing their jobs.

Republicans in Congress asked a simple question, and Holder and Obama thought they needed to hide something. That is what happened here. And all of yours and Vegas juvenile carping won’t change that fact!

No one asked any questions about lawyers in the Bush Justice Department. Not Democrats, not Republicans.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 11:41:30

Stan,

You are so full of shit it is scary. The Bush DOJ stonewalled Dems time and time again when asking about lawyers within the DOJ and why they were fired and hired, do we really need to review that with you again. Are you so stupid that you forgot that little incident in which Gonzalez resigned over, cmon man, just admit that you didnt care when a Repub was in power but now that it is a Liberal you seem to all of a sudden care, like I said pathetic.

Again Stan, why does it matter if attys that were hired by the DOJ represented Al Queda Defendants?

Again Stan, why does it matter if attys that were hired by the DOJ represented Al Queda Defendants?
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 11:45:19

Good question, crthns. Why don’t you ask Holder? He thought it was such a big deal that he had to stonewall a legitimate request for information from Congress FOR THREE MONTHS over it.

But then again, you don’t care in the least what Holder had to hide ot why Obama lied about ‘transparency’. All you care about is taking shots at Republicans, and bitching just to prove what a bitch you are!

No, Stan. What happened here is Cheney is fanning the flames of hate and distortions for her and her father’s political ends.

These DOJ lawyers did nothing wrong. If what they are doing is wrong, then that means military tribunal lawyers are in the same boat. What are their names? Whose values do they share?

Of course, Little Liz Cheney would never question men and women in the service. Because that would step out of her self-made caricature.

But DOJ lawyers are pretty much the same as Obama. And the right is not happy unless they are conflating Obama and terrorists.

No, Stan. What happened here is Cheney is fanning the flames of hate and distortions for her and her father’s political ends.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 11:49:59

We have already repeatedly proven that you are not a mind-reader, Vega. So spare us your bullshit about what Cheney’s motives are.

Again Stan, why does it matter if attys that were hired by the DOJ represented Al Queda Defendants?
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 11:45:19

Are you ok with this? Probably, as liberal Democrat, you probably share many of the goals as these AQ people.

No need to read minds, Stan. It’s obvious.

No need to read minds, Stan. It’s obvious.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 12:08:29

So you are back to “because I said so” as your proof. You must be taking DUMBASS lessons from whats_up.

It’s not “because I said so”, its because its obvious.

Simple question: Why isn’t Cheney asking the same of the Gitmo detainees that face or faced military tribunals?

It would be even more pertinent to her point, as some of those detainees are walking the streets today as we speak.

Requirements for defense counsel in military tribunal:

The accused may also hire a civilian defense counsel at no cost to the government as long as that counsel:
o Is a United States citizen;
o Is admitted to practice in a United States jurisdiction;
o Has not been the subject of sanction or disciplinary action;
o Is eligible for and obtains at least a SECRET level clearance; and
o Agrees to follow the Military Commission rules.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep2005/d20050915factsheet.pdf

Cheney is full of crap here, and Mr. Hawkins is wrong to defend her behavior on technicalities than what is the real intent here.

Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 11:44:01

THAT’s utter BS, YOU have provided ZERO proof that there was ever an inquiry into Bush atty’s having represented AQ: ZERO, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH

What the Bush DOJ was inquired about EVER was whether or not it was approving wiretaps and other surveillence that may or may not have been illegal.

The two inquiries are in NO way similar, period. Bush was queried about PROCEDURES, Obama was queried about CONFLICT OF INTEREST. They are not in a court of law in way the same or related.

Your attempts to equate them are hilarious.

The only similarities between the cases are the lack of transperency, however Bush was keeping intelligence techniques and operations secret for security purposes. Odrama is covering ass.

Cheney is full of crap here, and Mr. Hawkins is wrong to defend her behavior on technicalities than what is the real intent here.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 12:29:07

Calm yourself, princess. You are going to get hurt spinning in such wierd positions.

Republicans in Congress asked, Holder stonewalled, and Cheney publicized and embarrassed Obama’s Administration. Nothing wrong with anything Cheney did. At least, there wasn’t when you and your ilk were doing it in the Bush Administration.

Oh, and pathetic attempt at diverting the topic with the tribunal issue. You and whats_up have been discussing tactics. Now, when Cheney does bring those up, I expect you back here whining about that as well, Vega.

Calm yourself, princess. You are going to get hurt spinning in such wierd positions.

I’m not excited, Stan. I am just being concise.

Republicans in Congress asked,

Which is their right.

Holder stonewalled,

Which is his right (see: Alberto “Torture’s Cool, but I can’t answer that question” Gonzo)

and Cheney publicized and embarrassed Obama’s Administration.

Cheney distorted the truth and reality in order to smear these lawyers, Holder, and in turn, the Obama Administration in order to make the base cream and honor her father, who is at war with not only the Obama admin, but with his former admin (which he didn’t have the balls to do while in office.)

Nothing wrong with anything Cheney did.

Yes, there is. Its sad you won’t acknowledge it. There was a time when morality meant something to conservatives.

These lawyers have been smeared to the point of Lynne Stewart for doing their job. Something military lawyers are doing as we speak. Will she call for their head, too?

At least, there wasn’t when you and your ilk were doing it in the Bush Administration.

Lame-Ass-Tactic #1: Good for the Goose Strategy.

Again, principles don’t mean diddly to those whose principles are supposed to be rooted in tradition and personal values.

Oh, and pathetic attempt at diverting the topic with the tribunal issue.

It’s not a diversion at all. Stop trying to confuse your dull-witted friends. It’s exactly the same thing, and its why it can’t be refuted.

You and whats_up have been discussing tactics. Now, when Cheney does bring those up, I expect you back here whining about that as well, Vega.

Cheney is as lame as her father is. Miserable. Deceitful. Angry. Daddy issues.

Are you ok with this?

Posted by Dick_Nixon
2010-03-09 11:56:04

Why wouldnt I be, I understand that not all defense attys share their clients believe system.

Cheney distorted the truth and reality in order to smear these lawyers

How, by saying the defended al-Queda suspects? THEY DID!

order to make the base cream and honor her father

Again with the mind-reading. Do you ever get tired of being such a prick?

These lawyers have been smeared to the point of Lynne Stewart for doing their job.

Lawyers in the Bush Administration were smeared for doing their jobs and threatned with imprisonment. Here, all that was asked is what they did before they joined Justice. And that is obviously enough of an embarrassment that Holder refused to answer. I wonder why?

It’s exactly the same thing, and its why it can’t be refuted.

Asking about job qualifications of a lawyer is EXACTLY the same thing as questioning a decision by that lawyer? You are grasping at straws here, Vega.

Cheney is as lame as her father is. Miserable. Deceitful. Angry. Daddy issues.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 12:46:10

And at last it comes out. The personal hatred, the animosity, the political partisanship.

Your point is made Vega. It’s personal to you. Thanks for clearing that up!

Your point is made Vega. It’s personal to you. Thanks for clearing that up!

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 12:54:35

It must be personal to all those conservative lawyers, many of whom worked in the Bush DOJ, that are asking her to stop as well. Stan, the point is that it is WRONG, but you being hypocritical wont acknowledge that. Conseravtives claim that their principals are intact no matter who holds office, we can see that yours dont, what a shame.

Conseravtives claim that their principals are intact no matter who holds office, we can see that yours dont, what a shame.
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 12:57:15

Interesting, crthns.

You brought up the conflict of Bush firing a few political appointed lawyers. Oh, how you and the Left thought they had him. They demanded investigations and inquiries and trip to testify before Congressw, all because did what other Presidents have done as well. And in the end, someone risigned and you got your pound of flesh.

Now we have Republicans asking about the qualifications of lawyers and you have again changed the rules. Fine when you wanted to question Bush, but we must not question Obama or his sychophants.

Like I said before, if Holder had answered the questions in the first place and THEN Republicans made a big deal out of it, you’d have a point. However, that is not what happened, and you have nothing.

Here, all that was asked is what they did before they joined Justice. And that is obviously enough of an embarrassment that Holder refused to answer. I wonder why?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 12:54:35

Then why was it asked of only those lawyers Stan? Why not of all the lawyers hired by DOJ? Why single out just these few?

Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 12:46:10

Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 12:57:15

You two take the cake, Cheney is calling Holder out for stonewalling a LEGAL inquiry because Holder needs to cover his ass or reveal that some of his attorneys may be asked to step down from certain cases based on conflict of interest. Somehow what she’s doing is wrong.

Dems called for inquiries into the Bush admin to see if they were doing anything illegal in surveillence against terrorists, Bush stonewalled to AVOID revealing intelligence and security information. Somehow it’s the same thing.

Now we have Republicans asking about the qualifications of lawyers and you have again changed the rules

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 13:03:22

Why are you asking for their qualifications Stan? And why only these seven? Dont play dumb Stan, why do the qualifications of these seven matter?

Then why was it asked of only those lawyers Stan? Why not of all the lawyers hired by DOJ? Why single out just these few?
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 13:04:35

Because the Republicans in Congress had questions about them. Do they have to ask about EVERY lawyer for their inquiry ot be valid? No, you would have pissed and moaned about that as well.

How, by saying the defended al-Queda suspects? THEY DID!

Are you joking, Stan? She didn’t just state that there were DOJ lawyers who repped AQ. She questioned their values and ghosted an image of UBL. With spooky music. I know some people would be naive enough to eat that shit up. You are smarter than that. It’s a political ploy. Plain and simple.

Again with the mind-reading. Do you ever get tired of being such a prick?

A logical conclusion after obvious evidence is not mind-reading Stan.

Lawyers in the Bush Administration were smeared for doing their jobs and threatned with imprisonment.

We’re not talking about the Bush admin here, Stan. But if you want to, then you would have to explain who were the lawyers who were repping AQ during the military tribunals. Why isn’t the former Bush admin being forthcoming? Where was Little Dick and Liz Cheney then?

Here, all that was asked is what they did before they joined Justice. And that is obviously enough of an embarrassment that Holder refused to answer. I wonder why?

It’s his prerogative. And the issue is not about the question, but about the implication.

Asking about job qualifications of a lawyer is EXACTLY the same thing as questioning a decision by that lawyer? You are grasping at straws here, Vega.

This doesn’t even make sense, Stan. There are military men and women currently and formerly repping AQ. Those same people could be in the upper reaches of the Pentagon right now. Why isn’t Cheney munching on carpet trying to smear these people?

And at last it comes out. The personal hatred, the animosity, the political partisanship.

Yes, indeed. Cheney’s hysteria and fear-mongering are solely for personal hatred, animosity, and political partisanship. We’re making progress, Stan.

She must’ve gotten the RNC memo on fear-mongering.

Your point is made Vega. It’s personal to you. Thanks for clearing that up!

It’s not personal to me. It’s just plain logic. And ethics.

Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 13:29:23

So now your ploy is to twist what I said in an infantile attempt to make me justify things I never said? What_up, stop posting using Vega’s account.

Your hatred of Dick Cheney, and by extension Liz, is evident; and all of your whining stems from that fact.

why do the qualifications of these seven matter?
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 13:26:45

WHy are you so opposed to transparency? Your POTUS said his administration would be the most transparent. Another lie from the left, no shock there.

I didn’t twist anything, Stan. Again, that may work with others here, but not me.

This is pure dirty smearing. Wait until something else happens and the roles are reversed and I’ll chuckle at you all’s righteous indignation.

Because the Republicans in Congress had questions about them. Do they have to ask about EVERY lawyer for their inquiry ot be valid? No, you would have pissed and moaned about that as well.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 13:27:44

Did you bother to ask those REpublicans why they only choose those seven? Isnt it interesting that the only ones they asked about had defended Al Queda operatives, no that doesnt reek of politics at all, no not one bit. Either you are naive and stupid, or you are a political hack, which is it Stan?

This is pure dirty smearing. Wait until something else happens and the roles are reversed and I’ll chuckle at you all’s righteous indignation.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 13:35:20

Happened more than once in the Bush Administration, Vega. Why do we need to wait? Oh, that’s right, because history started the moment Obama was elected, except for when he needed to blame Bush for something!

So now your ploy is to twist what I said in an infantile attempt to make me justify things I never said?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 13:33:06

Stan,

No one twisted anything, you made the dumb choice to defend this political witch-hunt. Dont be mad when you are called on it. Vega brings up a good point, why arent you asking about the qualifications of the defense teams in the military, after all they could be in top positions at the Pentagon. Interesting isn’t it.

The opposition party is about as dumb as Sarah Palon and as hatefully unamerican as Liz Cheney.
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-03-09 09:27:52

HAHAHAHAHA!

“…as dumb as Sarah Palon…” classic

Honestly, if you can’t see a double-standard here, then your arbitrariness is too overwhelming to continue a logical discussion of facts.

Interesting isn’t it.
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 13:40:39

Is this your tactic, crthns? What about THIS, what about THAT? I’ve got a relevant question for you and Vega.

Why did Holder refuse to answer simple questions about appointed lawyers?

He was hiding something. Pure and simple.

And I was wondering when you were going to say Witch-Hunt. Irony Alert!

The right supports military tribunals for dets, but then if any good soldier has as a part of his/her duty to his/her craft and country defend any of them, the Cheneys will want to brand them with the scarlet letter “T”.

Pathetic. Maybe they are so bitter about Obama making inroads with the War on Terror without having to whip out his penis (figuratively) and/or threaten countries in order to do it.

well, whatsup. of your two links, one goes to comments from Tony Snow(not a DOJ operative) and the second goes to the DOJ answering questions. Neither one has any DOJ stonewalling.

Why are the 7 lawyers credentials important? Because, unlike the military lawyers ordered to represent terrorists at their military tribunals, these 7 CHOSE to throw their lots in with terrorists. Chose it.

See the problem?

Even the much vaunted John Adams comparison falls down here–Adams was asked to represent the British soldiers–he did not volunteer.

Now, the 7 may not have volunteered either…..but how can we find out if Holder stonewalls?

And if they DID volunteer, then we have a problem. Why would the DOJ hire people who, when given their druthers, choose to defend our enemies?

I do believe the Right has a legitimate reason for questioning the left’s patriotism.Because after 911 they attacked Bush while standing up for Saddam,Al Qaeda,etc all throughout the Bush administration.

This country should never have been divided when it came to the war on terror, we should’ve put politics aside and united to destroy our enemies, then we could’ve got back to arguing about what’s best for america later.But NO! Libs divided this country and despite 911 and known islamic terrorism that had been going on atleast until the 70′s that was ignored for some reason.

We were basically told by libs in the press to move on now and pretend like 911 never even happened all they while they derided Bush and took the side our enemies would love when they should not have cared about what our enemies think!

I think we have a real good reason to question the patriotism of libs atleast most of them after the way they have behaved after 911.Thanks to you libs we now live in a pre 911 world again and yet Al Qaeda is plotting and planning their next attack as we speak!

the Cheneys will want to brand them with the scarlet letter “T”.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 13:43:38

The CHENEYS???? Up until now, you have only implied (erroneously) that Liz was doing this for her dad. Now you are stating that Dick Cheney is actively involved in the story or the video?

You are raving, Vega.

And if they DID volunteer, then we have a problem. Why would the DOJ hire people who, when given their druthers, choose to defend our enemies?

Posted by jack
2010-03-09 13:45:35

Jack,

What a dumb ass answer. Those people choose to defend our enenmies because that is how our system is set up. But thanks for indicating that those who choose to defend an “enemy” in court are some how unpatrotic. This is what has become of the right, very sad.

Why did Holder refuse to answer simple questions about appointed lawyers?

He was hiding something. Pure and simple.

And I was wondering when you were going to say Witch-Hunt. Irony Alert!

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 13:43:11

As far as I know, these lawyers werent appointed, they were hired. After all if they were appointed then the Senate would have been able to ask questions of them and the Republicans could have asked their questions then.

But thanks for indicating that those who choose to defend an “enemy” in court are some how unpatrotic. This is what has become of the right, very sad.
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 13:57:42

Most people on the left are unpatriotic. Their cheerleading over the deaths of Americans in the Iraq War prove it.

This guilt trip you libs are trying to put on us and are so sensitive about does’nt bother me in the least bit. You can bitch and moan all you want to about your patriotism being questioned and it won’t bother me abit. You deserve it!

Don’t act all innocent now cause it ain’t gonna work! You deserve to have your patriotism questioned!You worry too much about our enemies even now you still do! It is clear whoever reads through these comments.

You libs have not fooled me about the threat of islamic terrorism that we still have and partly thanks to you when we could’ve destroyed many more of our enemies if it was’nt for you!

Take your guilt trip and shove it!

I don’t worry about our enemies, fella. I worry about us.

It has come to a point where the right can’t even be consistent with itself.

Most people on the left are unpatriotic. Their cheerleading over the deaths of Americans in the Iraq War prove it.

Fuck you, Nixon. Stop deflecting and explain why Liz Cheney feels the need to smear people at the expense of our judicial system and for the benefit of her father’s immoral policies.

D Vega must be on the rag, he sure is sensitive today. Maybe he can explain why the most transparent administration in history is covering up information requested three months ago.

and for the benefit of her father’s immoral policies.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 14:19:24

Still waiting on your proof that Dick Cheney had anything to do with this, Vega.

I mean, other than “Because I, D-Vega, SAID SO!!!!”

It has come to a point where the right can’t even be consistent with itself.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 14:17:22

HUGE IRONY ALERT!

There is no evidence anywhere that Dick Cheney is involved in any of this. Of course Vega, being stupid, obviously is unable to comprehend that Liz Cheney doesn’t need Dick’s permission to do these things.

Vega apprently is a rather simple person when you get down to it.

And whats_up is a ccokpuppet, er sockpuppet. Nixon’s mistake.

D Vega must be on the rag, he sure is sensitive today. Maybe he can explain why the most transparent administration in history is covering up information requested three months ago.

*beep* RED HERRING ALERT *beep*

“…Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. ”

Proof is a bitch Vega.

I don’t worry about our enemies, fella. I worry about us.

It has come to a point where the right can’t even be consistent with itself.
Posted by D-Vega

Really? Why are you so worried about our enemies Vega? Tell us. Do you have sympathy for them or something?Why do you? What have they done for you except terrorize your country.Are you really concerned about how they are treated in a court of law? I’m not they can ROT! as far as I’m concerned. I have not forgot about all of them japanese citezens from being rounded up and held until WW2 was over!

for the benefit of her father’s immoral policies.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 14:19:24

What immoral policies are you referring to?

What immoral policies are you referring to?
Posted by Dick_Nixon 2010-03-09 14:29:01

Cheney is a Conservative, Mr. Nixon. To Vega and his ilk, that is immoral enough.

And at last it comes out. The personal hatred, the animosity, the political partisanship.

Your point is made Vega. It’s personal to you. Thanks for clearing that up!
Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 12:54:35

That’s a bingo!

It’s well known that Vega has a real hard on for Cheney and that’s what his bleeting in this thread is based upon. I’m not sure what Cheney did that raises his ire unlike any other political figure on the right to inspire such frothing hatred in Vega like that.

As for crthns, he’s just a contrarian idiot who’s going to go after anything the majority says. He also destryoyed any shread of credibility he had here long ago.

Finally, Crimsonfella nails it. Fuck these clowns and their hand wringing.

But DOJ lawyers are pretty much the same as Obama.

You mean they have only been involved in five actual cases like Obama? Or totally incompetent like Obama?

Still waiting on your proof that Dick Cheney had anything to do with this, Vega.

I said at the beginning, Stan, to honor her father. I don’t know if The Dick had anything to do with this. He’s probably too busy with the Sunday talk show circuit.

I said at the beginning, Stan, to honor her father.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 14:33:07

And since you have no idea if that even played into this, you have proven yourself to be just another lying Liberal.

Thanks for playing!

Proof is a bitch Vega.

What is that proof of, Nixon? That the lawyers are more in line with AQ’s values than America’s? Because that is what Cheney is implying.

Please tell me you have something else other than that, Nixon. I expect better from you.

Really? Why are you so worried about our enemies Vega? Tell us. Do you have sympathy for them or something?Why do you? What have they done for you except terrorize your country.Are you really concerned about how they are treated in a court of law? I’m not they can ROT! as far as I’m concerned.

It’s just one of Vega’s personality flaws in action, Fella. His sympathy and concern about the well meaning of terrorists is (along with his anti-White racism) one of his more disgusting personality flaws. The sickening thing is that Vega claims to be* a New Yorker. By showing sympathy for these animals he’s pissing on the graves of all his neighbors that died on 9/11.
He’s certainly not as bad as some of the trolls here, but he does make me shake my head in disgust from time to time.

*-I say “claim” because I have no way of knowing if it’s true or not. You can claim anything on teh interwebs…as Jackie boy proves on a regular basis.

I don’t know if The Dick had anything to do with this. He’s probably too busy with the Sunday talk show circuit.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 14:33:07

Yet you popped off about Dick Cheney with no proof. And now you have issues with a now private citizen exercising their right of free speech. You seem to be more and more fascist daily Vega. Maybe your OBGYN should put you on hormone therapy.

Really? Why are you so worried about our enemies Vega? Tell us. Do you have sympathy for them or something?Why do you? What have they done for you except terrorize your country.Are you really concerned about how they are treated in a court of law?

I just told you I’m not worried about them, I am worried about us. OUR values. Pay attention, Henry Hill.

I’m not they can ROT! as far as I’m concerned.

Then you need to re-evaluate your patriotism.

I have not forgot about all of them japanese citezens from being rounded up and held until WW2 was over!

That was wrong, too. And about 60% of them were American citizens. A shame on our history.

Because that is what Cheney is implying.

Holder stonewalled for three months to cover up the lawyers association in defending enemies of the US. As far as your opinion of Nixon, Nixon could give a rat’s anus about your opinion.

Again, you have popped off that Dick Cheney was involved in something he clearly was not. And, you seem to endorse your most transparent Administration ever not being so transparent when it fits your political view.

Thanks for playing.

What immoral policies are you referring to?

Uh, you know… that torture thing? I said “immoral”, not ”
immoral according to Nixon.”

Nixon thinks a man having sex with another man is a kin to being a vegatarian, so we are not going by his standards today. Maybe tomorrow.

A shame on our history.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 14:39:59

FDR was of what political orientation?

It’s well known that Vega has a real hard on for Cheney and that’s what his bleeting in this thread is based upon. I’m not sure what Cheney did that raises his ire unlike any other political figure on the right to inspire such frothing hatred in Vega like that.

New Message from The Kettle:

“Please call me black when you have a chance.”

This topic, and the whole reason behind it, is nothing but the unending waves of hatred towards liberals and Obama as the symbol.

The sickening thing is that Vega claims to be* a New Yorker. By showing sympathy for these animals he’s pissing on the graves of all his neighbors that died on 9/11.

Heh. I am honoring them by not giving into immature posturing and unAmerican policies.

I don’t need fear for political motivation.

I don’t need to exploit people’s deaths in attempts to score points in discussions like you and Nixon.

This topic, and the whole reason behind it, is nothing but the unending waves of hatred towards liberals and Obama as the symbol.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 14:45:22

So what? Do you think anyone here gives a fig your personal feelings toward any of us? No offense, but go buy some big girl panties Vega. Might make you feel prettier or something.

And yes, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Truth hurts, or something like that. And what we did to the AQ enemies of the uS is not even the same planet as torture is, regardless of what you leftist un American f’ers think.

Vega,

You care too much about our enemies and I don’t know why.I cannot understand it at all and never will.I cannot forget about 911 and all of them death’s after the 91/92 world trade center bombing where they tried to bring it down before and yet did it on 911 plus all of the other attacks by these heathens that you seem to have forgot about.

I really would not care at all if we rounded them up the problem is that too many people have forgot about these heathens again!Wake Up! and realize they will not stop until we stand up and show them you are not going to use our own goodness and laws to destroy us.No! We are going to destroy you and make your life hell until we know you are destroyed- to where you pose no threat against us! Don’t whine about it!

This topic, and the whole reason behind it, is nothing but the unending waves of hatred towards liberals and Obama as the symbol.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 14:45:22

The only person displaying irrational hatred towards another person on this thread IS YOU, Vega!
Cheney is as lame as her father is. Miserable. Deceitful. Angry. Daddy issues.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 12:46:10

I don’t need to exploit people’s deaths in attempts to score points in discussions like you and Nixon.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 14:49:38

Nixon has not posted anything regarding dead people, other than pointing out FDR was a Democrat.

Gee, for all the static, none of the liberals here have even begun to care about what these guys were actually doing at the DOJ, which has always been the core issue.

All they can do is cry about supposed attacks on their patriotism and play their phony victim game because Obama and Holder still not answered the simple question of why they needed these particular lawyers to do jobs they have refused to tell anybody about.

A simple request to tell the truth send the resident libs into frothing spin and hate mode.

Thanks for playing. Posted by Dick_Nixon

So Nixon can’t explain why Cheney would smear 7 people for political reasons for doing their job?

Which was legal and appropriate?

So Nixon can’t explain how this is reconciled with defense counsel in military commissions for Gitmo dets?

Something the right is supposed to endorse as an appropriate way to try these people?

So Nixon can’t explain how are we supposed to have due process for unlawful combatants and/or POWs if they cannot have defense counsel because said lawyers would be smeared afterwards as traitors (which is what Cheney’s doing) and would be unable to get another law job (sounds familiar)?

So Nixon can’t explain anything about the right these days, and that’s why he is reduced to snarky remarks?

No, no. Thank you for trying to play, Nixon. You get a “McCain/Palin ’08″ sweatshirt as a consolation prize.

…because said lawyers would be smeared afterwards as traitors (which is what Cheney’s doing) and would be unable to get another law job (sounds familiar)?

Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 14:56:27

It would have been nice if you had this much righteous indignation when the Holder Justice Department threatned to go after any Bush Administration lawyers that were involved with the enhanced interrogation memos.

But being consistent was never your strong suit.

A simple request to tell the truth send the resident libs into frothing spin and hate mode.

That’s not it at all, Mike. You haven’t been paying attention.

You must not have even viewed the ad, if you think its as simple as what these guys are doing at the DOJ.

You already used Tactic #1, Stan. You can only use them once per thread.

And Holder said anyone who BROKE THE LAW would be held responsible. And he was right in that regard.

“So Nixon can’t explain why Cheney would smear 7 people for political reasons for doing their job? ”

How is asking for their names smearing them? Nixon supposes you are back to grasping at straws to smear a Cheney at all costs.

” if they cannot have defense counsel because said lawyers would be smeared afterwards as traitors (which is what Cheney’s doing) and would be unable to get another law job (sounds familiar)?”

Since they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, the obvious course is to try them in a military tribunal. Counsel would be appointed for them by the military. And can you quote where Liz Cheney has called these “lawyers” traitors? Nixon won’t hold his breath.

And based on the underwhelming performance of the Obama Administration, Nixon bets a lot of people on the left which McCain and Palin had won. There is no way they’d have failed as miserably as Obama has and is doing.

wish not which.

“You must not have even viewed the ad, if you think its as simple as what these guys are doing at the DOJ.”

What facts did it distort? Was that not Holder himself in the video? Has Obama or Holder answered any of the legitimate questions raised by the ad?

If you’re having a knee-jerk reaction to a straightforward presentation of the facts, your problem is more likely with the facts than with the messenger.

Why have Obama and Holder hired these particular lawyers? That’s all the ad is asking. Why? Why are you so afraid of that question? Why are Holder and Obama?

Finally, Crimsonfella nails it. Fuck these clowns and their hand wringing.

Posted by Hack-the-Rogue
2010-03-09 14:30:47

Hey werent you banned, cant even follow the rules, typical of the right these days, rules only apply to others, not themselves.

You already used Tactic #1, Stan. You can only use them once per thread.

Coming from someone who constanty playes the “waaaahhh your side does it too!!!11!!” card, that’s pretty rich.

Why have Obama and Holder hired these particular lawyers? That’s all the ad is asking. Why? Why are you so afraid of that question? Why are Holder and Obama?

Posted by Mike_M
2010-03-09 15:08:21

Why shouldnt they have hired them? If you have a bitch about why they were hired air it.

whats_up, Nixon will make it simple for you, out of necessity since you are a moron. Did you ever post under the user name crthns, a simple yes or no please.

Did you ever post under the user name crthns, a simple yes or no please.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2010-03-09 15:11:01

and allow me to add that as there is no reason not to asnwer the question and no conceivable negative effect from a denial, a refusal to do so is an implicit answer of “yes”.
Not that we don’t all know the answer anyway….

“and would be unable to get another law job (sounds familiar)?”

It does. Bill CLinton was disbarred for perjury.

“Why shouldnt they have hired them? If you have a bitch about why they were hired air it.”

I can’t answer that question because of the Obama/Holder Coverup.

There are lots of legitimate reasons they could have been hired. Examining policy on detainee treatment, shielding US troops and civilian employees from lawsuits, liason with foreign countries over handling and exchange of prisoners.

It took a formal request from Congress for Holder to even acknowledge the existence of these people, and he still refuses to identify them, what they are doing, or what cases they may have worked on or recused themselves from.

No way has Holder earned the benefit of the doubt, and sure as hell not after a three month snow job. All he has to do is tell the truth, why won’t he?

The problem with Vega is he hates Cheney more than Al Qaeda to the point that he has sympathy for islamic terrorists and how they are treated in a court of law.

I cannot stand Obama’s politics however if he’d stop acting like a wimp and stand up to Al Qaeda and I knew he was serious I would back him 100% to destroy Al Qaeda and protect america.

The problem though is I heard what Obama has said about the war on terror and he has no clue about it based on what he has said.He does’nt have the right understanding to fight and protect america.

Kudos to d-vega for calling out the conservative circle jerk the hosts and preponderance of participants desire on this site. It is emblamatic of a country where a noise machine that lacks ideas and believes taxes are the root of all evil, a mad hatter mass of ignorance that calls Obama a socialist while he rewards the bank owners for fucking up, a Glenn Beck inspired chalkboard of drunken desire for a country that never existed except in movies cleaned up with a morality code, a party that celebrates the average Joe because it doesn’t understand above-average Jhana, You are a group stupid enough to serve the rich while their own quality of life has diminished in thirty years of your philosophical rule.

You fucked it up, gave it to a black man to fix, and now all you can muster is to blame him for your own shortcomings.

You make me so glad the last republican vote I placed was 25 years ago.

You are a group stupid enough to serve the rich while their own quality of life has diminished in thirty years of your philosophical rule.

Posted by Jack Schite 2010-03-09 15:27:05

And you work for a Fortune 500 company? I love the smell of hypocrisy in the afternoon.

Got that information about Joe McCarthy yet, Jack?

What facts did it distort?

Uh, first of all the implication that somehow since these people acted as defense counsel for alleged terrorists that it means they share the values of AQ, rather than an allegiance to this country and our Constitution.

I mean, did you just miss that? Or are you being obtuse?

Was that not Holder himself in the video? Has Obama or Holder answered any of the legitimate questions raised by the ad?

Yes, they answered the questions. What else do you need? You want their names and identity public so the McCarthyism can continue?

If you’re having a knee-jerk reaction to a straightforward presentation of the facts, your problem is more likely with the facts than with the messenger.

Nonsense. Questions that were raised by Congress are legitimate. Implying there are AQ-sympathizers at the DOJ is disgusting.

Why have Obama and Holder hired these particular lawyers? That’s all the ad is asking. Why? Why are you so afraid of that question? Why are Holder and Obama?

There are more than 7,000 lawyers at the DOJ. I’m sure you all are very interested in examining the histories of every single one of them for political exploitation.

Please Mike. Explain to me how you reconcile this with military tribunal lawyers. Please explain to me how we can have due process in this country if lawyers cannot do their jobs without being accused of treason.

The problem with Vega is he hates Cheney more than Al Qaeda to the point that he has sympathy for islamic terrorists and how they are treated in a court of law.

The only problem that I have is the frustation I get when I have to keep correcting rightwingers who can’t defend their heroes so they are reduced to “have to stopped beating your wife?” agruments and red herrings.

I would be fine with AQ-types meeting their judgements on the battefield. But once they are in our custody they must be afforded human rights, including due process. That is a reflection of OUR values. I could give a fuck about their values.

Liz Cheney wouldn’t know a value if she shopped at Walmart.

You make me so glad the last republican vote I placed was 25 years ago.
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-03-09 15:27:05

You weren’t even a gleam in the trick’s eye that paid for your mom 25 years ago. You got that proof yet from this morning accusing Nixon of being a racist, or are you so stoned you forgot that statement.

The only problem that I have is the frustation I get when I have to keep correcting rightwingers who can’t defend their heroes so they are reduced to “have to stopped beating your wife?” agruments and red herrings.

Thus explaining your lie about Dick Cheney being behind this nquiry.

You want their names and identity public so the McCarthyism can continue?

And Vega invokes the myth of McCarthyism! What a shock.

There are more than 7,000 lawyers at the DOJ. I’m sure you all are very interested in examining the histories of every single one of them for political exploitation.

No, just these seven. Interesting that the DoJ is stonewalling a few simple questions. I wonder why?

Please explain to me how we can have due process in this country if lawyers cannot do their jobs without being accused of treason.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 15:30:42

We are wondering the same thing about the lawyers that worked on the enhanced interrogation memos, Vega. But that didn’t concern you.

You fucked it up, gave it to a black man to fix, and now all you can muster is to blame him for your own shortcomings.

Always race with the left.

The only problem that I have is the frustation I get when I have to keep correcting rightwingers who can’t defend their heroes so they are reduced to “have to stopped beating your wife?” agruments and red herrings.

I would be fine with AQ-types meeting their judgements on the battefield. But once they are in our custody they must be afforded human rights, including due process. That is a reflection of OUR values. I could give a fuck about their values.

Liz Cheney wouldn’t know a value if she shopped at Walmart.
Posted by D-Vega

You are getting closer to the attitude we need from you.But you still care too much about our enemies.

The problem though is I heard what Obama has said about the war on terror and he has no clue about it based on what he has said.He does’nt have the right understanding to fight and protect america.

Posted by Crimsonfella
2010-03-09 15:23:05

And yet more is being done in Afghanistan and Pakistan against AQ and the Taliban than was done under Bush, how do you square reality against your fantasy about what is happening?

We are wondering the same thing about the lawyers that worked on the enhanced interrogation memos, Vega. But that didn’t concern you.

The difference is that torture can be considered unlawful. I believe waterboarding is unlawful. Holder’s DOJ cleared the Bushies of any wrongdoing.

Nothing indicates that these lawyers did anything inappropriate or illegal.

And yet more is being done in Afghanistan and Pakistan against AQ and the Taliban than was done under Bush,

you are such a liar. Nixon notices you ahve neglected to answer the direct question above that Nixon asked you. Why?

And Vega invokes the myth of McCarthyism! What a shock.

From Wikipedia:
McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.

Fits this case to a tee!

No, just these seven. Interesting that the DoJ is stonewalling a few simple questions. I wonder why?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 15:37:28

Why just these seven Stan? Out of how many thousands of lawyers why are you only concerned with these seven, what have they done that the rest havent that warrant your concern?

Nothing indicates that these lawyers did anything inappropriate or illegal.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 15:40:18

Then you shoudl be pissed that Holder has not stood up and said that in a timely manner. He felt the need to cover and hide and stonewall.

And if you had an ounce of integrity, you’d be asking why. But instead, you need to vent your hatred of the Cheney’s.

Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 15:41:56

So what you have done should be referred to as Cheneyism? Making up stuff about Dick Cheney being behind the lawful inquiry Liz made?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Holder’s DOJ cleared the Bushies of any wrongdoing.

Nothing indicates that these lawyers did anything inappropriate or illegal.

Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 15:40:18

Notice that they were cleared, despite what we heard on here that there was no way that Holder and Obama would find them innocent, that they were on a witch-hunt to go after these lawyers. And yet they were cleared.

Fits this case to a tee!
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 15:41:56

Except for two things, Vega.

One, McCarthyism was invented by the Left to cover their treason.
Two, we are trying to get the evidence and Holder is stonewalling.

And if you had an ounce of integrity, you’d be asking why. But instead, you need to vent your hatred of the Cheney’s.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 15:42:44

See Vega in Stans world you are guilty until you can prove you are innocent, pretty sad how far some on the right have fallen. Take faith though Vega that they are in the minority even on the right.

despite what we heard on here that there was no way that Holder and Obama would find them innocent, that they were on a witch-hunt to go after these lawyers.

Proof that was said here.

We are wondering the same thing about the lawyers that worked on the enhanced interrogation memos, Vega. But that didn’t concern you.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 15:37:28

And they were found to not have done anything to warrant disbarment or criminal procedures now werent they.

And they were found to not have done anything to warrant disbarment or criminal procedures now werent they.
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 15:46:58

Since nothing they did was wrong, the Obama/Holder regime couldn’t, regardless of the whole political witch hunt thing they were doing.

“There are more than 7,000 lawyers at the DOJ. I’m sure you all are very interested in examining the histories of every single one of them for political exploitation.”

Don’t worry, I’m sure Holder and Obama will abuse their power until we get around to all 7000…or at least a solid majority.

But let’s concentrate on what we know. Holder hired these guys around November of last year without providing any information to Congress. What else did Holder do in November? Oh right…insist on trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian court in Lower Manhattan.

You’re damn right it’s political vega, and the timing is no coincidence. The entire KSM fiasco has been nothing but a political ploy from the beginning. A sell out and mockery of our legal system for the personal entertainment of Holder and as a purely partisan political attack on the Bush Administration.

And now recently, Holder has backed off the KSM trial as his actions have been examined and as the AQ7 have been exposed. Poor Holder has been caught in a compromising position, and still can’t seem to tell the truth.

Hey, maybe I’m wrong. But with Holder diving deeper into his coverup, it’s the most plausible scenario so far. He could clear this up by just telling the truth. Why won’t he?

And yet more is being done in Afghanistan and Pakistan against AQ and the Taliban than was done under Bush, how do you square reality against your fantasy about what is happening?

That’s really what their problem is. Obama has escalated the Af-Pak war, taken out leadership, not cut n’ run from Iraq as they hysterically predicted, kept America safe.

So they resort to smears that even disgust people on their side. Nice going, Cheneys! You always keep reducing that big ol’ tent of Republicans. We’re counting on you.

As Eugene Robinson put it:
This is really part of a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy to wound President Obama politically. The charge of softness on terrorism — or terrorist suspects — is absurd; Obama has brought far more resources and focus to the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan than the Bush-Cheney administration cared to summon. Since Obama’s opponents can’t attack him on substance, they resort to atmospherics. They distort. They insinuate. They sully. They blow smoke.

This time, obviously, they went too far. But the next Big Lie is probably already in the works. Scorched-earth groups like Keep America Safe may just be pretending not to understand our most firmly established and cherished legal principles, but there is one thing they genuinely don’t grasp: the concept of shame.

“So they resort to smears that even disgust people on their side.”

Like your smear of Dick Cheney, you fucking hypocrite.

“The only problem that I have is the frustation I get when I have to keep correcting rightwingers who can’t defend their heroes so they are reduced to “have to stopped beating your wife?” agruments and red herrings.”

You guys are the ones that can’t stop talking about George Bush when asked why Holder won’t answer a simple question.

News flash: Bush isn’t in power any more. Not even Dick Cheney…even though we know how difficult it is to believe considering the awesomeness and expanse of his gravitas and the left’s clear obsession with him.

We’d like to discuss the President of the United States and his Attorney General, but I guess they just aren’t that important these days. Let’s talk more about Bush and Cheney.

One, McCarthyism was invented by the Left to cover their treason.

No, it wasn’t Stan. Please don’t try to force-feed me some conservative revisionist-history claptrap.

Two, we are trying to get the evidence and Holder is stonewalling.

What evidence, Stan? Are you saying the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? That sounds so familiar, too.

You are saying that since there is no evidence, you will continue to hound the DOJ because they must be guilty of something.

You know:
a) how many lawyers there were.
b) what their names are.

What else do you need? Who they hung out with in college? Maybe you could find someone who dated a socialist on campus.

You said “we are trying to get the evidence” as if you know it exists, but can’t find it. That’s is beyond buffoonery.

You always keep reducing that big ol’ tent of Republicans. We’re counting on you.

With Obama’s subzero performances in everything, Nixon supposes that is the only way your side could win: the right self destructs. Or are you going to run on the $1.6 trillion deficit?

I don’t need to smear Cheney, Nixon. He does fine all by himself.

He’s like the brother in Weird Science (played by Bill Paxton.)

Just one big toilet seat smear.

A sell out and mockery of our legal system…

Posted by Mike_M
2010-03-09 15:49:23

Mike,

This doesnt become you. The civilian legal system has handed out more severe sentences than the three men who were tried under the Military Tribunal system, why would you not want to most strict sentence. The civilian system has dealt with these types of people before, why do you think that it is not able to deal with AQ types?

The liberal complaint basically comes down to this: how can we have due process for unlawful combatants and/or POWs if they can’t get a lawyer because all the lawyers are afraid of being called traitors and losing their jobs?

First of all, I can assure you that there is absolutely NO lack of attorneys willing to represent the scum of the earth against the most egregious charges for the right price. Regardless, the question remains: who did our AG hire to represent our Country in legal matters? Have they been prevented (properly) from accessing sensitive data that might be used against the US by their prior clients?

There is evidence that the AG has hired seven attorneys who had volunteered to represent our enemies against our Country. FACT There is also evidence that some defense attorneys have used their positions to collaborate with our enemies against our Country. FACT

As noted above, due process is not thwarted by a lack of volunteers. If I want to serve in a public defender role, for example, I put my name on a list and I may be called. I am not required to defend any particular individual in any matter. In fact, in some cases I may be obligated or required to step aside. There is someone else there to take my place. But the way I understand it, the public defender analogy doesn’t work here–they were not randomly chosen. They volunteered. That fact by itself indicates something about their character.

Why would someone volunteer for that job? I can give you a bunch of reasons–from the uber-altruistic “because they really care about the little guy” to the opposite end of the spectrum “because they thought they could make a boatload of cash”. Since they now, by virtue of their employment for the AG’s office, stand against “the little guy” they were formerly sworn to represent, I’m betting the latter is closer to the truth.

It is quite possible that there is absolutely nothing improper about their hiring or their assignments. It would take very little to clear that up–just a little bit of transparency from the “most transparent Administration ever”.

I understand your desire to make this into some GOP campaign to smear the hard working public defense attorneys and crumble the foundations of US justice. But it just doesn’t stack up. Holder is wrong. He needs to provide whatever documents have been requested, and let the proof vindicate him.

“You know:
a) how many lawyers there were.
b) what their names are.”

Thanks to a Fox News investigation.

Guess you’re right. They’re far more credible than Holder himself.

what have they done that the rest havent that warrant your concern?
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 15:42:02

Hard to say, crthns, since Holder won’t answer Congressional questions. Perhaps if he was more forthcoming…

News flash: Bush isn’t in power any more. Not even Dick Cheney…even though we know how difficult it is to believe considering the awesomeness and expanse of his gravitas and the left’s clear obsession with him.

Coulda fooled me, Mike. Anytime the right does something disgusting, Bush is brought out quicker than on prom night.

We’d like to discuss the President of the United States and his Attorney General, but I guess they just aren’t that important these days. Let’s talk more about Bush and Cheney.

Let’s talk about them, Mike. Let’s talk about something, anything, that was done here that was:

a) out of the ordinary,
b) illegal,
c) unethical, or
d) treasonous.

Otherwise it means that you guys are whining because you know that HCR is passing and you need something to occupy your time while you gear up for the whinefest that will ensue when its passed.

Pre-gaming until you have something of actual substance to complain about. Rather than manufactured controversy courtesy of the Fear-Mongering Family.

So please, Mike. Tell me what was done here that is outraging you so?

Hard to say, crthns, since Holder won’t answer Congressional questions. Perhaps if he was more forthcoming…

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 16:04:28

So you actually dont have any evidence on them, you dont even know if evidence exists, but they still have to prove their innocent why exactly?

“The civilian system has dealt with these types of people before, why do you think that it is not able to deal with AQ types?”

Hey, don’t ask me. Obama is apparently on the verge of nixing the whole thing himself. Go read the news. The ACLU is absolutely frantic over the possibility that they won’t be able to try Bush and Cheney’s policies and expose national defense secrets in open court.

This doesnt become you. The civilian legal system has handed out more severe sentences than the three men who were tried under the Military Tribunal system, why would you not want to most strict sentence. The civilian system has dealt with these types of people before, why do you think that it is not able to deal with AQ types?

Mike does have a point with the KSM issue. However, all of the Gitmo dets would not have gotten MTs. The Bush admin planned to have 60-80 people tried by MTs, including KSM.

I will give that one to Mike. Which makes me wonder why the obsession with something that is routine.

Hey, don’t ask me. Obama is apparently on the verge of nixing the whole thing himself. Go read the news. The ACLU is absolutely frantic over the possibility that they won’t be able to try Bush and Cheney’s policies and expose national defense secrets in open court.

Posted by Mike_M
2010-03-09 16:09:40

Mike,

so which is your choice civilian trials or military tribunals and why?

No, it wasn’t Stan. Please don’t try to force-feed me some conservative revisionist-history claptrap.

Oh, then you can regale us with all the evil things Joe McCarthy did you earn such a reputation.

What else do you need? Who they hung out with in college? Maybe you could find someone who dated a socialist on campus.

You said “we are trying to get the evidence” as if you know it exists, but can’t find it. That’s is beyond buffoonery.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 15:59:35

From the article above…
“In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.”

So Holder refuse to answer and we are just to talk his word that there is nothing there. I’m sure you would accept that from Dick Cheney, wouldn’t you?

We don’t know if it exists or not, Vega. We *DO* know that Holder is trying to hide something. Not that you care!

The ACLU is absolutely frantic over the possibility that they won’t be able to try Bush and Cheney’s policies and expose national defense secrets in open court.

If they wanted to do that, they could have done it during the Bush/Cheney era, where we had numerous criminal trials of terrorists.

Sorry, Mike. That’s a fail.

Refusing to answer something is not evidence, Stan. Sorry.

If that were the case, Gonzo would be in prison right now.

but they still have to prove their innocent why exactly?
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 16:09:09

THEY don’t have to prove a thing, crthns. There has been no investigation and they haven’t been called to testify on ANYTHING. Republicans are simply asking their boss for some information on them. All appropriate and legal.

Why do you have such an issue with it?

Refusing to answer something is not evidence, Stan. Sorry.

Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 16:12:34

No, it is a cover-up, Vega.

You have to have something to cover up in order for it to be a cover-up, Stan.

No Fitzmas for you.

Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 16:17:42

Got that information about McCarthy yet, or will you just continue to lie?

he cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.”

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 16:11:20

Explain to me again Stan why we need to know this about these seven (which by the way we allready know their names, Republicans must seem to forget about that.) What does it matter what they worked on prior to coming to the Justice Dept?

That’s really what their problem is. Obama has escalated the Af-Pak war, taken out leadership, not cut n’ run from Iraq as they hysterically predicted, kept America safe.

I was not fooled by the left’s lies when Obama ran on pulling the troops out of Iraq. I knew he would’nt do it and said so remember I showed how it was prophecied in the bible Iraq would be rebuilt.

I knew Obama was not going to pull the troops out and the fact he has’nt only shows the lies that were told about the Bush administration when we needed to be united as a country.

It was all for political gain was’nt it.You were fooled by Obama but I was’nt.But now because of your sides liesThe left) plus the lib media helping push the lies we now live in a pre 911 world again.You and your side have dumbed down america all for political gain.

“If they wanted to do that, they could have done it during the Bush/Cheney era, where we had numerous criminal trials of terrorists.”

The obsession with Bush/Cheney continues. Can we please talk about the current President?

What does it matter what they worked on prior to coming to the Justice Dept?
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 16:20:19

Because Congressmen asked for that information, crthns. Do keep up!

Posted by Crimsonfella
2010-03-09 16:21:47

LMAO, God damn thats some funny shit!

Got that information about McCarthy yet, or will you just continue to lie?

What information about McCarthy, Stan? That he accused people with no evidence? You really need proof of that?

And “Crismonfella”, sounds like “Abel”. Is that you, abel?

What information about McCarthy, Stan? That he accused people with no evidence? You really need proof of that?

Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 16:25:14

Yes, Vega… FOR THE THIRD TIME, Provide Proof!

The obsession with Bush/Cheney continues. Can we please talk about the current President?

Ahem:
WU: “The civilian system has dealt with these types of people before, why do you think that it is not able to deal with AQ types?”

Mike: Hey, don’t ask me. Obama is apparently on the verge of nixing the whole thing himself. Go read the news. The ACLU is absolutely frantic over the possibility that they won’t be able to try Bush and Cheney’s policies and expose national defense secrets in open court.

Me: “If they wanted to do that, they could have done it during the Bush/Cheney era, where we had numerous criminal trials of terrorists.”

Like I said, the right is more obsessed with Bush than the most hardcore lesbian.

Because he is their failure and now they frantically seek to revise history, the facts and their philosophy in a desparate attempt to regain power. Like no one remembers.

This foolish woman is a prime example.

Because Congressmen asked for that information, crthns. Do keep up!

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 16:22:57

So what Stanley, Congressman ask for information all the time, doesnt mean that they are going to get it or are entilted to it.

Stan:

From Wiki –
It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs. In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired. Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous. Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for “sexual perverts”, who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment.

In the film industry, over 300 actors, authors and directors were denied work in the U.S. through the unofficial Hollywood blacklist. Blacklists were at work throughout the entertainment industry, in universities and schools at all levels, in the legal profession, and in many other fields. A port security program initiated by the Coast Guard shortly after the start of the Korean War required a review of every maritime worker who loaded or worked aboard any American ship, regardless of cargo or destination. As with other loyalty-security reviews of McCarthyism, the identities of any accusers and even the nature of any accusations were typically kept secret from the accused. Nearly 3,000 seamen and longshoremen lost their jobs due to this program alone.

Let me know if you want more, Stan. Thousands were hurt with unsubstantiated, and unrevealed evidence.

LMAO, God damn thats some funny shit!
Posted by whats_up

Yeah I know its funny to you but you know it is true.And yet you still trust your lib leaders to take care of you and do what they say don’t you? And you still trust the lib media and how they twist the news to help your side push lies and you are proud about it. LOL(sarcasm) You love it as long as you get your way and to hell with the rest of the country!

So what Stanley, Congressman ask for information all the time, doesnt mean that they are going to get it or are entilted to it.

They certainly didn’t get it when it came to torture.

Let me know if you want more, Stan. Thousands were hurt with unsubstantiated, and unrevealed evidence.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 16:33:12

HUAC stood for House Unamerican Activities Committee, Vega. Joe McCarthy was a Senator and never served in the House. He had no involvement with HUAC at all.

He did not target homosexuals or Hollywood actors. He investigated security risks in the US Government and Armed Forces.

All that you just posted were lies, Vega. And you are an idiot for believing them.

Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 16:29:35

LOL, you’re funny vega. The ACLU’s obsession with Bush is my fault now?

Go to their homepage. It’s easy, http://www.aclu.com

Their raving moonbattery about the KSM trial is plastered all over it. Hell, they even have (get this) a picture of Obama morphing into…you guessed it…Bush!

Now you are just being silly, Stan. The quote said “simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.”

That’s your defense of McCarthy?

or are entilted to it.
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 16:31:38

Wait, are you saying Congress does not have the right to know?

That’s your defense of McCarthy?
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 16:40:29

You accussed McCarthy of the activities of a committee that he was never in, and of activities that he never did. You words on this, as all your other words on this thread, are total fucking lies.

You don’t know the first thing about Joe McCarthy, but are willing to believe whatever lies wikipedia gives you.

You have proven what an imbilice you are, Vega. Time for you to shut up and run away!

All that you just posted were lies, Vega. And you are an idiot for believing them.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 16:36:27

Now Stan you are trying to claim that what occured during the McCarthy years didnt actually happen? Classic, you do realize that their are still people alive who not only were victimized by this but actually took place in these activities and have said that they occured, are those folks lying as well Stan?

are those folks lying as well Stan?
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 16:43:54

You probably are, my gay friend. BTW, you used to post under crthns, correct? Good to see you confess this. Confession is good for the soul, maybe Holder whould learn that.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 16:43:40

McCarthy showed himself to be an idiot, on national television.

Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 16:43:54

Joe McCarthy was not a member of HUAC and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Hollywood Blacklist. If you have proof otherwise, post it.

McCarthy showed himself to be an idiot, on national television.
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 16:45:27

Proof?

Oops, I have to admit I was wrong.

The website is http://www.aclu.org not .com

How silly of me to mistake an organization of liberal lawyers for one involved in productive commerce.

Like I said, the right is more obsessed with Bush than the most hardcore lesbian.

Obama is part of the right?

He did not target homosexuals or Hollywood actors. He investigated security risks in the US Government and Armed Forces.

If there were true, Stan, why would McCarthy conduct investigations of homosexuals and issue a report titled: “Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government”?

Was he afraid that too much gay sex would turn people into communists?

You do know that the Internet has all this stuff, right?

Wait, are you saying Congress does not have the right to know?

They didn’t when it came to torture, right Nixon?

If there were true, Stan, why would McCarthy conduct investigations of homosexuals and issue a report titled: “Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government”?

Because homosexuals, do to their deviant lifestyle, would be subject to blackmail by people like the KGB if they discovered their lifestyle.

Are you a moron?

Joe McCarthy was not a member of HUAC and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Hollywood Blacklist. If you have proof otherwise, post it.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 16:45:54

No one here claimed that he had, however he was in charge of Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and made a fool of himself investigation the Army on national television.

You do know that the Internet has all this stuff, right?
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 16:51:37

Was that the same internet that got you information on McCarthy in HUAC and his involvement in the Hollywood Blacklist? Thought so.

Your credibility on this subject is gone, Vega. Your repeated attempts to fix that only make you look more foolish!

They didn’t when it came to torture, right Nixon?
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 16:52:33

Thanksfully we enver tortured anyone. Since torture is illegal, and there have been no charges filed by the Obamateur and company, Nixon suposes that puts a stake in that ugly lie from the left.

Proof?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 16:46:38

Haha, go watching the hearing for yourself Stan. LMAO!!

No one here claimed that he had, however he was in charge of Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and made a fool of himself investigation the Army on national television.
Posted by whats_up 2010-03-09 16:53:10

Vega tried to claim he did, crthns. Are you just extra stupid today?

Oh, and what was McCarthy investigating the Army for during those hearings?

LMAO!!
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 16:54:30

Sure thing pedobear.

Was that the same internet that got you information on McCarthy in HUAC and his involvement in the Hollywood Blacklist? Thought so.

Your credibility on this subject is gone, Vega. Your repeated attempts to fix that only make you look more foolish!

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 16:53:42

Stan,

Vega never claimed that, you are having reading problems again I see.

You accussed McCarthy of the activities of a committee that he was never in, and of activities that he never did. You words on this, as all your other words on this thread, are total fucking lies.

Sure, Stan. We went from you all blowing smoke up people’s asses regarding Cheney, to you blowing smoke up my ass regarding McCarthy.

The quotation didn’t say the HUAC specifically. It said the HUAC and other similiar committees. The fact is that McCarthy ruined people’s lives with no basis in evidence.

Stop it. McCarthy was a douchebag and history has judged him rightly.

If you have proof of otherwise, then present it or STFU.

If you have proof of otherwise, then present it or STFU.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 16:55:46

Like your proof that Dick Cheney was behind the AQ7 inquiry.

Now Stan you are trying to claim that what occured during the McCarthy years didnt actually happen? Classic, you do realize that their are still people alive who not only were victimized by this but actually took place in these activities and have said that they occured, are those folks lying as well Stan?

Of course. Because McCarthy is another one of their heroes. And it’s why they are defending Cheney’s behavior. Because its the same damn thing. Rinse. Repeat.

Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 16:55:46

You are amazing, Vega. You post obvious lies about McCarthy to prove what a brute he was. I corrected your lies, and now you think you can lecture me on blowing smoke?

You are a complete joke. You have yet to prove McCarthy ruined anyone life. You credibility is finished.

The quotation didn’t say the HUAC specifically.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 16:55:46

Yes it did, Vega. It said HUAC. That is specific.

Again you lie.

Because homosexuals, do to their deviant lifestyle, would be subject to blackmail by people like the KGB if they discovered their lifestyle.

LOL!

What?

You guys are falling over yourselves defending someone that history has judged. WITH FACTS.

Blackmail… that’s rich. Why would someone be concerned with blackmail over something that is a kin to being a vegatarian. LOL.

Why would someone be concerned with blackmail over something that is a kin to being a vegatarian. LOL.
Posted by D-Vega

in the 50′s society’s view of said lifestyle was not as water downed as it is now.

Blackmail… that’s rich.

History, it’s not your best suit.

Stan, the quote again. I can repost as many times as you need.

In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.

“or one of the other committees”

“or one of the other committees”

“or one of the other committees”

“or one of the other committees”

I never said McCarthy was on the HUAC. I wouldn’t do that because its not true and its not even relevant to the point.

Again, you are throwing red herrings in an attempt to defend the behavior of your douchebag hero.

You may now continue “Defend a Douchebg Day.©”

Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 17:04:39

I asked you for proof that McCarthy was a brute and ruined lives. You provided a quote that listed HUAC SPECIFICALLY and the Hollywood blacklist; neither of which involved Joe McCarthy AT ALL! You did it, Vega. You provide that quote… YOU DID.

So stop trying to pussy your way out of your lies. For once in your miserable and pathetic existance, just admit you fucked up and move on.

I’ll be over here, holding my breath!

In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.

McCarthy was a douchebag, Stan. And so is Liz Cheney.

I mean, everyone knows this.

I await your counter-proof.

Don’t bother if you are just going to accuse me and wiki of lying without any refutation.

Just a heads up.

You libs are busted! You lied throughout the Bush adminstration and dumbed down the american people about the war on terror and its threat that we still face which is why Obama fools people into thinking he s fighting it better tan Bush did even in Iraq(LOL!).And yet you expect us to trust you now about McCarthy,waterboarding,man-made global warming,etc? You gotta be kidding! It is obvious that your side lies and smears with the help of the lib news media twisting history even to get your way.You have no credibility and should be ignored.

Just a heads up.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 17:10:28

Thought so. I knew better than to expect you to be intellectually honest. And for your information, I refuted your bullshit wiki post.

Joe McCarthy was a patriot and a great man. History, like you provide from wiki, have judged him based upon lies.

And Vega, you are a worthless piece of shit… EVERYONE KNOWS THIS! No counter-proof necessary!

Fella, pick up a book by someone who is not indoctrinated like yourself once in a while.

Joe McCarthy was one of the most horrible people to ever be in the Senate. He ruined people’s lives for the sake of his own career and fame. And history has judged him appropriately.

He ruined people’s lives for the sake of his own career and fame.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-09 17:15:44

Name one person that Joe McCarthy ruined, Vega.

One!

Fella, pick up a book by someone who is not indoctrinated like yourself once in a while.

Joe McCarthy was one of the most horrible people to ever be in the Senate. He ruined people’s lives for the sake of his own career and fame. And history has judged him appropriately.
Posted by D-Vega

I have read many books throughout my life time. But I don’t need a book to look and see with my own eyes the depths to which your side lies and smears with the help of the lib media.

What is even more shocking though is the fact you and whats_ up still trust your leaders knowing they are liars.Tell us D- Vega when are you going to wake up and see your lib leaders care nothing about you or what you think and are only fooling you even for more power.Don’t be a sheep dude.

And so is Liz Cheney.

I mean, everyone knows this.

For asking a question? Boy, you liberals sure hate transparency. Just more proof of the fascist nature at the core of every liberal.

I never said McCarthy was on the HUAC.

You did say Dick Cheney was behind the inquiry regarding the AQ lawyers though.

“Joe McCarthy was one of the most horrible people to ever be in the Senate.”

If you were a communist.

McCarthy was a douchebag, Stan. And so is Liz Cheney.

I mean, everyone knows this.

I await your counter-proof.

Don’t bother if you are just going to accuse me and wiki of lying without any refutation.

Just a heads up.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 17:10:28

Say’s the Queen of Douchebags and Retards!!!!

I asked you for proof that McCarthy was a brute and ruined lives. You provided a quote that listed HUAC SPECIFICALLY

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-09 17:07:52

Did you miss the other committees part Stanley, here let me repost it for since you have an education of a dumb ass redneck.

In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired. Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present

Notice Stan the word or after HUAC, that means there is more to the sentence, it is followed by one of the other committees, that meaning more than one. Hoped that helped you, no charge, consider it giving to those less fortunate.

Hoped that helped you, no charge, consider it giving to those less fortunate.
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-09 20:24:40

How is that no same sex marriage thing Obama has been pushing working for you and your “partner”?

I will defend to the death both StanInTexas’s right to be obtuse and Nixon’s right to be snarky without adding value.

Joe McCarthy John Kerry was one of the most horrible people to ever be in the Senate. He ruined people’s lives for the sake of his own career and fame. And history has judged him appropriately.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-09 17:15:44

TFTFY Vega.

Posted by Power_System_Oper
2010-03-09 23:42:10

And your own right to be an idiot, right, Hoggo?

I will defend to the death both StanInTexas’s right to be obtuse and Nixon’s right to be snarky without adding value.
Posted by Power_System_Oper
2010-03-09 23:42:10

Sure thing. Maybe you can explain to us why you are on your 7th user name in two years.

It is good to see more Conservatives come out and blast Cheney and her faulty logic, good for Graham and McCuskey.

lol, that should read Graham and Mukasey.

You guys are still talking about this, and yet one person couldn’t explain why Cheney would smear theses lawyers for political purposes (implying their share the same values of AQ as opposed to their country) AND, while deflecting couldn’t explain why McCarthy wasn’t a doucehbag.

After nearly 240 comments. How fitting, since they are the very same practices. Accusing someone of something with no evidence, ruining their reputations for political gain.

That’s why the Cheneys are so fun. They are such easy marks.

That’s why the Cheneys are so fun. They are such easy marks.

Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-10 10:40:05

So true, even their fellow conservatives are calling them on this one.

Posted by whats_up
2010-03-10 10:55:41

RETARD neither of those two are CONSERVATIVES, they may be Reps but Graham especially is no conservative.

And Vega, Ms Cheney is private citizen excerising her first amdment rights, if you have a problem with it take it up with her.

And YOU never provided ONE example of a SINLGE life that Mc Carthy ‘ruined.’ Which was the whole premise of your hatred. After doing some less biased research, Mc Carthy was a vocal face to the anti-communist investigations but had little real impact on individual lives.

Have you no decency, Ms. Cheney?

Have you no decency, Ms. Cheney?
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-10 11:34:15

And I’m sure you can tell us all how that quote applies to what bthewolf and I have asked you to prove, right Vega?

Never mind… just continue to try to justify your lies as you smear a great patriot and a great American like joe McCarthy.

Smearing? As opposed to what Cheney is doing here?

If you are calling what I am saying about McCarthy, which is historical fact, to be smearing, then how is what Cheney is doing NOT smearing? Ridiculous.

McCarthy ruined people lives. He made accusations without valid proof. People who were called in front of his committee were fired just for being subpoenaed. He wasn’t the only person who did this, but he was indeed the face and did have direct involement in these witchhunts, which hurt more people than they ever saved.

Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-10 12:09:49

You have offered ZERO proof of any of this and the lies of wiki only compounded your stupidity. And you ran away when I asked for a name, like the pussy that you are.

Give it up Vega.

And yet, you guys have produced squat to prove your position.

And yet, you guys have produced squat to prove your position.
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-10 12:16:46

Exactly what I expect of you Vega. You unashamedly lie and then can’t back up your claims.

Joe McCarthy was 100 times the patriot than you will ever be, you lying bastard!

Never mind… just continue to try to justify your lies as you smear a great patriot and a great American like joe McCarthy.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-10 12:02:02

ROFLMAO, we need to know nothing more to be able to say how much of the fringe you are Stan, a great patriot, thats damn funny, untrue but funny nonetheless. By all means tell everyone how much of a patriot and great american McCarthy was, take out advertisements, let all your friends know. Classic!!

Whatever, Stan. He ruined lives.

If he was such a great American, who exposed commies in government, perhaps you can name 1 person exposed as a commie in U.S. Gov’t by McCarthy.

He accused many, many people. He even held a list once that he said contained the names of commies in gov’t.

Please tell me one person he exposed in the U.S gov’t.

History’s judgment of McCarthy has been accurate and truthful, he was a scumbag and put a stain on this country. Once it was seen who he really was, he lost all political power and died shortly after.

I’ll await the names of these commies that McCarthy exposed as working in our gov’t to undermine our democracy.

Posted by whats_up 2010-03-10 12:24:06
Posted by D-Vega 2010-03-10 12:25:20

I asked you both to provide the name of ONE person that McCarthy ruined, and you both refused and ran away.

Here is how it is done: A PARTIAL list of McCarthy exposed Communists:
Mary Jane Keeney
Lauchlin Currie
Virginius Coe
William Ullman
Nathan Silvermaster
Harold Glasser
Allan Rosenberg
Cedric Belfrage
David Bohm
Dashiell Hammett
Lillian Hellman
Tsien Hsue-shen
Paul Robeson
Waldo Salt
Paul Sweezy
John Garfield
John Hubley

Your turn now, pussies!

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-10 12:28:52

I see so you are okay with a United States senator going after private citizens for their political beliefs. Thanks for clarifying that STan, again which of these folks worked in the US Govt? Which were private citizens? Last time I checked private citizens were allowed to believe in any political party that they wanted, or do you just defend that right when they are conservatives?

Stan,

perhaps since you are looking up history you should look up the name Raymond Kaplan who after appearing at McCarthy’s hearings committed suicide due to the pestering of McCarthy. After he died McCarthy said that he had no evidence against Mr. Kaplan, why then did he call him before his committee?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-03-10 12:28:52

Stan,

You are too much, neither Paul Robeson or John Garfield were ever proven to have belonged to the communist party, their crime? They refused to testify to HUAC, and for that you label them communists? Also they were private citizens, dont they have the right to belong to any political party they choose? I thought you would be up in arms about the govt going after a private citizen, I guess their last name should be Palin and then you would defend them. This was the best that you could come up with Stan?

Paul Sweezy and Lillian Hellman were never communists, and they were private citizens, Stan what were you telling us about the govt attacking private citizens? Didnt you denounce that not too long ago?

Posted by whats_up
2010-03-10 12:52:22

And Ray Kaplan was the best you could come up with, and no EVEIDENCE that he comitted suicied because of the investigation!!! ROFLMAO

You two LOST get over it.

And as far as smearing anyone, the Bushitler/Macaca crowd has NO room to preach.

Mary Jane Keeney – The only commie on your list that was exposed by McCarthy. Though not proven to be until later. That’s ONE.

Lauchlin Currie – Never exposed as a Commie by McCarthy, called by the HUAC, and rebutted accusations. Exposed by the Venona files.

Virginius Coe – Accused by Elizabeth Bentley as testifying before the HUAC as being a member of the Silvermaster commies. Never charged. No McCarthy here.

William Ullman – A commie traitor, but not exposed by McCarthy.

Nathan Silvermaster – Ringleader, but not exposed by McCarthy.

Harold Glasser – Perlo group member. Confirmed a commie by the FBI Venona files, but not exposed by McCarthy.

Allan Rosenberg – Perlo group, same as above.

Cedric Belfrage – exposed by HUAC, not McCarthy

David Bohm – Physicist who contributed to the Manhattan Project. Called to testify by the HUAC and refused. No McCarthy.

Dashiell Hammett – President of CRC. Refused to answer any questions by a federal judge and found guilty of contempt. Called by HUAC to testify, and testified about himself, but refused to talk about anyone else. Was in turn blacklisted.

Lillian Hellman – Actress, called by HUAC and blacklisted. No McCarthy.

Tsien Hsue-shen – Chinese spy, not exposed by McCarthy.

Paul Robeson – Openly supportive of the Soviets, was called by and exposed by HUAC.

Waldo Salt – Never proved to be a commie, was called by and refused to talk to HUAC and was blacklisted.

Paul Sweezy – Never proven to be a commie.

John Garfield – Called by HUAC and refused, never proven to be a commie.

John Hubley – Never proven to be a commie, called by HUAC. Refused and was blacklisted.

So you got ONE person who worked for the gov’t that McCarthy exposed. And you actually included people that weren’t even proven to be commies.

And Ray Kaplan was the best you could come up with, and no EVEIDENCE that he comitted suicied because of the investigation!!! ROFLMAO

Posted by bthewolf
2010-03-10 13:10:08

You mean besides him saying so in his suicide note, ya that wouldnt count to you now would it. Also I notice that you are okay with the government going after private citizens based on their political beliefs. You sure that you want to go down that road?

Do I know my commies or what?

You mean besides him saying so in his suicide note, ya that wouldnt count to you now would it. Also I notice that you are okay with the government going after private citizens based on their political beliefs. You sure that you want to go down that road?
Posted by whats_up
2010-03-10 13:20:24

Got proof of the suicide note?

Where did say I was OK with it, because I didn’t denounce or even answer the question, does NOT imply agreement or approval. SO take that red herring and shove it up your ass, cum-stain.

If you are okay with McCarthy, then you are okay with it, wolf.

Where did say I was OK with it, because I didn’t denounce or even answer the question, does NOT imply agreement or approval. SO take that red herring and shove it up your ass, cum-stain.

Posted by bthewolf
2010-03-10 13:28:54

As Vega has pointed out, if you believe that McCarthy was an American hero and right in what he did, then you are okay with the US Govt going after private citizens for their political beliefs, that is exactly what McCarthy did.

Of course they are fine with it, as it is the basis for the same accusations Cheney is making.

Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-10 13:37:19

Wrong. The govt was investigating possible treason, was it over zealous, was it borderline criminal YES, but that doesn’t mean I approve of it even tacitly. It was a different time and different rules, but it’s no different than the FBI investigating a crime today, so longs as it’s done legally.

So kindly go fuck yourself Vega.

It’s not legal to accuse someone without proof. It’s actually the opposite of our fundamental legal values.

Being a communist is not illegal.

Posted by whats_up
2010-03-10 13:42:51

Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-10 13:52:08

Cheney and members of CONGRESS are asking to know if a few attorneys HIRED by the GOVERNMENT may be subject to CONFLICT OF INTEREST. They are not NOW private citizens, and their work histories as attornies is very relevant to their current positions. It’s basically a retroactive background check, that Holder has been stalling.

Cheney maybe playing it the hilt, and may actually be trying to imply they are supporters of terrorism, but again it’s her right under the First Amendment.

I didn’t say it wasn’t her right to ask the question.

But no, implying someone is a supporter of terrorism, without valid proof, is not protected speech. It’s malicious & slander.

It’s not legal to accuse someone without proof. It’s actually the opposite of our fundamental legal values.

Being a communist is not illegal.
Posted by D-Vega
2010-03-10 13:58:29

No proof? So they investigated just RANDOM people?? Or was the proof just so thin that it would have been laughed at in court. I said it may not met our current legal standards that it was border line illegal, but none of those doing the investigating were tried for it were they? Although Mc Carthy was censured.

Treason is illegal, and in the paranoid post war era, it was a big fear that communists were trying to subvert or even take over the country, so being a communist was worse than being a muslim today or being black during Jim Crowe. If you had any CLUE what the world was like then you wouldn’t be trying to make this a bigger issue than it was.

I have moved on why can’t you?

Exactly, wolf. “paranoia” and “big fear”, that could be capitalized on for political and career benefits.

And yes, some people were called in simply because their names were similiar to suspected communists.

AND, treason is illegal. But communism, socialism, anarchy or fundamental Islam is not.