Hello:

Liz Cheney is the Joseph McCarthy of our day. Is anyone surprised? Nahh. She produced a video saying that the loyalty of any lawyer who defended a terrorist suspect, is to be questioned.

Keep America Safe (http://www.keepamericasafe.com/)

She's despicable. But, I'll bet there are some here who embrace that sentiment.

excon

But, I'll bet there are some here who embrace that sentiment.

I do although the loyaly questions are red herrings.

The fact is that these lawyers sought the enemy out so they could represent them .

Now in our system there is nothing wrong with that ;But I question the judgement of Eric Holder then hiring them in a position where they are supposed to represent the government's interests in prosecuting and fighting the enemy.

Then again one of Holder's last acts as a Clintonoid was to get the President to pardon terrorist.

I'll have to watch the video later, but I wouldn't automatically view a lawyer that defends a terrorist as suspect. But as usual I think it goes further than that. The issue I believe is a potential conflict of interest (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Eric-Holder-stonewalls-Congress-on-terror-lawyers-85000577.html) with some of Eric Holder's DOJ lawyers.

You want despicable, try Spicolli thinking journalists who call his pal Hugo Chavez a dictator deserve prison time (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/03/08/sean-penn-suggests-prison-time-journalists-who-call-hugo-chavez-dictator).

The funny thing is that if Holder was upfront about hiring these attorneys to the terrorists and identified where in the Justice Dept they would serve,then there would've been no need for Cheney to do her own personal investigation and "out" them.


But why was Holder and the Obama Justice Dept so opague about this ? Could it be that the people of the country would not approve of these hirings? I think so .
Or perhaps Holder was planning on using them in the cases of the GITMO detainees even though their work on the case as representatives of the government would be a clear conflict of interest that by all right would be reason for recusal.

Re Joe McCarthy.. For years there was a growing sentiment that the Rosenbergs were railroaded and in fact innocent. But subsequent proof including testimony by Nikita Khrushchev and co conspirator Morton Sobel revealed that indeed Julius Rosenberg was instrumental in passing nuclear and other secrets to the Soviets.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/17/news/OE-RADOSH17

I don't know if McCarthy exaggerated the threat ;but the threat he pointed out was indeed real.

If Liz Chaney is as nasty as her father hopefully America has gotten awake that HER father is a war monger/war profiteer and the apple does not fall far from the tree. Since her daddy made millions if not billions off the backs of the American people, maybe she's lining up to take her ill gotten gains.