No thanks, Eric Holder
Andy McCarthy declines the Attorney General’s invitation.
Posted in: Homeland Security, War
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Media Madmen Mad Blog » The CIA’s $1,000 a Day Specialists on Waterboarding, Interrogations
- Andrew McCarthy Says ‘No Thanks’ to AG Holder to Serve on Obama’s Task Force: “…I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people…” «
- McCarthy declines invitation | Babalú Blog: an island on the net without a bearded dictator
- COACHEP » Blog Archive » No thanks, Eric Holder
- Andrew C. McCarthy of the National Review Institute denies Eric Holder! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Taxpayers to get rude surprise! « Goodtimepolitics
- Obama reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees « Goodtimepolitics
- The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room » DAY’S END ROUNDUP
- Conservative Analysis » Blog Archive » A Letter to Attorney General Holder
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Homeland Security, War
Mudville Gazette
» When the wind won't blowRedstate
» The Great Global Warming FraudMudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part Two)Mudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part I)Legal Insurrection
» Hacked E-mails or Else!
And Andy McCarthy plays right into Obama’s hands. Obama makes a genuinely bipartisan gesture inviting a smart advocate from the other side to a policy discussion. Said advocate gives implausible excuses for refusing. Now Democrats get credit for bipartisanship without having to endure it.
Courts run by Bush have found many detainees to be innocent. Probably, many who remain and have not been tried also are innocent. Releasing a detainee is not the same as releasing a jihadist who will bomb America. It is just as likely to mean releasing an innocent man who has been held by mistake for six years.
Then you won’t mind putting a few of them up until they get on their feet. Especially the Uighurs.
Yeah, you wouldn’t want any actual team-work going on when considering anything like national security.
No danger of that, now that THE ONE has made it clear that only the homogenized lock-steppers will remain free of the treat of criminalization.
McCarthy is brilliant. With his move, Obama and the Dems lose the chance to scramble for bipartisan cover when many of the detainees the new administration releases return to their lives of committing mayhem against the innocent, just like those detainees did who were released in 2005.
It ALSO was a classy, gutsy, and eviscerating master-freaking-stroke from a guy who has serious chops and credibility.
Yes, Andy McCarthy was responding to a solicitation from the current Administration. But, why would the current Administration send him an invitation on this issue?
In McCarthy’s own words from the provided link -
” . . . convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases . . . ”
” . . . It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties . . . “
So, had his letter been read and fully comprehended one would know he had dealt with terrorism cases, had opinions, and been in several adminstrations.
Since he had no reason to proffer an (official) opinion during the Bush Administration, I would like to know if he would say the same thing he did about the Obama Administration releasing detainees? (BTW, the Obama Administration has yet to release any detainees.) Would he be consistent? Where was his opinion when Pres Bush was releasing the detainees?
OK, he may, or may not, have been asked by the Bush Administration to opine on the release of detainees. And, this goes back to post #7. What was, or is, his opinion. Is it the same?
He may be silent, because he hasn’t been asked, on the fact that the Bush Administration released detainees. So, I am asking. Asking a question that has been sliced and diced, looking for implications, impugning, assigned motived, and beleived to be some sort of conspiracy on my part.
I did not know a question could impugn anyone’s honesty. I only thought an accusatory statement could do that. There is a difference between asking someone if they are liar, and saying unequivocally that they are a liar. Without proof the later opens one to libel.
When asked, and then answered, the question goes away. When stated, an accusation remains until resolved in a libel case.
LOL.
That is from my post #84 in response to post #80.
To my knowledge Andy McCarthy has not answered the question, . . . consistently, or inconsistently, therefore I, or no one, can conclude that he is, or is not, a hypocrite.
I stand by my statement, that anyone who answers inconsistently any question, is a hypocrite.
Besides, I did not say McCarthy is a hypocrite, I said, “answering the question inconsistently makes you a hypocrite.”
One more time. Did McCarthy answer the question? I am guessing no he did not. Hence without any answer it can not be concluded that McCarthy is a hypocrite.
Nice try.
Had I made the statement, not asked a question, but the following statement, “This guy was no where to be found when Pres Bush released detainees, and said nothing about it.” At that point it would be incumbent upon me to demonstrate my accusation. To back up my statement. To determine and deliver proof that he was silent, and/or approved the decision.
I am typing it slowly, so please read it slowly. There is a difference between a question and an accustion.
Serious question, do you know and recognize the difference between and accustaion and a question?
OK.
It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties.
texvet;
As you have by now ascertained, the z troll is past a waste
of
time.
You, and everyone else, will know it by its true colors when next it rears its soft-mouthed slimy little head.
LOL.
Of course, there I go again. Why? Because, you have yet to answer the question from post #7. My conclusion for someone not answering a question is that they are afraid.
Repeating for your benefit, because you did not acknowledge it the first time -
Was fulldroolcup’s question to me in post #67 loaded? And, did I answer it in post #69? Loaded or not, simple or not, I have no fear in answering a question. Others do, and I call them ostriches.
Will you acknowledge and respond this time? (1)
As for the use of inflammatory words, is “troll” not inflammatory? (2) Like it or not, that is part of the blog world.
Not baiting, just asking. Of course, if you don’t, you know what my conclusion will be. And, I know what what your response will be. “There you go again” and “troll behavior.”
OK, how about stopping the cycle, and at least answer these two most recent questions?
Head spinning in disbeleif, Huh? Do you ask questions that you already have the answers to? Why ask the question then? Questions are often asked because people do not know the answer.
As for ‘demanding’, I think not. I have never used the word demand, and suggest you cut and paste where I did. I have called out their fear. I have challenged people repeatedly by asking, over and over again, but no, I have never ‘demanded, anything.
You seem to have difficulty in differentiating between a question, assigning motive to it, and an actual statement. Not to mention your penchant for seeing things that are not there.
Yes, I admit I do not know the answer, and that is why I asked the question. I have said it many times.
Take a deep breath and think about it. Re-read some of the olde posts. Count to ten.
LOL.
Whoa, is that inflammatory language?
Answering your questions, as I have done before, as I have done with fulldroolcup (no matter how silly), and as I will always do.
I am afraid of women with mustaches, little else, well snakes too, but certainly not of answering questions.
Repeating for your beneift -
I don’t know, and that is why I asked the question, to know, and to get the facts. I have said so in many posts.
Nope. Fear does not have my tongue. How about you?
It’s never a complete waste of time to smoke them out and poke holes in their facades. As I would guess is also the case with you and others, I don’t respond to trolls to convince the trolls. It obviously can’t be done.
I know…and its fun.
They are like earth augers…the more they spin…
the deeper they dig themselves in…!!!
The z troll is whirring!!!
Heh.
When I asked z an obviously loaded question in #67 to point out the kind of fallacious argument he is making, he not only didn’t “get it”, he took the bait.
Heh.
For your edification, z, my question in #67 IS a loaded one, just as was your original about McCarthy.
My question wasn’t based on FACT any more than yours was.
My question simply ASSUMED reprehensible behavior on your part, just as yours did McCarthy.
QED.
Full;
Exactly…!!!
And, between the two of you, and with his unwitting assistance, you provided an excellent “teaching moment”.
I love demonstrating…and demolishing…the tactics of leftists.
Thank you for joining me in our little exercise here!
Did you even bother to read my repsonse in post #69?
For your benefit I’ll give you the first two lines.
You are quick to note ‘implications’, what is the ‘implication’ of me not taking you seriously? That I took the question seriously, but not you? What is the ‘implication’ of the words ‘play along’?
I deconstructed your question pointing out exactly where you assumed facts not in evidence, and where you made assumptions. Not going to do it again, go back and re-read it. You very well may learn something.
And once you learn it, come back and deconstruct my question from post #7 the same way.
Please pay special attention to any fact in that question that is wrong. Where assumptions are made. Don’t complain about the question, don’t offer any implications, don’t tell me about your feelings and opinions, don’t mention any words that aren’t in the question, just lay out the factual inaccuracies of the words used in the question. As I did to your question from post# 67.
Show me where in the question I assumed, or assigned, any reprehensible behaviour on the Part of Andy McCarthy.
And, here is some real bait. Put up, or shut up. Show me the lack of facts, show me the assumptions.
Again for your benefit, the original question -
Where was this guy and his opinion when the Bush Admnistration released 60 odd detainees from Gitmo?
Demonstratum?
The Ball is in your court.
But, as demonstrated, the z troll has no “balls” to put in the court…
We’re just making the rubble bounce here, but :
your question assumes that McCarthy should have objected then to what Obama and Holder are proposing now, even though (a) McC was never invited then to sit on a “task force” to chew the fat over a policy decision that Holder has already reached; (b) the policy decision McCarthy is primarily objecting to is discontinuance of waterboarding, not release of prisoners, and (c) at no time did the Bush administration ever threaten Clinton lawyers in the DOJ for their legal opinions on, say, rendition of prisoners to countries like Egypt that lack our fastidiousness about treatment of terrorists—yet Obama has left the door open to exactly that (a fact you curiously ignore).
To your specific question: At no time has McCarthy ever objected to the release of every Gitmo prisoner, as he and every other serious person following the cases remember that some detainees were considered to have swept up by mistake, or to have been “small potatoes”.
He, unlike you, also recognizes that some of those released have since gone back into active service with the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
So ya think he might now argue that, based on our experience, those still at Gitmo, having been through several rounds of interrogation and the vetting of the circumstances of their detainment, are too dangerous to release?
YA THINK?
As John Maynard Keynes was wont to say: “When the facts change, I change my mind — what do you do, sir? …
Finally, it very gratifying to serious Americans of every political persuasion to see Obama and Holder in fact quietly ratifying and continuing MANY of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism positions, on Gitmo, rendition, wiretapping, the “state secret” defense, and the continued use of military tribunals.
Go over to the lefty sites and see the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over Obama’s perfidy:
“How can we charge Bush and Cheney with war crimes if “we” are doing the same things??”
To borrow a line from The Rolling Stones, you’ve just been schooled with a strap across your back. Want more?
I guess z decided he’s had his “fair share of abuse”, to borrow another Rolling Stones line.
QED.
Nope. We’re finally getting you to be specific.
Nope. No such assertion.
If anything I assumed he had an ‘opinion’ then, and asked why didn’t he share his ‘opinion’ then.
I didn’t address invitations in my question. I didn’t address AG Holder in my question.
I had hope you would avoid speaking to things I did not say in my question. Typical liberal tactics, going on a tangent.
Again, not in my question.
The question does not speak to what are his objections, but to being consistent in giving his opinion. And if he were consistent, would he say the same things about what Pres Bush did?
[Note: To date pres Obama has not released any detainess, while Pres Bush already has.]
Andy McCarthy objects to several things, and I listed a few in post #7, of which, waterboarding was not mentioned, but release of detainees is.
Again, I did not mention Clinton, rendition, possible Bush Administration threats, or what doors Pres Obama left open in my question. More liberal tactics of redirection, diversion and distraction.
And, no I am not ignoring any facts. Were the issue was what Pres Obama is doing, I would certainly address that.
I thought you would be responding to my request that you deconstruct my question.
In the next discussion we can exchange veiws on Pres Obama’s policy.
I truly, truly, had hope you would avoid speaking to things I did not say in my question.
Again, not in my question from post #7.
And, McCarthy said the following in his open letter, linked by MM, ” . . . I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities . . . ” Sounds like an objection to me.
OK, maybe McCarthy never objected to the release of every Gitmo prisoner, . . . until now.
Again, not in my question, and more liberal tactics of destractions, diversion and changing the subject.
And, how would you know what I think, beleive, or know? You can try asking, but you seem to have a thing about questions. So, in the next discussion we can exchange veiws on what I know, think, or believe, about what the detainees released by Pres Bush are doing.
Again, not in my question.
I do not know what Andy McCarthy thinks, believes, or knows. But, I would certainly ask him. Just like I did in my question from post #7. I don’t know, so I ask.
My position on the detainees is that they should be tried. And, that it should not have taken seven years of kicking the can down the road.
Glad you asked, but that wasn’t in my question either. Taking a tangent, yet more liberal tactics.
I am still waiting for you to point out the facts in my question that you take issue with. You said in post #106, “My question wasn’t based on FACT any more than yours was.”
When I am presented with the facts, or non-facts, from my question, I will let you know if what Keynes says has any bearing on the issue.
So, please, please, stop your liberal tactics of redirecting, distractraction, and changing the subject and tell me about the absent facts from my question.
OK.
Though it could be argued that the Obama Administration is doing some of it slightly differently. Detainees will continue to be held, but eventually not at Gitmo. A difference without true distinction.
OH, again, this does not address any part of my original question.
I could care less about what an anonymous liberal is saying. You and I are having a discussion. Your liberal blog references do not help you deconstruct my question.
Want more?
LOL.
I am still waiting for you to point to where in my question I suggested Andy McCarthy is ‘reprehensible’, and that facts do not exist in it. Still waiting for your detailed explanation of how the question is ‘loaded’.
Since you asked, no I do not want more, I just want you to prove, by deconstructing my question, your assertions.
Is waterboarding, conducted within the listed guidelines really torture, or just really boring? I can hold my breath for 40 seconds under water let alone with a towel on my face. After an accident while exercising, I developed a severe chronic pain syndrome that is truly torture. Nothing these Gitmo Islamic mass murderers ever got compares to what I go through every day. The only sympathy they would ever get from me is a painless death. I give my thanks to the Bush administration for keeping the US safe despite the best efforts of democrat traitors.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/01/torture_no_except
Krauthammer usually says it clearly and well. This is another good example.