Mar 062010
 

First here is video of Liz Cheney’s attack ad, condemning Eric Holder for hiring lawyers who had previously represented detainees held in the GOP Gulag in Guantanamo.

 

Lizard The backlash is growing against Liz Cheney after she demonized Department of Justice attorneys as terrorist sympathizers for their past legal work defending Gitmo detainees — and now it’s coming from within deeply conservative legal circles.

On Friday, the conservative blog Power Line put up a post titled, "An Attack That Goes Too Far." Author Paul Mirengoff, called Cheney’s effort to brand DoJ officials the "Al Qaeda 7," "vicious" and "unfounded" even if it was right to criticize defense lawyers for voluntarily doing work on behalf of Gitmo detainees.

Reached on the phone, Mirengoff offered an even sharper rebuke, contrasting what Cheney is doing to the anti-communist crusades launched by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and, in some respects, finding it worse.

"It could be worse than some of the assertions made by McCarthy, depending on some of the validity of those assertions," Mirengoff said, explaining that at least McCarthy was correct in pinpointing individuals as communist sympathizers. "It is just baseless to suggest that [these DoJ officials] share al Qaeda values… they didn’t actually say it but I think it was a fair implication of what they were saying."

Mirengoff isn’t alone among conservative legal theorists who think the ad campaign by Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe, is distasteful. In a statement to the American Prospect, John Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, called the effort "unfortunate."

"It reflects the politicization and the polarization of terrorism issues," Bellinger said. "Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be attacking officials in each other’s administrations based solely on the clients they have represented in the past."

Likewise, the Huffington Post reported on Thursday that back in 2007, Ted Olson — who served as a lead counsel in Bush v. Gore and solicitor general of the United States — co-authored an article for Legal Times in which he said that efforts to demonize detainee defense lawyers are antithetical to American values.

"When government officials are called ‘war criminals’ and when public-interest lawyers are called ‘terrorist huggers,’ it not only cheapens the discourse, it scrambles the dialogue," Olson wrote, along with Neal Katyal, currently a DoJ Deputy Solicitor General and one of the lawyers who represented Gitmo detainees. "The best solutions to these difficult problems will emerge only when the best advocates, backed by weighty resources, bring their talents to bear. And the heavy work of creating solutions for these complicated issues can only move forward when the name-calling ceases."

Cheney, for her part, shows no signs of relenting…

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

I think the Lizard was too stupid to realize just how wide a net she was casting, as dozens of GOP lawyers have done the exact same thing.

Here, Lawrence O’Donnell and David Corn discuss the issue in more depth.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lawyers are professional liars.  It’s their job, so we have to cut them some slack about it.  In our adversarial justice system zealous representation is both a right and a necessity.  Even if lawyers believe the exact opposite of what they are saying, it is their sworn duty to say it as though it were their most cherished belief.

For Lizard Cheney to produce this attack ad is a despicable shot below the belt.  While it says nothing genuine about the integrity of the lawyers she accuses, this ad speaks volumes about hers.

As a side note, given their professional expertise, perhaps lawyers should be excluded from running for public office as legislators.  Only the most successful lawyers do so and to achieve that success, they must be the most accomplished liars.

Share

  7 Responses to “Even Conservatives Oppose the Lizard of Lies”

  1. Here is Liz Cheney’s CV in regards to speak for America. she was the product of her draft dodging father at a time when Johnson doubled the draft.

    Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.

    May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, “available immediately for military service.”

    July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

    Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

    Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, “deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family,” because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

    July 28, 1966: Elizabeth Cheney is born.

    Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.

    Dedicated students of obstetrics will observe that Elizabeth Cheney’s birth date falls precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service publicly revoked its policy of not drafting childless husbands. This would seem to indicate that the Cheneys, though doubtless planning to have children sometime, were seized with an untamable passion the moment Dick Cheney became vulnerable to the Vietnam draft. And acted on it. Carpe diem!—-http://www.slate.com/id/2097365/

    Odd how the chickenhawks seem able to pull the fever of violence but never are willing to do the dirty work of it.

    What will disappoint me AGAIN is if the president moves these trials back to military commissions because of the hue and cry from the right. If we truly believe in our constitutional form of jurisprudence then we have no fear of these defendants in court.

  2. Hi TC,
    I have mixed feelings here. While personally I would like to see Liz Cheney waterboarded, in fact the entire Cheney family IMO should be waterboarded-to be fair anyone with the last name of Cheney should be waterboarded just to play it safe-I also feel anyone who attacks a scumbag like Holder is right to do so, kind of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” school of irrational thinking.

    I realize scumbags like Holder play for both teams, good and bad alike, whoever slips him the $-but his work on behalf of United Fruit Company ( Instead of the dancing banana their logo could be a dead Indian child with an American shareholder standing nearby and smiling) in my mind paints his as a bought and sold terrorist.

  3. Mark, that’s great research. By comparison, in 1967 I dropped out of college to work full time for peace and civil rights, knowing that I was losing my student deferment by so doing. I determined to choose jail, if called for the draft. People like me, who put our freedom on the line for our beliefs were heroes. People like you who answered the call and served, putting your lives on the line for your beliefs, were heroes. ChickenHawks like Bush and Cheney were cowards.

    Oso, I appreciate your perspective and fully agree with the sentiment behind it. However, I suggest that it is more productive to support justified attacks against him rather than than Lizard’s unjustified attack.

  4. Family values. She’s learned her lesson well.

  5. She certainly did, Tnlib.

  6. Lizard (I love the name, but I’ll come up with something else worse soon) is following right in Daddy’s footsteps. She may be even more obnoxious than him, but she’ll have to work at that. When conservatives are calling you out, you know you crossed the line. Lawrence was excellent in his points however,

  7. I agree, Lisa. Ske not just Lixard, but the Lizard of Lies.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.