A very well worded EFFU to the surrender monkey.

"...a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president's first obligation to protect the American people"

Spot on!

Obama and Holder are not going to like this. They don't appreciate people using their words and actions against them. Bad form and all that.
Even the asshats are pissed. No way to spin this.

hahahaha
that was good

Uh oh, the Metrosexual-In-Chief is not gonna like this. I wonder which one of his minions will have to lower himself to put another ungrateful subject of the realm in his proper place.

first reaction: it's another variant on "going John Galt."

Kudos to Andy McCarthy.

I've enjoyed reading McCarthy over at NRO for years. This just reconfirms why I do. An extremely well-versed and articulate lawyer who's a class act all around.

The only winning strategy is not to play.

-WOPR, 1983

CLEARLY Andy McCarthy needs re-educating!!

The advantage to be one of the early ones into the re-education camps is that you get a LOWER NUMBER...which means a smaller (and thus less painful) tattoo!!

jus' sayin'

Kudos to Andy McCarthy! Now, if more conservatives would openly take a stand like this for the sake of the country.

Why help the govt do anything the slightest bit controversial when you stand a chance of being outed later and hung out to dry, especially by this administration.

I bet the recruitment for the SPec OPS folks is WAY DOWN.

Mr. McCarthy was exactly correct when he dissected and then re-introduced their stated record on the issue back to them and then told them why he will not be joining their merry little tea party.

In a word he told them to go get bent.

Please. LOL. McCarthy is a rabbit in the neocon zoo at National Review. One of those whom Ann Coulter referred to as "girly men". He doesn't have enough pedigree (such as neocon Bill Kristol at Weekly Standard) to risk *disappointing* his sponsors or of *striking off* on his own by meeting with Hu-mans of Earth-planet.

In fact, I believe McCarthy's sponsors are afraid "his" vaunted policy and legal positions might be found untenable by real people in real life and possibly leaked to "his" chagrin and public inconvenience, i.e. McCarthy is an empty suit for being afraid of other supposed empty suits. Bad, bad PR from das Dumkopfs an NR.

ByanD: I suppose you trash the guy if you can't counter his argument?

"ByanD: I suppose you trash the guy if you can't counter his argument?
14. Posted by RicardoVerde"

Show me a lawyer (McCarthy) who doesn't wish to advocate his opinions on the stage of history (as opposed to closed-circuit bulletin boards which might go *poof* with the electrical grid) and I'll show you an off-the-rack polyester empty suit.

I take that as a "yes".

Actually I agree with you a little about lawyers, but they are sure nice to have when you need one. It was, however, a well stated argument he made.

Ricardo,

McCarthy posits (to the hoi polloi, the real p.r. target of his open letter/e-mail) that his participation in a roundtable meeting puts him in legal jeopardy, while allowing it actually DOES NOT do so through his use of weasel words such as "tantamount to (a violation of the law").

Mind you, this set of individuals around McCarthy set themselves up as conservative commissars and as agents of some ideological avant-guarde, yet are ever in the flux of performance anxiety when the chips are down. They are fair-weather fusiliers encouraging McCarthy to now claim the philosophical equivalent of having a headache.

Dear Herr Sixpack, Please excuse from your common sense the fact that Little Andy can't etc. etc. etc.

bryanD - Following your example of debate as it's displayed from your first comment and continues to the last posted...

... you're a blithering idiot of the first order!

Marc, your insult selector is stuck on 2006.

Question, though. Would YOU refuse to attend an Obamalamarama meeting feature Boris and Natasha and pass up a chance to fuck with them in a debonair manner? To be Jeeves to their Wooster?

Or, being an officer of the court, as McCarthy is, submit a scalding minority opinion and be interviewed about it for the next 2 years or more, for profit?

Me fucking either. McCarthy is a slave or a coward or...an empty suit. Like I said. And the open letter is all spin.

Can we talk here? I know Bryan isn't the subject, but as I began to read the block quote directly following, "One of our liberal trolls pipes in about Mr. McCarthy," I knew who it was after the first sentence. BryanD's style-over-substance laden ad hominems when discussing any individual's role in government or issue is so immediately identifiable it would take a completely clueless individual to not recognize who the author is. His commentary is filled with obscure yet explicit references and metaphors, with a jumbled and mangled concept flow working overtime, impressing few but himself. I pray I never become so enamored with my own opinions that it becomes more important for me to speak in a fashion that I find so clever and so splendidly expressive that I think I'm sucessfully hiding the fact that all I'm doing is calling someone a big dumb dummyhead.

Think about it. What did BryanD say in those two paragraphs? We're first treated to the code word neocon followed by the appeal to authority, Ann Coulter, who's labeled McCarthy a "girly man". (That authority he appeals to is who he thinks is our authority, because it's certainly not his). Then we get into McCarthy's lack of a "pedigree", which is undeniable proof that he's not speaking from the heart or from actual knowledge, but because ... what? McCarthy's afraid of his precarious (and likely undeserved, due to an anemic pedigree) position at NR and they're afraid of what his "real" feelings are? How do we know this? a) McCarthy has refrained from meeting with the "Hu-man" race in order to please his sponsors and b) his sponsors are afraid that "real people in real life" might not like what he really thinks. It's all really very cabal-ish and crafty, see? But Bryan's got it all figured out. Not to fear.

And what else? Bryan wonders aloud why McCarthy doesn't participate when he could get loads of airtime "on the stage of history". I mean, after all, there's not a lawyer in the world in possession of any principles. They would, to a man, trade principle for fame. Excuse me, but ... lol. Why should he join in? So that long after McCarthy is dead and we're living the socialist dream our descendants can say, "He was right" ? This is, of course, providing our illustrious media feels compelled to report any of the leaks they can glean out of this "round table".

Me? It's my contention that McCarthy doesn't participate for the very reason Republicans in the House and Senate are loathe to join in any of the latest Democrat round tables and legislative abominations; it's painfully obvious that Obama doesn't want to temper his ideas with other opinions. He only wants to give the appearance of doing so. (Oh, he'll throw a small meatless bone here and there and make a big deal out of it.) Then he can use words like "bi-partisan support". As if the very nature of one's attendance connotes support or agreement.

Why do you think they worked so hard to get support from certain Republicans for legislation rather than work on their own stray kittens? The cry of "Bi-partisanship!" would ring hollow.

There are things in my life I'm willing to compromise on and some things I'm not. I'm sure most of you feel the same way. Why should McCarthy be any different? Why should he accept a pat on the head for playing a role in helping others avert any damage to their political careers in order to achieve a predetermined end?

Oyster, thanks. That was interesting. True, my writing style leaves much to be desired here. It's a comments board; not the place to exercise blank verse or technical writing. Can't type so time is of essence.

Regarding ad hominem attacks and personalization of argument, here's the way it is:

One assays the crux of a thing not by high falutin titles, bills of particulars, mission statements, etc. But by WHO is behind the thing and WHO these people are and what they've done before.

The few "leopards" in history who are known to have genuinely changed "their spots" (Saul of Tarsus. Anyone else?) proves my point.

A.McCarthy: a public lawyer who begs off lawyering in public. I'm positive that he's embarrassed about it. He's allowed himself to be sucked in with the wrong crowd of very well-connected folks and is leery of stepping away. Have you ever read/seen The Firm?

As for the "codeword" neocon: the origins are well known (Sidney Hook and the Mexican defense "trial" of Trotsky against Stalin's charges of anti-Leninism (verdict"NOT GUILTY" of anti-Leninism. Whoopee!), mentor Leo Strauss, Young Peoples' Socialist League, I. Kristol, Pro-Vietnam War Democrats, etc)

Anyway, the following is a nice short glimpse inside the time capsule catching the takeover of the Bush administration by the neoconservatives while it is happening. Like an image from the Hubble telescope for wonks! A must-read. Very short.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46994-2002Mar18¬Found=true

"One assays the crux of a thing not by high falutin titles, bills of particulars, mission statements, etc. But by WHO is behind the thing and WHO these people are and what they've done before."

In some instances this is true. However, I may be more prone to listen to one's reasoning if said person didn't consistently dismiss overt intentions in exchange for covert conspiracies as a fall-back when they just can't seem to figure it out. And especially when said conspiracies are always right of center.

By the way, cute article. I love a good conspiracy. "Infiltration". "Sleeper cell". "Mind control". It gave me chills. Especially when it's so perfectly obvious and we know full well who the mastermind is. Some shadow conspiracy there.

"And especially when said conspiracies are always right of center."-oyster

Big government, open borders, military crusaderism. That's Bush's legacy perfectly in line with Trotsky's, not right-of-center within the American experience. Nice flag pin, though!