Mr. McCarthy respectfully declines

posted at 1:36 pm on May 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

National Review’s Andrew McCarthy helped prosecute the terrorists who plotted and conducted the first bombing attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, putting several radical extremists behind bars.  Since then, he has become a must-read on counterterrorist policy and a critic of the impulse to fight jihadis through the American court system.  The Obama administration knows this and extended an invitation to McCarthy to a roundtable on counterterrorist policy, which McCarthy has politely — and publicly — declined:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases.  An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.”  I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith.  Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States).  Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues.  I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people.  Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

One has to think that McCarthy saw himself in the same position as Mary Ann Glendon at Notre Dame — given a position to be exploited, not to be heard.  The positions of the Obama administration have been well-known and well-established for more than two years now anyway.  A “roundtable” gives the appearance of openness but almost no chance at all of affecting policy in this DoJ or administration.  The only thing McCarthy’s presence would provide is a beard of bipartisanship while Obama and Holder pursue the policies on which Obama explicitly campaigned.

Besides, these days attorneys have to take care what advice they offer, lest they be publicly pilloried, or worse, as McCarthy makes clear in this zinger:

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct.  Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. …

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting.  After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

What would happen if McCarthy defended Jay Bybee on this panel?  Would Congress demand action from the Bar against McCarthy as well?  No one seems to be calling for the disbarment of Obama and Holder, despite their acting against the rule of law in these cases:

I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees.  According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training.  Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness.  But I can decline to participate in the charade.

If the Obama administration wants Andy’s input, they can read his book, Willful Blindness.  If they’re interested in diversity of opinion, they can prove it by making appointments that demonstrate a different policy direction.  “Roundtables” are nothing more than window dressing, and McCarthy rightly rejects this effort to exploit him for a bit of political cover.  He’s obviously more effective staying where he’s at.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

or you don’t believe in upholding the law. Which is it?

law says we must investigate any credible claims of torture. no excuse whatsoever. it’s a dilemma, isn’t it?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Obama’s reaction:

No? No? What does it mean, this word, “no?”

Daggett on May 1, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Perhaps he should ask Mr. Clinton, whose experience with the English language can come up with so many definitions of the word “is.”

gobblemom on May 1, 2009 at 7:12 PM

In the words of Mills Lane the deceased referee of many boxing title matches: “Let’s get it on”
thomasaur on May 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Actually, Mills Lane is disabled after having suffered a stroke, but is still alive.

I agree with your sentiment though. Indeed, “Let’s get it on!”

MoCoM on May 1, 2009 at 7:12 PM

law says we must investigate any credible claims of torture. no excuse whatsoever. it’s a dilemma, isn’t it?

sesquipedalian on May 1, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Law also says that anyone who commits felony perjury in front of a Federal Grand Jury is supposed to serve 36 months in Federal Prison. Tell us again why the previous Democrat was held to be above this law by you and your fellow Leftists.

And before you answer, remember that said Democrat President had previously had his Justice Dept. successfully prosecute a Federal employee for lying under oath about sex.

it’s a dilemma, isn’t it?

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2009 at 7:20 PM

If in fact Obama sets these killers loose in America, in clear and flagrant violation of federal law, would that pass the threshold of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” necessary for impeachment?

Rebar on May 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Careful, now! Four* words: President Joe Biden.

* (c) Joe-Math

VekTor on May 1, 2009 at 7:22 PM

What I find so astounding, after reading this thread and the one on DHS memos, is that DHS and Justice Dept seem to be working at odds with each other. Does anyone else see this as a problem?

On the one hand, we have DHS throwing out “labels” on the types of people that they consider dangerous…those against big government and for local/state control; those who feel strongly about a single issue (pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration); those who have served our country and received military training.

On the other hand, we have the JD wanting to ‘adopt’ the Uighers and give them free housing, free food, free medical, and assumably free FBI protection. And these are people who are against big government (they are separatists), they feel strongly about single issues (killing infidels), and they have received military training.

Maybe this is Obama’s idea of bipartisanship – to play both sides of the fence? In other words, to be an oxymoron, emphasis on the MORON.

Meanwhile, as I figure out how to keep my job and pay my bills, I get angry that Obama & Co are trying to integrate dangerous people into our communities. Will people be notified that there is a terrorist living on their block? My idea is to have a sign-up sheet, and anyone who thinks the Uighers should be released and given aid can be the first to open their homes and adopt them. How many Lefties do you think would do that? (Especially considering Joe Biden is too afraid to ride a bus!)

gobblemom on May 1, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Obama and his team are now effectively on notice. Any terrorist fallout resulting from their negligence should be measured within the context of Mr. McCarthy’s letter.

moxie_neanderthal on May 1, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Careful, now! Four* words: President Joe Biden.

At this point, I doubt even crazy Joe could do a worse job than The One.

Rebar on May 1, 2009 at 7:53 PM

What I find so astounding, after reading this thread and the one on DHS memos, is that DHS and Justice Dept seem to be working at odds with each other. Does anyone else see this as a problem?

gobblemom on May 1, 2009 at 7:36 PM

See “CIA/FBI Gorelick Wall”. Its creator should have been questioned under oath by the 9/11 Commission, but she got named to be a 9/11 Commissioner instead.

No doubt she has something incriminating on more than one Dem, and is being silenced. She also got off for her corruption as an “executive” with Fannie Mae.

Del Dolemonte on May 1, 2009 at 8:28 PM

The beauty part is that Andy McCarthy’s position on counterterrorist policy is now available through this letter whereas in the phony bipartisan roundtable, his thoughts would never have reached the general population and would have served as cover for the Obama administration to continue on its suicide pact with American security.

onlineanalyst on May 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM

I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States.

Calling out the administration for breaking the law!

Bravo, Mr. McCarthy, Bravo!!

TN Mom on May 1, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Somebody please tell Axelrod that “the party of no” is a meaningless slogan when the Dems are protecting “the party of Zero.”

onlineanalyst on May 1, 2009 at 8:36 PM

We are fortunate to have such honorable men as Mr. McCarthy in our midst.

And he’s a B.I.C. and a Hayesman to boot!

IrishEi on May 1, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Releasing known terrorists into the general populace is a great argument for the bodacious AR-15. For the price of 2 pairs of michelle’s shoes, you can get one too

Ris4victory on May 1, 2009 at 9:10 PM

I was a McCarthy follower-reader-fan, but now I’ve reached brand new territory with my respect for this man. If we could get some Republican politicians to show this type of courage, coupled with a principled stance, we could really show the country the difference between the two parties.

Bravo Mr. McCarthy!!!

Keemo on May 1, 2009 at 9:15 PM

The beauty part is that Andy McCarthy’s position on counterterrorist policy is now available through this letter whereas in the phony bipartisan roundtable, his thoughts would never have reached the general population and would have served as cover for the Obama administration to continue on its suicide pact with American security.

onlineanalyst on May 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM

He’s one smart guy and I’m sure that was part of his plan when he fired this “shot heard ’round the world.”

INC on May 1, 2009 at 9:27 PM

OMG Allah and all see this:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/05/01/establishment-media-ignoring-white-house-threats-chryslers-non-tarp-lend

Ok yeah it’s a lawyers bit, but worth the read. The thugs have landed. I have no doubt. Allah it deserves a worthy link.

As for Mc Carthy, AMERICAN HERO.

God Bless You, and keep you safe. And my “hope” is – others follow – fast. Where is Fitzgerald?

seesalrun on May 1, 2009 at 9:36 PM

If in fact Obama sets these killers loose in America, in clear and flagrant violation of federal law, would that pass the threshold of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” necessary for impeachment?

Rebar on May 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM

seesalrun on May 1, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Rebar, you mentioned High Crimes and seesalrun, it was at the end of your Newsbusters link. It reminded me of this article I read a while back. It’s from 1999. My emphasis in bold.

He quotes Ann Coulter:

As constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter correctly notes in her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors — The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 1998): “The derivation of the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached,” but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.

INC on May 1, 2009 at 9:47 PM

He also quotes Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, then a young activist lawyer, sat on the legal staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry which set forth a report on the “constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment.” Ironically, Mrs. Clinton’s very words on the defense of impeachment would come back to haunt her when Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) quoted them in a letter** to the president’s wife printed in The Wall Street Journal:

“…You said in 1974 that impeachment as understood by the framers of our Constitution, reflected the long history of the term used at least since late-14th-century England: ‘one of the tools used by the English to make government ‘more responsive and responsible’…

“You also noted then clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed impeachment presupposes or requires a violation of criminal law — that British history, to which our Founding Fathers turned for guidance, clearly envisaged impeachment as a tool to correct ‘corruption in office’ that ‘alleged damage to the state,’ and was ‘not necessarily limited to common law or statutory…crimes’…

“You find support for your properly broad interpretation of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ in no less a legal scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of Justice Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) supporting your proposition that ‘impeachment…applies to offenses of a political character…[that] must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty’…”

INC on May 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM

And Bill Clinton:

But perhaps, most ironic were the words uttered by an Arkansas law school professor who was running for Congress in 1974. In February of that year, Bill Clinton explained “high crimes and misdemeanors” as follows: “I think the definition should include any criminal acts plus a willful failure of the president to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. [Another] factor would be willful, reckless behavior in office; just totally incompetent conduct of the office and the disregard of the necessities that the office demands.”

And, on August 8, 1974, the young professor was quoted in the Arkansas Gazette: “I think it’s plain that the president should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding. I think the country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if he’d go on and resign. [There is] no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense.”

INC on May 1, 2009 at 9:49 PM

The beauty part is that Andy McCarthy’s position on counterterrorist policy is now available through this letter whereas in the phony bipartisan roundtable, his thoughts would never have reached the general population and would have served as cover for the Obama administration to continue on its suicide pact with American security.

onlineanalyst on May 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Fabulous post.

and other intelligent Americans with any integrity, soul & power will HOPEFULLY get the clue, respond and publicly shout the same and alert the masses.

If they don’t they too will suffer with us. Parlay self interest, I know you are reading – and think about your Country. DO YOU REALLY FEAR AN EMPTY SUIT? A COUPLE BILLION DOLLARS? THIS IS ABOUT OUR COUNTRY! Farmers, workers, TAX PAYING CITIZENS THAT ARE AFRAID.

Time to be heroes. All of us.

seesalrun on May 1, 2009 at 9:50 PM

“I think the definition should include any criminal acts plus a willful failure of the president to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. [Another] factor would be willful, reckless behavior in office; just totally incompetent conduct of the office and the disregard of the necessities that the office demands.”

Mr. Inc, I have not taken it all in, but in haste, I think the flyover of NY is cause enough for the ball to begin rolling.

I AM INCENSED.

seesalrun on May 1, 2009 at 9:54 PM

but as we deal with two/three/eight dramas a day, the Admin is just hoping we can’t keep up. They are probably right. After all, remember, the drama started right before the election and continues at rapid pace, whipping all with any intelligence into a frenzy. Perhaps a methods to means, but underestimating the American Public.

My “hope” is that is backfires so badly and they reach so far….that we NEVER EVER let this happen again. That the American Spirit, the AMERICAN VALUES STAND TALL and NEVER allow us to even APPROACH this precipice again.

Good Night America and God Bless.

seesalrun on May 1, 2009 at 10:00 PM

There is] no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense.”

INC on May 1, 2009 at 9:49 PM

I, as a private citizen, can site at least two.

seesalrun on May 1, 2009 at 10:13 PM

At this point, I doubt even crazy Joe could do a worse job than The One.

Rebar on May 1, 2009 at 7:53 PM

I’m beginning to think this wouldn’t be so bad. At least anything stupid and bad that Crazy Joe would do would be due to incompetence as opposed to deliberate and malicious which is what we have now.

AZfederalist on May 1, 2009 at 11:22 PM

seesalrun on May 1, 2009 at 10:13 PM

I’m no attorney and I don’t even remember how I stumbled across that article. I remembered it because it redefined high crimes for me.

(oh, and I’m a Mrs. No problem, just wanted to let you know!).

As an ordinary citizen I have such admiration for Andy McCarthy. With his experience, knowledge and access to a public forum like National Review and the web, he is a high profile voice who can speak for us.

INC on May 1, 2009 at 11:22 PM

I’d rather have Joe.

INC on May 1, 2009 at 11:23 PM

McCarthy is the hero of our times. Not, God bless his soul, Capt Phillips of pirate fame. He was brave but he did what he did to help his crew and himself survive. Admirable but not heroic. Like the magnificant US Air capitain Sully who landed in the Hudson and harmed not one passenger! These men acted within their professions and training. McCarthy has acted with a nobility against his own self advancement and possibily his public demise. He has spoken truth to power like no one I have seen in a long while and did it with such intelligence and the force of core convictions. Bravo Mr. McCarthy, well done sir!

inspectorudy on May 1, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Andrew McCarthy, you magnificent bastard!

PattyJ on May 1, 2009 at 11:35 PM

1. mccarthy is a birther who was still invited by obama to a roundtable on counterterrorism because of his experience as a prosecutor of al qaeda members.
2. instead of participating, mccarthy declares that because they disagree he won’t go.
3. obama comes away looking bipartisan for inviting him, even if it was only politics.
4. mccarthy, who in his current function as an NRO blogger has for long been spewing nonsense about obama’s various radical allegiances, doesn’t really sound sincere as to why he’s not willing to serve his country. in fact, he does exactly what obama expected him to do, and reinforces the demo message that he represents the party of no.

louder, cons, louder!

Good friggin’ God!. Make up your tiny mind. Do you want him to go, or don’t you?

First you say “eh, who cares. He’s unhinged anyway”. Then you say he’s being childish for not going. Which more or less suggests you think he should go. Then you say he should go, in the “spirit of bipartisanship”, and make his case. Then someone points out the obvious: the letter makes his case. Throughout all this you make character assasinations, which are illogical arguments.

This type of logical reasoning would make Spock’s head spin.

Actually, I didn’t even know it was possible for someone to lose both sides of their own argument.

Fed45 on May 1, 2009 at 11:55 PM

[Another] factor would be willful, reckless behavior in office; just totally incompetent conduct of the office and the disregard of the necessities that the office demands.”

But, you see, when you are a narcissist, in your mind nothing you do is considered willful reckless behavior.

Fed45 on May 1, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Good for you Andrew McCarthy. You sir, are a good man and a great American.

Trochilus on May 2, 2009 at 12:02 AM

I didn’t know you could sue lawyers for giving decision makers advice. This guy is very brave to write this letter. I hope he arms himself for protection.I can’t believe Obama is just going to let these trained savages at Gitmo loose. Just about every national security decision Obama has made so far has made us less safe. I have a bad feeling about this.

Dollayo on May 2, 2009 at 12:49 AM

They’re few and far between these days. A great American. Thank you.

Griz on May 2, 2009 at 1:00 AM

If we could get some Republican politicians to show this type of courage, coupled with a principled stance, we could really show the country the difference between the two parties.
Keemo on May 1, 2009 at 9:15 PM

The missing link in the GOP indeed

Noticable difference between the GOP and the DEMs is the strange need of the Obamians to form a rubber stamp committee to validate their actions post facto, while the GOP forms committees before the fact to keep the base from attacking, and sends out a swat team post facto to punish the base for protesting

The DEM rubber stamp roundtables no doubt come from watching too many re runs of the Wizard of Oz, wherein a certificate of proof becomes the proof.

Mary Ann Glendon and Andrew McCarthy stand far above the ever growing swarm of fakes. I salute them both

entagor on May 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM

We seriously need more people with this sort of courage.

Cylor on May 2, 2009 at 2:09 AM

law says we must investigate any credible claims of torture. no excuse whatsoever. it’s a dilemma, isn’t it?

what could be more torture than sucking a baby’s brain out in a late term abortion but does anyone investigate that? The baby dies while those who are waterboarded live on. This country lost its moral compass with abortion and now we worry about the feelings of terrorists who will behead us without blinking an eye. What is wrong with this picture?

kaye on May 2, 2009 at 5:17 AM

So, if releasing the Uighurs into the US is a violation of the law, why doesn’t someone (GOP? Anyone?) sue the Obama administration for blatantly violating the law?

Jay Mac on May 2, 2009 at 5:48 AM

First you say “eh, who cares. He’s unhinged anyway”. Then you say he’s being childish for not going. Which more or less suggests you think he should go. Then you say he should go, in the “spirit of bipartisanship”, and make his case. Then someone points out the obvious: the letter makes his case. Throughout all this you make character assasinations, which are illogical arguments.

what i think should happen and what is politically prudent are two different things. i certainly hope he’ll continue to make fool out of himself. but for him the prudent thing to do is not to issue a rant that gets lost in the ether immediately. he should tone down his rhethoric and respect the fact that obama’s working with experienced, responsible and non-partisan nat.sec. officials who support his decisions. of course he’s incapable of doing that because he’s a partisan hack driven by hatred and fear, but that’s not what i’d expect from a person with his pedigree.

sesquipedalian on May 2, 2009 at 7:34 AM

Excellent. McCarthy refuses to be used as a token by hard-core marxist, bent on conducting a witch hunt. Good for him. People of character must push back and resist The Marxist in every way, shape and form.

BottomLine5 on May 2, 2009 at 8:27 AM

At this point, I doubt even crazy Joe could do a worse job than The One.

Rebar on May 1, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Joe is merely a loose cannon and occasional idiot.

The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers is a lying, conniving megalomaniac bent on destroying our economy, abolishing our sovereignty, undermining our national defense, aiding our enemies, and much worse.

I’ll take uncontrolled idiocy over concentrated evil, thank you very much.

Daggett on May 2, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Dear God, please protect this nation against this nitwit, rock star president and his leftist groupies. Amen.

Ernest on May 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM

There are men among us.

Thank you Mr. McCarthy.

Thank you very much.

Saltysam on May 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM

of course he’s incapable of doing that because he’s a partisan hack driven by hatred and fear, but that’s not what i’d expect from a person with his pedigree.

sesquipedalian on May 2, 2009 at 7:34 AM

Do you have a brain? Yes? Maybe?

Why don’t you try using it.

darwin on May 2, 2009 at 1:21 PM

darwin on May 2, 2009 at 1:21 PM

i’m intimidated by the sheer intellectual force of your argument.

sesquipedalian on May 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM

i’m intimidated by the sheer intellectual force of your argument.

sesquipedalian on May 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Then you’re in luck. All kinds of “hate” legislation floating around Congress these days … maybe you’ll be able to have me arrested and jailed for intimidating you. You could do that to anyone who challenges your comments, that way you won’t have to worry about being “intimidated by the sheer intellectual force of my argument” or anyone elses.

darwin on May 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM

darwin on May 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM

you hate me so fanatically i might have to have you waterboarded.

sesquipedalian on May 2, 2009 at 2:05 PM

he’s incapable of doing that because he’s a partisan hack driven by hatred and fear, but that’s not what i’d would expect from a person with his pedigree.

If he is that bad, why would O-hole ask him to come to a high level meeting? Is O-hole unhinged?

I am afraid, Gentlemen and Ladies, that it won’t be until we have had some deaths from the Man-Made Disaster Initiators that O-hole will be removed from office. I foresee some mother or father of dead children leading an uprising of angry Americans while we count the dead from a Man-made Disaster caused by a Gitmo retiree. Clinton ate Waco by the skin of his teeth (even with his using the revenge Oklahoma bombing for sympathy). Janet Reno never recovered. But thousands of deaths through stupidity will destroy the O-hole’s presidency. Already people are not paying their taxes, going to Tea parties, organizing against him. One huge disaster, or a series of preventable small ones, will bring him down.

GunRunner on May 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM

you hate me so fanatically i might have to have you waterboarded.

sesquipedalian on May 2, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Wouldn’t you prefer to rendition me? That’s when the real torture happens. Call the White House and see if they have any available seats on the next flight out.

darwin on May 2, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Andrew McCarthy for President!

evensteven on May 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM

One of the most eloquent “screw you” letters written! Makes you just say “ouch!” Thank you Mr. McCarthy!

Coastal Paradise on May 2, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Careful, now! Four* words: President Joe Biden.

* (c) Joe-Math

VekTor on May 1, 2009 at 7:22 PM

I don’t care about that anymore!

Joe Biden couldn’t possibly be doing any worse than Obama. Of that I’m convinced.

And if he did, we’d impeach him for that too.

And if Pelosi did, we’d impeach her for that too.

And so on down the line.

Point is, we need to hold these men (and possibly women) responsible for their actions. If it means dealing with someone who’s potentially worse, well, they need to be taught the same lesson to then I suppose.

Chaz706 on May 2, 2009 at 5:13 PM

And one more thing: The last great McCarthy of history actually was roasted because of him going after a known and serious threat. As much as many leftists would hate to admit: he was right. There was that kind of Soviet influence and it was harming us from within.

Now the next McCarthy is standing on the same podium. I wish him the best of luck and hope that he doesn’t get tarred w/the same brush as his predecessor did.

Chaz706 on May 2, 2009 at 5:16 PM

evensteven stole my insightful comment:
“Andrew McCarthy for President!”

Why isn’t the GOP talking to people like this to run for higher office. I have rarely read a more politely screw you letter in my life. Thank you sir for having the manhood to speak the truth!

AndAwayWeGo on May 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Mr. McCarthy has shown principle and patriotism. I would vote for him for Governor or Senator without even knowing anything else about him.

Star20 on May 2, 2009 at 9:05 PM

he should tone down his rhethoric and respect the fact that obama’s working with experienced, responsible and non-partisan nat.sec. officials who support his decisions

So Barry has already decided? If so,then why have the meeting. Barry gonna do what Barry gonna do.

And if, as you say,the “officials” support Barry’s decisions, then that immediately disqualifies them as experienced and responsible

Fed45 on May 2, 2009 at 9:14 PM

So Barry has already decided?

he’s the decider.

sesquipedalian on May 3, 2009 at 7:45 AM

he’s the decider.

sesquipedalian on May 3, 2009 at 7:45 AM

Yes we know. “I Won.”

What a petulant shallow mind.

GunRunner on May 3, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Wonderful letter Mr. McCarthy. Finally, less and less people being used as pawns by this regime. Soon he will only have his Biden, Pelousi and Reede bobble heads to bolster and inflate his ego, because Axlerod and Emanuel would have scurried back to chicago like the rats they are.

oakpack on May 3, 2009 at 3:58 PM

This is who should have been the first Black president.. She way out-smarts and out-classes Obama…

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/05/02/missing-condi/

reshas1 on May 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM