»» Columnists

Eugene Robinson Calls Out Liz Cheney and…Keith Olbermann?

by Tommy Christopher | 10:49 am, March 10th, 2010

» 11 comments

Despite the absurdity of the Liz Cheney/Keep America Safe “Al Qaeda 7″ ad, and the fact that Cheney’s group sounds like its mascot ought to be a pee-pants version of Woodsy Owl, the spot has been generating a lot of heat. Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and frequent Countdown contributor Eugene Robinson wrote a scathing op-ed yesterday attacking the fallacy behind the ad, but it could have easily been directed at his friend and colleague, Keith Olbermann.

Here’s the ad that everyone’s so worked up about:

Before I get to Robinson’s piece, I’d like to point out a few things about the ad. First of all, I maintain that this is comically absurd, the kind of logic that can be defeated by a 3rd grader who’s seen even a few episodes of “Schoolhouse Rock,” but what’s not funny at all is the reckless threat of violence embedded in the ad. What is a safety-minded patriot supposed to do once the shadowy figures, in league with the terrorists, are revealed? Set up a perimeter?

The ad also contains a subtle smear of ABC News. In the screenshot above, the ad lists the news source for the ad as “ABC ‘Serious Concerns’ About Obama Appointees Who Backed Gitmo Detainees.” This gives the smear the patina of legitimacy.

In reality, the article to which they are referring is “Republicans Slam Attorney General Eric Holder Over Terrorist Defense Lawyers at Justice Department,” with the subtitle “‘Serious Concerns’ About Obama Appointees Who Backed Gitmo Detainees.”

It’s a deliberate attempt to mislead the viewer, and ABC News shouldn’t stand for it.

The crux of Eugene Robinson’s argument is simple, and is aided by now-hot founding father John Adams, whose defense of British soldiers from the Boston Massacre is being whipped out these days like it’s showtime at the Congressional shower:

In other words, they did what lawyers are supposed to do in this country: ensure that even the most unpopular defendants have adequate legal representation and that the government obeys the law.

Liz Cheney is not ignorant, and neither are the other co-chairs of her group, advocate Debra Burlingame and pundit William Kristol, who writes a monthly column for The Post. Presumably they know that “the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’ representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre” — in other words, older than the nation itself.

Obviously, I couldn’t agree more, and I look forward to Eugene’s next appearance with Keith Olbermann, where he will hopefully remind Keith that “zealous representation of unpopular clients” (like Citizens United) is a patriotic imperative, not justification for being compared to a Nazi:

Olbermann (mildly) apologized for his general over-the-top-ness the following night after being embarrassed into it by Jon Stewart, but not for the Floyd Abrams Nazi comparison. When Keith does return to his Countdown anchor seat, perhaps he will remedy this, with Robinson’s help. Absent this, he will remain aligned with Liz Cheney, and unable to grasp, as Robinson writes, “the concept of shame.”

ABC News, Al Qaeda 7, Countdown, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Eugene Robinson, Floyd Abrams, Jon Stewart, keith olbermann, Liz Cheney

The Real Royal King

I have to say that I am most thankful to Eugene Robinson, one of America’s truly great columnists, for his calling out Liz and Cheney, Inc. for its/their Neo-McCarthy attempt to hijack our nation, both with O’Donnell and in his column.

The ad could, in a vague way, be applicable to Olbermann. I wouldn’t object to Mr. Robinson making it explicitly applicable.

Again, many thanks, Mr. Robinson. You have done America and Americans a great service.
ImNotBlue

Okay, so first off… nobody is saying that the terrorists (or alleged terrorists) shouldn’t be (or have been) represented. That really isn’t the argument, is it?

Rather, the argument is that we should be able to know who these people are, and why after running down to Cuba to work pro-bono on a defense for these guys, they’re now working for the government. In other words, why were they so eager to work with the alleged terrorists? Are they just very strong patriots, and believe that their participation really helped democracy? Or were they trying to make a name for themselves? Or were they trying to help people they felt were ideologically aligned with, or at least sympathetic to?

As Bernie Goldberg said (and as I’ve said before), if the President hired 7 lawyers to work on drafting new civil rights/hate crimes laws, all who had done a bunch of pro-bono work for white supremacists… wouldn’t you want to know WHY they had done that work, and WHY they had been hired?
Jim R

Or they answered an urgent request from Defense Department lawyers on a weekend, specifically asking for their help; not that it matters to some.
MichelleF

As Bernie Goldberg said (and as I’ve said before), if the President hired 7 lawyers to work on drafting new civil rights/hate crimes laws, all who had done a bunch of pro-bono work for white supremacists… wouldn’t you want to know WHY they had done that work, and WHY they had been hired?

This is a great question, INB, and I’m interested in your answer King. I’m asking you because you and I can have a respectful debate, but I haven’t had the same success with Jim.
Azarkhan

Real A: ” I am most thankful to Eugene Robinson, one of America’s truly great columnists…Again, many thanks, Mr. Robinson. You have done America and Americans a great service.”

Real A, it’s not sincere unless you actually go and kiss his ass. Since he’s black, I know you will no problem doing that. Pucker up, buttercup!
Tommy Christopher

Michelle, INB,

actually, this ad isn’t making any argument when it calls these attorneys “the Al Qaeda 7,” and asks “Whose values do they share?” It’s deciding it.
Jim R

There is no debate, they were called to duty and answered it. It is beneath contempt to slander lawyer’s motives, debate over.

On your point about Keith, Tommy, I too hope he apologizes and retracts his contemptible comments regarding Mr. Abrams.
The Real Royal King

Representation by counsel is a fundamental right, and it is a right, like many, which extends not just to citizens. Most lawyers take that very seriously. In so doing, they are working at two (2) levels: for the client and to uphold the principle for all of us. And, such work is often done pro bono. The parallels are not exact, but you might remember some time ago the ACLU sought injunctive relief in Illinois for a KKK march in Skokie, an affluent, disproportionately Jewish suburb of Chicago. This undertaking was at great cost to the ACLU, but the ACLU regarded an infringement of First Amendment rights costlier. The ACLU finds the KKK an anathema, and I have no doubt the individual legal professionals involved found their clients repulsive, yet it gave these individuals adequate representation. The victors were not a small group of racist fringists, but the Constitution and each and everyone of us who might have need for such representation in the future. In the instant matter, I don’t think we know all of the details, which may be the crux of the issue as INB suggests. We might suppose that the concerns are much the same as Skokie, although dealing with a different Constitutional amendment. It is even possible the DOJ contacted these attorneys to offer representation, in hopes of negating the Constitutional representation issue.

As for the non-disclosure of names, I can understand some concerns over that. However, some of the known names have received death threats and even had their children reviled at school. Perhaps, the legitimate safety issue outweighs the value of the disclosure.
ImNotBlue

Jim R says:
March 10, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Another possible scenario… so why won’t the DOJ say that?

Tommy Christopher says:
March 10, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Fair enough. But as we all know (anyone who has worked in television or media, or watched it for more than 30 seconds), sometimes you need to be a little over-the-top to make any waves at all. Perhaps the ad (and I think I’ve said this before) is a little “out there” in its presentation… however the underlying question, the real meaning behind it, seems pretty clear.

Cheney is allowed to draw her own conclusions, mainly because do DOJ hasn’t clarified them for her. When you ignore the obvious issue (and let’s not forget, this story broke BEFORE Cheney made her commercial), you reap what you sow. If DOJ can’t or won’t give the full story, they leave themselves open to interpretation.

Jim R says:
March 10, 2010 at 1:40 pm

There is no debate, they were called to duty and answered it.

But why were THEY called to duty? What makes THOSE guys so special?
ImNotBlue

The Real Royal King says:
March 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm

I think you hit the nail on the head (weird as that is to say), it’s the disclosure of it all… not the “crime” but the cover-up.

And if the worry is about exposing these folks to dangerous elements in our society (which I don’t really think we can use as an excuse… fear mongering?), I might be convinced that just releasing their mini-resume would be enough. Let us know why these guys were selected, and what they’ve done to get this far. Their names… eh… not as important. At least, not IMO.
http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Boyer/602168764 John Boyer

“First of all, I maintain that this is comically absurd, the kind of logic that can be defeated by a 3rd grader who’s seen even a few episodes of “Schoolhouse Rock,””

Go ooooooooooooon…