O’Reilly: So we wanted to know why the Attorney General hired these people and who the people were. Apparently the New York Times objects to those questions. Was there anything that I missed in this?
Goldberg: No. They don’t only object, they think it’s a smear. So let’s use the New York Times’ own logic. Let’s use their logic. They say we shouldn’t question the values of these lawyers who volunteered their time to defend the alleged terrorists. Okay that’s fine. Let’s say a right wing President and Attorney General hired lawyers to work in the Civil Rights Division, lawyers who had gone out of their way to defend members of the Klu Klux Klan. I think every decent person in the country would say why in the world would you hire those people? And they’d also say do those people have a philosophy or a point of view that might affect policy in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department? But you’re not allowed to ask….
O’Reilly: That’s a very, very good analogy. That’s an excellent analogy.
Uh...no it's not Bill. You know what's really ironic about watching these two have this idiotic conversation is that the Bush administration actually did put anti-civil rights zealots in charge of the Civil Rights Division. I don't think anyone would have been complaining if the only thing those men did was take a case where they defended someone who was in the KKK. They did their best to make sure that the poor and minorities in this country could not vote. Something I'm sure would not keep either O'Reilly or Goldberg up at night.
While opining over Andrea Mitchell's coverage of the Iowa caucuses where she made the statement that they were too white and too Evangelical to be representative of the rest of the country and weren't always good at selecting the eventual GOP Read more...