Sunday, April 26, 2009
Idiotic talk about torture and the Obama administration
First, he accuses Obama of "waffling" for first promising not to prosecute those who, acting on the legal advice given them, committed crimes, and then saying it was up to his Attorney General to determine criminality.
This is not waffling, though his initial statement was certainly less precise than it should have been. The President can't made determinations of what is or isn't criminal behavior, and must give his AG a light rein in making these determinations. This is simple separation of responsibilities, and good leadership.
What's crazy, of course, is that Rollins can't even figure out that there are sound reasons for Obama letting Attorney General Holder being, well, an attorney general. No, Obama is doing this because he wants to be loved!
Rollins, here's a hint: if you need to build up a pathetic strawman to be the foundation of your argument, you need another argument.
Rollins continues with his short sightedness in other areas as well:
Fortunately, because of the enormous talents of many federal agencies comprised of extraordinary Americans who work very hard at their jobs, the United States has not been struck in 2,781 days.
It's true, there has not been another major terrorist attack inside US borders. Maybe that's because we've been dangling a lot of valuable soldiers and expensive military equipment out in a war zone, where it's a much easier target... maybe they're just picking the low hanging fruit.
We don't know. The assumption that the foolish flailing of the Bush administration protected us is unsupported by facts.
On the other hand, Rollins has knowledge - knowledge he is quite calm about speaking on a national stage - that should set his heart at ease.
Releasing the Justice memos opened a door and the contents repulsed many people. But these were not evil men who drafted the memos. These were not evil people who carried out the methods authorized by them. They were our fellow citizens who were trying to protect us from the real evildoers.
Good. Then a full, fair investigation will show that there were no evil men involved, right? And since it'll all be in the open, the more evidence comes out, the better these "not evil" people will look, right?
So, let's investigate. Let's have a full, open, fair investigation, and see the clean, beautiful lack of evil that Rollins is so confident that we'll see.
I, of course, disagree that we'll find a lack of evil. But I'm more than willing to be shown to be wrong, if that's what the investigation reveals.