For as maddeningly frustrating as is the Obama Administration's reluctance to use the term "war on terror", it's nearly as galling that some mainstream Republicans assign malevolent motives to that reluctance.
And when Newt Gingrich claims the POTUS is more interested in terrorist's rights than American lives (here), it poisons the entire argument.
No one wants more terrorism -- least of all a sitting President who's going to be up for reelection. Even if you assumed every injurious thing possible about Obama, in terms of pure self-interest, he'd still try to stop the bad guys.
People have different ideas on how to fight terrorism. Awesome. Give Obama and Holder hell for theirs. But stop with the treason stuff. It diminishes the legitimate points, and Chicken Little can only stay a credible fowl for so long.
BILL-O: But look, do you really believe Eric Holder -- the Attorney General -- gets up every day, and says "You know, I'm more concerned with terrorists than I am my own family, protecting my own family?" Come on, that's impossible to believe.
NEWT: Why?
BILL-O: Why would any rational person want to give more protection to terrorists than their own families? Why would any rational person want to do that?
[Hat tip: Politico]
