Wrong and wrong. While there are many questions that remain to be answered, people want to see Bergdahl brought home. Some for a parade and some for a court-martial.
The big question is whether these five specific terrorists should have been released (plus whatever else the WH gave up) to secure Bergdahl’s release.
Hillary? Is that you?
Don’t you mean Ol’ Hillary? Does anyone else hear a broken record around here?
“All Things Bergdhazi”
Would you be okay if the American was a good old wholesome boy who had an NRA membership and voted for McCain?
So is a Taliban member worth 20% of an American soldier? Is he worth more or less than that figure? If you think Obama gave up too many Taliban for Bergdahl, then you’re also saying a terrorist is worth MORE than 20% of an American soldier and that Obama overvalues the troops. So your side fucking loves the troops, except when Obama thinks they’re worth more than you do.
So far nothing has come out that I didn’t hear years ago. Just because you weren’t following the story doesnt mean it didn’t exist. But blame it on a conspiracy and it’s a good way to hand wave it away.
Hard decisions have to be made. Would you be okay if Obama gave the terrorists a nuclear device (one of the small ones) to secure Bergdahl’s release?
I don’t think being in favor of an investigation by the military followed by a court martial if indicated followed by the sentence to be meted out by the military justice system is handwaving it away. Saying “fuck it, some people say he’s a traitor so let’s outsource our military justice to our enemies” is not a rational response.
Are you against prisoner exchanges on principle, or just this one? There may be good reasons why the exchange was a good one, and there may be good reasons why it wasn’t.
You’re in favor of an investigation. I’m in favor of an investigation. It’s like we’re twins!!! :eek:
You’re the Danny DiVito character.
Whoever said there was no such thing as a stupid question was never asked this one.
Obama said the Taliban guys were worth 20% of an American soldier. You’re apparently upset because he overvalued the worth of the soldier. Why don’t you support the troops?
I don’t know what to make of this deal. It seems like such a bad idea that I’m wondering what the “catch” is.
If Obama seriously just released these five terrorists as it seems this has no upside for him. Some day in the future when one of them is responsible for an attack it will be Obama’s fault.
The only thing that makes sense here is that there’s something we don’t know. Maybe they all are Lojacked with GPS so we can follow them. Maybe the military will kill them all with drone strikes as soon as the year is up. Maybe there were other elements of the deal that weren’t made public.
There’s got to be some explanation for this, beyond the facts as they seem now. I disagree with many of Obama’s policies, but this is such a bad move it’s out of character, even for him.
Prisoner exchanges are not exactly something new – Israel rather famously exchanged about a thousand Palestinian prisoners for one Israeli soldiers, and we’ve exchanged prisoners with terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan before.
I think a lot of people are overestimating the worth of those five guys. It isn’t like they were irreplacable to the Taliban. Whatever they knew when they were captured is now out of date. They’ve been passed over by other people who weren’t on hiatus for years. It’s not like anything they knew how to do was particularly hard to come by. If they escape Qatar and went right back into the terrorism business, what would they be able to do that others couldn’t?
The mental gymnastics some of you are conducting to justify being haters…shameless.
No, it’s not a spurious answer. It has nothing to do with how easy it would have been to notify Congress. It’s that Congress lacks the constitutional power to compel the President to notify them. Saxby Chambliss and Dianne Feinstein could have been camping out of the floor of the Oval Office in their jammies and the President could have asked them to step outside so they didn’t hear what he was talking about.
Please note I am not saying Obama’s decision was a wise one, or that I approve of it. I’m just speaking to the law.
Sure. That’s the other side of it. As president, he gets to make the call, not Congress. But as president, he gets to own the results.
The release of these five specific terrorists had been repeatedly discussed by the Obama WH and the Congressional Intelligence Committee. The answer was always the same. No, do not release these specific GITMO detainees. This time, the Obama nation decided to skip the notification of Congress part of the GITMO transfer process. They might have believed that this was the only way to get these specific terrorists out of GITMO?
Was Obama’s primary concern to release these five terrorists? Was Bergdahl seen as a means to their end?
I support U.S. troops. Why do you support the release of terrorists?
(bold and underline added)
Did Obama really say that the Taliban guys were worth 20% of an American soldier?
Of course not, but that’s the deal that he brokered. I buy your car for $1000. Did I say your car was worth $1000? No, but that’s what I paid for it.
You’re correct – Senator Obama was wrong then, and now, as President Obama, he’s right.
So what’s the correct thing to do now? We can certainly point out Obama’s shift in position, but it doesn’t transform the actual law. Obama is correct is his current position: the President can’t be bound by such a law. To the extent that he said otherwise in the past, he was wrong.