What bearing do the objections of “people” have on whether it was the correct decision?
What evidence do you have to support your assertion that Obama did the exchange in order to hasten the closing of Gitmo?
I don’t get your point. If something goes wrong–either because we don’t make the exchange and Bergdahl dies in captivity, or because we do the exchange and the five Taliban guys go back to waging jihad–Obama bears the brunt of it because it’s his decision. So if anyone’s likely to have really thought this through carefully, strictly from a political self-interest perspective, it’s more likely the president than the two senators. That’s why if I’m giving either party the benefit of the doubt, it’s the president. For some reason you’re elevating the opinions of the two senators above that of the president.
Is there any evidence to counter the belief that there was a note, that Bergdahl wrote? The NYTimes (among many others) seems quite convinced of this.
The people who read it know what it said, and have disclosed its contents to others. His fellow soldiers seem to know about it, and it has informed their view of the situation.
Really, it seems remarkably lame to take the position that there may have been no note, or that someone else wrote it, or that no one knows what it said. Is anyone but you embracing this position?
You have my promise that I’ll formally apologize and call you stunningly incisive if the note proves to have been a fake.
I’m not saying it’s a fake. I’m just amazed that some people think stories about reports about a soldier saying there was a note is enough to not value this soldier enough to try and get him freed from enemy captivity.
You honestly think stories and reports about what soldiers are saying about this guy is enough that we should have valued him less? I’m very, very glad that people in charge didn’t think this way when I served.
Xema, what you’re suggesting is that, because there is some evidence that he didn’t like America (which he’s had no chance to respond to), and there’s evidence he left the base (again, with no chance for him to respond), we shouldn’t have valued him as much as another soldier who had been captured.
Apparently, these accusations and supposed note is enough for some to, effectively, sentence a US soldier to death-by-Taliban-captivity.
Not for me. Thankfully, not for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Again, I agree with what General Dempsey said: “the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity”.
My time in the Navy taught me that my duty and commitment to my fellow servicemembers demand that this is the only possible answer.
Hello, Rose Garden photo op by the President. He’s the one that did this and made a public display of it. Obama negotiated with terrorists over this and released 5 of the worst killers. He did this without notifying Congress, against the advice of the inter-agencies who are set up to vet dangerous captives and against the wishes of the Afghanistan government.
He negotiated with terrorists, which just about every President since Carter has done. He released 5 guys that may be bad, in exchange for an American soldier. “5 of the worst killers” is just silly hyperbole.
A reasonable criticism, which might be allayed if the reports of rapidly deteriorating health are true (and they might well be true… it’s not exactly unprecedented for prisoners to rapidly decline in health).
We don’t know this – some news articles report that some agencies who previously opposed the transfer changed their minds when the reports of Bergdahl’s health changed.
Oh no, against the Afghan government’s wishes! How horrible!
From your linked post -
*On Tuesday, BuzzFeed identified Richard Grenell, who once served as an aide to U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and later worked for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, as playing a key role in publicizing Bergdahl’s critics.
“My role was to ask the firm to help facilitate the interviews for free. Brad Chase agreed to do it. He is handling all the requests. He isn’t political. I originally spoke to Cody, the leader, via Twitter then asked the firm,” Grenell told The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein.*
If Grenell is to be considered a Republican operative then his business partner Chase should be considered a Democrat operative. After all, Chase said he’s a Democrat. Chase and Grenell agreed that these soldiers should be allowed to tell their side of the Bergdahl story.
It just strikes me as unseemly how Democrats are exploiting the whole situation for political gain.
The U.S. should have tried to free Bergdalh from what might be considered enemy captivity. I’m glad they were successful. I don’t believe these five specific terrorists should have been freed from GITMO. But my priority is not to dump the GITMO terrorists back onto the street so GITMO can be closed.
Question: let’s do a theoretical (that is, forget Bergdahl for a second). Should US government try to get back, by exchanging several high-ranking enemy combatants, a US Army member who deserted? Not “alleged to have deserted” - but one that deserted, no ifs ands or buts. Or do US obligations to the man end with the desertion?
