McCain’sFeb. 18 interview with Anderson Cooper:
He’s now hiding behind the “details” disclaimer, no matter that there aren’t any he didn’t know about.
Elected Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Partiers in Congress are angry over the Obama administrations release of these 5 specific terrorists.
It might be more accurate if you phrased as follows:
SOME elected Democrats in Congress disagree with the exchange resulting in the release of these five Taliban members. MOST Republicans, including the entire whack-a-doodle subset of Republicans known as Teabaggers, are simply upset that Obama pulled off the deal.
Some may question whether the five are terrorists. The Taliban was a legitimate government at one time (after seizing power with the aid of US weaponry) and they aid and abet terrorists, but are they truly terrorists themselves?
You might also add that these very same people would have filed impeachment charges against Obama if he had *left *One Of Our Servicemen over there.
How many of these guys fought against the Soviet invasion, back when they were patriots, before they became terrorists?
I’ve heard the argument that we were gonna have to anyway. If so, might as well get something for 'em.
“but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them” - one out of the five.
Yes, and?
Oh, wait - you think that said “exchange OF one of them”, don’t you? Better read again.
“Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.”
– Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), interview on CNN, Feb. 18, 2014
“We were never told that there would be an exchange of Sergeant Bergdahl for five Taliban.”
– McCain, interview on CNN, June 3, 2014
McCain, and other members of Congress including Feinstein, were not told that this deal was actually going down. They were told after the deal had been made. Congress objected to these 5 specific terrorists being released but were willing to discuss other trades - depending on a lot of the details. They would consider a swap but not for these 5 specific terrorists.
Elected Democrats and Republicans continue to publically object to the Obama administration’s handling of this issue. The Obama WH’s responses sound similar to the ol’ what-difference-does-it-make ploy.
It is clear what he said. Even the anti-McCain guy in Forbes editorial that was quoted earlier thinks that. As in:
“He later modifies his response to say that if the exchange were for one of these terrorists”
He “modifies” it now, yes. 
In the phrase “I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them,” the antecedent of “them” is “ways”. Simple English. As you know, and as McCain knows too.
No, he said it THEN. As the Forbes editorial mentions.
If you can bring me a cite for when he “modifies” it to say trade for only one of the terrorists now, go ahead.
Got a transcript?
McCain clearly said the proposal was to release five Taliban leaders - ‘five really hard-core Taliban leaders’. The number five. Leaders, plural. He says such an exchange would be one of the ways to bring Bergdahl home that he would consider.
That’s pretty clear.
Your link doesn’t show this, at least not that I can find. Can you blockquote the relevant portion?
You have the video. It is clear to me that he says he’d support it if the exchange was for one of the terrorists, not five. The Forbes editorial agrees with me.
So, he accepts the exchange in principle, but thinks that Obama didn’t haggle effectively?
Where does the Forbes editorial agree that McCain said he supported the trade for only one Taliban guy three months ago?
The editorial is commenting on the three-month-old McCain video:
"While McCain notes that he objected to an earlier proposal that would have called for releasing the very same high value terrorists as an act of “confidence building” with the Taliban, he clearly states that he would support the release of these people if the prize were to be the American soldier being held by the Taliban. He later modifies his response to say that if the exchange were for one of these terrorists—whom he told us just this past Sunday were people responsible for the deaths of thousands—he would support the deal.
Does anyone out there believe that the critics would have been silenced if the exchange had only involved one terrorist…or two…or three? If you believe that our policy of not negotiating with terrorists is the correct policy, does negotiating for the release of one high ranking terrorist make it better? Yet, there is Mr. McCain voicing his support for a deal that , just three months later, he would go on TV to condemn."
“Later” as in “later in the video” (since that particular exchange came at the very end of it). It cannot mean “later” as in “now”, since there is no McCain utterance from the last week or so that you can cite that refers to trading just one of those terrorists.
And so the President didn’t give him the chance to consider.