Obama signed an appropriations bill into law, one small piece of which included the part you’ve detailed, and at the time claimed he didn’t accept the constitutionality of it. This is a far cry from signing a bill into law that was specifically written for that and only that part. If Congress doesn’t like it, they can bring up impeachment and/or challenge the president’s authority to ignore that part of the bill. The fact they aren’t doing either makes me question their ability to succeed with both.
Terrorists? Were they terrorists when they were fighting against the Soviets, with weapons supplied by us? Did some pretty nasty shit to some of those Russians, so they were terrorists? Or did they become terrorists when they had the poor judgement to resist us?
No it didn’t, not even using the worst possible characterization of each from whatever source you want to cherry pick.
The mass murder accusations are from he same organization that think that Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for crimes against humanity.
2:35
He does not refer to ‘one of the terrorists’, he refers to an exchange of prisoners as ‘one of the ways’ to bring our soldier home. We already went over this.
Here is the word-for-word quote of what McCain said at the end of the video (bolding mine):
“I would support — obviously I’d have to know the details — but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
If exchange was one of the ways of bringing him home, McCain says its something we should seriously consider.
You are incorrect. Again.
You definition of “terrorist” is self-serving and legally questionable. It is a commonly understood principle that native peoples have a right to resist foreign invasion. A right we supported when it was convenient and we could stick it to the Soviets.
That would make them legitimate combatants, whether uniformed or not. That would make them eligible for the sort of prisoner exchange that is a common practice.
And you are “sure there are quite a few holding places in Afghanistan”? Perhaps you will offer us your top secret security clearances for our perusal?
No, as I said (and Forbes editorial that discusses that video agrees with me) it is one of the terrorists. We already went over this.
A far cry? A bill is a bill. The bill, and all of it’s contents, was passed into law and Obama signed it. It’s the law.
There doesn’t seem to be any penalties or fines associated with what Obama did. It would be interesting to see how the State Dept paid for this transfer.
You are incorrect. Again. McCain refers to one of the terrorists. And again, as I showed you, the Forbes editorial agrees with me, not you.
Okay, that may or may not have been what he MEANT, but do you acknowledge that, by the rules of the English language, that is NOT what he SAID?
LOL. I watched the video. I typed the quote, word for word. It’s not clear at all that the Forbes editorial agrees with you (all he says is ‘later’, which you interpret as ‘later in the video’, but I interpret as ‘three months later’). But even if he does agree with you, he is wrong.
Watch the video. Type out the quote and show me how that can possibly be interpreted to show McCain is only referring to one terrorist.
What special authority is invested in the Forbes editorial board? Is it because of their reputation for strict non-partisan candor?
For the record, and I encourage everyone to watch the video, McCain does not refer to one of the terrorists.
Here is the quote. Again:
“I would support — obviously I’d have to know the details — but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
How could that possibly be parsed such that McCain is saying he would only support the exchange if it was for one of the gitmo prisoners?
I agree that Presidents should veto bills they determine to be unconstitutional, but signing it does not make it constitutional, and if it’s a “must-pass” bill, the President has been known to use signing statements as a sort of line item veto.
I don’t like it, but it is what it is. What I like less than anything else is a Congress that thinks it can legislate on any subject it desires.
What he said, by the rules of the English language, can mean either.
If you think it is three months later, cite?
English language understanding. No need to type out the quote since you already did. But if you insist:
“I would support — obviously I’d have to know the details — but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
“One of them” as in “one of the five terrorists”.
It certainly isn’t because of the tone of the editorial, which thoroughly excoriates McCain for flipflopping, without granting him the “modified” interpretation that friend **Terr **insists upon. Even *Forbes *does not agree with what **Terr **says *Forbes *says.
Oh, so its “ambiguity” now, is it? Retreating from total clarity, are you?