If he did later modify his response, it wasn’t in that video.
But since the Forbes guy knows proper english, and writes clearly, then when he says this: “The only problem is that just three months ago, Senator McCain, appearing on CNN, voiced his support for the very same deal that he now finds to be so profoundly disturbing.” – we know he really means it.
The very same deal.
Maybe McCain ‘modifies’ his response later, but it wasn’t later in that video.
Yes, it was, since the writer is discussing the video.
You haven’t actually watched it, but you’re telling someone who *has *what’s in it? 
BTW, you gotta love the pretzels some Obama supporters are twisting themselves through trying to deflect criticism. Like the one that said that only one of the five Taliban leaders released is a “hard-core terrorist”. The other four - well apparently they were not “hard-core”, although, as the guy admitted, they “are tied to massacres and other war crimes”. I guess “massacres” are not “hard-core” enough.
Well, who are you gonna believe ? Terr, or your lying eyes ?
Listen to the video at about 1:30, where he says “exchange of prisoners for our guy”. Prisoners, plural. Although, it’s not entirely clear that he’s talking about the same 5 High Level Taliban guys that were in the original offer.
He doesn’t have a line item veto. Signing it puts it into law and he is not above the law. If he thinks it’s unconstitutional then he can argue it in court where such things are determined. He is not entitled to hand wave it off.
This was a dangerous deal made against the law of the land and against the will of our representatives and our allies. These were 5 very dangerous people. Obama screwed this up and it’s all on him. Not McCain, not Kerry, Obama.
“Exchange of prisoners” is the expression even if there is one prisoner on one side and one on the other. Also “prisoner exchange” even if there are 1000 prisoners.
I disapprove of signing statements but there is nothing to prevent a president from disobeying a law, even one that he signed, and letting Congress take him to court if they think the law is constitutional.
That’s not at all clear. And in any case, McCain did not say that, so the writer’s opinion on it is not particularly important.
Further, the writer says that McCain later opposed the very same deal. Not a deal of one guy, but the very same deal.
Those words have meanings.
Exchange of prisoners for our guy. More than one prisoner exchanged for our guy.
Except that he said “for our guy”. Without “for our guy”, you’d have a point. But with “for our guy”, he could have said “an exchange of a prisoner for our guy” if he only meant one prisoner.
EDIT: Ninja’d by John Mace. Maybe great minds think alike.
There is a question of standing. I believe when President is disobeying the law, the SC has already ruled that Congress cannot take him to court, since they cannot show direct harm. The only venue, really, is impeachment. Which, since impeachment is an extreme measure, makes the President basically free to ignore laws.
Again, “exchange of prisoners” is the expression. Like you can say “Prisoner exchange for our 100 guys”. Doesn’t mean there is only one prisoner on the other side.
Terr, you really should concede this McCain thing.
Pretty sure that isn’t how the process works.
We have freed lots of folks from GITMO, Bush having freed many of them, many of whom have been shown to come back to haunt us, some of which haven’t. The very fact we have GITMO is dangerous. Piling all of that on the release of these five seems like more of the same partisan attacks on a president that some think can do no right. At least we got one of our own back for these five, there’s very little to indicate we got anything for the previous ones.
I agree that he did. But I do not believe the 30-day requirement is constitutional, and Obama’s signing the bill doesn’t make it constitutional. And since SCOTUS rarely intervenes in legal disputes between the other two branches(why they did with the line item veto I’ll never understand), it’s for them to work out.
I’m confused. If Obama told these Senators all this info, why is the WH claiming they couldn’t reveal details of the deal to Senators for fear of leaks to the press? And I’m talking about Feinstein, who certainly is senior enough to be in the loop, and who claims she was blindsided.
And we have a vetting process for that in place.
I am not saying these three things are accurate or factual, but these three things are not mutually exclusive:
It is not inconceivable to me that considering the recent political climate, letting Congress know too much ahead of time might have resulted in certain members of Congress leaking details in a very biased way in order to torpedo a deal.
I continue to read this idea that the White House shouldn’t have done this deal without Congressional approval, but that’s not a requirement, not even for the section of the appropriation bill that specified a 30 day notice to get funding for prisoner transfers.