Who is we? The administration? Or the US? One that requires congressional approval?
I don’t think so. It all seems to center around the 5 High Level Taliban guys. But if they knew who these guys were, then what’s the problem. Something just doesn’t seem right here.
On reflection, that aspect gives the clue to the real situation. Obama wanted to release those five guys as a way underlining ‘the war is over’ and at least
symbolically addressing his promise to close Gitmo. Bergdahl was secondary, though they seem to have thought they could gain political points with that aspect. Not running it past anyone in Congress was simply because the relevant senior people in Congress had know of this deal when it was previously suggested, and were against it. Back when Obama had a less pliable SecDef (Panetta, a serious person who happens a Democrat v. Hagel, a renowned dunce who happens to be a Republican) he was also against it. Obama didn’t run it by Congress because they were going to say no.
As far as die hard reflexive Obama supporters, the ‘we never leave anyone behind’ line is all they have, so they’re going to go with it. What else can they do? But IMO that’s not the main reason this deal happened. And to be fair, a few of the comments in favor of the deal have stumbled at least into the vicinity of the truth (eg. ‘they aren’t terrorists they were defending the country blah blah’ ie the main idea was to let these Taliban guys go, something which the senior people in Congress who might have been brought into the loop, for example Feinstein, wouldn’t have agreed to).
no there is a panel made up of intel people who are familiar with those held at Guantanamo.
I know you’re not saying that was definitely true, but it’s still worthy of a chuckle. It occurs to you that bad faith among members of Congress to deliberately leak a life or death secret is ‘not inconceivable’, but doesn’t occur to you that a more subtle form of bad faith by Obama underlies the entire deal? That is, the supposed reason is ‘we never leave anyone behind’ when it’s a lot more likely than ‘not inconceivable’ that the actual motive, or a good deal of it, was specifically to let the most senior and dangerous Taliban guys at Gitmo go, to cement the legacy of ‘Obama ended two wars’ (in histories to be written in the near future by left leaning historians) and make a gesture at the goal of closing Gitmo. And that Bergdahl was secondary, and the main attraction of him was the domestic political feel good moment they (albeit mistakenly) seemed to think would be generated in the Rose Garden ceremony with Bergdahl’s parents. IMO more than a few actual facts of this fiasco line up in that direction, whereas your suggestion of bad faith has no facts or examples.
And the Obama WH apologized to Intelligence Committee Chair Feinstein the following day for not telling her about this deal. They must have known they had screwed up. (Or Obama is just used to apologizing to women. 
)
The Obama WH had informed Congress about the Bin Laden raid well in advance of sending the choppers. That seems like a much more important event with a higher level of security.
This! Imagine that it came out that we had been offered a deal – our heroic POW serviceman, held in darkness, pray for him – in exchange for five slobs held in Gitmo – and Obama had said no. Forget him. Leave him in darkness. “Man left behind.” Not worth the price.
The Tea Party Republicans would be up in outrage.
They’re always up in outrage. That’s all they’ve got!
I’d like to know what these “actual facts” are. Because, assuming that all goes according to plan, and when the war in Afghanistan ends, it will be patently clear Obama did in fact end two wars. No cement necessary, as it were.
Except he wasn’t heroic. So while you’re making shit up why include one where the President follows the law.
C’mon, the point isn’t whether or not he is heroic, it’s in how he would have been portrayed by Republicans. Spun, if you will. If Obama had “left him behind”, exactly what do you think the reponse would have been?
How he’s portrayed by Republicans is irrelevant. How he’s portrayed by the people he served with has a far greater impact on public opinion.
Again, that’s not the point here. The point is that Republicans would most probably have spun things in a different manner if Obama had not chosen to make the exchange. What do you think, say, McCain would have said if Bergdahl ended up dying in Taliban’s hands?
And I realize this is all conjecture, not really even a debate. But do you think McCain or other Republicans, not to mention veterans, would have been okay with such a scenario?
I think you’re right about that. I just dispute whether it’s the point. Not doing something wouldn’t have made much of a ripple in the media. We’ve got a soldier unjustly imprisoned in Mexico and only the right-wing press seems to care. Needless to stay, the President can weather any “storm” caused by the partisan press, assuming he’s even aware of it. But by making this deal, he drew scrutiny, and rightfully so. The Republicans are barely even relevant to this. They are acting predictably, but Democrats, the media, and Berghdahl’s fellow soldiers are the ones that are making this a thing.
Look at how Bergdahl was portrayed in the media in the years before his release. *Rolling Stone *and a few other outlets made the effort to do a fairly balanced portrayal, but most of the times Bergdahl’s name was brought up, it was in the context of the poor downtrodden soldier held in miserable conditions through no fault of his own. I don’t believe his platoon-mates’ portrayals would have gotten anywhere near the attention, would not have driven the narrative, if there wasn’t points to be scored against Obama.
Sarah Palin: “Todd and I are praying for Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, his family, and all of his fellow soldiers who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom and protect democracy abroad.” – 2009
Allan West: “Then there is Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl still held by the Islamic terrorist Haqqani network, probably in Pakistan, in the same place where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. This past POW/MIA national day of recognition, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterated a pledge to secure the young Army NCO being held captive, but have there been any actions? Any time, attention, or even mention from the Commander-in-Chief? Nah, no camera highlights in it for him.” – 2013
Jim Hoft: “Horrible. Obama to Leave US POW to Rot in Afghanistan After Withdrawal” – 2013
Two of these quotes, you notice, are AFTER the Rolling Stone article. That the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture were at best murky was already public knowledge, but the narrative was still the brave serviceman in enemy hands.
That assumes that the media was out to get Obama. What actually seems to have happened is that appearing with Bergdahl in the Rose Garden was so offensive to his fellow soldiers that they felt compelled to speak out.
As for Palin and West, it’s one thing to hear about a Rolling Stone article. Quite another to hear from his friends’ mouths. Makes much more of an impact.
To go back to the Rose Garden thing, that was the mistake. If the President shows a little restraint and doesn’t rush to take credit for something he shouldn’t be taking credit for, then it probably doesn’t step on the toes of Bergdahl’s platoon mates. And then we don’t have as much of a story.
If he followed the law then Congress, those charged with vetting the detainees, and our allies would likely have shut it down.
Just to be clear, I was refering only to Magiver’s statement about the non-heroic nature of Bergdahl in response to Trinopus’ post, not to any larger issues being discussed here.
So you don’t think if Bergdahl had died in Taliban hands that much would have been made of this? That Obama would not have been excoriated by, take your pick, Republicans, veterans, or even certain Democrats?
No. If he followed the law and the plan was rejected he could not be blamed because everybody involved directed the outcome. If he followed the law and the exchange was approved he could not be blamed because everybody involved directed the outcome.
I honestly have never heard that Congress has this charge or is responsible in any way in determining the danger, importance, or any other factor of detainees in the transfer or release process. Do you have a cite that explains this?