The original Bergdahl story was something about his being left behind on a patrol. His brigade had to sign a non-disclosure agreement about the incident, which greatly reduced the chance of any factual information being uncovered until recently.
The comments by Susan “I should sleep late on Sunday mornings” Rice riled Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers, which lead to their taking to the internet to express their displeasure with Bergdahl. The media finally took a major interest in the story.
Many people currently believe that Bergdahl is not a hero (but he should be brought home), these 5 specific terrorists should not have been released, and the Obama WH are piss-poor negotiators.
Elected Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Partiers publically object to the Obama WH ignoring Congress and the selection of these 5 specific GITMO terrorists for release. Now there appears to be some in the WH who are pointing middle fingers at Chuck Hagel as being the actual decision-maker.
The appropriations bill required that Congress be given at least 30 days notice. Congress wanted a say in what happened to the terrorists at GITMO. The Obama WH knew this. And chose to ignore Congress. Actions have consequences (or payback is a bitch).
The release of these 5 specific terrorists had been previously discussed several times and the idea of releasing them had been shot down several times. The actual decision to release these 5 specific terrorists seems to have come as a complete surprise to Democrats and Republicans in Congress, except for Hairy Reid.
Have you actually READ the Rolling Stone article published in 2012?
However many subscribers and readers that magazine has (a million? two? more?) found out two years ago that the guy walked away after a string of emails home expressing grave dissatisfaction. Anybody who bothered to look for factual information had no problem finding it. Your argument doesn’t hold water.
Obama routinely gets blamed for actions he had absolutely no part of (e.g., one poll of Louisiana Republicans found they were slightly more likely to blame Obama than Bush for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, three years before Obama took office), so I’m asking why do you think merely following the law and involving others in the decision would absolve him of blame?
He’d have been blamed, but it wouldn’t have been as big an issue. By bringing Bergdahl to the Rose Garden, he elevated the issue in a big way.
I’m actually surprised that he made that choice. This is the kind of gray area that should have been done on the downlow. I maintain that without the Rose Garden press conference, the media interest in this story would have been much reduced.
Well, well, well, look who’s offering his 2 cents: Oliver North. He’s accusing the president of paying the Taliban a ransom. I suppose Ollie thinks that Obama should have traded them weapons instead?
Yes and 11% of students in the US can’t locate their own country on a map and 29% can’t find the Pacific ocean. Bush was eviscerated over Katrina and his name regularly comes up in politics even though he’s been out of office for years and hasn’t said 2 words since then. If you don’t want to discuss this thread that’s fine but I posted a simple statement of logic. Had Obama followed protocol this would not have happened.
Everything that every President has ever done gets criticized. To the extent it sticks depends on what that President did. In this case, he chose to go it alone and and is now getting criticized from both sides of the fence.
Two years ago is not five years ago and there are more people who do not read Rollingstone than there are readers of the magazine.
From the very beginning, some 5 years ago, there has been a lot of confusion about what Bergdahl did and how the military had responded. Many public and private figures have been asked about Bergdahl over the years. Their answers depended on what they currently knew about Bergdahl at that particular point in time.
I am discussing this thread. I am disagreeing with your notion that had Obama followed protocol this would not have happened.
In a more normal political environment, perhaps you would be correct. However, in today’s hyper-partisan environment, I don’t believe ‘fairness’ or ‘correctness’ or ‘legality’ have much to do with it. Had he followed protocol, some on his own team would likely be happier, but the guy can do nothing but wrong as far as the right-wing pundits and blogosphere are concerned.
Had he followed protocol, the headlines might read “Obama and Dems Set Terrorists Free!” instead of just “Obama Sets Terrorists Free!,” but how very different is that? The same people who are repeating long-debunked memes about the stand-down order in Benghazi and the birth certificate forgery would have some new grist for the mill.
My point is that factual information about Bergdahl has been readily available for years. In fact, I’m not sure that there is anything really new and astonishing that has come to light in this past week that wasn’t already known and publicly available two and three and four years ago. There are some new faces speaking, but they are saying stuff that isn’t new.
In fact, way back in July 2009, within just days of his disappearance, reports that he had “just walked off” were on CNN and MSNBC and other mass media. When Allan West and Jim Hoft made their remarks quoted above, this information was out there. They could have known about it had they made any even rudimentary effort to find out before speaking out publicly.