If he’d followed protocol then he would have the support built into it.
Built into what?
In my part of the world, among the people who talk politics at the diner or call into chat radio or write to or comment at the online newspaper, Obama is routinely denounced as a Marxist Muslim terrorist-loving traitor to America. That’s what “sells” in political rhetoric here, as in large swathes of the country’s midsection and south, and many of the local politicos cater to this. I’m not talking just about uneducated people; our governor routinely denounces “Obama’s EPA” for laws and regulations that were passed a decade or more ago. Among people who have defined themselves primarily as anti-Obama, what is the rationale to support a decision he made, ANY decision he made?
Congress is sharply partisan; most of the bills that pass do so because of somebody manages to build a coalition in the center, and outliers on both sides denounce the center. Your statement that “If he followed the law and the exchange was approved he could not be blamed because everybody involved directed the outcome” ignores the obvious point that unanimous votes in Congress on substantive matters are unheard-of in recent memory. The exchange might be approved by a slim majority, but it is not going to be approved by the “I vote against anything Obama proposes” crowd, and that crowd is QUITE noisy and vocal.
Some information was available. There was a non-disclosure agreement in place. The Rollingstone mag isn’t that popular with a majority, or even a sizable minority, of this country. Celebrities and politicians made off-the-cuff comments to people pointing microphones at them. New information is available. The Obama administration decided to release 5 dangerous terrorists into the world.
And again, an article appearing in Rolling Stone doesn’t make a big impact. Soldiers speaking out and garnering huge media attention does make an impact. It changed everything, in fact.
It changed pretty much nothing as far as how the politicians responded. The Republicans were going to oppose it because Obama was involved, not for any substantive reason.
And it’s good that Obama and company didn’t take into account the accusations and allegations. As I learned serving in the military, one’s duty and commitment to our fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are not affected one iota by the existence of accusations and allegations, even of a serious crime like desertion.
Of course it didn’t change how the politicians responded. But it did create a “thing” where there wouldn’t have been otherwise. Republicans complaining about Obama is a dog bites man story. Democrats and the dude’s fellow soldiers complaining makes it legitimate.
That article does not say anything about Congress being responsible for vetting.
Some democrats complaining about not getting the notice is not the same thing as Republicans complaining that it was a bad deal and should not have gone through.
Some fellow soldiers complaining that the didn’t like the guy and thought he ran off does ‘legitimize’ the idea of leaving the guy there when top military brass said we don’t do that.
Some people with legitimate criticism doesn’t legitimize all of it.
Congress demanded 30 days notice before any GITMO terrorists were moved. Congress wanted a say in the movements of the GITMO terrorists so they passed a law to make it clear to the WH that they expected to have input. Obama signed the bill so it’s assumed that he knew Congress wanted to some say in any transfers.
Obama (or Hagel?) chose to ignore the law, ignore Congress, and ignore the voting public. Obama knew he screwed up because he apologized to Feinstein.
What’s legitimate? Complaining about trying to rescue a soldier, even a soldier accused of a crime, is not legitimate. Criticizing Bergdahl’s family is not legitimate.
nor did I. They do have a voice in the matter after the vetting process.
You’ll have to define your own definition of legitimate. If a subject become public, somebody will comment about it. Everyone has their own opinion of what’s important to them.
Obama’s actions, Bergdahl’s actions, Bergdahl’s family member’s actions, Bergdahl’s squad mates actions and comments, Bergdahl’s neighbors comments, Hagel’s actions and comments, McCain’s comments, Feinstein’s comments, Ollie North’s comments, etc., etc., etc… are all fair game for comments.
You get to decide what is important to you and who’s comments are worth commenting on.
You left out the Afghans. They were also against the release of these 5 detainees because they represent a real danger to them.
Obama sidestepped the vetting process, Congress, and the government we’re suppose to be helping in the first place. 5 very dangerous people were released to a country that is not going to imprison them and also known for harboring various terrorist groups.
The reason stated for bypassing the regular process and the law was that Bergdhal’s life was in danger (no proof given) and a need for secrecy from Congress (not a problem for the Bin Laden mission which took years to put together).
“The Afghans”? Excuse me, there is such an entity as “The Afghans”? Do you mean that guy we installed as mayor of Kabul? Is he “the Afghans”?
Magiver claimed that Congress was responsible for vetting detainees. I disagreed.
As to your point, the President, per the appropriations bill, is supposed to give Congress a 30 day notice before he moves a detainee. That is not the same as ‘getting their input’. They don’t get a say. If they wanted a say, they should have put that in the law rather than asking for a notice. That would have been even more unconstitutional than the notice, so they didn’t bother.
Obama ‘messed up’ by not giving notice. Don’t pretend that not giving notice is the same as ‘didn’t get Congress’s input even though he is somehow obligated to.’
The article does not claim what Magiver was claiming.
The stakes were not exactly the same. Compare and contrast :
- a high stakes mission to kill or capture this generation’s Big Bad, the Symbol of All Evil on Earth; which anybody even vaguely suspected of possibly maybe have tried to get a little bit in the way of would have been* flayed alive*
- a prisoner exchange for a random nobody who most people haven’t heard of, who may or may not be all that patriotic, whose death would have barely lasted a news cycle on the front page and could still have been spun as Obama’s fault somehow.
Side-stepped what vetting process?
He didn’t give notice. Notice is not a vetting process nor an obligation to get approval. He was under no obligation to ask John McCain or anyone else if they liked the deal. He sidestepped the 30 day notice which, by the way, he issued a signing statement for when he signed the bill.
"If he followed the law then Congress, those charged with vetting the detainees, and our allies would likely have shut it down. "
I think I misunderstood your sentence structure there as ‘Congress are those charged with vetting the detainees.’
In any event, Congress can not shut it down, nor those who vetted it, nor allies through any following of any law.
When I later asked for evidence of Congress being responsible, you provided the article.
So do you agree that Congress has no legal authority in the release of detainees?
Are you saying that there is a legal process that if had been followed would have LEGALLY prevented the release of detainees? Or are you saying that the President should have just heeded their advice?