yah, about the shameless exploitation of the issue.
Bergdahl’s parents just happened to be wondering by the Rose Garden following the VA scandal.
Not seeing anything particularly inconsistent, especially if you look at the first sentence of the 2nd cite (emphasis added):
And, it would depend on the details. It seems reasonable to assume that one of the “details” is which exact Taliban prisoner (singular) is released.
I guess if you’re predisposed to dislike McCain* you can purposely read this in an unfavorable light, but I see no reason why one must read it that way.
*And, actually, I am predisposed to dislike him these days.
This has almost certainly been in the works for months (and likely years)-- if not, Obama gets a lot of credit for putting together one of the fastest major prisoner swaps across the whole planet in history.
They made attempts to get him back. it cost money, time and lives. those are all assets that could have been used to safeguard other soldiers. The ones who didn’t abandon their post. Your kid could have died looking for him. If you’re fine with that then I’m fine with your kid dieing for it too. It’s admirable that you feel that way. However, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect people to come after you when you forsake your country.
It’s just a coincidence that this coincided with a military photo op by the President immediately following the VA coverups. I hope and pray the terrorists released don’t kill more soldiers but that’s not a realistic expectation.
All I see is some blog with notes saying “right click to download”. What’s this supposed to prove?
The official WH story is that it all came together too fast to let Congress know.
The official WH story says that a possible exchange has been in the works for years, and Congress was informed on their progress (except for the last bit).
When I was in the service, I would have been willing to risk my life to search for a fellow sailor, even if he was accused of desertion, and even if he had supposedly left a note critical of America. Accusations and allegations and supposed notes due not eliminate the oath I took, and the commitment I made to my fellow servicemen.
Any deaths that resulted from such a search are tragic, and Bergdahl may well be culpable – but these accusations, allegations, and supposed notes have (and should have) nothing to do with whether we should try to bring him home.
I guess you’re certain he’s a deserter and a traitor, and that probably gives you peace of mind. Without the luxury of certainty, and with the oaths and commitments I made, I’m unable to dismiss a fellow servicemember and leave him for the enemy – even if he’s accused of desertion, and even if he supposedly left a note critical of America.
True enough, but the official WH story is that something changed, and closing the deal became urgent. First it was his health, but then it was reported he was in good health.
Maybe I haven’t read all the updates, but there is still something fishy about the WH’s official story.
I have to say, though, that thinking about it a bit more, I tend to agree with Obama that the 30-day notification period is too much Congressional encroachment on the executive’s constitutional authority during a time of war.
Armchair quarterbacking is great and all, but at the end of the day, we don’t abandon soldiers based on hearsay in the fog of war. First we bring back our fallen and captured, then we decide if they did anything wrong. Not the other way around. Soldiers are subject to the UCMJ, not on the whims of the Taliban.
Stars and Stripes is reporting he’s hospitalized at Landstuhl in Germany. “Bergdahl is in stable condition, but needs hospitalization for both physical and psychological issues stemming from nearly five years of captivity.” They’re not saying when he’ll return stateside, but when he does, he’s expected to be sent to the military hospital in San Antonio.
This doesn’t really sound like “good health.”
Adding 2 plus 2 (and possibly getting 5), I think he’s in the psych ward, and it wasn’t necessarily his physical health they thought was urgent.
Personally I think Obama has entered into the “kick the Republicans in the nuts” phase of his Presidency. At last.
First it is the EPA rules which will constrict the economies of places like Kentucky and Texas if they are not willing to adapt. Now releasing Taliban in exchange for our troops, unilaterally.
What is the debate here? Send the guy back? No. Obama made a decision and everyone is just going to have to live with bringing our boys home.
he wasn’t abandoned. We spent a great deal of time, money and risk to other people to find him. If he was the worlds greatest hero he is not entitled to an exchange with ruthless people.
So you oppose prisoner exchanges with “ruthless people” on principle?
You know, if Obama had refused to release the guy the right wing would be screaming about how we abandoned this poor soldier and how prisoner of war swaps should be a vital part of ending any conflict. And they’d be fighting any attempts to besmirch his character without due process and old man McCain would be deep in his" fellowship with another POW" mode.
This is why the right has no credibility anymore…they’re like a bunch of kindergarten kids playing “opposite day”
I do think the GOP is exploiting this issue (and they’d be exploiting the other side of it if the Taliban got tired of waiting and executed Bergdahl.) That said, I think McCain’s comments made it pretty clear that the devil was in the details, for him. Given that, you can’t really call him out for opposing the swap.
Can you believe how the right wing is just in reflexive anti-Obama mode:
Seriously, though, it’s a fallacious argument to claim to know what one side would be doing if events had turned out quite differently. Sure, you’re always going to have certain reflexive types who are never going to agree with Obama, but McCain has agreed with him on a number of occasions.
Perhaps, although I can’t imagine who they could possibly have evaluated his mental health in order to conclude that the prisoner swap had to be rushed. LIke I said, something is fishy about this story, and the WH is now backtracking about having kept Congress informed.
Frankly, I think the public would be mostly behind Obama on this so I don’t know why he doesn’t just claim responsibility, say it was an executive decision that is within his constitutional prerogatives, and just let this play out. The more they keep changing the story, the more it feeds into those who are trying to cask this in a negative light.
How has the story changed in any significant way? Sure, Susan Rice said he served with distinction (or whatever), but who has changed the story, and how?
Every politician will use the “devil is in the details” fig leaf to justify changing their opinion when the political winds change direction. That’s not a defense. His statements are clearly in conflict according to the flip-flopper rules the GOP plays by (anybody remember Kerry’s supposed “I was for the Iraq war before I was against it”?).
There is a whole thread on this board wondering if Bergdahl is being Swift-boated. That should tell you that questioning the GOP’s motives on this issue is pretty reasonable. Regardless of Bergdahl’s actions, I think most members of the military would agree that getting him back to the US is a worthwhile goal–if only to court-martial him–rather than leaving a man in the field, no matter what his supposed crimes (he has certainly paid a high price for them with five years in captivity). They should also be concerned with how quickly GOP leaders will throw one of them under the bus to score political points.