Well, Kerry said what he said, and although you didn’t quote him exactly, that’s pretty much what did say.
McCain’s statements are simply not inconsistent.
Statement 1: We should not trade 5 High Level Taliban guys for a promise that the Taliban will renounce violence.
Statement 2: OK, if we’re talking about trading one (unspecified) Taliban guy for 1 US soldier, I might be able to support that, depending on the exact details.
Statement 3: We should not not have traded 5 High Level Taliban guys for 1 US soldier.
Now, if you want to make the argument that some right wingers have, in the past, twisted similar statements from Democrats amid charges of “flip-flopping”, and that you now what to use the same tactics on McCain… well, that’s an entirely different argument than the one you made in your earlier post.
Agreed; at this point Obama should just own it and defy the Republicans to rant and rave against rescuing captured members of the military.
But unfortunately that hasn’t been Obama’s style; he seems instictly adverse to political conflict, and I think he still believes his technocrat, stick-to-the-facts style will win the day. After suffering thru six years of birth certificates, death panels, “you lie”, the debt ceiling, the IRS targeting the tea party, Bengazi!™, “you didn’t build that”, “you can keep your insurance”…and as a result his party is poised to take a beating in the mid-terms, I have no idea why he isn’t more confrontational (since conciliation clearly hasn’t worked).
The GOP may be making things up, but it seems to work if he doesn’t forcefully challenge their narrative.
Yes, it does seem like Obama tries to avoid conflict. Some of those accusations are against him are bogus, even the “you didn’t build that” even though it was sloppy phrasing on his part. The IRS issue and Benghazi, certainly mountains made out of mole hills.
But “you can keep your insurance” was an outright lie, and he’s been called on it by a number of independent fact checkers (the Washington Post gave him 4 Pinocchios for that one). He should never have said that.
I agree that it’s generally a fig leaf. This is an unusual case, though, because McCain isn’t falling back on an excuse. He’d already said his position depended on the details. Contrast Kerry (to use your example) supporting the Iraq invasion, rather than hedging by saying “I would support invasion if the administration provides conclusive proof that Iraq has WMDs” or whatever.
If we really need to take a trip down memory lane, Kerr’s “flip-flop” noted above was about later war funding, not the war itself. He vote for the continued funding before he voted against it. Supposedly when he voted against it he knew it was going to pass anyway.
This is probably for a different thread, but the Washington Post fact check has been challenged because ACA allows plans in existence at the time the ACA was passed were grandfathered in. The ACA does restrict certain price increases for these plans, but it’s not as though the insurance companies have no choice in the matter of whether to cancel.
If people thought that Obama’s pledge meant that he would freeze the insurance market – in effect have the government take over the industry and prohibit any changes to existing policies – then the WaPo is absolutely right, Obama broke the pledge. However, if people interpreted the pledge as meaning that the ACA would not directly eliminate the insurance plans that people had at the time, then Obama was being honest; the ACA did not end plans that were in effect at the time the plan was being passed. Hardly worth 4 Pinocchios (whatewver that means; what’s the exchange rate from pinocchios to Super PAC dollars these days?)
A thread that’s already been done, btw. The WaPo uses “Pinnochios” to rate how big a lie a given statement is. Four is the maximum you can get. And if you don’t like the Washington Post, there’s always FactCheck.org.
So, let’s end this hijack. If you want to withdraw that from the list of partisan sniping issues, feel free. But let’s not pretend this is some made-up right-wing smear job of Obama.
A legitimate debate about whether the five should have been released, whether this was a good trade, and whether Obama should have notified Congress.
A smear campaign: Bergdahl is a Muslim-sympathizing deserter who should have been shot, and Obama is a despicable traitor for even considering releasing terrorists to get back said Muslim-sympathizing deserter.
Most of the major political figures are closer to strand 1, while sections of the right-wing blogosphere, etc., are firmly on strand 2. However, these two strands are not wholly independent; there’s a fair amount of intertwining.
Standard operating procedure for the Police to negotiate with armed criminals, particularly if they have hostages. Also standard for Prosecuters to negotiate with guilty criminals (at least, they plead guilty, so legally they were guilty).
It seems like a double standard to say that it’s ok to negotiate with American criminals, but not with foreign criminals.
Of course it’s a double standard. They’re only tangientially related issues. We also don’t use tanks, bombers and helicopter gunships against domestic criminals.
Why is it a double standard? If they are domestic, we control the security network of the entire country. If they are foreign, we do not.
Also, the “negotiation” we do with domestic criminals (criminals, not terrorists) is to stall for time. We don’t let people out of jail to satisfy criminal demands.
We don’t appease terrorists, and thus we don’t negotiate with them in order to neutralize an active threat by giving them part of the aim that prompted the act in the first place. Nothing says that we don’t negotiate with people who have used terrorism in their past.
In other words, that phrase was coined when terrorism was an occupation rather than a lifetime identity. It has become convenient to declare than any individual who engages in an act of terrorism (lowercase t) is a Terrorist (uppercase), an irremediable Bad Guy who is less than human and deserves a different kind of treatment. That’s a rather stupid black-and-white view of a complex situation, and such views are not conducive to problem-solving.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that threats by the five freed Taliban prisoners swapped for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to return to war and kill Americans are “a lot of baloney.”…
The threats by the Taliban prisoners to resume fighting in Afghanistan and kill Americans amount to propaganda, Kerry said. “They’ll say whatever they want to stir the waters,” he said.
Yes because why? you made them swear on a stack of bibles?
“They’re not the only ones keeping an eye on them,” Kerry said of the Qataris, while declining to elaborate.
“We have proven what we are capable of doing with al-Qaida,” he said
Really? we’re so good at hunting them down that we can free-range them in Qatar like poultry? How many people will it take to keep tabs on 5 of them now? How long did it take and how much did we spend to get Bin Laden? You know where we were able to keep an eye on them cost effectively and without fear of losing track of them? Guantanamo.
“We have proven what we are capable of doing with al-Qaida,” he said[/COLOR]
Really? we’re so good at hunting them down that we can free-range them in Qatar like poultry? How many people will it take to keep tabs on 5 of them now? How long did it take and how much did we spend to get Bin Laden? You know where we were able to keep an eye on them cost effectively and without fear of losing track of them? Guantanamo.
[/QUOTE]
Taliban /= al-Qaida. So I’m not sure what Kerry’s point was but this prisoner swap does not remotely mean “free ranging al-qaida”.
If your position is that the president has made peace with terrorists, then negotiating with people who are foreign is part of his job.
On the other hand, if you don’t think he has made peace with them, then I guess you think he is going to continue to prosecute them, and he is just stalling for time.
