That may be,but there was no need to trade 5 high-level Taliban for him.
The Taliban had already agreed on a ransom, even.
But no,BHO wanted to free the 5 guys..
for some reason
I do not agree, as some Republicans are already arguing, that these individuals should not have been released. In my view, the U.S. would not be able to hold them forever. Indeed, it is likely that the U.S. would be required, as a matter of international law, to release them shortly after the end of 2014, when U.S. combat operations cease in Afghanistan. The Administration appears to have reached a defensible, hold-your-nose compromise by arranging, in exchange for the release of Sergeant Bergdahl, for the individuals to be held in Qatar for a year before they return to Afghanistan.
That may be,but there was no need to trade 5 high-level Taliban for him.
The Taliban had already agreed on a ransom, even.
But no,BHO wanted to free the 5 guys..
for some reason
Give them money they could use to buy supplies instead of 5 guys?
Not just 5 "guys"
5 war criminals who have probably killed thousands.
1 is a terrorist-training mastermind.
Do you really think they are going to make a difference amongst a force of thousands?
5 guys made a difference in WW2:
Patton
McArthur
Marshall
Eisenhower
Nimitz
Pretty confident we would have won just fine without them.
Some article I read yesterday referred to these five as the "board of directors". These are not foot soldiers in a religious war. These are the planners. And they're in Qatar for a year? BFD. So what, they won't be able to communicate with the outside world? The theory that there will be an advantage to restraining their movements for a year is ridiculous.
But once again, this is not the issue. Bergdhal's return and the release of these five are both the result of Obama breaking the law. But I get it, the nation doesn't have the stomach to rein Obama in. Lindsay Graham says if he does it again impeachment proceeding will start! Wow, what a threat. If it's an impeachable offense the second time it's not the first?
But once again, I get it. The season finale of Swamp People is coming up and who in the hell would want to miss that for some political garbage?
No matter how much the white house and left are spinning this like crazy it's not going to go away. Americans are PISSED at this administration and lawlessness and what the fuckstain in the oval office did.
Obama thought he could distract from his VA scandal with "hey look! I brought back a hero!" but it's blowing up in his face. It's glorious.
His hometown has now canceled his welcome home celebration.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/0...welcome-home-ceremony-amid-questions-threats/
Unless you can PROVE it, he is innocent still right?
You have proof that Bergdahl wasn't a POW?
You have proof that he is a deserter? Can you post the link to his court-martial with his conviction?
You can of course prove all of this right? Right? I mean in the Zimmerman thread, you were all about right to trial, and innocent until proven guilty.
What happened now? You flip-flop again? You were once again just making shit up? (How's President PErry doing BTW?)
Unless you can PROVE it, he is innocent still right?
I mean you aren't arguing that are you?
Well, it certainly easy to see once again who blindly listens to faux news, Hannity, and all the other far-right whackos and just blindly repeat what they are told without even a shred of intellectual honesty.
Can't say I am surprised, since it is pretty much the same group that blindly repeats the lies they are told.
Funny how you and the other partisans tend to forget your history. Reagan, Iran-Contra, etc, etc, etc.
The government apparently negotiated with the Taliban, a group characterized by federal law as a non-state terrorist organization. The deal required the U.S. to release five former senior Taliban intelligence and military officials from the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Therein lies the legal and constitutional conundrum generated by the post-9/11 contempt for the Constitution that has been a hallmark of Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations.
The president no doubt will argue that under the Constitution he and he alone makes foreign policy and, as well, as commander in chief of the military, he enjoys the constitutional authority to make these prisoner swaps. Yet, the president has sworn an oath faithfully to enforce all federal law. He cannot knowingly or legally exclude himself from the obligation to comply with laws with which he disagrees -- thats the Nixon argument ("When the president does it, that means its not illegal."), which the courts and modern history have rejected.
The president has a serious problem with competence and with fidelity to his oath. In one week, he has alienated and demoralized much of the intelligence community by revealing the true name of one of them and by releasing their worst nightmare back into the theater of Middle East warfare. He has, as well, flagrantly failed to enforce federal law by materially aiding a non-state terrorist group condemned by American law. This is almost inconceivable in an American president.
Yet it is almost predictable with this president. In our Orwellian post-9/11 world, Congress thinks it can alter basic constitutional principles, and the president thinks he can enforce only the laws he likes. Did we break away from a king, who thought his powers were given to him by God, 240 years ago only to elect a president who behaves like a king? Thomas Jefferson saw this coming in his final years, when he argued that an elected despot is not the government we fought for.
It surely is not the government Jefferson fought for; but today, it is the government we have.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence coming from various sources suggesting that Bergdahl did not serve with "honor and distinction" as some would have us believe. Innocent until proven guilty...of course. But that doesn't preclude people from developing opinions based on the evidence as it unfolds.
Here's the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership? (1/5)
Some article I read yesterday referred to these five as the "board of directors". These are not foot soldiers in a religious war. These are the planners. And they're in Qatar for a year? BFD. So what, they won't be able to communicate with the outside world? The theory that there will be an advantage to restraining their movements for a year is ridiculous.
But once again, this is not the issue. Bergdhal's return and the release of these five are both the result of Obama breaking the law. But I get it, the nation doesn't have the stomach to rein Obama in. Lindsay Graham says if he does it again impeachment proceeding will start! Wow, what a threat. If it's an impeachable offense the second time it's not the first?
But once again, I get it. The season finale of Swamp People is coming up and who in the hell would want to miss that for some political garbage?
Not to mention his own dad's comments show that they are a bunch of whackjobs in every sense of the word. His dad praising Sharia and condemning the US for killing Afghans.