Hypocrisy

Search
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,966
Tokens


[h=1]Democrat Rockefeller: If You Oppose Obamacare, You’re a Racist[/h]A recent Pew Research Poll indicates those in opposition to Obamacare is at an all-time high of 55%. Although Obama insists that the debate should be over, the majority of Americans do not agree with them. According to a newPolitico poll, 60% of Americans believe that the debate on Obamacare should not be over. But, yet another Democrat has some slanderous criticism of those individuals who don’t support Obamacare. (Watch Video Below)In keeping with the typical Democrat mantra of smearing anyone who disagrees or opposes Barack Obama, West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller slandered every single American who stands in opposition to the unconstitutional, big government, tyrannical overreach of Obamacare.
“I think it is very important to take a long view at what’s going on here. I’ll be able to dig up some emails that make part of the Affordable Care Act that doesn’t look good, especially from people who made up their mind that they don’t want it to work because they don’t like the president. Maybe he’s of the wrong color, something of that sort. I’ve seen a lot of that and I know a lot of that to be true. It’s not something you’re meant to talk about in public but it’s something I’m talking about in public because that is very true.”
There you have it. Rockefeller, who incidentally has chosen to not run for re-election, says that if you oppose Obamacare, then it means you are a racist.
You would think the Left’s race card would be worn out, but they keep pulling it out in an effort to silence critics as they circle the wagons around Obama in an effort to protect him from his ever-growing failures.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,966
Tokens
984106_676746019062534_5939986533827968633_n.jpg
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,966
Tokens
[ This administration is as fucking inept and stupid as can be ]


  • AP

    THE WHITE HOUSE IS SCRAMBLING to contain the damage from inadvertently blowing the cover of America's top CIA official in Afghanistan during President Obama's surprise visit Sunday to Bagram Air Base.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Mitch McConnell’s Big Obamacare-Kynect Lie[/h]The senator’s latest election-trail mistake? Vowing to repeal Obamacare while disingenuously promising to protect his state’s own Obamacare-funded health-care exchange, which serves 413,000 Kentuckians.
Here’s why all the super-smart insidery people privately say they think that in the end, Alison Lundergan Grimes will not beat Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. Her strategy, they say, is to keep it close, keep her distance from Obama, hold her own in debates, try to match him attack ad for attack ad, and just hope McConnell makes a mistake. And the super-smart people agree: You may admire or loathe McConnell, but if he’s proven one thing in umpteen elections, it’s that he doesn’t make mistakes.
That’s what the insiders say. There’s just one problem with it. McConnell has made about a mistake a week so far! He’s run an awful campaign. And he’s given anybody no reason at all to think he won’t just keep making them.
The latest is maybe the biggest howler yet, bigger than even the ad that mistook Duke basketball players for UK Wildcats. He said last week that while he will certainly still pursue repeal of Obamacare, he thinks Kentucky should be able to and will keep its celebrated Kynect health-care exchange, set up by Democratic Governor Steve Beshear under the Affordable Care Act. Here’s how LEO Weekly, out of Louisville, reported the moment:
McConnell took three questions on the Affordable Care Act and how its repeal would affect the 413,000 Kentuckians who now have insurance through the state exchange, Kynect. The first question asked how he would respond to those who say repeal would take away the health care of 413,000 Kentuckians, to which McConnell launched into his standard answer that Obamacare was raising premiums, raising deductibles, and killing jobs, concluding, “It was a big mistake, we ought to pull it out root and branch and start over.”
WHAS’ Joe Arnold followed up that answer by asking, “But if you repeal it, won’t all of the state exchanges be dismantled? How does that work?” McConnell then launched into his standard “solution” of sorts, calling for an “international market” of insurance companies that aren’t limited by state lines, in addition to “malpractice reform.”
McConnell knows Kynect can’t exist without the ACA, but he just said it anyway, without any concern for the truth.


The LEO writer, Joe Sonka, whom McConnell’s muscle men once threw out of a press conference because he has the temerity to write, like, facts and stuff, went on to slice and dice McConnell’s argument: “Kynect could not have existed without the Affordable Care Act, and it would cease to exist if the Affordable Care Act ceased to exist. There would be no people eligible for the expanded Medicaid—the large majority of those who signed up through Kynect—and there would be no exchange for people to sign up for affordable private insurance with federal subsidies. Saying that Kynect is unconnected with the ACA or its repeal is just mind-numbingly false. The ACA and Kynect are one in the same.”
This is obvious to anyone with a brain. The category of humans with a brain includes McConnell. He’s not that stupid. That leaves only one other choice: hypocritical. Well, two other choices: hypocritical and lying. That is, he knows Kynect can’t exist without the ACA, but he just said it anyway, without any concern for the truth. And the hypocrisy part comes in, of course, because, well, how can he have stood up there for years saying that, no, Americans should not be permitted to get health care the Obama way, and he’s going to strike it down the second he can—but Kentuckians, they’re different?
This gives Grimes an opening she didn’t have. More than 430,000 Kentuckians have health care now through Kynect. Mitch wants to take it away. No, wait, he doesn’t! Well, he wants to take Obamacare away, and Kynect came through Obamacare, but somehow he’s going to keep Kynect. And he’s going to go buy a new Oldsmobile, even though Olds is out of business, and he’s gonna campaign with Colonel Sanders, even though he’s been dead since 1980, and once he’s reelected he’s going to privatize Medicare—except in Kentucky, because Kentucky is different. Grimes’s media team, a talented bunch in my experience, should be able to have quite a lot of fun with this.
The Lexington Herald-Leader sure did, raking McConnell over the coals Wednesday. It wrote:
Asked specifically if Kynect should be dismantled, McConnell said: “I think that’s unconnected to my comments about the overall question.”

Huh?
That’s a quote that should live forever, or at least until Election Day. The super-smart insiders may be right, though, about one thing. McConnell won’t make “a mistake.” He’ll make several.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]McCain’s reversals on Bowe Bergdahl[/h] 06/03/14 02:51 PM—Updated 06/03/14 04:48 PM
facebook twitter 1 save share group 44


By Steve Benen
It was just last week when Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) delivered a Memorial Day message in which she urged Americans to keep Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl “in our thoughts and prayers.” She added, “I renew my call on the Defense Department to redouble its efforts to find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family.”

Less than a week later, the Defense Department announced that Bergdahl had been freed and he’ll be returned safely to his family – prompting a new round of criticism from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.).

But all things considered, these conflicting statements are mild compared to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his recent reversals, highlighted today by Doug Mataconis.

The Arizona senator, himself a former prisoner of war, initially balked at the idea of a prisoner swap, calling the idea in 2012 “bizarre.” A few months ago, however, McCain changed his mind.
U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has been held by a group with ties to the Taliban for almost four years, and the group has demanded the United States release five Taliban prisoners in exchange for him.

The Washington Post reported that U.S. officials confirmed that talks among diplomats and the Pentagon were under way. The official U.S. policy is not to negotiate with terrorists, but the military is winding down operations there by the end of the year and could risk leaving Bergdahl behind, CNN noted.

McCain said his stance has changed only because the previous proposal was to release five “hard-core” Taliban leaders as a “confidence-building measure.” The current proposal would be an actual exchange of prisoners. “I would be inclined to support such a thing, depending on a lot of details,” he said.
Update: Asked specifically by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the prospect of a 5-for-1 prisoner exchange, McCain replied, “I would support. Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”

That was in February.


McCain appears to have change course again after the Bergdahl announcement was made over the weekend.
While McCain, himself a former prisoner of war, said he was “pleased” by Bergdahl’s release in a Saturday statement, he sounded a more ambivalent note on Face the Nation the following day.

“It is disturbing that these individuals would have the ability to re-enter the fight, and they are big, high-level people, possibly responsibly for the deaths of thousands,” he said.
As best as I can tell, McCain has not explained why he was “inclined to support” the same deal the Obama administration actually struck, which the senator is no longer inclined to support.

Update: Yesterday, McCain suggested that it’s best not to dwell on the prisoner-swap decision. “It’s worthy of a hearing, but it’s done,” he said. Today, McCain adopted a different posture, telling reporters, “This decision to bring Sgt. Bergdahl home – and we applaud that he is home – is ill-founded … it is a mistake, and it is putting the lives of American servicemen and women at risk. And that to me is unacceptable.”
Another Update: Sen. Ayotte’s office emails with a statement: “Senator Ayotte has led efforts in Congress to prevent the release of high risk detainees from Guantanamo, and she never would have supported trading five dangerous terrorists who are likely to reengage in terrorist activities against Americans and our allies. She is troubled that the administration did not fully comply with the law requiring advance Congressional notification, and she believes it is important for Congress to investigate the critical national security implications of this decision, which is why she has called for the Senate Armed Services Committee to convene a hearing without delay.”
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
[h=1]Kelly Ayotte And John McCain Supported Search For Bergdahl–Until He Was Found[/h] June 3, 2014 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly,Politics,Top Stories | Posted by: rintintin
Repost This Article
8231961011_2b6c5f0201.jpg
Senators John McCain or Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire were bullish in finding and bringing home Bowe Bergdahl, until it actually happened. In a May 22 press release Ayotte, showing how much she loves the troops, urged a quick return for Bergdahl while promoting amendments she favors in a the defense authorizations bill:
As part of ongoing efforts to urge the Department of Defense to do all it can to find Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and bring him home safely, Senator Ayotte worked successfully to include a provision in the bill that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl.
John McCain, similarly, was for trading Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl before he was against it. McCain four months ago:
Sen. John McCain says he now would be inclined to support trading a Taliban prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay for a U.S. soldier held captive in Afghanistan.
In 2012, McCain called the idea of negotiating with the Taliban “bizarre” and “highly questionable,” but on Tuesday he said on CNN’s ”Anderson Cooper 360″ that he would be open to a swap now being discussed.
McCain now:
“These are the hardest of the hard core. These are the highest high-risk people, and others that we have released have gone back into the fight,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in an interview on “Face the Nation,” adding that he was disturbed the Taliban named the prisoners they wanted in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.
“We need to know more information about the conditions of where they are going to be,” McCain added. “It is disturbing that these individuals would have the ability to reenter the fight.”

 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
51,558
Tokens
Bravo to John McCain for seeing the light.

:aktion033

'Soetoro' is a lying treasonous POS!
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
GOP Urged White House To 'Do All It Can' To Get Bowe Bergdahl

Posted: 06/03/2014 4:06 pm EDT Updated: 06/03/2014 5:59 pm EDT
Print Article



n-AYOTTE-MCCAIN-large.jpg

WASHINGTON -- As soon as President Barack Obama told the nation Saturday evening that America's only prisoner of war in Afghanistan had been rescued, Republican lawmakers and pundits began criticizing the administration on how it handled the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Many lawmakers have been upset that Obama did not give Congress 30 days notice, as required by law. Others are upset that five Taliban detainees who were being held at Guantanamo Bay were released in return, with some conservatives even accusing the administration of negotiating with terrorists. (The government of Qatar actually negotiated the deal.) There are also now questions about Bergdahl himself, and whether he initially deserted his post.
"With 29 percent of former Guantanamo detainees having reengaged or being suspected of reengaging in terrorism, the administration's decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). "It also sets a precedent that could encourage our enemies to capture more Americans in order to gain concessions from our government."
But prior to Bergdahl's release, Republican lawmakers were some of the sergeant's biggest advocates, and repeatedly pressed the administration to do something -- in fact, everything within its power -- to get him returned to the United States.
A May 22 press release from Ayotte's office read, "As part of ongoing efforts to urge the Department of Defense to do all it can to find Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and bring him home safely, Senator Ayotte worked successfully to include a provision in the bill that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl."
When asked for comment on why she is now criticizing Obama's handling of the prisoner swap, Ayotte's office pointed to her longstanding views on Guantanamo, arguing that her position is not inconsistent. Her office said the senator backs a policy that includes permanent limits on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to foreign countries.
"Senator Ayotte has led efforts in Congress to prevent the release of high risk detainees from Guantanamo, and she never would have supported trading five dangerous terrorists who are likely to reengage in terrorist activities against Americans and our allies," Ayotte spokesman Jeff Grappone wrote in an email.
"We have a responsibility to ensure no service member is left behind, which is why Senator Ayotte pushed DoD to find Bergdahl and to determine whether he could be safely rescued and returned home," he added.
Some lawmakers who have spoken critically in recent days of the Bergdahl deal had appeared, not too long ago, to have endorsed the concept of a prisoner swap, in which he could be exchanged for Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Take Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). On Feb. 18, 2014, he told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he could support such an arrangement, albeit reserving judgment for some of the details:
COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.
McCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release -- Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence-building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man.
I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details. [...]
COOPER: So if there was some -- the possibility of some sort of exchange, that's something you would support?
McCAIN: I would support. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.
(Watch video of the exchange here.)
The day after Bergdahl's release was secured, however, McCain was on the Sunday morning talk shows questioning why the administration would release the "hardest of the hard core." On Monday, the following day, he stressed that he "would not have made this deal."
"I would have done everything in my power to repatriate him and I would have done everything I possibly could. But I would not have put the lives of American servicemen at risk in the future," he said.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said the senator's objections lie in the details.
"The details that we know so far are troubling and could enable these hard-core Taliban leaders to return to the battlefield against Americans and our allies and partners next year," he said.
On Tuesday, his office issued a statement, saying the senator had "serious concerns" about a report that the five detainees being transferred to Qatar would be "able to travel freely in the country and, after one year, will be able to leave Qatar, including travel to Afghanistan."
Another outspoken champion for Bergdahl's release was Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), who wanted the administration to "do everything possible" for his safe return.
"Last year, on the fourth anniversary of Sgt. Bergdahl's capture, on the floor of the House of Representatives, I introduced a resolution in the House calling on the United States to do everything possible not to leave any members of the armed forces behind during the drawdown of Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I had members of Congress come up to me and say, 'I didn't know we had a living POW in Afghanistan.' That was shocking to me," said Nugent, according to a Feb. 24 article in the Citrus County Chronicle.
In a statement to The Huffington Post, Nugent said that for the sake of Bergdahl's family, he was "very glad that our only living POW is back home." He added, however, that he disagreed with how the administration handled the release.
"But what angers me so much about this situation is that knowing full well that there was strong opposition to a prisoner swap in Congress, the Administration decided to go behind our backs and release the detainees without the notification required by law," he said. "As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I look forward to getting answers from the Administration soon about how they intend to ensure that these senior Taliban detainees do not return to the battlefield. Now mind you I am still getting all of my information from press accounts three days later, but apparently the detainees are completely free to move about Qatar however they please and will be free to travel after one year. So while I appreciate the President's assurances to the press that these individuals won't pose a threat to civilians or our troops, you can understand why many of us have been and continue to be skeptical."
In April, Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.), along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), introduced a resolution "to express the sense of the Senate that no member of the armed forces who is missing in action or captured should be left behind."
Toomey has not yet put out a statement. McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the minority leader was pleased that Bergdahl is safe but still has questions about the administration's handling of the situation, including the lack of mandated notification and concerns that the Taliban detainees may return to the battlefield.
Sen. James Risch (R), who represents Bergdahl's home state of Idaho, declined to criticize the Obama administration during an interview with the Idaho Statesman, saying it was not the right time for such comments.
"There will be time to delve into those matters," he said.
He also said that members of the Intelligence Committee, on which he serves, were constantly updated on Bergdahl's whereabouts.
"There wasn't a week that went by that we didn't get a briefing," he added.
John Bellinger, who served as a national security adviser to President George W. Bush, said in a Fox News interview Tuesday that he believed Obama did the right thing in its recovery of Bergdahl. He noted that because the war in Afghanistan is winding down -- U.S. troops will be out by the end of 2016 -- the administration would have had to release the five detainees soon anyway.
"Sometime in the next couple of years, whether it's in the beginning of 2015 or shortly thereafter, this conflict in Afghanistan is winding down, and we would be required, at least under the traditional laws of war, to return people that we've detained in that conflict," he said. "So it seems in this case, we've gotten -- we traded them for reasonable deal here."
Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey also defended Bergdahl's recovery on Facebook Tuesday, writing that it was "likely the last, best opportunity to free him."
Andrew Perez contributed reporting.
This article has been updated with comment from Nugent and McCain's office.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding ‘Every Effort’ Be Made To Free Bergdahl

By Igor Volsky June 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm Updated: June 3, 2014 at 5:41 pm

"Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding ‘Every Effort’ Be Made To Free Bergdahl"
Share:


Bowe-Bergdahl-638x425.jpg
CREDIT: AP

Republicans are almost uniformly criticizing President Obama’s decision to swap five Taliban fighters at Guantanamo Bay for the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American held hostage in Afghanistan. But many of the administration’s loudest critics have previously demanded that it do more to bring Bergdahl to safety. Since his release, these lawmakers are emphasizing their criticism of Obama’s handling of the prisoner exchange while downplaying the successful return of an American servicemember.
In the clearest contradiction, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in February that he “would be inclined to support” “an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man,” like the one Taliban officials had offered in 2012. He has since labeled Obama’s deal “ill-founded” and a “mistake.”
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also thinks that “the administration’s decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests” and “sets a precedent that could encourage our enemies to capture more Americans.” But since 2011, Ayotte has issued multiple press releases and public statements calling on the Obama administration to “redouble its efforts” to find Bergdahl. She touted a provision in the Senate’s Fiscal Year 2015 defense authorization bill “that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl” and specifically mentioned Bergdahl in her Memorial Day address.
“We also must continue to keep Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who has been held prisoner by the Taliban for nearly five years, in our thoughts and prayers – and I renew my call on the Defense Department to redouble its efforts to find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family,” she wrote just one week ago.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — has also said that the U.S. “must make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family.” But appearing on Fox News just days after Bergdahl’s release, Inhofe criticized the administration for agreeing to free “people who have killed Americans, people who are the brain power of Taliban.”
Still, not all conservatives oppose Obama’s decision. John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush, has characterized the swap as fair, since the United States would be required to return prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay back to Afghanistan as the military conflict comes to an end.
“I’m not saying this is clearly an easy choice but frankly I think a Republican…confronted with this opportunity to get back Sgt. Bergdahl…would have taken this opportunity to do this,” Bellinger said, adding, “I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration.” It appears that many of the administration’s loudest critics would as well.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Tuesday, Jun 3, 2014 11:39 AM EST [h=1]The right’s unhinged Bergdahl hypocrisy: The ultimate way to savage Obama[/h] [h=2]Should accused deserters face trial by Bill Kristol before being rescued? Understanding the latest wingnut hysteria[/h] Joan Walsh

Bill Kristol, Bowe Bergdahl (Credit: AP/Janet Van Ham/Reuters)
Of course Republicans are going to compare the prisoner swap that won the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to Benghazi. They both start with B. It leads to their favorite words that start with I: investigation, and possibly impeachment.
The ridiculous Andrew McCarthy, flacking his new book making the case for Obama’s impeachment, of course finds more fodder in the prisoner transfer. Tuesday morning he was joined by Fox News “legal analyst” Andrew Napolitano and a man who couldn’t even hold on to a congressional seat for a second term, Allen West. The shift to Bergdahl reflects growing concern that the right’s Benghazi dishonesty isn’t working with voters. Even conservative analysts have chided colleagues for Benghazi overreach. Sure, Trey Gowdy will continue with his election year partisan witch hunt, but the right is wagering the Bergdahl story might hurt Obama more.
The anti-Bergdahl hysteria plays into six years of scurrilous insinuation that Obama is a secret Muslim who either supports or sympathizes with our enemies. Even “moderate” Mitt Romney, you’ll recall, claimed the president’s “first response” to the 2012 Benghazi attack “was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” This is just the latest chapter.
The partisan opportunism over the Bergdahl deal shouldn’t be surprising, but it is, a little bit. This wasn’t some wild radical idea of the Obama administration; it was driven by the Defense Department and signed on to by intelligence agencies. Although Congress is claiming it wasn’t given the requisite 30 days’ notice of a prisoner transfer (more on that later), this deal or something very much like it has been in the works for at least two years, with plenty of congressional consultation.


And plenty of partisan demagoguery: In 2012 the late Michael Hastings reported that the White House was warned by congressional Republicans that a possible deal for the five Taliban fighters would be political suicide in an election year – a “Willie Horton moment,” in the words of an official responsible for working with Congress on the deal. In the end, though, Hastings reported that even Sen. John McCain ultimately approved the deal; it fell apart when the Taliban balked.
Two years later, the right’s official talking points are mixed: Some critics focus on rumors (buttressed by Hastings’ own sympathetic reporting on Bergdahl) that he was a soldier disillusioned by the Afghan war who deserted his post. Wrong-way Bill Kristol has dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing, while Kristol’s most prominent contribution to politics, Sarah Palin, has been screeching on her Facebook wall about Bergdahl’s “horrid anti-American beliefs.”
But missing and captured soldiers have never had to undergo a character check before being rescued by their government. Should they now face trial by Bill Kristol before we decide whether to rescue them? Is Sarah Palin going to preside over a military death panel for captured soldiers suspected of inadequate dedication to the war effort?
Other Republicans accuse the president of breaking the long-standing rule against “negotiating with terrorists” to free hostages. They’re wrong on two counts: The U.S. has frequently negotiated with “terrorists,” to free hostages and for other reasons. President Carter negotiated with the Iranians who held Americans in the Tehran embassy in 1979, unsuccessfully. President Reagan famously traded arms to Iran for hostages. The entire surge in Iraq was predicated on negotiating with Sunni “terrorists” who had killed American soldiers to bring them into the government and stop sectarian violence.
Besides, this isn’t a terrorist-hostage situation, it’s a prisoner of war swap, and those are even more common: President Nixon freed some North Vietnamese prisoners at the same time former POW Sen. John McCain came home from Hanoi. Even hawkish Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu traded more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit last year. Such prisoner exchanges are particularly frequent when wars are winding down, as Ken Gude explains on Think Progress.
It’s true that Bergdahl was never officially categorized as a “prisoner of war,” since the Pentagon apparently stopped using that designation years ago. But he was defined as “missing/captured,” which is essentially the same thing. And while the Taliban fighters who were released were likewise not formally designated prisoners of war, either, because of the odd, formally undeclared status of the war with Afghanistan, that’s what they were. As President Obama said Tuesday morning, “This is what happens at the end of wars.” Imagine the outrage if the president brought the troops home from Afghanistan but left Bergdahl behind.
It’s shocking to see conservatives argue that the Taliban should have the final word on an American soldier’s fate, even if he’s accused of desertion. There’s already an Army inquiry into the conditions of Bergdahl’s disappearance. “Our army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred,” the Joint Chiefs chair Martin Dempsey said Monday night. Would John McCain, for instance, deny Bergdahl the right to military justice and leave his punishment to the Taliban?
Even some Democrats who had doubts about the 2012 Bergdahl release deal, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, support the exchange executed last weekend. “I support the president’s decision, particularly in light of Sgt. Bergdahl’s declining health. It demonstrates that America leaves no soldier behind,” she said in a statement. Former CIA director Leon Panetta opposed the earlier deal because he felt it didn’t do enough to prevent the five Taliban leaders from returning to combat; this deal holds them in Qatar for at least a year. Panetta also lauded the deal Monday night because of Bergdahl’s use to intelligence agencies.
It may be that the terms of the Bergdahl deal merit congressional investigation, particularly about whether Congress was sufficiently consulted on the deal. Partly because of the ongoing efforts to free Bergdahl, Congress agreed to reduce its own requirements for notification of Guantánamo releases. But Obama, in a signing statement, signaled he believed even the relaxed law tied his hands, arguing that the president needed the flexibility to act quickly in certain situations when negotiating a transfer of Guantánamo prisoners. Yes, it’s true that Obama and other Democrats criticized George W. Bush’s wanton use of signing statements. This one can be debated. But Republicans didn’t wail en masse over Bush’s signing statements or his national security secrecy the way they are doing now.
Congressional investigations are one thing; shrill partisan hackery is another. “There’s little that’s actually new here,” says Mitchell Reiss, a State Department official under President George W. Bush who also served as national security adviser to Mitt Romney. Reiss is right about the Bergdahl deal, but he’s wrong about the larger political atmosphere. What’s “new” here is a president who’s had his competence, his patriotism, even his very eligibility for office questioned from the outset.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
Tuesday, Jun 3, 2014 11:39 AM EST The right’s unhinged Bergdahl hypocrisy: The ultimate way to savage Obama

Should accused deserters face trial by Bill Kristol before being rescued? Understanding the latest wingnut hysteria

Joan Walsh

Bill Kristol, Bowe Bergdahl (Credit: AP/Janet Van Ham/Reuters)
Of course Republicans are going to compare the prisoner swap that won the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to Benghazi. They both start with B. It leads to their favorite words that start with I: investigation, and possibly impeachment.
The ridiculous Andrew McCarthy, flacking his new book making the case for Obama’s impeachment, of course finds more fodder in the prisoner transfer. Tuesday morning he was joined by Fox News “legal analyst” Andrew Napolitano and a man who couldn’t even hold on to a congressional seat for a second term, Allen West. The shift to Bergdahl reflects growing concern that the right’s Benghazi dishonesty isn’t working with voters. Even conservative analysts have chided colleagues for Benghazi overreach. Sure, Trey Gowdy will continue with his election year partisan witch hunt, but the right is wagering the Bergdahl story might hurt Obama more.
The anti-Bergdahl hysteria plays into six years of scurrilous insinuation that Obama is a secret Muslim who either supports or sympathizes with our enemies. Even “moderate” Mitt Romney, you’ll recall, claimed the president’s “first response” to the 2012 Benghazi attack “was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” This is just the latest chapter.
The partisan opportunism over the Bergdahl deal shouldn’t be surprising, but it is, a little bit. This wasn’t some wild radical idea of the Obama administration; it was driven by the Defense Department and signed on to by intelligence agencies. Although Congress is claiming it wasn’t given the requisite 30 days’ notice of a prisoner transfer (more on that later), this deal or something very much like it has been in the works for at least two years, with plenty of congressional consultation.


And plenty of partisan demagoguery: In 2012 the late Michael Hastings reported that the White House was warned by congressional Republicans that a possible deal for the five Taliban fighters would be political suicide in an election year – a “Willie Horton moment,” in the words of an official responsible for working with Congress on the deal. In the end, though, Hastings reported that even Sen. John McCain ultimately approved the deal; it fell apart when the Taliban balked.
Two years later, the right’s official talking points are mixed: Some critics focus on rumors (buttressed by Hastings’ own sympathetic reporting on Bergdahl) that he was a soldier disillusioned by the Afghan war who deserted his post. Wrong-way Bill Kristol has dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing, while Kristol’s most prominent contribution to politics, Sarah Palin, has been screeching on her Facebook wall about Bergdahl’s “horrid anti-American beliefs.”
But missing and captured soldiers have never had to undergo a character check before being rescued by their government. Should they now face trial by Bill Kristol before we decide whether to rescue them? Is Sarah Palin going to preside over a military death panel for captured soldiers suspected of inadequate dedication to the war effort?
Other Republicans accuse the president of breaking the long-standing rule against “negotiating with terrorists” to free hostages. They’re wrong on two counts: The U.S. has frequently negotiated with “terrorists,” to free hostages and for other reasons. President Carter negotiated with the Iranians who held Americans in the Tehran embassy in 1979, unsuccessfully. President Reagan famously traded arms to Iran for hostages. The entire surge in Iraq was predicated on negotiating with Sunni “terrorists” who had killed American soldiers to bring them into the government and stop sectarian violence.
Besides, this isn’t a terrorist-hostage situation, it’s a prisoner of war swap, and those are even more common: President Nixon freed some North Vietnamese prisoners at the same time former POW Sen. John McCain came home from Hanoi. Even hawkish Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu traded more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit last year. Such prisoner exchanges are particularly frequent when wars are winding down, as Ken Gude explains on Think Progress.
It’s true that Bergdahl was never officially categorized as a “prisoner of war,” since the Pentagon apparently stopped using that designation years ago. But he was defined as “missing/captured,” which is essentially the same thing. And while the Taliban fighters who were released were likewise not formally designated prisoners of war, either, because of the odd, formally undeclared status of the war with Afghanistan, that’s what they were. As President Obama said Tuesday morning, “This is what happens at the end of wars.” Imagine the outrage if the president brought the troops home from Afghanistan but left Bergdahl behind.
It’s shocking to see conservatives argue that the Taliban should have the final word on an American soldier’s fate, even if he’s accused of desertion. There’s already an Army inquiry into the conditions of Bergdahl’s disappearance. “Our army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred,” the Joint Chiefs chair Martin Dempsey said Monday night. Would John McCain, for instance, deny Bergdahl the right to military justice and leave his punishment to the Taliban?
Even some Democrats who had doubts about the 2012 Bergdahl release deal, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, support the exchange executed last weekend. “I support the president’s decision, particularly in light of Sgt. Bergdahl’s declining health. It demonstrates that America leaves no soldier behind,” she said in a statement. Former CIA director Leon Panetta opposed the earlier deal because he felt it didn’t do enough to prevent the five Taliban leaders from returning to combat; this deal holds them in Qatar for at least a year. Panetta also lauded the deal Monday night because of Bergdahl’s use to intelligence agencies.
It may be that the terms of the Bergdahl deal merit congressional investigation, particularly about whether Congress was sufficiently consulted on the deal. Partly because of the ongoing efforts to free Bergdahl, Congress agreed to reduce its own requirements for notification of Guantánamo releases. But Obama, in a signing statement, signaled he believed even the relaxed law tied his hands, arguing that the president needed the flexibility to act quickly in certain situations when negotiating a transfer of Guantánamo prisoners. Yes, it’s true that Obama and other Democrats criticized George W. Bush’s wanton use of signing statements. This one can be debated. But Republicans didn’t wail en masse over Bush’s signing statements or his national security secrecy the way they are doing now.
Congressional investigations are one thing; shrill partisan hackery is another. “There’s little that’s actually new here,” says Mitchell Reiss, a State Department official under President George W. Bush who also served as national security adviser to Mitt Romney. Reiss is right about the Bergdahl deal, but he’s wrong about the larger political atmosphere. What’s “new” here is a president who’s had his competence, his patriotism, even his very eligibility for office questioned from the outset.

Funny that your article doesn't mention Feinstein's concerns about the process. Kind of lazy that you have to post an opinion piece from a progressive "news" website rather than share an opinion in your own words.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,238
Messages
13,553,067
Members
100,584
Latest member
vz99lat1
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com