Obama's Foreign Policy Sell-out

[KingsGambit]

One author I read today argues that the US would soon have to let all those detainees go anyway because of the plan to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2016. I will say that I don't buy his argument that there was a 5% chance that they would reoffend. An article I read on Politifact today backed John McCain's statement that these guys were the "worst of the worst".

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...dahls-release/

[Jedidiah]

May, nothing - first time a family gets on TV talking about the death of their loved one kidnapped because every bunch of loons thinks it's Open Season on Americans there will be a firestorm.

Nah, it will be another occasion of "Much Ado About Nothing." Or more likely much ado amounting to nothing.

[JimL]

But that's the whole point.. and the State Department has always danced around "negotiating" as for example, nothing wrong with giving a terrorist a drink of water in exchange for info, or those kinds of tradeoffs.... or even the exchange of spies we've had with other governments... (like kind)

But, yeah, FREEING TERRORISTS of this sort is chilling. ONE (alleged) deserter for FIVE TOP ENEMY combatants?

Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war. So this deal kills two birds with one stone. We get the release of Bergdahl, and the prisoners are held, at least on paper, for another year in Qatar instead of in Gitmo. And btw, we, and every other warring nation, "negotiates with the enemy". Its another benghazi.

[Epoetker]

Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war. So this deal kills two birds with one stone.

[Cow Poke]

Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war.

Just because Obama is turning tail and running does NOT mean the war is over. And PLEASE cite the legal requirement for the release of the terrorists.

So this deal kills two birds with one stone.

It kills, yes.

We get the release of Bergdahl,

No doubt you're proud of him.

and the prisoners are held, at least on paper, for another year in Qatar instead of in Gitmo. And btw, we, and every other warring nation, "negotiates with the enemy". Its another benghazi.

This doesn't even warrant a response.

[Cow Poke]

It's quite possible that, ONCE AGAIN, Obama got SNOOKERED because of his incredibly inept foreign policy "experience".

Source: WashingtonTimes

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz33gKcAA4J
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Legally they would have to release them in 2014 anyway, at the end of the war. So this deal kills two birds with one stone. We get the release of Bergdahl, and the prisoners are held, at least on paper, for another year in Qatar instead of in Gitmo. And btw, we, and every other warring nation, "negotiates with the enemy". Its another benghazi.

This isn't even a claim that the White House is making in defense of the deal.

Interestingly they (the White House) are claiming that Bergdahl is being "Swift Boated" appearing to not understand that this appears to be a case where everyone who served with him is denouncing what he did. There is no disagreement.

Van Jones^[1] is whining about what he calls the Benghazi-zation of Bergdahl by Republicans. He appears to be overlooking the fact that these attacks are being spearheaded by fellow soldiers, the ones who served with Bergdahl and that even a military investigation supports the assertion that he was a deserter and not, as National Security Adviser Susan Rice proclaimed, "taken in battle" or "served honorably."

And it should be noted that Democrats, even including some which initially voiced support of the swap like Sen. Claire McCaskill who had spoke of how "very proud" she was of it, are now backing away from it. Sen. Jon Tester (D - MT) noted that "I do think getting our boys back home, that's a good quality. I do have some issues about whether [Bergdahl] deserted or not."

Well, with one notable exception. Majority Leader Harry Reid said that, "I'm glad to get rid of these five people," and made it clear that he would have happily released them earlier but was stymied by those nasty Republicans. I would agree with Reid if we truly had gotten rid of them rather than freed them so they can continue to wage jihad and slaughter innocent people.



1. Obama's former "Green Czar" who resigned in disgrace after it was learned that he was a self-professed communist and 9/11 Truther who's career the White House said they had followed closely.

[rogue06]

[Cow Poke]

Van Jones^[1] is whining about what he calls the Benghazi-zation of Bergdahl by Republicans.

Yup, and who's the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee*? Why, it's DEMOCRAT Diane Feinstein! And what does SHE say? (bolding mine)

Source: TownHall.com

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss said the administration violated the law by failing to address serious concerns they had about the deal to swap Bergdahl for five Taliban detainees. Chambliss said he had not had a conversation with the White House about a possible exchange for at least 18 months.

"It comes to us with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went ahead with no consultation, totally not following law," Feinstein told reporters following a closed door meeting. "And in an issue with this kind of concern to a committee that bears the oversight responsibility, I think you can see that we're very dismayed about it ."

© Copyright Original Source

*yeah, I know -- "Senate" and "Intelligence" should not be in the same phrase, let alone the same sentence.

[Sparko]

I am wondering how Obama got the US military to go along with this idiotic swap? especially if he bypassed the law to do it.

[Cow Poke]

I am wondering how Obama got the US military to go along with this idiotic swap? especially if he bypassed the law to do it.

Because the vast majority of the Military will do what the Commander in Chief directs, regardless of politics or intent.

[Sparko]

Because the vast majority of the Military will do what the Commander in Chief directs, regardless of politics or intent.

But he wouldnt be dealing with the mass majority, just the top military leaders, and they answer to congress too. Seems like they would refuse an illegal order.

Makes you wonder if congress did know about it, or if there is something else going on.

Maybe they bled the taliban guys dry and wanted to get their hands on this traitor to see what he has learned in 5 years? Maybe he was not a traitor but actually some CIA spy sent to infiltrate the taliban? (yea I know I watch too much tv)

[Cow Poke]

But he wouldnt be dealing with the mass majority, just the top military leaders, and they answer to congress too.

I disagree --- the chain of command in the military is quite clear.

chart.jpg

Seems like they would refuse an illegal order.

It's "bred into" the military "mine is not to question why - mine is but to do and die".

Makes you wonder if congress did know about it, or if there is something else going on.

I think it's just more of Obama's "I have a pen and a cell phone [and I'm gonna do whatever the @!%$!#% I want to do]".

Maybe they bled the taliban guys dry and wanted to get their hands on this traitor to see what he has learned in 5 years? Maybe he was not a traitor but actually some CIA spy sent to infiltrate the taliban? (yea I know I watch too much tv)

I, too, have been trying figure out what there might be that we don't know. This is just so outrageous and stupid it defies reason.

[rogue06]

From an article in TIME magazine:

Source: White House Overrode Internal Objections to Taliban Prisoner Release

.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[*Emphasis added by rogue06*]

[Cow Poke]

Who, in the Obama Inner Circle, ever wore a uniform of the United States Military?

I think they are totally BANKRUPT with regards to military culture, and nave NO CLUE what it means to...

desert one's post (they think it's like skipping class on Monday after partying all weekend (yeah, I've heard this one a lot lately))
serve with honor and distinction (who of them HAS?)
leave no man behind (this has always been about rescuing our people who were lost in combat -- NOT deserters - and it's been a "fight your way in and GET them" type of thing, not "give them back their top command staff in exchange for somebody who didn't even like us)
exchange of prisoners we have done this AFTER the cessation of hostilities, and NEVER "one guy" for "5 top level commanders" DURING hostilities

I keep hearing that the Obama team expected jubilation -- they thought that the military, in particular, would be THRILLED that "we got their guy back".

The incompetence of this administration seems to know no bounds.