Skip to comments.Conservatives are criticizing the Bergdahl prisoner swap for the wrong reason.
Posted on 06/05/2014 10:56:25 PM PDT by Leaning Right
Regarding the Bergdahl prisoner swap, most conservatives are criticizing Obama's deal because Bergdahl might have been a deserter, or even a traitor.
That might be true, but it's the wrong way to go. The swap is bad mainly because of the price that the USA paid. Suppose it were 1942 and the Germans had captured an American sailor who had fallen (or jumped) overboard. Would FDR had swapped that sailor for, say, five crack U-Boat commanders? No way. But that's just what Obama did.
There are two separate issues. The deal was bad and dangerous no matter who it was. But acting like he is a hero (if he isn’t) is wrong to. But the U.S. SHOULD try to get deserters, and not just let them leave. But this was the WRONG WAY.
Since we are criticizing him for returning five crack terrorist leaders to the battlefield, and calling them the “Dream Team” of terrorists and that people will die, I don’t get your point.
If we could have got him back without any real risk, sure, but 14 dead men, plus wounded, plus whatever damage the five terrorists will do in the future plus $5 million dollars for one scuzzy peacecreep deserter? Only someone like Barack Obama would’ve made that deal. And will someone like Mr. Obama punish this soldier for his obvious dereliction of duty, defection and aiding the enemy? Don’t make me laugh!
There can be more than one right reason.
I think you are splitting hairs. If it was wrong, then it was wrong, despite any subtle personal nuance or issue. O effed up.
Another analogy: paying $50,000 for a ‘74 Gremlin.
Obama is good with drones...he should have just droned the deserter.
You might be criticizing Obama for returning those five to the battlefield (good for you), but that's not what I'm hearing from Fox News, conservative radio, etc. Here's what I'm hearing: Is Bergdahl a deserter? Is he a traitor? Is he an islamist?
The "evenness" of the swap itself has not been ignored, but it been pushed into the background. And that's what I'm objecting to.
It’s beginning to look like a one-way swap: SIX jihadis for nothin’.
No. There are two separate lines of criticism. The “deal” isn’t really being criticized because Bergdahl is a deserter. There’s certainly a bit of that, because the trade is pretty lopsided. The “deal” is being criticized mainly for two reasons: One, because it put 5 very senior Taliban back on the battlefield, and Two, because it means the US negotiated with terrorists.
It’s *Obama and his administration* that are being criticized for making a deal for a deserter, and for badly botching the “optics” of the deal, trying to portray him as a hero who “served with distinction”, and for going so far as to try to suppress or bury all the evidence to the contrary. And too, some of the criticism concerning negotiating with terrorists is being laid on Obama and his cronies specifically, because they’re the ones who pushed this, and also for doing so through a backdoor process that ignored the law.
To borrow a lib term, the situation is a lot more “nuanced” than the MSM is willing to admit.
Agreed. But there is a primary reason, and then there are secondary reasons. IMHO, the primary reason that this is such a bad deal is that we are swapping five Rommels for one Sad Sack.
Most Americans will sympathize with getting an American home, but they won't sympathize much with a clown making a foolish deal. Let's emphasize the foolish deal here.
But just one issue makes it easier for the apologists in media to control public sentiment.
I think it’s best to put it all out there. The public will respond for various reasons, and not necessarily hold a unified view of what is arguably the “primary” reason.
My understanding is the real point of this is to empty GITMO and the admin miscalculated on the cover Bergdahl would provide.
This is all about zero freeing the people he agrees with.
It’s what we get for electing an anti-American as POTUS. He no longer seeks or needs our approval so he’s doing what he wants - with “absolutely no apologies”.
Only Congress can change this.
Once they determined he was a deserter they shouldn’t have used any assets to rescue him. If during normal operations he was captured then bring him back for court martial.
Why does there have to be only ONE reason. He should be criticized:
1. for releasing the terrorists
2. for breaking several laws in doing so, including
a. not consulting congress
b. providing material aid to the enemy in the form of 5
c. negotiating with terrorists
3. for exchanging them for a traitor
4. for lying about the traitor, by saying that he served “honorably”
Good post, yours. All true, and all will be ignored by the MSM and the GOP establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.