Posted on 06/06/2014 10:26:17 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Despite President Obamas claim Thursday that hes never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington, the administration and its fans are struggling to tamp down widespread criticism of the deal that traded one soldier who fellow infantrymen say deserted them with five top Taliban prisoners held at the U.S. prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Its a fair bet, given President Obamas triumphant announcement in the Rose Garden featuring Bowe Bergdahls parents, that those in his inner circle severely miscalculated how such a presentation would go over with Americans. As they scramble to respond, theyve made some stupid arguments in response to criticism. And critics have made some stupid arguments, too. Here are eight of the worst:
1) Critics are saying Bergdahl should have been left behind
Heres how one prominent liberal put it:
Christopher Hayes ✔ @chrislhayes
Am I correct that the American right-wing has spent the day arguing we should have left an American soldier behind?
5:12 PM - 2 Jun 2014
825 Retweets 545 favorites
This would be a great argument to make against critics of the swap if this was what they were saying. But theyre not. They may be saying we paid too high a price. They may be saying we went about it the wrong way, legally speaking. They may be saying it was stupid to tell Americans he was heroic when his colleagues say he wasnt. They may be saying it sets a bad precedent that encourages people to kidnap Americans. They may be making a thousand other criticisms, and still not be arguing he should have been left behind.
Imagine it this way. Lets say your newly assigned carpool partner shows up to pick you up and hes drunk as a skunk, telling you to get in the car and that everythings fine. Oh, and that he decided youre going to pay for gas 100% of the time and a surcharge for repairs. If you decline to agree with him, this doesnt mean that you hate carpooling. It just means you think hes not the carpool partner for you. And how hes going about things could cause serious problems.
2) People who called for his release but are now critical are flip-flopping hypocrites!
So Vox, Gawker and Slate all ran nearly identical pieces about people who had called on Obama to release Bergdahl but then got mad when he did it. And not just any people. These people include such luminaries as lemontree46, Shannon //(*_~)\\, and JazzyVajazzleds. (And no, I did not make any of those names up.) I mean, not that pointing out tweets from random people isnt what explanatory journalism was invented for, but the entire argument is lame.
I dont typically quote John Maynard Keynes but remember his line about changing positions? He said, When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir? If Shannon-forward-slash-forward-slash-open-parentheses-asterisk-underscore-tilde-closed-parentheses-back-slash-back-slash thought during the times no one was breaking their non-disclosure agreement to reveal eye-witness testimony about Bergdahls behavior that this was a P.O.W. situation and then found out after the Rose Garden ceremony that it was much more complicated, should she have refused to change her mind? Really?
3) The motives of Bergdahls fellow infantry are suspect
Perhaps the single biggest reason the White House spin on the Bergdahl trade didnt hold up was because almost immediately people who knew him in Afghanistan started talking about what they knew about his disappearance. While these details had been kept under wraps via a non-disclosure agreement, the rush to paint him as a homecoming hero was too much for many of them. Whether they viewed the non-disclosure agreement as no longer operationally important, or because they hadnt signed one to begin with, some even started appearing on national news to give their side of the story.
The first attempt to fight this was to do something very unusual talk about a public relations firm that had helped coordinate such appearances. Now, the fact of the matter is that public relations firms coordinate pretty much everything you see on television. But usually you dont hear about it. Did the New York Times report, when it covered birth control activist Sandra Fluke, that she was represented by the firm of former White House communications director Anita Dunn? Of course not. How much coverage was given the fact that Texas State Senator Wendy Davis late-term abortion filibuster was a public relations campaign? I think I saw one blog item.
What about the award-winning public relations campaign Planned Parenthood planned against the Komen Foundation? Not only were Planned Parenthoods public relations firms not mentioned in stories about the campaign, the media actually was blatantly one-sided in which group it supported and which group it condemned in the contest between a breast health charity and the countrys largest abortion provider.
I could go on. But only in this case did we learn about this fact behind most major news stories. That attempt to discredit soldiers didnt work, though, so White House aides told NBCs Chuck Todd that they didnt expect soldiers to swift boat Bergdahl. That was a reference to what happened when John Kerry ran for president by emphasizing his military service. The only problem was that those swift boat veterans who served with him had a different view. Democrats believed these attacks on John Kerry were unfair. An Obama administration official tweeted out his thoughts about the matter this week:
Brandon Friedman @BFriedmanDC
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)
10:44 PM - 4 Jun 2014
170 Retweets 29 favorites
Just no. Speculating that the men who did not desert were psychopaths is just idiotic. Particularly since even if Bergdahl had problems with soldiers or leadership, that wouldnt make him even remotely unique in the Army. What did make his situation unique was that he didnt work through approved channels for resolving those issues without putting people in danger.
And now the New York Times is trying to make the claim that Bergdahls unit was as much to blame for his disappearance as he was. Sigh.
4) It doesnt matter that Bergdahl was a deserter
This argument posits that since Bergdahl hasnt yet been court-martialed, we cant even consider the circumstances of his disappearance. While it is extremely important that Bergdahl be fairly tried for what other soldiers have accused him of, its not true that the Commander-in-Chief would be imprudent to consider these details in either his dealings with his terrorist captors or in his public presentation regarding the trade. Dan McLaughlin says it well:
The idea that the facts of Bergdahls disappearance could simply be wished away or pretended not to exist, simply because no court-martial had been convened, is ridiculous and juvenile The military owed Bowe Bergdahl its promise to try to rescue him, even if he walked away. The nation did not owe him an agreement to compromise national security by surrendering five high-value prisoners without asking what we were getting in return.
5) Concerns that this sets a bad precedent or will lead to more hostage taking are overblown
Liberal pundits pooh-poohed the idea that global enemies would now be more inclined to try to secure a soldier as a hostage.
Now, we can hope that the circumstances of this exchange will have no negative effect on Americans safety, but its also true that it suggests nabbing yourself a soldier might be in your best strategic interest. Time magazine reported:
Its better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people, the commander said, speaking by telephone on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.
Now, its also true that this exchange might raise the value of keeping a hostage alive as opposed to beheading him for propaganda purposes. But the point remains that Islamist foes arent stupid and can respond to new information as well.
6) The Taliban commanders we released werent that big a threat
Remember when Rolling Stone was genuinely counter-cultural as opposed to being a mouthpiece for the U.S. president? Well, those days are long gone. Rolling Stone published a laughable piece headlined Four Myths About the Bowe Bergdahl Swap That Must Be Destroyed. It might have better been headlined Four White House Talking Points We Really Really Really Hope Youll Swallow. Anyway, one of them was:
MYTH: These five Taliban are the hardest of the hardcore
Now, maybe youre into groups that kill girls for the crime of going to school. I dont know. But, as Robert Tracinski writes, this was a Taliban Dream Team: These were top officials in the Taliban regime: a provincial governor, a deputy defense minister, a deputy intelligence minister, a top arms smuggler, and a top Taliban military commander. Two of them are wanted by the United Nations for war crimes committed against Afghanistans Shiites. He goes on, in response to a Politico editors suggestion that they couldnt be that bad if they didnt have superpowers:
Well, no, they dont have superpowers. All they have is the influence and connections to get a gang of brutes together, and the absence of any of the normal vestiges of human conscience that would cause them to shrink from atrocities like: bombing schools because they let girls play sports; shooting a girl in the head; because she stands up for her right to be educated; horribly mutilating women to punish them for disobedience in their roles as marital slaves; dragging a 7-year-old out of the yard where he is playing and hanging him from a tree because his grandfather spoke out against the Taliban.
7) Bergdahls family is suspect
Now lets look at some of the weak arguments coming from conservative critics. One prominent area of discussion theyre talking about is Bergdahls family. Namely his dad. Theyre upset that he uttered an Arabic greeting at the White House, wrote and deleted severely anti-American tweets, and grew a long beard to show his sons captors some sympathy. The thing is that it just doesnt matter. Hes an American citizen with the freedom to do what he wants, particularly when it comes to facial hair! Also, he is a private citizen who did not swear any oaths to the country or otherwise have any responsibility for sensitive national security issues. The president does. Bergdahl swore an oath. These are the relevant actors.
8) Reports that Bergdahl was sympathetic to his captors or declared Jihad prove he should be considered a traitor
More recently, media outlets reported on intelligence briefings that suggested Bergdahl had, at some point, converted to Islam and declared Jihad.
The claim is that after prolonged captivity, which may have included torture, brainwashing or manipulation, Bergdahl may have converted. No one knows what his captors did to him and its not relevant to the matter at hand in any case. What is relevant is how Bergdahl behaved leading up to his capture and immediately following. Many of the men he served with are worried that he gave his captors information that hurt their work. Whether thats true or not is relevant. What happened after prolonged captivity is far less important.
The Obama Administration officials are the only ones who know what actually happened and they are intelligent and trustworthy so we must not question anything they say.
I suggested this one yesterday:
9. Obama was just doing his job as an al Qaeda operative.
As per #1, I would argue that Bergdahl and any other deserters and traitors should be left behind. Nobody has any obligation to see that they should be helped in any way. It is the deserter or traitors tree, he should be made to sit in it.
Well there is also Harry Reid’s (stolen from Hillary) line “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE AT THIS POINT ANYHOW?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3164165/posts
Harry Reid on Bergdahl Deal: What Difference Does It Make?
Washington Free Beacon ^ | 06/05/2014 | Free Beacon Staff
Yes. Nice catch. I'll add it to my list plus another of my own:
9. Obama was just doing his job as an al Qaeda operative.
10. What difference does it make at this point anyhow?
11. Obama was blackmailed into making a trade that even he knew would be political poison.
By far the worst swap since the Warriors traded Joe Barry Carrol to the Celtics for Kevin Mchale and Robert Parrish.
(Or vice-versa)
Critics are saying Bergdahl should have been left behind
Mmmmm K....
Well, Obama has ordered strikes on a few Americans, who turned coat, so what would be the big effing deal if we did leave him?
He should have just released the 5 and let the Taliban keep Bergdahl — but the Taliban drove a hard bargain and made Obama take Bergdahl off their hands.
“Well, Obama has ordered strikes on a few Americans, who turned coat, so what would be the big effing deal if we did leave him?”
Based on Obama’s known orders to kill Americans without due process, it seems odd that Obama didn’t order a drone hit on Bergdahl. That he didn’t bolsters the case that Obama just used the Bergdahl situation as an excuse to reduce inventory at Guantanamo.
The future is too good to waste on lies, Bergdahl wrote his parents. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting.
Christopher Hayes @chrislhayes
Am I correct that the American right-wing has spent the day arguing we should have left an American soldier behind?
******
Yes, we should leave a freaking traitor behind when they are most likely collaborating with terrorists!
As if Chris Hayes even knows any American soldier or American right-wing for that matter.
Remember this?
Chris Hayes: I feel “uncomfortable” calling fallen military members “heroes.”
I feel uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I dont want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone thats fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers, and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe Im wrong about that.
Bill O’Reilly had a good comment about this: if Bob Bergdahl came out wearing a yarmulke and speaking Hebrew, it would be safe to assume he was Jewish. So why do people get upset if we assume he is Muslim?
Bob Bergdahl looks like a convert and a fanatic. I suspect he is part of the American Sufi movement, they say they’re into peace and forgiveness, but it’s an Islamic cult.
Zactly....
Exactly!
“We only leave ambassadors and CIA personnel behind.” - Hussein 0bama
My first thought at seeing him was that he is Muslim. After hearing of his opening words in Arabic at the White House, it left little doubt in my mind.
I’m thinking we should never send known muslims to fight muslims in other countries. Frankly, they should not be in our Military - but we know that will never happen. Nidal Hasan is an example of the dangers.
We only leave ambassadors and CIA personnel behind. - Hussein 0bama
+100
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.