Then watching Fox and CNN should be left to the line towers. Not that you watch either, just sayin. As much as it pains me (Don't much care for the brits) but BBC does a great job of finding the middle.
But it's not that for me. I have always had disdain for bho and anything he has done. At least you know where I stand. I also think that yes, it would have and should have been a big deal regardless of who is or would have been POTUS. We don't negotiate with terrorist.
Bush had nothing to do with that. Those were decisions made by Army generals and DOD, specifically Rumsfeld. I wasn't on this board then, I was too busy fighting. Feel free to go through any post I've ever written and find me an instance where I've ever defended Rumsfeld, the Lynch "rescue", or the Tillman coverup. I've also criticized Bush for keeping his sorry ass for as long as he did. And I have repeatedly criticized general officers within my own branch for stupid decisions and for not holding themselves or others accountable for those decisions. Take a look at your own party and left leaning news organizations to see how many are jumping ship. You haven't contributed one shred of substance to anything in this thread. All you've done is attempt to make a point off your own preconceived notions and speculation of what might have been under an administration that's six years past. It's your own arrogance and stubbornness that prevents you from seeing how misguided and wrong you are on this.
1) Actually Red Hillary came out in support of the deal Monday. It was in an AP article and quoted her. 2) Again you try to make it sound if this was the last chance to make a deal and if our hand was forced by the incentive to recover Bergdahl. That is false...we have years to go even after we leave. It wouldn't be the first time POWs (which he wasn't) were kept in captivity after hostilities were over. It happened in Korea and I believe in Vietnam. 3) It appears the only reason you criticize O is for a public relations gaff. Hell Red the criticism is much deeper and more fundamental. There are many substantive reasons to criticize the president none of which have to do with party. If you note several other D senators have come out against the deal made. He made a bad deal period. He gave valuable holdings for little, he circumvented the law, he lied about it and he apparently embraced a fellow traveler of the enemy (Bergdahl Sr.). Chuck Todd (MSNBC head political analyst and no friend of Fox) speculated that this was the president's opening salvo in his attempt to empty Guantanamo at all cost before he leaves office. Isn't that worth discussion. Dude why don't you see the president was negligent in his duty naïve in his negotiations and duplicitous in his public relations.
Perhaps. Nobody imagines that they are rehabilitated. But perhaps they have done their bit and have had enough. I suspect none of them are going to get themselves in position to be captured again. OBL is now crab shit in the Arabian Sea, good with me if one of these guys joins him. The negotiation took a year they are reporting today. They did not get the top most dangerous detainees including KSM, don't you think they might have started with those guys and settled for these? No negotiator has yet stated that these were the original choices of the Taliban. I get it. You would leave a soldier behind. Me and a lot of other people agree with Stanley McChrystal. “We’re going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story,” he said. “One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it. We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal.” I haven't defended them. But those documents show that Obama has not made anti-American statements or been anti-American in any fashion. I didn't say it was no big deal, I said that I understood that negotiations mean you have to offer something tangible. Not only do presidents operate independently quite frequently, but statements from Senators this week indicate that they have been aware that negations have been gong on since 2011. Obama was not hiding this, but then the time came to make a decision it had to be done quickly. And he did so. A statement by House Speaker John Boehner referred to "serious questions" he and others raised in briefings that date back as far as late 2011 and in followup correspondence. It shows and it clouds your logic.
No, I don't see the world through your FOXNews glasses. Obama can explain his actions himself and he did today. I maintain that it was not negligent to leave a soldier behind, it is something we do whenever we can. This begs the question, what are we going to do with the Guantanamo prisoners now? The GOP resisted trying them under our laws, convicting them and sentencing them. As POW's they can't be held forever. Hundreds have already been released. What is to be done with the 150 remaining prisoners? The Republican don't want them tried and convicted nor do they want them released. What?
Oh my fucking god. I SAID THAT HAD THOSE THINGS HAPPENED UNDER OBAMA HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BLAMED. I never said Bush was blamed, nor did I say he should have been.
Right and I get that with you. I understand even though I don't because i didn't serve of that makes sense.
