Was it really wise to exchange a deserter for five Gitmo terrorists?

[funinspace]

Was it really wise to exchange a deserter for five Gitmo terrorists?

Does it really matter?

Right now Obama could be healing the sick and raising the dead on the west lawn and the headline on Brietbart.com would read

OBAMACARE PUTS THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS OUT OF BUSINESS

More likely: "The Anti-Christ Has Been Revealed"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Was it really wise to exchange a deserter for five Gitmo terrorists?

Does it really matter?

Right now Obama could be healing the sick and raising the dead on the west lawn and the headline on Brietbart.com would read

OBAMACARE PUTS THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS OUT OF BUSINESS

The guy was in charge when bin Laden was finally caught. He okay'd the mission. Was he the primary reason we caught bin Laden? No. Did he ever say he was? No. Did that stop the right-wing from making false claims that Obama took all the credit, especially over the troops in the mission? No.

 

[Derec]

Was it really wise to exchange a deserter for five Gitmo terrorists?

Does it really matter?

Right now Obama could be healing the sick and raising the dead on the west lawn and the headline on Brietbart.com would read

OBAMACARE PUTS THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS OUT OF BUSINESS

Breitbart maybe.
But when he's losing people on his own side, like Diane Feinstein, that's a bigger problem.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Was it really wise to exchange a deserter for five Gitmo terrorists?

Does it really matter?

Right now Obama could be healing the sick and raising the dead on the west lawn and the headline on Brietbart.com would read

OBAMACARE PUTS THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS OUT OF BUSINESS

Breitbart maybe.
But when he's losing people on his own side, like Diane Feinstein, that's a bigger problem.

"Losing" may be a bit overstated.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Ya, I think the only real issue is that he was supposed to let congress know before he released anyone from GTMO.

As to the issue of desertion/AWOL I guess we'll find out why he left the base-maybe he had a relationship, or maybe it was to score some smack. Or maybe we'll find that guys over there walk off base all the time for various reasons. IOW it may have just been a matter of AWOL, which is no biggie.

In the OP derec calls these guys terrorists. What evidence is there of that? I understand they were not being held on ANY criminal charges, and that they were simply POWs. Big difference there. IMO all the POWs should have been released once the Taliban government was overthrown, but they certainly should be released now that we are pulling out.

Tom is right; GTMO has become a stain on our country's history and our traditions. I find the whole post 911 behavior of the US to be shameful. We were attacked on 911 by criminals-we should have immediately hunted them down and put them on trial. Instead, when we had them cornered our leadership failed and let them go. Then they farted around in Iraq for no good reason wasting the lives of thousands of Americans and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

 

[J842P]

Why did he do this? What possible benefit does it bring him?

There is the possibility, of course, that he did it knowing it would not benefit him. That the instant the deal was announced, the right wing nut jobs (who claim to love our military) would find a way to leverage this against him, paint him as "palling around with terrorists" again, and maybe even call for impeachment, but he did it anyway because bringing back a POW is worth a little political damage.

If we're going to be a bit more cynical, it is because Obama is concerned about his legacy. He wants to be the President that ended two wars, and leaving one POW behind will tarnish that legacy. I think this is the reason, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an effort to (rightly) empty Gitmo by the end of 2016 as well. That's five inmates down, about a buck fifty to go. As of last month, 77 of them have been cleared for release. If we can cut loose five of the worst, then the case for holding onto the ones we can let go becomes considerably weaker.

This is a good thing.

As far as the five who are being released, they are allegedly senior Taliban guys. Not Al Qaeda. Bad guys? Certainly. But bad guys who have spent a very long time in prison and we can't really justify holding them indefinitely just because they're bad guys.

Regarding the POW returning to the US, whatever crimes he might have committed by leaving his post are properly dealt with under the UCMJ. If there is punishment to be meted out, it should be done by our military, not by the Taliban.

If I wanted to be cynical about it, something tells me that the release of these guys is part of some inner dealing with the Taliban over our up-and-coming withdrawal. They just needed some reason, the Taliban probably said "Well, OK, if you want to save face we can 'trade' you for one of your guys."

 

[Ford]

If I wanted to be cynical about it, something tells me that the release of these guys is part of some inner dealing with the Taliban over our up-and-coming withdrawal. They just needed some reason, the Taliban probably said "Well, OK, if you want to save face we can 'trade' you for one of your guys."

That's not cynical, because if I understand correctly the negotiation over this trade has been going on for quite some time. Years, in fact. In advance of our impending withdrawal there has been an ongoing process trying to bring the Taliban (or at least the more agreeable parts) into the political process, giving them a stake in postwar Afghanistan.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Now the official report compiled after the incident is coming out.

Bergdahl had walked away, and returned, before, in the states and in Afghanistan.

There was no note.

There were no intercepts that Bergdahl was seeking Taliban members.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The report seems to make everything a bit more gray. What is interesting is what appears to be Swiftboating of him by soldiers who said one thing and are now saying an entirely different thing.

What seems clear is that he fucked up. But the level of fucked up is yet to be determined. He'll obviously be able to fill in some details.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

http://aattp.org/under-bush-600-git...g-one-suspected-in-the-benghazi-attack-video/

I surely don't remember all this right winger drooling and gibbering then.

 

[dismal]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

 

[RavenSky]

And one of those fucktards is a prime suspect in the attack on Benghazi.

OK, if you're going to come in here and claim that Hillary Clinton was once a prisoner at Gitmo, you're going to need to back it up with something other than an unsupported assertion.

 

[RavenSky]

You asked ; and better than parody (reality trumps Underseer's lampoons):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...d-a-ransom-for-an-American-hostage-No-really#

North demanded that the media ask the Obama administration if there was “a ransom, a fiscal, financial, money transaction,” with the Taliban as part of the deal. “Was there a ransom paid? Did the government of the United States, either directly or indirectly, finance a terrorist organization?”

I guess North doesn't embarrass easy...

Oh good grief

 

[Ford]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

The right wing is losing their mind over the fact that Barack "OMG His Middle Name is HUSSEIN!!!" Obama traded five Gitmo prisoners for one soldier.

Bush released 100 times as many without getting anything in return.

Yet as these hundreds of people so dangerous we had to put them into custody in a special made prison 90 miles away from the American mainland were released back into the world, not a single one of the wingers whose heads are collectively exploding raised so much as an eyebrow.

Bush releases hundreds and gets nothing in return? No big deal!

Obama releases five and gets an American soldier back in the process? OMG! IMPEACH!!!

And then there's Ollie North. Oh jeez where to start with this fucking guy...

Ollie North criticizing Obama for making a hostage deal is like Dick Cheney complaining that Obama wasn't handling his gun safely when he went out trap shooting.

Actually it is a lot worse. North was part of a deal that not only illegally transferred arms to Iran in exchange for hostages (Iran, with whom we were involved in a bit of a proxy war via Iraq) but also took the proceeds of that deal and funded terrorists...er..."freedom fighters" in direct contravention of a law that was written specifically to keep the White House from funding those terrorists...er..."freedom fighters."

I mean, you don't even have to defend Obama at all. You could just as easily say he was wrong to trade Taliban guys for one soldier and you'd still be fully justified in telling Ollie North: "Shut the fuck up. You of all people have no business talking shit about this deal."

 

[dismal]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

No, you're missing the point.

Whether this was a wise trade by Obama or not has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush.

If you must reflexively defend Obama, let go of the crutch and walk on your own.

 

[Underseer]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

No, you're missing the point.

Whether this was a wise trade by Obama or not has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush.

If you must reflexively defend Obama, let go of the crutch and walk on your own.

Correct. Bush's release of prisoners has nothing to do with Obama's release of prisoners, however it very much has something to do with your complaint about Obama's release of prisoners. It was good when Bush did it, but bad when Obama does much less of a similar thing. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

No, you're missing the point.

Whether this was a wise trade by Obama or not has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush.

If you must reflexively defend Obama, let go of the crutch and walk on your own.

The point, for those who lack the ability to understand it, is to note that people seem to be only complaining because Obama was involved. It is a common theme, complaining about deficit spending, getting involved with foreign conflicts, releasing prisoners from Guantanamo, etc...

As details are coming out, the soldier has been defamed by the right-wing and those released weren't particularly dangerous.

 

[dismal]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

No, you're missing the point.

Whether this was a wise trade by Obama or not has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush.

If you must reflexively defend Obama, let go of the crutch and walk on your own.

Correct. Bush's release of prisoners has nothing to do with Obama's release of prisoners, however it very much has something to do with your complaint about Obama's release of prisoners. It was good when Bush did it, but bad when Obama does much less of a similar thing. Why do you suppose that is?

If you wish to make a comment about the specifics of my complaint go ahead and do so.

A challenge may arise when you attempt to find my complaint.

 

[dismal]

Let us not forget the Bushy-Wushy released a number (600) of Gitmo captives, some of whom returned to terrorism.

Well, if Bush did it it must be good.

Congratulations on applying the highest standards of deductive reasoning and on winning the Obama defend-off.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

No, you're missing the point.

Whether this was a wise trade by Obama or not has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Bush.

If you must reflexively defend Obama, let go of the crutch and walk on your own.

The point, for those who lack the ability to understand it, is to note that people seem to be only complaining because Obama was involved. It is a common theme, complaining about deficit spending, getting involved with foreign conflicts, releasing prisoners from Guantanamo, etc...

As details are coming out, the soldier has been defamed by the right-wing and those released weren't particularly dangerous.

It seems to be quite the pattern that if anyone criticizes Obama one attacks the criticizer instead of the argument.

Surely it should be possible to legitimately disagree with something Obama has done?

You yourself have made a big fuss about signing statements in the past, so where is your criticism of Obama's reliance on a signing statement to effectuate this trade for Bergdahl without notifying congress?

Did you not actually care that much about signing statements after all?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Surely it should be possible to legitimately disagree with something Obama has done?

And is there a problem if someone points out reality?

I mean:

• This was the last American POW held in the war.
• The individuals who were traded for this POW have been held for over 10 years and are not considered a viable threat.
• Trades like these are common in conflicts.
• Many Republicans that were criticizing the Obama Administration for not making a deal calling the POW a hero are now criticizing Obama for making a deal, calling the POW a traitor and scrubbing their websites of their previous comments (ala* Winston Smith and the Department of Truth)

*Pronounced: "Allah"