Reports say the Taliban was waiting many months for the ok to make this deal. Did Obama make this solider-deserter wait longer so this deal could be made to take another story off the headlines?
I am not inclined to be too hard on Bergdahl, although his father's actions interest me. Perhaps his father knew the way to get into obama's good graces was to appear to be a radical islamist. Anyone who has been in the Army knows there are guys like Bergdahl in every unit. Dreamers, kooks, weirdos, lost children. They are harmless in a training or support unit, but when put at the sharp end of the stick, they can endanger their whole unit. Jack Nicolson knew how to handle them. Order a Code Red. He certainly wouldn't have endangered the rest of his command looking for him, particularly when the enemy knew his troops would be doing so and could set traps for them.
Clearly there were some lines crossed here that should not have been crossed. First off the president clearly broke the law. That isn't even debatable. Don't take my opinion for it. Listen to Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst for CNN. He just said on CNN that Obama broke the law, no doubt. Toobin is hardly a partisan hack and is considered a legal scholar. The soldier in question...the guy went off the reservation. Seems like he just kind of lost it. While I can sympathize with his disillusionment, what he did cost the lives of several men. Quite the load to carry for the rest of his life. Dad...a parent whose only interest was getting his son back. Again, I can sympathize with that, but it seems he went a bit too far, but I can't say what I would do in the same situation. I would like to think I wouldn't get in bed with the enemy, but who knows for sure until you're in the situation yourself. Seems like a horseshit deal from start to finish.
As far as O is concerned, congress no longer exists. The fact that he continues to commit impeachable offenses with little response, the fact that he uses regulation to get around congress with little response (EPA,FCC, etc...), the fact that he unilaterally changes the ACA law of the land that he signed with little response, and so on, he is essentially correct. This is also known as tyranny, though some use a more benevolent term...imperial presidency.
It takes both the house and the senate to impeach a president. If the democraps were worth a shit they'd be as outraged as anyone by Odumbo's lawlessness but they're not so it ain't going to happen in a divided congress. Not that I think republicans have the balls to do the right thing either if they win the senate in Nov...
The dems basically are in lockstep with O, and feel the same way about the constitution. There are very few moderate dems left. They agree with how he operates. Have you even seen our progressives in here complain about how O goes about business? They seem to agree with most of the way things are now being done by this admin, because in their minds, the ends are justified by the means, even if the means are authoritarianism. In their minds, he's their tyrant, so it's ok. As for the senate going back to R...McConnell has already stated he's returning the rules to the old ways, so forget turnabout payback. Remember when the pubs took power in 94? They stupidly said back then that they would share power. Idiots. I say fight the same way the left does. We won't be holding our breath on that one, though.
With talk like this, the guy has a great shot at landing himself a job as a preacher at Obama's church. Hell, if he can get caught for tax evasion he could get a Cabinet level position with Obama. BTW Obama, great smokescreen to get the VA debacle out of the news. The problem is, this may end up being an even bigger debacle.
No it doesn't. The House impeaches. After an impeachment occurs the Senate decides if the President gets removed. BILL CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED. Both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS voted to impeach.
The more we learn, the harder it is to have much sympathy for this guy. Networks across the board are at best very hesitant to support this move. What we know for sure is that every soldier that served with this guy doesn't have much good to say about him, and he was an obvious deserter. We also know that anywhere between 6 and 14 men were KIA while assigned missions to look for him. We also know that soldiers who served with him were ordered to sign non-disclosure statements regarding the event. We also know that the administration knew of these events prior to any deal being made. We know that the president broke the law in making the deal. Leaves us with what I believe are fair questions. Given that we have a policy where we don't want to leave anyone behind, just how much do we give up for a deserter? Does a deserter, by the very nature of their actions, voluntarily give up some rights reserved for others? Not to dodge the questions my self, I would answer, no we should not sell the farm for a deserter and yes, a deserter goes give up the right to have us move heaven and earth to get them back. It also seems pretty obvious to me that our president is willing to bend over backwards trying to appease our enemies, while receiving little or nothing in return. This deal really sucks, and it sucks even worse that we have a Marine held prisoner in Mexico and a administration that seems perfectly content to leave him there. WTF?