nonceleb,Is there any shortcoming or failure,in domestic or foreign
policy, for which BO has been responsible that the left has not denied, tried to
blame on bush, or tried to rationalize away? This already got old and boring
Eric.... you actually know what was and wasn't tried? Please do share
then.... I am taking it from this reading your information has it that this was
the very first attempt at getting this soldier back. You seem to have some deep
connection to information as to what didn't happen... please do tell...
@JoeCapitalist2I was in the US during GWBs reign, oh he had people
comparing him to Hitler but I never saw such huge opposition to every single
thing he did. Just look at the backlash over Michelle saying kids should
exercise and eat healthily. You could almost hear the republicans strapping down
their kids and funnelling lard down their throats in response.Never
have I seen such division and pettiness. Oh the colony thing didnt work out so
well, I personally dont want them back.
nonceleb: "Is there any shortcoming or failure, alleged or real, in domestic
or foreign policy, which has not been blamed on Obama. This already got old and
boring years ago."Yes it was old and boring when all the
liberals were doing the same thing to Bush. I guess if the conservatives had to
endure it when the shoe was on the other foot, liberals shouldn't complain
too much. Of course, it is completely different when it is the far-left hero who
is being criticized, right?
UT Brit: "Obama could wipe out half the US population by saying he really
enjoys breathing and thinks that everyone should breathe."And I
guess if GWB said the same thing, then the other half would also be wiped out
and you Brits could have your colonies back, right?
"He should have dangled the possibility of removing all US troops from
Afghanistan. That's something the Taliban wants more than anything."No serious negotiator would ever trade a strategic policy for a tactical
objective. Ever. For one thing, no Taliban commander would take such an offer
seriously. For another, why would anyone want others to believe that the US is
willing to take such a skewed negotiation position? Even if it conforms to the
plan the US intends to announce anyway, it sets a horrible precedent and tells
our enemies that we're willing to make major military and foreign policy
changes for the sake of an individual soldier. And finally, we are not removing
all troops from Afghanistan, but leaving 10,000 in country for the time being.
Is there any shortcoming or failure, alleged or real, in domestic or foreign
policy, which has not been blamed on Obama. This already got old and boring
Obama could wipe out half the US population by saying he really enjoys breathing
and thinks that everyone should breathe. Has he been labeled as a WMD?
Obama did it, so it must be wrong. Whatever it is.
On leadership ability to get something for things you already plan to do...Maybe President Obama should have used something else he already planned
to do as a bargaining chip.He should have dangled the possibility of
removing all US troops from Afghanistan. That's something the Taliban
wants more than anything. He should have sent a negotiator over there and
say... If you give us one person... we will remove ALL US troops from
Afghanistan.Instead.. he announced we would be removing all US
troops (with nothing in exchange).Then a few weeks later we give up
5 high value Taliban prisoners to get one US prisoner.It's
possible BOTH were things the President was going to do anyway (for nothing).He's been trying for 6 years to release ALL the prisoners in
Guantanamo and close it. Might as well get SOMETHING for these 5... if you
already plan to release ALL of them for nothing!
President Obama merely added one word to the beginning of his predecessor's
foreign policy doctrine.
My view is that they should have given ALL of the remaining prisoners at Gitmo
(save the big 5 who will eventually go to trial) to get our guy back and solved
two problems at once.
It is always good to get an American back from enemy hands no matter what he may
have done to get into trouble in the first place. His conduct needs to be
investigated and if he deserted, he needs to be punished. But it seems to me
that this was not a good trade. 5 terrorists for 1 soldier? Couldn't we
have gotten a better deal than that?It seems to me that the cost was
too high for this trade to make any sense. Surely, other Americans and innocent
Afghans will die from this action. It puts more Americans at risk of capture
when terrorists know we will pay a high price to get them back.This
trade seems purely political. Some of the criticism from the other side is
political as well, but there are some very troubling concerns about this deal.
So apparently Lincoln, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower weren't good leaders
because they all did prisoner exchanges.Also, how does Eric know
that all alternatives hadn't been exhausted?Oh yeah, because
Obama is the president and heaven forbid the radical right give him any
credit.Even when Obama saves American troops the right must complain
and criticize. How about folks like Eric send this troop back to the Taliban and
explain to his family that they'd rather have American troops in the
Taliban's custody than to give President Obama credit for anything.Sheesh!
Good intentions?Eric, you are giving BO more credit than he deserves.I only hope there were discreet radio transmitters implanted in these
Had the guy stayed in Taliban control, would he have been a tool of propaganda,
whether willingly or not?You don't know what was done and not.
Amazing how people want to take cheap shots at the President just because
it's emotionally satisfying.
The INS defines a citizen as one who is entitled to the protection of the United
States. It does not place restrictions on when that right can be forfeit.He was and is a citizen. The circumstances leading to his capture are
irrelevant in that regard. However, an investigation into the
details of his capture is fully warranted. And if it turns out he was a
deserter, he deserves to be treated as such; but not until due process is
done.He has to have remained in some kind of positive standing with
the Army. He was promoted (twice!) while he was in custody. If he had been
labeled a deserter he would not have had that honor.I for one, am
glad that the United States did what it needed to do to protect one of its
citizens. What would be more American than to secure his release, and then
determine his guilt (if any) in a court of law, or more likely in his case, a
Court Martial? If you are against his return, what would you have
told his father? If this were your son, what would you have wanted done?
The DN is reporting today that six soldiers have been killed trying to rescue
this soldier. So my question to you is would you rather have six more Americans
killed or just give them back five of their own local leaders (yes bad guys and
killers, but local), as we exit?
Which methods did he fail to exhaust?
So...any suggestions as to what he should have done instead?
"...but a true leader would exhaust every method of bringing the captured
home before even considering a trade with the enemy."========
Like what?Navy Seals? Commando's? Arms
for Hostages?A million man invasion, 13 years of occupation, 6,000
additional American deaths, another $4 Trillion?Pretty Please, with sugar
on it?How about every option WAS "considered", rather than
jumping completely off the uber-far-right-wing answer for everything and say
"exhausted".That sort extreme hyperbole is AM radio at
it's finest.FYI -- I guess that makes our Founding Father
George Washington was an ineffectual leader, because he traded Prisoners
of War all the time...
I highly doubt Eric has done any research regarding the methods employed toward
rescuing Sergeant Bergdahl. But hey, as long as we can take shots at the
president, who needs integrity?
" . . . a true leader would exhaust every method of bringing the captured
home before even considering a trade with the enemy . . . "Really?Then apparently George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and Dwight
Eisenhower were not true leaders.
The man has been in captivity for 5 years despite the military's best
efforts to recover him. What alternatives remained to be exhausted? Then the
letter tosses in two complete non sequiturs with zero impact on whether he was
recovered or not.
Glad to know you have access to classified Government information and/or a
crystal ball, so you can tell us that President Obama, over the course of 5
years, did not exhaust all other possible ways to get the Sargent back.Most of the folks who are knocking President Obama's leadership are the
folks that swallowed the Bush/Cheney/Oil Establishment's flimsy excuse to
go into Irag, destroying the country, nearly bankrupting the USA, killing
hundreds of thousands, etc -- all resulting in the muslim world hating us and
Iraq being a mess.Leadership is not necessarily showy, except in
cowboy movies. The world has gotten way too complex for simple answers. This
President is imperfect, but the tasks he can complete without Congress have been
Much better to have sold them 1500 missiles in exchange for hostages, like our
great leader Reagan did with Iran.