Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman
Certainly don't argue with this. Just in the means to getting it done. Or least I got pauses/concerns.
Agreed the info likely been extracted. But I'm not sure I like the ramifications of putting them back in the hands of the Taliban where they can rejoin the fight. Especially a 5 for 1 trade.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us...y-taliban.html
I lean 65-70% towards not liking the way they handled the transfer for him. Especially if he deserted his post during war. But a hearing should answer a lot of questions, and maybe at the end, I fall on the other side of supporting it. |
The hearing doesn't seem to be about if this guy deserted his post, the hearing seems to be if the President violated the law in releasing those prisoners. Early indications are that the president did in fact break the law.
At the same time the White House says:
Quote:
|
"On Monday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough defended the administration's handling of the negotiations, saying Congress had known for years of negotiations for Bergdahl's release, including the possibility that detainees might be released."
|
And if any such law was broken, is this like a traffic ticket or will they take this to impeachment? Is this going to be the Republican party making a mountain out of molehill? You have to admit, the Monica crap was pure bullshit.
At the same time I was surprised the US "negotiated with terrorists". We don't do this, and I feel let down. Even more so knowing this might not have been kidnapped.