Althouse: Charles Krauthammer supports Obama's decision on Bergdahl.

June 5, 2014

Charles Krauthammer supports Obama's decision on Bergdahl.

"Had the choice been mine I would have made the same choice... It’s a difficult decision, and I would not attack those who have done otherwise.... These are dangerous militants, but we have long engaged in and all other countries in the West have engaged in hostage swaps where the West always comes out on the short end...."

90 comments:

Strick said...: I support it, too, but it was done for the wrong reasons and positioned badly.

If the pitch had been, "he may be a weasel, but he's our weasel and we don't leave even our weasels behind", it would have worked. As it is, where the White House doesn't even know the difference between a hero and a weasel, it's clearly a tragedy.; 6/5/14, 10:40 AM
YoungHegelian said...: “Had the choice been mine I would have made the same choice,” Krauthammer told Fox News’ “Special Report” on Wednesday.

It's interesting that the Politico reporter seems not to know or chooses not to say that Krauthammer said the same thing on Tuesday night's Bill O'Reilly.

Maybe the reporter just thinks that O'Reilly doesn't need any more bandwidth.; 6/5/14, 10:40 AM
Strick said...: I support it, too, but it was done for the wrong reasons and positioned badly.

If the pitch had been, "he may be a weasel, but he's our weasel and we don't leave even our weasels behind", it would have worked. As it is, where the White House doesn't even know the difference between a hero and a weasel, it's clearly a tragedy.; 6/5/14, 10:40 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: I might have made the trade, on the condition that the Taliban take Bergdahl's father as part of the deal.; 6/5/14, 10:47 AM
Big Mike said...: I agree with Strick. What's indefensible is suggesting that Bergdahl is some sort of hero who was worth what we "paid" for him.; 6/5/14, 10:51 AM
avwh said...: Strick:
Would have been the first time ever that this WH told the truth, instead of opting for the "better spin".; 6/5/14, 10:53 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Doing a swap with them isn't, by itself, a horrible decision.

Whether those 5 individuals is too high a price is certainly a valid question.

The obvious high level of either cluelessness about, and/or disdain for, the military in the way the trade was announced/presented is the real problem.; 6/5/14, 10:54 AM
Alexander said...: Well I disagree, but it's at least consistent with common-law:

We've got a precedent of doing lop-sided hostage swaps that bite us in the ass, so let's keep repeating the mistake.; 6/5/14, 10:56 AM
Unknown said...: Wrong.

On May 29 when addressing West Point President Obama declared terrorism the most direct threat facing America. Two days later he releases five of the worst terrorist to return to jihad. I have yet to hear reporters question the administration what changed in two days.

Krauthammer says imagine Bergdahl had served with honor. The entire issue is that he did not. Had he served with honor I suspect many would still feel this exchange set a horrible precedent. I myself would not support it. I also read special forces leaders had declined rescue attempts - because of Bergdahls deserter status. Had Bergdahl been a honorable soldier, special forces would have been willing to extend themselves.; 6/5/14, 10:58 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Phony scandal.

Anybody want to talk about the Right's propensity for exploding over Drudge's daily outrage that only results in themselves looking like a bunch of unhinged maniacs who, pretty likely, are only doing it because - like Cliven Bundy - they don't think the Negro knows what to do, with the government they don't respect, if he's not picking cotton?

Any of you apocalyptic conspiracy theorists want to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, it's Matt Drudge who is expertly playing The Knockout Game - on the Right-Wing of American politics?

And can we talk about the strategic wisdom of violently turning down a bid to merely discuss reparations - a proposal you seem assured will lose, so would pose no financial threat to endorse - when the Republican Party desperately needs black voters?

In other words, can we talk about some real shit for a change?; 6/5/14, 10:59 AM
DKWalser said...: I watched Krauthammer's segment on O'Reilly last night (Wednesday, not Tuesday). I respect his opinion enough to make me rethink my own. Having done that, I still think the trade was the wrong thing to do. The boost this gives to the Taliban is not worth it and wouldn't have been worth it had our guy been a medal of honor winner. However, I concede that there are strong arguments in favor of the trade and that reasonable people might favor those arguments over those I find more persuasive.

However, nothing can excuse the way in which the Administration did the trade. Obama expected adulation and acclamation from the public over his having rescued Bergdahl, so he made a big public celebration out of the trade. He also intentionally went around Congress, violating a law he signed that was passed in response to his having proposed this exact same trade in the past.; 6/5/14, 11:02 AM
glenn said...: " And all other countries in the West have engaged in hostage swaps where the West always comes out on the short end...."

Which is one more reason to send Air Force; 6/5/14, 11:06 AM
Kevin said...: It still hasn't been established that he was a hostage or prisoner, has it? Every bit of evidence I see says, "Collaborator." That's a whole nother ball game. They shouldn't have sent SF to rescue him. They should have sent SF to put 2 rounds in the back of his head.; 6/5/14, 11:07 AM
Unknown said...: I don't support it.

According to his compatriots, we lost people trying to rescue him from his stupidity or criminality, whichever. I seem to remember there's a 30% recidivism rate from J Bay via releases of low level AQ.

If there was no chance that we lose more lives from releasing high level AQ people, fine. However, we've already suffered loss of lives, will suffer more as a result of the swap, and this is strategically a poor move.; 6/5/14, 11:07 AM
Brando said...: I don't really have a problem with the swap itself--POW trades at the end of a war are not really a new thing. The issue is the flagrant breaking of the law.

If the law was unconstitutional, then challenge it in court--don't sign it and then later say it doesn't apply to you. Otherwise make a public apology to Bush because you criticized him for the same thing.; 6/5/14, 11:11 AM
traditionalguy said...: The loner pfc (not Sergeant) was a muslim believer who went native. How to handle that was a hard case.

Hard cases make bad law.

This explosion of anger is about a need for closure by telling the truth one time. The need to always lie about every thing all day long is what Susan Rice and Obama's female leadership cadre are paid to do.

Obama actually enjoys getting away with lying to us with smile and a raised middle finger at all Stoopid Amuricans who believe him because he occupies George Washington's old job.

And how are the VA's still alive medical patients doing today?; 6/5/14, 11:17 AM
richlb said...: I agree with Strick, who is also matching what Drill SGT said here yesterday. It's not the basics of the deal that are the major problem here. Getting an American back, albeit one as tainted as this guy, is always an important objective, sometimes worthy of making a terribly lopsided trade.

But it's the show that Obama put on in the Rose Garden, along with the thumbing his nose at Congress, that bugs me here. That's the reason for the blowback. You'd be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't want to see it's soldiers in hands of terrorists returned safely.; 6/5/14, 11:30 AM
MartyH said...: A cynic may suspect that Obama has an escalating list of distractions ready in case of negative publicity.

A cynic would note that the near simultaneous resignations of two high ranking officials did nothing to slow the coverage of the VA scandal, but that Bergdahl's release immediately drove it off the front page. That the tone has changed from triumphant to indignant does not change this fact.

A cynic may suspect that the urgency that necessitated Bergdahl's immediate release was not Bergdahl's physical health but rather Obama's political standing.

A cynic would remind you that cynics are more often wrong than right-with the possible exception of interpreting events in political capitals.; 6/5/14, 11:48 AM
james conrad said...: What Krauthammer does NOT support though is the way this exchange was presented, a WH Rose Garden victory dance followed by that incredible dunce, Susan Rice. What a disaster!; 6/5/14, 11:49 AM
cubanbob said...: Why is it so important to bring back a deserter (and possible traitor) back? If I was president I would have left him with the Taliban.; 6/5/14, 12:05 PM
Wilbur said...: I must disagree with the good Doctor.

Occasionally the man (or woman) in charge has to bite the bullet and make a hard decision. That's why they're in that position.

When you do this sort of thing, you foster and promote more of it. If he was a genuine POW, the decision is agonizing. But you still have to weigh the balance of the trade. Given the circumstances here, the decision shouldn't have been that hard.

The US got snookered, and no amount of administration claptrap can change that obvious fact.

Of course, the real question is what was Obama's true motive? We can speculate, but none of it's good.; 6/5/14, 12:10 PM
Johanna Lapp said...: Private Lynndie England, having served with honor and distinction (as reckoned by the Obama standard) is eagerly awaiting her apology, her pardon, her medal, her Rose Garden reception and her welcome home parade.; 6/5/14, 12:18 PM
chillblaine said...: Obama's next move will be to release the rest of those being held at Guantanamo. In return the Taliban will double pinky swear to stop throwing acid on girls attempting to go to school.

Dr. K makes a valid point, but Bowe Bergdahl is no Gilad Schalit, and people can tell the difference.; 6/5/14, 12:22 PM
Michael K said...: The comments after that piece on Politico show how leftist that publication has become. I doubt that anyone but lefties read it anymore. It was kind of disappointing.; 6/5/14, 12:29 PM
TML said...: Tapper has it 100% exactly right with no bullshit mixed in.; 6/5/14, 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: it was right to bring him home, but the price and deception involved is what irks me.; 6/5/14, 12:34 PM
Hagar said...: Krauthammer is Krauthammer, and he kind of out-Israeli the Israelis a lot of the time.

Anyway, Sgt. Bergdahl is not the major problem with this "trade." The Taliban/al Qaeda commanders are. Just looking at the mug shots, these are not just AK-47 toting grunts, but commanders and organizers, and I strongly doubt that they have either forgotten or forgiven anything at all.
This is not going to go well, and we will hear a lot more from these guys.; 6/5/14, 12:37 PM
RecChief said...: As much as I respect Krauthammer, I have to disagree with him here. I don't think the administration shoudl have given up 5 Talibanis, at least not that 5. I think the way this thing played out, in the face of the VA scandal, Obama wanted to show that he cares about people in the military. That's why the big press conference. He just doesn't undersand that for most of us, Bergdahl should have been brought back, but only to stand trial in a military court, not as a "hero who served with honor and distinction". From what I have read so far, it looks like he isn't, and didn't.; 6/5/14, 12:44 PM
carrie said...: Does he support the characterization of Bergdahl as a hero who served with "honor and distinction" (to quote Susan Rice)? He doesn't get what a lot of the outrage is about either.; 6/5/14, 1:19 PM
khesanh0802 said...: Agree with Strick.; 6/5/14, 1:20 PM
Michael said...: This is not complicated. You make the trade but you do it quietly, perhaps even secretly. You work with Congress to try and keep it secret. Because, in brief, you do not want to advertise to the entire world what a crappy deal maker you are. In no event should you make this a Rose Garden event.; 6/5/14, 1:22 PM
Quaestor said...: I do not support the trade for three reasons:

1) As a matter of principle (We don't leave anyone behind) it's totally bogus because we have left people behind in every war we've ever fought, many more deserving of repatriation than Bergdahl, who evidently deserted his comrades and sought haven with the enemy. He renounced and cursed his country. He's an adult, so he should lie in the bed he made for himself. The only reason he should be brought back is to hang him.

2) We also have another principle (We don't deal with terrorists) which is also totally bogus thanks to the deal.

3) Besides obligations to our soldiers we have obligations to the Afghans and others who have put their lives on the line because they believed, mistakenly, that we would protect them. Put yourself in the place of a 13 year old Afghan girl blessed with curiosity and talent who dreams of a university education. Now she learns that her enemy has been invigorated with the return to the fight of five of its most savage leaders... would you curse Obama and all he stands for? I think I would.; 6/5/14, 1:30 PM
Alex said...: Reagan did arms for hostages aka Iran Contra, so conservatives have no standing on this.; 6/5/14, 1:33 PM
Unknown said...: I think Mr. K obscures or misses the real point here (imho, very unusual for him). The point is NOT
"the West always comes out on the short end....". The point is HOW MUCH of a 'short end' deal is 'acceptable' - limitless? Of course not. There's no question in my individual mind that these 5 bloody psychopaths released to kill again is beyond any sensible or moral acceptance.; 6/5/14, 1:35 PM
Mark said...: In Ann' first Bergdahl-tagged post I expressed the opinion that the trade was Obama's call, the Congressional statute (that Obama signed into law) probably didn't pass Constitutional muster, that maybe the trade wasn't the wisest move (I still don't know enough to have an opinion on the strategic and tactical merits of it), so conservatives should let this one go and focus on bigger and more clear-cut transgressions.

At the time I didn't know about the Rose Garden ceremony or the long-term resistance of the Pentagon to the trade.

To address the military pushback first, in the end it is Obama's call. He made one. God help us, at some point the brass on down has to shut up and salute. Sucks to have a bad boss.

The Rose Garden ceremony and Rice's Sunday performance were a political disaster. On that, Obama's decision making is fair game.

He really doesn't have any core competency besides relying on people's ability to fool themselves.; 6/5/14, 1:46 PM
Michael K said...: "Blogger Alex said...
Reagan did arms for hostages aka Iran Contra, so conservatives have no standing on this."

A host of differences. The CIA station chief was being tortured and we wanted to try to get him back. The hostages were not deserters. The arms were not commanders of the enemy. The Reagan administration opened all the records and told the truth. The last is the biggest difference.; 6/5/14, 1:47 PM
garage mahal said...: You work with Congress to try and keep it secret

Would you trust Republicans to not sabotage the mission? I wouldn't.; 6/5/14, 1:54 PM
machine said...: ...we supported until HE did it.

ftfy; 6/5/14, 2:04 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Quaestor said...
1) As a matter of principle (We don't leave anyone behind) it's totally bogus because we have left people behind in every war we've ever fought, many more deserving of repatriation than Bergdahl, who evidently deserted his comrades and sought haven with the enemy.

Agree. You'd like to bring everybody off the battlefield (living and dead). Sometimes the cost is much too pricey. Then you make trade-offs.

I have heard, but have no evidence that more than one SF trooper was shot or had a napalm tank laid on his head as the VC were carting him off. Better dead then than ending your life in a very small bamboo cage touring villages.

The rumor at the end of the story is that, though JSOC kept coming up with contingency plans, the price looked too high.; 6/5/14, 2:23 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Yesterday: IMPEACHMENT!

Today: Keep moving, nothing to see here,…

Tomorrow: IMPEACHMENT!

Clowns.

They also said I was silly of me to bring up race, and reparations, when I have.

They still think it's over because they said so.

That's how much they know,...; 6/5/14, 2:25 PM
Browndog said...: Wait until everyone finds out the military didn't conduct "rescue" missions for a kidnapped brother. Rather, they conducted "capture/kill" missions for a traitor that was feeding the enemy intel.; 6/5/14, 2:29 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: "These are dangerous militants, but we have long engaged in and all other countries in the West have engaged in hostage swaps where the West always comes out on the short end....".

Normally I find Krauthammer pretty lucid, but this doesn't make sense to me. We should make a bad trade because we usually make bad trades? How does that count as a point in favor?

I can just imagine a manager in baseball going into the owner's office and saying "Sure, it's a bad trade. But we always do this, and if we keep making bad trades like this someday we'll have a great team."; 6/5/14, 2:48 PM
Drago said...: garage: "Would you trust Republicans to not sabotage the mission? I wouldn't."

LOL

Garage, pretending to understand what a "mission" is.

Again, thanks for your courageous service Pretend Sgt garage.

You can go back to asking for more free stuff now.; 6/5/14, 2:57 PM
Unknown said...: Crack seems to be losing coherency; is it possible he's using again?; 6/5/14, 3:00 PM
Ctmom4 said...: I agree with Strick. They should have been upfront and said we know there are questions about the circumstances of his disappearance, but he is entitled to a trial, and if guilty punished accordingly. Trying to spin the hero rescue thing was just a combination of arrogance and ignorance of the military and how they think.; 6/5/14, 3:05 PM
William said...: I just hope that none of the troops we sent on that rescue mission to Nigeria defect to Boko Harum.........Bergdahl's decision to lay down his weapon, leave his post, and go out for a walk among the Taliban villages is so preposterously stupid that I think some form of insanity defense is appropriate.....You can debate the pros and cons of the swap, but the President should never have promised the Bergdahl family a Rose Garden.....It would be kind to refrain from judging Bergdahl's character until we hear his side of he story. That said there is no possible way of saying he served "with honor and distinction". That's just too big of a lie and having Susan Rice tell it is an aggravating factor.; 6/5/14, 3:10 PM
Wince said...: I've always been in favor of negotiating a real peace with the Taliban that would protect minority rights, probably by partitioning the territory.

Accordingly, I would support the release of these five if a true armistice was achieved.

But what Obama attempted to do was to use PR to conflate an uneven hostage trade into a peace deal in the public mind to accompany his retreat where no such peace deal has been attained.

And, predictably, never would be attained in no small part due to his announced time-line for retreat.

Obama just tried to buy a year or two before the impending human rights disaster that could be pinned on him.

Krauthammer makes no sense on this one.; 6/5/14, 3:14 PM
JPS said...: Alex,

"Reagan did arms for hostages aka Iran Contra, so conservatives have no standing on this."

So, not that they're wrong, but just that they should shut up?

President A makes a bad call. Is it more important that subsequent President B not make a comparable bad call, or that he be given a pass until the domestic partisan score is even?

You were against the Iran-Contra dealings, at least retrospectively, right?; 6/5/14, 3:16 PM
Michael said...: Garage:

Everything is not politics to everybody. It is possible that an American soldier, regardless of status, could be liberated quietly, secretly. There are some, even in Washington, who care deeply about the country.

Those would not be people you seem to be familiar with.; 6/5/14, 3:17 PM
Drago said...: crack: "They also said I was silly of me to bring up race, and reparations, when I have."

Nonsense!

We all find you to be a quite erudite and pleasant fellow!

Silly?!

Pshaw.

Who would say such a thing?

No gentleman certainly, I can assure you.; 6/5/14, 3:17 PM
mccullough said...: It looks like the US is finally going to wind down in Afghanistan and the Taliban is going to control large parts of the country. We have to negotiate some things with them so this was some olive branch on our part and some small thing on their part. Maybe the Taliban doesn't want the drone warfare to disrupt their 10th century lifestyle anymore. As long as we get our soldiers out of there soon, I'm for this swap. Let them have their leaders back while we withdraw.; 6/5/14, 3:48 PM
grackle said...: it was right to bring him home, but the price and deception involved is what irks me.

This sentence neatly sums up the Obama mistake. Others on this comment thread have said much the same.

Bring him home. But try him for desertion. But the military brass, probably ordered to do so by their civilian overseers at State or Defense, covered up Bergdahl's desertion. Remember, readers, Bergdahl's official status, due to the cover-up of his desertion, was NOT as a deserter.

Let's use our imaginations:

What if Bergdahl had been located and taken back from the Taliban without a prisoner swap? I think Obama would still have orchestrated the Whitehouse rose garden event with Bergdahl's parents, which probably would have turned out to be the fiasco that it did in reality – which would probably have inflamed his fellow soldiers. And the soldiers speaking out would have surely caused controversy, but not near the amount of heat that it has caused in reality.

Why? Because 5 high-level Taliban would still be at Gitmo. Releasing these murderers is seen as a cynical and unnecessary ploy by Obama to hasten the closing of Gitmo. Obama sought to kill two birds with one stone:

be seen welcoming home a returned honorable soldier, replete with what Obama must have believed would be adoring and grateful parents … thereby showing he cares for the military, blunting the VA controversy.

AND

be 5 less prisoners closer to closing Gitmo.

Another factor that I think is at play here is that there has been a certain type of pressure building up for a long time. The MSM, time and time again has had to defend Obama on issues that are essentially indefensible.

The New Black Panthers, Fast and Furious, Rosengate, IRS, Benghazi – all have required that the MSM twist itself into pretzels to defend Obama.

I think this has created in the MSM a subconscious and in some instances a conscious resentment toward Obama. It's no fun being a fool for Obama. Obama is increasingly seen as incompetent. Especially since all of the above-listed scandals were entirely avoidable.

The New Black Panthers could have been put on trial. Holder and Obama would not have suffered any significant blow-back. The case was too open and shut because of the video of the Panthers at the voting stations. But Holder would not touch his "brothers."

Fast and Furious was probably ramped up to create some sort of talking points for the need for more gun control. It was a silly idea that wouldn't have worked even if it had not resulted in a scandal.

Another overkill situation was the monitoring of James Rosen's phone and email. It was either ignored or defended by the MSM but it must have had a negative impact on the MSM since it involved a journalist, one of their own.

I'm sure Obama would have won re-election even if the conservative organizations had not been harassed and hampered to a full stop by the IRS. Another overkill. And very difficult to defend.

Finally, Benghazi. If Obama had attempted a rescue he would have been seen in a favorable light, even if the rescue had not succeeded.

All this past incompetence, lying and cynicism may have created the volcano that is just now erupting.; 6/5/14, 3:51 PM
n.n said...: Negotiating the exchange of prisoners is not equivalent to "leave no man behind".

Releasing terrorists while in the process of fighting a war on terrorism aids the terrorist cause.; 6/5/14, 3:58 PM
jr565 said...: Garage mahal wrote:
Would you trust Republicans to not sabotage the mission? I wouldn't

not aware of too many republicans leaking secret missions. But if you were George Bush would hyou have trusted the dems not to sabotage his missions?
Going forward, should all presidents just go it alone and only trust his congress of they are of the same party?; 6/5/14, 3:59 PM
garage mahal said...: It is possible that an American soldier, regardless of status, could be liberated quietly, secretly. There are some, even in Washington, who care deeply about the country.

I suppose anything is possible. Maybe there are a few Republicans who wouldn't stab Obama in the back every chance they get. But, who are these Republicans?; 6/5/14, 4:03 PM
jr565 said...: Look, even though he's a deserter, if he's a POW we want to get him back. Was this deal the right deal? it seems too much. I agree with Kruthhamumer in theory that a deal might be necessary. Just not sure about THIS deal. And if we had any way of doing a mission to rescue him that would be preferable.

The other issue though is Bergdahl himself. His own troop,ares are the ones making the issue about the character of their comrade.

Rememember when it was Jessica Lynch and the left demanded the truth over the army whitewash? why should this be different.

And then it does change the dynamic of rescuing a POW who deserted. We lost troops who had to go on rescue missions to find this guy, and there is some suggestion that he was helping the Taliban with his military expertise. And so, it becomes are we making a deal for a traitor?
Couldn't we have gotten a better deal? and having gotten him back lets not pretend like he should now be forgiven for all he's done.; 6/5/14, 4:05 PM
machine said...: yea, its just like that time he pretended that soldier was killed in a heroic battle when he was actually killed by friendly fire and then he lied to the guy's family and the country about what actually happened...member that?

oh wait...; 6/5/14, 4:06 PM
PB said...: I don't doubt that it might make some sense to make some kind of deal of returning some prisoners to get our deserter back, but...

Obama and the Democrats negotiated in good faith with the Republicans to remove the ability of Congress to block prisoner transfers in exchange for a 30 day notification by the President. This is not an unreasonable requirement. Obama's failure to abide by this agreement is a slap in the face to Congress and the rule of law. It is a clear violation of the law, signing statements notwithstanding.

This event should/must tip the scale to impeachment. We've had enough lies, extortion, and illegal, criminal and unconstitutional behavior from this former lecturer on a subset of the Constitution.

It is time for him to go. Joe Biden or no Joe Biden.; 6/5/14, 4:22 PM
Drago said...: It is hardly surprising that our resident lefties are going bonkers trying to defend their latest traitor hero.

It's been awhile since they had a Rosenberg or Hiss to laud, defend and promote.; 6/5/14, 4:58 PM
Drago said...: And since the left is now very very very very very very concerned about hypothetical sabotaging of missions by Republicans, we should take a moment to remember this not-oldy-but-typical lefty-Reid assertions:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18227928/ns/politics/t/reid-iraq-war-lost-us-cant-win/#.U5Do7_mwK0s

Remember the "surge has already failed" before the surge mission had even begun?

But hey, forget that real stuff.

There are hypothetical Republican sobotagery going on that we must discuss!!

Best part?

It's with those two noted warrior patriots garage and machine!!

LOL; 6/5/14, 5:02 PM
From Inwood said...: Drudge Headline:

TALIBAN: WE'RE INSPIRED TO KIDNAP MORE!; 6/5/14, 5:11 PM
grackle said...: As long as we get our soldiers out of there soon, I'm for this swap.

A variation on the Bring-Our-Boys-Home sentiment. I look at it differently. I think our soldiers need to be kept where they are needed – for as long as they are needed.

When I joined the Navy at age 17 in 1960 I knew what I was getting into. I knew that I might be asked to be where it was unsafe and that I could die in battle. I had seen enough war movies to know that much. Being 17, I didn't dwell on it but awareness of danger was definitely present in my mind.

I was lucky. I got out in '64 just before Vietnam heated up. Our big event was the Cuban missile crisis. It could've resulted in a nuclear war but it didn't.

Everyone entering the military should know that hardship may be ahead and that they may be maimed or killed. Must know that their family may not see them for years at a time, that they are probably going to be at least partially, an absent parent if they indulge in a family. And their families and friends need to also realize this.

It's fine to miss loved ones and want them home and it's OK to want them to be unscathed while in the military but not at the cost of a war, at the cost of America's security. The military exists to fight and if need be, die. That's why we honor them, no other reason.; 6/5/14, 5:12 PM
From Inwood said...: From Commentary:

The U.S. has tried to portray the Taliban as mere terrorists who are on the wrong side of history, but ... this exchange bolsters the Taliban’s narrative that they are actually a legitimate governmental entity that will one day rule Afghanistan ... “For them] getting the five men back was ‘blissful news’ and a ‘historic achievement... which ‘filled up the eyes of all Muslims with tears of happiness.’ ”

[M]ost ordinary Afghans—whose allegiance is the ultimate prize in this conflict...are responding with fear and dismay.... [which]is easy to explain, since they remember all too well how Fazl and his goons terrorized them.... [it] will be seen as a rebuttal of Kabul’s and Washington’s claims that the Taliban cannot win... why give the Taliban hope just when they are reeling from numerous setbacks, most recently the successful presidential election?; 6/5/14, 5:28 PM
Gahrie said...: Maybe there are a few Republicans who wouldn't stab Obama in the back every chance they get. But, who are these Republicans?

How about the ones who knew about the Bin Laden raid for months before it happened and never said a word?; 6/5/14, 6:07 PM
Quaestor said...: Alex wrote: Reagan did arms for hostages aka Iran Contra, so conservatives have no standing on this.

Was Reagan's trade praiseworthy or not? I remember the Left getting extremely exercised over that deal. If Reagan's deal was bad -- dealing with Iran, who paid money for Hawk anti-aircraft missiles and got our hostages released by Hezbollah , then giving the money to Contra rebels who might use it to kill our enemies, the communist Sandinistas, then Obama's deal, trading five Taliban generals who might kill our friends and our countrymen for a scumbag deserter, is much worse. And we didn't get any money, to boot!

Sing the praises of Reagan, Alex, and I might not consider you a third-rate bullshit artiste.; 6/5/14, 6:07 PM
Jaq said...: I don't have a huge problem with the deal, though it clearly is illegal and an overstep of his constitutional authority, since Congress has the authority "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

What I do have a problem with is his hero treatment of this scumbag with the "served with honor and distinction" and his Rose Garden announcement with the weasel's parents.; 6/5/14, 6:18 PM
Jaq said...: Garage, we learned the relentless criticism tactic from you guys. It worked great against George W Bush. Do you think that you guys could keep this tactic to yourselves? Or did you bite your tongue regarding criticisms of Bush?

Besides, Obama's non stop rake stepping provides plenty of fodder.; 6/5/14, 6:22 PM
Jaq said...: At least Reagan had the good sense to lie about it because he had a sense for the American people. Something Obama clearly lacks.; 6/5/14, 6:25 PM
Jaq said...: Obama is at 40% approval today, 56% disapproval.

This is what happens when he trusts his gut.; 6/5/14, 6:50 PM
Phil 314 said...: Yeah, but would he have done the stand up with the parents!; 6/5/14, 7:57 PM
Krumhorn said...: I suppose anything is possible. Maybe there are a few Republicans who wouldn't stab Obama in the back every chance they get. But, who are these Republicans?

Well, we know for certain that there wasn't a single Democrat who didn't gleefully shiv W at every opportunity. The looselugnut libruls have set the ground rules for political combat; you can't complain when you get a bit of it back.

I tend to trace it back to the Bork nomination, but one could find the start of the modern political rules of engagement when John Tower was nominated for Secr. Of Def. and defeated on a party line vote.

It's been pretty much blood in the gutters ever since. The progs are, by far, the most corrosive agents in the country. But y'all mean oh-so well.

- Krumhorn; 6/5/14, 8:49 PM
Paul said...: Just today terrorist spokesman have said they will now kidnap more Americans.

Yes I know even Israel has had prisoner swaps with Hamas, but they know it's a bad idea in the long run.

The worst thing about Obama's is that he did not follow the law.

And now since everyone knows Bergdahl is a Muslim Jihadist deserter they see now why Congress was needed to oversee any such swap.

Obama is not all that smart and the kind of people he keeps around him are even less smart.; 6/5/14, 9:03 PM
George M. Spencer said...: "According to multiple reliable sources, on Air Force One during President Barack Obama's recent Asia trip, he spent some time talking with his traveling press corps about his approach to foreign policy. He was defensive and, by one account, "fuming." He felt that the criticism of his approach was unfair. He had clear ideas about how to manage America's global interests. In his own words, they centered on a single concept: "Don't do stupid shit."

Unbelievable.

How far we've fallen....

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.....

How far we've fallen.; 6/5/14, 9:05 PM
chillblaine said...: Bergdahl could pull Obama's arse from the fire by becoming the Prodigal Son. Wouldn't take much. An interview with Oprah, some flag waving on the Fourth of July...; 6/5/14, 9:10 PM
Job said...: Kraut gets one wrong. His average is done to 95%.; 6/5/14, 9:35 PM
RecChief said...: In Ann' first Bergdahl-tagged post I expressed the opinion that the trade was Obama's call, the Congressional statute (that Obama signed into law) probably didn't pass Constitutional muster

So you're saying Obama has the power to decide what is unconstitutional and what is not? Did they discuss the roles of each of the three branches of government where you went to High School, or are you just a willfully stupid leftist?; 6/5/14, 10:15 PM
RecChief said...: God help us, at some point the brass on down has to shut up and salute.

Except in the military, we are also told that it is our duty to disobey an UNlawful order. Kind of puts a needle in your "shut up and salute" balloon doesn't it? Or would prefer that we just go back to the old "I was just following orders" defense. You know which side and style of government used that defense right? See Trials, Nuremburg. Put in practical terms, if Obama ordered the military to start rounding up certain segments of the population, that would be OK, because "shut up and salute, Obama has determined that posse comitatus doesn't pass constitutional muster. Follow your own position to its logical conclusions.

Finally, I didn't realize the philosophy of Bobby Knight was so popular with the Left, but you seem to have co-opted it and made it your own very nicely.; 6/5/14, 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Krauthammer has got his history wrong. At the end of hostilities, we have a tradition of trading POWs and of trying war criminals. These 5 guys are war criminals. They should have been tried, not traded.; 6/5/14, 10:32 PM
jr565 said...: And now dems are saying those who are speaking about about Bergdahl's desertion are psychopaths and liars.
And that this is just a right wing smear.
Did the guy desert or not? And is there grounds to have problems with this deal or not? Especially since Obama consulted no one in congress except, apparently Harry Reid.

Who of course doesn't say when or how,this meeting took place. Maybe it was in the back of a movie theater while they were both wearing masks. OR, maybe it never happened.
But libs and dems keep making the argument that its just a right wing hatchet job (that means you Crack. Quick, talk about blacks and whites in America as diversion!).
People who are not complete shills for the liberals see right through this crap. The guy is a deserter. Don't denigrate the people that died trying to rescue him and call them liars in an effort to restore your golden boys image. And don't trot out a big pile of manure and say it smells like roses when we all know it smells like a big pile of manure.; 6/5/14, 11:17 PM
gk1 said...: Well the only bright spot out of all this is obama will be crippled in his efforts to empty Gitmo from here on out. He shot his wad. And god help him when the 5 Terrorists go back to doing what they do best. No one trusts this lying weasel at this point, not even the democrats on the hill.; 6/5/14, 11:31 PM
jr565 said...: Krauthaumer was not exactly giving out ringing endorsements about this deal:

"3. The Taliban release endangers national security.

Indeed it does. The five released detainees are unrepentant, militant, and dangerous. The administration pretense that we and the Qataris will monitor them is a joke. They can start planning against us tonight. And if they decide to leave Qatar tomorrow, who’s going to stop them?

The administration might have tried honesty here and said: Yes, we gave away five important combatants. But that’s what you do to redeem hostages. In such exchanges, the West always gives more than it gets for the simple reason that we value individual human life more than do the barbarians with whom we deal.

No shame here, merely a lamentable reality. So why does the Bergdahl deal so rankle? Because of how he became captive in the first place. That’s the real issue. He appears to have deserted, perhaps even defected."

In other words, they could have justified their deal on the grounds that they needed to bring their boys home. Instead the administration started doing victory laps and hugging the father. And sending out all their henchmen to whitewash the fact that this guy was a deserter. And anyone saying otherwise was a psychotic liar.
The left demanded truth when it was Jessica Lynch's story. And there, there was no issue of her deserting. The only embellishment was that she may not have been quiet as heroic as presented.
But she didn't walk off her damn post.

And yet, the libs here are suggesting that challenging the official so the, which is obviously false is some crime. And they're willing to swift boat honest soldiers who are merely reporting what actually happened.
Shame, liberals, shame. Have you no sense of decency?
You certainly have no credibility left there's for sure.; 6/5/14, 11:32 PM
gk1 said...: You can't really blame the White house. Its not like they have many staffers that have ever served. How could they know the difference between a captured hero or a dirt bag deserter? They all look a like when they wear a uniform, I guess.; 6/5/14, 11:36 PM
Owen said...: Chilblaine said: "Bergdahl could pull Obama's arse from the fire by becoming the Prodigal Son. Wouldn't take much. An interview with Oprah, some flag waving on the Fourth of July...

6/5/14, 9:10 PM"

What you said. It's already happening. Yesterday Dear Leader referred to Bowe as a "child." Four times. Having discovered that Bergdahl is a toxic flake at best and a noose-worthy traitor at worst, the spin begins to recontextualize him as a confused victim. He is Infant America, tricked into fighting Bush's imperialist fantasy war, and half-awake to the criminal enterprise he wandered from the battle to find peace in the hills. The Great Healer welcomes him home. Prodigal son, our own best wounded self, entering therapy. Those who shout about law and treason and honor are cruel unfeeling prigs and pedants. True patriotism is about merciful inclusion.

Did I miss anything?; 6/6/14, 5:30 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "But, who are these Republicans?"

-- Boehner stood by the President longer than members of the President's own party, though I think he's finally pulled back support -- maybe. It's like you're unaware of basic facts on the ground.; 6/6/14, 8:24 AM
machine said...: doesn't matter...whatever he does, you hate. even if its bringing home an American POW.; 6/6/14, 11:40 AM
Gahrie said...: doesn't matter...whatever he does, you hate. even if its bringing home an American POW.

He's not bringing home a POW, he's bringing home a deserter, and he traded five terorist masterminds to do so.; 6/6/14, 2:03 PM
Drago said...: machine said...
doesn't matter...whatever he does, you hate. even if its bringing home an American POW

He was never a POW.

Ever.

So says the obama administration.

Who the hell do you think you are disagreeing with the obama admin?

What Bergdahl is is a defector and likely collaborator.

I'm sure it's simply a coincidence that the local AlQaeda types tactics changed right after Berghdal wandered off.

For the 3rd time.

But this time for good.

After he shipped home some of his personal effects.

Even the lefties at the New York Times, trying as hard as they can to carry obama's water, were forced to use the following construct:

""It stops short of concluding that there is solid evidence that Sergeant Bergdahl intended to permanently desert."

Then the NYT offers us this: "This duck-and-cover response is the result of the outrageous demonization of Sergeant Bergdahl in the absence of actual facts"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/opinion/demonizing-sergeant-bergdahl.html?_r=1

And this is on the heels of the latest lefty campaign to demonize ALL the other members of Berghdals unit.

Yep.

You heard that correctly.

Lets check in with this obama admin official who offers up this interesting hypothetical:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/wow-obama-administration-official-bergdahl-worthy-of-sympathy-if-he-joined-taliban-to-protest-psychopath-platoon-leaders/

But remember you guys, the left wants us to treat the military with respect Yo. Seriously you guys. Respect.; 6/6/14, 2:05 PM
jr565 said...: machine wrote:
doesn't matter...whatever he does, you hate. even if its bringing home an American POW.

doesn't matter... whatever he does, you will say republicans are only hating because he's black. or because they hate Obama. And not because what he did was stupid, or wrong, or illegal, or counter to your morals.; 6/6/14, 3:43 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Matthew Sablan,

"Boehner stood by the President longer than members of the President's own party, though I think he's finally pulled back support -- maybe. It's like you're unaware of basic facts on the ground."

I agree with you, though I wouldn't say he's "stood by the President."

How do you feel about Boehner?; 6/6/14, 9:54 PM
Jaq said...: 40% approval. It's because he's black, isn't it?; 6/7/14, 10:46 AM