What's their beef?
1. We negotiated with "terrorists," and we just don't do that.
2. We traded 5 Gitmo bad guys for one soldier, which sets a bad precedent and encourages more hostage-taking.
3. This prisoner exchange was "illegal." Congress was supposed to be notified 30 days in advance.
4. Bergdahl was a deserter and a traitor.
My responses to these complaints, in order:
1. Oh please! Every nation "negotiates" in these cases, even if they say they don't. Prisoner exchanges are routine diplomacy. The Israelis have been known to trade 100 for one. The French just write checks to spring their captive citizens. Reagan sent 1500 missiles to Iran to free 7 hostages held in Lebanon.
2. Would trading just 3 or 4 bad guys have been better? There are plenty of assholes in this world who need absolutely no "encouragement" to take an American hostage, and they're not influenced in the slightest by this supposed "precedent".
3. Hey, sorry about that, Congress. Did we hurt your feelings? What were you going to do -- say no? Debate it for the next two years? Have another Darrell Issa circus? If there was ever a Congress that deserved the end-run, it's this one. So fuckin' sue me!
4. Where has all this "Bowe's a bum" stuff been for the past 5 years? Why is it coming out now? It's all just too Swift Boat-ish for me -- another pre-fab "scandal" pulled from the far-right trick bag. Maybe Bergdahl walked off, maybe he didn't. Maybe he was disillusioned with the Afghan "war" (and what a reasonable thing to be disillusioned about), maybe he wasn't. Given that he was imprisoned, starved, mistreated, and possibly tortured for 5 years, maybe it doesn't really matter now. And if he did desert, were we supposed to just leave him there forever? The one person we haven't heard from is Bergdahl himself.
We will bring our man home, which is what we're supposed to do. If he was my son, I'd want him home, no matter what.
Chill on all the wild-eyed speculation. We'll go from here, and time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment