So, Obama arranged a prisoner exchange with the Taliban, giving them five of the poor saps imprisoned for over a decade without charges at Guantanamo, to get back the only American soldier held in Afghanistan.
Now, before I go on here, a little perspective: Prisoner exchanges have existed since at least the eighth century, when trades were made between the Byzantine Empire and the Arab Caliphate, who were engaged in an endless war. There were many prisoner exchanges in World War II, with the Nazis, who were presumably a lot worse guys than the Taliban. So, there's nothing new about this.
And let's remember the Republicans' frequent sententious pontificating about never leaving soldiers behind; something we have heard plenty about lately in their demonization of Obama over the Benghazi attack.
Well, now Obama has freed an American. Cause to be proud of our government? Not hardly. It is cause for an outbreak of Republican abuse directed at the President, which arose so swiftly and is so widespread that only a fool could think that it is a spontaneous uprising of outrage. Here's a sample:
"Two Republican lawmakers on Saturday accused President Barack Obama of breaking the law by approving the release of five Afghan detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for a U.S. soldier believed held by Islamist insurgents for five years...Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement that Obama is required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any terrorists are transferred from the U.S. facility. They said Obama also is required to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated."
Undoubtedly providing the Republican rabid dogs with a new impeachment charge- freeing an American while Democratic.
Or how about the Republicans' Warmonger In Chief.
“These are the hardest of the hard people,” responsible for the deaths of thousands, McCain said. “It is disturbing that these individuals would have the ability to reenter the fight”
As if five people, broken by years of illegitimate imprisonment, posed a shred more threat to the United States than the whole terroristic apparatus in Afghanistan and Pakistan, given birth by Ronald Reagan in his fanatic hatred of the Soviets. Not a word about the fact that an American soldier has been freed. That is irrelevant, of course, because of who freed him. And could you expect the most execrable of Republican haters, John Bolton, to keep his mouth shut?
"Neoconservative Fox News contributor John Bolton on Saturday blasted President Barack Obama as “despicable” for negotiating for the release of a U.S. Army sergeant who had been held captive in Afghanistan for five years."
Despicable. Despicable to free an American prisoner. If Bush had done this, they would still be praising him to the skies for it.
And could you expect Ted Cruz to avoid being a part of this lynch mob?
“I do not think the way to deal with terrorists is by releasing other violent terrorists,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding, “Can you imagine what he would say to his fallen comrades who lost their lives to stop these people”
What would he say to them? How about, "I would have done the same for you, instead of leaving you to rot in an Afghan prison."
And has it escaped their notice that every prisoner exchange in history has been with enemies "who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for threatening or taking U.S. civilian lives?"
No, apparently the message that Obama should send to our troops that if they are captured, they're on their own, because if he frees them, the other party here at home is going to use the event to attack him, and a few tough days in the media are more important to him than their lives.
And don't think this outbreak of insanity is going to be restricted to Republicans, without at least some of their buddies in the "liberal press" getting a dose too. Here's Candy Crowley, browbeating Susan Rice over this event:
"CNN's Candy Crowley sat down with national security adviser Susan Rice on "State of the Union" where they discussed the U.S.'s role in getting the Taliban to release Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a prisoner of war in Afghanistan. TPM highlights that Crowley is persistent in getting Rice to admit that the U.S. did negotiate with terrorists to release Bergdahl:
Point blank, did the U.S. negotiate with terrorists for his release?" Crowley asked..."I think the question now is, and you point to the kinds of warfare we’re having now, but no longer can it be said that the U.S. doesn’t negotiate with terrorists," Crowley said."
I think that if you are going to say that, Candy, you ought to add that it started with Saint Ronald Reagan selling the Iranian Mullahs two thousand missiles in order to finance an illegal war against a democratically elected government in Central America. At least Obama accomplished something good out of the deal, instead of using a very bad action to finance another very bad action, and in the process, engaging in what the Constitution clearly defines as treason.
But no, Saint Ronnie has gotten a pass for decades now. However, this action of Obama's, which should be an occasion for pleasure for all real Americans, is being twisted into another miserable betrayal. As I hinted at the top of this post, if Obama is really not allowed to negotiate with those who are trying to destroy our country, he should never speak to another Republican again.