DC Tom Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 "Republicans are crying"...................................oh wait ! NYT: Bergdahl swap has Democrats worried about WH incompetence Don’t ask Barack Obama about that, because he has “absolutely no apologies” for the way the White House has botched the Bergdahl swap from beginning to end. His fellow Democrats feel differently. The New York Times’ Carl Hulse reports that the ongoing mess has them worried about the remaining few months approaching the midterms: President Obama’s handling of the Bergdahl prisoner exchange has renewed frustration among congressional Democrats about the administration’s relations with its allies on Capitol Hill, and prompted criticism that the White House failed to prepare the lawmakers for the politically explosive case. While Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee, went public with her dissatisfaction at not being notified in advance about the exchange, other lawmakers and officials said privately that Democrats felt exposed by their lack of knowledge about the circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s capture and the backgrounds of the five Taliban officials traded for his freedom. Now they’re worried........................................... lol . Bunch of bull ****. They're not complaining that the exchange was improper or illegal, just that they weren't treated like political insiders. They're whining about bruised egos. I'm certain if the administration had given them 24 hours notice, they'd be 100% supportive of the exchange, despite the law requiring 30 days notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Bunch of bull ****. They're not complaining that the exchange was improper or illegal, just that they weren't treated like political insiders. They're whining about bruised egos. I'm certain if the administration had given them 24 hours notice, they'd be 100% supportive of the exchange, despite the law requiring 30 days notice. Bullseye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Bunch of bull ****. They're not complaining that the exchange was improper or illegal, just that they weren't treated like political insiders. They're whining about bruised egos. I'm certain if the administration had given them 24 hours notice, they'd be 100% supportive of the exchange, despite the law requiring 30 days notice. True but as revelations come out that this douchebag did indeed desert, and possibly assist with intel, as soon as it is confirmed, none of them are gonna touch this with a ten foot pole. Edited June 5, 2014 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Bunch of bull ****. They're not complaining that the exchange was improper or illegal, just that they weren't treated like political insiders. They're whining about bruised egos. I'm certain if the administration had given them 24 hours notice, they'd be 100% supportive of the exchange, despite the law requiring 30 days notice. This was purely political. The administration, looking at the upcomming midterms, needed to give congressional democrats, currently endangered by this administration, political cover to distance themselves from himself. He needed to give them an issue which could be used to appeal to a conservative base, and an arena in which they could openly be critical of this President. The media has jumped all over this, unlike any other scandal, and this is by design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 This was purely political. The administration, looking at the upcomming midterms, needed to give congressional democrats, currently endangered by this administration, political cover to distance themselves from himself. He needed to give them an issue which could be used to appeal to a conservative base, and an arena in which they could openly be critical of this President. The media has jumped all over this, unlike any other scandal, and this is by design. That's awfully Machiavellian for an administration I wouldn't trust to peel a potato without !@#$ing it up and lying about it afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) This was purely political. The administration, looking at the upcomming midterms, needed to give congressional democrats, currently endangered by this administration, political cover to distance themselves from himself. He needed to give them an issue which could be used to appeal to a conservative base, and an arena in which they could openly be critical of this President. The media has jumped all over this, unlike any other scandal, and this is by design. No offense, but there is no way I'm buying into this. To believe that this administration would place the political lives of others over his legacy is something that I can not and will not buy into. There is waaay too much evidence of his past behavior to the contrary of this opinion. What it is, is simple. He has a team of a bunch of young, ideological eggheads that live in the Obama team bubble that advise him. They thought that: Hey, Obama , you are ending the war in Afghanistan, you just made the decision to wind it down further. We are going to announce in the Rose Garden that we are bringing back our boy with this swap... People will celebrate it, and it will symbolize that the war is ending. Plus, we get to begin the process of closing down Gitmo. WINNING!!!!!! That's what these neophytes thought, and they horrendously miscalculated. Edited June 5, 2014 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 That's awfully Machiavellian for an administration I wouldn't trust to peel a potato without !@#$ing it up and lying about it afterwards. You don't become President of the United States these days without being awfully Machiavellian. One thing President Obama is, is a very shrewd and calculation politician. No offense, but there is no way I'm buying into this. To believe that this administration would place the political lives of others over his legacy is something that I can not and will not buy into. There is waaay too much evidence of his past behavior to the contrary of this opinion. What it is, is simple. He has a team of a bunch of young, ideological eggheads that live in the Obama team bubble that advise him. They thought that: Hey, Obama , you are ending the war in Afghanistan, you just made the decision to wind it down further. We are going to announce in the Rose Garden that we are bringing back our boy with this swap... People will celebrate it, and it will symbolize that the war is ending. Plus, we get to begin the process of closing down Gitmo. WINNING!!!!!! That's what these neophytes thought, and they horrendously miscalculated. The gambit doesn't work unless you view it this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 This was purely political. The administration, looking at the upcomming midterms, needed to give congressional democrats, currently endangered by this administration, political cover to distance themselves from himself. He needed to give them an issue which could be used to appeal to a conservative base, and an arena in which they could openly be critical of this President. The media has jumped all over this, unlike any other scandal, and this is by design. So what you're saying is this egomaniac just threw himself under the bus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 So what you're saying is this egomaniac just threw himself under the bus? Yes, and it doesn't tarnish his legacy. Reagan is a God, desipte Iran-Contra; and he never even had the luxury of being America's First Black President . Barack Obama's histroical legacy is untarnishable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Yes, and it doesn't tarnish his legacy. Reagan is a God, desipte Iran-Contra; and he never even had the luxury of being America's First Black President ™. Barack Obama's histroical legacy is untarnishable. I get that but an egomaniac (and I think we can agree that Obama has the ego of a large planet) would never do anything that would make themselves look bad for one second even if it wouldn't tarnish their future legacy. Edited June 5, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I get that but an egomaniac (and I think we can agree that Obama has the ego of a large planet) would never do anything that would make themselves look bad for one second even if it wouldn't tarnish their future legacy. If enough Democrats are unseated, his singular accomplishment can, and most likely will, be undone. President Obama is as calculating as they come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 If enough Democrats are unseated, his singular accomplishment can, and most likely will, be undone. President Obama is as calculating as they come. With all the eff ups of this administration calling Obama calculating is like people saying Bush was an idiot but orchestrated 911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 This was purely political. The administration, looking at the upcomming midterms, needed to give congressional democrats, currently endangered by this administration, political cover to distance themselves from himself. He needed to give them an issue which could be used to appeal to a conservative base, and an arena in which they could openly be critical of this President. The media has jumped all over this, unlike any other scandal, and this is by design. I tend to side with Mag and Chef on this one as I find it highly unlikely, but I like a good conspiracy so let's beat this out and see what we get: Let's assume you're correct and this was done with foresight and the goal of giving the left a boost in November. How does the desertion element of this story fit into your theory? Did Obama (using that as a general term for the administration) know there were claims of desertion before hand? If so, was he planning on it never coming out or did he simply not care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I tend to side with Mag and Chef on this one as I find it highly unlikely, but I like a good conspiracy so let's beat this out and see what we get: Let's assume you're correct and this was done with foresight and the goal of giving the left a boost in November. How does the desertion element of this story fit into your theory? Did Obama (using that as a general term for the administration) know there were claims of desertion before hand? If so, was he planning on it never coming out or did he simply not care? The Administration knew about it, and found it beneficial to their purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I don’t know if Obama got it right. Maybe he did. I do know that the pushback against critics has been a disgrace. Yes, Bergdahl Is ‘Somebody’s Child’ :But that tells us exactly nothing about whether the president’s prisoner swap was the right moveby Charles C W Cooke Taking hearty refuge in a mawkish phrase, Barack Obama this morning told the world that Sergant Bowe Bergdahl was “somebody’s child.” “I make absolutely no apologies for making sure we get back a young man to his parents,” the president assured journalists in Belgium. “We saw an opportunity and we seized it.” In and of itself, none of this is objectionable. Nevertheless, it does precisely nothing to answer his critics’ disapprobation. Few are asking Obama to “apologize” for having got a young man back to his parents. Bathetic as the reminder might be, it remains the case that every single person in the world is “somebody’s child” — whether they are good or evil, honorable or dishonorable, and enlisted or not. And few voices in the chorus are agitating against seizing opportunities should they arrive. Instead, the questions at hand are whether the president got a good deal and whether he acted within his constitutional and legal authority in making one. They are not whether America should seek to emancipate its prisoners of war. Saccharine appeals to apple pie and motherhood just won’t cut it. Still, the temptation to paint the White House’s critics as heartless and guileful partisans has proven too much for some to resist. Erecting an Olympic-caliber strawman, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes asked disingenuously on Monday whether he was “correct that the American right-wing has spent the day arguing we should have left an American soldier behind.” Here, he was channeling the government’s own false dichotomy, which crudely holds that one is either in favor of each and every deal it cuts or one is guilty of wishing to leave American soldiers behind. This, of course, is fatally inexact. To observe that our soldiers are somebody’s children is no more to adumbrate a military strategy than to repeat that “we don’t leave our men behind” is to inform us what constitutes an acceptable plan for their recovery. Indeed, if all that matters here is the principle, one has to ask why the administration did not make a deal back in 2011 — or, for that matter, why it did not merely accept the Taliban’s initial offer? Is it only recently that the policy of the United States has been to bring all prisoners home? Or was it that, prior to this month, the details were not satisfactory? More at the link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 The Administration knew about it, and found it beneficial to their purposes. I fail to see how it's beneficial but would be curious to hear your take. Can you expound on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I don’t know if Obama got it right. Maybe he did. I do know that the pushback against critics has been a disgrace. More at the link: Once Again Obama misses the point. Sure we're happy an American is now free. It's the process, the quality of the deal and the risk that is being questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Once Again Obama misses the point. Sure we're happy an American is now free. It's the process, the quality of the deal and the risk that is being questioned. Racist. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I fail to see how it's beneficial but would be curious to hear your take. Can you expound on that? It's creates a clear cut case, appealing to conservatives, moderates, and independants; which allows sitting Democratic Congressmen an arena in which they can vocally criticize, and seperate themselves, from this President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 It's creates a clear cut case, appealing to conservatives, moderates, and independants; which allows sitting Democratic Congressmen an arena in which they can vocally criticize, and seperate themselves, from this President. I'm with you there, but if Obama is pulling the strings how does dissension within the ranks benefit his legacy (which I agree is probably cemented as positive already regardless of anything else he does short of him exposing himself during a press conference) or his final lame duck years? It doesn't help the dems in the midterms from what I can tell -- maybe that's the part I'm missing, how it helps the left win seats in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts