Why are the Republicans so outraged? They claim that the president negotiated with "terrorists" -- and illegally released prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl.
Their outrage is ridiculous. First, because it was no secret to begin with. Congress was notified that the talks were going on before any agreement was released. Why are they just now expressing their outrage. Could it be that they didn't really oppose the negotiations, but just wanted to get some barbs in at the president?
As for prisoners being released from Guantanamo, I would just ask why they weren't all released. Both of the last two administrations have admitted that for most (if not all) of the detainees in Guantanamo, we have no evidence that they have committed any crime or taken action against this country in any way. They are there because someone in their native country made claims (which can't be proven) and turned them in for a cash reward. For all we know, they are there just because of someone's greed or hard feelings that have nothing to do with the war (or terrorism).
In short, we shouldn't even be keeping those detainees in Guantanamo. If there is evidence against them, then they should be charged and tried in a court of law -- and if there isn't, then they should never have been detained (and should be immediately released).
And finally, where was the Republican outrage when their own right-wing icon, Ronald Reagan, not only negotiated with Iranian terrorists but sent them weapons in exchange for the release of Americans. Isn't sending weapons to an enemy a lot more dangerous than the release of five people we have no evidence ever did anything?
But we all know the reason for the GOP outrage -- and it has nothing to do with negotiating with terrorists or releasing prisoners from Guantanamo. It's because they simply can't stand the idea of an African-American being president.
(The image of the GOP elephant above is by DonkeyHotey.)
Republicans should be very cautious when commenting on this since most parents who have sons and daughters "in theater" probably would gladly pay for plane tickets for all the Guantanamo detainees if it meant their children could be freed or could come home now. The Guantanamo 78 that have been cleared for release and are still in captivity make me question Congress' motives. They want to retain it as a place to keep prisoners...for future wars? WTF?
ReplyDeleteAs a 20-year veteran of the United States Army, with a son-in-law who served two tours in Iraq "with honor and distinction," I think I have something to contribute to this debate. As concerned as I was for his safety, had he emailed me, complaining that he was "ashamed to even be American," I certainly doubt I would have replied to "OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE" for fear that his conscience might have lead him to do something stupid, like ship his personal belongings home, leave his post, and join the Taliban, leaving the other soldiers to try and track him down, thereby risking their own lives.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm glad for the return of "Mister" Bowe Bergdahl (I'm sorry, but as a retired Master Sergeant who never once went AWOL, let alone deserted - I have a hard time calling him "Sergeant") if for no other reason than for him to face the military justice system for his actions.
As for the five detainees whose freedom was purchased by the Taliban for so low a price, these are not "[t]he Guantanamo 78 that have been cleared for release." The detainees who were exchanged for Mr. Bergdahl are among the most dangerous and notorious of those who were held at Gitmo, having been at the very top of the leadership. There are some who say that because they've been "out of the loop" for the last decade, their impact would now be minimal. Using that logic, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld must have had a similarly minimal impact on the Bush Administration, since they had been absent from the halls of power for equally as long.
Lastly, the Obama Administration totally failed to obey the law that requires Congress to be notified 30 days in advance of such a prisoner exchange. Having received such strong opposition from Congress when the proposition was first proposed in 2011, I guess they must have decided that forgiveness was easier to obtain than permission. Never let something like the law get in the way of ones plans, right?
Of course, none of these arguments make any difference whatsoever. It's not about reason, logic or facts. Ted, you already dismissed my concerns before I even expressed them. What's my motivation, as a registered Republican, for opposing the release of five of the top terrorist leaders? "It's because they simply can't stand the idea of an African-American being president." Yep, you got me, Ted. I'm a racist, pure and simple. My concerns for the safety of my son-in-law, or for that matter, any Americans overseas (military, diplomats or civilians) who are now in greater danger than ever of being held for similar ransom, are merely a ruse.
President Obama is in a very enviable position. It must be nice to be totally immune from any type of criticism, not because of the content of his character, but because of the color of his skin.
Just one question: Are Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller racists for (correctly) pointing out that President Obama never briefed them (as required by law), or is their party affiliation a "get out of racism" card?