Ronald Reagan traded a money and a cache of weapons with Iran in exchange for captured US prisoners

rojo -

why are you focusing so much on the political spin rather than the actual act?

While you are right that the WH and Susan Rice didn't manage the spin right...is that really how you want to analyze this thing? How poorly they managed the politics?

How about debating the actual trade? You're saying that you are fine with leaving american POWs in the field even if the other side is willing to return them.

That is not a standard view of dealing with POWs and pretty stone cold.

Rojo pt 2:

But if you do want to focus on the WH's political tone deafness, keep in mind that many important republicans were heavy lobbiers for bergdahl's release (Mccain, Ayotte)

probably the WH said well...if so many repubs want this guy free, who is going to complain?

the answer is that this WH continuously and repeatedly forgets that whatever they do will be damned by republicans - this WH is indeed naive about that.

^^^

+ 10000

rojo wrote:

Will you not admit that the US govt which is headed by Obama should have figured out ahead of time before they negotiated the release of 4 high rankers for 1 US man (shouldn't it be 1-1 or 4-1 in our favor if they are high ranking) if in fact that US man was a deserter?

It baffles my mind that any CEO wouldn't do basic research before negotiating the trade and hten having Susan Rice say he serviced admirably on national tv.

That's just awful management.

Distract us with Reagan, Bush, whatever. To me, that's just moronic. I can't believe more people aren't talking about that aspect of it.

Either we don't know if he was a deserter or not - which is unacceptable to not know that before negotiating - or he is one and Susan Rice just doesn't see how that's relevant.

Not impressed. You don't care for the spokesman so in your view that's a dealbreaker? Everything would have been cool if only the administration would have trashed the guy and announced a court martial on the day of his release? What are you even trying to say here, man? A 'good' CEO would make a deal then immediately layout all the negatives and concessions to shareholders/analysts?

Gen Grant wrote:

Lest we forget, Hillary left one gay ambassador, one gay CIA spy, and two gay former SFs to be raped for days and tortured for days in Benghazi, Libya.

DAMN YOU OBAMA........

Benghazi!!!!

Benghazi !!!

BENGHAZI !!!!

No. That could not be further from the truth. I actually like President Obama and certainly don't hate him. My point is that comparing this exchange to anything that anyone did in the past, which is what the OP is doing, does not change the fact that it was a bad, dangerous, and reprehensible decision. Baselessly accusing people of hating President Obama or bringing up foreign policy from 30 years ago is irrelevant and idiotic and makes the decision look indefensible. Whether you think trading weapons is right or wrong (I think its wrong) it has nothing to do with the fact that the Bergdahl exchange was a mistake and needs to be addressed.

Aardvark1 wrote:

the Bergdahl exchange was a mistake and needs to be addressed.

And you know this how ?

Because the Weekly Standard and MichellMalkin.com are getting their panties in a wad ?

Bleu wrote:

Were the prisoners AWOL soldiers who left their post and cost others their lives?

Ha ha - the excuses come rollin' in.

Frightened Inmate # 5 wrote:

Aardvark1 wrote:

the Bergdahl exchange was a mistake and needs to be addressed.

And you know this how ?

Because the Weekly Standard and MichellMalkin.com are getting their panties in a wad ?

+1

the bergdahl thing is not a clear cut case - it's not hard to see both sides - all the categorical types should try to accept that there are gray areas and that's where a lot of diplomacy takes place.

Trollist the First wrote:

rojo wrote:

Distract us with Reagan, Bush, whatever. To me, that's just moronic. I can't believe more people aren't talking about that aspect of it.

You're just saying that because your daddy was part of Bush's corrupt administration.

Correct.

(I will give props to the Brothers Jo for allowing for the post to stand---although I see it being removed very soon)

He wasn't a deserter. If anything, he was an exemplary soldier in a unit of undisciplined rejects. There's no surprise he up and left them- he was a better soldier! And he had done it on previous occasions and none of them really cared.

rojo wrote:

Either we don't know if he was a deserter or not - which is unacceptable to not know that before negotiating - or he is one...

Is this really the substance of your argument? His status as a deserter was unknown therefore he should get no benefit of doubt from military command? A lot of justifications like these against this prisoner swap are just flatout bad. How about it wasn't a favorable deal but it accomplished the objective - soldier out of enemy hands - and if it's later determined that he's a bad apple then throw his ass in the brig with all the other dis-honorables. The alternative, leaving a man in uniform to die in some Taliban camp is much, much worse.

Inability to perform in war situations is not a crime. It's a disorder that should be treated. Thousands of Americans failed to perform as required on D-Day including members made famous by Hollywood movies of the Special Forces and SEALS who qualify to be in the US Army Airborne Rangers. It's human nature to fear death. Don't we all.

hulksmash wrote:

rojo wrote:

Either we don't know if he was a deserter or not - which is unacceptable to not know that before negotiating - or he is one...

Is this really the substance of your argument? His status as a deserter was unknown therefore he should get no benefit of doubt from military command? A lot of justifications like these against this prisoner swap are just flatout bad. How about it wasn't a favorable deal but it accomplished the objective - soldier out of enemy hands - and if it's later determined that he's a bad apple then throw his ass in the brig with all the other dis-honorables. The alternative, leaving a man in uniform to die in some Taliban camp is much, much worse.

Good points. But you need realize (try not to laugh), I believe rojo is thinking of running for office in a big way someday (he's said so, don't think he is jesting, and of course he will have major Bush-backing in Texas), so he's trying to spin it a la Mitt Romney: 'I'm a CEO (of a running website, lol! ), and I would not tolerate this kind of poor performance (not knowing 100% if sarge was a deserter or not) by my people! Elect rojo in 2020!' (or something like that).

What have you done in combat? wrote:

Inability to perform in war situations is not a crime. It's a disorder that should be treated. Thousands of Americans failed to perform as required on D-Day including members made famous by Hollywood movies of the Special Forces and SEALS who qualify to be in the US Army Airborne Rangers.

True, This is just another example of Obama trying to clean up the "collateral damage" (i.e. mess) left by Bush when he failed to

a) stop 9/11 from happening in the first place on his watch, when he had tons of warnings and ignored them all, and

b) then decided to not finish off the Taliban/Al Q/bin Laden quickly and decisively in response to the 9/11 disaster he let happen but decided to instead waste years, billions of $'s, 1000's of soldiers lives, our reputation, etc, etc, etc on invading/destroying/failing to rebuild Iraq because, you know, that 'mushroom cloud' they were about to drop on all our cities.

Frightened Inmate # 5 wrote:

Gen Grant wrote:

Lest we forget, Hillary left one gay ambassador, one gay CIA spy, and two gay former SFs to be raped for days and tortured for days in Benghazi, Libya.

DAMN YOU OBAMA........

Benghazi!!!!

Benghazi !!!

BENGHAZI !!!!

But Boooosh was worse!! And so was Ronnie!

And ponder the possibile advantage of our intelligence operatives tracking these 5 in the future!?

"And after all that now Obama is doing everything in his power to revive and recreate the Soviet Union empire"Either admit you were kidding or admit you are irretrievably stupid.Did you go to the Soviet Union? (assuming you were born) Did you visit the labour camps? Did you lose family members in the Gulag? Did you or a family member get "sent away" for being someone of use in your town? (Meaning: you were educated and a male...aka a "threat") PS - The Soviet Union was not an "empire." It was a Communist State.

Sorrytoeatandrun wrote:

Not sure what your point is, apples and oranges. But now that you brought him up didn't Reagan basically dismantle the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Remember that? And after all that now Obama is doing everything in his power to revive and recreate the Soviet Union empire.

I am impressed with rojo for not deleting this