The Schizophrenic GOP

Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding ‘Every Effort’ Be Made To Free Bergdahl

By Igor Volsky June 3, 2014 at Thinkprogress
"Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding ‘Every Effort’ Be Made To Free Bergdahl"


CREDIT: AP
Republicans are almost uniformly criticizing President Obama’s decision to swap five Taliban fighters at Guantanamo Bay for the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American held hostage in Afghanistan. But many of the administration’s loudest critics have previously demanded that it do more to bring Bergdahl to safety. Since his release, these lawmakers are emphasizing their criticism of Obama’s handling of the prisoner exchange while downplaying the successful return of an American servicemember.
In the clearest contradiction, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in February that he “would be inclined to support” “an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man,” like the one Taliban officials had offered in 2012. He has since labeled Obama’s deal “ill-founded” and a “mistake.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also thinks that “the administration’s decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests” and “sets a precedent that could encourage our enemies to capture more Americans.” But since 2011, Ayotte has issued multiple press releases and public statements calling on the Obama administration to “redouble its efforts” to find Bergdahl. She touted a provision in the Senate’s Fiscal Year 2015 defense authorization bill “that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl” and specifically mentioned Bergdahl in her Memorial Day address.
“We also must continue to keep Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who has been held prisoner by the Taliban for nearly five years, in our thoughts and prayers – and I renew my call on the Defense Department to redouble its efforts to find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family,” she wrote just one week ago.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — has also said that the U.S. “must make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family.” But appearing on Fox News just days after Bergdahl’s release, Inhofe criticized the administration for agreeing to free “people who have killed Americans, people who are the brain power of Taliban.”
Still, not all conservatives oppose Obama’s decision. John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush, has characterized the swap as fair, since the United States would be required to return prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay back to Afghanistan as the military conflict comes to an end.
“I’m not saying this is clearly an easy choice but frankly I think a Republican…confronted with this opportunity to get back Sgt. Bergdahl…would have taken this opportunity to do this,” Bellinger said, adding, “I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration.” It appears that many of the administration’s loudest critics would as well.
Update


Mashable points out that “At least three prominent Republicans appeared to offer praise on Twitter for the rescue of American POW Bowe Bergdahl — only to later backtrack, scrubbing their tweets or websites of any mention of the soldier after questions arose over the prisoner swap that freed him.”
Update


McCain has gone back and forth over the years:
In June of 2013, as news broke of a restart of Afghanistan peace talks, the senator told Congressional Quarterly News that he opposes “the release of five Taliban which was in the background of previous conversations about it.”
In February of 2014, McCain appeared on CNN’s Anderson Cooper and explained, “at that time the proposal was that they would release — Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence- building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.”
After Bergdahl was finally released, McCain appeared on CNN and characterized the trade as a “lousy deal.” “Well, first of all, I said it twice. Depending on a lot of the details, in other words, do not trade one person for five hard core,” he explained.

 

What's YOUR opinion on the trade?

 

You got your man back, I am fairly sure that you will be able to find the ones you swapped for him at some stage and drop a drone on them if needs must

 

I think that this whole thing was staged in a lame attempt to divert the attention of the 'Merikan People from the unspeakable cataclysmic disaster unequalled in our history that occurred at Benghazi and the subsequent coverup which the Obama administration has orchestrated on a global scale.

 

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

 

It's without surprise that the three stooges on this forum have parroted exactly the talking points that FOX, the GOP, and Right wing media sources have spewed in this unprecedented criticism of a returning POW. Although, maybe they have learned the lesson we all learned from taking John McCain back.

 

You mean this message?

 

I say what I mean and I mean what I say when I say that I have no idea what your point is.

 

I haven't heard so much criticisms of Bergdahl as I've heard cries for the truth. There are too many unanswered questions that will have to be answered before one can summarily pass judgment as you seem to have already done.

Was he on patrol, became separated from his unit and subsequently captured?

Did he lay down his guns, desert his post and walk into the waiting arms of the Taliban?

Those are questions to which we will need to know definitive answers before we can criticize (or praise) Bergdahl. However, a lot of stories from his fellow GIs are painting him as a deserter. We shall see.

Did Obama break the law by not notifying Congress 30 days before the release of Gitmo detainees?

If Obama did break the law, is it excusable if he believed Bergdahl's health was in danger?

Again, more questions are going to have to be answered. There is just too much to this story we don't know (and may never know). I'm satisfied to neither criticize nor praise Bergdahl at this point.

Our main focus should be how Obama handled the situation and the future impact of his decision. Now that American lives can be used as bargaining chips, will we see more hostages taken in hopes of a 1 to 5 prisoner exchange? If so, can Obama bypass the law again and claim someone's health looked bad?

Too many questions..... tooooooooo many questions.

 

I don't think we can know what Bergdahl did or didn't do until he is brought back to health and asked. I also don't think it matters. He is a US soldier and no matter his actions good or bad, we have every obligation to bring him home. Which is exactly what Republicans were asking for until it actually happened. Go figure that Schizophrenia.

 

I keep hearing rumors that Bergdahl did a bit more than go AWOL. I realize these are yet rumors, but I will bet the CIA, army intelligence, etc. actually know how far he actually went. If the rumors are true, then I think we should have done the opposite of trading for him.

BTW, Al Qaeda has already announce they are looking for more Americans they can trade.

 

That's funny because these guys were Taliban.

 

And not even necessary all that blood thirsty either......

Are These Released Detainees Really The Taliban’s ‘Dream Team’?

By Hayes Brown June 4, 2014


A Guantanamo detainee holds on to a fence inside the detention center
CREDIT: AP Photo/Michelle Shephard, Pool
Since the light-speed transition from elation over the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to burgeoning political scandal, a meme has developed that says that the five prisoners released in the deal are the “hardest of the hardcore.” While none of the detainees who have been released are innocents, collectively they’re a far-cry from the game-changers that they’ve been depicted as.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) began the process when he appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday. “These are the highest high-risk people, and others that we have released have gone back into the fight,” he said. That framing picked up steam as the week began. “This is Mullah Omar’s board of directors, it’s his fab five team,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-MS), ranking member on the Senate’s intelligence committee, told Fox News. “Mullah Omar now has his cabinet restored,” McCain said on Tuesday, upping his own rhetoric. “These are the worst of the worst, the hardest of the hardest.”

But are they really the Taliban’s “Dream Team” as Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has referred to them? Reading through their dossiers, included among Wikileaks’ release of thousands of documents related to Guantanamo in 2011, the evidence seems grim. All five are rated as “high risk” subjects according to their captors, “as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests and allies.” But as the New York Times has reported, these files can be at times maddeningly vague and others misleading. When one delves into the background of some of these Taliban members, however, the perception of them shifts slightly, showing some willing to surrender to the Americans, others willing to provide information about their allies at the time of their arrest and detention.
Abdul Nabi Omar


Abdul Nabi Omari
CREDIT: Wikimedia
Kate Clark, an author at the Afghanistan Analysts Network, compiled biographies of the five men when news of the possible exchange first broke in 2012. Of the men traded for Bergdahl’s release, the lowest ranking one is Abdul Nabi Omari, though his file refers to him as “a senior Taliban official who served in multiple leadership roles.”
Clark, in contrast, refers to Omari as a “junior figure” based in the Khost province, one whose placement on the list of possible detainees up for swapping is due to his connections to the Haqqani Network, which operates out of Pakistan and frequently launches attacks into Afghanistan. “Witnesses who know the Khost Taleban were mystified as to why the US authorities believe Omari is one of the major figures they have in custody,” Clark writes. Anand Gopal, an author and journalist who has written extensively on Afghanistan, noted on Twitter that “Omari is on the list because the Haqqanis wanted something” out of the deal.
Abdul Haq Wasiq


Abdul Haq Wasiq
CREDIT: Wikimedia
Another of these “hardest of the hard” is Abdul Haq Wasiq, who was deputy chief of the Taliban’s intelligence agency. Wasiq was captured in a sting operation when one of his subordinates told the Talib that he was attending a meeting with a contact who could “negotiate a security guarantee for safe passage to Kabul and reintegration.” Gopal described Wasiq’s capture as taking place “when trying to negotiate a surrender” of his cousin, the head of Taliban intelligence. According to Wasiq’s file, while he was unable to deliver Taliban leader Mullah Omar at this meeting, he “requested a global positioning system (GPS) and the necessary radio frequencies to pass information back to the Americans in order to help locate the Taliban leader.”
Khairullah Khairkhwa


Khirullah Khairkhwa
CREDIT: Wikimedia
Former Minister of the Interior Khairullah Khairkhwa was the most senior of the five men released in the deal. One of the founding members of the Taliban, Clark writes that it is “mystifying to know where the Guantanamo Bay authorities got the idea that Khairkhwa was known, in their words, as a ‘hardliner in terms of Taleban philosophy.’” On the contrary, she says, during the Taliban’s rule Kahairkwha was considered one of the more moderate in leadership circles. According to his dossier, Khairkhwa was apprehended in Pakistan while trying to negotiate a deal with his friend and fellow tribesman Hamid Karzai’s brother to surrender and join the new government. Among the reasons given for keeping Khairkwa detained was his role as spokesman for the Taliban, travelling abroad and giving interviews in support of the Emirate.

 

Mullah Mohammad Fazl


Mullah Mohammad Fazl
CREDIT: Wikimedia
Most concerning of the released detainees is Mullah Mohammad Fazl, a man who was highly ranked in the Taliban — but outside of the brief war to topple the Afghan government in 2001 didn’t attack Americans. In Oct. 2001, Fazl was deputy defense chief for the Taliban and a senior commander in its armed forces. According to Clark and the Afghanistan Justice Project, in 1999 Fazl was in command of a group of Taliban soldiers who “destroyed civilian infrastructure in Shomali on an industrial scale – burning houses, vineyards, orchards and destroying irrigation systems; they also summarily executed civilians and surrendered Northern Alliance fighters and forcibly displaced civilians, contributing to an exodus of 300,000 people.” Fazl surrendered to Northern Alliance commander General Abdul Dostrum in November 2001 and was in Guantanamo from then until his release into Qatar’s custody on Sunday.
Mullah Norullah Noori


Norullah Nori
CREDIT: Wikimedia
Mullah Norullah Noori was the governor of the Balkh province in Afghanistan at the time the U.S. launched its assault on the Taliban. The details in his file are disturbing, but also full of phrasing that makes it hard to pin down just how much of a threat he will serve now that he’s been released. Like Fazl, Noori surrendered to the Northern Alliance in the fall of 2001. Gopal noted in his rundown of the released detainees that Noori committed human rights violations, described in his file as being “wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites.” Clarke points out that these charges are not detailed in any of the available reports on Noori, though he appears to acknowledge the crimes in his file.
Also, while his file says he will likely join his brother, Mullah Lutfullah, on the battlefield if released, it is unclear if Lutfullah is still active given the 2008 date of Noori’s file was drafted. Still, Gopal noted on Twitter that of the released Taliban, “only 2 have the potential to make an appreciable impact on the battlefield: Fazl & Noori.”
***
The fact that all five men took part in the Taliban’s regime of oppression and opposed the U.S. and their allies certainly speaks to their natures. Commentators have pointed to the Taliban’s statements of excitement over the men’s release as evidence that the Obama administration was hoodwinked in the deal. But according to the BBC, the original offer from the Haqqani Network in exchange for Bergdahl was millions of dollars and 21 detainees. And as CAP expert Ken Gude has pointed out on this blog, it’s entirely likely that these Taliban officials would have been released at the conclusion of the war in Afghanistan.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014...eased-detainees-really-the-talibans-fab-five/

 

But according to CNN all were tied to Al Qaeda.

 

OK?

 

Would you care to clarify what you mean by this?

 

The last American collaborator with the enemy got blown up. Why should he be treated otherwise?

 

You don't specify who you're talking about, but for now, I'll make a guess that you're referring to Anwar al-Aulaqi. I'll just reiterate here that I think it's clearly unconstitutional for the government of the United States to kill its citizens without any due process of law.

In the present case, nobody has accused Bergdahl of any wrong-doing other than desertion of his post, and no formal accusation of any kind has been made against him. Yet you're all for blowing him up. You don't trust the current government of the United States for practically anything, but you'd like it to kill one of its citizens just because of your vague suspicions. Apparently, the Constitution of the United States really doesn't mean a damn thing to you.

 

1. I can think of 6 members of the army who SUSPECT Bergdahl has done a bit more the desert his post. BTW, they were the eye witnesses, not I.
2. I never stated I had sufficient proof to do jack squat, but I will bet someone else has it.
3. Your interpretation of he Constitution has been proven wrong - several times.
4. You have not a clue what the Constitution means to me. You are the one proposing that its current interpretation is wrong, not I.