How's that "omitting common sense" strategy working out for you?
If the issue is Obama not going to Congress then I can concede that Obama erred. However, it's a tempest in a teapot in the grand scheme of things. In the words of Reagan "You can't quarrel with success". Obama got it done.
Yeah, I guess Obama can claim a victory, albeit, a very hollow one. In the end cost / benefit analysis, Obama and his legendary negotiation skills (or rather lack there of), he was an easy mark for the likes of the Islamic Fundamentalists Militants.
5 senior, hardened militant leaders for a single deserted, hardly a bargain that one should be proud of. Even at one for one, it'd still would have been a losing deal for the US.
I love it when you get to this point. You actually ignore your own claims and then move straight to pretending you never made them. You made claims, where is the evidence Grim17? I can wait all day for it.
Obama treated this guy like a returning hero....It seems his true color shows every day....Why can't you lefties see it?
That means you must also believe that members of his own Administration lied to him. Like I said, only in a progressive world could such stupidity and willful ignorance exist.
That sir is a lie, because none of them had all the facts.
Because they don't like this country any better than B. Hussein Obama does.
Heya Erod. :2wave: Nah it sadly demonstrates why Susan Rice shouldn't be in government.....let alone BO's National Security Advisor.
Don't you ever get tired of barfing up such inane claptrap?
From what I've seen of your posts, you would do better to ask that question of yourself.
Don't you ever get tired of barfing up such inane claptrap?
If Holder is such a liar, why are the GOP asshole racists in the Senate lynching Lynch.Holder is another damned slimy liar.
Let's see some of those polls--otherwise it's back to the BIL Zone with you .Kobie, recent polls back that assertion.
Because they don't like this country any better than B. Hussein Obama does.
Kind of like "Mission Accomplished"--we're still dealing with that hollow victory.Yeah, I guess Obama can claim a victory, albeit, a very hollow one. In the end cost / benefit analysis,
I'm not running from anything, ignoring anything, or backing down from anything I have said.
Riiiiiiight.
Every single liberal hates America.
:roll:
I am neither lib nor con...but do you even begin to realize how ridiculous that statement of yours is?
I strongly guess; 'no'.
"Desertion" and "treason" are not synonyms.
You don't really expect Hatuey to not enter into hackery do you?I'm not running from anything, ignoring anything, or backing down from anything I have said. I happen to believe the 7 guys that served in his platoon with him, while you obviously think they are liars. Why don't you send me a link to the guys in his platoon who tell a different story?
Only in the progressive world would someone actually claim that Obama had no knowledge of the fact that Bergdahl willfully deserted his post in the dead of night. That means you must also believe that members of his own Administration lied to him. Like I said, only in a progressive world could such stupidity and willful ignorance exist.
This all started because you attacked republicans for criticizing Obama for the deal he made for Bergdahl, claiming they all were in favor of it before it took place.
That sir is a lie, because none of them had all the facts.
[I tore a liberal thread to shreads back when the trade took place, that claimed Republicans said "bring him home" before the deal, and changed there minds and opposed bringing him home after the deal was made... I proved that thread was a lie using the very statement that were made by republicans, just as I have shown your words attacking republicans to be a lie.
You lied, fibbed, told a whopper, an untruth... You attacked those you disagree with politically based on false pretenses, in what can only be described as a lame ass attempt to carry water for our dishonest, failed president. Then you put the icing on the cake by not having the integrity to own up to your dishonesty, even when you've been caught dead to rights.
Put simply, you're a lying disgrace... aka, just another dangerous, dishonest progressive
Good. So where is the evidence? Your diatribes are boring me. Why can't you show what everyone supposedly knew and when they knew it? I can wait all day for you to post these "facts" that you've avoided posting for what... 3 posts now? C'man Grim17. Post the evidence that they knew it. I can wait all day if I have to.Hell, I already know why you won't post it
Yeah, I guess Obama can claim a victory, albeit, a very hollow one. In the end cost / benefit analysis, Obama and his legendary negotiation skills (or rather lack there of), he was an easy mark for the likes of the Islamic Fundamentalists Militants.
5 senior, hardened militant leaders for a single deserted, hardly a bargain that one should be proud of. Even at one for one, it'd still would have been a losing deal for the US.
"Lets see you want to go back 2 years and want people to post up all the Repubs said at first. Knowing they knew nothing at the time.
As you can see, the key elements of the deal that was announced last week were apparent in the article four months ago — the exchange of five Taliban members held at Guantanamo for Bergdahl and the protective custody of Qatar.Throughout the discussions, it has always been the same five men, so their identities would have been no surprise to any lawmaker keeping track of the discussions. The five are Khirullah Said Wali Khairkhwa, the former interior minister; Mullah Mohammed Fazi, a senior commander; Mullah Norullah Noori, a provincial governor; Abdul Haq Wasiq, deputy chief of intelligence; and Mohammned Nabi Omari, a member of a joint al-Qaeda-Taliban cell in eastern Khost province.
In August 2011, the Associated Press reported that Afghan negotiators were seeking the release of Taliban fighters in exchange for Bergdahl, naming specifically Khairkhwa, Fazi and Wasiq. In January 2012, the Guardian newspaper reported that Washington would free Khairkhwa and Noori, and possibly Fazi, in exchange for getting the Taliban to open an office in Qatar for peace talks.
In a March 9, 2012, report, the Afghanistan Analysts Network issued a long report on the Guantanamo Five, which actually found that the men were less hard-line than believed.
Then in August 2012, Reuters reported that the Obama administration had offered to trade “five senior Taliban leaders” — including Khairkhwa, Wasiq, Noori and Fazi — for Bergdahl. The headline on Business Insider’s Web site was: “The US Wants To Trade Five Taliban Leaders In Guantánamo For This One American POW.”
In April 2013, Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the same deal nearly came together in 2011: “They worked out a deal in which the United States would release five Taliban prisoners and send them to Qatar. The Taliban, in return, would condemn international terrorism and release U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, whom the militants had been holding since 2009.” But it fell through because of a conflict with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
In other words, these names were not a secret — and in any case, McCain sits on the relevant Senate committees (Armed Services and Foreign Relations), with security clearances, and thus could have found out about the names and the background of the individuals.
McCain may have thought he left himself an out when he said his support was dependent on the details. But then he can’t object to the most important detail — the identity of the prisoners — that was known at the time he indicated his support. McCain earns an upside-down Pinocchio, constituting a flip-flop.
5 Taliban leaders go free probably to wreak havoc and death upon us and our allies. The one we traded the 5 Taliban leaders for goes to jail. Is there any logic behind this?
Posts such as these make you look like you don't read the posts of others. Since when is February 2014, "2 years ago"? Get serious and come back when you've got something other than silliness and diatribes. K thanks.Or is it that you can't even shown what the administration knew? I think it's a little bit of A and B.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?