Doctor Fate wrote:We have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists. We are not Israel and this is Pandora's box.

Yeah, right. Of course the US has never negotiated with terrorists, let alone back them.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:We have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists. We are not Israel and this is Pandora's box.

Yeah, right. Of course the US has never negotiated with terrorists, let alone back them.

Let's say we do.

This "deal" sucks. Deal with that. Justify the sweet deal the Great Leader finagled.

fate

This "deal" sucks. Deal with that. Justify the sweet deal the Great Leader finagled

Most people would accept the justification that Krauthammer offers.

"The reason we put a value on the individual human life the way that the ones at the other end of the table don't," Krauthammer said. "That's why we always end up with unequal swaps."

I'm pretty sure if it were anyone but Obama you could justify the swap too.
After all you're justifying the Iran Contra Scandal, wherein a regime branded as terrorist was provided missiles and the ill gotten proceeds used to fund the activities of Central American terrorists because it was "complex".
But somehow you're standards change from Reagan to Obama.

rickyp wrote:fate

This "deal" sucks. Deal with that. Justify the sweet deal the Great Leader finagled

Most people would accept the justification that Krauthammer offers.

Actually, no they wouldn't. I know you love polls--you cited one as "evidence" earlier in this thread. So, here's some "evidence" for you (and, it's in picture form to help you grasp it):

"The reason we put a value on the individual human life the way that the ones at the other end of the table don't," Krauthammer said. "That's why we always end up with unequal swaps."

I'm pretty sure if it were anyone but Obama you could justify the swap too.

Please don't presume to know me. You don't. I like the US. I like Presidents who like the US. That let's this one out.

However, it's not the man--it's his policies and his methodology. He has consistently placed himself above the law and above the truth.

Back on topic: was it a good deal. Clearly, most Americans think it was a dangerous deal. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, Chairwoman of the Senate Intel Committee) said it was "a mixed bag at best."

How are the President's defenders responding? By attacking the unit Bergdahl was in and by pinning the blame for the trade on Secretary of Defense Hagel.

After all you're justifying the Iran Contra Scandal, wherein a regime branded as terrorist was provided missiles and the ill gotten proceeds used to fund the activities of Central American terrorists because it was "complex".

No, expletive. I didn't "justify" anything. I said it's "complex," because it was a circuitous deal. This was far more straightforward, not involving multiple governments, multiple exchanges, etc. I could draw a graphic representing this deal. It would be far more challenging to draw one explaining Iran-Contra.

But somehow you're (sic) standards change from Reagan to Obama.

Please point to a trade made by Reagan of multiple terrorists for one deserter. Otherwise, recognize this is not a parallel situation. Are there faint similarities? Yes, but it is not the same.

And, again, let's say Reagan was wrong, would that justify Obama giving the Taliban EVERYTHING they asked for? This was not a negotiation; it was a surrender.

Here's another bit of "evidence":

WASHINGTON — Public opposition to the exchange of five Taliban prisoners for captive Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has less to do with Bergdahl himself and more with how President Obama handled the transfer, according to a new USA TODAY/Pew Research Center poll.

The poll shows 43% of Americans say it was wrong for Obama to make the deal, compared with 34% who say it was the right thing to do.

Thirty percent of those surveyed have a strong opinion of Bergdahl, whose decision to leave his post in 2009 and subsequent capture by the Taliban is under investigation by the Army. Of those, half say they were sympathetic, and half say they are angry with Bergdahl.

The 128 veterans included in the poll are much more harsh in their assessment of the 28-year-old sergeant. Only 6% of veterans who responded say they sympathized with him, while 33% say they were angry. By 68%-16%, veterans say Obama made the wrong decision.

"If he was a captured prisoner of war, we wouldn't be having this discussion," says Joe Davis, the director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "He put his teammates in jeopardy, and you absolutely don't do that in a combat zone."

Did you serve in the armed services? I doubt it. If you did, you'd understand that even if Bergdahl did not commit treason (unknown), he certainly betrayed his brothers in arms.

Reagan? He may have erred, but that has nothing to do with Bergdahl's actions.

Reagan? He may have indirectly traded for hostages, but . . . he did not trade terrorists with American blood on their hands during a war in which they would return to the battlefield. He also did not trade for an "alleged" deserter.

So, no, neither Bergdahl nor Obama are justified.

Have a nice day. Please try to come up with new obfuscations and lies. Thanks.

fate

And, again, let's say Reagan was wrong, would that justify Obama giving the Taliban EVERYTHING they asked for? This was not a negotiation; it was a surrender

Yes, lets say Reagan was wrong to trade missiles for hostages and use the money to fund terrorists and not inform Congress of any of it...

The reason I brought up Iran Contra and the 6 other examples of where American Presidents was to counter your claim that America has a long standing g policy of not negotiating with terrorists...
Since you seem to now finally recognize your claim was bogus. I'll leave it at that.

Its disappointing that a online poll shows 44% of Americans seem to be willing to have left Bergdahl in captivity. At the same time they say every effort should be made to recover American POWs.
Its not the first time this dichotomy in America aspirations / actions .... has manifested.

rickyp wrote:fate

And, again, let's say Reagan was wrong, would that justify Obama giving the Taliban EVERYTHING they asked for? This was not a negotiation; it was a surrender

Yes, lets say Reagan was wrong to trade missiles for hostages and use the money to fund terrorists and not inform Congress of any of it...

The reason I brought up Iran Contra and the 6 other examples of where American Presidents was to counter your claim that America has a long standing g policy of not negotiating with terrorists...
Since you seem to now finally recognize your claim was bogus. I'll leave it at that.

Its disappointing that a online poll shows 44% of Americans seem to be willing to have left Bergdahl in captivity. At the same time they say every effort should be made to recover American POWs.
Its not the first time this dichotomy in America aspirations / actions .... has manifested.

No, you don't get it. Then again, what can you expect from someone who refuses to read for comprehension--or cannot.