Hate to say it, but I think the WH bungled the Bergdahl release announcement

[onenote]

In fact, I felt that way even before all hell broke loose.

Let me emphasize that I don't think it was a mistake to enter into the agreement to trade the five Taliban for him nor do I have any problem with that move being made without giving 30 days advance notice/certification to the Hill.

But from the outset, I was troubled by the display put on with Bergdahl's parents on the steps of the WH. My reaction was that it looked like the WH was trying to milk some political benefit from this act. Maybe that's unavoidable, but my reaction was that it would have been better if the announcement had come from the Defense Department, with a congratulatory quote from the President, that they had engineered Bergdahl's release, offered wishes to his family, and moved on -- treating this as one more in a series of steps bringing our involvement in Afghanistan to a close. Indeed, I would have left it to the military to make the announcement and not have involved the President directly.

Now knowing that there has been several years of controversy over both Bergdahl's actions and over the terms of the exchange, it strikes me as an even bigger blunder to put the President up on a podium to make the announcement. The message from the outset should have been what it has morphed into after the fact: after years of captivity, we have arranged for the release of Sgt. Bergdahl. While there are questions surrounding his capture, those can and will be resolved in due course. Today we simply express our relief for the fact that he no longer is being held in captivity in Afghanistan and that the terms of his exchange, while necessarily carried out in secrecy, have been vetted extensively by members of the defense and intelligence community and found to present no significant risk to American interests in a region from which we are in the process of completing our dis-engagement.


That, imo, would make more sense than sending Susan Rice out to say that Bergdahl served "with honor and distinction".



Edited to make clear that I have no issue with the terms of the release or how it was carried out. Just with the way it was publicly announced in a Rose Garden ceremony that, imo, elevated it into something more than it was. It was our folks doing their jobs and announcing that the way many other announcements are made should have been enough.

[Bonx]

1. Great post

I agree with all of that.

[quinnox]

2. Before the inevitable attacks, I will say it made me very uncomfortable to trade Taliban, who are

basically hard core terrorists, for the soldier. I want people to go read about the Taliban, and see what kind of things they do to women and children, who don't abide by their extremist beliefs. These guys are nothing but terrorists.

[phleshdef]

6. They are no different than enemy soldiers fighting people who invaded their country.

Yes, the Taliban are assholes.
Yes, I agreed with the initial invasion of Afghanistan when I thought we were going in just to get Bin Laden after 9/11.

But lets face a few facts. The Taliban are not, in and of themselves, terrorists. Don't be like the right wingers and throw that word around so flippantly, its already lost almost all meaning as it is. They were the ruling political sect of Afghanistan when we invaded. Regardless of how disgusting their ideology is, they had the RIGHT to fight back invaders. Regardless of how justified or not justified our invasion was, they had that RIGHT. They were soldiers fighting foreign invaders, period.

Any native Afghani that we have captured should either be charged and tried or set free by the end of this year. Period. This is what happens when wars end. We have a long history of doing just that.

[randome]

8. Torturing women and children has what to do with the U.S.?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[phleshdef]

15. Don't get me wrong. The Taliban disgusts me.

But we can't be world police and we didn't go into Afghanistan to stop the Taliban, we went into Afghanistan because they were harboring people that coordinated attacks against us.

[randome]

21. I have no problem stopping the torture, whether it's here or elsewhere.

Someone needs to be the world's policeman and like it or not that's us. The alternative is to turn away and pretend it doesn't happen because that's the end result. You can't use diplomacy against religious fanatics.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[phleshdef]

22. I'm sorry but we can't AFFORD to be the world's policeman without turning our own country fiscally..

...inside out. We need to take care of our own. We've spent way too much money on this shit while neglecting our own who are suffering right here at home.

[quinnox]

19. Trust me, I don't throw that word, the "T" word, around lightly. All I can say is I totally

disagree with you.

Here is some things from wikipedia about these terrorists, the Taliban, and their acts -

"While in power, it enforced its strict interpretation of Sharia law, and leading Muslims have been highly critical of the Taliban's interpretations of Islamic law.[10] The Taliban were condemned internationally for their brutal treatment of women.

The Taliban have been accused of using terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals. According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 75% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, 80% in 2011, and 80% in 2012.

Human rights abuses

Massacre campaigns

According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban, while trying to consolidate control over northern and western Afghanistan, committed systematic massacres against civilians. UN officials stated that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001. They also said, that "these have been highly systematic and they all lead back to the [Taliban] Ministry of Defense or to Mullah Omar himself." "These are the same type of war crimes as were committed in Bosnia and should be prosecuted in international courts", one UN official was quoted as saying. The documents also reveal the role of Arab and Pakistani support troops in these killings. Bin Laden's so-called 055 Brigade was responsible for mass-killings of Afghan civilians. The report by the United Nations quotes "eyewitnesses in many villages describing Arab fighters carrying long knives used for slitting throats and skinning people". The Taliban's former ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, in late 2011 stated that cruel behaviour under and by the Taliban had been "necessary".

Human trafficking

Several Taliban and Al-Qaeda commanders ran a network of human trafficking, abducting women and selling them into sex slavery in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Taliban were condemned internationally for their brutal repression of women.

In areas they controlled the Taliban issued edicts which forbade women from being educated, girls were forced to leave schools and colleges. Those who wished to leave their home to go shopping had to be accompanied by a male relative, and were required to wear the burqa, a traditional dress covering the entire body except for a small screen to see out of. Those who appeared to disobey were publicly beaten. Sohaila, a young woman who was convicted of walking with a man who was not a relative, was charged with adultery. She was publicly flogged in Ghazi Stadium and received 100 lashes. The religious police routinely carried out inhumane abuse on women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

[phleshdef]

31. You don't need to educate me on the Taliban, I'm more than well aware of their crimes.

I guess you can make an argument that they are terrorists against their own people. But no more or less than the North Korean government, several governments in Africa or even China. You could also make the same argument for many tribal governments around the world who live atrocious lifestyles.

When I say "terrorist" though, I'm thinking more along the lines of people who commit unlawful acts of violence against other nations. IE 9/11. The Taliban seems more concerned with being in control of their own governments and forcing their values as law on their own nations. I believe that is an important distinction to make, especially when considering our own foreign policies.

[lostincalifornia]

30. And what would our indiscriminate bombing of Iraq be considered?

[quinnox]

39. I would be the last person to defend our despicable acts in Iraq. And I would have no objection to

someone saying we performed terrorist acts against the Iraqi people, under President George Bush, who should be indicted for war crimes.

[lostincalifornia]

68. I was not implying you were, and appreciate the consistency

[IronLionZion]

38. You think our other enemies did not do that?

North Vietnamese? North Koreans? Germans, Japanese, Iraqis, etc. all committed horrifying atrocities in war. You think we wouldn't exchange POWs at the end of those wars?

Tell me exactly why these 5 talibs were held without being charged with terrorism or tried in any court? They had many years to do so.

[riverwalker]

56. they are heinous and barbaric

and all the more reasons to rescue our soldier from them, at any cost. Period.

[DURHAM D]

3. Totally agree.

This could have been way better managed from the get go.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Bergdahl's parents are an American soldier's parents. They are, by all appearances,

decent, productive and upright citizens and don't need to hide in shame, no matter what dumb thing their kid may be found to have done. I was offended by Jon Stewart suggesting something was wrong with standing with them at the WH. They have suffered tremendously, potentially because of their son's decisions (we'll know the facts later) and must have been enormously grateful and joyful, and there is no reason to distance the President from that, despite political attacks afterward. Edit to add: General Mattis, formerly of CentCom, noted he had a Bergdahl farm horseshoe on the wall in HQ. The Bergdahl family WAS supported in the past, and should continue to be supported.

[onenote]

9. I never suggested that Bergdahl's parents were not decent, productive and upright citizens

And yes they sacrificed.

But thousands of other families have suffered because of these godawful wars and I see no merit in singling out this one family for a Presidential ceremony over the other families who have had sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers come home damaged beyond repair.

It is a cause for celebration every time a soldier leaves Afghanistan. The suffering of Bergdahl's family is different but not unique.

Bad shit happens in war. When it stops we should be thankful, but making a display out of one soldier's repatriation seemed untoward -- almost a "mission accomplished" like moment, I'm sad to say.

[ProSense]

18. You can't be serious

But thousands of other families have suffered because of these godawful wars and I see no merit in singling out this one family for a Presidential ceremony over the other families who have had sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers come home damaged beyond repair.

It is a cause for celebration every time a soldier leaves Afghanistan. The suffering of Bergdahl's family is different but not unique.

Bad shit happens in war. When it stops we should be thankful, but making a display out of one soldier's repatriation seemed untoward -- almost a "mission accomplished" like moment, I'm sad to say.

You think an American POW was going to be release with no formal announcement, including the facts of the release, that is, trading other prisoners?

[onenote]

29. Again you misunderstand

Indeed, I specifically said there should be a formal announcement. But not everything that gets announced by the administration is announced in the form of the President standing on a podium. A formal press release, and press conference, conducted by the Secretaries of State and Defense and others -- hopefully fully prepared to answer questions about Bergdahl, the exchanged Taliban and the measures taken to ensure they posed no significant risk -- that would have been a much better way to handle a situation that the WH had every reason to know had controversial elements.

[ProSense]

34. This

"Indeed, I specifically said there should be a formal announcement. But not everything that gets announced by the administration is announced in the form of the President standing on a podium. A formal press release, and press conference, conducted by the Secretaries of State and Defense and others -- hopefully fully prepared to answer questions about Bergdahl, the exchanged Taliban and the measures taken to ensure they posed no significant risk -- that would have been a much better way to handle a situation that the WH had every reason to know had controversial elements."

...is an opinion that has nothing to do with the point about the announcement being "bungled."

You think it should have been done by "press release"? You're taking issue with where the announcement was made.

No one, but the President should have made the formal announcement.

[onenote]

40. Why?

I'm curious why the President, and only the President, could/should have made the announcement and why it had to be in person with the Bergdahl's having been flown in from Idaho?

The WH put out a written statement that was an abbreviated version of the President's in-person remarks:

"Today the American people are pleased that we will be able to welcome home Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, held captive for nearly five years. On behalf of the American people, I was honored to call his parents to express our joy that they can expect his safe return, mindful of their courage and sacrifice throughout this ordeal. Today we also remember the many troops held captive and whom remain missing or unaccounted for in America’s past wars. Sergeant Bergdahl’s recovery is a reminder of America’s unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield. And as we find relief in Bowe’s recovery, our thoughts and prayers are with those other Americans whose release we continue to pursue.

For his assistance in helping to secure our soldier's return, I extend my deepest appreciation to the Amir of Qatar. The Amir’s personal commitment to this effort is a testament to the partnership between our two countries. The United States is also grateful for the support of the Government of Afghanistan throughout our efforts to secure Sergeant Bergdahl’s release.

This week the United States renewed its commitment to the Afghan people and made clear that we will continue to support them as they chart their own future. The United States also remains committed to supporting an Afghan-led reconciliation process as the surest way to achieve a stable, secure, sovereign, and unified Afghanistan. While we are mindful of the challenges, it is our hope Sergeant Bergdahl’s recovery could potentially open the door for broader discussions among Afghans about the future of their country by building confidence that it is possible for all sides to find common ground."

I see no reason why more than that was needed.

[ProSense]

41. Why not? Again, you're basing this on your preference. n/t

[onenote]

44. Am I not allowed to express my preference

or to put it another way, to express my opinion of how it was handled?

Why not?

[ProSense]

47. Sure, but

"Am I not allowed to express my preference or to put it another way, to express my opinion of how it was handled? "

...saying the announcement was "bungled" because your "preference" was a "press release" doesn't make much sense.

[TwilightGardener]

25. Actually, the suffering of the Bergdahl family is fairly unique. He was

the only POW from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Was it a ceremony or an announcement? It was an announcement--that Bergdahl was free, and the parents were able to issue their statements and express gratitude. It wasn't a ticker tape parade. If you feel the parents didn't deserve to be there and the President shouldn't have announced it because you feel Bergdahl is unworthy of such treatment, that's OK with me. I am often uncomfortable with such moments in general, myself--but remember that there are famous photos of freed POW's shaking hands with Presidents from past wars (including McCain and Nixon), and not all of them were necessarily heroes either. It has been done in the past, only difference is Bergdahl's potential (but NOT proven) conduct. AND again, this was his parents, not Bergdahl.

[onenote]

33. I doubt that the families of those killed or permanently damaged in these awful wars

think that because their family members weren't captured their suffering/sacrifice was less than that of Sgt. Bergdahl. Bergdahl and his family suffered greatly and it appears, sadly, they will suffer more. Putting them up on stage with the President did them no favors in that regard.

[TwilightGardener]

37. I'm trying to get what you're saying.

You're saying that allowing these people to stand next to the President as he announces the successful recovery mission, and make statements, somehow dishonors other troops? If Bergdahl didn't have a cloud over his conduct, would it have been OK with you?

[onenote]

42. As I said, I was uncomfortable with it before I knew of the "cloud"

At the time of the announcement, my reaction was that Bergdahl was an American soldier who, after a prolonged period of captivity by very bad people, had been successfully repatriated. That was a very good thing. Something that we could all feel good about, that his parents could celebrate. But I didn't think then, and I don't think now, that it warranted more than the written statement issued by the President in which he said he had the pleasure of calling the Bergdahl's to give them the news and then congratulated those who had worked to secure his release.

Standing in the Rose Garden elevated it to a different level that I didn't think was warranted. Yes, getting him back was a good thing. But that's what we do -- we get our people back. I don't think we need ticker tape parades when the last of the soldiers make it home and I didn't think a Rose Garden announcement was necessary in this instance.

The message should have been "we did our job." Period.

[TwilightGardener]

50. I can't argue with you on what you feel is appropriate.

I will say, for myself, I think it was done with a formal appearance because the President was long personally haunted by Bergdahl's captivity and the failure to release him sooner, and he was genuinely, thoroughly happy for the Bergdahls after all they had been through.

[onenote]

52. You may well be right.

[Politicalboi]

49. I think Jon Stewart was being sarcastic

Because he knew the right would go bonkers over how the father looked.

[otohara]

5. Boo

FAUX News would love this.

Call em or the swift-boating operation that's booking the soldiers who are calling him a traitor

[yeoman6987]

16. Would he go on the Simpsons, Glee, or what show on Fox?????

[1000words]

20. ... -urns."

[bigtree]

7. it would be a mistake to cater to those who couldn't stand to see the parents in the Rose Garden

. . . and they don't really need a reason for that warm and lovely scene to disturb them.

I think the President, obviously knowing about the controversy, made as courageous a stand in presenting them as he did in making the choice to exchange prisoners.

I think he knows much more than you do about the actual circumstances surrounding his capture.

[ProSense]

10. I don't

Hate to say it, but I think the WH bungled the Bergdahl release

Let me emphasize that I don't think it was a mistake to enter into the agreement to trade the five Taliban for him nor do I have any problem with that move being made without giving 30 days advance notice/certification to the Hill.

But from the outset, I was troubled by the display put on with Bergdahl's parents on the steps of the WH. My reaction was that it looked like the WH was trying to milk some political benefit from this act. Maybe that's unavoidable, but my reaction was that it would have been better if the WH made the announcement that they had engineered Bergdahl's release, offered wishes to his family, and moved on -- treating this as one more in a series of steps bringing our involvement in Afghanistan to a close. Indeed, I would have left it to the military to make the announcement and not have involved the President directly.

...get this point? Why would the military "make the announcement"?

Now knowing that there has been several years of controversy over both Bergdahl's actions and over the terms of the exchange, it strikes me as an even bigger blunder to put the President up on a podium to make the announcement. The message from the outset should have been what it has morphed into after the fact: after years of captivity, we have arranged for the release of Sgt. Bergdahl. While there are questions surrounding his capture, those can and will be resolved in due course. Today we simply express our relief for the fact that he no longer is being held in captivity in Afghanistan and that the terms of his exchange, while necessarily carried out in secrecy, have been vetted extensively by members of the defense and intelligence community and found to present no significant risk to American interests in a region from which we are in the process of completing our dis-engagement.

You wanted the President to keep the terms of the agreement a secret? I don't even get the point of the above statement.

He was captive. Everyone, even the wingnuts lashing out at Obama to secure his release knew.

The only thing "bungled" is the Republican reaction to this.

Republicans Frantically Scrub Their Praise Of Bowe Bergdahl
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/republicans-delete-praise-of-bergdahl

Hillary Clinton Defends Bergdahl Prisoner Swap
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-defends-bergdahl-prisoner-swap

[onenote]

23. You misunderstand

First, the military should have been the one making the announcement because this was the repatratiation of the member of the military. The President doesn't make announcements every time a soldier dies or makes it home alive. This was a soldier who went to Afghanistan was captured and through diplomatic and military efforts was released. Putting the President on a stage to announce it turns it into a bigger deal than I think it needed to be. We get our people back. Period. Full Stop. No need for a display as if this was something special.

Second, I never said I wanted the President to keep the terms of the agreement secret after the fact. But I do think it was important that the timing and details of the agreement not be run past the Hill. Do you agree or disagree? I think when the announcemnt was made, the administration should have played defense by playing offense rather than waiting for the inevitable attacks on the procedure.

It seems self-evident that this didn't go well. I don't condone anything the repubs are doing; I just think we made it easy for them to do it by playing up the release as a great big deal rather than a matter of fact execution of our policy of bringing our people home.

[ProSense]

26. No,

"First, the military should have been the one making the announcement because this was the repatratiation of the member of the military. The President doesn't make announcements every time a soldier dies or makes it home alive. This was a soldier who went to Afghanistan was captured and through diplomatic and military efforts was released. Putting the President on a stage to announce it turns it into a bigger deal than I think it needed to be. We get our people back. Period. Full Stop. No need for a display as if this was something special. "

...you're ignoring the fact that this was a POW, and the call was Obama's.

[onenote]

61. I'm not ignoring anything.

I'm expressing my opinion that the administration should have handled the announcement differently than it did.

[yeoman6987]

24. I WISH it was only the Republicans

I am serious. It would be great if it was ONLY the republicans who were outraged. I wish they would take a poll to see the feeling is in the United States. I wonder what the results would be.

[yeoman6987]

11. I agree with all

Susan Rice was the primo mistake of all.....I don't understand why she is always the spokesman and they never give her the correct statements to make. It seems like they almost want her to either look unaware or stupid. I don't get it at all. The White House parent display was horrid and still can't believe they did it. However, they thought the American People were going to gather around and celebrate. They had no idea that the American people would be outraged.

[forthemiddle]

32. I also have to agree - to a point

The WH MUST have known that there are soldiers out there, that served with Bergdahl that believed that lives were lost looking for him.
Even if the stories of his desertion do not prove to be true, there have been stories for years that he left base, soldiers went looking for them, and up to 6 of them were killed.
For the WH to celebrate this man, before all the facts are known does seem to be a slap in the face to the families of the dead soldiers.
I agree that a low key announcement should have been made.

I am not saying that the stories of the KIA soldiers while searching are true, nor am I saying beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a deserter. I am just saying that since they are out there, it seems insensitive to parade his release in a Rose Garden ceremony. Think of the dead soldiers families.

Sometimes I think the Administration is tone deaf.

I also, 100% believe that we as Americans do everything in our power to get our POWs released.

[TwilightGardener]

43. The "dead soldiers' families"--there were no dead soldiers' families known or

acknowledged by the Pentagon to be affiliated with Bergdahl's disappearance until the Sunday afterward, when someone came out with a list of names that the Pentagon didn't have in its own records as being related to Bergdahl. Those families were never told that their loved ones died looking for Bergdahl, and it may not even be true--and whoever did that is sleazy beyond belief. If they believed this to be true about these fallen men, why was this info either not reported, gathered and processed previously, or was it covered up? Either way, it was nasty.

[Lee-Lee]

48. It was actually kind of covered up

If you read the accounts they made all the Soldiers from that province who participated in recovery efforts sign Non-Disclosure Agreements ordering them to not discuss anything about the disappearance or recovery. This was done on the grounds that divulging the info could put him in greater jeapordy.

[TwilightGardener]

53. Here's the deal: if soldiers died directly from looking for Bergdahl, and it's

not recorded that way, that opens a whole can of worms for the Army and all NCO's and officers who signed off on these official accounts of death, if they covered it up or changed the official stories. The Pentagon is reviewing these records, which I take to mean that everything in there had better be factual and the people who signed off better be available to explain. Medals and awards were involved, too.

[TwilightGardener]

58. Also: McChrystal, Petraeus, and Gates had better be ready to explain

why there was a coverup, if there was one. I haven't heard from any of those three on this, actually.

[Lee-Lee]

63. I am not sure exactly what you think was done

They ordered all involved with looking for him or with knowledge of the circumstances of his disappearance to to not talk about it, citing concerns over his safety, until he was returned. Required them to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements to that end making it legally binding.

It is pretty unusual for NDA's to be done in a circumstance like this- but then again, when was another circumstance quite like this?

It will be easy to connect the dots when they do another investigation (they did a pretty exhaustive one when it happened)- was the mission they were on one that was tasked with looking for him, or in support of those efforts?

Not sure exactly what you think would be covered up in the reports. The only thing that was really not done, as far as I can tell, was families not told the exact nature of the mission their loved ones were lost on due to the NDA's. But that happens in other circumstances as well.

[TwilightGardener]

65. You said it was "kind of covered up". Somebody's going to have to check the records

now and see what those guys were doing when they died. If NDA's are unusual, someone's going to have to explore why they were issued. If they were told to hush up about efforts looking for Bergdahl because someone didn't want to get into trouble sending men into a situation that got them killed or someone changed a story somewhere, or actually lied to families, that would be an issue, don't you think?

[Lee-Lee]

66. Everybody there knew what they were doing

Pretty much every other effort in the country stopped and all resources that could be were diverted to the search for at least the first few weeks. Air support diverted from other units, air transport diverted causing planned troop movements to be delayed.

It was a huge effort, one that started with the theater commander and would have been on the Presidents daily updates, the kind of effort that is reported to the highest levels. It wasn't a handful of folks in one renegade unit out searching.

Those involved were just told not to talk about it to anyone not involved before the rotated home- that is why i said "kind of" covered up.

[TwilightGardener]

67. The two deaths that happened during the first couple weeks happened on post

and there's no reasonable way to attribute that to Bergdahl. The other deaths began six weeks later, and they're being blamed now on Bergdahl because the men supposedly had orders to track down leads on him and died following those leads. Someone in charge had to decide to undertake or approve those particular actions. What leads were they following? Did they walk into an ambush unwisely related to Bergdahl? What was written in the (possibly) classified records? These are questions I imagine the Army would look at.

[randome]

12. Well, you're not President.

Here, have some soothing cream for your aching, wringing hands.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Submariner]

13. After years of Bush sh*ting on our war dead

sneaking their corpses into Dover AFB in the dead of night without any respect, acknowledgment, or ceremony, I'm glad to see any and all of this war crap played out in the open the way it ought to be.

[GusBob]

14. The buck stops on the oval office desk and Thank God BO has the spine to take the heat

you think he does not know he gets ripped for every fricking thing that happens these days?

HE KNOWS that in the eyes of the opposition every thing he says or does is wrong. He is not gonna pawn in off

[madville]

17. In the exact same scenario

With a republican administration, do you think our side would be reacting differently? About the trade, notifying Congress, having the President out in front of it, etc, etc. On some of the issues it would be a 180.

I think you are right about the questions on how it was handled and it is good that they got him back safely. Time will tell if the Taliban leaders get back to their usual business.

Susan Rice has to get tired of floating balloons to the press and having them burst suddenly.

[Turbineguy]

27. Perhaps is not so much that the WH bungled this

as much as the republicans way overplaying their hand.

[Drunken Irishman]

28. You're not president for a reason.

You'll never be president. You'll never hold any sort of comparable power - or even come close to holding enough power to even get an idea of what goes into these decision makings. What Susan Rice was saying is what every Republican said prior to getting their talking points - and were saying prior to last week.

Look, here's a bit of a clue: The right would've slammed Obama no matter how he handled this. They would have relentlessly attacked him if he downplayed everything - they would have attacked him if he left him there and did nothing and Bergdahl died. He couldn't win. All the attacks would have been played up in the media and you'd be right here on DU, if Obama had done something differently, saying, "Hate to say it, but I think the WH bungled the Bergdahl release...".

[onenote]

54. and neither are you

doesn't mean we aren't entitled to have opinions (as I recall, you have more than just a few) and are entitled to express them here.

You want to disagree -- I have no problem with that. I was expressing my opinion.

[Drunken Irishman]

55. Your opinion feeds into the right-wing echo chamber.

Do you really believe the right would've been any less toxic toward Obama if had done it differently? No. The media, the Republicans, they all would have spun it negatively because that's what they do. And I'm sure, seeing that pushback, you'd be on here saying he should've done it differently then too.

[onenote]

59. Again, you misunderstand

As I said, I was uneasy with the Rose Garden announcement long before I had any reason to think that this would be a controversial move. I didn't know squat about Bergdahl other than the fact he was the only prisoner held by the Taliban and that we had succeeded in getting him back. That was good. But just a step on the road to getting our last people out of there. So I felt it should have been handled as a matter of fact accomplishment that we should be happy about but not disproportionately to getting everyone else home.


And no, I don't think it would have mattered from the repub perspective . They were going to attack the President no matter how the annoucement was made given that their opposition to the exchange was well known to the adminstration. But that only suggests to me that the administration should have been better prepared for the fall out. The conflicting reports about whether the WH did or didn't apologize for not giving notice (and I hope like hell they didn't apologize) and Susan Rice thanking Bergdahl for serving with honor and distinction -- a tone deaf statement under the circumstances -- are not signs of the type of disciplined operation I would hope from the WH.

[Drunken Irishman]

60. I don't misunderstand...

I think, if Obama had done things differently, you'd be questioning how he handled it. There was no right way to handle something like this. There never is.

[onenote]

62. You think wrong.

[Ikonoklast]

35. What political benefit? Obama is termed-out as president.

Doing it as a low-key event would have produced the same outrage from the idiots.

[Lee-Lee]

36. They made some mistakes

They should have checked on what his dad planned to say. It's mystifying that they didn't say figure that him speaking on Pashto, but only to quote a line from the Koran, would cause a controversy and fuel the contrived outrage.

Honestly, it kind of befuddles me too.

They should have handled the family and their comments better- if for no other reason than the more controversy that gets stirred up around this the harder his return will be.

In fact, if easing his return was the prime objective they would have kept this as low-key as possible. Publicity and controversy stirred from it will do nothing to ease the transition for him or the family.

[scruboak]

45. Your argument boils down to: "Why can't the black president act more humble?"

Would you have said this about Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? What about Lyndon B. Johnson? Should Johnson have been more humble when he managed to get the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress? Should he have just quietly disappeared into the Oval Office so he didn't intimidate the Republicans? What about Franklin Roosevelt on D-Day? Should he have avoided the limelight afterward so Republicans wouldn't smear him?

Just trying to show you the full implications of your argument here.

[Javaman]

46. +1 nt

[onenote]

51. Yes I would have said it about any president of any party.

Your implication that my feelings about this are racially motivated is disgusting.

The President issues statements and makes announcements multiple times a day. Some are mundane. Some are quite important. The signing of major legislation of course warrants ceremony. Other matters that are important -- such as the President's statement that he was invoking the War Powers Act in support of sending troops to Chad also are important, but are not handled by in-person appearances.

My view is that the release of Sgt. Bergdahl was extraordinarily good news for Sgt. Bergdahl and his family. It also was part of the good news that our participation in Afghanistant is winding down. But so is it good news every time someone gets the hell out of there and my preference -- you are free to disagree if you can do it without being an asshole -- would be that the steps towards concluding our participation there be treated as the matter of fact accomplishiment of our responsibilities.

[Puzzledtraveller]

57. Of course not

This admin is sheer perfection.

Actually, I am beginning to wonder if there has not been and still is an inside effort to undermine him. He should have been making heads roll for a long time going way back.

[customerserviceguy]

64. I do think it was a mistake to make the trade

and with ignoring even making a stab at trying to notify at least Congressional leaders, if not the entire Congress.

The White House ceremony means that President Obama now owns whatever is going to come out of this. If he trotted Susan Rice out there to use salutory language to describe Bergdahl's service, while either not knowing, or knowing and ignoring the controversies surrounding Bergdahl's initial disappearance, that was irresponsible.

I was curious to know what the reich wing is spinning on this, and I did tune into the Hannity radio show on the way home, seems that Bergdahl's father used Arabic language at the White House that is said to be "claiming" the WH for Islam. I'm sure that's a stretch, but it would have been good for the President's people to tell Daddy to 'cool it' on the appeasing-the-Taliban act now that his son is free and in safe hands.

In my opinion, this could have been handled much better, so I'm in agreement with you on that.

[Cha]

69. I disagree onenote.. It wasn't "bungled".. What's Bungled as you say.. is the rw mediawhore$$$ who

were all for Sgt Bergdahl being released until he was and it would make President Obama look good. Can't have that now can we?

There's no shame in having his parents at the WH for the announcement .. Ask his parents if they think it was "bungled".


Love and best wishes to the Bergdahl family. The hate they are enduring is simply beyond belief.

TOD

[jeff47]

70. You are why we lose.

Why, exactly, should we be cowards?

Your post says we need to meekly leak out that we did something, or the Republicans might be mean.

Fuck that. We announce, proudly, that we did this. That we brought him home. Because it's a big deal.

And not only that, it's causing the Republicans to look like idiots as they do a complete 180 on the subject, and greatly damage their "support the troops!!" image.

We need to stop trying to be unoffensive and meek. Because that NEVER works.

[onenote]

71. Really?

Let's leave aside which of us has devoted more time, money and energy to electing Democratic candidates over the past forty years.

Let's just consider how my expressing an opinion on DU causes Democrats to lose elections, particularly when my clearly and strongly stated opinion is that the President did the right thing in making the exchange.

One might suggest that you, in attacking Democrats for having an opinion different from yours, are the reason we lose. But I'm not going to be the one to make that suggestion because, its just DU.