One does have to wonder what was going through the heads of Obama and the people working for him regarding the prisoner swap that released 5 hardcore Islamists, high ranking members of the Taliban, in exchange for a soldier who deserted, and possibly gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Defense and CIA were overruled, and told to suck it up, in favor of politics. There were numerous investigations into what Bergdahl did. The people who served with him were less than enthused over the big deal made of his release. His release was met with crickets when announced to troops involved. Obama violated the law, a law he signed. Yet, somehow, they’re surprised
(The Hill) The White House has been caught off guard by the negative reaction to the deal that freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the last American prisoner of war in Afghanistan.
It has been particularly surprised by criticism of Bergdahl, who is accused of walking away from his unit shortly before being abducted by the Taliban.
The surprise helps explain why the administration has struggled to respond to the criticism, which appears to have caught officials flat-footed.
Political observers say the White House miscalculations were highlighted by the decision to have President Obama appear alongside Bergdahl’s parents in a Saturday night address at the Rose Garden address.
“They put too positive a spin on what is a very ambiguous set of circumstances,†Southern Methodist University professor Cal Jillson said.
“A big part of the WH stew on this is typical photo op hubris,†said Boston University political strategist Tobe Berkovitz. “Instead of just bringing Bergdahl back, they had to do the full kissy-huggy announcement with mom and dad figuring this good news would push the VA mess off the front page.â€
Team Obama always seems to be surprised by the negative reactions to what they do. Perhaps they’ll say Obama read about it in the newspaper? More than likely, they did what they normally do, live in the moment, thinking this would be some great victory for Obama, without considering the reality of Bergdahl being a deserter, and possibly a traitor.
The administration believed any criticism of the deal would be overshadowed by a positive story: the freeing of a U.S. soldier after five years of captivity in Afghanistan, just as the war there is drawing to an end.
It expected some criticism over the release of the Guantanamo prisons, and it also expected lawmakers would be angered they weren’t informed of the deal in advance. But it didn’t see the criticism of Berghdahl himself coming.
In other words, they live in a fantasy bubble world, making decisions in the moment, failing to realize that the military, and the American People, are not fond of deserters, and possibly traitors. And now Team Obama is in spin mode, trying to defend the decision, and going on the attack. They surely figured that this would be happy time, and overshadow the VA scandal, leading into Obama’s super-awesome “carbon” scheme, allowing weeks of campaign messaging. Instead, now Team Obama has stepped into a big steaming pile, and his “carbon” scheme has virtually disappeared. And the VA scandal is still around.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
How can anyone, let alone this White House, continually misunderestimate the depths of Teapublican depravity?
We traded 5 POW’s for Sgt. Bergdahl, a POW held by the Taliban.
The Republicans supported retrieving Sgt. Bergdahl until Obama did it.
Could the administration have risked informing Congressional Teapublicans with their history of leaking sensitive information to harm Obama?
So, do you think that Sgt. Bergdahl should have been left with the Taliban? Would you take responsibility if Sgt. Bergdahl were beheaded or would you take that opportunity to crucify Obama?
The POW’s at Gitmo would have been released within a year or so anyway (international law). Isn’t it a good thing that we were able to extricate Sgt. Bergdahl, the only US POW?
[…] What a nasty, nasty man. This whole thing was a dangerous political stunt on the part of the White House, and now they’re wondering why the reaction has been so negative. […]
Gen Stanley McCrystal (who Obama sacked) said we just don’t leave Americams behind. He also said too many people male judgements before all the facts Are in
Care to place a eager on whether he will be convicted of treason or desertion ?
This administration knew full well the situation surrounding this traitor. They knew why he left, where he was and who he was with. There are even reports that that wasn’t the first time he walked off his post.
They knew he was a deserter\traitor but didn’t care. To them, that is why he served with honor. The left\socialists hate the American military (as evidenced by J’s remarks above). They do all they can to undermine and destroy it. Really, what do you think releasing some of the top terrorists in the world back to their friends does to our military?!!? It will lead to more deaths.
And J, he wasn’t a POW as those who were holding him are not a recognized formal military. And he wasn’t being held as a prisoner, only held hostage. Much like those we’ve captured on the battlefield are not prisoners of war. They are not bound by the Geneva convention. Nor are we.
Also, for those who hold to Obama’s suggestion that he did this so as to “not leave a man behind” or that all presidents did the prisoner swaps. That may be, but those were ALWAYS after the wars were over.
Are you suggesting that Obama is declaring all hostilities over? If so, why are we still in Afghangistan and other nations still fighting this war on terror?
So Gumballs, based on what you think you know, you would have left Sgt. Bergdahl to die with the Taliban?
Does Sgt. Bergdahl deserve his day in court (military) or are you prepared to kill him?
Cons hate Sgt. Bergdahl for two reasons: He may be a deserter. Obama engineered his release.
So you, Snowflake and Sean Hannity have better intel than the US govt? If Sgt. Bergdahl had been beheaded on video by the Taliban would you have bravely stated that the traitor got what was coming to him, or would you crucify Obama for letting a soldier get murdered?
No need to answer that last rhetorical question. (LOL – as if you ever answer a question.)
Jeff, he should stand trial. Whether the Army will have the gumption to go through with an Article 32 on him is the wildcats. The big problem is not bringing him back, but trading 5 hardcore Taliban members, the worst of the worst, for him.
Secondly, why was Obama and his team so surprise by the backlash? For the smartest guy in the world who knows more about policy than his advisors, he sure screws things up a lot.
But haven’t you heard, Teach, Obama “kicked their ass nine ways to Sunday on this one,” according to professor Jeffery.
So the complaint from the right is that Obama didn’t make a good enough deal, freeing 5 Taliban.
What was the better deal to be had? And how do you know?
Are you suggesting that Sgt. Bergdahl should have been left behind if a better deal couldn’t have been obtained.
I agree he should be investigated and face justice.
Keep it up J. Keep on confirming how ignorant and anti-US\military you are. You really truly have no clue, do you?
Our surprise,
1) that there was a deal to begin with.
2) that there was a deal for this scumbag before any of our other citizens held in foreign jails. We have a number out there. Most recently in Mexico.
3) That we’d pay our enemies, terrorists, gobs of money and 5 high-level terrorist leaders for this scumbag who wasn’t worth 1 low level terrorist.
4) that the whole of that group wasn’t bombed to smithereens once the deal was made
5) that they had to constantly lie to us and besmirch the true heroes of the military to justify this “trade”.
and I could go on…
g,
I’m convinced you could go on.
Be a man and please just say it: You wish that the Taliban had beheaded the US Army Sergeant and that you could have watched it and cheered.
I can’t begin to understand the source of your extreme hatred for this young man you do not know. A young man who volunteered for the US Army, went to Afghanistan and may have become disillusioned. (We don’t know what actually happened with him – if he is a deserter he can pay the price at home).
2) that there was a deal for this scumbag before any of our other citizens held in foreign jails. We have a number out there. Most recently in Mexico. — How is this relevant to a prisoner exchange?? —
3) That we’d pay our enemies, terrorists, gobs of money and 5 high-level terrorist leaders for this scumbag who wasn’t worth 1 low level terrorist. — It’s only your opinion that the US Army Sergeant should be abandoned and likely killed. In the US we prefer due process, and we have a history of not abandoning our captured soldiers. —
4) that the whole of that group wasn’t bombed to smithereens once the deal was made. — You may disagree, but the US tries to be honorable in these situations. If we had blitzkrieged them this time, how do you think the next exchange would have gone? Did you think this through, or are you just so angry and enraged with hate you can’t think? —
5) that they had to constantly lie to us and besmirch the true heroes of the military to justify this “tradeâ€. — How did this exchange besmirch others in the military? —