Monday, June 9, 2014

Bergdahl Exchange Explained by Susan Rice

Here are some excerpts from an article by Ed Morrissey:

Of all the missteps made by the Obama administration in the swap of five high-ranking Taliban officials (including two wanted by the UN for mass murders) for Bowe Bergdahl, the two worst were ignoring the law requiring Congressional notification … and sending Susan Rice to a Sunday talk show.

George Stephanopoulos challenged Rice about the trade in the context of that record, and Rice inexplicably responded that Bergdahl had been “captured on the battlefield” and had served with “honor and distinction,” two claims that fell apart quickly, and made it appear that the White House had set up a false narrative in order to justify the trade. 

Susan Rice, who on Sunday said Bergdahl served the United States with “honor and distinction,” told 

CNN in an interview that she was speaking about the fact the Idaho native enlisted and went to Afghanistan in the service of his country.

“I realize there has been lots of discussion and controversy around this,” Rice said. “But what I was referring to was the fact that this was a young man who volunteered to serve his country in uniform at a time of war. That, in and of itself, is a very honorable thing.”

So let me make sure I understand Rice.

When asked about the matter by G.S., Rice said he was "captured on the battlefield." Is this true? Actually, all of the evidence and testimony says otherwise. She either deliberately lied on command, made it up or is just plain ignorant on the matter.

Rice claimed that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. When questioned about that in light of subsequent developments, she had been referring to the fact of his enlistment.

OK, so if G.S. had asked her at the time, are we supposed to believe that she would have said something like, "No, no. I don't mean he served with honor and distinction. I mean he enlisted with honor and distinction. I said 'served' but I meant 'enlisted.'" She did the one thing at which she is an expert: backtrack/cover up.

Really?

Look. I don't know that Bergdahl deserted or went AWOL. I do know that every one of his comrades said he had deserted. Am I to believe that they ALL conspired to lie? When did they do that? How would we know they did that?  Why would they do that? What would they have to gain by doing that?

I think the Obama administration (Susan Rice, most assuredly) just plain miscalculated what they were doing and had no idea that there might be unintended consequences. I believe they had neither researched nor understood the situation with Bergdahl and they thought both the President and he would be considered heroic.

That they obviously did not "vet" their situation is further evidence of the total ineptness of President BO (the amateur president).

20 comments:

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "When asked about the matter by G.S., Rice said he was "captured on the battlefield." Is this true? Actually, all of the evidence and testimony says otherwise."

So you don't consider Afghanistan to be a battlefield? I think most soldiers who have been to Afghanistan would disagree with you.

You don't believe that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction?

Tell me Joe, what is your definition of honor and distinction in service of your country?

I'm sure that every soldier who has served with honor and distinction will be anxious to hear the definition honor and distinction from someone who has never served at all. You know,so they can determine whether they meet your standards.

Joe said...

XO: "So you don't consider Afghanistan to be a battlefield?"

No. Most soldiers I know consider the meaning of the word "battlefield" to be the place where active actual weapons fire is taking place or is immediately about to take place. That was not the case with Bergdahl.

"...what is your definition of honor and distinction in service of your country?"

Desertion and/or AWOL is not it. Do you consider deserting and going AWOL to be honorable and distinctive? IF that's what he did (and it has not yet been proven), he was acting dishonorably.

You can't possibly be asking your questions and making your statements honestly. It's impossible.

Joe said...

XO: Nevertheless, what Rice said was patently false. She lied. Either on her own or for the administration.

Lisa said...

Of course it had to be his comrades who lied,this administration is always forthright.
What Difference does it make?

Duckys here said...

Rice misspoke and you can analyze it as much as you like.

Fact remains that rather than accepting the fact that the return of an American soldier was accomplished without incident you look for any opportunity to carp on Obama's actions.

Would you have left him there to rot, Joe?

Yes, Bergdahl was, like many others, troubled by the nature of the mission in Afghanistan. He may face charges.

"
No. Most soldiers I know consider the meaning of the word "battlefield" to be the place where active actual weapons fire is taking place or is immediately about to take place. That was not the case with Bergdahl."

He was stationed in one of the most dangerous areas in Afghanistan. What are you talking about.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Most soldiers I know consider the meaning of the word "battlefield" to be the place where active actual weapons fire is taking place or is immediately about to take place."

Given the nature of the threat that our soldiers face, anywhere in Afghanistan can be said to meet your definition of a battlefield.

The DOD apparently agrees because soldiers stationed in Afghanistan recieve IDP (Imminent Danger Pay).

"Desertion and/or AWOL is not it. Do you consider deserting and going AWOL to be honorable and distinctive? IF that's what he did (and it has not yet been proven), he was acting dishonorably."

There has been no evidence or proof presented that that is what occurred. At this point it is nothing but heresay and gossip.

In my opinion, anyone who volunteers to put on the uniform and put themselves in harms way on behalf of their country and their fellow citizens deserves the presumption of having served honorably and with distinctiuon until proven otherwise.

Joe said...

Ducky: A soldier can't just up and leave just because he doesn't like the fighting. That's called desertion, or at least AWOL. It is dishonorable.

If it was a battlefield, that's even worse. You and XO are not making a case for him.

Anonymous said...

OK, enough of this crap-o-la, lets get back to the Scum-Bag aka Deserter-Boy Bowe Bergdahl.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - IF, I said IF, he deserted or went AWOL, the military will be able to make that determination (not you, not the press) and, if the evidence is compelling enough he will be held accountable under the UCMJ up to and including Court Matial of that is called for.

Of course, the military can only conduct this investigation and hold him accountable because he is no longer being held and tortured by terrorists. Because we brought him home.

Duckys here said...

Joe, there is absolutely NO evidence that he left because he wouldn't fight.

He was severely disillusioned with the mission, true, but walking off with just a combat knife in an extremely dangerous area isn't the act of a coward.

Regardless that he made his separate peace we don't leave men behind.

Joe said...

XO: Look, I don't care whether he went AWOL or deserted, he should have been brought home. My point is that Susan Rice seemingly knows no more about it than you and I, for whatever reason. Yet she went (or was sent) to deliver a message that was not known to be true.

At the VERY least she was premature by weeks or months.

That's the way this administration rolls.

Lisa said...

Michael Hastings knew something but he is conveniently dead

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

If a person deserts and joins the enemy, then he SHOULD be left behind. OR if they want him home for trial, etc, then we don't trade with a terrorist group and give them 5 of their leaders. That is insane.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "If a person deserts and joins the enemy, then he SHOULD be left behind"

There is no evidence that he "joined the enemy".

He was held captive and kept in a cage.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Sure, and you, like the rest of the left, probably think his fellow unit members were lying.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, as for Susan Rice, this was a big screw up. Even if we take her at her now refashioned word, that she was talking about his enlistment being honorable, she also said he served with "Distinction."

And she never answered, or tried to spin that part of her comment.

Now, was she wrong? Yes she was. Was she lying? Certainly looks like it. But I don't know what to do with that. People that are spokesmen for presidents are often called on to lie, or at least shade the truth, to portray their leaders in the best light possible.

I don't like it and wish they didn't, but it is what it is. Period. In spite of many to resort to charges of serial lying for everyone in the Obama Admin, they are resorting to a time honored tradition adopted by every Admin in my lifetime.

The question i have is this... with the practice being so prevalent in Presidential politics, why are more conservative leaning commentators so up in arms now? Didn't it happen in the previous admin too?

Dave Miller said...

Sorry Glenn, you do not get to make the decision here regarding Bergdahl.

I agree it does not look good, and as many have stated, he left his post.

But his guilt, or innocence will be determined by a military court of law, not opinion.

As conservatives have been fond of saying for many years, our country is founded on the rule of law. Does Bergdahl not deserve a fair trial where he can confront his accusers?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

The point is, we should NEVER, EVER have traded five terrorist leaders for him. THAT was uncalled for. In fact, I read this morning that twice since Bergdahl took off Obama wanted to trade for him, and twice Congress said NO. So this time he just ignored him and proceeded as Emperor Obama.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, are you against negotiating with terrorists in principle, or are you against this deal specifically?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Negotiating with terrorists as a rule is not a good idea - they will just see you as weak. So they will just capture people who DON'T walk out to them so they can trade again. It's not like negotiating prisoner exchange with countries.

This particular trade was egregious.