Sergeant Bergdahl and the Republicans’ About-Face
Four months ago on CNN, John McCain stated that he would support the exchange of five Taliban members for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. “I would support. Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
But as The New York Times noted in an editorial last Thursday, once the conditions of Bowe Bergdahl’s liberation were known, McCain radically changed position to try to embarrass the Obama administration and win points politically. “I would not have made this deal,” he explains. All of a sudden this exchange is “troubling” and “poses a great threat” to service members. Hearings must be held and questions asked.
The New York Times highlights the Republicans’ hypocrisy — but that isn’t anything new. They used Bergdahl’s five years of captivity against the administration — when it served them. Today, they are using his release in the hope of provoking a controversy around the price paid for his freedom — the exchange of five Taliban members detained at Guantanamo — and on the moral qualities of the young sergeant. He deserted, they claim, and his desertion cost the lives of several men in his unit during search and rescue operations. “The last few days have made clearer than ever that there is no action the Obama administration can take … that cannot be used for political purposes by his opponents,” writes the Times’ editorial board.
Several senators have even claimed, with a straight face, that the release of Guantanamo detainees without first informing Congress is grounds for impeachment. And as if America has lost all contact with reason in the last eight years, some are even starting to ask questions about the length of Bowe Bergdahl’s father’s beard, implying that he could be Muslim or Islamist. A Republican representative from Nebraska published a tweet welcoming the young man’s return to freedom, but that tweet was very quickly deleted when the winds began to change.
And at the same time, the Republican machine is organizing a campaign to raise doubts over Bergdahl’s patriotism, taking statements from members of his unit who have claimed that, in reality, he had deserted his post when he was captured and that his desertion cost the lives of at least six men. A report classified as confidential to which The New York Times had access states that there is no link between the deaths and Sergeant Bergdahl. Whatever happened — and it is the [protocol] with each soldier, whether [that soldier] was captured or whether he deserted first and was later captured — the duty of each army member is to never leave a single man or woman behind, even under questionable circumstances. But these principles take on less significance for Barack Obama’s adversaries, who scoff at the truth of the capture of Sergeant Bergdahl. They are motivated only by political gain.
But as The New York Times noted in an editorial last Thursday, once the conditions of Bowe Bergdahl’s liberation were known, McCain radically changed position to try to embarrass the Obama administration and win points politically. “I would not have made this deal,” he explains. All of a sudden this exchange is “troubling” and “poses a great threat” to service members. Hearings must be held and questions asked.
The New York Times highlights the Republicans’ hypocrisy — but that isn’t anything new. They used Bergdahl’s five years of captivity against the administration — when it served them. Today, they are using his release in the hope of provoking a controversy around the price paid for his freedom — the exchange of five Taliban members detained at Guantanamo — and on the moral qualities of the young sergeant. He deserted, they claim, and his desertion cost the lives of several men in his unit during search and rescue operations. “The last few days have made clearer than ever that there is no action the Obama administration can take … that cannot be used for political purposes by his opponents,” writes the Times’ editorial board.
Several senators have even claimed, with a straight face, that the release of Guantanamo detainees without first informing Congress is grounds for impeachment. And as if America has lost all contact with reason in the last eight years, some are even starting to ask questions about the length of Bowe Bergdahl’s father’s beard, implying that he could be Muslim or Islamist. A Republican representative from Nebraska published a tweet welcoming the young man’s return to freedom, but that tweet was very quickly deleted when the winds began to change.
And at the same time, the Republican machine is organizing a campaign to raise doubts over Bergdahl’s patriotism, taking statements from members of his unit who have claimed that, in reality, he had deserted his post when he was captured and that his desertion cost the lives of at least six men. A report classified as confidential to which The New York Times had access states that there is no link between the deaths and Sergeant Bergdahl. Whatever happened — and it is the [protocol] with each soldier, whether [that soldier] was captured or whether he deserted first and was later captured — the duty of each army member is to never leave a single man or woman behind, even under questionable circumstances. But these principles take on less significance for Barack Obama’s adversaries, who scoff at the truth of the capture of Sergeant Bergdahl. They are motivated only by political gain.
Next article![]( "Obama the Progressive Pragmatist")
