I barely know where to begin to comment on the five for one trade that President Obama made with the Taliban to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Aside from the fact that the President clearly violated a law that he himself signed requiring 30 day notification to relevant committees in Congress when such releases are contemplated, the fact that he would "celebrate" this action in the Rose Garden and then send Susan "Pinocchio" Rice out to once again lie to the American people is mind boggling. What is this man thinking about?
Let's put aside for a moment the allegations about whether Sgt. Bergdahl deserted (although they seem to be quite real based on statements of troops who were there and what the Army has said). Let's also put aside whether it made sense to turn loose five Taliban higher ups who are clearly going to get back into the fray rather than taking up golf or stamp collecting. We supposedly live in a constitutional democracy with three co-equal branches of government. The President at one time was a lecturer on the constitution, so one would think that he is familiar with the details of that document. Reality seems to be indicating something else. Judging by the universally negative reaction to this episode, particularly from high ranking Democrats such as Sen. Diane Feinstein and constitution scholar Jonathan Turley, there is real and valid concerns about the President ignoring the law. Even the N.Y. Times editorial page has circled the wagons and is playing zone defense. The President is clearly trying to make the Presidency a bit more co-equal the the legislature and the judiciary, and that is not the way things are supposed to work.
Perhaps we need one of the" right wing nut jobs" like Sen. Ted Cruz to stand up and call Obama to account. Even the mainstream media that almost blindly supports and makes excuses for Obama would be hard pressed to justify a cogently reasoned attack on him. Someone needs to draw a red line for Obama.
Contentions
Even I, a consistent and at times quite a harsh critic of President Obama, have been taken aback by the latest turn of events.
To recapitulate: Mr. Obama released five high-value, high-risk
terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who
it appears was a deserter–and has been known to be a deserter for a
couple of years. People who served with him are calling on the military
to court martial Bergdahl.
Media reports indicate that at least six Americans died in their efforts to rescue him.
In
de facto negotiating with the Taliban and acceding to their
demands, the president violated a law he signed, requiring him to
inform Congress 30 days in advance of any prisoner release from
Guantanamo Bay. And the effect of this deal will be to incentivize the
capture of more Americans, since it obviously pays dividends.
Yet the Obama administration took this humiliating accommodation and
portrayed it as a victory of American values and purpose. The president
held a Rose Garden event on Saturday extolling the deal. National
Security Adviser Susan Rice
referred to it as
an “extraordinary day for America” that deserves to be “celebrated.”
And Ms. Rice said of Sgt. Bergdahl, “He served the United States with
honor and distinction.”
Really, now? A deserter who,
according to the New York Times, “left
a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army,
did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to
start a new life,” is a person who served with “honor and distinction”?
By what ethical calculus does she claim this to be so?
This illustrates quite well the
fundamental differences the president and his aides and I have. My
response to what has occurred is not just intellectual but visceral. I
consider what occurred, when everything is taken into account, to be
substantively indefensible and morally dishonorable. The president, in
my estimation, has rendered a great service to our enemies, and they
know it. (Mullah Omar, the head of the Taliban,
hailed the
release of the top five Taliban commanders from Guantanamo as a “great
victory” for the mujahideen of Afghanistan.) The president’s decision
may well endanger American lives down the road. And his administration
has elevated an apparent deserter–one whose actions were reported on in
the past (see this 2012
Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings) and who is responsible for the death of fellow soldiers who tried to rescue him–into a hero.
This strikes me as morally grotesque. Yet for Mr. Obama and some of
those in the progressive movement, the events of the last few days count
as a fantastic achievement, one worth venerating and exalting.
Years ago John Gray wrote a book called
Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus.
In this case, it’s the president and I who occupy different worlds,
including different moral worlds. Mr. Obama is proud of a series of acts
that I would think he would, after careful reflection, feel regret for
and even (when it comes to his administration lionizing Sgt. Bergdahl)
some shame.
At times individuals interpret the same events at such different
angels of vision that their actions are nearly incomprehensible one to
another. I will confess that more than I ever imagined, I have that
feeling with my president.
