Obama traded 5 terrorists for a Deserter, so why not one for an innocent guy?

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2014
44,107
59,369
3,645
The Southwestern Desert
Obama swapped 5 known terrorists for Bergdahl the Deserter who indirectly CAUSED the deaths of several soldiers searching for him. So why not swap the female bomber for the Japanese guy who did nothing wrong? Maybe she''ll do it again, maybe not. It seems like a way better trade than Obamas. Until we have a consistent policy which we don't, that seems like the best terms I've heard.
 
"Obama traded 5 terrorists for a Deserter, so why not one for an innocent guy?"

He is innocent until proven guilty.

The ignorance of, and contempt for, due process of law by many conservatives is truly remarkable.

Many conservatives must believe one is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence.
 
There's no sense in trying to make any rhyme or reason of Obama. He's an anomaly and a simple pimple of a blip on the radar of America's great and glorified history. He's un-vetted, unqualified, and of dubious national origin. We're dealing with a semi-black Chicago punk here. Don't complicate things. Don't manicure the bullshit. Call a spade a spade and call it a wash.
 
Oh the point was not to get Bergdahl back. The point of the trade was to give the Taliban back their five top leaders as a show of faith.

Obama's been negotiating with the Taliban for some time now via Qatar where they are set up with an Embassy and treating them as equals to the elected government in Afghanistan.

So the deal wasn't to get Bergdahl back as much as it was to use him as a smoke screen to return the Taliban leaders.

In a time of war no less. It would be like trading five Nazi Generals for an alleged deserter during WW II.
 
Oh the point was not to get Bergdahl back. The point of the trade was to give the Taliban back their five top leaders as a show of faith.

Obama's been negotiating with the Taliban for some time now via Qatar where they are set up with an Embassy and treating them as equals to the elected government in Afghanistan.

So the deal wasn't to get Bergdahl back as much as it was to use him as a smoke screen to return the Taliban leaders.

In a time of war no less. It would be like trading five Nazi Generals for an alleged deserter during WW II.
Which would not do too much good since Hitler was the supreme leader and his generals were puppets...
 
"Obama traded 5 terrorists for a Deserter, so why not one for an innocent guy?"

He is innocent until proven guilty.

The ignorance of, and contempt for, due process of law by many conservatives is truly remarkable.

Many conservatives must believe one is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence.

If you want an example of contempt for due process of law, Obama is the poster child. This is a terrorist negotiation not a court of law and the clock is ticking.
 
Oh the point was not to get Bergdahl back. The point of the trade was to give the Taliban back their five top leaders as a show of faith.

Obama's been negotiating with the Taliban for some time now via Qatar where they are set up with an Embassy and treating them as equals to the elected government in Afghanistan.

So the deal wasn't to get Bergdahl back as much as it was to use him as a smoke screen to return the Taliban leaders.

In a time of war no less. It would be like trading five Nazi Generals for an alleged deserter during WW II.
Which would not do too much good since Hitler was the supreme leader and his generals were puppets...

These Taliban leaders that were given back were not puppets.
 
"Obama traded 5 terrorists for a Deserter, so why not one for an innocent guy?"

He is innocent until proven guilty.

The ignorance of, and contempt for, due process of law by many conservatives is truly remarkable.

Many conservatives must believe one is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence.

If you want an example of contempt for due process of law, Obama is the poster child. This is a terrorist negotiation not a court of law and the clock is ticking.
pull the plug
 
Oh the point was not to get Bergdahl back. The point of the trade was to give the Taliban back their five top leaders as a show of faith.

Obama's been negotiating with the Taliban for some time now via Qatar where they are set up with an Embassy and treating them as equals to the elected government in Afghanistan.

So the deal wasn't to get Bergdahl back as much as it was to use him as a smoke screen to return the Taliban leaders.

In a time of war no less. It would be like trading five Nazi Generals for an alleged deserter during WW II.
Which would not do too much good since Hitler was the supreme leader and his generals were puppets...

These Taliban leaders that were given back were not puppets.
Then try another analogy...
 
Why is it so important if Breghdal was innocent or not? The main point is that in one situation our officials say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and do nothing to help US citizens out, and then in some other situation it's suddenly appropriate to make an exchange.
Which makes me think that there are no principles, just bare benefit. But average citizens are not beneficial...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top