Bad precedent

[Skjellyfetti]

If the precedent was set in the 1980s, then this event isn't a precedent.

...

exactly

And, that's why an even in the 80s DOES have bearing on this thread entitled "bad precedent"...

[CID1990]

I thought that everybody pretty much agreed a long time ago that Iran-Contra was wrong?


Please continue down this road I want to see how it pertains to today or absolves the current admin


If anything, Iran Contra should have been instructive to subsequent administrations that you dont make these kinds of trades and you damn sure dont do them without consulting Congress

[kalm]

I thought that everybody pretty much agreed a long time ago that Iran-Contra was wrong?


Please continue down this road I want to see how it pertains to today or absolves the current admin


If anything, Iran Contra should have been instructive to subsequent administrations that you dont make these kinds of trades and you damn sure dont do them without consulting Congress

Precedent being the key word...

[Skjellyfetti]

Iran - Contra was terribly wrong - but, it was not wrong because we simply negotiated with terrorists.


The point is that negotiating with terrorists has precedent.



And, what's your opinion on the other examples of negotiating with terrorists from the early and mid 2000s?

[Ibanez]

Iran - Contra was terribly wrong - but, it was not wrong because we simply negotiated with terrorists.


The point is that negotiating with terrorists has precedent.



And, what's your opinion on the other examples of negotiating with terrorists from the early and mid 2000s?

What?! You said Iran-Contra was wrong an not wrong in the same sentence. Iran Contra was a bad but it really has no bearing/impact on what Obama is doing. There is no connection. Choose your words better.

[Ibanez]

Iran - Contra was terribly wrong - but, it was not wrong because we simply negotiated with terrorists.


The point is that negotiating with terrorists has precedent.



And, what's your opinion on the other examples of negotiating with terrorists from the early and mid 2000s?

. Either we do or don't negotiate. If we do, let's not make it public. Our government (and Americans) release way too much information.

[Ibanez]

I thought that everybody pretty much agreed a long time ago that Iran-Contra was wrong?


Please continue down this road I want to see how it pertains to today or absolves the current admin


If anything, Iran Contra should have been instructive to subsequent administrations that you dont make these kinds of trades and you damn sure dont do them without consulting Congress

That was a precedent for the this precedent which is the same as the precedent.

[Skjellyfetti]

Our government (and Americans) release way too much information.

Yeah! Less transparency in government!

[dbackjon]

If the guy deserted, he wasn't worth the trade.

But I'm not sure we even know to what extent the Gitmo prisoners are bad guys. Weren't there more than a few who were given up by rival clans without a clear association to the Taliban?

I like how everyone in this instance believes the Government regarding how bad they are.

Majority of Gitmo prisoners have never been linked to terrorism, or any attacks against the US. Not sure where these guys fall into which category, but chances are good your theory is accurate

[CID1990]

Iran - Contra was terribly wrong - but, it was not wrong because we simply negotiated with terrorists.


The point is that negotiating with terrorists has precedent.



And, what's your opinion on the other examples of negotiating with terrorists from the early and mid 2000s?

OH

I get it now- you're discussing something different from the rest of us.

[dbackjon]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

Lots of Gitmo prisoners have been released. 30% of Bush's releases have been later implicated in attacks after release, only 4% of Obama's.

Benghazi and the IRS are fake scandals. The VA has as much to do with the GOP refusing to fund it properly as anything.


This is a non-issue

[Ibanez]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

Lots of Gitmo prisoners have been released. 30% of Bush's releases have been later implicated in attacks after release, only 4% of Obama's.

Benghazi and the IRS are fake scandals. The VA has as much to do with the GOP refusing to fund it properly as anything.


This is a non-issue

For fucks sake john, does accountability mean nothing? You can't continue to give democrats a free pass. Both parties suck

[Ibanez]

If the guy deserted, he wasn't worth the trade.

But I'm not sure we even know to what extent the Gitmo prisoners are bad guys. Weren't there more than a few who were given up by rival clans without a clear association to the Taliban?

I like how everyone in this instance believes the Government regarding how bad they are.

Majority of Gitmo prisoners have never been linked to terrorism, or any attacks against the US. Not sure where these guys fall into which category, but chances are good your theory is accurate

Except for the 34% that have, right? It's less than 51% so who cares, amirite?

[SDHornet]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

Lots of Gitmo prisoners have been released. 30% of Bush's releases have been later implicated in attacks after release, only 4% of Obama's.

Benghazi and the IRS are fake scandals. The VA has as much to do with the GOP refusing to fund it properly as anything.


This is a non-issue

Huh? So the "leave no man behind" works for this "POW" trade but can be ignored for the men left behind in Benghazi?

[Col Hogan]

We negotiated with Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Phillipines to secure the release of a captured missionary couple in 2002.

We negotiated and paid off former Sunni insurgents (aka "terrorists") to fight on our side during the surge in 2007.

We've been negotiating to free the Nigerian girls kidnapped by radical Islamists.
.

The US government did not negotiate with Abu Saayaf ...the family did... US Special Forces supported the Phillipines Marines to eventually kill Abu Saayaf terrorists and free a female captive...

Your other two examples are pure opinion on your part, unless you consider FLOTUS and her hashtag picture negotiations...

[dbackjon]

Lots of Gitmo prisoners have been released. 30% of Bush's releases have been later implicated in attacks after release, only 4% of Obama's.

Benghazi and the IRS are fake scandals. The VA has as much to do with the GOP refusing to fund it properly as anything.


This is a non-issue

Huh? So the "leave no man behind" works for this "POW" trade but can be ignored for the men left behind in Benghazi?

There was no way to rescue the 4 in Benghazi once the attack started. Shame on you for implying otherwise.

[dbackjon]

Majority of Gitmo prisoners have never been linked to terrorism, or any attacks against the US. Not sure where these guys fall into which category, but chances are good your theory is accurate

Except for the 34% that have, right? It's less than 51% so who cares, amirite?

Your statement makes no sense

[andy7171]

Majority of Gitmo prisoners have never been linked to terrorism, or any attacks against the US.

How do you know this?

[andy7171]

Huh? So the "leave no man behind" works for this "POW" trade but can be ignored for the men left behind in Benghazi?

There was no way to rescue the 4 in Benghazi once the attack started. Shame on you for implying otherwise.

Again. How do you know this? Why not ATTEMPT to save them?

[ASUG8]

Huh? So the "leave no man behind" works for this "POW" trade but can be ignored for the men left behind in Benghazi?

There was no way to rescue the 4 in Benghazi once the attack started. Shame on you for implying otherwise.

Nevermind the fact that they had been asking for reinforcements prior to the attack taking place.

[BDKJMU]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

Lots of Gitmo prisoners have been released. 30% of Bush's releases have been later implicated in attacks after release, only 4% of Obama's.

Benghazi and the IRS are fake scandals. The VA has as much to do with the GOP refusing to fund it properly as anything.


This is a non-issue

And you left off Fast and Furious...

[CID1990]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

Lots of Gitmo prisoners have been released. 30% of Bush's releases have been later implicated in attacks after release, only 4% of Obama's.

Benghazi and the IRS are fake scandals. The VA has as much to do with the GOP refusing to fund it properly as anything.


This is a non-issue

wow

here's one of your fellow lefties Jon - a former FSO at the State Dept who left after writing a book critical of Iraq- explaining why there needs to be answers on Benghazi... if for no other reason than one of the key players desperately wants your vote for Prez in 2016...

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2014/06/02/ ... /#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your comment about the VA has been roundly debunked by both sides.... the VA's funding has increased exponentially in the last 10 years, and your fellow hacks were just recently holding it up as the paragon of a successful government healthcare program. Not so much now, though

You can make your statements as bombastic as you want but it doesnt bring them any closer to reality.

[ASUG8]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

Lots of Gitmo prisoners have been released. 30% of Bush's releases have been later implicated in attacks after release, only 4% of Obama's.

Benghazi and the IRS are fake scandals. The VA has as much to do with the GOP refusing to fund it properly as anything.


This is a non-issue

Links?

Since these are manufactured scandals (by the GOP I assume) I guess we can go after the big fish, i.e. F&F, NSA wiretaps, NSA metadata gathering, etc.?

[SDHornet]

Jon you're getting pummeled. Just blame Bush and move onto preparing spin for Obama's next scandal.

[Pwns]

Et tu, Feinstein?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bowe-ber ... d=23982042" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;