Author Topic: Hillary Says Bergdahl Actions ‘Irrelevant’  (Read 208 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,030
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Hillary Says Bergdahl Actions ‘Irrelevant’
« on: June 08, 2014, 04:33:25 AM »
- The PJ Tatler - -

Hillary Says Bergdahl Actions ‘Irrelevant’

Posted By Rick Moran On June 7, 2014 @ 10:06 am In Politics | 47 Comments

Hillary Clinton doesn’t think it’s relevant if Bowe Bergdahl deserted or collaborated with the enemy.

The supposed next president of the United States thinks what matters is that he was an American soldier and President Obama had to bring him home.

Politico reports:

“It doesn’t matter,” Clinton said in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer that aired Friday. “We bring our people home.”

The former secretary of state’s argument echoes that of President Barack Obama, who has come under fire for the prisoner swap that led to Bergdahl’s freedom amid questions about whether he may have abandoned his post and deserted or defected. The military is investigating.

Clinton’s comments come as the former secretary of state begins to make the rounds ahead of the release of her latest memoir, “Hard Choices,” on Tuesday.

“I think this was a very hard choice, which is why I think my book is aptly named,” Clinton said, referring to the Bergdahl deal. “If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn’t matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation.”

The Daily Beast reported this week that when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she was skeptical of the possible deal with the Taliban and was pressing for strict conditions in any agreement.

Accepting Clinton’s premise that we “bring our people home,” does that mean we should give anything to get him back? Is there no proportionality involved? Five for one is not the issue. The issue is five extremely dangerous terrorists exchanged for one sorry excuse for a soldier who, at one point, may not have wanted to come home at all.

In making a deal, the best situation is if both sides profit. This deal may be the most one-sided transaction the U.S. has ever concluded.

Does Hillary Clinton really believe that desertion and collaboration are irrelevant? Suppose she was negotiating to buy a car. If the engine smokes, the radiator leaks, and the brakes don’t work, this is also irrelevant to the deal because the car just got a new paint job and it looks pretty.

We paid Cadillac prices for a stinking, oil-burning East German Trabant.

Article printed from The PJ Tatler:

URL to article:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo