Bin Laden for Bergdahl?
************************************************************************
Is any deal for a U.S. P.O.W. above debate?
************************************************************************
Akin to President Clinton’s perjury impeachment that was not about sex despite what Liberals claim, so to is the latest subject-changing when it comes to the recent U.S.-Taliban POW swap. Despite what Liberals say, people on all sides of the aisle could well be questioning its merits not for political but substantive reasons.
And a corrosive by-product to come from this debate is the attempted silencing by Liberals of anyone who is questioning whether we gave away more than we should have.
Despite what the MSNBC mob shrills, most people questioning the deal, including Conservatives, are all for bringing home all troops, prisoners included (regardless if they decided to stray into enemy territory to get a pizza or they were disillusioned by their government). But can there be a cost that is too high?
Would Bin Laden for Bergahl have been a non-debatable deal?
______________________________________________________
So there is always room for debate as to whether a prisoner swap was a good or bad one.
Liberals are just trying to cover for yet another foreign policy mess that President Obama has committed.
And as to Mr. Obama’s defense that “This is what happens at the end of wars,” in Warsaw, Poland recently, one can only thank God that this man was not in the White House in 1861 or 1941 as he would have declared the war over right after Gettysburg or Normandy well before such wars had actually ended, if he even went to war at all.
One of the greatest American politicians of all-time who defeated the vaunted Clinton Machine must accept that he cannot always win under his terms when he’s on the world stage, which is probably why he shies away from it.
-I.M. Windee
