Aa
500+ prisoner releases by Bush ......
..........including one who "arguably poses a greater threat to the United States than the five Taliban detainees" and one who "is currently facing trial in Britain on terrorism charges related to the Syrian civil war".
"Perhaps the Republicans were not troubled by such releases — and the more than 500 others that occurred during the Bush administration — because they were not then blinded by hatred of the White House occupant."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinion/sunday/bergdahl-critics-didnt-howl-when-bush-freed-prisoners.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1
Bergdahl Critics Didn’t Howl When Bush Freed Prisoners
"In early 2003, military investigators traveled to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to interview one of the prison camp’s most valuable detainees, a Qaeda loyalist from Morocco named Abdullah Tabarak. According to multiple reports, Mr. Tabarak had been Osama bin Laden’s chief bodyguard and longtime confidant, and he gave himself up to help bin Laden elude capture shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
But when the investigators arrived, Mr. Tabarak wasn’t in his cell. The guards would not say where he was. His disappearance was so mysterious that one investigator took to calling him “the milk carton guy.”
In August 2004, news reports from Morocco revealed he was back home in Casablanca. The Bush administration never explained the release, but, as Jess Bravin documents in “The Terror Courts,” his comprehensive account of the legal — and more often extralegal — events that have taken place at Guantánamo since 2002, it appears political expediency played a crucial role. Morocco had, among other things, hosted a C.I.A. “black site” and interrogated suspects secretly deported by the United States.
Republicans continue to rail against President Obama’s trade of five Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on May 31, but prisoner releases in wartime are never simple or clean.
Abdullah Tabarak — who remains free — arguably poses a greater threat to the United States than the five Taliban detainees. Yet there was no outcry from Congress after the Tabarak release, no charges that it would undermine national security, embolden terrorists, or risk the lives of American troops abroad.
Contrast that with the grilling Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel endured on Wednesday from the House Armed Services Committee, whose Republican members were falling over each other to denounce the deal that had brought Mr. Bergdahl home after five years in captivity.
Listening to their righteous fulminations, it was possible to imagine that the eight years of the Bush administration never happened. “For the last five years,” said Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, “the American people and terrorists themselves have watched in astonishment and disbelief as this administration has handed back blood-bought gains to our enemies.”
Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina said, “For the president to release them is just incredible to the people I represent, because they know that the terrorists have a goal in mind, and the goal is very clear: death to America, death to Israel.”
But neither Mr. Franks nor Mr. Wilson appeared to have similar concerns when President Bush released Abdullah Tabarak. Nor did they, or anyone else currently outraged over the Bergdahl swap, speak out when Mr. Bush undercut military prosecutors by sending two British men, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Ali Abbasi, back to England, despite plans to try them by military commission.
Both men were alleged to be Islamic extremists with ties to terrorists, and the cases against them were among the prosecutors’ strongest, according to Mr. Bravin, a Supreme Court correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. But Mr. Bush had other things to worry about, like helping his friend, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, appease a public that overwhelmingly objected to British citizens being prosecuted in American military courts. Upon their release in January 2005 — which was opposed by the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. — Mr. Begg and Mr. Abbasi were taken in for questioning by British authorities. Both were released the following day without charges. (Mr. Begg is currently facing trial in Britain on terrorism charges related to the Syrian civil war.)
Perhaps the Republicans were not troubled by such releases — and the more than 500 others that occurred during the Bush administration — because they were not then blinded by hatred of the White House occupant. In reality, as they know, prisoner releases and swaps are what Mr. Hagel called “part of the brutal, imperfect realities we all deal with in war.”
The committee members were rightly critical of the White House for ignoring the law that requires giving 30 days’ notice to Congress before any detainee is released (a restriction that was not in place during the Bush administration). Mr. Hagel’s defense of that decision — essentially, that it was justified by “extraordinary circumstances” — was, like Mr. Obama’s, less than persuasive. But it is disingenuous for Republicans to act as though Mr. Obama is putting the nation at greater risk than his predecessor did."
"Perhaps the Republicans were not troubled by such releases — and the more than 500 others that occurred during the Bush administration — because they were not then blinded by hatred of the White House occupant."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinion/sunday/bergdahl-critics-didnt-howl-when-bush-freed-prisoners.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1
Bergdahl Critics Didn’t Howl When Bush Freed Prisoners
"In early 2003, military investigators traveled to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to interview one of the prison camp’s most valuable detainees, a Qaeda loyalist from Morocco named Abdullah Tabarak. According to multiple reports, Mr. Tabarak had been Osama bin Laden’s chief bodyguard and longtime confidant, and he gave himself up to help bin Laden elude capture shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
But when the investigators arrived, Mr. Tabarak wasn’t in his cell. The guards would not say where he was. His disappearance was so mysterious that one investigator took to calling him “the milk carton guy.”
In August 2004, news reports from Morocco revealed he was back home in Casablanca. The Bush administration never explained the release, but, as Jess Bravin documents in “The Terror Courts,” his comprehensive account of the legal — and more often extralegal — events that have taken place at Guantánamo since 2002, it appears political expediency played a crucial role. Morocco had, among other things, hosted a C.I.A. “black site” and interrogated suspects secretly deported by the United States.
Republicans continue to rail against President Obama’s trade of five Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on May 31, but prisoner releases in wartime are never simple or clean.
Abdullah Tabarak — who remains free — arguably poses a greater threat to the United States than the five Taliban detainees. Yet there was no outcry from Congress after the Tabarak release, no charges that it would undermine national security, embolden terrorists, or risk the lives of American troops abroad.
Contrast that with the grilling Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel endured on Wednesday from the House Armed Services Committee, whose Republican members were falling over each other to denounce the deal that had brought Mr. Bergdahl home after five years in captivity.
Listening to their righteous fulminations, it was possible to imagine that the eight years of the Bush administration never happened. “For the last five years,” said Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, “the American people and terrorists themselves have watched in astonishment and disbelief as this administration has handed back blood-bought gains to our enemies.”
Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina said, “For the president to release them is just incredible to the people I represent, because they know that the terrorists have a goal in mind, and the goal is very clear: death to America, death to Israel.”
But neither Mr. Franks nor Mr. Wilson appeared to have similar concerns when President Bush released Abdullah Tabarak. Nor did they, or anyone else currently outraged over the Bergdahl swap, speak out when Mr. Bush undercut military prosecutors by sending two British men, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Ali Abbasi, back to England, despite plans to try them by military commission.
Both men were alleged to be Islamic extremists with ties to terrorists, and the cases against them were among the prosecutors’ strongest, according to Mr. Bravin, a Supreme Court correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. But Mr. Bush had other things to worry about, like helping his friend, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, appease a public that overwhelmingly objected to British citizens being prosecuted in American military courts. Upon their release in January 2005 — which was opposed by the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. — Mr. Begg and Mr. Abbasi were taken in for questioning by British authorities. Both were released the following day without charges. (Mr. Begg is currently facing trial in Britain on terrorism charges related to the Syrian civil war.)
Perhaps the Republicans were not troubled by such releases — and the more than 500 others that occurred during the Bush administration — because they were not then blinded by hatred of the White House occupant. In reality, as they know, prisoner releases and swaps are what Mr. Hagel called “part of the brutal, imperfect realities we all deal with in war.”
The committee members were rightly critical of the White House for ignoring the law that requires giving 30 days’ notice to Congress before any detainee is released (a restriction that was not in place during the Bush administration). Mr. Hagel’s defense of that decision — essentially, that it was justified by “extraordinary circumstances” — was, like Mr. Obama’s, less than persuasive. But it is disingenuous for Republicans to act as though Mr. Obama is putting the nation at greater risk than his predecessor did."
rofl.
I no not what to say at this point. Other than is there a point?
I no not what to say at this point. Other than is there a point?
Teeheehee
Did not read this article because it is 100% biased and worthless. Hell part of the link says "will republicans criticize israel". WHY WOULD THEY? ISRAEL IS A SEPERATE COUNTRY.
Get off your knees in the worship for Obama.
Get off your knees in the worship for Obama.
The article from the beast says that it is a "mindless, right-wing electoral politics that make our politicians say “I won’t negotiate with terrorists.”
However earlier in the article he said that it (or something similar) had been said by every president since Reagan.... if its so mindless and right wing, why would a left wing president follow suit?
Maybe he is trying to blame everyone (presidents from reagan forward). If thats the case, I'd agree. I just found it funny that he would say that it was a mindless right wing idea and the ever thinking left is guilty of the same matter. Funny how that works out.
However earlier in the article he said that it (or something similar) had been said by every president since Reagan.... if its so mindless and right wing, why would a left wing president follow suit?
Maybe he is trying to blame everyone (presidents from reagan forward). If thats the case, I'd agree. I just found it funny that he would say that it was a mindless right wing idea and the ever thinking left is guilty of the same matter. Funny how that works out.
And about the content?
I didn't think so.
I didn't think so.
Yeah great link.
Actually it was more than 1000 to 1 but it wasn't about money.
"Israel is freeing more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, including hundreds serving life sentences for attacks on Israelis, in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit who was captured by Hamas in 2006. How and why has the controversial deal come about?
Militants captured the young sergeant in June 2006 after tunneling into the Jewish state and attacking an Israeli army outpost. Israel immediately launched a military incursion into Gaza to rescue Shalit, then 19, but failed to free him.
Shalit's captors, affiliated with the Islamic Hamas government, demanded a prisoner swap, but the Israeli government said no -- at least in public.
Until Tuesday, when Shalit was freed and returned to Israel, he was held incommunicado by Hamas, which controls Gaza."
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/will-republicans-criticize-israel
"Israel is freeing more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, including hundreds serving life sentences for attacks on Israelis, in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit who was captured by Hamas in 2006. How and why has the controversial deal come about?
Militants captured the young sergeant in June 2006 after tunneling into the Jewish state and attacking an Israeli army outpost. Israel immediately launched a military incursion into Gaza to rescue Shalit, then 19, but failed to free him.
Shalit's captors, affiliated with the Islamic Hamas government, demanded a prisoner swap, but the Israeli government said no -- at least in public.
Until Tuesday, when Shalit was freed and returned to Israel, he was held incommunicado by Hamas, which controls Gaza."
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/will-republicans-criticize-israel
"Ask the Israelis - they usually have to go 500 for 1." The problem is, they are fine with that and why wouldn't they be with the amount of money we send them a month?
Still don't see any President other then Obama negotiating with terrorists.
"...... Every president since has said we don’t negotiate with terrorists. And every president has.
It’s hard to place exactly when “We don’t negotiate with terrorists” entered the political lexicon. It’s pretty clear that it was Ronald Reagan who first said it, maybe during the 1980 campaign, maybe later. What matters is that it was rank hypocrisy from the moment it flew out of his mouth. His transition team negotiated the Iranian hostages’ release behind Jimmy Carter’s back. That was certainly negotiating with terrorists. And what was the Iran-Contra affair? The overture was made to Iran (a terrorist state in American eyes, then and now) in the first instance in an effort to free some American hostages being held in Lebanon. The president who didn’t negotiate with terrorists negotiated a deal that gave the terrorism-sponsoring state more than 2,000 anti-tank missiles, maintaining in his mind the fiction that he hadn’t negotiated with terrorists through the belief that his people were dealing only with Iranian “moderates.” What these “moderates” were going to do with 2,000 anti-tank missiles except give them to the non-moderate, terrorism-sponsoring regime then engaged in a war with Iraq is one of the puzzles of the Reagan mind, but let’s press on.
Every president since has said we don’t negotiate with terrorists. And every president has. And I would say prudently and reasonably so. When terrorists can give you information, for a certain price or because you have a shared enemy, take it. George W. Bush paid a ransom of $300,000 to a radical Islamist group in the Philippines that was holding two American missionaries, a married couple, captive. To get them to safety? I say, fine. Alas, however, the man was killed, even after we paid the money. So an American president ended up financing terrorist operations and overseeing a failed military mission. Imagine what Lindsey Graham would be saying today if Barack Obama had done that over the weekend.
It’s a mindless, right-wing electoral politics that make our politicians say “I won’t negotiate with terrorists.” It’s just like “I won’t let the Willie Hortons out of prison,” or, from an earlier time, “We won’t let the ChiComs take over Korea.”
It’s a pledge of reflexive stupidity, forced on politicians by the reflexive stupidity of the right wing. It ties the hands of the candidates who actually do become officeholders. Life is much more complicated than these idiot slogans. On the domestic front, after 40 years of insanity like the Rockefeller drug laws and “three strikes and you’re out,” the stupid futility of the war on drugs is finally becoming apparent to most. In what year will we finally see that the war on terror has done us roughly as much good?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/06/we-should-negotiate-with-terrorists-we-always-have.html
It’s hard to place exactly when “We don’t negotiate with terrorists” entered the political lexicon. It’s pretty clear that it was Ronald Reagan who first said it, maybe during the 1980 campaign, maybe later. What matters is that it was rank hypocrisy from the moment it flew out of his mouth. His transition team negotiated the Iranian hostages’ release behind Jimmy Carter’s back. That was certainly negotiating with terrorists. And what was the Iran-Contra affair? The overture was made to Iran (a terrorist state in American eyes, then and now) in the first instance in an effort to free some American hostages being held in Lebanon. The president who didn’t negotiate with terrorists negotiated a deal that gave the terrorism-sponsoring state more than 2,000 anti-tank missiles, maintaining in his mind the fiction that he hadn’t negotiated with terrorists through the belief that his people were dealing only with Iranian “moderates.” What these “moderates” were going to do with 2,000 anti-tank missiles except give them to the non-moderate, terrorism-sponsoring regime then engaged in a war with Iraq is one of the puzzles of the Reagan mind, but let’s press on.
Every president since has said we don’t negotiate with terrorists. And every president has. And I would say prudently and reasonably so. When terrorists can give you information, for a certain price or because you have a shared enemy, take it. George W. Bush paid a ransom of $300,000 to a radical Islamist group in the Philippines that was holding two American missionaries, a married couple, captive. To get them to safety? I say, fine. Alas, however, the man was killed, even after we paid the money. So an American president ended up financing terrorist operations and overseeing a failed military mission. Imagine what Lindsey Graham would be saying today if Barack Obama had done that over the weekend.
It’s a mindless, right-wing electoral politics that make our politicians say “I won’t negotiate with terrorists.” It’s just like “I won’t let the Willie Hortons out of prison,” or, from an earlier time, “We won’t let the ChiComs take over Korea.”
It’s a pledge of reflexive stupidity, forced on politicians by the reflexive stupidity of the right wing. It ties the hands of the candidates who actually do become officeholders. Life is much more complicated than these idiot slogans. On the domestic front, after 40 years of insanity like the Rockefeller drug laws and “three strikes and you’re out,” the stupid futility of the war on drugs is finally becoming apparent to most. In what year will we finally see that the war on terror has done us roughly as much good?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/06/we-should-negotiate-with-terrorists-we-always-have.html
Re-read the article and the link. Dealing through an intermediary, whether it's Morocco, Great Britain, or Qatar is still dealing.
Tell me who else has negotiated with terrorists?
Yeah, it sorta sux --in a big-picture, egalitarian way -- that lives in a developed country are valued higher than Third World lives. But that's the way it is. Ask the Israelis - they usually have to go 500 for 1.
Right now the largest threat these five pose is as propaganda pieces.
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Current-Events---/Freed-Taliban-Commander-Tells-Relative-Hell-Fight-Americans-Again/show/2198293
"........suffering from bad health after their imprisonment and currently being treated in a hospital in Qatar, the relative added. A senior Taliban commander in the Pakistani city of Quetta said that 12 years of incarceration had also caused some psychological problems for Noori and Fazl."
Vance:
"No other American President has negotiated with terrorists."
Was that cherry or grape flavor?
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Current-Events---/Freed-Taliban-Commander-Tells-Relative-Hell-Fight-Americans-Again/show/2198293
"........suffering from bad health after their imprisonment and currently being treated in a hospital in Qatar, the relative added. A senior Taliban commander in the Pakistani city of Quetta said that 12 years of incarceration had also caused some psychological problems for Noori and Fazl."
Vance:
"No other American President has negotiated with terrorists."
Was that cherry or grape flavor?
"Biden I think expressed it best when he said we don't leave one of ours behind and if justice should be meted out, he prefers American justice over that of the Taliban."
American justice over that of the Taliban.... so we let 5 people go who were "dealing" with American justice in order to bring back one guy to deal with American justice.... Honestly, this seems indicative of how we do business.
"We'll give you $5 million bucks for $1 million bucks.".... Interesting or tragic....
American justice over that of the Taliban.... so we let 5 people go who were "dealing" with American justice in order to bring back one guy to deal with American justice.... Honestly, this seems indicative of how we do business.
"We'll give you $5 million bucks for $1 million bucks.".... Interesting or tragic....
Not for the President but his continued fail policies.
No other American President has negotiated with terrorists.
No other American President has negotiated with terrorists.
Well . . . they haven't been released for very long. Give them time. I'm sure we'll see them again.
First and worst. But that wasn't the point of the article. If you read the piece to the end, you'll see that blame is assigned on this administration where blame is due. Bergdahl is an unfortunate pawn who never should have been in Afghanistan in the first place, and that should be looked at. Biden I think expressed it best when he said we don't leave one of ours behind and if justice should be meted out, he prefers American justice over that of the Taliban. The point of the article was to shine a light on the unreasoning, almost pathological hatred of some on the Right for our President.
Negotiating with terrorists is “part of the brutal, imperfect realities we all deal with in war.” and has been done continuously since Guantanamo has been in existence, no matter what rhetoric you choose to listen to and believe. Those that Bush released have already been back on the battlefield, these last five, so far not. Don't cry until you're hurt.
Negotiating with terrorists is “part of the brutal, imperfect realities we all deal with in war.” and has been done continuously since Guantanamo has been in existence, no matter what rhetoric you choose to listen to and believe. Those that Bush released have already been back on the battlefield, these last five, so far not. Don't cry until you're hurt.
Ha ha. I will have to say that it is a very predictable pattern. Obama under fire? Go to Bush to deflect.
If Bush released the wrong people. Okay. What does that have to due with Obama?
If Bush released the wrong people. Okay. What does that have to due with Obama?
"Look, look, look! The republicans did it too, and they did it first!"
Yeah the facts that Obama negotiated with terrorists and that these guys will be back on the battlefield trying to kill Americans. One guy was responsible for the 1st death of the war, but hey that's ok right?
No. by all means dsert, dont let facts get in the way!!!! (THATS DIFFERENT), dont you know that?
Stop, you can't justify what Obama did. So now you look to BLAME BUSH.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
