3 ms·

I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. The argument ag

by stvswn 11y ago

I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. The argument against Obama is that he was eager to empty Gitmo of the most dangerous prisoners -- the ones that other nations wouldn't take, and who therefore hurt his chances of closing the base -- and he thought that this would be a win-win: get a soldier home, get rid of five top Taliban commanders, who could complain? In order to make it work, he had a press conference in the Rose Garden where he acted like Bergdahl was a hero, and then he sent Susan Rice to Sunday morning talk shows where she said he "served with honor and distinction." This is a lie; he was hoping people would move on. Those of us in the Army had been following the story earlier, and we knew that it was very probable he was a deserter. That story eventually came out as military prosecutors didn't just sweep it all under the rug. Now the argument has become "well, we don't care what he did, we'll move heaven and earth to get a soldier home." Should he be guilty of desertion, I think that's an unprecedented and indefensible decision. Veterans find it infuriating that Susan Rice would use the term "honor and distinction" and then qualify it later along with the idea that all soldiers have honor and are distinguished. Here's why: it's basically saying that you don't really care what soldiers actually do, you only care about the appearance of supporting them. In that sense, it was the Obama administration who propped up a soldier "no matter what," which is what you accuse Republicans of doing with your disgusting "one of the troops they so fervently idolize" remark. Some people aren't so cynical with their support of the troops, but I don't expect you to understand.

chasing 11y ago
> I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. I'm not sure how much you remember the Bush administration, but the Democrats were infuriatingly compliant during those years. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution What's happening now with the whole "you can pry the US government from my cold, dead hands" mentality of the Republican party is a completely different thing.
- stvswn 11y ago
  I remember well. The Iraq Resolution had resounding support among the public, as well. One act of bipartisanship doesn't prove your point -- but I suspect that "we were capitulating to the Bush administration" is a better post-hoc rationalization among the Democratic base than is "we agreed with the Iraq war." The actual question is: how did Democrats see their role as the opposition party? Did they think it was their job to find common ground with the majority party, or did they dig in and fight as hard as they could? Luckily we had newspapers back then: 2001, post-election: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/28/news/28iht-tube_ed3_.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/28/news/28iht-tube_ed3_.html 2005, post-election: http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/51667-democrats-united-in-plans-to-block-top-bush-initiatives http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/51667-democrats-united... What about the troop surge in Iraq (which was successful)? They tried to block it: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16579285/ns/politics/t/senate-opposition-bush-plan-grows http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16579285/ns/politics/t/senate-oppo... Robert Gates later wrote that he overheard Obama and Clinton joking about how their opposition was purely political: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/robert-gates-former-defense-secretary-offers-harsh-critique-of-obamas-leadership-in-duty/2014/01/07/6a6915b2-77cb-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rober...
cookiecaper 11y ago
>I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. Cool, I'm not taking about that, and I'm not making that argument, at least not insofar as it excludes Democrats or other political parties. Most politicians are obstructionists, because appearances are worth much more in politics than tangible improvement. I make this statement as a general principle of politics, not constrained to any particular party or even any particular political system. It's true in both corporate and governmental politics. >Now the argument has become "well, we don't care what he did, we'll move heaven and earth to get a soldier home." Should he be guilty of desertion, I think that's an unprecedented and indefensible decision. I think it makes sense to bring our people home, even if they're accused of crimes and have to face court martial in the US, as Bergdahl may. It benefits the soldier's morale if there is a well-founded belief that the U.S. will fight to get back every captured soldier, no questions asked (at least until the soldier arrives home). Without this practice, it'd be easy for a unit to abandon someone they dislike in enemy territory, claim he was a deserter, and condemn him to POW status as long as he can live it out. >Veterans find it infuriating that Susan Rice would use the term "honor and distinction" and then qualify it later along with the idea that all soldiers have honor and are distinguished. Here's why: it's basically saying that you don't really care what soldiers actually do, you only care about the appearance of supporting them. I understand the frustration, but please be aware this is a macro-level thing, and as stated above, in politics, it is all about appearances. That can't and won't change.
- stvswn 11y ago
  It does matter that we gave up five Taliban commanders for him, if you're interested in winning the war. The president should have weighed the costs and benefits -- among the costs could be this wacky idea that soldiers will abandon unpopular soldiers and call it desertion if Bowe weren't brought home (seriously, why this convoluted hypothetical? Such a conspiracy, if it were to happen, would hopefully be reported and punished). Soldiers morale is also hurt when a deserter is given high honors from a disinterested and cynical administration. You seem to think that "macro-level political thing" (a concept I'm perfectly capable of understanding, even if I'm a dumb vet) is an excuse for bad decisions -- or maybe you're so cynical that you don't think it's worth caring about. I disagree.

by stvswn 11y ago

chasing 11y ago

> I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. I'm not sure how much you remember the Bush administration, but the Democrats were infuriatingly compliant during those years. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution What's happening now with the whole "you can pry the US government from my cold, dead hands" mentality of the Republican party is a completely different thing.

stvswn 11y ago
I remember well. The Iraq Resolution had resounding support among the public, as well. One act of bipartisanship doesn't prove your point -- but I suspect that "we were capitulating to the Bush administration" is a better post-hoc rationalization among the Democratic base than is "we agreed with the Iraq war." The actual question is: how did Democrats see their role as the opposition party? Did they think it was their job to find common ground with the majority party, or did they dig in and fight as hard as they could? Luckily we had newspapers back then: 2001, post-election: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/28/news/28iht-tube_ed3_.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/28/news/28iht-tube_ed3_.html 2005, post-election: http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/51667-democrats-united-in-plans-to-block-top-bush-initiatives http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/51667-democrats-united... What about the troop surge in Iraq (which was successful)? They tried to block it: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16579285/ns/politics/t/senate-opposition-bush-plan-grows http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16579285/ns/politics/t/senate-oppo... Robert Gates later wrote that he overheard Obama and Clinton joking about how their opposition was purely political: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/robert-gates-former-defense-secretary-offers-harsh-critique-of-obamas-leadership-in-duty/2014/01/07/6a6915b2-77cb-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rober...

cookiecaper 11y ago

>I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. Cool, I'm not taking about that, and I'm not making that argument, at least not insofar as it excludes Democrats or other political parties. Most politicians are obstructionists, because appearances are worth much more in politics than tangible improvement. I make this statement as a general principle of politics, not constrained to any particular party or even any particular political system. It's true in both corporate and governmental politics. >Now the argument has become "well, we don't care what he did, we'll move heaven and earth to get a soldier home." Should he be guilty of desertion, I think that's an unprecedented and indefensible decision. I think it makes sense to bring our people home, even if they're accused of crimes and have to face court martial in the US, as Bergdahl may. It benefits the soldier's morale if there is a well-founded belief that the U.S. will fight to get back every captured soldier, no questions asked (at least until the soldier arrives home). Without this practice, it'd be easy for a unit to abandon someone they dislike in enemy territory, claim he was a deserter, and condemn him to POW status as long as he can live it out. >Veterans find it infuriating that Susan Rice would use the term "honor and distinction" and then qualify it later along with the idea that all soldiers have honor and are distinguished. Here's why: it's basically saying that you don't really care what soldiers actually do, you only care about the appearance of supporting them. I understand the frustration, but please be aware this is a macro-level thing, and as stated above, in politics, it is all about appearances. That can't and won't change.

stvswn 11y ago
It does matter that we gave up five Taliban commanders for him, if you're interested in winning the war. The president should have weighed the costs and benefits -- among the costs could be this wacky idea that soldiers will abandon unpopular soldiers and call it desertion if Bowe weren't brought home (seriously, why this convoluted hypothetical? Such a conspiracy, if it were to happen, would hopefully be reported and punished). Soldiers morale is also hurt when a deserter is given high honors from a disinterested and cynical administration. You seem to think that "macro-level political thing" (a concept I'm perfectly capable of understanding, even if I'm a dumb vet) is an excuse for bad decisions -- or maybe you're so cynical that you don't think it's worth caring about. I disagree.