4 ms·
That's true. However, if the supposed motivation is because somebody is suffering...why wait another day, another week, another month, another year? If this t
by MrZongle2 10y ago
That's true.
However, if the supposed motivation is because somebody is suffering...why wait another day, another week, another month, another year?
If this took place before the election, you could call it a principled decision.
If this took place immediately after the election, you could call it a cautious-but-nevertheless-sound decision that might have otherwise been passed on to a (presumably friendly) successor.
Instead, this has taken place three days before he leaves office.
Manning hasn't gone anywhere in seven years. This was not based on a long bout of soul-searching or a sudden new development.
This was a move to either bolster Obama's legacy, or grease the wheels for a post-Presidential opportunity.
- grzm 10y agoI'm not privy to the internal motivations of the President (or anyone else for that matter), though I can think of at least one reason besides the two that you've listed: doing so earlier would have made the issue that much more of a political football, principles aside (which is one reason why pardons and commutations are left for the end). I fight against being cynical as a rule. I'm not going to go out of my way to argue that this decision was made purely on principle. That said, it doesn't need to be purely craven posturing either.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]