Negotiating With The Taliban.

[Razgovory]

As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.

Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.

I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact.  However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic.  For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war.  And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand.  Compare this to the government shutdown last year.

It was more than "discussed", they tried to do it over and over and over again. They failed to ever get the votes necessary to succeed, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

Presumably they could have shut it down since they did have the majority.  They did not shut down the government to get what they wanted.

[garbon]

As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.

Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.

I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact.  However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic.  For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war.  And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand.  Compare this to the government shutdown last year.

It was more than "discussed", they tried to do it over and over and over again. They failed to ever get the votes necessary to succeed, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

Presumably they could have shut it down since they did have the majority.

Because the Dems are really good at maintaining party discipline...

[derspiess]

Nah.  I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one

In this case, the shameful part is dodging the substance of the discussion.

What is it I'm supposed to address?  From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made.  I can't speak for them. 

[citizen k]

Nah.  I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one

In this case, the shameful part is dodging the substance of the discussion.

What is it I'm supposed to address?  From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made.  I can't speak for them.

Would you say they might be playing politics?

[derspiess]

Would you say they might be playing politics?

Sure.  They're politicians.  That's what they do.

Just like when Obama had Bergdahl's parents at the White House for the announcement.  That was for political gain. 

[Jacob]

What is it I'm supposed to address?  From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made.  I can't speak for them.

You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.

Should he have been left in Taliban hands?

Are you opposed to the idea of prisoner exchanges altogether? Or is it just this one particular exchange that is wrong, for some reason?

You've established to your satisfaction that "Bergdahl was probably a deserter" based on what we know so far. How should that have impacted the events around his release? Is this "probably a deserter" - which is not formal evidence or judgment in any form - enough to write Bergdahl off?

There's a strong narrative of "Obama fucked up"... but where's the fuck up? What did his administration actually do wrong?

What would have been the correct way for the administration - for any administration - to have handled this? If what Obama did was wrong, there must have been a better course of action. What is it?

[Admiral Yi]

You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.

Have you?

[The Minsky Moment]

You lost me.  I thought we were talking about inconsistency, like outrage over Bush's signing statements and indifference over Obama's.

I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements.  I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated.  The same would hold for any President.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements.  I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated.  The same would hold for any President.

I can't count the number of opinion pieces I read in the NYT asserting their unconstitutionality.

[Jacob]

You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.

Have you?

Have you?

To do you the courtesy that you and derspiess are dodging, I will answer: I don't really see anything to criticize in how the administration handled it; I think it was perfectly appropriate. Bergdahl was an American soldier, a prisoner of war. Bringing him back was the right thing to do. He may have deserted, or he may not, that is unclear; that should be determined in the time and place appropriate to American military procedures, not in the court of public opinion. There may be some minor quibbles around the edges, but they'd be just that - minor quibbles.

I think it's not unreasonable to have people who proclaim this to be some sort of cock up to set out what they think is a reasonable alternative course of action.

[Admiral Yi]

Have you?

Yes.  I said a deal like the North Korean defector would have been fine.

To do you the courtesy that you and derspiess are dodging, I will answer:

Stop smearing me.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements.  I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated.  The same would hold for any President.

I can't count the number of opinion pieces I read in the NYT asserting their unconstitutionality.

How could a signing statement be unconstitutional?  Pretty sure the 1st amendment covers that.

[derspiess]

You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.

Oh, okay.  I believe this is the first time I'm being asked.

Should he have been left in Taliban hands?

No.

Are you opposed to the idea of prisoner exchanges altogether?

Not really, no.

Or is it just this one particular exchange that is wrong, for some reason?

I think we gave up too much.

You've established to your satisfaction that "Bergdahl was probably a deserter" based on what we know so far. How should that have impacted the events around his release? Is this "probably a deserter" - which is not formal evidence or judgment in any form - enough to write Bergdahl off?

The Administration has access to better info than I do.  If it turns out that they had good evidence that he was a deserter, then I disagree with the decision to give up the 5 bad guys for him.  In that case, I'd *personally* not even want him back, but would understand from a policy perspective making reasonable efforts to do so.

There's a strong narrative of "Obama fucked up"... but where's the fuck up? What did his administration actually do wrong?

I stated my case on page 8 of this thread.  Those three factors together (if verifiably true) would make it a fuckup IMO.  You'll undoubtedly disagree.  And before you try to exaggerate what I'm saying, I'll remind you that I am not worked up about the whole Bergdahl affair.  You & Raz seem to be the ones egging things on.

What would have been the correct way for the administration - for any administration - to have handled this? If what Obama did was wrong, there must have been a better course of action. What is it?

He could have notified congress in the appropriate time-frame and therefore stay within the law.  He could have held out for a more favorable deal.  And he could have avoided the big PR spectacle at the White House-- that one seemed destined to backfire.

[derspiess]

I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements.  I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated.  The same would hold for any President.

I recall more than a raised eyebrow.

How could a signing statement be unconstitutional?  Pretty sure the 1st amendment covers that.

Of course the issue is whether the signing statement allows the president to only follow the part of the law he agrees with.  But you knew that.

[The Minsky Moment]

The President can take whatever legal position he wants to take.  If he wants to give a press conference to explain that position he can.  If we wants to tell it to a reporter he can.  If he wants to tell it to Jimmy Fallon he can.  And if he wants to put it into a "signing statement" he can.  Either way the effect is the same.

The issue that I recall coming up with Bush was that there was a clique either in or allied with the White House that was promoting the doctrine that Presidential views, if put in the form of a signing statement, had some special legal significance.  I don't think Bush or his administration ever took that view.  It is true that such a doctrine would be inconsistent with constitutional principles and I do recall some editorialization to that effect.