CNN Bergdahl, Boko Haram and Benghazi - by Gingrich
CNN Ethics Issues in Bergdahl Swap
CNN Bergdahl's Release Raises Questions
Fox News Briefing does little to quell concerns
The Atlantic Obama weakened rule of Law
MinnPost Muscle vs Obama Doctrine
MinnPost Afghanistan Exit Plan
Main Justice Holder's Committee
CSM Obama Singles Out Boko Haram
WP Obama at Westpoint
Thoughts and/or questions in my mind:
- Did Obama break the law? Bad enough to get him in trouble?
- Was Bergdahl a prisoner or a somewhat willing guest?
- What will be the consequences of this new precedent?
- If we pull all of our troops out of the Middle East, will the Jihadists move their attacks to American soil?
- Other?
Did Obama break the law?No.
ReplyDeleteBad enough to get him in trouble? Yes
Was Bergdahl a prisoner or a somewhat willing guest? I don't know, and I don't care.
What will be the consequences of this new precedent? None. Terrorists don't recognize stare decisis.
If we pull all of our troops out of the Middle East, will the Jihadists move their attacks to American soil?
Yes.
--Hiram
"Did Obama break the law?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
"Bad enough to get him in trouble?"
No.
"Was Bergdahl a prisoner or a somewhat willing guest?"
More the former, but I'm not sure it's particularly relevant.
"What will be the consequences of this new precedent?"
Effectively none, would be my guess.
"If we pull all of our troops out of the Middle East, will the Jihadists move their attacks to American soil?"
The Jihadists seem to have their hands full in the Middle East right now, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I think it's far more likely that they try to finish the job there than take the fight to us on our soil.
OK, in order
ReplyDeleteYes, absolutely.
Yes, but nothing will happen to
His Majesty
I like Hiram's answer, though my suspicion is he is a quisling at best.
I think the uproar has been sufficient virulent and opposite of what Obama wanted that, hopefully, such idiocy will not be repeated.
I think Sean is right. Pulling out makes us harder to vilify and harder to hit. The difference is that there they face our soldiers and here they face innocent civilians, and they prefer the innocent.
My thought is that it seemed an expensive price to pay... Five Taliban leaders for 1 AWOL soldier.
ReplyDeleteAs for consequences, if I were a terrorist organization it seems it would make sense to grab a few American soldiers. I mean if the Obama administration is willing to give me back 5 of my leaders for each of them.
You assume that Obama is a rational actor and wily negotiator. Why not assume he is a liberal ideologue with a megalomaniacal worldview and a minimal grasp of rationality or reality? Isn't that a better explanation?
ReplyDeleteMy thought is that it seemed an expensive price to pay..
ReplyDeleteThat's something they should have thought about when they put American service men in harm's way.
--Hiram
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteThey should have thought that they may choose to do a 5 for 1 prisoner swap, and release prisoners without notifying Congress? Really?
They should have thought that they may choose to do a 5 for 1 prisoner swap, and release prisoners without notifying Congress?
ReplyDeleteOh, yes. The president is responsible for servicemen in a way he isn't responsible for the feelings, and the egos of members of Congress. The president isn't the commander in chief of congress.
--Hiram
There are reasons why Congress is universally and the widespread belief among it's members that the president should put their interests above the interests of servicemen in harm's way is certainly one of them.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Fox News Questions
ReplyDeleteDiane needs to realize she is just a lowly senator who has never served in our armed forces, and it really is not about her. She needs to grow up.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
If the law says Congress shall be notified, one would think that at least the "Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee" would be in the loop.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Obama didn't think he could trust his fellow Democrat...
"You can't handle the truth !!!"
Now we hear that some 90 officials in the Administration knew of it well beforehand. Nothing could be more clear than that Obama simply broke the law because he wanted to.
ReplyDeletef the law says Congress shall be notified, one would think that at least the "Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee" would be in the loop.
ReplyDeleteYes, and I think the attorney general should send a really angry letter to the president about that.
--Hiram
Oh, absolutely. After all, Obama is now is "just as angry as you are" that this terrible trade was done, and going to blame it all on Chuck Hagel, who said, "It was the President's decision." Clearly he is at fault that it didn't turn out to be the glory road that Obama expected.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, Obama is now is "just as angry as you are" that this terrible trade was done,
ReplyDeleteI certainly am not. It was the deal that had to be made. The fact is, the Taliban has no shortage of folks who want to kill Americans. It's not really as if these three guys had much to add to that. They are of marginal utility.
--Hiram
Here's how to get a job as a commentator on Fox News. Start any sentences as follows: "The president is the worst human being in the world because he allowed [Insert here the downside of any difficult decision the president has made recently] to happen." Like Obamacare, like common core standards, like a number of other things, Republicans don't like the policy because the policy was made by Obama. Nowhere has the fact that his opponents reflexively and unthinkingly reject anything he does has been demonstrated by their complaints with regard to the least controversial thing it's possible to do, bring an American prisoner of war home.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Oh, come now. It's not like Obama should be above criticism, and he certainly has earned some here. He got back a presumed deserter and possible collaborator, and released 5 very dangerous terrorists. That's hardly a shrewd move, and just because he throws a lot of smoke and mirrors language at it doesn't change the fundamental awfulness of it.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that we cannot disagree with Obama's policies because we disagree with Obama's policies is a rather circular argument. If he really wanted to avoid criticism, all he has to do is Stop Doing Stupid Stuff.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like Obama should be above criticism,
ReplyDeleteNo, but the criticism we are seeing isn't rooted in policy differences.
--Hiram
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteI guess I disagree, it seems to me that many of the critiques are policy/values based. (ie Liberal vs Conservative)
I guess I disagree, it seems to me that many of the critiques are policy/values based. (ie Liberal vs Conservative)
ReplyDeleteTake healthcare. Republicans in the house have voted 50 times to repeal Obamacare but have not once used their majority to pass an alternative. One reason for that is that it is too difficult for them to create a Republican program that is distinguishable from Obamacare. So what are they left with? Complaints about the website. These are valid of course, but they don't reflect a policy difference between Democrats and Republicans because after all both sides are against lousy websites.
With respect to the Bergdahl deal, the objection seems to be that Republicans didn't like the deal. Neither did I. The fact that people don't like deals doesn't reflect policy differences, it reflects the fact that people are prone to second guessing.
--Hiram
This may just be me, but I am not one who is inclined to revisit deals that we have made. Obamacare was the result of a series of deals that were made with various entities within our society. There are aspects of that deal I don't like. If I wanted to, I could make the choice to frame those choice in the terms of criticism. But for myself, I don't see the point of that. The deal was done, and I have moved on, but that's not to say it couldn't be improved going forward. But in the case of health care policy, Republicans have offered nothing that will improve the policy, because their opposition isn't based on policy differences, it's based on partisan opposition to Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteNo, the president isn't above criticism. But neither is he above a policy discussion. If Republicans do want a policy discussion, it really would be helpful if they had a policy to discuss.
--Hiram
It seems to me the Republicans have a pretty clear policy regarding healthcare. They want to go back to the pre-ACA state of affairs. For better or worse.
ReplyDeleteI guess I would say that negotiating for Bergdahl and pulling out of Afganistan are the natural result of Obama's policies. He believes we should close the chapter on the USA's involvement in Iraq and Afganistan, and let them return to their pre-invasion state.
Both of these are policy issues and similar in many ways.
It is Hiram's contention that we don't like Obama's policies because they are Obama's policies. That's bigoted, not thoughtful and not helpful.
ReplyDeleteAs for Obamacare, I am firmly convinced that the pre-ACA state of affairs was vastly better than what has, or certainly will if fully implemented, be a disaster. It couldn't be anything but. None of the promises made for the thing have been fulfilled, some 40 or so provisions have been delayed or changed by executive fiat (and for political purposes), and the worst is still to come. Since when is it unreasonable to criticize someone who deliberately creates, then defends an unmitigated disaster?
That's bigoted, not thoughtful and not helpful.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but sadly there are a number of examples of that. Obamacare was essentially a Republican program with features like the mandate which Republicans supported. But once the president adopted that as his program, Republican support for it disappeared. Not one single Republican voted for Obamacare in the House of Representatives.
There are other examples, common core standards, being one recent case.
As for the Bergdahl case, both Republicans and Democrats have negotiated with terrorists. McCain advocated that we negotiate with terrorists. The complaint is that the deal is good enough. Well, that's always a complaint you can make any deal, and both Democrats and Republicans have made it.
--Hiram
MinnPost Bergdahl Trade is Irrelevant
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should allow criticism because of real policy differences, rather than saying Obamacare was "essentially a Republican program." It was nothing of the sort. It was a 2400-page cobbled-together, passed-in-the-dead-of-night miscegenation which was and is totally objectionable as policy, on any objective basis. OK, maybe Republicans shouldn't criticize the "Republican" parts of it. I defy you to find one.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps we should allow criticism because of real policy differences, rather than saying Obamacare was "essentially a Republican program."
ReplyDeleteI do nothing to stop criticism, nor do I try to foreclose it by use of ad hominem attacks.
"It was a 2400-page cobbled-together, passed-in-the-dead-of-night miscegenation which was and is totally objectionable as policy, on any objective basis."
Does the number of pages a bill has represent a policy difference?
Health care in America is a pretty complicated deal, and 2400 pages doesn't seem excessively long in that respect. My preferred option would have been a simpler system, but the compromises others wanted made the bill longer. The ACA was 60 years in the making, and it had to be passed some time. It' opponents wanted to continue the delay, but that just didn't happen. In any event, that's not a policy difference. As for "miscegenation", that's just name calling, not a start to a policy discussion?
" Republicans shouldn't criticize the "Republican" parts of it. I defy you to find one."
Premium support is an essential and defining characteristic of Obamacare and the Republican approach to health care. It's an essential part of Jindalcare, the one affirmative Republican health care proposal out there, although even that one doesn't currently have wide support among Republicans. A fifty state approach with each state having it's own insurance exchange, again is a Republican proposal, using a market based approach to make health insurance offerings more competitive, and hopefully less expensive.
There are others, and this is the intellectual problem that Republicans are having with health care right now. They are just finding it terribly difficult to carve out a different position from Obamacare, while sticking to the Republican principles Obamacare essentially adopts.
-- Hiram
Ah, but the devil is in the details. OK, "premium support" is a Republican idea, but it is for individuals to select what they want in the free market, not limiting them to the one or two more expensive and lower quality offerings in the Exchange. And the exchanges were supposed to be a place on the web where EVERY insurance company could market their products, not just the few who accepted the subsidies and guarantees from the government and complied with the onerous coverage mandates. I'm writing my Congressman today, suggesting that we "keep the good things in Obamacare," like the exchanges and the premium support, just altering them so they work properly in the real world. Watch, Obama won't object to that because he doesn't CARE about the details.
ReplyDelete"OK, "premium support" is a Republican idea, but it is for individuals to select what they want in the free market, not limiting them to the one or two more expensive and lower quality offerings in the Exchange."
ReplyDeleteWell, that's a different issue. The fact is, if I am supporting someone through premium support, I get a say in how that premium is used. I don't want it used on junk insurance which is inconsistent with the goal of providing universal health care. This is the cost downside by the way of typical Republican proposals. Basically, they want to let healthy people opt out leaving taxpayers with the heavier bills of the unhealthy. In effect, they want to give individuals the freedom to buy lousy insurance, but they inflict the costs of that freedom on the rest of us. Well, as they say, freedom is never free.
--Hiram
"The fact is, if I am supporting someone through premium support, I get a say in how that premium is used."
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't! The whole notion behind premium support is that it returns free market competition into the hands of the individual consumer, where it forces improvements in quality and reductions in price for the product or service. It encourages efficiency and innovation. The polar opposite is a government program that mandates what the product contains and what you will pay for it. Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare are prime examples, and they actively discourage efficiency and innovation by their very nature.
The reason liberals hate premium support – including school vouchers, by the way – is that they then lose that tight control over your life which you, idiot stepchild that you are, are incapable of exercising for yourself.
ReplyDelete"No, you don't!"
Well, actually I do, and have.
"The whole notion behind premium support is that it returns free market competition into the hands of the individual consumer, where it forces improvements in quality and reductions in price for the product or service."
That is the notion, but it doesn't happen to be my notion. We agreed to premium support because that was the only way to get the deal done, not because we believed it would be successful in bringing about the results it's supporters hoped for. Indeed we didn't think those things would happen and they haven't. The Manhattan study, for example, cited frequently by conservatives provides evidence at least, that market places have little impact on premium costs. As for quality generally, that's very difficult to assess by consumers. It's axiomatic that you never know how good your insurance is until you make a claim.
--Hiram
"The reason liberals hate premium support – including school vouchers, by the way – is that they then lose that tight control over your life which you, idiot stepchild that you are, are incapable of exercising for yourself."
ReplyDeleteAmong the reasons we don't like premium support and would have preferred single payer is that premium support systems are terribly inefficient and complex. It retains a role for insurance companies who provide no value. The reason the rollout has been so difficult is because it's so complicated. Also, for various reasons, the coverage tends to be spotty. These are, by the way, criticism made by conservatives of Obamacare, and they would be criticisms we would have been making had Republicans enacted what is basically their favored policy.
Republicans have a real tactical problem with health care policy. They want to criticize Obamacare, but Obamacare adopted so much of Republican thinking that just about any criticism they make of Obamacare applies equally to any health care plan they would propose, one reason, no doubt they are so reluctant to propose one.
--Hiram
Here is something to think about when considering any complex policy. All policies have their downsides, which can be the subject of criticism. But even valid criticism is not a refutation of policy. Obamacare represents a Republican approach to health care policy. The problems we have seen are inherent in that approach. It isn't a policy we wanted, it's a collection of concessions we made. So what we have is a kludge. But it works, after a fashion. And it's a work in progress, which can be made better. Yesterday, in the Star Tribune, there was a terrific column by two Republican legislators about how we could improve transparency in costs. I, for one, was totally open to their suggestions and I also support their new willingness not just to attack MnSure but to find new and better ways for it to work.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
The best way to get Obamacare to work better is to junk the whole thing and start over, or better yet, do nothing at all, since the status quo ante was better. Federal government intrusion into the health care business is what has created all the problems Obamacare purports to solve by adding more federal government intrusion.
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it just laughable that you keep calling Obamacare a "Republican idea" when we all know that Republicans were completely shut out of the process of drafting the legislation, denied the opportunity to amend it, and not a single Republican voted for it. If Democrats made "concessions" to get it passed, they didn't do a very good job of it, because those "concessions" didn't get them a single vote.
One other thing. You keep talking about the "Republican ideas" in Obamacare as if the INTENT of legislation mattered. It does not, never has. What matters is what the legislation actually says, and how people react to the incentives or disincentives it creates. I have no doubt liberals' intentions were good; they even made promises that "you could keep your plan," "everyone will have health care," and "everyone's cost will go down." Reality never intruded on their thinking, and even now they refuse to admit the impossibility of writing legislation to do what was promised.
There were 160 GOP amendments in the final ACA bill.
ReplyDeleteAmendments from the committee, or on the floor?
ReplyDeleteCommittee amendments.
ReplyDelete