"Politicians Delete Digital Praise of Bowe Bergdahl Release"

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

But wait, there's more!










Representative Lee Terry (R-NE) released a statement saying "A grateful nation welcomes the news of the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl" which was later deleted from his website, but this tweet is still active:

Yesterday we heard wonderful news of the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. A grateful nation welcomes him home. >> http://t.co/QiDXl0X0rw— Rep. Lee Terry (@LEETERRYNE) June 1, 2014

Comments

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

They're flip flopping on the "how", too.

The names have been publicly known for two years, and by Congresscritters (from closed sessions) for longer than that. The plan described then is the substantially identical to the plan executed now; release terms, Qatar stuff, everything. CNN, 3 February 2012: The Taliban who may leave Gitmo (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/the-taliban-who-may-leave-gitmo/).

John McCain, 18 February 2014: “Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.” Wishy-washy politi-speak (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/06/did-john-mccain-flip-flop-on-the-bergdahl-deal/), sure, but he knew the plan. He knew the names. He was vaguely agreeing with both the then-private and then-public terms he knew about. Others agreed to it. So yes, it's a flip flop.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Nice try, but your own link proves you wrong. The fact that some members of congress were briefed regarding a leak does not mean that the plan was ever formally sent to them for approval, much less that they ever approved it. McCain is even quoted in that article as being against the release of these particular detainees. No flip-flop there.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Yuh huh.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Read it yourself if you don't believe me.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Okay.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

formally sent to them for approval

I thought they have to be notified, not that they have to approve.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Either way, they weren't.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Except the argument is that they were notified. The issue is that if being told about something being planned X amount of time ago has an expiration date.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Except that being briefed about a WikiLeaks leak is not at all the same thing as being informed by the White House that yes, that is the actual plan, and yes, they are planning to go ahead with it.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

...they were briefed about the trade possibility a year+ ago.

It boils down to if a year+ ago briefing still counts, and if there is anything like a refresher/update required.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

No, they were briefed about a leak. They were never officially informed of these plans, or of the fact that they were actually going ahead.

Give it up. Even old Fascist Feinstein is against the White House on this one.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Again, CNN, 3 February 2012: "...the proposal, confirmed in congressional testimony this week..."

The Wikileaks leak to the public is separate from Congress being briefed by the White House on the plan.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Again, the existence of the proposal was confirmed, not the fact that the White House was planning to go ahead with it. The latter is what the law requires Congress be informed of.

You realize that for your interpretation of these events to be correct, there would have to be a vast bipartisan conspiracy to call the President a liar. What's more likely — that, or that your interpretation is just utterly wrong and stupid?