Former Bush adviser hits GOP for criticizing Obama's POW swap: 'Bush would have done the same'

A former Bush administration official broke with Republicans on Tuesday to defend President Obama’s prisoner exchange, arguing that since “the war in Afghanistan is winding down,” the United States would be required to return prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay back to Afghanistan.

“I don’t see how these particular Taliban officials could ever have been tried in the southern district of New York,” John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush explained during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday. “They’re certainly some Al Qaeda detainees who committed actual terrorist acts against Americans who perhaps could have been tried in a federal court because they committed federal crimes, but these particular Taliban detainees I think could never have been tried in federal court.” Although some of the released prisoners posed a danger to the United States when they were captured in 2002, especially toward soldiers serving in Afghanistan, several of the detainees did not commit crimes against Americans.

Republicans — including former Vice President Dick Cheney — have blasted the administration for swapping five Taliban-linked prisoners to secure U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s freedom. They argue that the trade endangers Americans stationed overseas by sending top Taliban officials back into the battlefield and could inspire other terrorist groups to capture American service members in order to extract concessions from the United States. GOP lawmakers also claim that the administration circumvented a law requiring Congress to be notified 30 days before prisoners are transferred from Guantanamo Bay.

Asked about reports that Bergdahl deserted his unit, Bellinger added that the former hostage “will have to face justice, military justice.” “We don’t leave soldiers on the battlefield under any circumstance unless they have actually joined the enemy army,” he said. “He was a young 20-year-old. Young 20-year-olds make stupid decisions. I don’t think we’ll say if you make a stupid decision we’ll leave you in the hands of the Taliban.”

smelly_bandit wrote:Fuck Obama the Muslim whore

jaded fox wrote:This is a no win situation for him. If he refused to negotiate then he would have been a hard ass who left a good soldier to die. But since he did it he's weak and apparently a Muslim sympathizer.  

nicko wrote:No smelly they don't, the worst thing a soldier can do is to fail to back up his mates!!

smelly_bandit wrote:
Good soldiers don't walk out and desert their post

jaded fox wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:
Good soldiers don't walk out and desert their post

What I'm saying is if Obama hadn't made the trade then he would be attacked for it with people saying the guy was a good soldier whether or not he left his post. Watching the political babble the Republicans would be against him no matter which option he took.

smelly_bandit wrote:

jaded fox wrote:

What I'm saying is if Obama hadn't made the trade then he would be attacked for it with people saying the guy was a good soldier whether or not he left his post. Watching the political babble the Republicans would be against him no matter which option he took.

Bullshit

Obama has publicly ruined years of policy that worked

"We don't negotiate with terrorists" has worked for other presidents because that is AMERICAS policy

Not the presidents policy, the COUNTRIES policy and it would ave worked for obama

Obama has capitulated and set a dangerous precedent  

The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia.

The decision was confirmed by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a joint news conference with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan.

Both men stressed that there were no differences between their countries and their co-operation would continue.

Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq.

The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says this is a strategic shift of great political as well as military significance.

Technically US troops there have been part of Operation Southern Watch, which has enforced the no-fly zone over southern Iraq set up after 1991.

But our correspondent says the US troops have become a potent symbol of Washington's role in the region, and many Saudis see them as proof of the country's subservience to America.

Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden.

It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies.

smelly_bandit wrote:So what the uk is in the process of withdrawing our troops from Germany because their presence is no longer necessary  

If bush have into al-q demands then theoretically 9/11 would not have happened

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:So what the uk is in the process of withdrawing our troops from Germany because their presence is no longer necessary  

If bush have into al-q demands then theoretically 9/11 would not have happened

Yeah, I'm afraid not. Point is, he was a terrorist appeaser and gave into their demands -- not the tough cowboy-daddy you on the right want him to be.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Bin Laden demanded it and Bush folded. End of story.

Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Stupidity + obstinacy - common sense = smelly_bandit. I was told when you first signed up that you're really only good for laughing at (including by a few who play buddy-buddy with you now).

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Stupidity + obstinacy - common sense = smelly_bandit. I was told when you first signed up that you're really only good for laughing at (including by a few who play buddy-buddy with you now).

So nothing more to add eh??

What happened Ben you decided to google the issue and realised you're an idiot

nicko wrote:Ben, why is your President upset at the thought of the uk leaving the EU?

President Barack Obama said Thursday that it's hard to see how Britain would benefit by leaving the European Union given that the 28-nation bloc's decisions "have an enormous impact on its economic and political life."

Britain must make its own choice, Obama said, but insisted that it is always an asset for the United States to know one of its closest allies "has a seat at the table in the larger European project."

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

So nothing more to add eh??

What happened Ben you decided to google the issue and realised you're an idiot

No, I just realized that talking to you is about as productive to talking to what I drop in the toilet ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:The truth:

"(U.S. troops') presence (in Saudi Arabia) over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina."

- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense

smelly_bandit wrote:I'm not the one twisting facts Benny boy

You're the one trying to make strategic movement of troops look like capitulation

Is it a lie that bin laden had issues with us troops in Saudi??

No it's not, it's a simple statement of fact

If you really want capitulation look to your messiah

He traded 5 hardcore jihadi fanatics who will probably go straight to Syria and start killing innocent people again

"We don't negotiate with terrorist"??

"Yes we can"