Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

June 7, 2014 - 10:06 am

Hillary Clinton doesn’t think it’s relevant if Bowe Bergdahl deserted or collaborated with the enemy.

The supposed next president of the United States thinks what matters is that he was an American soldier and President Obama had to bring him home.

Politico reports:

“It doesn’t matter,” Clinton said in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer that aired Friday. “We bring our people home.”

The former secretary of state’s argument echoes that of President Barack Obama, who has come under fire for the prisoner swap that led to Bergdahl’s freedom amid questions about whether he may have abandoned his post and deserted or defected. The military is investigating.

Clinton’s comments come as the former secretary of state begins to make the rounds ahead of the release of her latest memoir, “Hard Choices,” on Tuesday.

“I think this was a very hard choice, which is why I think my book is aptly named,” Clinton said, referring to the Bergdahl deal. “If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn’t matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation.”

The Daily Beast reported this week that when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she was skeptical of the possible deal with the Taliban and was pressing for strict conditions in any agreement.

Accepting Clinton’s premise that we “bring our people home,” does that mean we should give anything to get him back? Is there no proportionality involved? Five for one is not the issue. The issue is five extremely dangerous terrorists exchanged for one sorry excuse for a soldier who, at one point, may not have wanted to come home at all.

In making a deal, the best situation is if both sides profit. This deal may be the most one-sided transaction the U.S. has ever concluded.

Does Hillary Clinton really believe that desertion and collaboration are irrelevant? Suppose she was negotiating to buy a car. If the engine smokes, the radiator leaks, and the brakes don’t work, this is also irrelevant to the deal because the car just got a new paint job and it looks pretty.

We paid Cadillac prices for a stinking, oil-burning East German Trabant.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Ready for Hillary?

What indifference does it make?

The unmitigated arrogance of the Woodstock class makes a dangerous totalitarian cocktail when blended with incompetence, disdain for the law, the military, the borders, the Constitution, Judeo--Christian beliefs and tenets, free speech, freedom of dissent and truth.

Diane Sawyer is a bootlicking Clinton sychophant. Not merely a Woodstock Party cheerleader, but a Clinton fact scrubber who has strapped on the knee pads repeatedly for Clinton coverups.

Clinton's Devil Wears Pravda diva act is just beginning to shift into overdrive. She has to tightrope between showing at once proper fealty to the Second First Black President and showing carefully selected and heavily orchestrated "daylight" issues, however phony and fabricated.

But the arrogance, "this matter is settled", "we will not allow ourselves to be questioned", "we own you" attitude that needs a real slap down.

As for Bergdahl, our own wretchard nailed it. Bergdahl was used to empty out GITMO. The Woodstock hidden agenda is using the "we love our troops" camouflage for their real intent. Don't make me laugh about how much they love our troops. You don't "save" them in one breath and call them swiftboaters, liars and psychopaths in the next.

They hate the military. And that feeling is always just beneath the surface.

Her actions in Benghazi speak volumes that her drowns out her fabricated fawning Sawyer play.

I really loathe these people, but never more when their lying, arrogance, and tyranny converge.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Among other things, he got 14 (6 from his unit and 8 from other units apparently) American Soldiers killed and helped to get 5 large scale terrorist murder plotters set loose upon the world, Madame Depraved Indifference, you utterly despicable creature.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillzie: "“It doesn’t matter,” Clinton said in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer that aired Friday. “We bring our people home.”"

Except those in Benghazi. Pizz on them, right Hillzie
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (55)
All Comments   (55)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
She forgot to add "in uniform", like Obama did, to justify those we left behind in Benghazi.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Greetings:

For a while now, the “Leave No Man Behind” (LNMB) concept has been a bit of a burr under my cerebral saddle. It seems to have a great deal of resonance, especially with military and former military webizens.

Recently, I re-read Mark Bowden’s “Black Hawk Down” about the “Battle of the Black Sea” in Mogadishu, Somalia in the early part of President Clinton’s first term and that reading brought forward in what’s left of my mind a concern about what’s involved in that concept and its implications for today’s soldiers.

Admittedly, it has been a long time since my military service. That was back when the draft didn’t have anything to do with ventilation. So, I have no direct experience of today’s volunteer military. But, be that as it may, I am concerned that LNMB seems to be progressing from a mantra to something approaching a fetish and I worry about its impact on our troops.

When I went off to see what kind of an infantryman I could be, dying wasn’t my largest fear. My father had survived his infantry stint in WW II and I fancied myself as good a man as he. And, as a twenty year old, my sense of mortality was in its earliest stage of development. My greatest fear, by far, was being crippled. Secondarily, it was failing in my duties. Subsequently, when I became a squad leader, which was somewhat after I was made a squad leader, I bumped up against the LNMB concept big time. And it’s the resonance of that emotional experience that has me concerned.

Even at the mantra end of the spectrum, LNMB seems so terse as to be almost mindless. I have to wonder if there is some super-secret calculus that I failed to apprehend. I mean, are our troops all committed to dying lest one get left behind? While “Black Hawk Down” may be the exception rather than the rule, my take on it is that its “Lost Convoy” is an adequate example as to how very wrong military thinking can go when it is overly influenced by such thinking.

(For those unfamiliar with “Black Hawk Down”, the “Lost Convoy” was supposed to remove the American soldiers from Mogadishu after their raid. When the first Black Hawk was shot down, the convoy was diverted to the crash site and was exposed to heavy enemy fire while trying to follow radio directions. It ended up returning to base without ever reaching the crash site but with very heavy casualties.)

At the other end of the spectrum and in spite of all the technology, efforts, and bravery, American soldiers were tragically left behind at the second helicopter crash site.

Thus, the crux of my concern, has LNMB become some kind of unit fetish as opposed to say, and this will sound trite, an organizational goal? Has it become a too easy answer to too difficult problems? Are we setting our soldiers up for failure or worse by allowing LNMB too much of their and their superiors mindshare. Hopefully, nobody wants to leave anyone behind but isn’t more complex thinking better than relying on slogans?

I think that I understand the usefulness of LNMB as a tool. But sometimes people take an idea way too far. Our military routinely classifies casualties as killed, wounded, or missing, the proverbial KIAs, WIAs, and MIAs. No one of any military intelligence or experience would stand up and pronounce “Let no man be killed.” or “Let no man be wounded.” because those events are not under anything approaching adequate control. And believe me, I know that fear of abandonment does not usually contribute to mission accomplishment. But soldiers do get lost, confused, or even vaporized and investing more military assets in their recovery is not a risk-free endeavor. Subscription to a terse mantra is not the best of reasons.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
The media is in a frenzy of providing several layers of deniability to the curators of lying. Hitlery, D'oh-bama and all the rest of the hee-haw club who sneer at people who believe and understand what the 236 year old institution of the US military is about.

Hiltery never spent a day in uniform, unless you can count the lesbot pantsuit she broadcasts her hatred of men in a uniform and president Not-My-Fault thinks that military members are the quintessential dummies of the universe for choosing war over peace and drugs.

Therein lays the quintessential lacking of basic understanding for how the world functions. They personally believe that by disarming the United States, everyone would love us and war would not exist. This extrapolated and expanded theme of self-loathing is also accompanied by a moral superiority complex that indicates that these people cannot function in the real world.

Their "understanding" of everything has to come down to the United States being evil, dishonest and imperialistic.

This was fostered by a puerile and adolescent understanding of the world back when they were kids, and is perpetuated today by the echo-chamber of leftology. Man is causing the world to get hotter. Specifically, white anglo-saxon men. No, it's not the Chinese with their new coal power plants, or any other nation but the U.S. It's all "our" fault (by "our" I mean "your", as in--you hideous white, anglo-saxon male).

But this anger culminates in a desire to control everything that they think is wrong with the planet. And, as has happened so many times throughout history, can only be fixed if the "right people are in charge" to make the proles eat right, burn less (or no) gas, live in smaller houses, buy less food, while simultaneously feeding the churl-rens...etc etc.

Leftology is truly a cult of the lame. It takes courage to be conservative and not go along with crackpots and snake-oil salesmen, of which there are plenty. Gore, Kerry, and el presidente' hissef ("If you like your doctor, you can KEEP your doctor, period."[x26+])

I said it some years ago when the lie-fest began that after awhile, even the stupidest of the LoFo's would get tired of the lying. Eventually, as is always the case, the lying reaches both a saturation point and a level that even the least intelligent can figure out. And we're just about there.

They carted out Rice again to do a Benghazi encore and the white house is very confused as to why the proles and troglodytes aren't sucking down the sweet essence of their Kool-Aide.

Is Hitlery a shoo-in for the next president? As fearful as I was for it to become captain golf-ball, it happened twice. This only serves to make me more cynical and angry in that 1) the socialists seem to have cracked the code on how to cheat in elections very well and 2) the stupid party can't seem to understand that 75% of the nation is conservative and lean more toward Reagan-ism than Bush-ism; That we tolerated Bush but preferred another Reagan.

They're out there, but the McCains, Grahams and Boehners don't like Reagan-ish candidates. For some reason, they think such people lose cool points for them and they won't get to hang out with the cool kids as much, if at all.

And, they've ALL lost the concept that they work for us, not the other way around; That pandering to special interest groups only wins elections for the hardcore socialist party because inherently angry people want SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR ANGER when, in reality, what makes them angry is themselves.

Hitlery though, is angry she was born a woman and can't seem to elude that her angry woman in comfortable shoes is a uniform of hatred. So is D'oh-bama's snide word-usage and his constant lackadaisical attitude toward prezidentin'.

Back in 2008, he said, "Well, John, I won" to John McCain as a "stick it up your a**" statement. Right there, the nation knew it had elected a child. A spiteful, juvenile, arrogant and ignorant adolescent. The left loved it, of course because most of them never grew up.

Conservatives face hard decisions with the knowledge that the weight of it is serious enough and that their decision will affect not just them, but many others as well.

Socialists make decisions based on what will earn them "cool" points with their peer group, which causes people to usually get harmed in the short and long runs. This has been proven out over the past six years. Fast & Furious, Healthcare, Treatment of the VA issue, Benghazi, Syria, Egypt, Russia & the Ukraine....and so many, many more.

But, as has been said by Rush Limbaugh, the nation's failure is the socialists' success story. Everything they've wanted, they've pretty much gotten. In part, this is because of the terrified, pee-their-pants republicans who don't want to be labeled as "racist, bigoted, homophobes".

And the American people suffer. Worse than when president Cardigan was trying to make us all se
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary-Dillary sat on a wall.
Benghazi sneezed and caused her to fall
All the King's horses and all the King's men
Cannot put the pieces together again.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are now repeated announcements from the 'elite' - particularly its Left-dominant core - expressing contempt for the very idea of a Republic and democracy. Yet the people are, basically, quiescent. Well, not all of them.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
So if one of these terrorist generals plots an attack that ends up murdering a bunch of Americans, is that ok Hillary? What if one of the victims is your daughter, or future grandchild?

Will you then still say, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
He was not an American soldier if he deserted. He was not "one of ours" if he went over to the enemy and assisted them. Why are Lefties so keen to betray? Why do they hate the virtue of loyalty?
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary, if this and Benghazi are of no interest, what is please? How many of us have to die before it becomes the slightest bit interesting to you?
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
graveswr:

If you believe billy ayers and his bunch, that number would be approximately 25 to 30 million of us!
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
"We bring our people home". AFTER (and not during) the Vietnam War in context of the peace negotiations between the beligerent nations, did America bring home it soliders, alive and dead. All this was with a war ENDED, not in process. In WW II after Stalingrad the Russians had as pow's a Feldmarschall and about 5 or 6 generals. The Germans had untold numbers of Russian sargeants as pow's back in Germany. If the Russians had decided to trade the Feldmarschal and other generals for ONE sargeant pow (or for that matter for all sargeants), then we would have a parellel to the "trading" of 5 Taliban generals for a sargeant, period. Why do I call the Talibans "fighters" traded "generals"? Feldmarshall von Paulus was directing a 300,000+ man army (and successfully up to Stalingrad) and had sub-generals directing lesser units of 10s of thousands of soliders. "Directing" is the operative word. No sargeant (or all the capitve sargeants) can direct an army. From the point of view of "directing", the German/Russian war was a duell between von Manstein and Jukov (?). Why? Both those men were able to manage and DIRECT 3 armies. (The Germans lost in part due to the inept interference of a WW I corporal, namely Adolf Hitler -- whose mistakes frustated probable victories at Moscow and St. Petersburg.)

Using my thesis, we see that Obama has traded (in WW II terms) "generals" capable of organizing Taliban "armies" for a soldier not yet able to run a platoon. I stress that my comparison holds becasue THE war is still going on. Neither the Russians nor the Germans "brought home" their prisioners until AFTER the war, not during it. Hundreds of 18 or 19 year old Taliban fighters returned (assuming the US had them) would NOT be so potentially disasterous for US soldiers now and later for regular Afghanistan soldiers and civilians as the 5 Taliban GENERALS returned (ii.e., after a year's stay in Qatar) to possibly directing, certainly advising, i.e., organizing their armies (including the 18 years old fighters).

In summary, "we bring our people home", but not during war and we do not give the enemy DIRECTIVE power in exchange during the war. Hillary Clinton is correct in a way she does not know as to what it atters, The trade contradicts her "What does it matter". We will have MORE dead "people", called soldiers, to bring hom and the Afghanistns more dead people (including women and children) to bury. That is "what it matters". If these 5 generals aid significantly the Taliban to a victory after the US departure, then ALL Americans during the entire war will have died in vain. That, Hillary the Hun, is what matters.

In a cynical mood, I see Clinton's policiy of producing more dead to be a parellel to her abortion policies. The woman just does not care in any fundamental way who dies, even her own ambassador.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
and this war isn't going to be over, just because B.O. thinks that we are ending it, don't seem to hear anything about terrorists saying that they are now civliized and will stop fighting as well.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Shrillary BENGHAZI Clinton who abandoned four Americans and let them DIE is just confirming she in not a 'fit and proper' person to be a President. She has confirmed the answer to the "3 AM phone call question" by confirming that it should anyone EXCEPT her.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All