Monday, June 2, 2014

Obama adds terrorist negotiator to his dismal presidential resume!

As has typically been the case, Obama administration statements do not match its actions!

In other words while they can say something is true, that certainly doesn't make it true! Americans have certainly learned that lesson with this administration the hard way!

The following is a statement made by Susan Rice over the weekend who, if nothing else, should know by now that when Obama offers to send her to the Sunday news shows that she should politely refuse.

But then again she is nothing more than an Obama sycophant apparently possessing little in terms of a conscience.

"What we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn't leave a man or a woman on the battlefield," Rice said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

"If we got into a situation where we said, 'Because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield we will leave that person behind,' we would be in a whole new area for the safety of our personnel and for the nature of our commitment to our men and women in uniform," she continued. "Because it was the Taliban that had him did not mean that we had any less of an obligation to bring him back." (Source)

This may be the most glaring example yet of the Obama administration believing that if they say something that people will actually believe it.

The US let five known terrorists go free in a negotiation with the Taliban in order to secure the release of a US soldier being held in Afghanistan. This release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is of course a very good thing but, the question is, whether it was accomplished at too high a cost.

Will releasing known terrorists come back to bite the US in the ass and will this negotiating technique put our current soldiers in greater danger? Yes to both but getting it done may have been to great a public relations coup for the President to pass up, damn any potential future consequences.

But I digress.

The Obama administration has said the reasoning behind this move is that the US will never leave a soldier behind on the battlefield.

And yet the Obama administration, with none of the fanfare, press conferences and photo ops that I watched over the weekend concerning the soldier released after five years in captivity, allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi for nothing other than political reasons.

So, on the one hand while the President sleeps and shows little to no interest in the ongoing crisis in Benghazi, we let four Americans die without lifting a finger to help.

On the other hand, we release dangerous terrorists in order to secure the release of a soldier, weakening the security of the United States in the process.

Which one is it Mr. President? Do you or don't you leave soldiers behind because as usual you are attempting to have it both ways?


No comments :

Post a Comment