The Obama administration officials could learn a lot from Texas ranchers. They know how to avoid stepping in “it.”
It seems that every time we turn around there is another “issue” that the administration just stepped into.
Take, for example, the initiative to gain the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
First, let’s be clear, it was a lopsided deal. One person for five, and the five were hand-picked by the bad guys.
Additionally, there are indications that Bergdahl was actually a deserter who walked away from his unit in 2009 instead of serving “ … the United States with honor and distinction,” as Susan Rice described him on the Sunday TV show circuit.
Reports are surfacing that six brave young men lost their lives trying to find him and bring him back — something that wouldn’t have happened if he had remained with his unit.
But let’s look at the long-term impact this trade will have. If terrorists know they can extract a price from the U.S. by kidnapping Americans, they will continue doing so.
That’s why we haven’t negotiated with terrorists in the past. The Obama administration’s action has broken that longstanding policy, looking for a short-term gain while ignoring the long-term consequences.
Finally, the law requires the president to confer with Congress 30 days before releasing Gitmo detainees. Once again, the president ignored (broke) laws that he found inconvenient to his agenda.
So why did he do it? According to The Daily Caller, a pentagon official said the decision:
• Was publicly justified with lies; breaks decades of U.S. policy;
• Breaks American law;
• Puts Americans at risk;
• Undermines the government of Afghanistan; and
• Passes the responsibility to deal with this mess onto the next administration.
But, foremost, the decision was political, the official said. Simply stated, it was because so long as Bergdahl remained in Taliban captivity in Pakistan, the Obama administration would never be able to close the chapter of the failed Afghanistan campaign it has owned since approving — then under-resourcing — a surge of U.S. forces in that country. That’s something the Democrats cannot allow going into 2014 and 2016 elections.
But perhaps it goes deeper than that. We have a president whose legacy is marred with scandals. First it was Operation Fast and Furious; then his attorney general was found to be in contempt of Congress; then there was the targeting of his political foes by the IRS and another contempt of Congress, this time for Lois Lerner; and there was the loss of American lives in Benghazi, with Secretary Hillary Clinton asking, “What difference does it make?”
Then there was the disastrous rollout of Obamacare and the “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” broken promises.
Last month, the scandal broke of secret waiting lists at VA hospitals and possible deaths caused by long waits for appointments that never came.
The president is in search of a positive legacy, but, instead, he continues to find it scarred with lies, failed promises and scandals.
But sit back for a minute and ask yourself why is he taking these extraordinary actions for Bergdahl while closer to home a U.S. Marine who did serve with honor but who took a wrong turn at a border crossing remains in a Mexican jail?
Pick up the phone, Mr. President, and tell our friends that, unless he is returned immediately, the U.S. borders will be closed to all commercial trade.
And you can do that, Mr. President, without releasing a single dangerous terrorist from Gitmo.