Story today quoted White House official or officials as saying members of Congress were aware "for years" that White House was working on Bergdahl exchange.

 

Link?

Link?

I think I read the "for years" version of the story this a.m. on CNN.com or Yahoo. The story, of course, is being updated continuously, as we speak, most recently with the president's "quite some time" quote as well as Levin's remarks and first-time comment from Hillary Clinton. Which is why I couldn't find what I read specifically this a.m. So far GOP leadership in House and Senate has let McKeon, McCain and Inhofe do most of the heavy lifting on this topic. It'll be interesting to see how long before Mitch and Boehner enter the fray. The real fight will come when and if Obama decides to close Gitmo and send the rest of the terrorists to join the other five in Qatar.

I think I read the "for years" version of the story this a.m. on CNN.com or Yahoo. The story, of course, is being updated continuously, as we speak, most recently with the president's "quite some time" quote as well as Levin's remarks and first-time comment from Hillary Clinton. Which is why I couldn't find what I read specifically this a.m. So far GOP leadership in House and Senate has let McKeon, McCain and Inhofe do most of the heavy lifting on this topic. It'll be interesting to see how long before Mitch and Boehner enter the fray. The real fight will come when and if Obama decides to close Gitmo and send the rest of the terrorists to join the other five in Qatar.

Qatar allowing freed Taliban men to move freely in country: Gulf official

Story today quoted White House official or officials as saying members of Congress were aware "for years" that White House was working on Bergdahl exchange.

According to Saxby Chandler, somebody from the administration called him and apologized for not following the law. What do you know that the Obama administration does not?

I firmly believe that, in all phases of life (other than marriage decisions of course), the best decisions are made when emotion is stripped away. Certainly a decision as important as this one, as impactful as this one may be, needed to be made stripped of emotion.

 

Curious to know Clyde how you feel about the possible impact of the release (or exchange if you want) of the 5 terrorists? Do you think it will cause more Americans to be taken prisoner? If the 5 released terrorists return to their "old ways" and many innocents are killed due to the efforts of the 5, would it be fair to place the innocents' blood on President Obama's hands? Will this decision materially and adversely impact our ability to ask foreign governments not to release terrorists that we consider an extreme threat to us and we don't want released?

 

We're thinking along the same lines. To answer your specific question, yes, it would be blood on the POTUS' hands. I think that's always the case when a President sends soldiers into battle or , in this case, releasing potential terrorists.

Krauthammer says the President did not need to go to Congress because of the exchange of POWs.

Obama could trade nukes to the terrorist and the democrats would still find good out of it.

According to Saxby Chandler, somebody from the administration called him and apologized for not following the law. What do you know that the Obama administration does not?

Feinstein and Chambliss both on TV tonight. Both peeved that they weren't briefed as the events unfolded. However, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the administration took all the proper steps under the circumstances.

"We received a detailed classified notification from the Secretary of Defense that satisfies the many substantive certification requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act," said Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. Noting that Obama "put Congress on notice" last December that he intended to act quickly in such cases, "members of Congress should not be surprised that he acted as he did in the circumstances that existed," Levin said.

Will this transparency administration please tell us what the dire circumstances were they keep talking about?

Krauthammer says the President did not need to go to Congress because of the exchange of POWs.

What makes Krauthammer an expert in this area? Krauthammer is not a lawyer. He is a part of the Republican establishment that only cares about winning control of the Senate this fall and fixing the primaries so that Chris Christie or Jeb Bush walk away with the nomination in 2016.

 

Do you really think that Dianne Feinstein would be upset at Obama if she did not believe that he violated the law for which she voted and Obama signed? Do you think that members of the administration would be making private apologies to Republicans if the White House believed that Obama is standing on firm legal ground?

Feinstein and Chambliss both on TV tonight. Both peeved that they weren't briefed as the events unfolded. However, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the administration took all the proper steps under the circumstances.

"We received a detailed classified notification from the Secretary of Defense that satisfies the many substantive certification requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act," said Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. Noting that Obama "put Congress on notice" last December that he intended to act quickly in such cases, "members of Congress should not be surprised that he acted as he did in the circumstances that existed," Levin said.

So, Obama placed Congress on notice that he had no intention of following the law. Well, that changes everything! :lol2:

What makes Krauthammer an expert in this area? Krauthammer is not a lawyer. He is a part of the Republican establishment that only cares about winning control of the Senate this fall and fixing the primaries so that Chris Christie or Jeb Bush walk away with the nomination in 2016. Do you really think that Dianne Feinstein would be upset at Obama if she did not believe that he violated the law for which she voted and Obama signed? Do you think that members of the administration would be making private apologies to Republicans if the White House believed that Obama is standing on firm legal ground?

 

I posted last night about an attorney who specializes in this area who used the same argument.

I posted last night about an attorney who specializes in this area who used the same argument.

It's an interesting turn of events when the lawbreakers are busy apologizing to Democrats and Republicans in Congress and their supporters are still busy denying that they did anything wrong.

I posted last night about an attorney who specializes in this area who used the same argument.

 

I believe he has to give 30 days notice on a specific plan. Where Krauthamer may be right is I don't know if congressional approval is needed but notice is within 30 days and that isn't even a question at this point. So the next question is what information is Congressman Levin talking about and was it a specific offer.

 

With all that said while reading more into this situation over the last couple days. I have come to the conclusion Susan Rice lied to the National media for her 2nd time on Sunday shows and to save face if I'm her I resign . I've also come to the conclusion this was a poor decision on the presidents part regardless of legality. We risk more enemy lives by putting 5 leaders back in motion who want us dead to save the life of a soldier who denounced his country and by all account t of his troop leader and peers , a soldier who deserted them. His poor mental fortitude and loyalty to his brother in arms cost the lives of 6 fellow soldiers in missions looking for him and who knows how many other people suffered due to him working with the enemy.

Why free a guy to have him tried in military court? This doesn't add up at all