Tea-GOP Wanted Obama To Do Whatever to Save Bowe Bergdahl

Remember when the Tea-GOP and right-wingers everywhere complained bitterly that the Obama administration wasn’t doing enough to bring home America’s lone POW Bowe Bergdahl back from captivity? That was so last month!

For example, Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and John McCain (R-AZ) have been making an issue of Bergdahl’s captivity for years. A May 22 press release from Ayotte’s office urged the Department of Defense to do all it can to find Bergdahl. Senator McCain suggested a prisoner exchange last February.

Rep. Rich Nugent (R-FL), introduced a resolution in the House calling on the United States to do everything possible not to leave any members of the armed forces behind.

In April, Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Bob Casey (D-PA), along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), introduced a resolution “to express the sense of the Senate that no member of the armed forces who is missing in action or captured should be left behind.”

Last year, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said of Bergdahl, “The mission to bring our missing soldiers home is one that will never end. It’s important that we make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family.”

Are all these politicians now thanking President Obama for doing precisely what they demanded? Well, not really. Some in the Tea-GOP are talking about impeachment.

More info:

GOP Urged White House To ‘Do All It Can’ To Get Bowe Bergdahl

Conservatives Have Hilariously Forgotten How Badly They Wanted Bergdahl Home

  1. #1 by Nathan Erkkila on June 5, 2014 - 2:06 am

    I already stated. The only thing the Tea Part stands for is being anti-Obama.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on June 5, 2014 - 7:27 am

    This morning on MSNBC Chuck Todd said White House staffers told him they didn’t anticipate the right-wing would criticize the decision to save Bergdahl.

    That’s amazing, considering this sort of thing happens all the time. The Obama administration says yes to something that the Tea-GOP has loudly demanded (for years, in some cases), and then the opposition party does a 180. Senator John McCain especially has turned the flip-flop into an art form.

    It happened with the individual mandate, cap and trade, the Catfood Commission, Libya… the list is a long one. Senator Orrin Hatch advocated the individual private insurance mandate since the 1990s, but once Obama said yes to it Hatch suddenly claimed it’s unconstitutional (it’s not).

    • #3 by brewski on June 5, 2014 - 7:41 am

      It is clearly unconstitutional.

      • #4 by cav on June 5, 2014 - 7:51 am

        Dick Cheney and his simian sidekick lied us into a war that got 5000 Americans killed. I never heard Orrin or brewski use the words “clearly unconstitutional” in relation to what those two did.

        • #5 by brewski on June 5, 2014 - 8:27 am

          Cav, explain to me what part of that was unconstitutional. In your response, please use the words Clinton, Kerry, Edwards.

          • #6 by cav on June 5, 2014 - 9:37 am

            While ‘bolstering security’ may be one of the Executive branches tasks, there are still accepted rules – Laws, if you will, that when ignored or circumvented, would put the executive and all else, in the realm of unconstitutionality, immorality and unacceptability. Rationalizing documents by lawyers not withstanding,

            While we may never know what temptations Democrats like Clinton, Kerry and Edwards were able to resist, it did become quite apparent early in the Cheney administration that the dark side of policy equating would be rolled out in a Shocking, Awful and clearly unconstitutional manner – with deceit, murder, and military profit taking of a scale most of the ‘electorate’ (and here I’m not referring to the five ‘supreme’ court justices who themselves yielded to the ‘constitutionally unprecedented’ decision whereby the Cheney administration, with its PNAC charter, came to power), would find almost incomprehensible, certainly disgusting, and clearly against our better interests.

            I do not want to assume by the very question and perspective you seem to be taking, you are suggesting anything a republican administration might do is constitutional simply because right-wingers are the only ones who appreciate and can capitalize on ‘freedumb’. I give you more credit for wits than this.

            Still, your point is?

          • #7 by cav on June 5, 2014 - 10:02 am

            The Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg , essentially an amendment to our constitution, defined such crimes as: „planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy (for war)”.

            The Nuremberg Charter had jurisdiction over four separate crimes: conspiracy to carry out aggressive war, the actual launching of aggression, killing, destroying, and plundering during a war not justified by military necessity, and crimes against humanity related to atrocities against civilians. The Nazis were convicted on all four counts. Did not the rulers of the United States commit all these crimes in the illegal, wars against Afghanistan and Iraq?

            And I haven’t even addressed the will of the vast majority of the American People.

      • #8 by Richard Warnick on June 5, 2014 - 7:55 pm

        The Supreme Court: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (PDF), 2011.

        Partisan right-wing Chief Justice Roberts could not accept the obvious fact that the individual private health insurance mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. But he agreed with the government’s contention that the mandate falls within the taxation power, because according to the ACA the only consequence of failing to purchase private for-profit health insurance is that your taxes go up.

        • #9 by brewski on June 8, 2014 - 2:41 pm

          If he upheld ACA, then how is Roberts a partisan right-winger? He could have agreed with the other 4 Justices that ACA is not constitutional at all as any honest reading of the constitution shows.

        • #10 by Richard Warnick on June 8, 2014 - 9:43 pm

          An honest interpretation of the Constitution according to precedent indicates the ACA individual private insurance mandate falls under the Commerce Clause.

          George Washington’s individual mandates

          In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.[…]

          Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

  3. #11 by cav on June 5, 2014 - 7:39 am

    America is at war with ________ America has always been at war with _________..

    • #12 by brewski on June 5, 2014 - 8:28 am

      discredited Statist loony notions

      discredited Statist loony notions

      • #13 by cav on June 5, 2014 - 9:41 am

        Statist?? WTF?

        Are we still talking Benghazi?

  4. #14 by Anonymous on June 5, 2014 - 10:04 am

    It’s all over, this drone murdering president is a dead duck squawking.

    • #15 by Nathan Erkkila on June 5, 2014 - 1:22 pm

      I have been hearing that since 2008. I do have to wonder though. When we had a president who instead of sending drones to kill, sent 5000 young men to die in a war that was completely unjustified, then where the fuck were you when it came to impeachment?

  5. #16 by cav on June 8, 2014 - 11:56 am

    On this day in 1987 Fawn Hall testified she shred documents on arms-for-hostages for Oliver North. Today North is lecturing about hostages.

  6. #17 by brewski on June 8, 2014 - 11:11 pm

    Nice job deleting me debunking you.

    • #18 by Richard Warnick on June 9, 2014 - 2:16 pm

      Wasn’t me. I only delete spam.

      • #19 by brewski on June 10, 2014 - 9:16 am

        someone did

        • #20 by cav on June 10, 2014 - 10:57 am

          The ghost of rationality past.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: