Obama’s professional protectors in the media are displeased with questions from skeptical Americans. The Rose Garden photo op and embellished story of the president bringing home a captured warrior unraveled in roughly 2.5 seconds. Turns out, it was at best a dubious deal, at worst a treasonous sell-out, returning five of the deadliest captured jihadists to their fight, in exchange for a likely deserter and possible defector. Either way, it was misrepresented to the public and designed to bury questions the president didn’t want to address.
The public backlash diminishing their tingle-inducing hero is unwelcome so the Big Hairs and Big Pens lashed back. The commentariat, blogosphere, and twitterverse are pushing a catalog of rebuttals and supposed hypocrisies to undermine the president’s detractors:
Critics would just leave Bergdahl in captivity forever, a position anathema to “leave no soldier behind.”
It’s a vacuous rebuttal. Skeptics aren’t criticizing any recovery; they’re criticizing the substance of the trade that happened. They deny it was a sound agreement that protects national security. They believe the administration both gave up too much and credulously accepted promises about restraints on the liberated terrorists. They point to the administration’s illegal secrecy from Congress as another cause for suspicion. Arguing the administration broke the law, harmed the national interest, and got taken at the poker table is not remotely the same as arguing it shouldn’t have been seeking Bergdahl’s release.
People who previously posted or tweeted support for Bergdahl are hypocrites if they criticize the president now.