Because WHAT DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT DOES IT MAKE??
Former Secretary of State and future presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer that whether Bergdahl was a deserter – or even a traitor – should not affect the price we pay for his release.
A snippet of the interview was broadcast this morning, with the rest to follow on ABC this evening.
SAWYER: Did (Obama) make a deal with the Devil on releasing those five Talibans?
CLINTON: I think this was a very hard choice which is why I think my book is so aptly named.
Ahh, yes, so apt indeed. I’m left rapt by her apt. I’d like to be able to download her apt app.
Her book is called “Hard Choices,” in case you were wondering.
CLINTON: If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. I mean, one of our values is, we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn’t matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation
SAWYER: It doesn’t matter?
CLINTON: it does not matter – we bring our people home!
I beg to disagree. If someone is a known deserter, we should still try very hard to get them back. The principle that we get our guys and gals back is indeed a crucial one, both morally and for the morale of the troops.
But the price that we pay and our willingness to risk lives for their return – whether on the battlefield or through the release of known mass murderers and terrorism abettors like the Taliban we sprung from Gitmo – should be affected by notions such as whether a service member was a deserter or a traitor.
Bergdahl was clearly the former. It’s yet to be determined whether he was the latter.
He was responsible for his circumstance, and he put many lives in danger – and probably caused some deaths – because of it. That has to be a factor.