I have often written about what I call New York Times idiotorials – i.e. editorials that are so idiotic that they have to be redefined by that term.
But today\’s lead editorial, in which the Times desperately and amazingly dishonestly, tries to defend the trade of bow bergdahl for five highest-ranking terrorist murderers, is the mother of them all.
With apologies for the length of this blog, here is the editorial, in rust, with my comments in blue. Prepare to simultaneously be amazed, disgusted and outraged:
Fourmonths ago, Senator John McCain said he would support the exchange offive hard-core Taliban leaders for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.”I would support,” hetold CNN. “Obviously I\’d have to know the details, but Iwould support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one ofthem I think that would be something I think we should seriouslyconsider.”
But the instant the Obama administration actually made that trade, Mr. McCain, as he has so often in the past, switched positions for maximum political advantage. “I would not have made this deal,” he said a few days ago. Suddenly the prisoner exchange is” troubling” and “poses a great threat” to service members. Hearings must be held, he said, and sharp questions asked. Congratulations on discovering that John McCain is inconsistent – a fact that virtually no one, Democrat or Republican would disagree with. So what does this have to do with President Obama\’s “deal”?
This hypocrisy now pervades the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and has even infected several fearful Democrats. Ahhh,now I see. McCain is a hypocrite, which is immediately projected tothe entire Republican Party, all conservatives, and any Democrat whomight dare to agree with them. Great stereotype, guys. Do you also think that Jesse Jackson Jr. and Bernie Madoff being in jail prove that all Blacks are bribe-takers and all Jews are swindlers? Just asking. When they could use Sergeant Bergdahl\’s captivity as a cudgel against the administration, they eagerly did so, loudly and in great numbers. And the moment they could use his release to make President Obama look weak on terrorism or simply incompetent, they reversed direction without a moment\’s hesitation to jump aboard the new bandwagon. Uh…could it be that a great many politicians in both parties were fooled by the Obama administration into believing that bergdahl was a loyal soldier coming back as a hero, instead of a lying deserter — which this administration knew to be the case for FIVE FULL YEARS? Could that possibly have been a factor?
The last few days have made clearer than ever that there is no action the Obama administration can take – not even the release of a possibly troubled American soldier from captivity – that cannot be used for political purposes by his opponents. Yep, that poor, poor President Obama is being set upon by people who find it unacceptable that he put five major-league terrorist murderers back in circulation on behalf of a lying deserter. Why are they so mean to him?
Though we criticized the administration for ignoring the law in not informing Congress of the transfer of the Taliban detainees 30 days in advance, leave it to Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and other hyperventilators to claim that continued release of prisoners from Guantanamo without prior notice is now considered an impeachable offense, a ludicrous leap. Great point. A President ignoring the law and acting as if he were a dictator…what\’s impeachable about that?
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas says the whole exchange was cooked up to distract the public from the Veterans Affairs scandals, and the talk-show crowd has piled on Sergeant Bergdahl’s father for his suspiciously long beard. The timing of the exchange would have been perfect as a distraction, but I guess you didn\’t notice that. And the beard became suspicious when the guy wearing it also welcomed his son home in in Pashti, the language the taliban would have spoken, and then praised allah. But what does that have to do with anything?
Cowering politicians now even seem to regret their initial burst of joy that a prisoner was coming home. “A grateful nation welcomes him home,” said Representative Lee Terry, Republican of Nebraska, in a Twitter message on Sunday. The statement on his website was deleted a short time later. “Warmest regards to his family with gratitude for his/their service and sacrifice,” wrote Representative Stephen Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, in another quickly deleted tweet. That\’s right. As noted above, the initial reaction was euphoria that we retrieved a US soldier…and then, when it became evident he was a lying deserter, things changed. Your problem with that?
This duck-and-cover response is the result of the outrageous demonization of Sergeant Bergdahl in the absence of actual facts. Republican operatives have arranged for soldiers in his unit to tell reporters that he was a deserter who cost the lives of several soldiers searching for him. In fact, a review of casualty reports by Charlie Savage and Andrew Lehren of The Times showed there is no clear link between any military deaths and the search. This is the classic of them all. The “actual facts” include that bergdahl sent his belongings home ahead of time, and wrote that his superiors were all useless and he was ashamed to be an American, before willfully leaving his unit and seeking out the enemy. Those don\’t count to you? Holy excrement. And you think these soldiers were somehow tricked into calling him a deserter – a status that our own department of defense concluded years ago? Tell us: what possible reason would bergdahl\’s fellow soldiers have for calling him a deserter if he wasn\’t? What possible reason would they have to impugn their comrade in arms who they fought side by side with and who, if not a deserter, was held against his will by the enemy for five years? I would LOVE to hear your explanation.
The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them…
And a classified military report shows that Sergeant Bergdahl had walked away from assigned areas at least twice before and had returned, according to a report in The Times on Thursday. It describes him as a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama\’s opponents are now trying to create. Are you people out of your effing minds? Did you bother to read Michael Hastings\’ article in (hard-left) Rolling Stone magazine, which informed us that bergdahl told a friend “if this deployment is lame, I\’m just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan”? Did you read the part where Hastings tells us that, three days before going AWOL bergdahl emailed his parents that “I am ashamed to be an american.”, “The US army is the biggest joke… It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools and bullies.”,”These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid.” and “The horror that is america is disgusting.” (please note the small-“a” spelling of America is bergdahl\’s not mine). That is NO INDICATION THAT HE DESERTED? You are writing like idiots, liars or both.
If anything, the report suggests that the army unit\’s lack of security and discipline was as much to blame for the disappearance, given the sergeant\’s history. Yeah, that\’s the ticket. He\’s not a deserter, it is everyone else in the unit.
Thousands of soldiers desert during every war, including 50,000 American soldiers during World War II. As many as 4,000 a year were absent without leave for extended periods during the Iraq war. They leave for a variety of reasons, including psychological trauma, but whatever their mental state, it is the military\’s duty to get them back if they are taken prisoner. That\’s what the Obama administration did in this case, and there was a particular sense of urgency because a video showed that Sergeant Bergdahl\’s life might be in danger. Fascinating comparison. Tell us: how many AWOLs voluntarily go to the enemy after telling us how much they hate their country? Maybe that culls your numbers down just a tad. And we all saw video of the exchange – which prompted both Republicans and Democrats to say he didn\’t look like he was in any kind of “dire physical condition”. What is wrong with you people?
But the critics seeking political advantage don\’t care about the life or mental state of a particular soldier, or of a principle of loyalty that should provide comfort to any soldier in danger of capture. They live only for the attack. What a fitting ending for this idiotorial. A demand that we all subordinate our feelings about a lying deserter, based on the principle of loyalty. Incredible? Nope, the New York Times.
