- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Right Didn’t Mind When Bush Paid a Ransom to Terrorists
Posted on 6/11/14 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 6/11/14 at 10:55 pm
quote:
Republicans are howling (with no proof) that Obama paid a ransom for Bowe Bergdahl’s freedom. Funny. They weren’t howling when Bush actually did it.
quote:
We turn now to the Philippines, where the Abu Sayyaf terror network—Islamic fundamentalist, al Qaeda-linked, occupant of a slot on the State Department’s official terrorist-organization list since Bill Clinton put it there in 1997—was rampaging around the southern archipelago and taking Westerners hostage. Two such hostages were an American husband-and-wife missionary team, Martin and Gracia Burnham. They were kidnapped in May 2001. Their captivity was a pretty big story for a while, but then came September, and the inferno of Lower Manhattan.
quote:
The Abu Sayyaf M.O. was the normal one—to demand large (or oddly not so large; the original demand for the Burnhams’ safety was $1 million) sums of money for their captives’ safe return. There were talks, and they bled into 2002. In April of that year, Bush gave a speech that included the line: “No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.”
A nice line. But of course, at that exact moment, the United States was negotiating intently with Abu Sayyaf for the Burnhams’ release. And not only that: The Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists.”
quote:
Oh. I forgot one detail. We “facilitated” the ransom, but even then we still failed: Poor Martin Burnham was killed in a skirmish when the Philippine army stormed the compound to rescue the couple. Gracia lived, and lives on now. But just imagine that Obama had “facilitated” a ransom to Haqqani, and yet Bergdahl had been killed during a rescue mission. I don’t think I need to complete that thought.
LINK
Posted on 6/11/14 at 10:58 pm to Big Scrub TX
Obama and Bush are more similar than different?!? No way!!!!!
Posted on 6/11/14 at 10:58 pm to CountryVolFan
Blaming Bush ain't cutting it anymore. Barack's reign is falling to pieces everywhere.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:03 pm to antibarner
quote:
Blaming Bush ain't cutting it anymore. Barack's reign is falling to pieces everywhere.
Nobody is blaming Bush. Are your reading and logic skills so poor that that's what you took away from the article?
This post was edited on 6/11/14 at 11:10 pm
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:04 pm to antibarner
quote:
Blaming Bush ain't cutting it anymore.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:27 pm to Big Scrub TX
How anyone can read The Daily Beast is beyond me. Complete hack jobs across the board.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:32 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:Something the Taliban isn't. I loved it when one of the congressmen tried to tell Hagel that it was and then sheepishly had to say "Pakistani Taliban".
We turn now to the Philippines, where the Abu Sayyaf terror network—Islamic fundamentalist, al Qaeda-linked, occupant of a slot on the State Department’s official terrorist-organization list since Bill Clinton put it there in 1997—
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:32 pm to Rohan2Reed
quote:
How anyone can read The Daily Beast is beyond me. Complete hack jobs across the board.
Which specific parts of his overall point do you disagree with?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:36 pm to Big Scrub TX
Both were terrible mistakes. What more do you want? Why does the fact that Bush did it somehow make Obama's decision less worse?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:37 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:Nice broad stroke, too!
The Right Didn’t Mind
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:37 pm to Big Scrub TX
I'm not arguing against the case that it's a factual report, I'm merely remarking upon the complete blind partisan agenda that permeates the site.
here's a piece of shite from this week that not so subtly suggest Republicans endorse right-wing domestic terrorism. LINK
if you think the Daily Beast is a good journalistic source then go right ahead and ingest their sewage. Just don't blame others if you wake up one day with a rotting hole in your brain.
here's a piece of shite from this week that not so subtly suggest Republicans endorse right-wing domestic terrorism. LINK
if you think the Daily Beast is a good journalistic source then go right ahead and ingest their sewage. Just don't blame others if you wake up one day with a rotting hole in your brain.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:38 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Both were terrible mistakes. What more do you want? Why does the fact that Bush did it somehow make Obama's decision less worse?
It doesn't. Just pointing out the flagrant, rank, disgusting hypocrisy involved with the right and all things Obama.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:39 pm to Rohan2Reed
quote:
I'm not arguing against the case that it's a factual report, I'm merely remarking upon the complete blind partisan agenda that permeates the site.
I've seen them print opinions from all sides - and it IS an opinion site.
quote:
if you think the Daily Beast is a good journalistic source then go right ahead and ingest their sewage. Just don't blame others if you wake up one day with a rotting hole in your brain.
Again, which of the facts are you disputing? If none, then why isn't it as good a source as any you will propose?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Both were terrible mistakes. What more do you want? Why does the fact that Bush did it somehow make Obama's decision less worse?
It doesn't. It's a bullshite tu quoque argument.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:42 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:Actually, criticism of the deal is coming from all sides. But keep on claiming that all criticism of Obama is "hypocrisy". How do you breathe with the President's member stuffed down your throat?
Just pointing out the flagrant, rank, disgusting hypocrisy involved with the right and all things Obama.
This post was edited on 6/11/14 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:42 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:That's some defense of Obama you got right there.
The Right Didn’t Mind When Bush Paid a Ransom to Terrorists
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:I believe the OP just wants the argument from the right that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" as some sort of Obama issue to be answered. Attack the Bergdahl swap on other grounds.
Both were terrible mistakes. What more do you want? Why does the fact that Bush did it somehow make Obama's decision less worse?
Further, the Taliban in Afghanistan were simply the ruling party when we invaded, NOT a recognized terrorist organization. They still aren't.
This post was edited on 6/11/14 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 6/11/14 at 11:44 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:It really is comical. Bush is the worst person ever to most leftists, yet here they are defending Obama by saying that Bush did the same thing. What a wreck this administration is.
That's some defense of Obama you got right there.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News