My must read of the day is "5 questions for the White House on Bowe Bergdahl," in Politico:
President Barack Obama’s decision to swap long-missing Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay has unleashed a fusillade of criticism from lawmakers, who have blasted the president’s move as both reckless and lawless.
For the White House, it means answering uncomfortable questions about why Congress wasn’t told of the deal before it happened—as federal law demands—and what went into the administration’s media strategy, including fresh scrutiny of comments National Security Adviser Susan Rice made on a Sunday morning talk show.
There are worries about the deal and the precedent it could set for others in U.S. custody as well as other American service members who could be captured in the future. And the future of Sgt. Bergdahl is anything but certain. […]
Conservatives are also combing through the statements of Bergdahl’s father to cast him as unpatriotic—and his son has been tagged as a deserter by some of his fellow soldiers.
There are a host of questions surrounding the return of Bergdahl, the majority of which need to be asked.
There’s the policy side asking whether or not this was a good trade—Was it legal? Who are the Taliban 5? Can we trust Qatar?
Then there are the questions surrounding Bergdahl’s background. I think that’s a separate issue, a distinct discussion, and the two should not be conflated when we debate the exchange.
Was this trade a bad trade? Yes. A terrible, dangerous, illogical trade—but not because of whom the trade was for, but whom we traded away.
I discussed this idea Monday on the Blaze’s "Real News," and I think it’s worth elaborating my position.
I hear people discuss the allegations that Bergdahl deserted his post; the question I have is are we pointing to that background to say the administration should not welcome him back to the United States with such praise and esteem—or are we saying that his background is evidence that he did not deserve to be rescued?
If it’s the first, I agree and I understand that.
Was it inappropriate for Susan Rice to declare that he served with "honor and distinction?" At this point in time, yes. When there are serious allegations of desertion, Bergdahl’s return home should have been just that—a return home. No Rose Garden ceremonies; just bring him home and say, "we’ve got him and we’re investigating the circumstances that led to his capture." Then we should see him before a military tribunal.
If the criticism of Bergdahl’s background is being used to ask was he worth it and if we should have left him from the beginning, I don’t think it’s an appropriate question.
I don't care if he may have deserted—is that honorable? Absolutely not, but he's still our guy. Bergdahl may have been a coward, but America is not and the rest of our troops are not. We're better, and we do not leave troops behind. All of those soldiers who lost their lives looking for him did so because they were brave, honorable, and moral—exactly what we know American troops to be. Looking for Bergdahl, sending special ops to find him, that was always the right thing to do and we shouldn’t be questioning that.