Even under the best of administrations, the State Department is an outfit made up mostly of folks who are totally divorced from the rest of society. Similarly, their press spokespersons tend to be laughable types who provide great sound-bytes when hit with pointed questions.
Marie Harf is a 32-year-old political hack who occupies that position today. This week she took that position to a new low when asked about reports from Bowe Bergdahl's ex- fellow soldiers that he was a deserter. Watch this video as she tries to rebut the public comments of ex-soldiers who have objected to Bergdahl's release. It is her final comment that is particularly outrageous. In this case, there is nothing laughable.
What makes this arrogant young lady qualified to argue with statements of those who were on the ground, who served with Bergdahl and who put their lives on the line to go look for him? She could have simply deferred the questions to the Department of Defense. Instead, she chose to take the administration's party line and take issue with those that were there and knew the facts first-hand.
This is the type of arrogance that is running our country-an arrogance that has little regard for our military, so much so that they would try to cast doubt on the words of those who were on the ground. It is a disgrace.
She is one of many who doesn't have the sense of propriety to shut up, let the man recover and reunite with his family, and then allow for an appropriate inquiry to be made. The truth may lie a number of different places, but nothing said about him justifies leaving him in the hands of the Taliban (or the Haquanni network, trained and funded by the CIA under Ronald Reagan -- not quite the same as the Taliban), and the truth is not well served by a loud cacophony of cyber-shouting and political grandstanding. (That includes the half-baked statements by this State Department functionary).
ReplyDeleteCharlie,
ReplyDeletePoint well taken, however to me those that have all the standing in the world to speak out are those in his unit who have first-hand knowledge. On the other hand, MSNBC's theme seems to be that Bergdahl is being swift-boated.
Perhaps, there would be less complaining about this had the administration not tried to tell us that Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction". That requires a response and the public has every right to comment and demand the facts. I would agree that officials and political leaders need to weigh their responses. Harf did not.
Another point that does not have to wait for an investigative outcome is the wisdom of releasing these 5 GITMO prisoners given their own hsitory and the encouragement it provides to other would-be kidnappers of Americans who can be bartered for terrorist prisoners.
I have on my shelf a copy of a book called "John Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against The War." I thought his campaign should have distributed selections from this book in 2004. I believed then, and believe now, that he would have gotten a better result if he had.
ReplyDeleteThe poor fool thought he could hold his finger to the wind, put on his uniform, and run as a decorated war veteran, and nobody would remember his leadership of VVAW. (Albeit, reporters were still on the job who COVERED the VVAW protests in DC in 1971). Idiot.
If he'd run proudly on his military record AND on how and why his military experience led him to oppose the war effort, he would have had much more credibility.
Now, with that as background, to the question of "Swift Boating." The "Swift Vote Beterans for Sooth" were a bunch of people who served on swift boats, but not under Kerry's command, nor in command over Kerry. They were veterans with an opinion, and they made up a lot of fluff to make groundless accusations. At least one life long Republican conservative who served on Kerry's boat wrote a piece for Time or Newsweek (can't remember which one I subscribed to back then) debunking these myths based on personal experience on Kerry's boat. He served honorably in Vietnam, then came home and shared his conclusions with the American public. All above board.
There may be a difference with the Bergdahl case. It appears, from preliminary reports (which may well be bloated or falsified, or may not) that in this instance, soldiers who served in his own unit are speaking up against him. There is a difference there. On the other hand, it is POSSIBLE that some have an ax to grind, some are making themselves available for a political agenda, and there may be a great silent majority (or minority) who either support Bergdahl or don't much care about the brouhaha.
Analogies are seldom good evidence, and this one isn't even a good illustration. No, the administration should not have trumpeted this even as a photo op -- although it probably would have become big news anyway, so perhaps they just chose to put the most spin on it they could. Frankly, I don't much care about "investigating" the "political wisdom" of making this exchange. That is a judgment call for the military chain of command, up to and including the Commander in Chief. Exchange of prisoners always has been.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteA couple of points. I never engaged in the "swiftboating" of John Kerry for reasons I have explained. It seems to me, however, that he swiftboated his fellow Vietnam veterans by accusing them of atrocities based on anecdotal heresay.
Secondly, we know know that high ranking military people advised Obama not to make this exchange. He ignored them.
Yes, the commander in chief sometimes does that. Lincoln did the same to his cabinet. Marshall and Eisenhower also made decisions against the recommendations of most of their immediate subordinates. (Maybe President Obama listened to the family... something President Lincoln also did over the objections of his generals).
ReplyDelete