The latest conservative impeachment talk concerns the recent five for one prisoner trade with the taliban. Isn't it possible the five for one trade was tied into the upcoming reduction of american troops from Afghanistan? Is it possible the purpose of the prisoner trade was to warn the Taliban via their own returned prisoners that lower american troop totals in Afghanistan could mean more aggressive air and drone attacks, not less?
I don't pretend to know, but isn't it possible that whenever prisoner "trades" are made it is to further some type of line of communication that may benefit all in the future? It's possible right?
If so, then why is it acceptable for republican blowhard politicians to immediately undermine any military move made by the present democrat administration? The automatic and instant undermining of the administrations actions is the very definition of a terrorist, no?
Maybe if the Republicans weren't still diverting much needed attention elsewhere back to Benghazi, they would have been included in the hostage discussion before it happened. Clearly Republican politicians have become so untrustworthy the president can't confide in them on most issues, and that is the real story behind Benghazi and the five for one prison trade.
And this repetitive cycle just means the next important issue in which republican politicians should be consulted with, will be the next important issue in which they are not consulted with. And the non-visionary republican politicians seem to like it that way since they can simply stay on the sidelines, have no real perspective, then bitch and moan whenever President Obama makes a military decision.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.
No comments:
Post a Comment