No one is forcing Jen Psaki to do this job, so I have no sympathy, but I'll just make the objective observation that most days the job must seem impossible to her. Why do you even go on Megyn Kelly's show when you're going to be confronted with a question as impossible to ask as this: How could you trade 5 terrorists being held at Gitmo for one U.S. soldier likely to be charged with desertion, especially now that a) he is indeed being so charged; and b) most of those terrorists are now getting ready to return to the Taliban?
Your only choices are to admit it was a colossal screwup, which Psaki is never going to do, or try to keep changing the subject, which Kelly isn't going to let you get away with. That's how you end up with a fiasco like this interview:
Psaki tries to squirm out of this by saying, hey, we have a responsibility to those who serve, and Obama has to make tough decisions. Well sure, but that's not the question here. The question concerns the terms of the deal. We release five Taliban commanders who head over to Qatar for an obligatory yearlong transition before going right back to the battlefield. Meanwhile, we get a guy who not only deserted but held nothing back in expressing his disdain for the Army and for America in the process.
Sounds like a good deal? Of course not. Then again, look at the pattern of the way Obama negotiates with America's enemies. He's ready to put Iran on a path to a nuclear weapon in 10 years while lifting the sanctions and getting in return - what? A hollow promise of inspections? He announces his intention to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba, only to see the Cubans demand the end of the trade embargo as a condition for even talking about it. Then again, when it comes to budget negotiations, Obama refuses to even talk to Republicans, and he's more than happy to see the government shut down as a result because he knows who the media will blame.
By the way, if it's so obvious to Psaki that it's in our national security interests to close Gitmo, maybe she could explain that one a little bit. Gitmo allows us to keep enemy combatants off the battlefield for as long as we deem necessary, without having to put them in the U.S. justice system because we don't bring them onto U.S. soil. That seems about as advantageous as a situation can be to America. The only downside liberals seem to keep carping about is that it upsets people. Who cares? Besides, who is carping the loudest and making it an issue? American liberals. If it's a national security threat to have people upset about Gitmo, maybe liberals should protect the national interest and shut their pie holes about it.
