The left is doing what it always does when it's caught doing something stupid and wrong. It's trying to redefine the issue, and very dishonestly.
Now that Bowe Bergdahl is being charged with desertion, the initial criticism of the Obama Administration's deal to get him back is being revived. In case you've forgotten, the U.S. released five Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for the Taliban's release of Bergdahl. Obama then held a high-profile Rose Garden ceremony announcing Bergdahl's release, with Bergdahl's parents in attendance. National Security Advisor Susan Rice picked up on the sentiment when she declared that Bergdahl had served with "honor and distinction."
The criticisms of this deal were based on a) the horrible deal Obama made, letting five high-level terrorists go for one American deserter; b) the completely unnecessary and inappropriate Rose Garden ceremony to celebrate the guy, along with Rice's wholly undeserved praise of him.
At no point have I heard anyone argue that the Army should have left Bergdahl behind, and I certainly agree that they should not have done so. Yes, regardless of how or why he got captured, he is still one of ours and we should bring him home. That is not in dispute. But that doesn't mean you should agree to absolutely any condition the enemy demands for the release, and it certainly doesn't mean you claim he served with honor and distinction when he did anything but.
The left is now trying to frame the issue as if the only thing they have to justify is not leaving him behind, as if the right is arguing they should have done exactly that. No. What they have to justify is why they agreed to such a horrible deal, and why they lied about the true nature of Bergdahl's "service," which was clearly dishonorable and without distinction.
The answer to the first question is probably a combination of two things. The first is the Obama and his people are terrible negotiators. They either refuse to negotiate at all (such as when they're dealing with Republicans) because they don't care what the outcome is and they figure they can spin any outcome to their political advantage, or they are far too eager to give up whatever the other side wants (as when they're dealing with enemy nations and/or terrorists) because they want the deal so badly. The second is that Obama desperately wants to close Gitmo, so anything he can do to empty the place out is fine with him.
As to the second question - why they claimed he served with honor when he was actually a deserter - maybe they just say all kinds of BS without even checking to see if it's true. This guy that was freed? Oh yeah. Served with honor and distinction. Blah blah blah. Like I know. Who is he again?
At any rate, don't let them get away with claiming they're being criticized for not leaving him behind. That is not, and never has been, the issue.
