Discussion: Crowley Grills Susan Rice On Prisoner Swap: 'Did The US Negotiate With Terrorists?' (VIDEO)

Discussion for article #223376

It’s Sunday morning deja vu all over again.

7 Likes

Thanks for giving Darrell Issa MORE ideas, Candy!

PS You’re not blonde enough, skinny enough, or stupid enough to get a gig on FoxSpews, so give it a rest!

8 Likes

For Pete’s sake, could we get over this label “terrorist”? Throughout the history of civilization wars have involved negotiations. We could easily label any enemy a “terrorist.” Are we then unable to negotiate with anyone at any time? Candy is an idiot for perpetuating this meme.

Leave it to the media (and the GOP) to turn a success, like bringing home the only captured American, into a failure.

26 Likes

Heartless. I dare you to interview his parents and express that same point of view, Candy.

14 Likes

ADDED RICE: “Well, let me put it this way, Candy. Since when do we NOT negotiate with terrorists? We simply followed the precedent set by the great patriotic republican Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with terrorists and gave them weapons to secure the release of an American…except for the part of us giving them weapons.”

32 Likes

For Pete’s sake, could we get over this label “terrorist”?

I’m reminded of the old aphorism that “terrorists is what the big army calls the little army.”

13 Likes

…and then LIED about it.

23 Likes

The “media” is mixing taliban and al queda rather recklessly again.

19 Likes

there goes that “Liberal Media” again

4 Likes

Given that the GOP won’t shut up about BENGHAZI!, you’d think they would have worked out some solid talking points w/ her.

1 Like

I guess no one remembers how Reagan got the IRAN hostages back.

9 Likes

If we are going to call it a “war” on terrorism, then that implies that our adversaries are soldiers and the captured ones are prisoners of war. Exchange of POWs is a longtime tradition in warfare.

I don’t think we ever should have called it a “war” but now that we have we can hardly deny that status of combatants.

11 Likes

Oooh, that’s a good one.

You mean Carter, don’t you? The deal was negotiated by Warren Christopher, Carter’s Sec of State. There was no prisoner release involved on our side, only unfreezing of Iranian assets.

3 Likes

Spot on!

I seem to remember (though he conveniently didn’t) Reagan getting Israel to sell arms to Iran so we could get terrorists to release hostages in Lebanon, and then using the proceeds for the sales to illegally fund death squads in Nicaragua.

19 Likes

They have been denying it since 2001. If they are enemy combatants, then all of the people we are holding in Gitmo are prisoners of war, meaning the rules of war as dictated by the Geneva Convention apply. Which would specifically state that none of them can be tried for crimes against the US, and have to be released to their home countries once the war is over. Of course if they aren’t prisoners of war, then they are criminals and deserve a swift public trial by a jury of their peers. Those really are the only two legal options.

Note how the last two administrations has preferred to make up a third designation that is not recognized by the international community. Basically, these people we are holding in Gitmo are persona non grata, with no rights that can be thrown in a dark hole forever.

8 Likes

Always nice to watch the Cretins News network take their talking points from their Republican corporate masters. Crowley’s still trying to make up for not supporting the right candidate in the second presidential debate.

4 Likes

ReThugs…always first in line to suggest we go to war and stay on a permanent war footing, last in line to support our soldiers when we do, either on the battlefield, when captured, or here at home when they need care for their war injuries and overall health. But by all means media, don’t ever call them out on their hypocrisy…your heads might explode with all that thinking and what-not.

6 Likes