Are you sure you want to delete this post?
After reading a new report generated on Yahoo News, "When Bush Paid Terrorists a Ransom", I was appalled at the notion of Republicans, Tea Partiers and even Democrats upset with Obama negotiating Bergdahl's release. Since nobody has bothered to enter into a discussion on how and why America can continue holding the "proclaimed" terrorists in Gitmo, than I though it makes good comparison on what Bush had done in 2002. America has not legally charged these enemies and just keeps them locked up paying enormous sums of money we don't have.....for what? What can America do with them. You can't have a legal forum to charge or convict them, because there insufficient evidence to label them terrorists. They are rebellious countryman fighting for their own country. They will most likely return fighting for their cause when released.
Now, on Bush where he negotiated a sum of money $300,000.00 and paid the funds to the Al Qaeda in 2002. Why didn't America get upset over that payment to a "Terrorist organization"? Even after Bush performed a public speech on "not negotiating with terrorist", that did not stop his administration from paying out money to the Al Qaeda.
In Bergdahl's defense, he is a member of the armed forces and it is recanted in all branches of military, "leave no soldier behind". We parlayed for his release, which was costly releasing some dangerous POWs. So, which President acted in bad faith to their country, Bush or Obama? I believe Obama desires closing Gitmo, but in a phased approach releasing POWs as the war ends, than close Gitmo altogether.
Please read the Yahoo News article mentioned above.