Sometimes I watch the main stream media with absolute amazement.  With all the hyperventilating about the Bergdahl for Taliban exchange, no one seems to be addressing the single most important issue.  Why did President Obama do this?   A President of the United States has a right and a duty to do the necessary to protect the country.  That is the reason a President on occasion may violate the law and even the constitution.  The duty to protect the country is absolute.  Lincoln is considered to be a great president even though he clearly violated both the constitution and the law.  Some may argue whether or not it was necessary for him to do some of these things but it is indisputable that the reason Lincoln made these decisions was because he felt they were necessary to save the country.  FDR also violated both the constitution and the law prior to and during World War II.  Again some may argue as to whether or not some of these actions were necessary but it is indisputable that FDR made these decisions because he felt the national security was at stake.

Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury, yet he was acquitted by the Senate because Democratic Senators did not consider this to be a serious enough crime.  The majority of Republican Senators felt it was serious enough.  So I guess to some extent there is a different standard for Republicans and Democrats.  Other Presidents have probably violated some laws but this was ignored because it did not impact national security. This is not a minor issue.  In making this deal President Obama may have damaged national security.

Unlike the other scandals there is no difficulty linking this one to President Obama.  He admitted that he personally made the decision.  He said he did so because Bergdahl’s health appeared to have been deteriorating.  How is Bergdahl’s health a threat to national security?   How is anything that happens to Bergdahl a threat to national security.  Yes, we are glad to see him back home, regardless of what he did.  But there are other American citizens held hostage all over the world.  No one is arguing that failure to get them released represents a threat to national security.  A sad situation, yes.  A human tragedy, yes.  A threat to national security, no.

The President of the United States has the same duty to follow the law as everyone else, unless his higher duty to protect the country overrides.   Where is the higher duty here?   If anything, this decision harmed national security.  If breaking a law, for purely political purposes to do something harmful to national security is not a high crime and misdemeanor what would be required to meet that standard?

The question that must be asked is why did President Obama do this.  If he doesn’t have a satisfactory answer the constitution provides guidance on what to do.

TDM