On Tuesday's Morning Joe on MSNBC, normally left-leaning co-host Mika Brzezinski repeatedly showed skepticism toward President Obama's decision to release five high-value Taliban prisoners in exchange for the release of hostage Bowe Bergdahl from the Haqqani terrorist group.
In the absence of Joe Scarborough, Brzezinski introduced the show by recounting some of the correspondence involving anti-America and anti-military sentiments between Bergdahl and his parents, suggesting he may have deserted his post before he was captured.
As she turned to guest Al Hunt of Bloomberg View, she posed the question:
Is it fair to ask the question, "Why did the White House do it? Why did they do it?"? Five for one. Five dangerous prisoners for one. Five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who are deemed the worst of the worst in exchange for one soldier who has a questionable background.
She disapprovingly added:
I am sorry. It's wonderful that he's coming home, it's wonderful for his family, but does not this create more problems?
A bit later, as liberal panel member Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post defended the administration, Brzezinski jumped in to challenge him:
But do we give up five Gitmo prisoners? Do we give up five dangerous, do we endanger America's national security? Some would ask on the right.
After Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Rogers joined as a guest in the 7:00 a.m. hour, he argued that Bergdahl "was not a prisoner of war, he was with the Haqqani network, a terrorist organization," and visibly moved Brzezinski as he described the anti-woman and anti-girl actions perpetrated by the Taliban and their sympathizers in Afghanistan:
REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-MI): These are the guys who have shot little girls that were trying to go to school, that just poisoned something like 300 to 500 little girls for going to school. That's what you're dealing with. That's the Taliban. That's the kind of people we're trying to negotiate with. And that's what's so troubling. When we leave, the very women that we've asked to come out and participate in society are now in the hands of people who believe that women are like cattle.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, SHOWING EMOTION: Yeah.
ROGERS: And they're killing little girls for learning to read. So some notion that this is a noble exchange to cross the bridge with two law-abiding parties is wrong. And so if you negotiate with terrorists, they don't read the same messages that maybe any of us sitting at this table.
Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Tuesday, June 9, Morning Joe on MSNBC:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: But first, so many questions about the Bowe Bergdahl story with a lot of people, a lot of people on both sides of the aisle asking: Why did the White House do it? Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl could be back with his family by the end of the week. That is the good news, of course, but the questions surrounding his release will extend far beyond that. Much of the focus on how the young soldier was captured by the Taliban in the first place back in June of 2009. Multiple reports say Bergdahl sent an email to his parents just days before he went missing, writing, in part, quote, this:
"I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid. ... I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools. ... The horror that is America is disgusting."
His father reportedly responded, quote, "Obey your conscience." Three days later, his son apparently walked off his base without is weapon. In the months that followed, at least six American troops were killed in the mission to find their fellow soldier. Some of the family members of the fallen are speaking out along with others from Bergdahl's platoon.
(...)
And here's where it gets extremely controversial. In exchange for Bergdahl, the U.S. released these five senior Taliban members from Guantanamo Bay, as we've been discussing. They were seen celebrating in Qatar where they will be required to live for at least a year.
Just four days before Bo Bergdahl's release, his father Bob reportedly sent out and then deleted a tweet reading, quote, "I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, ameen!"
Supporters of the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, are defending the exchange as one of the "hard choices" of government. "Hard Choices" is the title of her forthcoming book.
But members of Congress complained they were not notified of the swap beforehand, and there are deep questions about whether these militants will pose a new threat to America.
Let's stop there. Let's go around the table. Al (Hunt), I'll let you start. First of all, is it fair to ask the question, "Why did the White House do it? Why did they do it?"? Five for one. Five dangerous prisoners for one. Five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who are deemed the worst of the worst in exchange for one soldier who has a questionable background. I am sorry. It's wonderful that he's coming home, it's wonderful for his family, but does not this create more problems?
(...)
EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST: Let's back up for a second. I think our policy has to be: These are our people. Leave no man or woman on the battlefield.
BRZEZINSKI: But do we give up five Gitmo prisoners? Do we give up five dangerous, do we endanger America's national security? Some would ask on the right.
(...)
REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-MI), IN THE 7:00 AM HOUR: And remember, these are the guys who have shot little girls that were trying to go to school, that just poisoned something like 300 to 500 little girls for going to school. That's what you're dealing with. That's the Taliban. That's the kind of people we're trying to negotiate with. And that's what's so troubling. When we leave, the very women that we've asked to come out and participate in society are now in the hands of people who believe that women are like cattle.
BRZEZINSKI, SHOWING EMOTION: Yeah.
ROGERS: And they're killing little girls for learning to read. So some notion that this is a noble exchange to cross the bridge with two law-abiding parties is wrong. And so if you negotiate with terrorists, they don't read the same messages that maybe any of us sitting at this table.
