Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
Specific to the 5,000. I've seen it used in Dem talking point as a whatabout. No problem with whatabouts (but not the excessive one-after-another) as they are good to make sure we consider both sides. However, IMO the comparison with Griner is not great. That swap, at that time, was a pretty good trade and for good intentions. It didn't turn out well, but we (including majority of GOP & Dems) were looking for excuses to get out of the country and try for a Taliban-Afghan peace talk ... one last time.
Trump admin. agreed to release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners | verifythis.com |
As I said it is not an apples to apples comparison. For me, the comparison is based on the assumption of risk to the US. Worse case scenario with Bout is he will recreate his network and sell guns that will kill Americans. Worse case scenario with Taliban prisoners is they will recreate what they had and that recreation will result in the killing of Americans. My guess is the current administration believes that Bout is not enough of a threat to the US to force Griner to remain in a Russian prison. My guess is the administration of the day believed that the released Taliban prisoners were not enough of a threat to prevent the pursuit of peace in Afghanistan. If Bout goes home and becomes a family man and never involves himself in the illegal gun trade, then this is a pretty good trade and for good intentions. If a terrorist attack happens and we find out that some of those former prisoners were a part of that attack or money changed hands to bring about the prisoner release,then that is not a pretty good trade and/or not for good intentions.
Of course none of this addresses why it seems people(besides Brian) would have been ok if the swap was Whelan for Bout as oppose to Griner for Bout.