Republi-CON Political Opportunism and Hypocrisy, Cont.

UPDATE V:  "Critics question whether Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl should have been rescued from the Taliban in light of claims that he was both a deserter and a ballerina."

Watch The Colbert Report, Bergdghazi:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

Again, this is possibly the most brazen and disgusting political opportunism and hypocrisy I have ever heard.  Republi-cons would have preferred Bergdahl be publicly beheaded before giving any credit to Obama.

UPDATE IV:  "Rep. Richard B. Nugent (R-Fla.), a lawmaker whose three sons have served in the military, made the case of captive soldier Bowe Bergdahl a personal cause. Nugent delivered speeches about Bergdahl on the House floor. He introduced two resolutions affirming that the United States would not abandon him in Afghanistan.

What Nugent wanted, he told a crowd at a rally for Bergdahl in February, was for 'the United States to do everything possible not to leave any members of the armed forces behind.'

But now, Nugent says that — when he said 'do everything possible' — he did not actually mean everything. Now that Bergdahl is free, the Florida Republican has become a critic of the deal that freed him. . .

Nugent is one of several conservatives in Congress who have made a similar shift this week. First, they demanded that President Obama get Bergdahl back. Then, when the soldier was released, they blasted Obama for giving up too much to get him.

Those conservatives have been mocked by Democrats and cable-news talkers, who accuse them of playing politics. “It is clear they are worried his release could be seen as a victory for President Obama,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

In interviews and statements, some in the group have said they did not contradict themselves. They always wanted Bergdahl back. They expected it might take a deal with the Taliban. Indeed, the broad outlines of this deal — including the five Taliban commanders to be exchanged — had been discussed publicly since at least 2011.

But still, these conservatives say, they didn't expect the final deal would be this bad.

In February, The Washington Post reported on the revival of talks to free Bergdahl in exchange for releasing five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the custody of Qatar — the exact outlines of the deal that was eventually announced. When asked at the time by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about reports of such a deal, Sen. John S. McCain (R-Ariz.) said he might support an agreement for Bergdahl that included some kind of prisoner exchange.

'Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing [Bergdahl] home, and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider,' McCain said.

But after Obama announced Saturday that he had swapped the Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl, McCain criticized the exchange as 'a mistake.' . .

Several members of Congress from both parties issued tweets celebrating Bergdahl’s return, only to delete them as the story grew murky. . .

Just after Bergdahl’s release, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) released a statement that said: 'Our prayers have been answered and we offer our thanks for the perseverance of the family and the many Idahoans who have kept this vigil. We appreciate the men and women who made this release possible.'

Five days later, Crapo expressed doubts about the exchange, telling a local news outlet: 'I believe that is a problem . . . that could potentially result in a problem for our national security.'"

Read the Washington Post, The Bergdahl boomerang: GOP lawmakers who long urged a rescue now sour on the idea. 

In other words, Republi-cons were for doing everything possible to get the POW back, before they were against doing anything to save him. 

This is possibly the most brazen and disgusting political opportunism and hypocrisy I have ever heard.  Republi-cons would have preferred Bergdahl be publicly beheaded before giving any credit to Obama.

UPDATE III:  "So the prisoner exchange in Afghanistan is 'much like' the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya because, in both cases, the administration did or didn’t do something and then later gave an account of why it did or didn’t do that something. Scandalous.

And this is just the beginning of the uncanny similarities. Both events happened — you’re not going to believe this — under President Obama! And in both instances, one of the people involved was — yes, you guessed it — Susan Rice! Don’t forget that Bergdahl and Benghazi both begin with the letter 'B,' and although Afghanistan is in Asia and Libya is in Africa, both continents begin with the letter 'A.' . .

A bit of idle speculation was all Obama’s critics (particularly those at Fox) needed to fire up the Benghazi scandal machine. . .

Former congressman Allen West (R-Fla.) found the two instances similar because 'there is a lot to this whole episode — like Benghazi — that we may never know.'

Luckily for West, knowledge is not a requirement. He has already declared l’affaire Bergdahl an impeachable offense."

Read the Washington Post, From Bergdahl to Benghazi, Republicans fire up the scandal machine. 

UPDATE II: How important is the Benghazi so-called scandal to the Republi-con reelection strategy?

Says Iowa Republi-con Rep. Steve King "We need to try this thing, really, in the public eye, the autopsy of Ambassador Stevens should be released to the public. That's another piece of information that's missing."

Read Slate, What House Conservatives Want From the Benghazi Committee.

UPDATE:  What ever happened to the [fill in the blank] scandal.  "It went the way of pretty much every Obama administration 'scandal,' which is that it turned out to be not nearly as scandalous as Republicans had hoped.

In fact, a clear pattern has emerged on how these scandals have unfolded, one that might be helpful to keep in mind as we start paying attention to [yet another so-called scandal]. Here’s a handy guide:

Stage 1: Worse than . . .

Stage 2: The facts show something problematic, but . . .

Stage 3: The (not so) dramatic hearings.

Stage 4: The rage at the media for not paying enough attention.

Stage 5: The last gasp."

Read the Washington Post, The five stages of GOP scandal-mongering: A reader’s guide. 

Repeat as necessary, the same or another so-called scandal, with indignation and outrage.

"If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home."

Read the The New Yorker, Ronald Reagan’s Benghazi.

Read also:

The Daily Dolt, Rumsfeld Asserts Embassy Attacks Due To "Perceived American Weakness." Wait, How Many Embassy Attacks Were There Under Bush?,

The Huffington Post, 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

The Huffington Post, Jon Stewart Tears Fox News Apart For Benghazi Hypocrisy, which notes the lack of Hedgehog News hysteria over "a long list of intelligence failures under the Bush administration, including a pre-9/11 report on Osama bin Laden's intentions to strike inside the U.S. and the false claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which led to the 2003 U.S. invasion", and

Media Matters, Krauthammer Whitewashes Bush's History To Bash Obama Over Embassy Attack, which includes a list of embassy attacks over the last 35 years.

See also, Republi-CON Political Opportunism and Hypocrisy.