Reince Priebus’ Letter To Mr. And Mrs. Bergdahl

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bergdahl,

Hello. You probably don’t know me, but my name is Reince Priebus. I am head of the Republican Party, when Rush Limbaugh is off the air or under the influence of narcotics. I am the guy who, along with Mitt Romney, began exploiting the Benghazi tragedy before we even knew what happened or how many had been killed. I told the world how pathetic it was that President Obama “sympathizes with attackers.” Heck, I said that before I knew any of the facts. That’s how propagandistically efficient I am, when it comes to The Scary Negro.

Now, it has probably come to your attention that my party is pedal-to-the-metal exploiting the release from captivity of your son, Bowe. I heard a Fox host say this morning, with jubilation in his voice, that “This story is just getting rolling, really.” Isn’t it nice to have friends? And it isn’t just Fox. Today on MSNBC—Allah love ’em!—the talk has been about how questionable it was for the President to do what he did to get your son back. You know, “Was it too much of a price to pay?” Or “Did Obama negotiate with terrorists?” and all that stuff. It’s a beautiful thing, ain’t it? We have spent years criticizing Obama for not calling this the War on Terror and when he obviously treats it like a real war, with POW swaps and everything, we get to criticize him for that, too! Awesome!

In any case, I wanted you to know why my party has no shame in using the occasion of your son’s release to slam him and the President, even if, like with Benghazi, we don’t have all the facts. Indeed, we have gone to a lot of trouble to provide the media with plenty of soldiers who knew your son and who say they are angry he was swapped out for five Taliban prisoners in Gitmo. And we are generating a lot of rumors and half- and quarter-truths surrounding the disappearance of your boy and the subsequent search for him. It doesn’t really matter what the facts are at this point, what matters is that we smear President Obama. And if that means ripping apart your son, so be it. I hope you know what I mean.

Look, we’re desperate. We’ve been out of power now for a long time. We have only received the majority of the popular vote in a presidential election once in our last six tries. And that year we only got 50.7% of the vote. So, perhaps you can see why we find it necessary to do anything we can to get back in power, including trashing your son and the President who secured his release. Yes, we know that normally we are rah-rah guys when it comes to the military. Normally we would cheer at the keeping of a long military tradition of not leaving any soldier, no matter the circumstances of his disappearance, in enemy hands.

But you have to understand that these aren’t normal times. And President Obama is not a normal president. He is a weak leader—we claim. We have to keep telling people how weak he is because if they ever stopped and thought about it, if they ever checked into it, they would begin to see that the President has been pretty damned tough on the international scene, especially when it comes to hunting down and snuffing out terrorists. Since he took office, he has killed all kinds of al Qaeda leaders. And I’m not just talking about Osama bin Laden. He has killed top al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, Kenya, and elsewhere. At one point they were dropping like drone-dead flies. He’s been so good at it that left-wingers have compared him to Dick Cheney, for God’s sake!

And besides all that, there is a possible long-term upside to negotiating, directly or indirectly, with the Taliban. Maybe it will prove to be a useful thing in the future, as we pull most of our troops out of Afghanistan. Maybe it will prove to be a brilliant strategy that will help save lives over there and help us better manage the transition, even possibly reduce the intensity of the conflict. If that’s the case, it is even more imperative that we Republicans poison the well right now. Before Americans start thinking about the good that might—I said might—come.

Thus, you can see, I hope, that it was necessary to use the tragedy in Benghazi—oh, yes, we are still using it—to put doubts in the minds of the American people about this president’s leadership and that of his obvious successor, Mrs. Clinton. And, unfortunately for you and your soldier son, the release of Bowe Bergdahl is another opportunity that we simply couldn’t pass up. And this one is even better than Benghazi! Some journalists are already starting to talk about impeachment! That’s efficiency, I tell ya!

I do want to warn you about something, something kind of delicate. In the course of our campaign to exploit this incident, it will sound like we think President Obama should have let your son, the last POW from those interminable Bush-authored wars, rot in the custody of the Taliban. It will sound like we think the Commander in Chief should have said to hell with the long and nearly sacred tradition of “no soldier left behind” and let your son die in captivity. Well, not only does it sound like that, that is what our position entails.

You see, we can’t be happy that your son is back at home, no matter what he did or didn’t do. That would mean that we are happy that President Obama did what he did. And admitting that, Mr. and Mrs. Bergdahl, will never happen. It just isn’t possible. It is not in my or the GOP’s DNA to give President Obama a jot or tittle of credit, no matter what he does. We can’t even credit him for good intentions. Hell, he’s in Europe right now, and if he decided to execute a flying forearm smash in the face of Vladimir Putin and take back Crimea single-handedly, you know what we’d do? We would have a segment on Fox five minutes later questioning whether flying forearm smashes erode the dignity of the office! More propagandistic efficiency!

Finally, I wanted you to know that there is a way of handling all this that might be good for everyone, depending on your politics. Your son, by some accounts (that we provided, of course!), was kind of, uh, different. He didn’t want to “drink beer or eat barbecue and hang out with the other 20-year-olds.” Apparently he spent a lot of time in his bunk reading books and “learning Dari and Arabic and Pashto.” Someone said he “wrote Jason Bourne-type novels,” casting himself in the leading role. We know that you, as devout Calvinists, home-schooled your son and taught him “ethics and morality.” You said, “Bowe was definitely instilled with truth.” And that leads me to a little scheme I’ve been thinking about.

When your son finally comes home, maybe you can instill in him a new truth. One that would make your entire family heroes to all those who are bashing you guys now. It is simple really: Convince Bowe to say that, yes, he walked off his base. Yes, he was uncomfortable with the war effort. But the real reason he was uncomfortable with it, the real reason he left his fellow soldiers that day, was because he did not respect President Obama’s leadership. All he has to say is that the President was so weak as a Commander in Chief that he, Bowe Bergdahl, couldn’t take it anymore. He had to get away, even if it meant capture by the enemy.

If he says that, I guarantee you that I and Rush Limbaugh and other leaders of the Republican Party will forgive him—forgive you!—and welcome all of you back as patriotic Americans on a special one-hour Sean Hannity program. It is that easy. I promise.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus

[Photo of Bowe Bergdahl provided by Bergdhal family, via Rolling Stone]

7 Comments

  1. Brilliant! Truth in a mirror.

    Like

  2. Reblogged this on Power To The Voters and commented:
    Great post addressing this RWNJ take on this soldier who has just spent 5 yrs. in captivity.

    Like

  3. I liked this so much I posted it on my blog.

    Like

  4. Good job with the satire. Will circulate it.

    Like

  5. King Beauregard

     /  June 4, 2014

    I have a sneaky feeling, unfortunately, that Republicans are going to use this issue to try to impeach. They won’t have the numbers — not this year anyway — but they’ll still try to make a thing of it. Here’s how.

    Recently, at a certain online toilet, someone challenged me as an “Obamabot” to counter Greenwald’s claim that Obama is a big hypocrite for trading away five Gitmo prisoners but making like he can’t just let them all go. So I did a little research — like no more than five minutes’ worth (which was still five more than Greenwald did) — and realized that Obama is breaking the law to save Bergdahl. Yes, Obama has the authority to release Gitmo prisoners, but only if he gives Congress 30 days’ notice, and if he takes reasonable assurances to keep the former prisoners from threatening the United States. Obama definitely blew the first condition, and as for that latter condition … ? There’s not a damn thing Obama can do to keep five high-ranking Taliban figures from rejoining their organization, and most likely gunning for Americans in particular.

    And it’s that last part where Republicans are going to look for opportunities to say that Obama let known ranking Taliban figures go free, and they have participated in attacks that have killed Americans. That will be all the evidence they need to go all “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Again, they won’t have the numbers to impeach — not this year anyway, and hopefully not next year either — but at the very least it will be red meat for their “Obama is a threat to us all” campaign.

    Like

  6. Bill

     /  June 4, 2014

    Hi, a quick summary of the democrat level of intelligence. Y’know, the level of feel good about myself, for the children, believe every word that is uttered by obama. Y’know, the sycophant syndrome that is endemic in the liberal world of fantasy. Followed by the understanding that reality must be difficult if not impossible for you libs to grasp. The words from the soldiers who were in direct contact on a daily basis confirm the extent that this piece of excrement went to desert and sell out the soldiers who were stationed there. There is no doubt that his actions cost the lives of US troops. As always, to a lib the end result is good if the US Military suffers a loss. There is no humor, no facicious dialog, no irony, no just payback when a traitorous coward causes the deaths of honorable men.

    Like

    • Bill,

      You seem to know as much about liberals as you do about the American concept of justice, which is to say not much.

      I won’t spend a lot of time debunking your notion of what it means to be a liberal, but suffice it to say that it has exactly nothing to do with believing “every word that is uttered by obama” [sic]. Anyone paying attention to the whole NSA debate, or who knows anything about the way liberals feel about drone strikes, knows that President Obama is under some serious scrutiny from the left.

      But I really think you revealed your lack of awareness of, or appreciation for, what Americans pride themselves in as Americans: innocence into guilt is proven. I know many of you conservatives, authoritarians to the core, don’t much like the idea of waiting until all the facts are in before you determined that this soldier sold out his fellow soldiers. Or that he is a traitor. Or coward. Or even caused “the deaths of honorable men.” He may very well be all those things and in fact contributed to the deaths of other soldiers. But I know you don’t know if any of that is true. Yet you write as if you do. And that is what is wrong with so many on your side. When it comes to Obama, you guys don’t need any real facts. You just need a rumor. Or a suggestion. Or tenuous evidence. Or mirky claims. And off you go.

      Duane

      Like

%d bloggers like this: