(09-30-2023, 01:47 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(09-30-2023, 10:30 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: You're parsing the argument in order to find wiggle room. But that's neither here nor there. The premise of the entire argument is we had someone the Russians wanted badly, and we gave him up for a cheap political consolation prize. 

Should Griner still be in prison? If we had earnestly negotiated with the Russians, the answer is yes if they weren't willing to give us Whelan and Griner. Whelan should have been first in queue to be repatriated and we had the negotiating piece to do it. Now we don't and probably never will again until Whelan serves out his sentence. 

I don't know why you are so hell bent on defending Biden's obvious faux pas. It's really puzzling.

You assert without evidence that Whelan should have been "first in line".  On what basis do you make this judgement? Russia decided Griner should be first in line.  Suppose you are the negotiator.  Do you leave them both in prison until Russia agrees with you that Whelan should be freed first?

I see now my answer was not clear. Whelan should have been the negotiating prize. If the release of only one person was all that Russia would negotiate, it would be Whelan. However, considering the value of Bout, getting both released for Bout in exchange was achievable. But only if Biden's handlers were willing to play hardball, and they were not. Freeing the black lesbian was essential to their cause and the Russians knew it and capitalized on it. Why do you think they imprisoned her in the first place?

If someone is considered first in line, what does that typically indicate?

If you're negotiating, do you allow the other side to set all of the conditions?

Come on, Mike, you can do this. I know you can.

---