The Brittney Griner Exchange

1. 82

   GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

   I should let this one go, but after a couple of early morning hours listening to the media coverage of the deal, I'm thinking further details and considerations won't change my mind. This prisoner exchange was a bad decision with damaging repercussions. A strong leader—of any party—would not have made that deal.
   
   I might have been able to wait if not for CNN's John Lemon. In almost every panel discussion and monologue, the top talking point 'pats on the back' celebrations were: her LGBT status, her race, her gender as a woman, and last would be that she was an American citizen.
   
   There should be no celebrations because, as a nation, we suffered from this exchange, but if there must be one, that she is an American citizen should have been at the top of the list.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Perspycaciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I believe that "first come, first served" should have been the approach.  Russia owed their colonel big time (he faced the balance of 25 years in a US prison),  Whelan was imprisoned by the Russians to secure his release, and we left Whelan imprisoned in exchange for a basketball player who was recently imprisoned.  It should have been BOTH or Whelan first.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         peeplesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         You do know that Whelan was dishonorably discharged from the Marines and was caught in Russia with a flash drive with state info right? All of the facts behind the Whelan case make it substantially harder to get him back.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Perspycaciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Whelan was set up with a flash drive planted on him so he could be used for an exchange.  The exchange for the person he was set up for has taken place, but not for Whelan.  He is now sitting there in prison waiting for the next high value Russian prisoner similar to Bout.  Let's hope President Biden already has one such person to dicker for, and this exchange was not just American politics all over again.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               peeplesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               He admitted to getting the flash drive from a friend and later claimed he thought it had Christmas pictures on it. You truly believe he thought that?

               replyreport
               1. 99

                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Neither you or I know that. If you went to Russia though and some LGBT person met you and told you about the persecution there and asked you to take a flash drive and publish the documents when you got back to the US, would you do it? I know most of us would. Does a person who accepted that flash drive deserve to spend years in a Russian prison for that?

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     peeplesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     At no point have I said he deserves to be there. I'm harping on the fact that obviously, an actual criminal, who admitted to taking a flash drive that then had state secrets on them, is going to be harder to get out. And honestly I'm a bit sad everyone is completely ignoring the fact this guy was a criminal here on US soil just because he's a veteran. None of our people should stay there. But I really wish we could stop pretending the word veteran equals good person.

                     replyreport
                     1. 99

                        DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        What do you mean "this guy was a criminal here on US soil"?
                        Yes, I realize you have not said that. I was just pointing out that most of us would accept the pen drive.

                        replyreport
                        1. 92

                           peeplesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           Paul whelan, the ex Marine in Russia, was a criminal here. He was dishonorably discharged from the Marines due to that. He was charged with attempted larceny, three specifications of dereliction of duty, making a false official statement, wrongfully using another's social security number (identity theft), and ten knowingly bad checks.

                           replyreport
      2. 82

         GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         That's a fair point too, but it is not part of the OP's reasoning. The 'rightness' or fairness of taking what you can get when you can't get what you want is secondary to the OP's point.
         
         We handed Putin a victory that strengthens him and weakens us.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Total bilge-water, Sharlee
         
         It is an unmerited assualt on Biden to imply that he got Griner out because she was Black, etc. It was mentioned earlier that Whalen is being held in regards to more serious crimes from the Russian standpoint.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, Russia made it clear that they were only dealing one to one Griner for Bout.  I'm glad they made the deal.  Victor Bout is absolutely of no consequence to us, he will essentially never be able to leave Russia.   I expect this administration to bring Mr Whalen home ASAP also. I don't care who they have to give up.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               True, at least Biden did accomplish something, and it gives me confidence that he will work to bring home others.

               replyreport
         2. 60

            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Makes you wonder why Mr Trump never burdened his good buddy Putin to release Whelan? Mr.  Trump turned down an opportunity to swap Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout for Paul Whelan, according to John Bolton.
            And now Mr. Trump attacks President  Biden for not doing something he failed to do himself. 
            Mr "art of the deal" remained silent on Whalen his entire term.
            
            
            https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/04/wh … in-russia/

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               There is a great difference between Trump and Biden. Trump did not deal with terrorists.  He Governed from strength. Biden is a weak president that will do whatever he feels might garner him votes in the next election, as he clearly subverted the 2020 election with attempts to control social media, to hide all his dirty secrets.  Just a very corrupt human being, would sell his mother for a vote, or a bit of oil.
               
               Or this ---   It’s beyond ironic that President Biden has single-handedly assured [Mohammed bin Salman] can escape accountability when it was President Biden who promised the American people he would do everything to hold him accountable. Not even the Trump administration did this.
               
               The Biden administration has told a US court that Mohammed bin Salman should be granted sovereign immunity in a civil case involving the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, effectively ending a last-ditch attempt to hold the Saudi crown prince legally accountable for the 2018 killing.
               
               It's all about votes... LOL

               replyreport
            2. 79

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I see that we are virutally being overrun with "Monday morning quarterbacks".
               
               I fail to understand why this Trump fellow is portrayed as some superhero, as someone who could have always had done anything better
               
               Trump has a sinister spell over people that defies all logic. If it were up to Trump, we would have been left empty handed as indicated over 2 years ago.

               replyreport
         3. 85

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Really, in my view, the US played its strongest card to get someone out of jail free...  So, if the media feels the Russians value Whelan as the prize they would trade him for their biggest prize.
            
            When it comes to the unknown, which is all we are working with, how about adding a few other scenarios? One is as good as the other or is we just not allowed to do that?
            
            Biden could have very well had a choice as to who came home. We will never really know the specifics of the deal, will we? 
            
            Faye offered an interesting blurb
            "Mr.  Trump turned down an opportunity to swap Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout for Paul Whelan, according to John Bolton."
            
            So does this not give one room for the thought that Putin gave Biden a choice, Whelan or Griener?
            
            My scenario is as good as the media...  Either can be confirmed as fact.
            https://nypost.com/2022/12/08/trump-tur … hn-bolton/

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               If you were not at the negation table, Sharlee, it would be difficult to say what was and what was not possible. To assume the worse intentions concerning Biden without any evidence is unfair. And you always want me to give a proven criminal, Donald Trump, an undeserved benefit of the doubt.
               
               There are any number of differing scenarios, who are any of us that were not there in a position to determine what scenarios were in fact available at the negotiation table?
               
               Any one of us can only speculate.....

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  How logical, same spin media has protrade for days now... You are a good subject, I mean learner.   
                  
                  Let me clarify, I sought to prove a point,  we actually did the same thing --- we you and I alike assumed. The difference is,  mine is unique to me... Yours is unique to what the media is spouting.
                  
                  You are reading into what you feel Biden did, as did I.  So do either of us have evidence?  Yet both of us have chosen to view what was done. So yes anyone can speculate.
                  
                  Trump was not part of the conversation before Faye decide to bring him in with a quote from Bolton.  I just pointed out a link to describe Trump's current thoughts and his administration's (Bolton)  actions were very different in regard to dealing with terrorists. Which is and was pretty typical up to the Biden administration. His problem-solving leaves one questioning why the change in how and why a president would deal in this manner. 
                  
                  I just asked a what-if --- So does this not give one room for the thought that Putin gave Biden a choice, Whelan or Griener? Please read my comment, the context does not request or even hint  I  want you to give Donald Trump, an undeserved benefit of the doubt.
                  
                  It is very apparent you reading something into my comment.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     "The difference is,  mine is unique to me... Yours is unique to what the media is spouting."
                     
                     Yes, perhaps my opinion aligns with that of the media. The entire national media lies to protect Biden? I doubt it.
                     
                     What is the source of the basis of your doubt beyond your own opinion?
                     
                     I did read the NY post article, was a better alternative to leave anyone in Russian custody if it could be avoided? We could debate forever the value of apples vs oranges in the trade, but an American was brought home through the only means possible and more may come afterwards.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        "Yes, perhaps my opinion aligns with that of the media. The entire national media lies to protect Biden? I doubt it."
                        
                        Again I did not imply that. Media has been given this scenario  Biden told reporters that Russia was treating Whelan’s case – who has been sitting in a Russian prison since 2018 – differently for "totally illegitimate reasons" but pledged to keep working to bring the former Marine home.
                        
                        Yet as Faye pointed out Bolton claimed a few days ago, Russia was willing to trade this same thug for Whelan, and Trump would not consider the deal. So, am I to take Biden at his word, he has been very dishonest throughout his campaigning, and as president. And in my view much of the time the media does cover his butt.
                        
                        We were discussing possibilities for why Griener was returned, and more or less why not Whelan. Just possibilities, because we have no facts. We do have OP from the new media. And I just pointed out you pretty much repeated what is being reported.
                        
                        It appears you feel it is acceptable, which is your right, you are most likely in the minority.  I pointed out another what-if scenario, mine very much biased by my view own of Biden. I considered his history, and how he governs from a position of weakness.  I am sure you could argue that. But as you know it would do little good, and benefit either of us.

                        replyreport
      2. 90

         IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         This is pure... BS.
         
         Your comment? I agree.
         
         Whelan said that while he is happy for Griner, he was surprised when he found out that he would not be part of the prisoner swap along with the WNBA star.
         
         "they’ve put me at a level higher than what they did with Trevor (Reed) and Brittney"
         
         Whelan said he was aware that he was considered in a different category than Griner – “the Russians have always said so.”
         
         “They’ve always considered me to be at a higher level than other criminals of my sort and for whatever reason, I’m treated differently than another individual here from a Western country that’s also on a charge of espionage. So even though we’re both here for espionage, I’m treated much differently than he is, and my treatment is also much different than others held for espionage at other prisons,” Whelan said.
         
         Whelan’s brother, David Whelan, released a statement on Thursday echoing his brother’s sentiments of happiness for Griner and “disappointment” for his family.
         
         “It is so important to me that it is clear that we do not begrudge Ms. Griner her freedom,” he said. “It has always been a strong possibility that one might be freed without the other.”
         
         Paul Whelan’s sister, Elizabeth Whelan praised the release of Griner, saying that she didn’t want the news of her brother being left behind to overshadow the good news about the WNBA player.
         
         Elizabeth Whelan said she believes the Russians wanted to deny Biden a win by releasing both of the American wrongful detainees.
         
         Elizabeth Whelan also told CNN that she does not believe her brother knows the extent of the efforts to free him, noting the family has to be careful what they tell him because they assume the Russian authorities are listening. She also noted that the foreign country is always going to paint news in their own favor, so Paul Whelan likely won’t know the full picture until he is freed.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I am aware of the media coverage of this issue. And my post was very much meant to be very sarcastic, as I am frequently in regard to the Biden administration.  I think this subject goes far beyond my sarcastic blurb, and your Google glop.
            
            I responded to part of GA's Op ---
            
            "I might have been able to wait if not for CNN's John Lemon. In almost every panel discussion and monologue, the top talking point 'pats on the back' celebrations were: her LGBT status, her race, her gender as a woman, and last would be that she was an American citizen."
            
            Maybe concentrate on the crimes of the guy we traded for Griner,  and that we handed Putin a true win,  and the BS is all over this weak excuse of a president we have sitting in the White House. 
            
            I am with GA  ---   " This prisoner exchange was a bad decision with damaging repercussions. A strong leader—of any party—would not have made that deal."

            replyreport
         2. 90

            IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The brother of former Marine Paul Whelan, who has been imprisoned in Russia for nearly four years, slammed former President Trump on Friday after Trump criticized the Biden administration for the deal it struck to free WNBA star Brittney Griner but not Whelan.
            
            David Whelan said in a post on Twitter that Trump seems to have mentioned his brother’s wrongful detention more in the past 24 hours than he did during the two years of his presidency during which Whelan was imprisoned.
            
            “I don’t suggest he cares now any more than he did then (zero),” he said.

            replyreport
   3. 79

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      GA, I really don't know what the beef is here, half a loaf is better than none, you can add that to your "two wrongs don't make a right".
      
      No, we did not suffer, we benefitted by getting at least one American out.
      Considering the international climate and the less than ideal relations between the US and Russia, I can easily find cause to celebrate. Biden did say that he would continue to find a way out for whelan.
      
      I am not noticing the adjectives and adverbs hanging on to Griner in regards to her release, just the fact that it was accomplished.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         You should have listened to CNN's morning coverage. You would have heard those adjectives and adverbs from almost every talking head.
         
         As for your 'half a loaf' thought, that seems to be the boiled-down results of the details. Consider what your 'boiled-down' half-a-loaf is.
         
         The context is a confrontation between a dictatorial aggressor and a representative defender. The aggressor has what the defender wants and knows the populace's effect on the power of the "representative" defender.
         
         The context of this result is that Putin gave us a small pawn for a big pawn's price. He gained the prestige of sending us away with 'half-a-loaf'  and a world's image of us celebrating this as an American achievement because we saved one LGBTQ black woman American citizen. As previously mentioned, why didn't CNN (et al.), note that we saved one American citizen rather than making the 'important' points that she was those other three things first?
         
         I view this as the actions of a leader listening to the demands of the mob rather than the reason in his head. This was an action of a weak leader.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "He gained the prestige of sending us away with 'half-a-loaf'  and a world's image of us celebrating this as an American achievement because we saved one LGBTQ black woman American citizen."
            
            Why is it not enough to say that one American citizen was saved?
            
            Curious, what would have been your desired outcome under the circumstances, if you were in control?

            replyreport
            1. 82

               GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               After a day to 'get over' CNN's 2-hour breaking coverage I've mellowed a bit. There may be a chink in my "weak leader" criticism. Maybe.
               
               My perception of media presentations is that the 'deal' we sought was for Grinner and Whelan. That same media presentation informs me that these are two very different cases—in Russia's eyes.
               
               What I would have done differently is not tie the two cases together. Four years of failed efforts to free Whelan make clear that Russia places a high value on him. This administration knows this, so they should also have known the dangers of approaching this as a package deal. Doing so gave Putin the power to send us away with "half-a-loaf."
               
               The "chink" I spoke of is the possibility that there is something 'behind-the-scenes' that I am unaware of, as I mentioned to Kathleen Cochran. Otherwise, I stand with the thought that a strong leader would not have presented this opportunity to Putin.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Looks like you have water splashing around your head. Oh well, seems you are very human and may have bought into the media spin. Looks like many that called themselves conservative, are taking that big dive. 
                  
                  Where is your usual common sense gone?  Soft soap is so slippery.

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't get your point. What have I lost my common sense on? What media spin got me?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        The media has promoted the sentiment that the Russians put a higher value on Whelan.  The US gave up a thug that was their very best card to play to get a "get out of jail free".   
                        
                        If one were to really want to grasp an unproven scenario --- why not Biden had a choice of who he would free with that card?  My point is, why one scenario? And why is the one the media is pushing with such vigor?
                        
                        I mean we continually reach for straws, so why not that straw? Is it just due to the media offing up only one straw?  And it is very clear we have a society that marches to what the media tells them to.
                        
                        My point is, have you become one that may be entering into a media fog?
                        You can get pissed at me, but I see cracks appearing in your common sense armor.  I always have noted what wonderful common sense you possess.
                        
                        Putin did want to trade the number one thug for Viktor Bout for Paul Whelan.  Did Biden have a choice? 
                        https://nypost.com/2022/12/08/trump-tur … hn-bolton/

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           Your 'reverse' scenario is also a possibility. As I read, it was a rational possibility. I don't think it is as probable as the one I mentioned, but it could be as you describe. Even so, we're talking about the same concept—just in reverse.
                           
                           And then I hit your "My point is . . ." paragraph.
                           
                           There must be a god of coincidences. I stumbled across some kind of Musk video today, and one part was about our political division.
                           
                           I don't have the quote but it was something like: 'Ask yourself, as just the possibility, without any conditioning context, (ie. partisan politics, et al), do you think it is possible for two rationally intelligent people to read the same information and draw different conclusions?'
                           
                           I know that sounds a bit 'preachy', but it was the lesser of two evils.  The quote was too apt to not use. But the inevitable "snarky" context of the bare quote was an inference I didn't want. So, I'll suffer the "preachy" criticism to avoid the misinterpretation of snark.  Mia culpa.
                           
                           GA ;-)

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              "do you think it is possible for two rationally intelligent people to read the same information and draw different conclusions?"
                              
                              Yes, in my view, it's called human nature mixed with learned behavior.   Fundamentally due to individual dispositions and characteristics — including ways of thinking, mindset, and feeling,  humans are said to be creatures of what they have learned while creating their own uniqueness.  So yes,  two people can read the same information, and come out on the other side with very different views on what the context was meant to be.

                              replyreport
                              1. 82

                                 GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Did you consider that in your criticisms of the 'media fogged'?
                                 
                                 My point was simple and would remain correct even under your scenario.
                                 
                                 The strength of a leader's prestige, in the world they have to deal with,  is a perception—the world's perception.
                                 
                                 From what I have seen, much of the world's perception is that Pres. Biden got a lesser deal than the one he presented to Putin. I say the world see's Putin as having the upper-hand in this deal. A boost to his prestige. By being seen as getting the 'lesser' deal Pres. Biden's prestige took a hit—in the world's view.
                                 
                                 My criticism is of an example of poor leadership with damaging consequences. This one's on Biden, but it would be the same criticism for any leader that put, or allowed themselves to be put, in that same position.
                                 
                                 The next time Putin and Biden confront each other I think Putin will think this deal proves he is the stronger leader and will be a harder opponent to work with.
                                 
                                 It is also possible that the next time Pres. Biden tries to use 'heavy' persuasion to get another nation's 'cooperation,' their reception might be influenced by a lesser respect due to their perception of this deal.
                                 
                                 That's pretty basic. It doesn't need the speculations of the 'Whys," or their context. It's simply a consideration of Pres. Biden's world-view scorecard as it relates to future power moves.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 85

                                    Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    I agree,    I feel he governs from a position of weakness.  In fact, some have reminded me I am repetitive on this point.  He has made one poor decision after another in my view.

                                    replyreport
               2. 79

                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  It is ok, most of us can only speculate what were the realities of sitting across the table from Putin's negotiators. Hindsight is always 20/20. Does anybody really know what was "negotiable" from Putin's standpoint? As it takes two to tango. A half a loaf may have been all that was available, could we afford to discard that?

                  replyreport
2. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   I'm passing no Judgement because we've been through this kind of thing enough times before for me to know we will never know all the behind the scenes negotiations that resulted in this exchange.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That's a fair point, but it would have to be in the realm of removing missiles, a la JFK to be a consideration. Otherwise, we handed Putin a victory that diminishes our power of resistance.
      
      GA

      replyreport
3. 92

   peeplesposted 2 years ago

   I'm glad they got her home. I'm not happy about who they used. It leaves me wondering how many people will die because she got to come home.

   replyreport