Feel the love

The idea, it would appear, was to get the VA scandal off the front pages. Mission accomplished:

The furious parents of an officer who they claim was killed while searching for freed Taliban prisoner Bowe Bergdahl today said that they have been lied to as part of a ‘cover up just like Benghazi’.

The mother and father of Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews are angry that they have been told different stories about how their son died.

First his commanders said that their son was blown up while hunting a Taliban commander - but only now that Bergdahl has been freed after five years in captivity are they learning the truth.

So what's the story?

During the months-long hunt for him vital resources were re-deployed to help with the hunt and scarce surveillance drones and helicopters were assigned to the task instead of other duties.

Former colleagues of Bergdahl claim that this put them at risk - and led to lives being lost.

What is undisputed is that Lt Andrews, who was from Dallas, Texas, died at the age of 34 on September 4, 2009 while serving with the 25th Infantry Division on his second tour of Afghanistan.

At the time his family say they were told that his men were hunting a Taliban commander and that the truck at the front of their group ended in a hole after being hit by an Improvised Explosive Device.

As the men got out to try and move the truck, a Taliban fighter with a rocket propelled grenade emerged and fired at them.

Lt Andrews was the only one to see it and tackled three of his men to prevent them being hit. He took a direct hit and died.

A few thoughts:

• If it turns out that Bergdahl was indeed a deserter, he needs to be punished.
• We do, of course, pay rapt attention to what the parents of those killed in action say. At least for a while, that is. The parents of Lt. Andrews might consider camping in a ditch in Crawford, Texas, if their story doesn't get any traction.
• It appears that up to six soldiers lost their lives trying to find Bergdahl. When you add the price of five senior Taliban leaders as ransom, he's an expensive individual. 
• The other issue -- did the president break the law in making the deal without consulting Congress? At least one fairly prominent law professor thinks so. To be fair, however, I'm willing to give the president some slack on this, because a number of the laws that Congress has passed on these issues strike me as a usurpation and dubious in the context of separation of powers. You can't have 536 commanders in chief.

Having said that, Jonathan Turley's larger point is hugely important:

I don't think the White House is seriously arguing they're not violating federal law. To make matters worse, this is a long series of violations of federal law this president has been accused of. I testified twice in Congress about this record of the president in suspending or ignoring federal laws. This is going to add to that pile. I don't think there's much debate that they're in violation of the law. What's fascinating, Carol, is when this law went to the president, he used a signing statement which, if you recall as a senator, he opposed, and ran against for president. But he actually used one in this circumstance and said, 'I'm going to sign this, but I actually think that notice requirement is unconstitutional.' 

We can assume that the apologies to George W. Bush are in the mail.