In which I (again) respond to a facile distillation of what conservatives supposedly believe from my friend Chris Hayes:

C’mon RT @chrislhayes: Am I correct that the American right-wing has spent the day arguing we should have left an American soldier behind? — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 2, 2014

Hayes responded to my virtual head shake by asking what the “actual argument” was, evidently unaware of the objections critics have mounted against the Bergdahl trade — beyond an irrational, nihilistic hatred of the president and/or the troops, that is.  I replied with a rapid-fire series of tweets elucidating a handful of legitimate concerns that have been raised, concluding with a (perhaps needlessly personal) jab that may have discouraged him from continuing our exchange:

.@chrislhayes there are many actual arguments here. For instance, does this incentivize asymmetrical enemies to grab American nationals?

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 2, 2014

.@chrislhayes also, was this done legally (re: NDAA)? What are these “security assurances” re: the guys we just released?

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 2, 2014

.@chrislhayes & why are we touting him as having served with “honor and distinction” amid increasing evidence that he’s at least a deserter?

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 2, 2014

.@chrislhayes Almost none of the critics are arguing that we should’ve left him behind. Most have expressed empathy & relief for the family

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 2, 2014

.@chrislhayes Those who are angriest & least forgiving, it seems, are the men he betrayed over there…they’re entitled to that anger.

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) June 2, 2014

Twitchy rounded up other reactions to the original tweet here.  I might have emphasized further that it’s been Bergdahl’s former brothers in arms who’ve taken the lead in assailing the deal and hammering him, understandably so.  The mounting evidence that he was a deserter, if not something worse, has also attracted the attention of media outlets far beyond the usual precincts of the “American right-wing.”  It’s drawn the ire of Gold Star parents who lost a son in the search for Bergdahl, the details of which they allege were obscured by the military.  Beyond that, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has criticized the White House for failing to consult Congress on this decision within the required time frame, a move several liberal legal experts have conceded was flatly unlawful.  Hell, just last year, Jay Carney explicitly acknowledged that no potential Bergdahl-related detainee transfers could take place without the consultation Congress, “in accordance with US law.”  Well then.  I’ll leave you with these three items, which speak for themselves:

AP: Hagel met with silence when he told troops in Bagram hangar: “This is a happy day. We got one of our own back.” http://t.co/vRYVip31tr

— David Cloud (@DavidCloudLAT) June 2, 2014

And this Politico story was published on Sunday:

Forget The New Yorker’s “leading from behind,” and even President Barack Obama’s own “singles … doubles.” The West Wing has a preferred, authorized distillation of the president’s foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shi*t.” The phrase has appeared in The New York Times three times in the past four days. So, if the White House’s aim was to get the phrase in circulation, mission accomplished! The phrase – as “Don’t do stupid stuff,” with a demure disclaimer that the actual wording was saltier and spicier than “stuff” — appeared in the Los Angeles Times at the end of Obama’s Asia trip this spring, was reprised in the lead story of Thursday’s New York Times.

Smart power.