Hello and welcome to cross talk were all things are considered im peter lobo it appears a new cold war is in play this time waged against china what are the terms of engagement what does it mean to win this conflict and is all out war possible how did the u. S. And its Alliance Allies find themselves in this situation. To cross up this and more im joined by my guest when he came in london she is a policy analyst and senior lecturer in Chinese International political economy. And in washington we crossed. Is a senior fellow at the independent institute ok im going to be good to you 1st in washington i mean if you look at the Mainstream Media and this is what russia gate seems to wind down the banks have come out for china and some of the groups some really very very harsh editorials are being written there in the Washington Post New York Times and the Canadian Press and even in the British Press here is this a new cold war and if it is how is it different when the what would probably on
You have no basis we have no basis to prosecute them in federal court. I find these statements very difficult to accept, mr. Secretary, given the status that these particular individuals had before they were captured. It is hard to believe that these individuals in these positions within the taliban government had no role in attacks on americans. So could you, mr. Secretary, speak to this issue and explain to the people i represent and this committee and those of us who are all across this country asking these questions, why you believe the release of these men was appropriate and it does not pose a threat to our National Security . Congressman, i think i have answered the question and i think i addressed as you quoted from my testimony. Let me start again. We recognize, as i said in my testimony and i think the answers i have given this morning, that there are risks. There are always risks. There are going to be risks in a deal like this. We had to factor in every circumstance that we
Congressman, again, i will say when we close this place down and go into the classified, well go into every one of those specifics, but i would tell you this, you may have already read the mou which we sent up here yesterday, and well be glad to take you down into the subparagraph six of each one of those to get to your question. But to go beyond my testimony here, i dont want to do that and if its okay, well wait. Let me go back historically then and look at the history of qatar and what theyve done in receiving detainees. As you know, the first transfer to qatar was in 2008, and was that one considered a successful test case . I believe, and i just asked our general counsel if we just had one transfer. Is that right . To qatar . To my knowledge. So weve had one. I dont know all the history of that transfer, although my understanding is it wasnt particularly good generally. So whats changed . Again, i addressed this here this morning. First of all, you have a new em emir. Weve got mor
People, and then just looking at the past videos of him versus that video. It was pretty clear to me that his health was deteriorating. Mr. Secretary, theres been some previous questioning about the risk future risk potential future risk to American Service members if they were to have to recapture these five individuals who were swapped. In the prisoner of war exchange. Is there any evidence whatsoever that any future risk for those five is any greater than the 532 folks who have previously been released by the Bush Administration or, for that matter, the 88 that have been released from the Obama Administration, a total of 620 prisoners. According to our Intelligence Community, the answer is no. One final question for you, mr. Secretary. Sergeant bergdahl, when he was captured, was a private 1st class. Correct . For those who are not familiar, that would be an e3. And today he is a sergeant, or an e5. So hes been promoted twice by the army during his period of captivity. Isnt that cor