but let me suggest that i think to a large degree, this is a distraction from the real issues involved here. in the sense that you went through in your opening and talked about the challenges from senators to this deal. i really do think those are legitimate arguments we need to have about the nature of this deal. i don't think it matters whether the guy was a sympathizer or defected or not because it matters to the degree that you weigh how much effort you have to put into getting him back. but i think that's what this deal hangs on. it's not so much that we shouldn't have gotten him back or left him there. it's more the question of was this the right deal to make, was it possible to make a deal without sacrificing national security and letting five bad guys go. >> so i agree that the place that's most contested and the most legitimate to have the argument is about the other side of the deal. i understand that the people that fought with him are angry