When Koenig questions people about what bothers them about Bergdahl's case, most say that it has become so political. Was it inevitable that it became so combative? Susan Rice characterized his service with "honor and distinction", which angered the military. Soldiers in his platoon said he walked away, and some from his unit started a "He's not a hero" Facebook page. Fox News interviewed soldiers from Bergdahl's platoon and the story became a juggernaut, with bogus intel from a discredited source even saying Bergdahl had become a Muslim and wanted to be a warrior for Islam. The political right was using the story and the platoon for political purposes, trying to bait President Obama because they had been offended by the Rose Garden ceremony, which they characterized as "a tone-deaf move" on the part of the White House. The President did not recognize the irregularities of Bergdahl's story of or questions about his disappearance, and there was no attempt to get to the bottom of the story. Why did the White House make such a mistake, instead of using an earlier plan to have a quiet event? In retrospect, it was important for the President to own the decision and explain the policy behind it. By law, Congress must be given 30-day notice before Guantanamo detainees are released, but the Department of Defense had taken the lead on the trade, and had not told Congress anything. Leaks could have derailed the fragile deal, jeopardizing Bergdahl's life. Congressional staffers felt they could no longer believe anything from DOD: first, where there had been a collegial relationship before, there was now "unprecedented, profound concern about national security risk…" Second, who signed off on the trade of five Taliban? Third, were they safe to release from Gitmo? The public anger at Bergdahl is personal, wrapped in larger questions about negotiating with terrorists. As a result of this anger, the Republican congress changed the legal wording on Gitmo foreign transfer language
