2012 GOP threat: Sgt. Bergdahl swap will be Obama, Democrats’ ‘Willie Horton moment

Republicans are outraged that President Barack Obama authorized a prisoner exchange with the Taliban for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl — who has been held captive since 2009 — and that they plan to use the exchange against Democrats in the upcoming election.

The news of the prisoner exchange — in which Sgt. Bergdahl was swapped for Afghan detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay — surprised many Republicans because, they claim, it violated a law Obama signed last year requiring the defense secretary to notify congressional committees 30 days before arranging for a transfer of prisoners.

When he signed the law, however, President Obama issued a signing statement in which he contended that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander-in-chief.

“Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible,” a senior administration officialtold The Washington Post. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement.”

One possible reason the president chose not to notify lawmakers is that last time he attempted to negotiate Sgt. Bergdahl’s release, Republicans both formally and informally blocked all efforts to do so.
In addition to using congressional oversight, special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman was told by Republican leadership that negotiating an exchange of Sgt. Bergdahl that involved detainees from Guantanamo Bay would be the president’s “Willie Horton moment,” a reference to the infamous “Revolving Door” advertisement that George H.W. Bush campaign used to make 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis look “soft” on crime

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/0...e+Raw+Story%29

The Negro DICK-SLAPS the dickless Repugs.

My guess is that a VAST majority of US military and US citizens will poll as supporting bringing US POW home, as they already vastly support emptying/closing GITMO, which now has 3 less torture victims.

We'll hear the Repugs whining about "lawless", "imperial", "impeachable" The Negro

Why would they cry about saving this americans life when theyve been crying about the 4 american lives lost during Benghazi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Empty

Why would they cry about saving this americans life when theyve been crying about the 4 american lives lost during Benghazi

---

There is background buzz from guys that served with him that he deserted with the intention of joining the Taliban. The POW aspect could be a big charade.

This is from that radical rag CNN.

Quote:

---

(CNN) -- The sense of pride expressed by officials of the Obama administration at the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is not shared by many of those who served with him -- veterans and soldiers who call him a deserter whose "selfish act" ended up costing the lives of better men.
"I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."
Vierkant said Bergdahl needs to not only acknowledge his actions publicly but face a military trial for desertion under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
A reporter asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Sunday whether Bergdahl had left his post without permission or deserted -- and, if so, whether he would be punished. Hagel didn't answer directly. "Our first priority is assuring his well-being and his health and getting him reunited with his family," he said. "Other circumstances that may develop and questions, those will be dealt with later."
Following his release from five years of captivity in Afghanistan on Saturday, Bergdahl was transferred to a military hospital in Germany.
A senior Defense official said Bergdahl's "reintegration process" will include "time for him to tell his story, decompress, and to reconnect with his family through telephone calls and video conferences."
Said Bergdahl's former squad leader, Greg Leatherman: "I'm pleased to see him returned safely. From experience I hope that he receives adequate reintegration counseling. I believe that an investigation should take place as soon as healthcare professionals deem him fit to endure one."
Another senior Defense official said Bergdahl will not likely face any punishment. "Five years is enough," he told CNN on condition of anonymity.
Questions surround the circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance. Conflicting details have since emerged about how the militants managed to capture Bergdahl. Published accounts have varied widely, from claims he walked off the post to another that he was grabbed from a latrine.
According to first-hand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera, and a diary.
At least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for Bergdahl, and many soldiers in his platoon said attacks seemed to increase against the United States in Paktika Province in the days and weeks following his disappearance.
Many of Bergdahl's fellow troops -- from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad, to the larger group that comprised the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division -- told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.

---

If the above is true, this is clearly not the way to create comradery amongst the kids that give up their rights as an American citizens by choice of profession.

Not a wise choice at all...

if the guy deserted, then he'll get court martialed.

his town + region are SUPER excited to get him back.

Why would you trade 4 high level Taliban members for this guy? It doesn't make sense.

This is another one of those jumping the shark moments for Republicans. They still don't realize you can't oppose EVERYTHING someone from the opposite party does without looking ridiculous. The GOP has still not learned how to pick its battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

Why would you trade 4 high level Taliban members for this guy? It doesn't make sense.

---

How high level are they?

What did they do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How high level are they?

What did they do?

---

from another thread:

Khairullah Khairkhwa, for one, was an original member of the Taliban – someone so senior that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar apparently trusted him personally. He was, at various times, a defense minister for the Taliban and a governor of Herat Province. Mohammed Fazl, meanwhile, has been accused of war crimes related to the slaughter of Shiites. The others include another Taliban-era governor, an intelligence chief, and a security official.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercos

This is another one of those jumping the shark moments for Republicans. They still don't realize you can't oppose EVERYTHING someone from the opposite party does without looking ridiculous. The GOP has still not learned how to pick its battles.

---

really? because trading 5 terrorists for a deserter sounds like such a good idea... :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercos

This is another one of those jumping the shark moments for Republicans. They still don't realize you can't oppose EVERYTHING someone from the opposite party does without looking ridiculous. The GOP has still not learned how to pick its battles.

---

I agree, and though I disagree with this trade, it is the wrong battle to make. What president is clean of no signing statements, or following up on a signing statement?

Obama's signing statement on the law he signed clearly pointed out he disagree with some restrictions...

Now I don't like to be in any position defending Obama, but I do when it comes to the fact that the law should have never been written to tie the hands of the executive branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

if the guy deserted, then he'll get court martialed.

his town + region are SUPER excited to get him back.

---

No apparently not.
5 years in captivity is enough. No charges.

The guy put his fellow soldiers in danger while looking for him. This is not good for a group that is supposed to look out for each other. Bergdahl is not the only soldier who had reservations about Afghanistan, but they did not slink away.

This is sounding more like a big miscalculation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...tml?tid=pm_pop

If he was a deserter, then I say execute him. However, to my knowledge, that is a suspicion with no good evidence.

Can we all say innocent till proven guilty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If he was a deserter, then I say execute him. However, to my knowledge, that is a suspicion with no good evidence.

Can we all say innocent till proven guilty?

---

What makes you think there will be a trial?

did you read the article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

What makes you think there will be a trial?

did you read the article?

---

I am making the point that the allegation of him deserting may be wrong. I don't know if the people close at hand will decide for a trial or not. I never made that assertion. Why do you think I did?

I re-read the article to see if I missed a valid fact. Don't know why you asked. Is the article 100% accurate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I am making the point that the allegation of him deserting may be wrong. I don't know if the people close at hand will decide for a trial or not. I never made that assertion. Why do you think I did?

I re-read the article to see if I missed a valid fact. Don't know why you asked. Is the article 100% accurate?

---

You said if he is a deserter execute him.

So you would do this WITHOUT A TRIAL? Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

You said if he is a deserter execute him.

So you would do this WITHOUT A TRIAL? Seriously?

---

Yes, IF...

If he is a deserter, which some people do claim. I am neutral on that idea. There will be some looking into that allegations and either dismiss the notion of a trial, or decide to see if one is warranted.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a statement like mine should make one conclude that I think a trial will occur.

If a trial occurs, and if he is found guilty, then execute him.

Desertion is such a giant non-crime. Joining the armed services is essentially modern day indentured servitude.

In other words, its morally reprehensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

Desertion is such a giant non-crime. Joining the armed services is essentially modern day indentured servitude.

In other words, its morally reprehensible.

---

Then don't join or take the oath.

Real life Homeland?

NPR had report that 6 us soldiers were killed trying to find him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, IF...

If he is a deserter, which some people do claim. I am neutral on that idea. There will be some looking into that allegations and either dismiss the notion of a trial, or decide to see if one is warranted.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a statement like mine should make one conclude that I think a trial will occur.

If a trial occurs, and if he is found guilty, then execute him.

---

You said if he is a deserter kill him. Then you said innocent until proven guilty.
And none of this implies a trial? Ok... Seriously WC? Really?

So you have seen evidence that he left his post because he got disoriented and just wandered off? Until the military puts forth a statement claiming something like this I will go with what his fellow soldiers have said. No trial, no nothing, just what we have been given to this point. There is no evidence he was ambushed at his post at all. Certainly that would have been given by now.

The military must know something we don't because a soldier does not leave his post of his on volition and get people killed looking for you.

Look, These men/kids who join the military give up some of their basic rights as a citizen to serve. They may not like a conflict and pay a large price by joining. In many of these cases it is obvious they are fighting for each other, not some cause old guys in suits decide is in the best interest of the country. The solider has joined sacrificing an enormous amount of personal freedom.

If you think we should just let this pass you don't understand service. And as of right now it will do just this unless the press keeps digging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

Desertion is such a giant non-crime. Joining the armed services is essentially modern day indentured servitude.

In other words, its morally reprehensible.

---

It's no problem getting fellow soldiers killed looking for you after desertion...

Well ok then. This is not morally reprehensible?

Our first priority is assuring his well-being and his health and getting him reunited with his family. Other circumstances that may develop and questions, those will be dealt with later," Hagel said.

From the LA Times.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...ry.html#page=1
The military now plans extensive interviews with those on duty with him.
Pushing and digging by the press again serves its purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

You said if he is a deserter kill him. Then you said innocent until proven guilty.
And none of this implies a trial? Ok... Seriously WC? Really?

---

My God. Yes, it implies a trial... IF... those deciding such matter think he may have. What was said in the media may have no merit whatsoever.

My God.

What's so hard to understand about IF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

The military now plans extensive interviews with those on duty with him.
Pushing and digging by the press again serves its purpose.

---

As they should. However, the allegation may be true or false, and they need to investigate.

Do you know what IF means?

You don't execute soldiers for desertion. You can put them in prison, but execution is a bit harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

You don't execute soldiers for desertion. You can put them in prison, but execution is a bit harsh.

---

Not when it's desertion in a combat zone.

That deserves a firing squad.

Like was pointed out, soldiers risked their lives looking for him. If he deserted, he needs to be executed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

It's no problem getting fellow soldiers killed looking for you after desertion...

Well ok then. This is not morally reprehensible?

---

They're mercenaries and they take the risk as part of their job. At any rate they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

As they should. However, the allegation may be true or false, and they need to investigate.

Do you know what IF means?

---

They were NOT going to investigate you bonehead...
Did you read the article?

There was no frrgn IF...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

They're mercenaries and they take the risk as part of their job. At any rate they shouldn't be there in the first place.

---

So anyone who signs up for the military is a mercenary?
And so now it's a risk.

And you conclude something morally reprehensible ? Jesus...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

They were NOT going to investigate you bonehead...
Did you read the article?

There was no frrgn IF...

---

Then they must have investigated enough to conclude that he didn't bail on his unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Then they must have investigated enough to conclude that he didn't bail on his unit.

---

Then why are they now investigating it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

Then why are they now investigating it?

---

I'm not reading the hourly updates.

Which is it?

Let me see if I have this right then.

They were not investigating before, and assumed him to have deserted. Maybe that's because he was presumed to never be found, so why waste the effort? Now that he's found, they wish to get to the truth.

Is that plausible? Sorry, but I'm not keeping a watch on their facebook page.

Pgardn...

Do you know the difference between dynamic and static? Do you expect things to be static when a dynamic changes?

I don't. Maybe that's part of your confusion. I also don't think what is written or quoted by the media is set in stone.

Therefor IF!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Pgardn...
I also don't think what is written or quoted by the media is set in stone.

Therefor IF!

---

This. And pretty sure there was talks of investigation yesterday and he was arguing this whole time for no reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztecfan03

This. And pretty sure there was talks of investigation yesterday and he was arguing this whole time for no reason.

---

Read the articles, both of you. No Aztec you are wrong.

Let me help again.
His parents have been corresponding with him for years Cobra, he was not presumed dead.
His dad has been working on brining him back for 5 years with knowledge of the US.
Obama trades.
Press brings up a few of his fellow troops.
The military said 5 years is enough in captivity, no charges necessary.
His fellow soldiers keep bringing info to the press.
The military NOW decides they will investigate.


This is the basic time line fellas. The press has made a stink because his unit keeps giving more info, the military changes their tune. So why after he is dealt do we find out he might have deserted? If they investigated so thoroughly before they made the deal?

Bowe Bergdahl’s Vanishing Before Capture Angered His Unit


Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life. He slipped off the remote military outpost in Paktika Province on the border with Pakistan and took with him a soft backpack, water, knives, a notebook and writing materials, but left behind his body armor and weapons — startling, given the hostile environment around his outpost.

That account, provided by a former senior military officer briefed on the investigation into the private’s disappearance, is part of a more complicated picture emerging of the capture of a soldier whose five years as a Taliban prisoner influenced high-level diplomatic negotiations, brought in foreign governments, and ended with him whisked away on a helicopter by American commandos.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/03...?from=homepage

Sounding more and more like a deserter.

You guys are harsh. He might have just been looking for an Avante girlfriend.

Seriously, the guy was clearly a premeditated deserter. He even mailed his computer and other stuff home to his family the week before, left a note, and scooted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

However, to my knowledge, that is a suspicion with no good evidence.

---

I do find it humorous that this administration keeps stumbling into these "what the fuck were they thinking?" moments. As more facts become known swapping 5 hardcore TBan for an apparent deserter the outrage just keeps growing.

In my opinion this wasn't even about Berghdahl, it was just an excuse to let the Taliban guys go in order to diplomatically grease the channels with the TBan. The US is leaving, Kharzai is a crook. Any chance of having any kind of "success" story come out of that shithole will rely on brokering deals and negotiating with the TBan even though "the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists"...:lol

do you think the WH didn't know about Bergie leaving of his own accord?

Do you think US should "execute" him w/o trial by letting him rot over there?

Sounds like the same right-wing assholes who bitch about Cruising an American-turned-terrorist now whine about getting this guy back.

You just know the kid got converted.

If it turns out he deserted, this will not help his cause with the masses.

What a mess. It sounds like his parents don't realize what he is in for. Of course they want him back. But now with all the desertion stuff arising, do they realize what he might be in for. His dad learned two new languages just to be able to deal amicably with his captors. Dads beard is not something he grew on a whim, I don't think he is a Major League Baseball player. Or a James Harden fan...

House Speaker John Boehner calls for hearings over Bowe Bergdahl release


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-conten...NOT-REUSE1.jpg


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/0...gdahl-release/

Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! :lol

Repug Governance! :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

do you think the WH didn't know about Bergie leaving of his own accord?

Do you think US should "execute" him w/o trial by letting him rot over there?

Sounds like the same right-wing assholes who bitch about Cruising an American-turned-terrorist now whine about getting this guy back.

---

Well you certainly don't exchange 5 high level Taliban members for him. That is just beyond stupid.

I guess this shows Obama has the power to close gitmo whenever he wants.

Or he broke the law.


lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

So anyone who signs up for the military is a mercenary?
And so now it's a risk.

And you conclude something morally reprehensible ? Jesus...

---

In the US system soldiers fight for money. They know the risks when they sign up voluntarily. But unlike other jobs, they aren't allowed to quit whenever they want to.

This is in contrast to soldiers in other systems who are either drafted or required by law to enlist when they reach a certain age.

See how that works?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

In the US system soldiers fight for money. They know the risks when they sign up voluntarily. But unlike other jobs, they aren't allowed to quit whenever they want to.

This is in contrast to soldiers in other systems who are either drafted or required by law to enlist when they reach a certain age.

See how that works?

---

So it's morally reprehensible to join the military?

Is this how it works?

Holding 5 Taliban for terrorizing Afghans was stupid anyway...Bergdahl isn't the first US soldier to feel empathy for the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq for the Bush Administration illegal invasion and occupation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Holding 5 Taliban for terrorizing Afghans was stupid anyway...Bergdahl isn't the first US soldier to feel empathy for the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq for the Bush Administration illegal invasion and occupation...

---

Of course he is not.

But how many desert and put their fellow soldiers in danger?
(looking more like this is the scenario)

Quote:

---

A Democrat reminds me that McCain appeared on CNN four months ago, when the Bergdahl case was receiving far less coverage, and did not sound so bearish on the potential of a trade. He hadn't wanted the five Taliban to be released as a "confidence" measure, but "this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I'd be inclined to support such a thing, depending on the details."

The whole "details" concept gives McCain some cover, I suppose. But did the prisoners get markedly scarier in the intervening four months? What happened? The Obama administration, which was aware of comments like McCain's, is rattled now to see McCain joining the crowds at the Bastille.

---

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...or_a_pow.html?

McCain was blubbering something about details and how scary these five were, but he knew in February exactly who America had to trade, and there was no mention of who was to be excluded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

Of course he is not.

But how many desert and put their fellow soldiers in danger?
(looking more like this is the scenario)

---

The term deserted has very explicit legal meaning, and I imagine requires a trial before it can be asserted as fact.

What is very clear is that the Army was on notice that this kid was losing it well before he disappeared. And yet they did nothing.

His fellow soldiers noted he would stare at the mountains and talk about going to China; he sent his personal effects home

But most important, the morning he left, he asked his team leader an incredibly telling question:

Quote:

---

In the early-morning hours of June 30th, according to soldiers in the unit, Bowe approached his team leader not long after he got off guard duty and asked his superior a simple question: If I were to leave the base, would it cause problems if I took my sensitive equipment?

Yes, his team leader responded – if you took your rifle and night-vision goggles, that would cause problems.

Bowe returned to his barracks, a roughly built bunker of plywood and sandbags. He gathered up water, a knife, his digital camera and his diary. Then he slipped off the outpost.

---

The talking heads make much of the fact that Bergdahl left his rifle/equipment behind when he left the base, as if that proves he intended to join the enemy. But as the above exchange demonstrates, he was just complying with what his team leader said about not taking his sensitive equipment--rifle and night-vision goggles--if he were to leave the base, so as not to create "problems" for his team....

Bergdahl was designated by the Army as missing/captured, not deserted....

Quote:

---

It’s true that Bergdahl was never officially categorized as a “prisoner of war,” since the Pentagon apparently stopped using that designation years ago. But he was defined as “missing/captured,” which is essentially the same thing. And while the Taliban fighters who were released were likewise not formally designated prisoners of war, either, because of the odd, formally undeclared status of the war with Afghanistan, that’s what they were. As President Obama said Tuesday morning, “This is what happens at the end of wars.” Imagine the outrage if the president brought the troops home from Afghanistan but left Bergdahl behind.

---

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_..._savage_obama/

The right’s unhinged Bergdahl hypocrisy: The ultimate way to savage Obama
Should accused deserters face trial by Bill Kristol before being rescued? Understanding the latest wing nut hysteria

JOAN WALSH

Quote:

---

The anti-Bergdahl hysteria plays into six years of scurrilous insinuation that Obama is a secret Muslim who either supports or sympathizes with our enemies. Even “moderate” Mitt Romney, you’ll recall, claimed the president’s “first response” to the 2012 Benghazi attack “was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” This is just the latest chapter.

The partisan opportunism over the Bergdahl deal shouldn’t be surprising, but it is, a little bit. This wasn’t some wild radical idea of the Obama administration; it was driven by the Defense Department and signed on to by intelligence agencies. Although Congress is claiming it wasn’t given the requisite 30 days’ notice of a prisoner transfer (more on that later), this deal or something very much like it has been in the works for at least two years, with plenty of congressional consultation.

And plenty of partisan demagoguery: In 2012 the late Michael Hastings reported that the White House was warned by congressional Republicans that a possible deal for the five Taliban fighters would be political suicide in an election year – a “Willie Horton moment,” in the words of an official responsible for working with Congress on the deal. In the end, though, Hastings reported that even Sen. John McCain ultimately approved the deal; it fell apart when the Taliban balked.

Two years later, the right’s official talking points are mixed: Some critics focus on rumors (buttressed by Hastings’ own sympathetic reporting on Bergdahl) that he was a soldier disillusioned by the Afghan war who deserted his post. Wrong-way Bill Kristol has dismissed him as a deserter not worth rescuing, while Kristol’s most prominent contribution to politics, Sarah Palin, has been screeching on her Facebook wall about Bergdahl’s “horrid anti-American beliefs.”

---

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_..._savage_obama/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

The term deserted has very explicit legal meaning, and I imagine requires a trial before it can be asserted as fact.

What is very clear is that the Army was on notice that this kid was losing it well before he disappeared. And yet they did nothing.

His fellow soldiers noted he would stare at the mountains and talk about going to China; he sent his personal effects home

But most important, the morning he left, he asked his team leader an incredibly telling question:


The talking heads make much of the fact that Bergdahl left his rifle/equipment behind when he left the base, as if that proves he intended to join the enemy. But as the above exchange demonstrates, he was just complying with what his team leader said about not taking his sensitive equipment--rifle and night-vision goggles--if he were to leave the base, so as not to create "problems" for his team....

---

If the military put a kid who was losing it at some sort of post that was important to the welfare of his fellow soldiers...
This is also a big problem.

We will just have to wait to get all the details. It is fairly infuriating to me that some of these kids were put in danger by a deserter, or a guy who just could not handle the job anymore. Or both.

Some of the statements by the higher ups in the military are consistent with a pity factor. Sounds almost like he comes back and goes into a pysch unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Not when it's desertion in a combat zone.

That deserves a firing squad.

---

You're a sick fuck.

I don't care if or where the kid deserted, if you're seriously advocating for a firing squad you might as well join the Taliban yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

I don't care if or where the kid deserted, if you're seriously advocating for a firing squad you might as well join the Taliban yourself.

---

Yes, I am. I a, solid on that viewpoint.

You don't desert your unit in a war zone. Period. They are claiming 2-6 of the soldiers killed in the area were because they were looking for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I do find it humorous that this administration keeps stumbling into these "what the fuck were they thinking?" moments. As more facts become known swapping 5 hardcore TBan for an apparent deserter the outrage just keeps growing.

In my opinion this wasn't even about Berghdahl, it was just an excuse to let the Taliban guys go in order to diplomatically grease the channels with the TBan. The US is leaving, Kharzai is a crook. Any chance of having any kind of "success" story come out of that shithole will rely on brokering deals and negotiating with the TBan even though "the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists"...:lol

---

That is always possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Bowe Bergdahl’s Vanishing Before Capture Angered His Unit


Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life. He slipped off the remote military outpost in Paktika Province on the border with Pakistan and took with him a soft backpack, water, knives, a notebook and writing materials, but left behind his body armor and weapons — startling, given the hostile environment around his outpost.

That account, provided by a former senior military officer briefed on the investigation into the private’s disappearance, is part of a more complicated picture emerging of the capture of a soldier whose five years as a Taliban prisoner influenced high-level diplomatic negotiations, brought in foreign governments, and ended with him whisked away on a helicopter by American commandos.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/03...?from=homepage

Sounding more and more like a deserter.

---

If those is factual, then yes. I read one link where they think he sneaked out in hiding a contractors vehicle. Who knows what happened from there, should that be true. I will assume he thought he had friends in a nearby village, and found the true nature of these people first hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...or_a_pow.html?

McCain was blubbering something about details and how scary these five were, but he knew in February exactly who America had to trade, and there was no mention of who was to be excluded.

---

WHat Is your point. He didn't like the trade then either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, I am. I a, solid on that viewpoint.

You don't desert your unit in a war zone. Period. They are claiming 2-6 of the soldiers killed in the area were because they were looking for him.

---

I've seen 8 people mentioned now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztecfan03

WHat Is your point. He didn't like the trade then either.

---

He was for the trade before he was against it...

Too many people Wild Cobraing this thing.

i remember obamas first inauguration speech, that he will not deal with terrorists...so what happen here? exchangin 5 monkeys for a monkey who deserted his position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, I am. I a, solid on that viewpoint.

You don't desert your unit in a war zone. Period. They are claiming 2-6 of the soldiers killed in the area were because they were looking for him.

---

No shit you don't desert in a war zone but you also don't adopt archaic methods of punishment on those who do. Fuck you and anyone who wants our military to resemble anything like that, tbh.

"who wants our military to resemble anything like that,"

the Repug/FOX/right-wing hate-and-spittle machine wants the military to abandon US prisoners to the enemy, overturning 200 years of US military history.

senile McLiar actually prefers a US soldier be left in enemy hands because 5 jihadis are worth more than a US soldier.

Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding ‘Every Effort’ Be Made To Free Bergdahl

Republicans are almost uniformly criticizing President Obama’s decision to swap five Taliban fighters at Guantanamo Bay for the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American held hostage in Afghanistan. But many of the administration’s loudest critics have previously demanded that it do more to bring Bergdahl to safety. Since his release, these lawmakers are emphasizing their
criticism of Obama’s handling of the prisoner exchange while downplaying the successful return of an American servicemember.

In the clearest contradiction, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in February that he “would be inclined to support” “an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man,” like the one Taliban officials had offered in 2012. He has since labeled Obama’s deal “ill-founded” and a “mistake.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also thinks that “the administration’s decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests” and “sets a precedent that could encourage our enemies to capture more Americans.”

But since 2011, Ayotte has issued multiple press releases and public statements calling on the Obama administration to “redouble its efforts” to find Bergdahl. She touted a provision in the Senate’s Fiscal Year 2015 defense authorization bill “that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl” and specifically mentioned Bergdahl in her Memorial Day address.
“We also must continue to keep Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who has been held prisoner by the Taliban for nearly five years, in our thoughts and prayers – and I renew my call on the Defense
Department to redouble its efforts to find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family,” she wrote just one week ago.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — has also said that the U.S. “must make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family.” But appearing on Fox News just days after Bergdahl’s release, Inhofe criticized the administration for agreeing to free “people who have killed Americans, people who are the brain power of Taliban.”

Still, not all conservatives oppose Obama’s decision. John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush, has characterized the swap as fair, since the United States would be required to return prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay back to Afghanistan as the military conflict comes to an end.

“I’m not saying this is clearly an easy choice but frankly I think a Republican…confronted with this opportunity to get back Sgt. Bergdahl…would have taken this opportunity to do this,” Bellinger said, adding, “I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration.” It appears that many of the administration’s loudest critics would as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...free-bergdahl/

:lol

iow, for Repug assholes, ALL POLITICS ALL THE TIME.

mornin

lol thinkprogress.

Howdy Winehole.

They are going to claim they did not have all the info...

hi there, TB. nice burn on boutons in the other thread.

Self-inflicted. I'll just take the assist. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

No shit you don't desert in a war zone but you also don't adopt archaic methods of punishment on those who do. Fuck you and anyone who wants our military to resemble anything like that, tbh.

---

Well, what is your preferred death penalty method?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"who wants our military to resemble anything like that,"

the Repug/FOX/right-wing hate-and-spittle machine wants the military to abandon US prisoners to the enemy, overturning 200 years of US military history.

senile McLiar actually prefers a US soldier be left in enemy hands because 5 jihadis are worth more than a US soldier.

---

McCain has become an old fuddy-duddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Self-inflicted.

---

only because someone else was paying attention. hence the credited assist.

come to think of it, TB, in a way you and me are boutons's biggest followers -- strike that, fans --in the whole world, and what do we get? Ingratitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

come to think of it, TB, in a way you and me are boutons's biggest followers -- strike that, fans --in the whole world, and what do we get? Ingratitude.

---

you're both butthurt by The Great Boutons' unending bitch slappings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

you're both butthurt by The Great Boutons' unending bitch slappings.

---

You mean we're both highly amused by your unending self bitch slappings.

Back to the comfort of your echo chamber, simpleton. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

come to think of it, TB, in a way you and me are boutons's biggest followers -- strike that, fans --in the whole world, and what do we get? Ingratitude.

---

I know...we give and give and give..... :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

you're both butthurt by The Great Boutons' unending bitch slappings.

---

LOL...

No, but you are good for some great laughter...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-...stom_click=rss

White House aides have accused members of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's unit of “swift-boating” the 28-year-old Idahoan for claiming that he deserted his post in Afghanistan nearly five years ago, MSNBC's Chuck Todd reported.

"I've had a few aides describe it to me as 'we didn't know that they were going to swift-boat Bergdahl,'" Todd said Wednesday.

The term "swift-boating" comes from 2004 when members of then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Swift Boat unit came forward during the election to accuse him of misleading American voters about his service in Vietnam.


Members of the press and Democratic operatives claimed at the time that the effort to discredit Kerry’s military service was nothing more than a shadowy conspiracy and later dubbed the effort “swift-boating.”
“So there’s some fighting words there,” Todd said.
Todd later confirmed on Twitter that White House aides did indeed use the term “swift boat:"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

In my opinion this wasn't even about Berghdahl, it was just an excuse to let the Taliban guys go in order to diplomatically grease the channels with the TBan. The US is leaving, Kharzai is a crook. Any chance of having any kind of "success" story come out of that shithole will rely on brokering deals and negotiating with the TBan even though "the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists"...:lol

---

I agree with this. With the recent success of establishment candidates in the primaries shitting on the fringe tea bags, I think the administration has all but conceded the senate in 2014. Now they're just trying to pave the way for any progress they can make via executive action for O's last two years.

"diplomatically grease the channels with the TBan"

WTF?

it helps empty gitmo, 5 less guys to torture. Your Repugs obstruct all attempts to close gitmo, simply because Obama wants to close it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

He was for the trade before he was against it...

---

For a trade but not one giving up 5 top Taliban leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztecfan03

For a trade but not one giving up 5 top Taliban leaders.

---

top or bottom, who cares? with 80 gitmo guys approved for release as harmless but held for many years, the accuracy of top or bottom is totally useless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

House Speaker John Boehner calls for hearings over Bowe Bergdahl release


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-conten...NOT-REUSE1.jpg


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/0...gdahl-release/

Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! Hearings! :lol

Repug Governance! :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

---

i'm not certain which part is funny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

top or bottom, who cares? with 80 gitmo guys approved for release as harmless but held for many years, the accuracy of top or bottom is totally useless

---

There are plenty of Taliban still in Afghanistan to 'sharia law' their population, continuing to hold onto these 5 Taliban is useless...unless you want to keep Gitmo open and continue this wasteful war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, what is your preferred death penalty method?

---

Life?

Kinda the opposite of death...

I'm taking a wild, wild guess here after reading Spurm's posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztecfan03

For a trade but not one giving up 5 top Taliban leaders.

---

But you aren't as stupid as Obomba either.

Eh, the Israelis traded over 1000 prisoners for one tank gunner. Some of those prisoners had even been tried and convicted in an actual court.

The sooner those Gitmo prisoners are out of limbo the better.

Repugs gonna impeach the lawless Negro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Repugs gonna impeach the lawless Negro.

---

They can try but Dems will never turn on Obama.

shocking

Taliban commander: more kidnapping to come
http://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

shocking

Taliban commander: more kidnapping to come
http://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/

---

This is why rescue attempts are the preferred way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

This is why rescue attempts are the preferred way to go.

---

Preferred by whom?

Not the Israelis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Well, what is your preferred death penalty method?

---

You're a fucking idiot.

:lmao http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ocuments-show/

Bergdahl declared jihad in 2010, secret documents show