Bergdahl story

[Harambe]

This is a problem on multiple levels.

1. The president broke the law to do this. I can't see how this is even arguable.

2. The president had a glorious WELCOME HOME!!! ceremony in the freakin' Rose Garden. For those accusing anyone else of playing politics, right there is where the game started.

3. To what extent Congress was involved in this discussion in years past, information about the deserter's situation was withheld. Senators just found about Bergdahl's "goodbye" note when the NYT ran the story a couple of days ago. Also, members of Bergdahl's platoon were told to hide the truth about what happened.

4. The people that got sent back are more important and dangerous NOW than when they were captured. And they were plenty bad then.

5. A precedent has been sent that we will give back prisoners for any fool American you can find floating around.

6. There is no chance that Bergdahl will be investigated completely and thoroughly because he was honored by Obama in a freakin' Rose Garden Ceremony.

7. People like OneBrow will jump in and have strong opinions about this case while showing they have absolutely no knowledge about the factors and details of said case. Will somehow try to accuse those pissed off about what happened as "racist!!!!"

8. During said Rose Garden ceremony, no mention was made of the soldiers who sacrificed and died working to free Bergdahl, and to cut the terrorists off from moving Bergdahl to Pakistan where he would have been separated from his head.

9. The entire purpose of this escapade was to remove the VA scandal from the front pages. Mission Accomplished.

lol

 

[Stoked]

This is a problem on multiple levels.

1. The president broke the law to do this. I can't see how this is even arguable.

2. The president had a glorious WELCOME HOME!!! ceremony in the freakin' Rose Garden. For those accusing anyone else of playing politics, right there is where the game started.

3. To what extent Congress was involved in this discussion in years past, information about the deserter's situation was withheld. Senators just found about Bergdahl's "goodbye" note when the NYT ran the story a couple of days ago. Also, members of Bergdahl's platoon were told to hide the truth about what happened.

4. The people that got sent back are more important and dangerous NOW than when they were captured. And they were plenty bad then.

5. A precedent has been sent that we will give back prisoners for any fool American you can find floating around.

6. There is no chance that Bergdahl will be investigated completely and thoroughly because he was honored by Obama in a freakin' Rose Garden Ceremony.

7. People like OneBrow will jump in and have strong opinions about this case while showing they have absolutely no knowledge about the factors and details of said case. Will somehow try to accuse those pissed off about what happened as "racist!!!!"

8. During said Rose Garden ceremony, no mention was made of the soldiers who sacrificed and died working to free Bergdahl, and to cut the terrorists off from moving Bergdahl to Pakistan where he would have been separated from his head.

9. The entire purpose of this escapade was to remove the VA scandal from the front pages. Mission Accomplished.

1. I will need to look into this as I have heard it before but not looked at it.

2. So? Is one persons foolish action justification for more? If that is your argument than it is an extremely poor one.

3. Again, Bergdahl's alleged desertion (not proven in court yet) is irrelevant to him being an American and us not leaving Americans behind.

4. Pure speculation. They might be. But after anywhere from 5-10 years they may be broken men. You, and no one else on here, has any idea on this. All speculation.

5. Isreal did a swap for 1,000 to 1 to get a soldier back. There have not been a rash of kidnappping of Isrealis. not to mention that in the entire time that our soldiers were over there Berghdahl is the first oen they captured. And thru claimed idiocy on his part no less.

6. If he deserted, or is even a traitor as some claim, then he should be. If the facts are there, and no I don't count MSNBC and Fox as sources, and he isn't then that is wrong. B ut has no bearing on the fact that he should have been recovered.

7. One Brow does that but so does everyone else. You and I included.

8. So a politician played politics...are you surprised. Both sides play these foolish games. Doesn't make it right though.

9. You may very well be right.


As for my stance. Getting him back was the right and American thing to do. One could argue the way he was recovered as being the right or wrong way. But getting him back was right. There should not be conditions on Americans protectign our own. If he coimmited crimes under American law then we should handle that once back.

 

[trigg3r]

1. I will need to look into this as I have heard it before but not looked at it.

2. So? Is one persons foolish action justification for more? If that is your argument than it is an extremely poor one.

3. Again, Bergdahl's alleged desertion (not proven in court yet) is irrelevant to him being an American and us not leaving Americans behind.

4. Pure speculation. They might be. But after anywhere from 5-10 years they may be broken men. You, and no one else on here, has any idea on this. All speculation.

5. Isreal did a swap for 1,000 to 1 to get a soldier back. There have not been a rash of kidnappping of Isrealis. not to mention that in the entire time that our soldiers were over there Berghdahl is the first oen they captured. And thru claimed idiocy on his part no less.

6. If he deserted, or is even a traitor as some claim, then he should be. If the facts are there, and no I don't count MSNBC and Fox as sources, and he isn't then that is wrong. B ut has no bearing on the fact that he should have been recovered.

7. One Brow does that but so does everyone else. You and I included.

8. So a politician played politics...are you surprised. Both sides play these foolish games. Doesn't make it right though.

9. You may very well be right.


As for my stance. Getting him back was the right and American thing to do. One could argue the way he was recovered as being the right or wrong way. But getting him back was right. There should not be conditions on Americans protectign our own. If he coimmited crimes under American law then we should handle that once back.

We both know he won't face any prosecution. Just a public shaming. As pointed out, it looks bad politically to bring this guy back and then court martial him. If it's true that he deserted and even possibly collaborated then I wish this deal would not have been made. JMO, you have yours.

 

[Stoked]

We both know he won't face any prosecution. Just a public shaming. As pointed out, it looks bad politically to bring this guy back and then court martial him. If it's true that he deserted and even possibly collaborated then I wish this deal would not have been made. JMO, you have yours.

I am open to the idea that a trade was a bad way of getting him back. There may have been better options. I am just saying that getting him back was the right thing to do.

As for legal reprecussions for him I agree that I doubt he sees the inside of a court room over this. But if it did happen then he should, how it looks be damned.

You are correct that we all have our opinions and your is no less valid than mine.

 

[Stoked]

So the law he broke is tha the did not notify congress 30 days before hand?

Falls in line with the president not teminating military action in Libya after 90 days. There was no congressional approval.

 

[One Brow]

Well, there was this little bit about one of the terrori... um, detainees in the Wall Street Journal:

When the Taliban seized control of this area from their Northern Alliance rivals in 1999, they systematically demolished entire villages, blowing up houses, burning fields and seeding the land with mines, according to two comprehensive studies of war crimes and atrocities during wars in Afghanistan and human rights reports. Mr. Fazl played a major role in the destruction.

But hey, I'm sure he's a changed man now.

Wait, the Taliban took over the area, and then seeded the land with mines among other acts of destruction? Or, the Northern Alliance committed the destruction while losing the ground (much more common)? So, Mr. Fazi was fighting the Taliban, and is now being returned to them?

 

[One Brow]

This is a problem on multiple levels.

1. The president broke the law to do this. I can't see how this is even arguable.

Which section of the law? Can you quote it? I agree that a baseless assertion can't be argued against.

2. The president had a glorious WELCOME HOME!!! ceremony in the freakin' Rose Garden. For those accusing anyone else of playing politics, right there is where the game started.

If the President has a ceremony, he's playing politics. If he doesn't, he's ignoring veterans.

3. To what extent Congress was involved in this discussion in years past, information about the deserter's situation was withheld. Senators just found about Bergdahl's "goodbye" note when the NYT ran the story a couple of days ago. Also, members of Bergdahl's platoon were told to hide the truth about what happened.

Innocent until proven guilty.

4. The people that got sent back are more important and dangerous NOW than when they were captured. And they were plenty bad then.

In what way are they more dangerous?

5. A precedent has been sent that we will give back prisoners for any fool American you can find floating around.

So far, the Taliban has found all of 1 over a ten-year-period.

6. There is no chance that Bergdahl will be investigated completely and thoroughly because he was honored by Obama in a freakin' Rose Garden Ceremony.

We shall see.

7. People like OneBrow will jump in and have strong opinions about this case while showing they have absolutely no knowledge about the factors and details of said case.

I challenge you to present one strong opinion I have offered in this whole thread.

Will somehow try to accuse those pissed off about what happened as "racist!!!!"

Interesting that you went there. Why do you think the topic of racism is relevant to this story, or your reaction to it?

8. During said Rose Garden ceremony, no mention was made of the soldiers who sacrificed and died working to free Bergdahl, and to cut the terrorists off from moving Bergdahl to Pakistan where he would have been separated from his head.

Those soldiers have not already been honored?

9. The entire purpose of this escapade was to remove the VA scandal from the front pages. Mission Accomplished.

Perhaps.

 

[The Thriller]

framer
9. The entire purpose of this escapade was to remove the VA scandal from the front pages. Mission Accomplished.

Why would the President trade one "scandal" for "another"?

Besides, it's not like he hasn't been criticized by the right nonstop every single week since jan 09.

The VA thing shall pass and so shall this. By July we'll have another "scandal."

The bigger issue is, are repubs making a big deal of the VA and this dude to take out their opposition to Obamacare out of the front pages?

 

[Surely]

I called it:

A senior Taliban commander familiar with the negotiations to exchange Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for the ‘Taliban 5’ said Thursday that Americans are now a high value target for kidnapping, especially now that such a tremendous incentive has been established.
The commander told TIME Thursday, “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

 

[♪alt13]

Many positions are. This was not a trap question. Just wondered how you felt about getting him back and then how you felt about how it was done.

I didn't think it was a trap question. I was only saying that for me it is a hypothetical because of this and because it is such a hard decision to make I cannot justly criticize what happened. That being said yes I think it was probably the wrong decision.

This has already happened before i believe.

Do peole think this is the first time an enemy of the U.S. has tried to capture americans and hold them hostage?

I think this type of thing has been going on for a long time

Of course it has and of of course it will happen again regardless. Will there be more hostage taking than there otherwise would have been because of this prisoner swap? I think the obvious answer is yes. The real question is how do you weigh that against one life. Tough decisions. There was no "correct" course of action here, imo.

 

[babe]

We have drones bro. Problem solved soon.

didn't you get the memo?

drones have all been re-targeted on those Nevada welfare ranchers. . . . . this time up in Elko. . . . taking out Reid's opposition man by man.

 

[babe]

lol

Bergdahl did a full Stockholm while "in captivity". Well, maybe he just rolled over and bragged "convert". In any case, people died, others were maimed because he voluntarily deserted his US post.

Probably Obama likes this kind of thinking, wants more of it.

I'm not laughing at the truths framer has outlined because negotiating this way with these people means "open season" on US tourists as well as soldiers, just like doing nothing while US personnel are under attack in Benghazi invites further attacks on US soldiers in all places they might be stationed.

Obama should be impeached for this intentional de-construction of our laws and the deaths it has brought, and will continue to bring, upon Americans.

People like some of you who don't get this have simply lost your good sense.

 

[babe]

1. I will need to look into this as I have heard it before but not looked at it.

2. So? Is one persons foolish action justification for more? If that is your argument than it is an extremely poor one.

3. Again, Bergdahl's alleged desertion (not proven in court yet) is irrelevant to him being an American and us not leaving Americans behind.

4. Pure speculation. They might be. But after anywhere from 5-10 years they may be broken men. You, and no one else on here, has any idea on this. All speculation.

5. Isreal did a swap for 1,000 to 1 to get a soldier back. There have not been a rash of kidnappping of Isrealis. not to mention that in the entire time that our soldiers were over there Berghdahl is the first oen they captured. And thru claimed idiocy on his part no less.

6. If he deserted, or is even a traitor as some claim, then he should be. If the facts are there, and no I don't count MSNBC and Fox as sources, and he isn't then that is wrong. B ut has no bearing on the fact that he should have been recovered.

7. One Brow does that but so does everyone else. You and I included.

8. So a politician played politics...are you surprised. Both sides play these foolish games. Doesn't make it right though.

9. You may very well be right.


As for my stance. Getting him back was the right and American thing to do. One could argue the way he was recovered as being the right or wrong way. But getting him back was right. There should not be conditions on Americans protectign our own. If he coimmited crimes under American law then we should handle that once back.

No one is even denying that he deserted. The question is whether his "conversion" to Islam, to the enemy's cause, while in captivity might have been a case of "stockholm syndrome". If he was worth five terrorists once incarcerated for involvement with killing 3000 Americans in 2001, he would have been worth a strategic rescue by force of arms, but as a deserter and a soldier guilty of treason, it is a shame we sent anyone to get him back, let alone lost good and loyal men in that effort, faithful and patriotic men died, or were disabled in that effort already. There is no doubt the people who are protesting the deal, who were involved in the attempts to get him back, do know the facts. He went AWOL. We "traded" six for zero, and gave one traitor a gala welcome in the Rose Garden.

I never thought Afghanistan or Iraq was a war we should fight. We just need to vote the whole UN crowd out of office in this country and get back to minding our actual interests, maybe rooting some thugs out of our so-called "intelligence" agencies, even shutting them down wholesale as anti-American darkside psy-op monsters.

But subjecting innocent American servicemen to outrages in the line the duty, and exposing them to needless risks while openly embracing our enemies is intolerable for an American President.

 

[One Brow]

I called it:

A senior Taliban commander familiar with the negotiations to exchange Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for the ‘Taliban 5’ said Thursday that Americans are now a high value target for kidnapping, especially now that such a tremendous incentive has been established.
The commander told TIME Thursday, “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

A senior Taliban commander used "important bird"? I'm going to need a link on that, please.

Also, if you think they have not been trying o capture soldiers all along, that's rather naive.

 

[One Brow]

Will there be more hostage taking ...

Let's be clear: Bergdahl was not a hostage; he was a prisoner of war. Soldiers always have had a target on their back for capture. The reason we have not had more soldiers captured is not because the Taliban weren't trying, but because of the care and professionalism of the US forces.

 

[Stoked]

No one is even denying that he deserted. The question is whether his "conversion" to Islam, to the enemy's cause, while in captivity might have been a case of "stockholm syndrome". If he was worth five terrorists once incarcerated for involvement with killing 3000 Americans in 2001, he would have been worth a strategic rescue by force of arms, but as a deserter and a soldier guilty of treason, it is a shame we sent anyone to get him back, let alone lost good and loyal men in that effort, faithful and patriotic men died, or were disabled in that effort already. There is no doubt the people who are protesting the deal, who were involved in the attempts to get him back, do know the facts. He went AWOL. We "traded" six for zero, and gave one traitor a gala welcome in the Rose Garden.

I never thought Afghanistan or Iraq was a war we should fight. We just need to vote the whole UN crowd out of office in this country and get back to minding our actual interests, maybe rooting some thugs out of our so-called "intelligence" agencies, even shutting them down wholesale as anti-American darkside psy-op monsters.

But subjecting innocent American servicemen to outrages in the line the duty, and exposing them to needless risks while openly embracing our enemies is intolerable for an American President.

But some are using that as an argument to justify leaving him. To me it is not an acceptable reason. He is one of us and we handle our own. That includes punishment when needed.

Now I am open to their being other, possibly better, ways of getting him back but I am glad they got him.

 

[framer]

What do people think would have happened if Obama had followed the law and conferred with Congress about this swap? The fact that they didn't shows that even Obama's team thought that this was sketchy.

 

[The Thriller]

What do people think would have happened if Obama had followed the law and conferred with Congress about this swap? The fact that they didn't shows that even Obama's team thought that this was sketchy.

If Obama had left the guy to rot, those very same people bitching about the swap would be bitching about him leaving Americans behind.

Besides, was congress consulted every time Bush, Clinton, Reagan (was congress consulted before Reagan gave 1500 missiles to Iran?).... FDR.... Lincoln used swaps?

The mere fact that people are complaining about this and acting as if it has "never been done before" screams volumes about the partisanship of our media and congress, not Obama.

Contrary to what am radio and foxnews says, Obama isn't a rogue president by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, he's barely even a democrat. He's a moderate repub.

 

[Stoked]

What do people think would have happened if Obama had followed the law and conferred with Congress about this swap? The fact that they didn't shows that even Obama's team thought that this was sketchy.

Actually that is not what it tells me at all.

Look at the whole picture. They way they broke the news and initially had a mini celebration.

To me that says not that they saw it as sketchy but that they don't need congressional approval or even congressional knowledge on anything that they (administration) do. That they are above congress and the law. It also says that there is no possible way that anyone could conceivably disagree with them out of anything other than partisan politics or racism as often decried on every issue by the left.

Edit: @ thriller you have a point. it does point out the hypocrisy on the right. It has happened before. Such as in Vietnam. But excusing this bad behaviour, not following the rules/law, because others didn't is bad behavior. Especially when it is from the President. Do you really want the President using "Well Bush and Clinton did it..." as his defense? I sure don't. Justifying ones own bad behavior by the bad behavior of others is never a good idea/policy/defense.

 

[The Thriller]

Difficult to understand the right:

An American marine (who may or may not have deserted) is somehow a villain...

While a racist welfare rancher who admittedly refused to pay his taxes (and then pulls guns on law enforcement) is somehow a hero.