The swap was discussed as early as 2011.
https://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/03/republican-bergdahl-scandal-falls-white-house-discussed-swap-gop-2011.html
But, well, we believe what we want to.
Bergdahl story
- Thread starter HighlandHomie
- Start date
The swap was discussed as early as 2011.
https://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/03/republican-bergdahl-scandal-falls-white-house-discussed-swap-gop-2011.html
But, well, we believe what we want to.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Ssshhhh! Stop letting history and facts get in the way of opinion!
What he did or didn't do isn't the question; he was a POW. We got that POW back at a net positive(we no longer have to feed, house, etc 5 detainees). What's so difficult to accept about that?
Distancing ourselves from all things war that should not have occurred? So do I.
I'd still like to see the link that says from a Taliban senior operative that it is open season on Americans. My considerable google skills are falling short
Deaths that Obama brought? he's doing a damn fine job of correcting a trillion dollar albatross that was the war on terror.
Good sense is after a war, getting what soldiers we can back. The war's over, we got our guy back. Will it be open season? We'll see... but I'm not holding my breath.
Found the link
https://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/
But let me understand this.. the only confirmed person they talked to is Ted Cruz?
Let's say they did talk to a taliban commander. They just admitted that they(TIME magazine) have contacts with terrorist organizations.
... really? I'm the one that's lost my good sense?
https://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/
But let me understand this.. the only confirmed person they talked to is Ted Cruz?
Let's say they did talk to a taliban commander. They just admitted that they(TIME magazine) have contacts with terrorist organizations.
... really? I'm the one that's lost my good sense?
I agree with you that Obama is "barely even a democrat", but he's a "Moderae repub" if and only if "moderate repubs" are people who are ashamed to be ordinary, principled Americans who follow the law, and take their oath of office, to uphold our Constitution. Obama not only sneers at such a notion, he is damn proud to be doing everything our "progressive"/ "marxist" CFR, UN one-worlders, and international banking elites want.
That's the kind of "moderate repub" George Bush was, but even Bill Clinton seemed to be more of a real democrat, even if he did sell out the Democratic Party to the bankers. Most liberals loved the movie about how a Texas democrat engineered our assistance to Afghanistanis, hell, Hollywood even made a movie about it. And they did the whole movie without showing Ronald Reagan in the decision loop. If you don't believe me, watch it yourself. . . . It's the movie called "Charlie's War".
Obama might be just too stupid to be a rogue anything, but he certainly is too stupid to be our President.
PS. I didn't get it at first. I do remember the Iran-Iraq war. I do know we were a stakeholder in the Iraq buildup, and I do remember we sold 1500 missiles, as well, to Iran. The Iraqis used chemical weapons, we had to do something to "restore balance". This is a perfect example of how our CIA works to set up and manipulate international conflict, building the customer base for our military hardware retailers.
Fact is, we did the same thing to set up WWII.
When our cartelists were set back by Anti-Trust legislation and had to sell off parts of their empires to restore competition on American soil, they found fertile soil in the fascist nations especially Germany and Italy. They took their money and invested there, where cartelism was welcomed and even given a seat at the table of government. That is the meaning of "fascism". Henry Ford loved Hitler and held him up as a fine example. The school rag at Yale extolled Hitler as the cutting edge of progress. The Rockefellers invested in German Pharmaceuticals and chemicals. BBH errand boy Prescott Bush carried money in a brown suitcase just to bankroll Hitler's Reichstag fire and subsequent dismantlement of the legislative branch of German government. Not a whole lot different from Obama today getting up and saying if congress won't do what needs doing, he will.
At the highest levels of our government, we betrayed our own soldiers all the way through WWII. Good generals like Stillwell and Patton who had the practical loyalty to American blood we sidelined while cartelist patsies like Eisenhower were allowed to muddle up the campaigns of the war. Only MacArthur was able to hold his position through to the reconstruction phase, administering Japan's government, and masterfully doing so. But even he was sidelined during the Korean War for his loyalty to American blood over fascist triangulation. . . . .
So here's another "dot", apparently unconnected, unless I make this intolerably long. My brother-in-law, fighting in the Korean War, tells of how US soldiers on the front were betrayed by US Army brass, who were required under the UN war rules, to tell the communists, the Russian generals, of our plans. On one secret and critical battle, our boys marched behind enemy lines to take a position. When they got there, the enemy turned on floodlights all around them and broadcast in English that it was a useless fight, because they had expected them to show up at that exact spot. A lot of American blood was lost that night because American "leaders" betrayed American soldiers.
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Reagan tripled the debt.
Nixon created the EPA.
Eisenhower raised taxes, built the interstate highway system, and cut defense spending.
Hoover began stimulus spending to aid in the recovery from the GD.
Coolidge deregulated Wall Street (Obama hasn't done anything to reign in the craziness there)
Harding had backroom deals and scandals.
Wilson began forming alliances and stuck his nose in Europe's business
Teddy created national monuments, raised taxes to build his white fleet, and began carrying a "big stick" to start possible illegal wars with Spain to expand American power
Hell, you could go as far back as Jefferson (I know he wasn't a Republican). Did he consult with Congress before signing the Louisiana Purchase? Even the writer of the Dec of Independence did something *gasp* questionable!
If you compare Obama to previous Republican Presidents (not counting the last 20-30 years when the GOP has been hijacked by crazies) Obama is actually more comparable to a moderate republican than to a flaming liberal.
Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a Communist by today's GOP standards.
Cut him some slack... we all know Babe leans right and has a serious handicap when it comes to anyone having too much power.
You wouldn't make fun of a guy in a wheel chair, would you?
I don't seriously doubt that TIME and a lot of other Americans have "contacts with terrorist organizations" since the really important ones have been "assets" of our so-called "intelligence" agencies at some point in time. The Americans who helped get 1500 heat-seeking, shoulder-launched "missiles" in the hands of the Taliban and other Afghan groups during "Charlie Wilson's War" are still around, and willing to drop a clue to trusted, that is "team player" media folks. Not only that, but the Obama "Team" including Hillary have been "in the sack" for terrorist organizations from Egypt, to Libya, to Syria. . . . hell everywhere.
Obama has not gotten us out of the war on terror. He has joined it, on the other side.
Our "War on Terror" has been a colossal failure, beginning with George Bush hustling about a hundred and fifty members of Osama Bin Laden's relatives on a plane and getting them out of this country right after 9/11, while our regular air travel was shut down. It has never been anything but a UN policy-enforcement operation for changing foreign governments and putting Americans on watch lists.
That's why, in my view, people who just follow the drive-by newsfeed cannot judge events with "good sense".
In 1974 I read US Army training manuals/exercises which detailed war scenarios just like Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think we should be spending millions let alone trillions on occupying foreign soil under a UN flag or UN administration, or passing out so-called "Constitutions" for the UN management of any nations, anywhere. And I knew from the git-go that a war called a "War on Terrorism" is in fact a "war on noncompliance with elite objectives in civil adminsitration". You can call anyone a terrorist. Bill Clinton's Justice Dept chief claimed fundamentalist Christians the only "terrorists we need to be concerned about", completely pooh-poohing radical Islamists. That was when she sent the tanks in to burn down the little nutjob in Wacko, just a year before OKC.
It's Un-American to pass out bizarre hate-labels and declare war on people who don't "fit the mold" somehow. Our military has been subverted into being an agent of the international banking elites, and that's the real problem.
Your mind seems to be jumping from one thing to another without connecting the dots but still imagining them as all the same thing. Some believe that pattern recognition is the fundamental thing that supposedly makes humans smarter than the other animals, which would mean by those definitions you are the most evolved person in this conversation.
Unfortunately, the dots you're connecting... the pattern you're seeing doesn't really exist. False recognition is the quickest route to devolution.
What's this, I'm being interviewed and thrown soft pitches that I can knock clear over the Hudson? Not sure which way Yankee stadiums right field fence would go across the river, but pretty sure there's a river out there I can get that ball clear over on this one.
Reagan was a patsy for our globalists. He was shot in the head, remember? No way am I "on the team" for Republicans who led us on that government expansion project.
I worked for a member of the CFR when Nixon created the EPA, was as a youth soberly told "we need to clean up the environment". Nixon was "in the bag" for the Rockefeller and the CFR policy elites. Hell he had Kissinger as our Secretary of State. I've seen the EPA subverted into an enforcement agency that does nothing serious about big polluters "in the loop" politically while shutting down smaller operations aka "the competition". Clearly it's design and function is to enforce monopolist economics, sometimes fearful of even suggesting improvements to larger corporations with staffs of lawyers bigger than JazzFanz. It's nothing about "clean air", it's all about shutting down onshore industry while winking at American corporate cartelists who have the means to just locate their plants next ot their slave labor market du jour.
Want me to go on? I wouldn't miss Lincoln either.
Jefferson realized that there was no Constitutional provision for the Federal Government to get in the Land Business buying Lousiana up to the headwaters of the Missouri. But he also realized the reason why 13 little colonies had to band together against the European powers for mere survival had forced us to "compromise" on slavery. He was a slaveholder himself, and probably had a black mistress he actually loved. But he knew slavery was just wrong. Maybe Madison and some other northern colony representatives had made that point with him. The purchase was a long-range answer to that size problem, and personally I'm not totally against it. I just want the Federal government to make real states of the Western states who's land they are still trying to hold. The Fed can't do anything a State can't do, and won't do if the people want the land managed. At least the states would all be on equal footing then.
could be a problem with your own cognition, perhaps. We all have some kind of a data base. Pretty hard to bring a huge historical trend into focus sometimes. The reason why I "connect" these dots is because have watched the news probably a lot more than some others, and have seen a pattern. .. . well, to be absolutely lucid about it. . . . I suspect I've seen a pattern. Part of my data base is personal acquaintance with actual political players in my background, and being related to some well enough they've even tried to "recruit" me.
My father had connections with some of the most influential politicians in Las Vegas, for example, including Harry Reid and Oscar Goodman, being a sorta bright fellow working for some corporate interests. . . .
My grandfather was a real democrat, and was the most influential person in my life. He snorted in derision when some Republicans tried to talk him into running for office on the Republican ticket, and laughed them out of his office.
a more accurate term for me might be a "populist". I want an America that is not "special interests" where ordinary people have real opportunity.
It's entirely possible... but as stated earlier, we all believe what we want to believe.
But think of it this way: if you have seen "the patten", don't you think those that weave the pattern would be after you already?
I don't worry much about me. I don't have the audience range that would make it appealing on a cost/benefit analysis to even bother with. Many of the conservative talk show moguls survive because it is believed their rants will backfire, ultimately, or that they can be "managed" somehow.
I don't think the "pattern" is simply monolithic, just that our news is cherry-picked while disparate "runners" are busy unseen. Many interests playing for position, not just one, even now. I think the US/Brit wing, the Cecil Rhodes sort, will lose their hegemony in the near term. We probably won't like the next wave of manipulators, and we might even hark back with fondness for the day when "our" folks ran the world, more or less.
The world doesn't need one babe, it just needs oh about fifty million people who see that their lives are being dismantled, who are willing to act in their own interests.
Admittedly, I stopped reading this thread after page 3, but Stoked, your argument seems to be a little flawed. The whole "we're leaving Afghanistan so who cares if there are an extra 5 Taliban there" thing is short-sighted. We weren't exactly fighting terrorism/Osama before 9/11. That didn't mean they weren't getting ready to attack us. I absolutely think having 5 more senior leaders there is a big deal. I also think we should have gotten Bergdahl back. But the price was TOO HIGH.
I'll now go back to not reading this thread.
I'll now go back to not reading this thread.
And that's a fair take. Seems reasonable. Most other arguments included attacks on his character and hinted that we should have left him. That's what I'm arguing.
Also your argument assumes they are still threats. None of us know that.
Short of using trite commonplace insults regarding intelligence, perhaps I should just wonder why you think everyone else is just stupid, too.
Do you realize how much effort and planning and expense has been targeted at creating a westernized so-called "Islamic" terrorist tool that can be used to augment military hardware sales for our homeboy producers? Seriously, can you imagine they will not be exploited to keep the bottom line deep in black?
intelligence is the ability to respond cognitively to present facts, in a reasoned effort to solve a problem. When you see deliberate efforts to keep a "problem" alive, intelligence must respond with a question like "why?"
I'm pretty sure our "leaders" are not just "stupid". Question is, why don't you want to see a problem like this. . . . AWOL soldiers costing their cohorts' lives, and avowed combatants against your peace, publicly and conclusively intolerated?
Do you own stock in some military production corporation?
A rational self-interested government would have taken anyone directly involved in 9/11 and finished them with a firing squad, and made sure the news got out. The only reason we didn't is because they will surely do more trouble that will necessitate drones, missiles, bombs, and a lot of other stuff being used up.
What are you even talking about babe? You went from one argument to an entirely new one. We never even got into what should be done with the gitmo prisoners. Nor have I attacked any on on a personal level, including intelligence. I don't think that and I'm fairly certain you cannot back that up with any of my statements in this thread.
You really did just make wild assumptions and huge jumps in your argument. You are way off base on me.
You really did just make wild assumptions and huge jumps in your argument. You are way off base on me.
Excellent example of a horrid American president. You got the party wrong but a good example none the less.
Last edited:
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I don't get this "leave-no-traitor-behind" mentality.
At least Benedict helped win a key battle before he turned coat.