View Full Version : 5 for 1 trade
8timechamps
6/2/2014, 03:23 PM
I am almost speechless.
First, I'm glad Bergdahl is safe. However, if reports are true, and he was a deserter, then I hope he faces punishment. Soldiers died as a result of the search.
Anyway, even if I can look past that issue, why in hell would we trade 5 of the top Taliban prisoners for one soldier? I can't wrap my head around how anyone could come to the conclusion that was a "good deal".
The trade will do nothing but cause problems for soldiers in the future
I wouldn't have traded for him....
jkjsooner
6/2/2014, 03:56 PM
Anyway, even if I can look past that issue, why in hell would we trade 5 of the top Taliban prisoners for one soldier? I can't wrap my head around how anyone could come to the conclusion that was a "good deal".
Because we value our soldiers so much.
The trade will do nothing but cause problems for soldiers in the future
It opens up the possibility that they could try to take other soldiers for another exchange. But let's be honest, they have known since the beginning that taking a soldier gives them a lot of bargaining power.
On the other hand, it tells our soldiers that we will not abandon them. That is a great side effect.
hawaii 5-0
6/2/2014, 04:08 PM
I see it as open season on kidnapping our soldiers in Afghanistan.
Time to get out.
5-0
Boomer.....
6/2/2014, 04:09 PM
So what happens when they take another soldier and want more men freed or something of higher value? Are we going to keep giving in to their demands? If we don't, what does that say about our value of soldiers?
TheHumanAlphabet
6/2/2014, 04:14 PM
Leave it to the Alinskyite to fuc& the military again...
5 Terrorists for 1 Deserter-----------Shrewd trade
TheHumanAlphabet
6/2/2014, 05:38 PM
Shrewd for the Alinsky lover... He just made the military kidnap targets in exchange for a deserter and gave his islamic brothers back 5 high value leaders. If you want to bring down our country like he does, this is the exact script to play...
improves the islamists morale and screws with the military's. And the military can't dare charge the guy, what with the big ole Presidential press conference and all... Yeah, eff the military... Eff you Barry the commie!
8timechamps
6/2/2014, 07:57 PM
Because we value our soldiers so much.
It opens up the possibility that they could try to take other soldiers for another exchange. But let's be honest, they have known since the beginning that taking a soldier gives them a lot of bargaining power.
On the other hand, it tells our soldiers that we will not abandon them. That is a great side effect.
Please.
This had become a big time political story, and was only getting bigger. The trade was terrible, and there have been many situations in the past where deals could have been made and weren't.
Like I said, if the reports are true, and this guy was a deserter (and it's looking more and more likely), then a lot of soldiers were KIA looking for him, and that makes it even worse.
To say that this doesn't change things is naive. This will change things.
rock on sooner
6/2/2014, 08:20 PM
Please.
This had become a big time political story, and was only getting bigger. The trade was terrible, and there have been many situations in the past where deals could have been made and weren't.
Like I said, if the reports are true, and this guy was a deserter (and it's looking more and more likely), then a lot of soldiers were KIA looking for him, and that makes it even worse.
To say that this doesn't change things is naive. This will change things.
IF this guy went walkabout (as a deserter) then that'll come out, eventually...imo.
To leave an ill man behind, for ANY reason, flies in the face of our military creed. Think
about the Isrealis and how they work this stuff...a bunch of Hamas/PLO paid a big price.
Whose to say there isn't a grander plan about those five?...I'm fairly certain that there
is a "way" to keep those five under surveillance. While we can all speculate on just how
much of a "bad" trade this is and all its ramifications (yeah, more kidnapping, captures,
etc.) I'm guessing the NSA/DIA/CIA/electronic surveillance/drones/satellites/covert activity
is on point. How else do y'all think we know who goes back into the field? How do you think
we target the bad guys? Frankly, WGAS about collateral damage when so many of the "believers"
sidle up to the bad guys and tell them that we'll help, no matter what the consequences? My
experience with Islamists is aged somewhat (40 years or so) but it appears to never change,
no matter what we do...imo, just leave 'em alone, bring our guys home and go about our
business. Extreme prejudice where we can and where it is deserved...give 'em all the sand!
That is all! Carry on!
BoulderSooner79
6/2/2014, 08:54 PM
Our guys are worth a million times more than theirs to me. Now this particular
guy seems to have issues, but I don't know what caused him to walk away.
I also don't understand why we put other guys in danger trying to rescue him
if he did walk away. But the precedent of leaving no soldier behind is a very
important one that shouldn't be broken lightly. Maybe in this case it should be,
I don't know enough to judge. I can only hope our military execs were
behind this.
The other issue is that these guys were Taliban, not Al Qaeda. I don't know
the particular of these 5 guys, but many of them were bureaucrats, not
terrorists. They sympathized with Al Qaeda and let them train in Afghanistan
to which we said "sorry, you can't rule here anymore". But most were not involved
with planning or carrying out terror attacks. These guys may not be deemed
as dangerous to us. If they had been Al Qaeda, I'd join any campaign demanding
the fastest impeachment the law allows.
Sooner8th
6/2/2014, 09:58 PM
Iran-Contra Affair
The Iran-Contra Affair was a clandestine action not approved of by the United States Congress. It began in 1985, when President Ronald Reagan's administration supplied weapons to Iran¹ — a sworn enemy — in hopes of securing the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's leader. This article is rooted in the Iran Hostage Crisis.
The U.S. took millions of dollars from the weapons sale and routed them and guns to the right-wing "Contra"² guerrillas in Nicaragua. The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction, following the July 1979 overthrow of strongman Anastasio Somoza Debayle and the ending of the Somoza family's 43-year reign.
Illegal trading
The transactions that took place in the Iran-Contra scandal were contrary to the legislation of the Democratic-dominated Congress and contrary to official Reagan administration policy.
Part of the deal was that, in July 1985, the United States would send 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles from Israel to Iran for the safe exchange of a hostage, the Reverend Benjamin Weir.
After that successful transfer, the Israelis offered to ship 500 HAWK surface-to-air missiles to Iran in November 1985, in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon. Eventually the arms were sold with proceeds going to the contras, and the hostages were released.
In February 1986, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were more shipments of various weapons and parts.
Eventually Hezbollah elected to kidnap more hostages following their release of the previous ones, which rendered meaningless any further dealings with Iran.
That's all that needs to be said.
Turd_Ferguson
6/2/2014, 10:05 PM
You're a work of ****'n art I tell ya...
Sooner8th
6/2/2014, 10:13 PM
You're a work of ****'n art I tell ya...
Alternate universe. Yet another rightwing circle jerk of OUTRAGE! Grab your pitchforks and torches and take to the streets. One on here mentioned if this was a trade were different - IMPEACHMENT! No one mentioned impeaching the senile old man back then. Obama didn't break any laws, didn't go against congress. This is going to be yet another ginned up "scandal" that will only get traction with rightwingers who read only crazy rightwing websites.
Iran-Contra Affair
The Iran-Contra Affair was a clandestine action not approved of by the United States Congress. It began in 1985, when President Ronald Reagan's administration supplied weapons to Iran¹ — a sworn enemy — in hopes of securing the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's leader. This article is rooted in the Iran Hostage Crisis.
The U.S. took millions of dollars from the weapons sale and routed them and guns to the right-wing "Contra"² guerrillas in Nicaragua. The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction, following the July 1979 overthrow of strongman Anastasio Somoza Debayle and the ending of the Somoza family's 43-year reign.
Illegal trading
The transactions that took place in the Iran-Contra scandal were contrary to the legislation of the Democratic-dominated Congress and contrary to official Reagan administration policy.
Part of the deal was that, in July 1985, the United States would send 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles from Israel to Iran for the safe exchange of a hostage, the Reverend Benjamin Weir.
After that successful transfer, the Israelis offered to ship 500 HAWK surface-to-air missiles to Iran in November 1985, in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon. Eventually the arms were sold with proceeds going to the contras, and the hostages were released.
In February 1986, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were more shipments of various weapons and parts.
Eventually Hezbollah elected to kidnap more hostages following their release of the previous ones, which rendered meaningless any further dealings with Iran.
That's all that needs to be said.
So when do the public hearings start? What you are referencing had public hearings.
BoulderSooner79
6/2/2014, 10:36 PM
Alternate universe. Yet another rightwing circle jerk of OUTRAGE! Grab your pitchforks and torches and take to the streets. One on here mentioned if this was a trade were different - IMPEACHMENT! No one mentioned impeaching the senile old man back then. Obama didn't break any laws, didn't go against congress. This is going to be yet another ginned up "scandal" that will only get traction with rightwingers who read only crazy rightwing websites.
I used the word impeachment as hyperbole to emphasis the difference between Al Qaeda prisoners and Taliban. I should be more precise with my wording. But I also said I hope this was a decision by military execs and if so, I'll stand by their decision. It's hard to attribute this as a political actions since it's so obvious it would be perceived negatively given the circumstances of this guys captivity. "Had these prisoners been Al Qaeda, I would have shared the outrage and been more eager to knows the details." Better?
olevetonahill
6/2/2014, 10:49 PM
You're a work of ****'n art I tell ya...
Dude is so anti Right he's gone completely Loose in the Brains!
Wishboned
6/2/2014, 11:04 PM
Alternate universe. Yet another rightwing circle jerk of OUTRAGE! Grab your pitchforks and torches and take to the streets. One on here mentioned if this was a trade were different - IMPEACHMENT! No one mentioned impeaching the senile old man back then. Obama didn't break any laws, didn't go against congress. This is going to be yet another ginned up "scandal" that will only get traction with rightwingers who read only crazy rightwing websites.
Unless Henry Gonzalez changed his name to No one then you are wrong.
From March 6, 1987
Representative Henry B. Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who asked the House to impeach President Reagan after the Grenada invasion in 1983, today introduced new articles of impeachment against Mr. Reagan regarding the Iran arms affair. They were given virtually no chance of approval. The six articles accuse Mr. Reagan of misconduct in secretly selling arms to Iran, of allegedly diverting the arms sale payments to the Nicaraguan rebels and of failing to inform Congressional intelligence committees of his activities.
Home Times Topics Member Center
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/06/us/texan-acts-for-impeachment.html
Sooner8th
6/2/2014, 11:29 PM
I used the word impeachment as hyperbole to emphasis the difference between Al Qaeda prisoners and Taliban. I should be more precise with my wording. But I also said I hope this was a decision by military execs and if so, I'll stand by their decision. It's hard to attribute this as a political actions since it's so obvious it would be perceived negatively given the circumstances of this guys captivity. "Had these prisoners been Al Qaeda, I would have shared the outrage and been more eager to knows the details." Better?
If they were al queda - he wouldn't have let them go. 'cause there are plenty of al queda he could have let go.
Sooner8th
6/2/2014, 11:30 PM
Unless Henry Gonzalez changed his name to No one then you are wrong.
From March 6, 1987
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/06/us/texan-acts-for-impeachment.html
I stand corrected, thanks for enlightening me. reagan did break the law - Obama didn't.
Wishboned
6/2/2014, 11:48 PM
I stand corrected, thanks for enlightening me. reagan did break the law - Obama didn't.
A law professor from George Washington University and the legal analyst from CNN would disagree with you.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/law-professor-jonathan-turley-i-dont-think-theres-much-debate-that-obama-broke-law-with-prisoner-swap/
CAROL COSTELLO: “Jonathan, did the White House violate federal law?”
JONATHAN TURLEY: “They did. I don’t think the White House is seriously arguing they’re not violating federal law. To make matters worse, this is a long series of violations of federal law this president has been accused of. I testified twice in Congress about this record of the president in suspending or ignoring federal laws. This is going to add to that pile. I don’t think there’s much debate that they’re in violation of the law. What’s fascinating, Carol, is when this law went to the president, he used a signing statement which, if you recall as a senator, he opposed, and ran against for president. But he actually used one in this circumstance and said, ‘I’m going to sign this, but I actually think that notice requirement is unconstitutional.’ He’s essentially arguing the very same principle of George Bush, that when it comes to Gitmo, he has almost absolute power, that it is his prerogative, his inherent authority to be able to make these decisions as he sees fit.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeffrey-toobin-obama-clearly-broke-the-law-on-bergdahl/
Even the former ambassador, and Democratic Governor of New Mexico thinks he broke the law. He considers the law impractical, but he still says it was broken.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/02/Bill-Richardson-Prisoner-Swap-Broke-Law
Sooner8th
6/3/2014, 12:33 AM
A law professor from George Washington University and the legal analyst from CNN would disagree with you.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/law-professor-jonathan-turley-i-dont-think-theres-much-debate-that-obama-broke-law-with-prisoner-swap/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeffrey-toobin-obama-clearly-broke-the-law-on-bergdahl/
Even the former ambassador, and Democratic Governor of New Mexico thinks he broke the law. He considers the law impractical, but he still says it was broken.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/02/Bill-Richardson-Prisoner-Swap-Broke-Law
Then impeach away. Please do.
Interestingly, the Obama administration has turned the Bush era justification for handling detainees on its ear. Defense Secretary Hagel argued on Meet The Press that President Obama had the authority to make a deal for the captured solider under his commander-in-chief powers laid out in Article II of the Constitution. Hagel also said that Sgt. Bergdahl’s health was in decline, “We believed that the information we had, the intelligence we had, was such that Sgt. Bergdahl’s safety and health were in jeopardy. In particular his health was deteriorating. It was our judgment that if we could find an opening and move very quickly, we needed to get him out of there, essentially to save his life.”
Is obama the commander in chief? Isn't the guy a solider? Aren't detainees at gimo enemy combatants? HHUUUMMMM
This should be interesting.
Before anyone freaks out - I will say this is just stupid. Advise congress, if they talk and it falls apart obama gets to claim they politicized it, if they don't he gets credit for freeing him and if he turns out to be a traitor he can say i told congress and they didnt object. Dumb move.
And what are we going to give the Mexicans for the Marine being held there - a drug lord or two?
And what are we going to give the Mexicans for the Marine being held there - a drug lord or two?----Give them South Texas----They have most of it anyway
----Give them South Texas----They have most of it anyway
And us Okies wouldn't miss it :applause:
5 Terrorists for 1 Deserter-----------Shrewd trade
Heh heh...yep, since Obama did it it must be good.
Yes, the biggest news about this thing is how the emperor, has taken yet another action that by passes Congress. I think I saw some true concern on the senators reacting to it, as in, "we have got to stop this guy." Obama might just refuse to leave office when his term is over by enacting some executive order! I am only semi-kidding too. I am sure that all the other power grabs in history were proceeded with the majority of the population saying, "Oh hogwash. That couldn't happen."
The whole thing is just exacerbated by 1)what a bad trade it was, and 2)the rescued soldier is going to turn out to be a traitor.
Sooner8th
6/3/2014, 10:29 AM
Yes, the biggest news about this thing is how the emperor, has taken yet another action that by passes Congress. I think I saw some true concern on the senators reacting to it, as in, "we have got to stop this guy." Obama might just refuse to leave office when his term is over by enacting some executive order! I am only semi-kidding too. I am sure that all the other power grabs in history were proceeded with the majority of the population saying, "Oh hogwash. That couldn't happen."
The whole thing is just exacerbated by 1)what a bad trade it was, and 2)the rescued soldier is going to turn out to be a traitor.
oh come on-----------------bush did the same things.
BoulderSooner79
6/3/2014, 10:46 AM
If they were al queda - he wouldn't have let them go. 'cause there are plenty of al queda he could have let go.
That's was my point, but I guess you missed it. People act like Taliban and terrorist are the same thing and it's not true. They are just slime that want to run the government and make sure girls don't learn to read or show their faces.
i don't know if this soldier was worth the "no soldier left behind" rule. But I also don't know if he was worth breaking it. A lot of gray area here.
Hillary Clinton Defends Prisoner Swap
Tuesday, 03 Jun 2014 06:16 AM
Hillary Clinton gave a measured defense Monday of the Obama administration's controversial decision to swap five Guantanamo Bay detainees for a U.S. soldier held hostage in Afghanistan, noting that many of America's allies make similar deals.
The former secretary of state was asked about the exchange by the moderator at an event in a Denver suburb. Clinton said she did not second-guess people who make such tough decisions, but said the American tradition of caring for its citizens and soldiers was a "noble" one.
She also noted that countries like Israel have made similar swaps, citing that country's decision to exchange more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for one of its soldiers in 2011.
"This young man, whatever the circumstances, was an American citizen — is an American citizen — was serving in our military," Clinton said. "The idea that you really care for your own citizens and particularly those in uniform, I think is a very noble one."
Several Republicans have hammered the Obama administration for the deal, saying it had capitulated to terrorists. Additionally, some critics have suggested that Bergdahl deserted his post in Afghanistan before being captured by the Taliban in 2009.
Clinton said the most important thing will be to get as much information as possible from Bergdahl about his time in captivity, saying he could be a valuable intelligence asset and shed light on the Taliban's workings. She noted the Guantanamo detainees were supposed to be kept in the Gulf emirate of Qatar for a year.
She added that she understood regrets about the deal but that the Obama administration feared Bergdahl wouldn't survive much longer. She described it as an example of the "hard choices" in government that is also the title of her forthcoming book.
"You don't want to see these five prisoners go back to combat. There's a lot that you don't want to have happen. On the other hand you also don't want an American citizen, if you can avoid it, especially a solider, to die in captivity," Clinton said. "I think we have a long way to go before we really know how this is going to play out."
Clinton appeared as part of a public speaking series called Unique Lives & Experiences.
© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-bergdahl-defense-obama/2014/06/03/id/574752#ixzz33c7sZ800
.
olevetonahill
6/3/2014, 04:37 PM
.
Heh, Okie heres my response.
http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/fuk2.jpg HER
Heh, Okie heres my response.
http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/fuk2.jpg HER
Heh heh...
So glad that Clinton is coming out in support of this travesty. It will turn around to burn her later.
Just watched the news. The soldiers that served with Bergdahl flat out called him a deserter.
They also said they said the same thing back when he wandered off. So of course Obama knew all about it.
The most amazing thing was Dianne Feinstein (ugh. I just threw up in mouth a little bit) being mad at Obama and saying he was wrong and broke the law. Nice.
If I was conservative radio talk show host I would say that this was a blatant attempt to embarrass the USA and help the Al-Qaeda cause by a president that things he can do whatever he wants, including breaking laws, without fear of any repercussions.
This one is scaring me and making more mad than all the other transgressions he has done.
BoulderSooner79
6/3/2014, 07:01 PM
The goal was to embarrass the USA and help Al-Qaeda (even though these were Taliban POWs)? Yes, I could imagine a conservative radio talking head saying this, but only morons believing it without a few facts to back it up.
Someone would have to make up such wild motivations because this action doesn't follow the typical political script. This is not positive PR, so what I would expect out a typical administration if this issue came up is to quietly veto it. Or maybe respond with the a chicken feces "come back after the mid-term elections". But the administration allowed this obvious PR black-eye to happen. Why? Maybe the simple answer is this really was a time sensitive opportunity and the call was made that the precedent to "always retrieve our own" was more important than this particular solders' issues. I could see the tin hat crowd thinking this was Obama undermining Hilary to get back at her for some past feud or something. But helping Al Qaeda? The same guy that at great political risk took out Bin Laden inside Pakistan borders? As far as embarrassing the USA, well, I guess some folks are easily embarrassed.
The goal was to embarrass the USA and help Al-Qaeda (even though these were Taliban POWs)? Yes, I could imagine a conservative radio talking head saying this, but only morons believing it without a few facts to back it up.
Someone would have to make up such wild motivations because this action doesn't follow the typical political script. This is not positive PR, so what I would expect out a typical administration if this issue came up is to quietly veto it. Or maybe respond with the a chicken feces "come back after the mid-term elections". But the administration allowed this obvious PR black-eye to happen. Why? Maybe the simple answer is this really was a time sensitive opportunity and the call was made that the precedent to "always retrieve our own" was more important than this particular solders' issues. I could see the tin hat crowd thinking this was Obama undermining Hilary to get back at her for some past feud or something. But helping Al Qaeda? The same guy that at great political risk took out Bin Laden inside Pakistan borders? As far as embarrassing the USA, well, I guess some folks are easily embarrassed.
Assuming the rumors are true, why would the US want to do anything for this US hating deserter...?
BoulderSooner79
6/3/2014, 07:56 PM
Assuming the rumors are true, why would the US want to do anything for this US hating deserter...?
Why do you assume he was US hating? His parents said something about wanting to help
the Afghan people (whatever that means). Certainly a deserter and probably an
idiot, but I've seen no information yet that he hated the US or had any intention
of joining the enemy.
Regardless, one certain motivation to trade for his is the rule that we don't leave soldiers
behind and this idiot is not worth breaking that rule. Not for his benefit,
but for future soldiers. It could end up that we court marshall him and
just wanted him in our jail on not theirs. I don't know. I certainly understand
why fellow solders would resent the guy - I certainly would. But they
don't make policy nor should they.
I'm just saying it's pretty hard to pin this on political motivation
because there is no gain there. Then to make up motivations such
as the POTUS wanting to embarrass the USA or to aid Al Qaeda
is just absurd.
Why do you assume he was US hating? His parents said something about wanting to help
the Afghan people (whatever that means). Certainly a deserter and probably an
idiot, but I've seen no information yet that he hated the US or had any intention
of joining the enemy.
Regardless, one certain motivation to trade for his is the rule that we don't leave soldiers
behind and this idiot is not worth breaking that rule. Not for his benefit,
but for future soldiers. It could end up that we court marshall him and
just wanted him in our jail on not theirs. I don't know. I certainly understand
why fellow solders would resent the guy - I certainly would. But they
don't make policy nor should they.
I'm just saying it's pretty hard to pin this on political motivation
because there is no gain there. Then to make up motivations such
as the POTUS wanting to embarrass the USA or to aid Al Qaeda
is just absurd.
I've seen quotes attributed to him that I would certainly label anti American. I'll post them tomorrow.
.I think Obama has egg on his face for this even though I think the outrage surprised the administration...just think this is a bad deal for someone that was probably trying to betray us whether politics are involve or not. I'd feel the same way if W did it.
rock on sooner
6/3/2014, 08:36 PM
Ever since this thing broke and both sides started pontificating, I've
wondered this...if Romney had won and was in office and made this
same decision, what would those of you on the right...98% of the posters..
say?
Ever since this thing broke and both sides started pontificating, I've
wondered this...if Romney had won and was in office and made this
same decision, what would those of you on the right...98% of the posters..
say?
Really think that makes a difference, eh? I've said f--- W on a lot of things...of course it was usually when he was doing something like a dem.
BoulderSooner79
6/3/2014, 08:58 PM
I've seen quotes attributed to him that I would certainly label anti American. I'll post them tomorrow.
.I think Obama has egg on his face for this even though I think the outrage surprised the administration...just think this is a bad deal for someone that was probably trying to betray us whether politics are involve or not. I'd feel the same way if W did it.
Other solders are accusing him of aiding the enemy. That may
or may not prove to be true. I seriously doubt the outrage surprised
the administration as all the currently published information was
available to them. And no doubt, much more. People loved to
get outraged today regardless of having all the information.
But my comments were not about this soldiers particulars. I was
addressing the motivation for doing this. To me, there is no
logical explanation other than the military commanders wanted this.
There is no political motivation that makes sense. Maybe that
turns out to be wrong as more information is revealed. If there
is proof this guy is a traitor and not just a coward, I could see
the brass really wanting him back for a court marshall. The way
they are sequestering this guy almost points to that.
BoulderSooner79
6/3/2014, 09:04 PM
Ever since this thing broke and both sides started pontificating, I've
wondered this...if Romney had won and was in office and made this
same decision, what would those of you on the right...98% of the posters..
say?
I won't comment on this board, but the politicians would predictably
reverse roles. The Dems would be howling and the Pubs would be
walking on eggs trying not to hurt their mid-term election prospects
while at the same time, not criticizing their POTUS. The talking
heads would be making outlandish claims trying to add their ratings
w/o regard to any nonsense such as facts.
Other solders are accusing him of aiding the enemy. That may
or may not prove to be true. I seriously doubt the outrage surprised
the administration as all the currently published information was
available to them. And no doubt, much more. People loved to
get outraged today regardless of having all the information.
But my comments were not about this soldiers particulars. I was
addressing the motivation for doing this. To me, there is no
logical explanation other than the military commanders wanted this.
There is no political motivation that makes sense. Maybe that
turns out to be wrong as more information is revealed. If there
is proof this guy is a traitor and not just a coward, I could see
the brass really wanting him back for a court marshall. The way
they are sequestering this guy almost points to that.
Again I'll post it tomorrow (iPad limited) but WH correspondent chuck Todd reported the surprise by the WH
Also, supposedly the military knew where bergdahl was located but didn't want to risk men to free a deserter...a bit odd after they may have lost men trying to find him early on when he went missing .
If the military wants him for punishment then it might make some sense although I don't know why Obama would have had his parents on the podium with him as though it was a cause for celebration (his return).
BoulderSooner79
6/3/2014, 10:53 PM
Again I'll post it tomorrow (iPad limited) but WH correspondent chuck Todd reported the surprise by the WH
Also, supposedly the military knew where bergdahl was located but didn't want to risk men to free a deserter...a bit odd after they may have lost men trying to find him early on when he went missing .
If the military wants him for punishment then it might make some sense although I don't know why Obama would have had his parents on the podium with him as though it was a cause for celebration (his return).
That issue of losing men to try to find him is again coming
from emotional soldiers. Not wanting to free a deserter, but
instead choosing to trade would make sense. Putting the
parents up there with the Dad growing out his beard and speaking
in some Afghan dialect is not going to make a splash with the public.
Pure speculation, but isolating a guy in a hospital is something I'd
expect if they wanted to certify the guy mentally capable of standing trial.
I still don't understand the timing of all this, but there are still lots
of facts that haven't been revealed.
olevetonahill
6/3/2014, 11:00 PM
Fact is He walked away from his Post in a Combat zone, Shoot the Mother ****er.He wasnt takin captive He walked into their arms, His equipment and WEAPON were found neatly stacked , If an enemy had caught him they would have taken all that. I prefer to believe what His Squad mates have to say rather than the SPEW that comes from some Bulletin board hero and a Bunch of ****in self serving politicians!
olevetonahill
6/4/2014, 09:22 AM
Want More?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647397/Revealed-Bowe-Bergdahl-left-note-comrades-telling-leaving-start-new-life-Army-general-says-faces-desertion-charges.html
Again I'll post it tomorrow (iPad limited) but WH correspondent chuck Todd reported the surprise by the WH
Also, supposedly the military knew where bergdahl was located but didn't want to risk men to free a deserter...a bit odd after they may have lost men trying to find him early on when he went missing .
If the military wants him for punishment then it might make some sense although I don't know why Obama would have had his parents on the podium with him as though it was a cause for celebration (his return).
NBC’s Chuck Todd: White House Expected ‘Euphoria’ After Bergdahl Release
2:04 PM 06/03/2014
NBC reporter Chuck Todd claimed the White House expected “euphoria” and a “rally around the flag” after Army Sgt. and probable deserter Bowe Bergdhal was traded for five top Taliban officials held at Gitmo — adding that the Obama administration has been “caught off guard” by the angry response.
Todd spoke Tuesday with MSBNC’s Andrea Mitchell about President Obama’s response to the questions surrounding Berghdal’s capture and release (RELATED: Obama Deploys ‘Sacred Rule’ To Justify Prison Swap).
“What’s caught the White House off guard here — they were expecting criticisms of Gitmo, criticism of the detainees that were chosen,” Todd explained. “They did not expect this criticism of the attempt to go get Bergdahl and the way that it was done. And that’s what caught them off guard and that’s why it looks like they’re on their back feet on this one.”
“I think they thought there would be some euphoria around this,” he later continued. “That the only POW that was remaining in Afghanistan, that there would be a rally around the flag. That didn’t happen.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/03/nbcs-chuck-todd-white-house-expected-euphoria-after-bergdahl-release/#ixzz33gOizmQk
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/03/nbcs-chuck-todd-white-house-expected-euphoria-after-bergdahl-release/?
Pentagon knew Bergdahl’s whereabouts but didn’t risk rescue for ‘deserter’
Special operations troops deemed too valuable to lose
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/2/pentagon-knew-berghdahls-whereabouts-but-didnt-ris/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz33gQq5lza
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter.
I'll say it again.
Obama broke the law to do something stupid.
It makes no sense at all.
That's why someone might draw conclusions that it was for a darker motive because on the surface it is just so dumb.
olevetonahill
6/4/2014, 10:20 AM
I'll say it again.
Obama broke the law to do something stupid.
It makes no sense at all.
That's why someone might draw conclusions that it was for a darker motive because on the surface it is just so dumb.
He wanted to give his Nut sack licker in chief on thta board some thing else to argue with us about.
You know, Ole Matlock8th!
That issue of losing men to try to find him is again coming
from emotional soldiers. Not wanting to free a deserter, but
instead choosing to trade would make sense. Putting the
parents up there with the Dad growing out his beard and speaking
in some Afghan dialect is not going to make a splash with the public.
Pure speculation, but isolating a guy in a hospital is something I'd
expect if they wanted to certify the guy mentally capable of standing trial.
I still don't understand the timing of all this, but there are still lots
of facts that haven't been revealed.
“I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools,” he concluded. “I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”
The bizarre tale of America’s last known POW
http://nypost.com/2014/05/31/the-biz...ast-known-pow/
But of course as far as the WH is concerned deserting your post and crapping on your country is the right thing to do. I'm sure MOH recipient Marine Kyle Carpenter enjoys hearing this.
Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served With 'Honor and Distinction'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_794066.html
I got this post from another board but it really shows the WH disconnect regarding this event.
BoulderSooner79
6/4/2014, 10:56 AM
I'll say it again.
Obama broke the law to do something stupid.
It makes no sense at all.
That's why someone might draw conclusions that it was for a darker motive because on the surface it is just so dumb.
I'll certainly agree this makes no sense from a political gain point of view.
The reaction to this move by politicians on the other hand is completely
predictable.
Whether it is stupid or not remains to be seen. And I'm not talking about
politics because I don't care if it was stupid politically. I am curious
about the motive, but I don't assume it was dark because I don't
see this as a big deal regardless of how it plays out. If you want to talk about something
that is a big deal and potentially very dark, look no further than the
expanded use of the Patriot act the NSA activities under the Obama
watch. This prisoner exchange deal will die out the minute to polls close
in Nov.
Knowing what is now being said no way Barack would do the trade if he had it to do over
Sooner in Tampa
6/4/2014, 11:12 AM
He wanted to give his Nut sack licker in chief on thta board some thing else to argue with us about.
You know, Ole Matlock8th!
Yeah...the little nutsack licker runs for thread to thread posting stupid libtard rhetoric...gets his *** handed to him...and then moves onto another thread
Fukc him and HIS president...America is a weaker country today because of the Saving Private Bergdahl fiasco
BoulderSooner79
6/4/2014, 11:14 AM
Knowing what is now being said no way Barack would do the trade if he had it to do over
That could be. But if that is true, it shows that his advisors are very stupid.
The only thing he didn't know for sure is the reactions and that was very
predictable from all the facts he did know. Politicians are usually
very transparent if you ignore what they say about actions and concentrate on
how it helps themselves or hurts their opponents. 2nd term presidents don't
always follow this rule since they are not running for anything.
But they still usually act as proxies for their party, but not always.
This is an amazing article in Rolling Stone about Bergdahl 2 YRS AGO!!! I have not read it all but it looks like this swap had been in the works for years.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...0120607?page=1
The tensions came to a boil in January, when administration officials went to Capitol Hill to brief a handful of senators on the possibility of a prisoner exchange. The meeting, which excluded staffers, took place in a new secure conference room in the Capitol visitor center. According to sources in the briefing, the discussion sparked a sharp exchange between Senators John McCain and John Kerry, both of whom were decorated for their service in Vietnam. McCain, who endured almost six years of captivity as a prisoner of war, threw a fit at the prospect of releasing five Taliban detainees.
"They're the five biggest murderers in world history!" McCain fumed.
Kerry, who supported the transfer, thought that was going a bit far. "John," he said, "the five biggest murderers in the world?"
McCain was furious at the rebuke. "They killed Americans!" he responded. "I suppose Senator Kerry is OK with that?"
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607page=7#ixzz33gr9nVGE
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
This was January 2012 referring to McCain.
Page 7 of the article is very interesting.
Also on page 7:
In a sense, Bowe represents a threat to anyone who wants to see the war continue – be they Taliban militants or Pentagon generals. Once the last American POW is released, there will be few obstacles standing in the way of a negotiated settlement. "It's the hard-liners on both sides who want to keep this thing going," says a White House official. "The Taliban is struggling with its own hard-liners. They need space, and this confidence-building measure could give them space."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607page=7#ixzz33grmJk8L
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
MSNBC in full SPIN------Obama is so weak
MSNBC in full SPIN------Obama is so weak
Has it gone to the "No man left behind" theme?
BoulderSooner79
6/4/2014, 01:28 PM
Has it gone to the "No man left behind" theme?
That's actual a relevant point. But the quote you supplied from the Rolling Stone
article about removing the last POW from the conversation is more interesting.
Regardless of whether we agree with the decision, at least there is more
reasoning to follow than the surface stuff spewed by the media.
FaninAma
6/4/2014, 03:47 PM
5 Terrorists for 1 Deserter-----------Shrewd trade
Almost as bad as the Dallas:Minnesota trade that sent Hershel Walker to the Vikings in exchange for the draft choices that ended up winning 3 Super Bowls.
In all seriousness this type of idiotic action should surprise no one who has watched this clown and his Keystone Cops administration in action for the past 6 years. He is incompetent. He had no real experience that qualified him for the office he holds. The disheartening thing is that there were so many idiots who voted for him twice. I now feel a lot better having voted for GWB once. That lapse in judgment pales in comparison to the totally imbecilic mentality of the Democratic base.
FaninAma
6/4/2014, 03:50 PM
Iran-Contra Affair
The Iran-Contra Affair was a clandestine action not approved of by the United States Congress. It began in 1985, when President Ronald Reagan's administration supplied weapons to Iran¹ — a sworn enemy — in hopes of securing the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah terrorists loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's leader. This article is rooted in the Iran Hostage Crisis.
The U.S. took millions of dollars from the weapons sale and routed them and guns to the right-wing "Contra"² guerrillas in Nicaragua. The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction, following the July 1979 overthrow of strongman Anastasio Somoza Debayle and the ending of the Somoza family's 43-year reign.
Illegal trading
The transactions that took place in the Iran-Contra scandal were contrary to the legislation of the Democratic-dominated Congress and contrary to official Reagan administration policy.
Part of the deal was that, in July 1985, the United States would send 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles from Israel to Iran for the safe exchange of a hostage, the Reverend Benjamin Weir.
After that successful transfer, the Israelis offered to ship 500 HAWK surface-to-air missiles to Iran in November 1985, in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon. Eventually the arms were sold with proceeds going to the contras, and the hostages were released.
In February 1986, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were more shipments of various weapons and parts.
Eventually Hezbollah elected to kidnap more hostages following their release of the previous ones, which rendered meaningless any further dealings with Iran.
That's all that needs to be said.
And the straw men you keep building just get larger and larger.
FaninAma
6/4/2014, 03:55 PM
Really think that makes a difference, eh? I've said f--- W on a lot of things...of course it was usually when he was doing something like a dem.
See, that's the difference between you and the Jim Jones koolaid drinking desciples of the left like Sooner8th and rock on. They will defend this idiot even on his most moronic actions. It makes you wonder if they have any objectivity left bouncing around in that soup they consider intellect.
olevetonahill
6/4/2014, 03:58 PM
Has it gone to the "No man left behind" theme?
Actually that was one of the 1st Talking points Obammy introduced, Wonder what hes done to get the 8K and the almost 2 K back from Korea and Nam.
rock on sooner
6/4/2014, 04:14 PM
See, that's the difference between you and the Jim Jones koolaid drinking desciples of the left like Sooner8th and rock on. They will defend this idiot even on his most moronic actions. It makes you wonder if they have any objectivity left bouncing around in that soup they consider intellect.
Gee, thanks, FaninAma. Soup, no, pragmatic thought processing, yes. Defending
an idiot, hardly, hell, I even would defend you! Koolaid drinking, haven't done that
since I was about ten, I think it was. But, to group me with Sooner8th, now, that's
going too far!
Just look back over my postings and rethink your slander....wow, the Right..?!
olevetonahill
6/4/2014, 04:32 PM
Gee, thanks, FaninAma. Soup, no, pragmatic thought processing, yes. Defending
an idiot, hardly, hell, I even would defend you! Koolaid drinking, haven't done that
since I was about ten, I think it was. But, to group me with Sooner8th, now, that's
going too far!
Just look back over my postings and rethink your slander....wow, the Right..?!
Was fixin to comment but it seems you addressed it well enough.
You DD and a few others Can an mostly do conduct yerselfs with inteligence and Knowledge, Yet we all can agree to disagree with out being disagreeable. Unlike Matlock8th that boy has been a condescending prick from his 1st post.
FaninAma
6/4/2014, 07:03 PM
Gee, thanks, FaninAma. Soup, no, pragmatic thought processing, yes. Defending
an idiot, hardly, hell, I even would defend you! Koolaid drinking, haven't done that
since I was about ten, I think it was. But, to group me with Sooner8th, now, that's
going too far!
Just look back over my postings and rethink your slander....wow, the Right..?!
While you certainly aren't defending Obama with the fervor of a true cult disciple like Sooner8th is, you aren't exactly willing to criticize this action for the stupid decision it was. If you can't call blatant stupidity for what it is because of partisanship then I think it is valid to say you lack any political or civic objectivity.
I base this opinion on your first post which clearly attempts to find a sensible reason for the non-sensible.
IF this guy went walkabout (as a deserter) then that'll come out, eventually...imo.
To leave an ill man behind, for ANY reason, flies in the face of our military creed. Think
about the Isrealis and how they work this stuff...a bunch of Hamas/PLO paid a big price.
Whose to say there isn't a grander plan about those five?...I'm fairly certain that there
is a "way" to keep those five under surveillance. While we can all speculate on just how
much of a "bad" trade this is and all its ramifications (yeah, more kidnapping, captures,
etc.) I'm guessing the NSA/DIA/CIA/electronic surveillance/drones/satellites/covert activity
is on point. How else do y'all think we know who goes back into the field? How do you think
we target the bad guys? Frankly, WGAS about collateral damage when so many of the "believers"
sidle up to the bad guys and tell them that we'll help, no matter what the consequences? My
experience with Islamists is aged somewhat (40 years or so) but it appears to never change,
no matter what we do...imo, just leave 'em alone, bring our guys home and go about our
business. Extreme prejudice where we can and where it is deserved...give 'em all the sand!
Sooner8th
6/4/2014, 07:20 PM
And the straw men you keep building just get larger and larger.
Alternate universe. Both traded for hostages. At least obama had some backing from republicans, until he did it of course.
He should have notified congress, but he is in a no win.
8timechamps
6/4/2014, 08:44 PM
And what are we going to give the Mexicans for the Marine being held there - a drug lord or two?
You know, there are numerous precedents of soldiers left behind, and while this specific Marine wasn't MIA from a combat zone, it's another case of a soldier that doesn't seem to be worth getting back. This is exactly my point, the "no man left behind" credo is great, and as a Vet, I lived it, but I'm not buying that's the primary reason we made this trade.
This trade was terrible, period. I'm not putting a right wing slant on things, it was just a bad deal.
8timechamps
6/4/2014, 08:49 PM
Ever since this thing broke and both sides started pontificating, I've
wondered this...if Romney had won and was in office and made this
same decision, what would those of you on the right...98% of the posters..
say?
I'm more middle-of-the-road than right, but on the information we (the public) have available, I wouldn't have made this deal. Not now, not ever.
That said, there is much more to this story than we know, and that's the only reason I'm not losing my top over it, because I'm close.
Nothing pisses me off more than a deserter. Knowing that at least 6 good men died in an attempt to rescue this guy just makes it worse. Anyway, I digress...
I really hope, in time, light is shed on why (exactly) we made this deal. Because right now, none of it makes much sense to me.
olevetonahill
6/4/2014, 09:43 PM
Alternate universe. Both traded for hostages. At least obama had some backing from republicans, until he did it of course.
He should have notified congress, but he is in a no win.
Why does God give ****ing Idiots a Computer?
Matlock 8th, Bergdhal WAS NOT a Hostage , He was a ****in DESERTER Pay tention Moran, and again spit Obammies Nut sack out yer mouth Mrs Monkey wants her turn.
olevetonahill
6/4/2014, 09:46 PM
You know, there are numerous precedents of soldiers left behind, and while this specific Marine wasn't MIA from a combat zone, it's another case of a soldier that doesn't seem to be worth getting back. This is exactly my point, the "no man left behind" credo is great, and as a Vet, I lived it, but I'm not buying that's the primary reason we made this trade.
This trade was terrible, period. I'm not putting a right wing slant on things, it was just a bad deal.
Never mind.
BoulderSooner79
6/4/2014, 10:05 PM
...
I really hope, in time, light is shed on why (exactly) we made this deal. Because right now, none of it makes much sense to me.
Best comment in the thread. I'm not all worked up whether this is good/bad/indifferent.
It's just a bit of mystery to me and that is the why I'm interested.
I really hope, in time, light is shed on why (exactly) we made this deal. Because right now, none of it makes much sense to me.
This is quite a stretch... but Bergdahl's hometown is the county seat of Blaine County Idaho - one of only two counties in Idaho to go Obama's way in 2008 and 2012. In fact, it's the only consistently Democratic county in Idaho. It would be outrageously petty if that were a factor in the decision... but would it surprise you?
olevetonahill
6/4/2014, 10:32 PM
Best comment in the thread. I'm not all worked up whether this is good/bad/indifferent.
It's just a bit of mystery to me and that is the why I'm interested.
Please dont get worked up, Its Obvious you have Never served let alone in a ****in COMBAT zone.
BoulderSooner79
6/5/2014, 12:56 AM
Please dont get worked up, Its Obvious you have Never served let alone in a ****in COMBAT zone.
Thanks for your concern - I'll stay calm.
Wishboned
6/5/2014, 01:22 AM
In my opinion the reason is nothing more that this administration trying to divert attention away from the VA scandal. They wanted a "feel good" moment. A win.
They're actually in shock at the reaction to this.
diverdog
6/5/2014, 06:57 AM
Actually that was one of the 1st Talking points Obammy introduced, Wonder what hes done to get the 8K and the almost 2 K back from Korea and Nam.
Vet we still have teams in Vietnam looking for remains of our lost heroes.
diverdog
6/5/2014, 06:59 AM
In my opinion the reason is nothing more that this administration trying to divert attention away from the VA scandal. They wanted a "feel good" moment. A win.
They're actually in shock at the reaction to this.
The VA scandal dates back further than Obama.
The VA scandal dates back further than Obama.
God...let's just go with the 5 years that Obama has been screwing it up or is this another "blame bush" scenario?
On the surface this was stupid. Granted. But a friend theorized that something else might come out. Maybe Bergdahl was a deep deep undercover spy. Maybe the released Taliban guys have tracking devices implanted in them. Both huge stretches of course, but just to show I am not a knee jerk conservative, I will at least put it out there that there might be a unknown good reason for this stupid thing being done.
On another note, I find it simply fascinating that a bunch of Democrats have their panties in a wad about this. That just makes me think that this will get bigger and bigger.
That's actual a relevant point. But the quote you supplied from the Rolling Stone
article about removing the last POW from the conversation is more interesting.
Regardless of whether we agree with the decision, at least there is more
reasoning to follow than the surface stuff spewed by the media.
Bringing deserters home would never be important to me unless it was to punish them. I certainly wouldnt be trading high value prisoners for a deserting private.
I was amazed though that this "trade" had been sitting out there for 2 1/2 years. The pub senators with knowledge of the trade proposal back then were already blasting the proposal. I'm surprised at how badly the WH miscalculated the public reaction.
On the surface this was stupid. Granted. But a friend theorized that something else might come out. Maybe Bergdahl was a deep deep undercover spy. Maybe the released Taliban guys have tracking devices implanted in them. Both huge stretches of course, but just to show I am not a knee jerk conservative, I will at least put it out there that there might be a unknown good reason for this stupid thing being done.
On another note, I find it simply fascinating that a bunch of Democrats have their panties in a wad about this. That just makes me think that this will get bigger and bigger.
Heh...well bergdahls dad provided excellent"cover".
rock on sooner
6/5/2014, 08:06 AM
I read where a big reason for the VA issues was the fact they failed
to "gear up" for the fallout of the first Gulf War and even more the
fallout from Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether or not that is true, I
don't know but it appears that might be the case.
As to the wisdom of the "5 for 1" trade, it seems to be a pretty high
price. Getting our man home is important and the plans were a long
time in the making. I have no use for traitors/deserters and neither
does our military. There is a mutual "contract" between the service
and the enlistee. The service's DUTY is to not leave the enlistee behind
and the enlistee's DUTY is to preserve and protect. Clearly, Bergdahl
didn't fulfill his duty but the service did its duty. The Army has a long
memory and likely there are more than a few higher ups who want to
know why he did his stupid walk off. The investigation is already under
way.
For the five bad guys set free, I stand by my earlier assertion. If/when
they go back in the field, we'll know it, we'll know where and, just a guess,
there'll be itchy trigger fingers to do what couldn't be done at Gitmo....
JiuJitsuSooner
6/5/2014, 08:57 AM
Let the guy go through a thorough investigation before we label him a deserter... Nobody here knows jack **** besides what they see and hear on CNN and Fox, so why don't ya wait and see how it plays out... If it turns out he is in fact a deserter then Court Marshall him, but give the guy the benefit of the doubt..
Here's a thought, there's probably a good chance they implanted gps chips on those 5 detainees, if so that could be a smart move which could lead to the capture of more high level targets as well as us drone striking the F&%K out of them in the future
Let the guy go through a thorough investigation before we label him a deserter... Nobody here knows jack **** besides what they see and hear on CNN and Fox, so why don't ya wait and see how it plays out... If it turns out he is in fact a deserter then Court Marshall him, but give the guy the benefit of the doubt..
Here's a thought, there's probably a good chance they implanted gps chips on those 5 detainees, if so that could be a smart move which could lead to the capture of more high level targets as well as us drone striking the F&%K out of them in the future
You been drinking the kool aid? Susan rice have you convinced he was a hero...maybe a deep undercover spy?
Chips in them, eh? Undetectable? Droning them? Good god.
Virtually every media account along with soldiers from his platoon have portrayed him as a deserter. The rolling stone article 2 1/2 years ago already had virtually the same Info that we are seeing now. He'll have his day in court (possibly) and until proven differently...many of us will have our OPINIONS...
CNN
"It is "unfair" to Bergdahl and his family to presume anything about his motivations for leaving the base, Hagel said Wednesday."
"I believe he totally deserted," said former Staff Sgt. Justin Gerleve, Bergdahl's former squad leader"
So, tell us Vet, how many times when you were "in country" did you leave your weapon in a foxhole and go for a "walkabout"?
Sad news:
Bergdahl's Idaho Hometown Cancels Planned Celebration
Wednesday, 04 Jun 2014 04:37 PM
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/Idaho-Bergdahl-hometown/2014/06/04/id/575187#ixzz33mEGCVuc
Politicians Rush to Delete Tweets Welcoming Bergdahl Home
Thursday, 05 Jun 2014 07:14 AM
By Elliot Jager
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Bowe-Bergdahl-Congress-Twitter/2014/06/05/id/575269#ixzz33mJ2qioM
Panetta Has 'Serious Concerns' Freed Detainees Will Return to Fight
Panetta "knew better than almost anybody that if you repatriate these senior leaders, they would be a threat," Stimson told the Tribune-Review. "I can see why he would have been totally against the deal."
According to The Washington Post, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and current National Intelligence Director James Clapper all opposed former iterations of a prisoner exchange.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Leon-Panetta-Afghanistan-Guantanmo-Bergdahl/2014/06/05/id/575319#ixzz33mK1LhE7
olevetonahill
6/5/2014, 10:45 AM
Vet we still have teams in Vietnam looking for remains of our lost heroes.
DD I realize this, You do know that those teams are only allowed to go where the Gook Government wants em to right? then only AFTER they have pretty much solid confirmation of a Crash or what ever.
Hagel: Decision to Free U.S. Soldier Bergdahl Was Unanimous
Thursday, 05 Jun 2014 07:13 AM
He said the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, director of national intelligence, and attorney general, had all come to the same conclusion.
Well those new chiefs (hagel and Kerry) certainly changed the votes from the last group. Clapper changed his mind?
The Pentagon says Bergdahl, 28, is in a stable condition at the U.S. Army's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Officials have indicated there is little desire to pursue any disciplinary action against him given what he has been through.
good lord
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hagel-bergdahl-release-decision/2014/06/05/id/575268#ixzz33mQB5C9R
olevetonahill
6/5/2014, 10:53 AM
CNN
"It is "unfair" to Bergdahl and his family to presume anything about his motivations for leaving the base, Hagel said Wednesday."
"I believe he totally deserted," said former Staff Sgt. Justin Gerleve, Bergdahl's former squad leader"
So, tell us Vet, how many times when you were "in country" did you leave your weapon in a foxhole and go for a "walkabout"?
Bro I slept with it, showered with it . Never was moren 2 feet from it.
olevetonahill
6/5/2014, 10:57 AM
Let the guy go through a thorough investigation before we label him a deserter... Nobody here knows jack **** besides what they see and hear on CNN and Fox, so why don't ya wait and see how it plays out... If it turns out he is in fact a deserter then Court Marshall him, but give the guy the benefit of the doubt..
Here's a thought, there's probably a good chance they implanted gps chips on those 5 detainees, if so that could be a smart move which could lead to the capture of more high level targets as well as us drone striking the F&%K out of them in the future
I'd be all for NOT thinkin him a deserter , If Most of his Fellow soldiers that served with him dint already say he was, Im not sure but has there even been ONE of em say they thought he was actually captured rather than just walked into the Hadjis hands?
Tell what Ima Call the chicken **** mother ****er a Deserter , If he is proven Innocent then I will apologize
Wishboned
6/5/2014, 11:03 AM
The VA scandal dates back further than Obama.
So it's been in the headlines for years now? And the Veterans Affairs Secretary didn't just resign in the past week? Where in my post did I say it started with this administration? If you could just point that out I'd appreciate it. The post is only three sentences so it shouldn't take you long.
rock on sooner
6/5/2014, 11:15 AM
Wartime walkabout = desertion. Based on his fellow soldiers'
comments that is the only conclusion one can draw. A very
thorough investigation will take place and a court martial will
follow.
As an aside, when I was in Pakistan, one of our guys wanted
to take his discharge (honorable) there and take his time going
home...he wanted to see Southwest Asia as a civilian. It took
some doing but the AF let him. I still remember the image of
him walking off the base and into civilian life. I have a similar
vision of Bergdahl doing something similar, only it's an active
war zone and insanely stupid. I'll bet he didn't get more than
a 100 yards before he was grabbed.
diverdog
6/5/2014, 11:47 AM
You been drinking the kool aid? Susan rice have you convinced he was a hero...maybe a deep undercover spy?
Chips in them, eh? Undetectable? Droning them? Good god.
Virtually every media account along with soldiers from his platoon have portrayed him as a deserter. The rolling stone article 2 1/2 years ago already had virtually the same Info that we are seeing now. He'll have his day in court (possibly) and until proven differently...many of us will have our OPINIONS...
okie, those prisoners would have been released at some point after we exit that **** hole. So we really did not pay that high of a price.
diverdog
6/5/2014, 12:03 PM
So it's been in the headlines for years now? And the Veterans Affairs Secretary didn't just resign in the past week? Where in my post did I say it started with this administration? If you could just point that out I'd appreciate it. The post is only three sentences so it shouldn't take you long.
Wishbone:
Sorry I did not mean to upset you.
Here is the deal. The prisoner exchange has been in the works for several years. I doubt this was to cover up the VA mess.
Here is an IG report from 2005 on this problem:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1174360-2005-wait-time-review.html
As far as the prisoner swap it is not as bad as it looks. All of those GITMO detainees will be released when we leave Afghanistan. Based on recent stats only one is likely to take up arms. Only 20% of detainees released under Obama have returned to combat. They are 12 years older and a lot has changed.
Wishboned
6/5/2014, 12:35 PM
Once again you're trying to put words into my mouth, and insert arguments that I was not making.
I said divert attention away from, not cover up.
And the fact that the VA scandal has been going on for years does not take away the fact that the CURRENT administration has been taking the heat for it. To the extent that the CURRENT Secretary of Veterans Affairs resigned.
The administration wanted a rallying moment. They miscalculated.
How do you people keep defending Obama?----He seems to be over his head on every issue
Wishboned
6/5/2014, 12:47 PM
The proof of life video that supposedly sparked this sudden need to make the deal because of health concerns for Bergdahl was sent in January. Five months ago. At any time after that Obama could have notified Congress about his intentions to make the deal. But he didn't.
And then there's this asshat. A deputy assistant director for public affairs, and former press aide in the Department of Veteran's Affairs said maybe Bergdahl left because his Army comrades were psychos.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/05/bergdahls-army-comrades-may-be-psychopaths-says-administration-official/
champions77
6/5/2014, 01:13 PM
Even the folks at MSLSD were throwing BHO under the bus this morning. They've been carrying his water from before the 2008 election, and have ignored for the most part most all of his transgressions. When they finally recognize his shortcomings, that's big.
Expect his favorable numbers to take a big hit in the next few weeks. When the main stream media turns on you, it signals the beginning of the end for most past Presidents. I'm sure we will see him in full campaign mode now. At least that has been his MO in the past. Now that he has been fully exposed as a liar, a cover up artist, and a Prez that appears is in over his head in most everything he does....the honeymoon is over.
olevetonahill
6/5/2014, 01:18 PM
The proof of life video that supposedly sparked this sudden need to make the deal because of health concerns for Bergdahl was sent in January. Five months ago. At any time after that Obama could have notified Congress about his intentions to make the deal. But he didn't.
And then there's this asshat. A deputy assistant director for public affairs, and former press aide in the Department of Veteran's Affairs said maybe Bergdahl left because his Army comrades were psychos.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/05/bergdahls-army-comrades-may-be-psychopaths-says-administration-official/
Crazy
okie, those prisoners would have been released at some point after we exit that **** hole. So we really did not pay that high of a price.
When we leave...not years before we leave. The US could choose to wait many years after we left Afghanistan before releasing any "detainees". And we are getting crap for the trade.
DD, there's no way to doll this crappy deal up.
rock on sooner
6/5/2014, 01:58 PM
Crazy
In-f******g-credible! This thing gets nuttier by the minute. Bergdahl
was in country for two months...leastwise that's what I heard...he couldn't
possible determine his squad was "psycho", at least enough to go walkabout.
He could go to a padre, his CO, the Red Cross, any number of outlets if
he believed that. If the squad was and he didn't buy in, he probably would
have been fragged. Nope, he went walkabout for personal beliefs/confusion
and after he's nursed back to health, investigate and prosecute....jmo...
olevetonahill
6/5/2014, 02:06 PM
In-f******g-credible! This thing gets nuttier by the minute. Bergdahl
was in country for two months...leastwise that's what I heard...he couldn't
possible determine his squad was "psycho", at least enough to go walkabout.
He could go to a padre, his CO, the Red Cross, any number of outlets if
he believed that. If the squad was and he didn't buy in, he probably would
have been fragged. Nope, he went walkabout for personal beliefs/confusion
and after he's nursed back to health, investigate and prosecute....jmo...
Yup but according to Reid What difference does it make? Sheats Nuckin Futs!
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/curtis-kalin/harry-reid-channels-hillary-bergdahl-what-difference-does-it-make
rock on sooner
6/5/2014, 02:07 PM
When we leave...not years before we leave. The US could choose to wait many years after we left Afghanistan before releasing any "detainees". And we are getting crap for the trade.
DD, there's no way to doll this crappy deal up.
Okie, we're scheduled to have only a residual "training" force
left behind by December, the talk is 9500-10000, assuming
Karzai gets his palms greased. Not certain, but I think rules
of war dictate POW repatriation at the end of hostilities, so I
think that Gitmo will be emptied sometime in 2015. We know
that didn't happen in Korea or Nam for our guys but I'm fairly
certain that we don't want to be painted with that brush as a
country so any "leverage" would be gone for a swap. I agree
that the deal sucks now, but, maybe not after a year's vacation
in Qatar for those five. There's no embedded chips but I'll wager
they're still "tracked".....
Okie, we're scheduled to have only a residual "training" force
left behind by December, the talk is 9500-10000, assuming
Karzai gets his palms greased. Not certain, but I think rules
of war dictate POW repatriation at the end of hostilities, so I
think that Gitmo will be emptied sometime in 2015. We know
that didn't happen in Korea or Nam for our guys but I'm fairly
certain that we don't want to be painted with that brush as a
country so any "leverage" would be gone for a swap. I agree
that the deal sucks now, but, maybe not after a year's vacation
in Qatar for those five. There's no embedded chips but I'll wager
they're still "tracked".....
That's just it rock on....we are not leaving. We are going to have about 10,000 troops left behind. What keeps them from being targets? What happens if one of them is captured?
Are we in an actual "declared" war where rules of war apply? How is that they only had only 1 POW and gitmo alone has over 1,000? Are they following the rules of war?
This tracking...if you mean by spies I guess we can try to do that although we didn't do that well with bin laden....killing them would have been easier.
diverdog
6/5/2014, 03:11 PM
When we leave...not years before we leave. The US could choose to wait many years after we left Afghanistan before releasing any "detainees". And we are getting crap for the trade.
DD, there's no way to doll this crappy deal up.
I am going to wait and see the results of the investigation. As I stated on other boards I think the guy is nuts. The RS article talks about some very strange behavior. He was not a typical soldier and I have got to wonder if he would not be the type to shoot up a movie theater.
BoulderSooner79
6/5/2014, 03:33 PM
I am going to wait and see the results of the investigation. As I stated on other boards I think the guy is nuts. The RS article talks about some very strange behavior. He was not a typical soldier and I have got to wonder if he would not be the type to shoot up a movie theater.
A frustrating part of this saga is what to believe. Weird needing to get in depth information from Rolling Stone magazine, but the writer seemed to be a legit investigative reporter. So, assuming that article is accurate, this Bergdahl guy was a "unique" dude. Tried to join the French foreign legion, but was rejected. Got bored because his outfit wasn't kicking doors down. It reads like the guy was raised in relative isolation as a survivalist and home schooled. Not a great combination for joining a team and bonding with peers.
olevetonahill
6/5/2014, 03:41 PM
I am going to wait and see the results of the investigation. As I stated on other boards I think the guy is nuts. The RS article talks about some very strange behavior. He was not a typical soldier and I have got to wonder if he would not be the type to shoot up a movie theater.
DD and that Other dude, See WE as Citizens dont HAVE to wait for anything to be able to form an opinion. We are not a Jury looking for guilt or Innocence. We simply Folk forming our own ideas, and those dont mean squat to bergdhal or anyone else.
BoulderSooner79
6/5/2014, 03:52 PM
DD and that Other dude, See WE as Citizens dont HAVE to wait for anything to be able to form an opinion. We are not a Jury looking for guilt or Innocence. We simply Folk forming our own ideas, and those dont mean squat to bergdhal or anyone else.
That may not be true if you count all of us WE as Citizens. I'm guessing Bergdhal won't have many folks offering to buy him a drink when he walks into a bar. He may need to try that French foreign legion thing again.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/5/2014, 03:59 PM
5 Terrorists for 1 Deserter-----------Shrewd tradeyet, there are still those who defend him, even on this message board.
diverdog
6/5/2014, 05:54 PM
A frustrating part of this saga is what to believe. Weird needing to get in depth information from Rolling Stone magazine, but the writer seemed to be a legit investigative reporter. So, assuming that article is accurate, this Bergdahl guy was a "unique" dude. Tried to join the French foreign legion, but was rejected. Got bored because his outfit wasn't kicking doors down. It reads like the guy was raised in relative isolation as a survivalist and home schooled. Not a great combination for joining a team and bonding with peers.
And then there are the wiki leaks of Taliban intercepts saying they captured him inside the wire or just outside the wire taking a leak. I know this does not jive with the narrative but there are a lot of different facts surrounding this story. To be honest I do not trust the military to get to the bottom of this given how they butchered the death of Tilman.
8timechamps
6/5/2014, 06:03 PM
Let the guy go through a thorough investigation before we label him a deserter... Nobody here knows jack **** besides what they see and hear on CNN and Fox, so why don't ya wait and see how it plays out... If it turns out he is in fact a deserter then Court Marshall him, but give the guy the benefit of the doubt..
Here's a thought, there's probably a good chance they implanted gps chips on those 5 detainees, if so that could be a smart move which could lead to the capture of more high level targets as well as us drone striking the F&%K out of them in the future
I'll take the word of his fellow soldiers and the Pentagon reports as fact in this case. He left his outpost, without his weapon. Having been fought in combat zones in the middle east, I can tell you first hand, you NEVER leave cover without your weapon. Never mind his emails and journal entries, that alone speaks volumes. He is a deserter. That's not speculation.
GPS chips? You need to step away from the TV/Movies and think about that for a minute. If you believe that actually happened, then there's no reason to further this conversation with you.
8timechamps
6/5/2014, 06:12 PM
That's just it rock on....we are not leaving. We are going to have about 10,000 troops left behind. What keeps them from being targets? What happens if one of them is captured?
Are we in an actual "declared" war where rules of war apply? How is that they only had only 1 POW and gitmo alone has over 1,000? Are they following the rules of war?
This tracking...if you mean by spies I guess we can try to do that although we didn't do that well with bin laden....killing them would have been easier.
Exactly. We're not leaving. I suspect Bagram will always be home to US troops going forward. There will be US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least the rest of my lifetime.
Gitmo will never be closed.
That said, I not overly concerned about the future of the 5 released (as individuals). However, it will strengthen the Taliban significantly, which in turn, hurts US troops. None of those guys will be on the front line, so knowing where they are means very little. They will be very valuable to the Taliban sitting in some apartment in Qatar.
BoulderSooner79
6/5/2014, 06:20 PM
I'll take the word of his fellow soldiers and the Pentagon reports as fact in this case. He left his outpost, without his weapon. Having been fought in combat zones in the middle east, I can tell you first hand, you NEVER leave cover without your weapon. Never mind his emails and journal entries, that alone speaks volumes. He is a deserter. That's not speculation.
GPS chips? You need to step away from the TV/Movies and think about that for a minute. If you believe that actually happened, then there's no reason to further this conversation with you.
The only possible alternative to desertion is if he went AWOL intending to return. Yet another source claimed he had done that before in both CA and Afghanistan. But I see little difference between his going AWOL and deserting when it's in a combat zone and that led to his capture. His actions endangered other troops.
Turd_Ferguson
6/5/2014, 06:40 PM
The only possible alternative to desertion is if he went AWOL intending to return. Yet another source claimed he had done that before in both CA and Afghanistan. But I see little difference between his going AWOL and deserting when it's in a combat zone and that led to his capture. His actions KILLED other troops.fixed.
I am going to wait and see the results of the investigation. As I stated on other boards I think the guy is nuts. The RS article talks about some very strange behavior. He was not a typical soldier and I have got to wonder if he would not be the type to shoot up a movie theater.
You may be right that he might claim to be nuts....I doubt he was but I could certainly see him claiming it as a defense...might as well check out his dad, too, before he goes to another movie.
And then there are the wiki leaks of Taliban intercepts saying they captured him inside the wire or just outside the wire taking a leak. I know this does not jive with the narrative but there are a lot of different facts surrounding this story. To be honest I do not trust the military to get to the bottom of this given how they butchered the death of Tilman.
You can hang onto that DD but that would in the face of the most compelling evidence that he deserted....his platoon members testimony including his roommate. I haven't heard any of them speak in support of bergdahl.
olevetonahill
6/5/2014, 10:13 PM
DD and that Other dude, See WE as Citizens dont HAVE to wait for anything to be able to form an opinion. We are not a Jury looking for guilt or Innocence. We simply Folk forming our own ideas, and those dont mean squat to bergdhal or anyone else.
That may not be true if you count all of us WE as Citizens. I'm guessing Bergdhal won't have many folks offering to buy him a drink when he walks into a bar. He may need to try that French foreign legion thing again.
Im sorry but WTF are you trying to say, ??
BoulderSooner79
6/5/2014, 10:29 PM
Im sorry but WTF are you trying to say, ??
You said our collective opinions won't mean anything to Bergdahl. I'm just betting they will - he will not be popular anywhere in the USA and his life won't be much fun living here.
olevetonahill
6/5/2014, 10:40 PM
You said our collective opinions won't mean anything to Bergdahl. I'm just betting they will - he will not be popular anywhere in the USA and his life won't be much fun living here.
Oh OK i see where yer coming from now, I really meant that Our private opinions wont mean squat as far as any Trial or CM that may come of this. Even being found guilty in the court of Public opinion wont much affect him or anyone else.
champions77
6/6/2014, 10:23 AM
I am going to wait and see the results of the investigation. As I stated on other boards I think the guy is nuts. The RS article talks about some very strange behavior. He was not a typical soldier and I have got to wonder if he would not be the type to shoot up a movie theater.
DD it would be only the Movie Theater's that have a "No Firearms Allowed" sign posted on the outside wall.
A guy came in my office the other day and had a gun holstered to his side. I walked over and told him "Thanks, you just made my office the safest one on the block".
TheHumanAlphabet
6/6/2014, 12:06 PM
Wartime walkabout = desertion. Based on his fellow soldiers'
comments that is the only conclusion one can draw. A very
thorough investigation will take place and a court martial will
follow.
I doubt that... With the big Presidential Press conference and all, They can't make Obammy look bad... Most of those in power now have been vetted by Obammy and Valerie Jarrett and genuflect to him. Nothing will happen to him. He will be discharged quietly.
TheHumanAlphabet
6/6/2014, 12:07 PM
And the fact that the VA scandal has been going on for years does not take away the fact that the CURRENT administration has been taking the heat for it. To the extent that the CURRENT Secretary of Veterans Affairs resigned.
.
The VA has probably been messed up since inception, so has the Indian Health Service. This is the model we will see for our health care in the future...
TheHumanAlphabet
6/6/2014, 12:10 PM
Wishbone:
Sorry I did not mean to upset you.
Here is the deal. The prisoner exchange has been in the works for several years. I doubt this was to cover up the VA mess.
Here is an IG report from 2005 on this problem:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1174360-2005-wait-time-review.html
As far as the prisoner swap it is not as bad as it looks. All of those GITMO detainees will be released when we leave Afghanistan. Based on recent stats only one is likely to take up arms. Only 20% of detainees released under Obama have returned to combat. They are 12 years older and a lot has changed.
I wouldn't but it past this administration to have moved it up to have a feel good story in the midst of the VA debacle. The story was that Obammy made the decision and told the military to suck it up and salute... So this wasn't necessarily a done deal and certainly was done over some in the military and others objections...
TheHumanAlphabet
6/6/2014, 12:13 PM
In-f******g-credible! This thing gets nuttier by the minute. Bergdahl
was in country for two months...leastwise that's what I heard...he couldn't
possible determine his squad was "psycho", at least enough to go walkabout.
He could go to a padre, his CO, the Red Cross, any number of outlets if
he believed that. If the squad was and he didn't buy in, he probably would
have been fragged. Nope, he went walkabout for personal beliefs/confusion
and after he's nursed back to health, investigate and prosecute....jmo...
FYI, he was supposedly raised as a Calvinist... I don't know what that means Theologically, aren't Methodists Calvinists? as are the Dutch Reformed. But his Dad seems one high grade nutjob on the surface...
This dude probably thought he was in the Peace Corps, not the US Army.
BoulderSooner79
6/6/2014, 01:14 PM
I doubt that... With the big Presidential Press conference and all, They can't make Obammy look bad... Most of those in power now have been vetted by Obammy and Valerie Jarrett and genuflect to him. Nothing will happen to him. He will be discharged quietly.
Not sure I agree with that. I think most folks would look favorably on Bergdahl facing some military justice. But as far as how it would reflect on the administration, that ship has sailed.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/6/2014, 01:19 PM
FYI, he was supposedly raised as a Calvinist... I don't know what that means Theologically, aren't Methodists Calvinists? as are the Dutch Reformed. But his Dad seems one high grade nutjob on the surface...
This dude(Bergdahl) probably thought he was in the Peace Corps, not the US Army.Why not? Nowadays, they have the same mission.
rock on sooner
6/6/2014, 03:23 PM
FYI, he was supposedly raised as a Calvinist... I don't know what that means Theologically, aren't Methodists Calvinists? as are the Dutch Reformed. But his Dad seems one high grade nutjob on the surface...
This dude probably thought he was in the Peace Corps, not the US Army.
According to Wikipedia, he was home schooled, studied martial arts
and ballet and spent a couple of years with Buddhists....not sure where
the Calvinist thing came from....
According to Wikipedia, he was home schooled, studied martial arts
and ballet and spent a couple of years with Buddhists....not sure where
the Calvinist thing came from....
There's that dam martial again
The VA has probably been messed up since inception, so has the Indian Health Service. This is the model we will see for our health care in the future...
I usually cite the Post Office and Amtrak as wonderful examples of government competence. With the VA in the news, and health care related, it's a much more scary and relevant example.
Nice.
rock on sooner
6/7/2014, 02:36 PM
There's that dam martial again
Heh..
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/7/2014, 03:51 PM
I usually cite the Post Office and Amtrak as wonderful examples of government competence. With the VA in the news, and health care related, it's a much more scary and relevant example.
Nice.Isn't the BIGGEST problem with the Postal Svc the GARGANTUOUS payouts they have with PENSIONS?
Isn't the BIGGEST problem with the Postal Svc the GARGANTUOUS payouts they have with PENSIONS?
Sure, but the point is when someone is gung ho about Obamacare, you temper their enthusiasm by giving examples of government run things that don't run.
Doesn't matter why the Post Office doesn't work. The point is they had a monopoly at one point in time and still couldn't make money. And they can't make money because they are a government entity.
Government run things are not as efficient as private sector things. It's a fact.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/7/2014, 11:06 PM
Sure, but the point is when someone is gung ho about Obamacare, you temper their enthusiasm by giving examples of government run things that don't run.
Doesn't matter why the Post Office doesn't work. The point is they had a monopoly at one point in time and still couldn't make money. And they can't make money because they are a government entity.
Government run things are not as efficient as private sector things. It's a fact.My point wasn't an argument against yours. It was just an icing on the cake, aside consideration. It does seem to me that the Postal Svc. functions better than the VA hoispitals, DMV,Indian Hospitals, Public School system, and most govt. run things. But, until the Post Office does something about the mega-costly pensioners, they are destined to be in the red, blowing through America's hard earned tax dollars.
So apparently Bergdahl demanded Obamacare and this whole thing is mostly the fault of the Post Office. Who knew?
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/8/2014, 02:23 AM
So apparently Bergdahl demanded Obamacare and this whole thing is mostly the fault of the Post Office. Who knew?Bergdahl said he wouldn't repatriate unless we emptied 5 top terrorists from Gitmo, and Allah knows Obear wanted pore old Bergdahl badly enough to do that, especially since the Qatar folks are going to watch those terrorists for us. The post Office said the terrorists were cleared for pensions, so they'll be fine.
TAFBSooner
6/10/2014, 09:42 AM
Sure, but the point is when someone is gung ho about Obamacare, you temper their enthusiasm by giving examples of government run things that don't run.
Doesn't matter why the Post Office doesn't work. The point is they had a monopoly at one point in time and still couldn't make money. And they can't make money because they are a government entity.
Government run things are not as efficient as private sector things. It's a fact.
Government is not about making money*. The Post Office provides a service that its for-profit competitors don't: keeping every American connected, from NYC to Frostbite Falls to Vet's hill. With the innerwebs, that service is less vital, but it's not obsolete yet.
One reason the USPS is costing so much is that Congress in its infinite lack of wisdom saw fit to require them to pre-pay 75 years' worth of retirement costs to the civil service retirement system. No other entity, public or private, has been levied that requirement.
One metric for government should be whether it's performing that particular service at the least reasonable cost - not whether it's making a profit. The other metric is whether government should be performing that service at all, but in the specific case of the Post Office it's right there in the Constitution.
* at least not making money for the government. Now, too many people in the government are there to make money for themselves, above and beyond their paycheck. Or they're there to exert power, of which those at the top have ways which private-sector CEOs can only dream about.
jkjsooner
6/10/2014, 09:59 AM
Please.
This had become a big time political story, and was only getting bigger. The trade was terrible, and there have been many situations in the past where deals could have been made and weren't.
Like I said, if the reports are true, and this guy was a deserter (and it's looking more and more likely), then a lot of soldiers were KIA looking for him, and that makes it even worse.
To say that this doesn't change things is naive. This will change things.
I don't think it will change anything as far as the Taliban goes. I've always been under the assumption that capturing an American soldier has been the holy grail for them from the beginning - unless they're just stupid.
There was a part of me that expected word to come out that the whole desertion thing and his anti-American comments ware all a top secret hoax to protect Bergdahl while in captivity. I know the odds of that are slim and getting slimmer but it would have made sense.
8timechamps
6/12/2014, 05:40 PM
I don't think it will change anything as far as the Taliban goes. I've always been under the assumption that capturing an American soldier has been the holy grail for them from the beginning - unless they're just stupid.
There was a part of me that expected word to come out that the whole desertion thing and his anti-American comments ware all a top secret hoax to protect Bergdahl while in captivity. I know the odds of that are slim and getting slimmer but it would have made sense.
Probably not specifically the Taliban, as they are an active combatant (and already look for anything like this), but it will embolden terrorist/organizations worldwide to look for any American. It's not completely uncommon for American's to be taken hostage in unfriendly places, but this will certainly spark the interest.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.