Soldier freed but not all seems right.

[senelcoolidge]

:facepalm
So many things wrong and that don't add up with this. In the past the U.S. never negotiated with terrorists. The President's act was illegal, he can't bypass congress...remember checks and balances. The guy was a deserter..an act of treason. Men died looking for him. Major Taliban guys were freed for a deserter..doesn't make sense..this is either stupidity or just helping the other side. It seems like this guys father has some sympathies with the Taliban..some people think there may have been a code given during his speech when he spoke in Arabic. Some Arabic speakers point this out. There is all kinds of funny business going on with this. I don't want to hate on the President, but it's one thing after another..I'm surprised he's still the President after so many scandals. He was not actually a Sgt. he was a Private from what I heard. So I guess he will be court martialed when he returns...I bet not.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/

[Godzuki]

what i'd like to know is how the fukk one dude can go awol and survive, while a whole platoon loses 6~ men lookiing for the one dude.

this guy is really fukked. America is going to hate him once this all gets figured out. at least his mom is sort of hot tho.

[Draz]

Watching it right now. It sounds fishy to me.

[outbreak]

Wow really odd situation. From the descriptions of the guys actions it sounds like he may have mental health issues?

[Patrick Chewing]

I cannot begin to wrap my head around how wrong this swap was on so many levels. This administration is hell-bent on destroying this country from within. All these Islamic connections to the White House prior to this swap, and then this soldier's father goes on live TV in the White House lawn and the first words out of his mouth are in Arabic???

This country has been infiltrated! Plain and simple. How can this administration justify releasing 5 TERRORISTS to bring back a deserter who undoubtedly converted to Islam and more than likely joined the Taliban and provided them with information on U.S. locations??

What the hell are Obama and these Liberal anarchists doing to this country???

[franchise#3]

It looks like Obama is trying to better his image. Young white people dig him because of this and that he appeared on between two ferns with zach galifinakis. White kids dig him just because Osama Obama says something kewll.

[Patrick Chewing]

It looks like Obama is trying to better his image. Young white people dig him because of this and that he appeared on between two ferns with zach galifinakis. White kids dig him just because Osama Obama says something kewll.


Better his image in Afghanistan probably. There's a reason why this law breaker has the highest security detail of all time. The problem is this MTV generation do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. They couldn't even tell you the names of at least 10 presidents. All they see on TV is Obama cracking corny jokes and smiling on one channel, then they see opinionated pinheads telling them that all those who oppose Obama are racists on the other channels. What do these MTV nitwits do? They learn what they see on TV instead of picking up a History book and understanding the simplicities of how government operated in the past and how it worked, and how "Progressive" Liberals always think that the world needs changing for this greater good which ultimately is the death of Democracy.

[Godzuki]

I cannot begin to wrap my head around how wrong this swap was on so many levels. This administration is hell-bent on destroying this country from within. All these Islamic connections to the White House prior to this swap, and then this soldier's father goes on live TV in the White House lawn and the first words out of his mouth are in Arabic???

This country has been infiltrated! Plain and simple. How can this administration justify releasing 5 TERRORISTS to bring back a deserter who undoubtedly converted to Islam and more than likely joined the Taliban and provided them with information on U.S. locations??

What the hell are Obama and these Liberal anarchists doing to this country???


i don't think anyone knew he was a deserter until after his pic got on the news and his previous platoon people started smearing him on social media. I don't think the military hiearchy and administration knew. Now they're in it tho and not knowing is unfortunately not good enough.

I also don't think the guy was sending any secret code either, nor did his son. like wtf could they say anyways, its not like we have some super secret that if the enemy knew it'd be all over for us....unless they're aliens and planning a super secret attack.

it trips me out how this dude was on guard duty in Afghanistan, then was like fukkit this suxx i'm out, and just starts walking :lol

[Godzuki]

It looks like Obama is trying to better his image. Young white people dig him because of this and that he appeared on between two ferns with zach galifinakis. White kids dig him just because Osama Obama says something kewll.


and then you have the GOP trying to think up ways to be more hipster....

at least Fox news added the black girl from Clueless :applause:

[Patrick Chewing]

I also don't think the guy was sending any secret code either, nor did his son. like wtf could they say anyways, its not like we have some super secret that if the enemy knew it'd be all over for us....unless they're aliens and planning a super secret attack.


The signals are not secret. They're out in the open for all of us to see. This is the tweet that the father deleted after it generated a ton of heat.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpAxBcLCYAAfy6L.jpg

We'd have to be some pretty stupid Americans to not find a problem with what he said and how this guy looks. It is clear to me that this guy and his son both converted to Islam at some point and do not have the best interest of this country at hand.

[Patrick Chewing]

i don't think anyone knew he was a deserter until after his pic got on the news and his previous platoon people started smearing him on social media. I don't think the military hiearchy and administration knew. Now they're in it tho and not knowing is unfortunately not good enough.



Wrong. This article shows us that even the President knew he was a deserter as early as 2010. This is some serious shady shit and nobody seems to care.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/02/smoking-gun-obama-knew-bergdahl-was-a-deserter-in-2010/

[KevinNYC]

i don't think anyone knew he was a deserter until after his pic got on the news and his previous platoon people started smearing him on social media. I don't think the military hiearchy and administration knew. Now they're in it tho and not knowing is unfortunately not good enough.
This article on Daily Beast that came out today seems to support this. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/02/we-lost-soldiers-in-the-hunt-for-bergdahl-a-guy-who-walked-off-in-the-dead-of-night.html)
We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl, a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night
For five years, soldiers have been forced to stay silent about the disappearance and search for Bergdahl. Now we can talk about what really happened......
...I served in the same battalion in Afghanistan and participated in the attempts to retrieve him throughout the summer of 2009. After we redeployed, every member of my brigade combat team received an order that we were not allowed to discuss what happened to Bergdahl for fear of endangering him. He is safe, and now it is time to speak the truth.
Apparently he has been given five years of promotions (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/17/afghanistan.captured.soldier/) while in captivity. This is why he is being referred to a sergeant when he was kidnapped as a private. Would the Army do this, if it was known he was suspected of desertion? EDIT: See article linked by Patrick Chewing


it trips me out how this dude was on guard duty in Afghanistan, then was like fukkit this suxx i'm out, and just starts walking :lol
It seems to have been way more planned than that. One of the guys who lived with him has put out a lot of stuff on twitter and said he packed up his laptop and other valuables and shipped them home, months before his tour of duty would have been over. The link above also says this

The next morning, Bergdahl failed to show for the morning roll call. The soldiers in 2nd Platoon, Blackfoot Company discovered his rifle, helmet, body armor and web gear in a neat stack. He had, however, taken his compass. His fellow soldiers later mentioned his stated desire to walk from Afghanistan to India.

[Godzuki]

The signals are not secret. They're out in the open for all of us to see. This is the tweet that the father deleted after it generated a ton of heat.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpAxBcLCYAAfy6L.jpg

We'd have to be some pretty stupid Americans to not find a problem with what he said and how this guy looks. It is clear to me that this guy and his son both converted to Islam at some point and do not have the best interest of this country at hand.


I haven't seen any of that on CNN. I don't even care tbh. They make such broad jumps to guilt no way i can get behind any of the stuff you're posting. sorry.

I also have no doubt this dude squealed after he was captured. theres that pic of him in the jungle with a handler and it reminded me a lot of Theon from GoT ironically.

i felt sorry for the mom the most.

[Godzuki]

Does Stacey Dash still look fine?


NO


way hotter in Clueless

[KevinNYC]

Wrong. This article shows us that even the President knew he was a deserter as early as 2010. This is some serious shady shit and nobody seems to care.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/02/smoking-gun-obama-knew-bergdahl-was-a-deserter-in-2010/

Pat, where in the article does it say that? It might be true, you're going further than what the article says. The AP article says there was a Pentagon investigation, but it says nothing about who saw that report. Here's the totality of what the article said.


Bergdahl disappeared on June 30, 2009. A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that the evidence was “incontrovertible” that he walked away from his unit, said a former Pentagon official who has read it.

The military investigation was broader than a criminal inquiry, this official said, and it didn’t formally accuse Bergdahl of desertion. In interviews as part of the probe, members of his unit portrayed him as a naive, “delusional” person who thought he could help the Afghan people by leaving his army post, said the official, who was present for the interviews.

That official, like others cited in this report, spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly by name.

The article seems to imply that Bergdahl was ill and could die in Taliban captivity.

[johndeeregreen]

The (only) good news here is that at least it's being made known that this guy is NOT a hero. Patrick Chewing's viewpoint may actually be closer to the truth than many of you guys are willing to acknowledge.

This is a disgrace, rewarding America's enemies because one of their own decided he didn't like playing soldier anymore.

[dude77]

so obama freed five dangerous terrorists .. in exchange for a soldier who was a deserter, had proclaimed he hated himself for being american, sympathized with the taliban and caused the death of other american soldiers :oldlol: obama is trolling the fk out of us

[Godzuki]

This article on Daily Beast that came out today seems to support this. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/02/we-lost-soldiers-in-the-hunt-for-bergdahl-a-guy-who-walked-off-in-the-dead-of-night.html)
Apparently he has been given five years of promotions (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/17/afghanistan.captured.soldier/) while in captivity. This is why he is being referred to a sergeant when he was kidnapped as a private. Would the Army do this, if it was known he was suspected of desertion?


It seems to have been way more planned than that. One of the guys who lived with him has put out a lot of stuff on twitter and said he packed up his laptop and other valuables and shipped them home, months before his tour of duty would have been over. The link above also says this


yeah and i found it odd that they would keep searching for him under the pretense of deserter. even after a lot of their own guys died....

if they thought he was possibly kidnapped, thats a completely different cause.

[kentatm]

they probably micro chipped those fools for future drone strikes.

[KevinNYC]

yeah and i found it odd that they would keep searching for him under the pretense of deserter. even after a lot of their own guys died....

if they thought he was possibly kidnapped, thats a completely different cause.

The Washington Post Article says that the investigation was done in 2010 and they stopped actively looking for him. The guys who died were in 2009.

There is precedence for holding a court-martial for a POW. A soldier who deserted his unit before deploying to Vietnam was captured by the North Koreas and held for 20 years. He received a 30 day jail term.

[B-hoop]

Pat, where in the article does it say that? It might be true, you're going further than what the article says. The AP article says there was a Pentagon investigation, but it says nothing about who saw that report. Here's the totality of what the article said.



The article seems to imply that Bergdahl was ill and could die in Taliban captivity.

Do you know what incontrovertible means? Because that passage you showed just said the government knew without a doubt that he had walked away from his post or in other words, deserted..

[yobore]

There is definitely more to this story than is being told. My guess is they've turned some of the released prisoners or have some new way of tracking them and are setting them out to have better information about the rest of the Taliban

[johndeeregreen]

Do you know what incontrovertible means? Because that passage you showed just said the government knew without a doubt that he had walked away from his post or in other words, deserted..
He's referring to the fact that the article doesn't explicitly state that Obama himself knew about the situation. Which he's definitely correct about.

However, it's a stretch (read: virtual impossibility) for us to believe that none of that information was ever made available to Obama and/or his inner circle, ever, at any point during this process.

[kentatm]

However, it's a stretch (read: virtual impossibility) for us to believe that none of that information was ever made available to Obama and/or his inner circle, ever, at any point during this process.

probably

but dont you think its also extremely likely that there is far more going on behind the scenes with all this than we are being told?

PH is jumping to really wild conclusions that cant possibly be true.

[johndeeregreen]

probably

but dont you think its also extremely likely that there is far more going on behind the scenes with all this than we are being told?
Certainly, there always is. My point on this particular matter was not necessarily to offer a judgment on this entire event, just to point out how absurd it is of KNYC to act like this is COMPLETELY out of left field to the Obama administration when the Pentagon has known for years. That's ridiculous.

[Derka]

One of these idiots we traded better have a homing device linked directly to a drone hiding up his ass or something.

After we blow them up, we put Birddog on TV and blow his head off.

That's quite simply the only way I accept something like this happening while a decorated Marine rots in a Mexican prison for a stupid-ass gun charge.

[Droid101]

When Reagan traded terrorists hostage for hostage: hero.

When a blah demmycrat does it: law breaker.

Keep it up tards.

[senelcoolidge]

When Reagan traded terrorists hostage for hostage: hero.

When a blah demmycrat does it: law breaker.

Keep it up tards.

I think you need to do your homework.

[KevinNYC]

Do you know what incontrovertible means? Because that passage you showed just said the government knew without a doubt that he had walked away from his post or in other words, deserted..

Do you know why "incontrovertible" is in quotes? Do you know why the reporter did that?

[Patrick Chewing]

He's referring to the fact that the article doesn't explicitly state that Obama himself knew about the situation. Which he's definitely correct about.

However, it's a stretch (read: virtual impossibility) for us to believe that none of that information was ever made available to Obama and/or his inner circle, ever, at any point during this process.

Which we all know is bullshit that he didn't know. He's the President. He's the first you tell. You advise him on what to do next, and he makes his decision based on what has the best outcome.

But here's a list of a few things Obama doesn't know about as President:

1. Benghazi warnings
2. VA debacle
3. Fast and Furious
4. NSA Spying on German Chancellor
5. IRS targeting of Conservative organizations
6. DOJ seizing AP's phone records
7. And now this guy as a deserter and possible traitor

Only a few more to go till he reaches 10. He's the most protected president in the history of Presidents. He's the teflon President.

[Patrick Chewing]

That's quite simply the only way I accept something like this happening while a decorated Marine rots in a Mexican prison for a stupid-ass gun charge.


He's been there for at least 2 months in that Mexican prison and just Friday is when John Kerry made his first public mention of him. Both presidents haven't even spoken about the issue yet.

However, a guy who deserted his unit and possibly joined the Taliban is priority #1.

[Droid101]

Which we all know is bullshit that he didn't know. He's the President. He's the first you tell. You advise him on what to do next, and he makes his decision based on what has the best outcome.

But here's a list of a few things Obama doesn't know about as President:

1. Benghazi warnings
2. VA debacle
3. Fast and Furious
4. NSA Spying on German Chancellor
5. IRS targeting of Conservative organizations
6. DOJ seizing AP's phone records
7. And now this guy as a deserter and possible traitor

Only a few more to go till he reaches 10. He's the most protected president in the history of Presidents. He's the teflon President.
:rolleyes:


Reagan, who was subpoenaed by the defense in the upcoming trial of his onetime national security adviser, John Poindexter, neither clearly exonerated Poindexter nor critically undermined his defense. Nor did his videotaped testimony do much to answer questions about who authorized the diversion at a time when such aid to the contras was illegal.



But his deposition did reveal startling gaps in the memory of the 79-year-old former president. In all, Reagan said ``I don`t recall`` or ``I can`t remember`` 88 times in the eight hours of testimony taken Feb. 16-17 in Los Angeles.

It's okay when our guy does it.

You're such a tool.

[Patrick Chewing]

:rolleyes:



It's okay when our guy does it.

You're such a tool.

Keep rolling your eyes till they fall out you blithering idiot. You're excusing what Obama did cause Reagan did something similar 30 years ago??

Obama broke the law and released 5 of the highest members of the Taliban for a possible traitor?? Wrap your greasy head around that. There's no way you can spin that to justify it. So keep trying.

If Obama had said he would negotiate with terrorists during either one of his Presidential campaigns, he would have never been President.

[Patrick Chewing]

[QUOTE] [I]A senior official confirms to Fox News that the conduct of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

[JohnFreeman]

He is going to get back to America and go on a rampage

[Fallguy20]

Its open season on Americans!

I'm not leaving the country any time soon.
Negotiate once, big or small, and civilians and soldiers alike are seen as valuable.

Outraged.

[B-hoop]

Do you know why "incontrovertible" is in quotes? Do you know why the reporter did that?

Uhm, because he is quoting the Pentagon's report?

Do you mean to tell me no one ever took the time to tell Obama that the guy he just gave away 5 deadly terrorists for was a deserter?

Either way that spells lousy administration.

[Patrick Chewing]

How many American soldiers died to get these 5 guys into Guantanamo and away from their terrorist organizations?? Anyone?

This should not be a partisan issue, but we should all equally be outraged from both sides of the aisle.


We might as well draft a new Constitution and fire all of Congress if the President is going to do whatever the hell he wants.

[gts]

How many American soldiers died to get these 5 guys into Guantanamo and away from their terrorist organizations?? Anyone?

This should not be a partisan issue, but we should all equally be outraged from both sides of the aisle.


We might as well draft a new Constitution and fire all of Congress if the President is going to do whatever the hell he wants.

I agree the whole thing stinks from start to finish...

[KevinNYC]

Uhm, because he is quoting the Pentagon's report?
Nope.

The reporter is not quoting the Pentagon's report. The AP reporter gives no indication of seeing any report. Incontrovertible is the opinion of AP's anonymous source.


Do you mean to tell me no one ever took the time to tell Obama that the guy he just gave away 5 deadly terrorists for was a deserter?
I didn't, but you got there. That seems either like a giant miss or a huge **** up or something else is going on here.

As for the dangerous terrorists, you do know we are winding down the war in Afghanistan and are not going to keep any Afghan prisoners of war?

[KevinNYC]

He's the most protected president in the history of Presidents. He's the teflon President.

That's pretty good. Did you coin that phrase?

[johndeeregreen]

As for the dangerous terrorists, you do know we are winding down the war in Afghanistan and are not going to keep any Afghan prisoners of war?
So we might as well just release them all then. No big deal, nothing to see here. If they aren't gonna bother keeping Afghan POWs then why should anyone care if we release a bunch of other dangerous terrorists? I mean, because situation A is happening, we might as well ignore/minimize situation B.

You should really work in PR, you have the gift of distraction/minimization down pat.

[KevinNYC]

So we might as well just release them all then. No big deal, nothing to see here. If they aren't gonna bother keeping Afghan POWs then why should anyone care if we release a bunch of other dangerous terrorists? I mean, because situation A is happening, we might as well ignore/minimize situation B.

You should really work in PR, you have the gift of distraction/minimization down pat.

No the dangerous terrorists should just be imprisoned in supermax facilities in the US.

[GimmeThat]

peace, to boldly empty the clip in which got us here
to boldly negotiate with others without tactic when our alllies are out of reach

[Qwyjibo]

Here's a recent picture. Seems like a regular guy. What could possibly go wrong?


http://primetime.unrealitytv.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/brody-homeland.jpg

[KevinNYC]

Interesting take by an officer in his unit. (https://twitter.com/inthesedeserts)

[QUOTE]Nathan Bradley @inthesedeserts

[outbreak]

Another point to remember is that if the war is ending then those prisoners would have been released anyway if they are being held as P.O.Ws and were captured in a warzone.

[Patrick Chewing]

Another point to remember is that if the war is ending then those prisoners would have been released anyway if they are being held as P.O.Ws and were captured in a warzone.


We have no obligation to release these guys. If they are members of the Taliban, and are classified as threats to the United States, then what should be done with them is that they should be tried in a court of law. But to release these guys back into the fold?? I don't care if we're releasing these guys to some other Muslim country, the bottom line is that:

1. We don't negotiate with terrorist entities
2. The President did not go through Congress
3. We released some bad men!!!

[Droid101]

We have no obligation to release these guys. If they are members of the Taliban, and are classified as threats to the United States, then what should be done with them is that they should be tried in a court of law. But to release these guys back into the fold?? I don't care if we're releasing these guys to some other Muslim country, the bottom line is that:

1. We don't negotiate with terrorist entities
2. The President did not go through Congress
3. We released some bad men!!!
Your concern is noted.

[Droid101]

Just LOOK at the liar in chief negotiating with terrorsits!
\

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Cw2rGvAvg8M/U44Mx7RJK3I/AAAAAAAApFY/35-R4Io6Gss/w810-h539-no/fark_zuYSZ7DNA0L-pH6ZS698v52gKgc.jpg

[russwest0]

so 6 soldiers died trying to get this man back and then we let 5 terrorists go free for him?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

why not just do the exchange before soldiers die?

someone explain this to me

[dude77]

Another point to remember is that if the war is ending then those prisoners would have been released anyway if they are being held as P.O.Ws and were captured in a warzone.


We have no obligation to release these guys. If they are members of the Taliban, and are classified as threats to the United States, then what should be done with them is that they should be tried in a court of law. But to release these guys back into the fold?? I don't care if we're releasing these guys to some other Muslim country, the bottom line is that:

1. We don't negotiate with terrorist entities
2. The President did not go through Congress
3. We released some bad men!!!


yeah these guys aren't or weren't pows .. they were detained as 'enemy combatants' which as defined by the U.S. after the whole 911 thing meant that they pretty much had no rights from my understanding and could be detained however long the U.S. wanted them .. but I just read that obama abandoned that term so maybe they are classified as pows now

[russwest0]

i like how obama went forth on a POW exchange without consulting congress

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

that alone is violating the constitution and federal law and worthy of an impeachment. but god forbid you criticize the first half black president without having the liberal media calling you a racist... :facepalm

america is so ****ed because of how corrupt our media is. fox news is literally the only conservative news network around and if you listened to the casual US citizen you'd think fox news is the problem or some shit when all of the other news networks are no better, just in the other direction.

also funny how this coming one week after the VA scandal. Didn't think it was possible, but Obama is leaving behind a worse track record than Bush.

btw I'm neither conservative or liberal, I hate both parties. right now I'm leaning towards hating the dems more simply because of how much control they have over the media and how they try to use race baiting and other ***** tactics to their advantadge

[9erempiree]

I am going to agree with most on here about what Obama did was stupid and it does look fishy. I don't get why we release high profile members of the Taliban for this one guy. Granted, you never ignore POW's but this is kind of insane.

Also, the father grew out his beard, kind of like support for the Taliban. Public perception and opinion has also pressured Obama in doing this.

[Lakers Legend#32]

John McCain got out of a North Vietnamese prison the exact same way.
So of course, he opposes what Obama did.
If Obama were a white conservative, McCain would be praising his actions.

[russwest0]

John McCain got out of a North Vietnamese prison the exact same way.
So of course, he opposes what Obama did.
If Obama were a white conservative, McCain would be praising his actions.

what does this have to do with mccain?

what obama did was not only stupid, but also violated federal law. that has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

[Droid101]

John McCain got out of a North Vietnamese prison the exact same way.
So of course, he opposes what Obama did.
If Obama were a white conservative, McCain would be praising his actions.
In January Right Wing politicians were screeching to bring Bowe home, calling Obama a do-nothing, empty suit, limp wristed politician who hates the troops.

Now that he's home, Obama is a law-breaking, Machiavellian, scheming tyrant looking to subvert the US Constitution and broker illegal deals with terrorists.

This is called "Obama Derangement Syndrome." No matter what Obama does, he's bad, even though it's completely impossible to be the two different people they are trying to portray him as above.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43450_Flashback!_1-2014-_PJ_Media_Encourages_Readers_to_Sign_Petition_to_F ree_Bergdahl_By_Any_Means_Necessary/comments/

[KevinNYC]

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140603/NEWS08/306020047/Dempsey-Army-may-still-pursue-charges-against-Berghdal

[QUOTE]Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Martin Dempsey issued a statement Tuesday aimed at quelling criticism of Bergdahl and the high-level decision to trade five Taliban prisoners for his release.

[dude77]

In January Right Wing politicians were screeching to bring Bowe home, calling Obama a do-nothing, empty suit, limp wristed politician who hates the troops.

Now that he's home, Obama is a law-breaking, Machiavellian, scheming tyrant looking to subvert the US Constitution and broker illegal deals with terrorists.

This is called "Obama Derangement Syndrome." No matter what Obama does, he's bad, even though it's completely impossible to be the two different people they are trying to portray him as above.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43450_Flashback!_1-2014-_PJ_Media_Encourages_Readers_to_Sign_Petition_to_F ree_Bergdahl_By_Any_Means_Necessary/comments/

there's nothing in there about encouraging a trade for dangerous, high level terrorists .. they were encouraging his rescue ..

lets face it .. this administration blundered yet again .. they look like total ******* to the world .. 5 terrorists for a guy who sympathized with the enemy and left his post to go hang out with them .. utter fail lol .. why not a 1 for 1 swap .. they just caved in to their demands .. obama comes off with shit all over his face ..

there's something else going on here .. this doesn't make any sense .. this wasn't about 'rescuing' this guy .. this guy's been in captivity for 5 yrs .. they didn't give a fk about him .. many other pows from other wars have never been recovered and never will .. this is just some selective shit .. probably a pr move for obama .. I still haven't forgotten how this bitch boy flew around the world when he was elected bowing to other heads of state like a good little bitch .. obama has to be one of the biggest pussys of a president I've seen

[KevinNYC]

yeah these guys aren't or weren't pows .. they were detained as 'enemy combatants' which as defined by the U.S. after the whole 911 thing meant that they pretty much had no rights from my understanding and could be detained however long the U.S. wanted them .. but I just read that obama abandoned that term so maybe they are classified as pows now

The Justice Department dropped enemy combatant back in 2009. At the same time Obama dropped Bush's claim that authority to detain indefinitely was part of the President's War Powers.
It said those at Guantanamo will no longer be held on the exclusive basis of the president's authority as commander in chief.

Bush, who sought to expand presidential powers during his eight years in office, had asserted his war powers were enough legal reason for holding prisoners. Bush officials also said they were not legally subject to the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment -- a view the Supreme Court rejected.

The legal structure for holding the Guantanamo prisoners will now be based on laws passed by Congress and, by extension, international law including the Geneva conventions, the Justice Department said.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/14/us-obama-security-combatant-idUSTRE52C59220090314?sp=true

[russwest0]

watching live updates of this on fox news right now...

wow... obama really is a scumbag POS who deserves to be impeached ASAP

[Droid101]

watching live updates of this on fox news right now...

wow... obama really is a scumbag POS who deserves to be impeached ASAP
:roll:

[Droid101]

More hypocrisy:

John McCain today:

"This decision to bring Sgt. Bergdahl home -- and we applaud that he is home -- is ill-founded. It is a mistake," McCain said

John McCain in February:

That's a shift from where McCain stood in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper that aired in February, soon after the U.S. military obtained a proof-of-life video of Bergdahl. McCain told Cooper that originally, Bergdahl's captors had demanded the transfer of five detainees just as a "confidence-building measure." Once a prisoner swap was reportedly in the cards, however, the senator said he'd be "inclined to support such a thing."
"I would support -- obviously I'd have to know the details -- but I would support ways of bringing him home," he said at the time. "And if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider."

[Dresta]

In January Right Wing politicians were screeching to bring Bowe home, calling Obama a do-nothing, empty suit, limp wristed politician who hates the troops.

Now that he's home, Obama is a law-breaking, Machiavellian, scheming tyrant looking to subvert the US Constitution and broker illegal deals with terrorists.

This is called "Obama Derangement Syndrome." No matter what Obama does, he's bad, even though it's completely impossible to be the two different people they are trying to portray him as above.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43450_Flashback!_1-2014-_PJ_Media_Encourages_Readers_to_Sign_Petition_to_F ree_Bergdahl_By_Any_Means_Necessary/comments/:lol

He was all of that a long time ago.

[russwest0]

:roll:

:roll:

i was just trolling as if i was the average fox news viewer.

the more the facts come out though the more it seems like the obama admin just rushed this out to try and save face and take the attention off the va scandal.

and that backfired quite a bit.

can't wait until 2016 until we get to see who the liberal media elects next as our president

[gts]

More hypocrisy:

John McCain today:


John McCain in February:

Maybe he has more information today than he had back in February?

[KevinNYC]

Pat, where in the article does it say that? It might be true, you're going further than what the article says. The AP article says there was a Pentagon investigation, but it says nothing about who saw that report. Here's the totality of what the article said.



The article seems to imply that Bergdahl was ill and could die in Taliban captivity.

Bergdahl was rumored to be a deserter in media reports going back to right after it happened. The big Rolling Stone article on him, makes it clear he walked off base

Bowe Bergdahl had a different response. He decided to walk away.

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

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

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

However, he not officially determined to be deserter by the military. I think the main reason for this is the military was following due process. They couldn't make the decision just based on the word of his bunkmates. He would need to be present and be able to defend himself. There's also the lesser charge of AWOL

Susan Rice was specifically asked about desertion and could have finessed or avoided the issue, but she defended him. (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/ambassador-susan-rice-release-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-23947718)

Sergeant bergdahl, questions about how he left. He deserted his post, if he did indeed leave his post, will he be disciplined? Or has he already paid the price?

Certainly, anybody who's been held in those conditions in captivity for five years has paid an extraordinary price. But that is really not the point. The point is that he's back.

He's going to be safely reunited with his family. He served the United States with honor and distinction. And we'll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.
She could have just left that sentence out and there would be no issue with her answer.

[travelingman]

watching live updates of this on fox news

First mistake.

[Droid101]

Maybe he has more information today than he had back in February?
Or maybe, in February, because Obama was a limp-wristed, do-nothing president, it's easy to attack him on not getting hostages out of foreign countries.

And then, when he actually did get the hostages out, now he's an evil facist subverting the law.

Republicans are super predictable.

[travelingman]

it seems like the _____ admin just rushed this out to try and save face and take the attention off _________.

This fill-in-the-blank archetypal claim has been made by Republicans on just about every action taken by Democratic presidents in recent memory.

[Fallguy20]

More hypocrisy:

John McCain today:
"This decision to bring Sgt. Bergdahl home -- and we applaud that he is home -- is ill-founded. It is a mistake," McCain said


John McCain in February:
That's a shift from where McCain stood in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper that aired in February, soon after the U.S. military obtained a proof-of-life video of Bergdahl. McCain told Cooper that originally, Bergdahl's captors had demanded the transfer of five detainees just as a "confidence-building measure." Once a prisoner swap was reportedly in the cards, however, the senator said he'd be "inclined to support such a thing."
"I would support -- obviously I'd have to know the details -- but I would support ways of bringing him home," he said at the time. "And if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider."

Consider what he meant there.

Is it not a mistake or ill-founded for the President of the United States to be a threat to the consitution by not following the checks and balances upon which the country is built? After all, he did BYPASS CONGRESS.

No big mistake there, right?

[Patrick Chewing]

:roll:


You're mind is polluted to know any better. What, you think that the miniscule amount of viewers who do not watch Fox News are far more intelligent than those that do? You included.

People are fed up with shitty reporting and INSANE ideas proposed by the left. Un-American ideas that go against the foundation of this country.

I've told you boy, this ain't a black or white thing. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It's a right and wrong thing. What this administration has done is downright illegal. You can do wrong things in life and have it not be illegal, but you can't do illegal things in life and have it not be wrong and expect to get away with it.

You're an idiot to defend this President.

[travelingman]

I've told you boy, this ain't a black or white thing. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It's a right-wing and wrong-wing thing.

A convocation of eagles just shed a collective patriotic tear.

[Patrick Chewing]

A convocation of eagles just shed a collective patriotic tear.

Aww what's a matter, hoss?? You want to join the Taliban too??

[RedBlackAttack]

Maddow just systematically took apart the FoxNews fake outrage on this case. F#cking disgraceful what's going on over there.

If he's a deserter, let him be court marshaled and tried here, in his own country. If there's something more nefarious and the military investigation concludes that to be the case, he will be punished appropriately... here.

We don't outsource our criminal justice system to the Taliban and our military also lives by the motto, "No man left behind."

The exchange of prisoners is absolutely nothing different than what happens at the conclusion of every war we've been involved in. The current state of right-wing is so completely obsessed with politicizing everything, they've lost total focus on the bigger picture.

Obama isn't getting impeached, guys. I know how badly you want it to happen, but it's not in the cards. Time to accept that he's won re-election and move on. Every single thing that happens is immediately politicized by the FNC talking heads and they get their viewership all in an uproar...

This sh!t needs to stop. They're busy attacking this guy's family on FNC, atm. Going in on his dad for not shaving his beard. Never thought I'd see the day ...

[Patrick Chewing]

Maddow just systematically took apart the FoxNews fake outrage on this case. F#cking disgraceful what's going on over there.

If he's a deserter, let him be court marshaled and tried here, in his own country. If there's something more nefarious and the military investigation concludes that to be the case, he will be punished appropriately... here.

We don't outsource our criminal justice system to the Taliban and our military also lives by the motto, "No man left behind."

The exchange of prisoners is absolutely nothing different than what happens at the conclusion of every war we've been involved in. The current state of right-wing is so completely obsessed with politicizing everything, they've lost total focus on the bigger picture.

Obama isn't getting impeached, guys. I know how badly you want it to happen, but it's not in the cards. Time to accept that he's won re-election and move on. Every single thing that happens is immediately politicized by the FNC talking heads and they get their viewership all in an uproar...

This sh!t needs to stop. They're busy attacking this guy's family on FNC, atm. Going in on his dad for not shaving his beard. Never thought I'd see the day ...

Your argument is destroyed by talking points on ALL major news networks showing the same displeasure in what took place. Maddow? Really? Queen dyke who runs the least-watched network with connections straight to Obama himself?? Puh-lease. Obama could bitch slap Maddow himself and she'd find a way to justify it.

Obama is the weaker version of Clinton. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles to a few terrorists in the 90's, and absolutely blew his chance to curb terrorism just so he couldn't be labeled a war monger. What happens next? A Republican takes office and we get bombed and he reacts differently curbing terrorism for a good long while. Obama is following in the same footsteps as his impeached idol, yet only doing a shittier job of not protecting his country/military. So, when the Queen **** Hillary loses in 2016, a Republican/Tea Partier will take office, and the same shit will happen again cause the Liberals are some weak sons of bitches that couldn't do their jobs when they were in power. The only thing they were ever good at was blaming the other guy.

[GimmeThat]

Obama is the weaker version of Clinton. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles to a few terrorists in the 90's, and absolutely blew his chance to curb terrorism just so he couldn't be labeled a war monger. What happens next? A Republican takes office and we get bombed and he reacts differently curbing terrorism for a good long while. Obama is following in the same footsteps as his impeached idol, yet only doing a shittier job of not protecting his country/military. So, when the Queen **** Hillary loses in 2016, a Republican/Tea Partier will take office, and the same shit will happen again cause the Liberals are some weak sons of bitches that couldn't do their jobs when they were in power. The only thing they were ever good at was blaming the other guy.

The Democrats have shown the lack of a foriegn policy while they are in office for whatever reason.

I suspect it is the whole parties agenda. And when you look at some of the known Democrats compared to when they are out of office, have made more advancement in third world countries than they were in office.

The lack of funding to help third world countries may had been their biggest obstacle. After all, it IS wrong for the United States to do it alone. So they try to help them economically, which when they do, weakens the U.S. and when they don't, possible terrorism rises.


The United States constant lack of leadership within the United Nation have gotten them to this vicious cycle today. Why? Because people place more emphasis on being the president of the United States instead of being the representative of United States under United Nation, as well as the rise to a leadership position there.

We help created an institution in which we don't utilize, and our house of representative have been bothered by it ever since.

[travelingman]

Aww what's a matter, hoss?? You want to join the Taliban too??

Quick question, with all of the uproar you are generating over this transaction, tell me, how quickly were you calling for the impeachment of Reagan after the Beirut barracks bombing in which 241 U.S. servicemen were killed? Did the fact that Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon as peacekeepers and failed to guarantee their security bother you at all? Did it bother you that Reagan did not heed the advice of SoD Weinberger to not place marines in a vulnerable position at BIA? Oh, and to tie it in with the legality issues of the Bergdahl transaction, how did you feel about the Iran-Contra Scandal? Was it more infuriating that the Reagan administration had engaged in illegal arms-trading with Iran, which is suspected of having a hand in the '83 Beirut bombing?

I'm just trying to understand how much your political leanings affect the way you judge presidential actions.

[RedBlackAttack]

Your argument is destroyed by talking points on ALL major news networks showing the same displeasure in what took place. Maddow? Really? Queen dyke who runs the least-watched network with connections straight to Obama himself?? Puh-lease. Obama could bitch slap Maddow himself and she'd find a way to justify it.

Obama is the weaker version of Clinton. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles to a few terrorists in the 90's, and absolutely blew his chance to curb terrorism just so he couldn't be labeled a war monger. What happens next? A Republican takes office and we get bombed and he reacts differently curbing terrorism for a good long while. Obama is following in the same footsteps as his impeached idol, yet only doing a shittier job of not protecting his country/military. So, when the Queen **** Hillary loses in 2016, a Republican/Tea Partier will take office, and the same shit will happen again cause the Liberals are some weak sons of bitches that couldn't do their jobs when they were in power. The only thing they were ever good at was blaming the other guy.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Lots of talk. Zero substance. Maddow may be an unabashed liberal, but she's smart and she's a good reporter. She checks her sources. She doesn't pull sh!t out of thin air like the blowhards you watch on a nightly basis.

If you can show where my argument is wrong and why this guy should have been left to whichever fate the Taliban deemed appropriate, please do so. If you're going to regurgitate a bunch of random talking points created by FNC to make people like you angry, I have no interest in discussing the matter further.

[Patrick Chewing]

Quick question, with all of the uproar you are generating over this transaction, tell me, how quickly were you calling for the impeachment of Reagan after the Beirut barracks bombing in which 241 U.S. servicemen were killed? Did the fact that Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon as peacekeepers and failed to guarantee their security bother you at all? Did it bother you that Reagan did not heed the advice of SoD Weinberger to not place marines in a vulnerable position at BIA? Oh, and to tie it in with the legality issues of the Bergdahl transaction, how did you feel about the Iran-Contra Scandal? Was it more infuriating that the Reagan administration had engaged in illegal arms-trading with Iran, which is suspected of having a hand in the '83 Beirut bombing?

I'm just trying to understand how much your political leanings affect the way you judge presidential actions.


I can't answer that question. I was probably still in diapers. Nor can I go back in time and look at what transpired then and make a judgment.

But that's just what Liberals do. You excuse the actions of your guy, cause our guy did it 30 years back! Your party has no accountability. Here I am, a Conservative telling you that Bush blew it on Iraq and was fed shoddy intelligence and had next to no exit strategy, yet you cannot do the same for your guy.

You basically stand in front of your television and utter these words, "Well, I can't see anything wrong with this prisoner swap cause Reagan did it back in the 80's. All these people upset at Obama don't realize it was done before."

Did you expect me to say something different?? And I'll clue you in on a little something too. The vast majority of Conservatives think the same exact way. But you'll deny that till your last dying breath.

[Lakers Legend#32]

If this president were a white conservative, the GOP would be nominating him for sainthood.

[Droid101]

Maddow? Really? Queen dyke
So, you just lost all credibility forever. Enjoy!

[Patrick Chewing]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Lots of talk. Zero substance. Maddow may be an unabashed liberal, but she's smart and she's a good reporter. She checks her sources. She doesn't pull sh!t out of thin air like the blowhards you watch on a nightly basis.

If you can show where my argument is wrong and why this guy should have been left to whichever fate the Taliban deemed appropriate, please do so. If you're going to regurgitate a bunch of random talking points created by FNC to make people like you angry, I have no interest in discussing the matter further.


Oh so Rachel Maddow is a good reporter, along with her colleagues who all have connections to Barack Obama, but Fox News just "creates" and "fabricates" stories so that their DOMINANCE in ratings stays the same?? Maddow's sources are members of the administration. The administration tells her why they did what they did, and she of course supports it, so all she's left to report on is why Republicans differ in their opinion. How is that honest reporting?? An honest reporter and news network doesn't lean either way.

If you had attentive listening skills, you would watch other networks, and even guests to your favorite network and see that NO ONE is arguing that he should not have been returned home, but they are arguing about the manner in which we got this guy to come back home. You really have no problem releasing 5 of the worst Taliban officials to go back into the fold just to bring this soldier back when we could have easily just sent a Seal team in there and done the job ourselves?? All the lives lost to bring these bad guys in, all for not.

So go ahead and pout and "not discuss the matter further" cause it's too difficult for you to admit that Obama is a ****ing cancer to the history of this great country.

[travelingman]

I can't answer that question. I was probably still in diapers. Nor can I go back in time and look at what transpired then and make a judgment.

But that's just what Liberals do. You excuse the actions of your guy, cause our guy did it 30 years back! Your party has no accountability. Here I am, a Conservative telling you that Bush blew it on Iraq and was fed shoddy intelligence and had next to no exit strategy, yet you cannot do the same for your guy.

You basically stand in front of your television and utter these words, "Well, I can't see anything wrong with this prisoner swap cause Reagan did it back in the 80's. All these people upset at Obama don't realize it was done before."

Did you expect me to say something different?? And I'll clue you in on a little something too. The vast majority of Conservatives think the same exact way. But you'll deny that till your last dying breath.

I haven't dismissed any of Obama's actions. The stated collective purpose of my series of questions was given with my last paragraph. Also, your excuse that you were still in diapers is hardly a sound one. Any person who calls themselves a student of history (you may not, but being someone who injects themselves into political conversations, it would be to your advantage) should be able to understand the who, what, when, where, why, and how of scrutinized events of the past (given the plethora of resources we have available nowadays). Again, my series of questions is more about how you evaluate presidential actions. If you want to back out of this survey, just admit that you are ignorant (intentional ignorance also counts!) on Reagan's presidency.

[Patrick Chewing]

just admit that you are ignorant (intentional ignorance also counts!) on Reagan's presidency.

But that's where you want the discussion to lead. You want it to lead to Reagan's presidency to dismiss the actions of the current commander in chief. Otherwise, why bring Reagan up to begin with??

[travelingman]

But that's where you want the discussion to lead. You want it to lead to Reagan's presidency to dismiss the actions of the current commander in chief. Otherwise, why bring Reagan up to begin with??

The reason I brought it up is to check the credibility of your honest, scholarly criticisms. I believe you to be a person who reacts more strongly against a negative liberal action than a negative conservative one. I wanted to see how you would compare a negative action by a right-wing administration compared to a negative action by a left-wing one. I would then evaluate based on your two critiques whether or not you seemed to have any political bias with regards to how you develop your assessments.

[GimmeThat]

Any person who calls themselves a student of history (you may not, but being someone who injects themselves into political conversations, it would be to your advantage) should be able to understand the who, what, when, where, why, and how of scrutinized events of the past (given the plethora of resources we have available nowadays)


Guys. I found a pussay.

Because if you know the who, what, when, where, and why. Then history doesn't matter.

If you don't know the who, what, when, where and why. You can suck on history and hoping for a good result.

[travelingman]

Guys. I found a pussay.

Because if you know the who, what, when, where, and why. Then history doesn't matter.

If you don't know the who, what, when, where and why. You can suck on history and hoping for a good result.

I said that the who, what, when, where, why, and how of any historical event is key to helping us understand that historical event. I really don't understand what you are prattling about.

[Patrick Chewing]

The reason I brought it up is to check the credibility of your honest, scholarly criticisms. I believe you to be a person who reacts more strongly against a negative liberal action than a negative conservative one. I wanted to see how you would compare a negative action by a right-wing administration compared to a negative action by a left-wing one. I would then evaluate based on your two critiques whether or not you seemed to have any political bias with regards to how you develop your assessments.


Would be great to ask the Liberals who have defended Obama thus far the same question. Particularly pertaining to the most recent Republican president in memory, George W. Bush.

In a reply to you just a few minutes ago, I stated my disagreements with decisions Bush made. I even made a thread a couple of weeks back titled F*** Iraq I believe in which my clear message was that we had no business being there, primarily because those people are beyond saving and there were no ties to 9/11 in that country. So your study of me should be complete at this point.

[GimmeThat]

I said that the who, what, when, where, why, and how of any historical event is key to helping us understand that historical event. I really don't understand what you are prattling about.

Meaning Reagon's action has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's action.

And hence you can't prove that Reagon's action was a negative one, or even if you were to prove that Reagon's action was a negative one. It means nothing nor can it equate to Obama's equation.

So the f*ck is being a student of the history good for in regarding to Obama's action today?

So you can judge it as a point of a view as an American, and not that of the world?


Thank God we are not talking about foriegn policy here.


Wait....


Correlation. Look that word up.

[travelingman]

Would be great to ask the Liberals who have defended Obama thus far the same question. Particularly pertaining to the most recent Republican president in memory, George W. Bush.

In a reply to you just a few minutes ago, I stated my disagreements with decisions Bush made. I even made a thread a couple of weeks back titled F*** Iraq I believe in which my clear message was that we had no business being there, primarily because those people are beyond saving and there were no ties to 9/11 in that country. So your study of me should be complete at this point.

That's one large event that most libertarians (a sizeable right-wing portion) can agree with you on, so let's cover some more examples. How do you compare the following:

Benghazi vs. Beirut

Iran-Contra vs. Bergdahl-GITMO detainees swap

As for me, I generally do not criticize presidents to great lengths. I wouldn't have called for Reagan's impeachment (I can't think of many presidents I would have liked to impeach...well, a few). However, with a great amount of conservatives trying to use every "scandal" that seems to pop up as a means to remove Obama as POTUS, I feel that I must see just how biased some of those people really are (as if it wasn't already apparent just how much) with their self-stated balanced approach to issues.

Do you think Obama should be impeached (or should have already been)?

[travelingman]

1) Meaning Reagon's action has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's action.

2) And hence you can't prove that Reagon's action was a negative one, or even if you were to prove that Reagon's action was a negative one. It means nothing nor can it equate to Obama's equation.

1) As I have already stated...it is part of my study. I bring up a negative event under a conservative administration and a negative event under a liberal administration to see how the person being questioned responds to both. If said person is logical in their response, with a balanced approach being taken, then I will find that they are allowing minimal political bias infiltrate their determination process.

2) It is fairly reasonable to say that an event in which 241 U.S. servicemen were killed, along with several other internationals, is a negative event. The deaths from the Benghazi attack in 2012 were also clearly a negative event. Likewise, the Iran-Contra affair can be compared to the Bergdahl transaction in that both were ostensibly illegal.

The rest of your post is grasping at straws, so I won't address it.

[Droid101]

but Fox News just "creates" and "fabricates" stories so that their DOMINANCE in ratings stays the same??

"Fair and balanced" graphs from Fox News.


http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/50b62b796bb3f7084c00000e-548-411/fox-news-graph-fail.png

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111212-unemployment.jpg
The last one always gets me in stitches.

[Droid101]

In a reply to you just a few minutes ago, I stated my disagreements with decisions Bush made.
LOL

You're such a bootstrappy "independent" yet you'll vote for the Republican candidate for every election forever.

Yeah, you're sooooo independent.

[russwest0]

yes fox news is really bad with bias but does anyone think msnbc, cnn, or abc are better?

out of all of those I'd say pretty easily that msnbc is the worst, followed by fox and then cnn.

I don't vote because both parties are bribed and I don't want to support the system, and I don't think there is a big difference between the republican or democrat candidates. obama is owned by goldman sacs and romney is owned by koch industries. thats the difference.

ron paul looked like a damn good candidate but the media did their best to keep him out of the news as much as possible, even going out of their way and getting caught on air telling reporters "don't talk to ron paul"

I am independent and don't lean either way but you will find me shit on the democrats more simply because they have more power right now with how much they control the media

/end random thoughts

[RedBlackAttack]

Oh so Rachel Maddow is a good reporter, along with her colleagues who all have connections to Barack Obama, but Fox News just "creates" and "fabricates" stories so that their DOMINANCE in ratings stays the same?? Maddow's sources are members of the administration. The administration tells her why they did what they did, and she of course supports it, so all she's left to report on is why Republicans differ in their opinion. How is that honest reporting?? An honest reporter and news network doesn't lean either way.

You're going to try to lecture me on proper reporting etiquette, now? What's your experience in journalism, for the record? :oldlol:

Valid, multiple, verifiable sources are the key to any good reporter. Everything Maddow reports on, regardless of the topic, is properly sourced, not by administration officials (unless it's a story that pertains to it), but by appropriate sources given the topic.

For example, she discussed the case of Pfc. Jessica Lynch during the first portion of her show tonight. In it, she detailed the Washington Post's take on her rescue, with a footnote at the bottom of the page notifying the viewer where to find the source material.

Does she share her opinion on these topics? Absolutely, which makes her more of an editorialized reporter than a hard news reporter, but she is a reporter. There is fact checking and proper attribution.

As for my "favorite network," I don't have one. I like Maddow because she's smart, articulate, and her source material is easily available for fact checking. I do like her show much of the time, but a lot of what is shown on MSNBC is awful and part of the reason why there is such division in this country right now.

Trust me, if we veered off into a discussion about the 24-hour news cycle and my take on its impact on our society, I would not have nice things to say about any of them.

But, that is really not the topic at hand.



If you had attentive listening skills, you would watch other networks, and even guests to your favorite network and see that NO ONE is arguing that he should not have been returned home, but they are arguing about the manner in which we got this guy to come back home.

They are absolutely pushing a narrative on FNC that this guy somehow didn't deserve to be brought back home. They're in the process of attacking him and his family relentlessly.

Bergdahl and his family have been brutalized on FNC over the past couple days, some coming from their anchors, others from hosts and still more from their correspondents.

This is a direct transcript from an anchor on one of FNC's supposed "hard news" shows. Here is how she started her segment:

"Questions this morning as to whether Sgt. Bergdahl was a deserter or potentially a collaborator with the Taliban. Pentagon 'sources' confirmed to Fox that 'many' in the intelligence community have had serious concerns that he not only deserted his post, but that he may have been working -- in some way -- with enemy."

Then, they trotted out their correspondent, who had this to say:

"It's pretty clear to me that he looks like a deserter or a traitor or both, and why the Obama administration would give away five terrorists to get him back is kind of beyond me."

You don't think that the implication, here, is that this guy didn't deserve to come home? I mean, they've already labeled him a "traitor" and a "deserter" before they have any clue what actually happened. And, citing "anonymous sources" should always set off your propaganda sensors. FNC does it constantly.



Later, they had Ann Coulter on, parroting the same thing as all of the hosts, but as usual, taking it a step further.

"He himself deserted and got six Americans killed. Why are we doing anything to get this guy back? He's ashamed to be an American. He calls America disgusting. He wanted to leave, so he left. He got what he wanted."



O'Reilly had this to say about the guy's father... a man who has spent years awaiting the return of his son from captivity:

"It's Robert Bergdahl, the father, who is also creating some controversy. He has learned to speak Pashto, the language of the Taliban, and (he) looks like a Muslim. He's also somewhat sympathetic to Islam, actually thanking Allah right in front of the president."



On Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade said this:

"Bergdahl's father said he was growing his beard because his son was in captivity. Well, your son is out now. If you no longer want to look like a member of the Taliban, you don't have to look like a member of the Taliban. Are you out of razors?"

This has been a very organized, deliberate effort to discredit Bergdahl before we know anything about the pending investigation. This guy's father has been waiting for his son to be returned for five years, and FNC is busy worrying about how much his beard resembles that of some Taliban members.



The U.S. military, who apparently are not FNC's "anonymous sources" has been consistent in responding to this kind of ridiculous criticism.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent out this message:

"... the quesitons about this particular sodier's conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity."



You really have no problem releasing 5 of the worst Taliban officials to go back into the fold just to bring this soldier back when we could have easily just sent a Seal team in there and done the job ourselves?? All the lives lost to bring these bad guys in, all for not.


So, let me get this straight... you are completely against doing the kind of transfer we've always done as a war is ending, dating all the way back to the Revolutionary War, in order to bring home our POWs... And one of the major sticking points on FNC's coverage is that this guy somehow "got" six servicemen killed trying to rescue him once before...

But, you believe the best course of action is risk more American lives when it is wholly unnecessary at this stage of the war?

Also, are you aware of the conditions that these detainees must abide upon release right? Here they are:


The U.S. isn’t taking any chances. The five, high-ranking members of the Afghan Taliban — whose names were first floated as part of an exchange deal in 2012 — will be transferred to Qatar, where they will live under close observation in some form of house arrest.

http://time.com/2803988/guantanamo-detainees-bergdahl/

It isn't a simple release and they're free to go, which seems to be the narrative FNC is pushing. Additionally, these guys are not classified by the military as "terrorists," but enemy combatants during the war. It's an important distinction and they almost certainly would have been released relatively soon regardless of this deal.

John Bellinger was the legal adviser for the State Department under George W. Bush. He said this:


... the U.S. would not be able to hold them forever. Indeed, it is likely that the U.S. would be required, as a matter of international law, to release them shortly after the end of 2014, when U.S. combat operations cease in Afghanistan. The Administration appears to have reached a defensible, hold-your-nose compromise by arranging, in exchange for the release of Sergeant Bergdahl, for the individuals to be held in Qatar for a year before they return to Afghanistan.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/06/released-taliban-detainees-not-so-innocent-after-all

Do you think we're just going to be allowed to keep all of these POWs indefinitely? That's not how this country ever has or should operate.


To answer the question directly, I think the practical exchange of prisoners is the correct course of action. And, I also have no doubt that, had a SEAL team been sent in to rescue Bergdahl, that would have been scandalized by FNC and turned into a political talking point.

[dude77]

bergdahl's ol man was in friendly contact with the taliban through tweets .. and sent out that tweet to them saying 'he won't stop until all gitmo prisoners are out and the us pays for all afghani deaths' or something like that ... his son is a deserter and enemy sympathizer .. yet we give up 5 high level terrorists to free this guy .. of all prisoners to give up these people for and they choose a guy who shit on his own unit and proclaims that he's ashamed to be american ? .. another great obama fail .. and some of you ****s are defending this shit ? wtf am I reading ..

and it really fkn annoys me when someone brings up that the us is all about 'not leaving behind any pows' .. no, they've left behind plenty .. plenty of pows have never returned and never will .. us doesn't give a fk about pows .. well only selectively they do ..

and the 5 aren't under house arrest .. they're free to 'go as they please' around qatar .. another obama fail .. we've gotten used to that ..

oh and please don't bring up reporting from msnbc .. fox news is a hack station ... msnbc is no different .. they basically work for the obama admin

[KevinNYC]

what i'd like to know is how the fukk one dude can go awol and survive, while a whole platoon loses 6~ men lookiing for the one dude..
It now does not seem clear that this story is true. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/world/middleeast/can-gi-be-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html?hp) The initial search lasted 8 days. No one died. The first two men who died were inside their post, they were not searching for him. The other men that died, died a couple of months later. Can every death in that area be caused by his captivity?

[QUOTE]Since last weekend

[KevinNYC]

We don't outsource our criminal justice system to the Taliban and our military also lives by the motto, "No man left behind."
Someone phrased it this way, it doesn't so "No man left behind, unless he's a dick."

This is one of those instances where you have several separate issues jumbled up in one.

One question is what's the lengths we should go to rescue American POWs?

This is separate from

Should Beghdahl be held accountable?

Other issues include, we are ending the War in Aghanistan, what do we do with Taliban POWs who are not charged with crimes against Americans?

Should we treat the Taliban who only fight us because we are in Afghanistan different from Al Qaeda who have attacked the US all over the world including NYC and Washington and made several other attempts?

These questions are separate from the Congressional notification

POW swaps and negotiated an end to the war are clearly part of the President's constitutional authority. Does the 30 day notification part of NDAA impinge upon that? Even under the current NDAA, Congress has no authority to block the release. Does the fact that the president has discussed this swap for years mean he still doesn't need to notify?

[KevinNYC]

Consider what he meant there.

Is it not a mistake or ill-founded for the President of the United States to be a threat to the consitution by not following the checks and balances upon which the country is built? After all, he did BYPASS CONGRESS.

No big mistake there, right?

Even under current law, Congress cannot block the release of anyone from Guantanmmo. There needs to be notification, but Congress cannot check the Executive's authority on this.

[rufuspaul]

The whole notion that this exchange is no different than the end of other wars implies that the Taliban are a legitimate sovereignty and they have acknowledged either defeat or a mutually agreed upon end of hostilities, which is quite troubling indeed that our president treats them as such. He's basically restored Mullah Omar's cabinet in exchange for one G.I. and the Afghan government is livid.

One thing this debacle did accomplish: it completely swept the VA scandal under the rug. Now the mainstream media is pretty much in unison in declaring the prisoner exchange a non-story. Any member of the GOP that continues to press the matter will be portrayed by MSNBC and the like as a rightwing extremist.

[kNIOKAS]

Good, maybe his message can catch some publicity now:


On June 27, 2009, according to Rolling Stone,[19] Bowe sent a final e-mai*l to his parents: "The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."

His e-mail went on to describe his disillusionment with the U.S. Army: "In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing shit bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools...I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live. We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks... We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them...I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting...There are a few more boxes coming to you guys. Feel free to open them, and use them."

[KevinNYC]

The whole notion that this exchange is no different than the end of other wars implies that the Taliban are a legitimate sovereignty and they have acknowledged either defeat or a mutually agreed upon end of hostilities, which is quite troubling indeed that our president treats them as such. He's basically restored Mullah Omar's cabinet in exchange for one G.I. and the Afghan government is livid.

One thing this debacle did accomplish: it completely swept the VA scandal under the rug. Now the mainstream media is pretty much in unison in declaring the prisoner exchange a non-story. Any member of the GOP that continues to press the matter will be portrayed by MSNBC and the like as a rightwing extremist.

MSNBC = the mainstream media?

The mainstream media has declared this a non-story? Googling "prisoner swap" turns up over 8,000 stories.
That's a bit of hyperbole.


Otherwise, you do raise legitimate questions, but you do know that this war is ending right? When you say 1 guy, that also equals ALL American POWs.

The five guys released were not even in Maximum security at Guantanamo. We don't have a case against them in terms of crimes against American's. We are now trying to work within international law which means we would not be holding these guys after we leave stop fighting in Afghanistan, so they would be out within a year anyway. Right now they will not be going back to Afghanistan for a year, so we will be out by the time they return. So yes, this is an issue for the Afghan government, but we are leaving. A lot of issues are going remain for the Afghan government.

This also seems to be the first step in further negotiations and proof that the Taliban representatives in Qatar can deliver what they say.

[rufuspaul]

MSNBC = the mainstream media?

The mainstream media has declared this a non-story? Googling "prisoner swap" turns up over 8,000 stories.
That's a bit of hyperbole.


Otherwise, you do raise legitimate questions, but you do know that this war is ending right? When you say 1 guy, that also equals ALL American POWs.

The five guys released were not even in Maximum security at Guantanamo. We don't have a case against them in terms of crimes against American's. We are now trying to work within international law which means we would not be holding these guys after we leave stop fighting in Afghanistan, so they would be out within a year anyway. Right now they will not be going back to Afghanistan for a year, so we will be out by the time they return. So yes, this is an issue for the Afghan government, but we are leaving. A lot of issues are going remain for the Afghan government.

This also seems to be the first step in further negotiations and proof that the Taliban representatives in Qatar can deliver what they say.


:blah Just because we are reducing troop presence (you realize that 10,000 are staying indefinitely right?) doesn't mean the Taliban and Al Qaeda have agreed to end hostilities. The US has never recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government and has labeled them a terrorist organization. These are not people that you make traditional prisoner exchanges with. For the president to say this is no different than what happened at the end of the American Revolution is absurd.

[tomtucker]

why did the dad grow a beard and speak arab ?........is he serious or did he do it so they would release bowe ? what is the real deal here ?

[rufuspaul]

why did the dad grow a beard and speak arab ?........is he serious or did he do it so they would release bowe ? what is the real deal here ?


It's a free country. He can grow a beard and speak Arabic if he wants. What's troubling is that he did it in the White House on Live television in front of the president of the United States.

[KevinNYC]

why did the dad grow a beard and speak arab ?........is he serious or did he do it so they would release bowe ? what is the real deal here ?
He didn't speak Arabic. He spoke the language his son has been hearing for 5 years. His son hasn't heard English in 5 years.


Also speak Arab?

[KevinNYC]

The Devil Went Down to Paktia Province. Charlie Daniels weighs in

2 years ago
[QUOTE]Charlie Daniels @CharlieDaniels

[KevinNYC]

from a thread about a year ago
Do you ever remember a Presidential picture like this?
http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/24.jpg


This week
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/06/04/the-bowe-bergdahl-story-is-right-wing-crack/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1401925035584.cached.jpg

If I were Chief of Staff, I'd never let him near the Rose Garden again.

[Patrick Chewing]

Redblack, 2 things:


1. There is no narrative being spun by Fox News saying that he does not deserve to come home. I watch Fox and the other networks, and they are all in agreement that he should be back. But they are also saying that he should be tried in a military court for his desertion which everyone around him in Afghanistan says took place. For Susan Rice to go on Sunday morning talk shows and say that "he served with honor" is mind-blowing to me. How can this woman be led out to slaughter not once with Benghazi, but now TWICE with this debacle?? Even these college-kid members of the State Department have gone in front of reporters stating that the other members of his unit do not know what they are talking about regarding his desertion. So some college tw@t in a pretty dress is going to call these guys liars??? How can you sit there and not be outraged by that??? This is some Twilight Zone shit where the whole world around you has changed.

2. I have a problem with this guy's father speaking the dialect of a terrorist entity at the White House and even sympathizing with them. Ever hear of the Muslim Brotherhood's "The Project"??? Why don't you look that up.

[Dresta]

Good, maybe his message can catch some publicity now:
God, what a moronic message that is :facepalm.

How could he think the military would be any different? All militaries the world over are like this because they are top-down structures that function efficiently through the unquestioning following of orders. It is not hard to understand this. Maybe the guy should've looked into what joining the military entails before doing so and then turning into a self-righteous jackass about it.

[rufuspaul]

He didn't speak Arabic. He spoke the language his son has been hearing for 5 years. His son hasn't heard English in 5 years.



Tomato tomahto. He also tweeted about avenging the death of every Afghan child.

The president broke the law to make a lopsided "exchange" that included 2 people who are charged by the U.N. in the killing of thousands of Shiites. He gives the Taliban (and by proxy Al Qaeda) legitimacy by negotiating with them and he let's this deserter's dad turn the Rose Garden into a mosque. But hey, no one's talking about the VA anymore.

This is some crazy f*cked up shit. Like the great Homer Simpson once said: "I'm living in a cuckoo clock!"

[Godzuki]

i don't know if this has been said but the top Republican in the Armed Services Committee didn't know about the desertion stories. It seems most if not all of our politicians didn't know until the platoon started talking....

and even then you better be 110% sure a fellow soldier deserted and was not taken so you can kind of get the sense of protocol(even if you suspect he deserted) from the hierarchy.

[rufuspaul]

i don't know if this has been said but the top Republican in the Armed Services Committee didn't know about the desertion stories. It seems most if not all of our politicians didn't know until the platoon started talking....

and even then you better be 110% sure a fellow soldier deserted and was not taken so you can kind of get the sense of protocol(even if you suspect he deserted) from the hierarchy.


I would hope that all of that is currently being investigated. Bergdahl's actions, emails, etc., plus the accounts from members of his unit don't look good but hopefully the truth of what happened comes to light in the next few weeks.

[Draz]

This guy didn't break a smile in any videos I've seen being rescued. Maybe I'm just mistaken?

[KevinNYC]

^ So what the f*ck is wrong with those pictures?Well the first one puts me in the mind of groupthink.

Being President is such a hard job that the tendency in the second term is surround yourself with people who already think like you and won't challenge you.

The second is the Commander in Chief has his arms around the parents of someone who is accused of desertion during wartime, a crime for which people have been executed. So how the **** did that happen? Did someone just **** up? Did nobody read the big Rolling Stone article on this guy from 2 years ago where he said I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting?" Nobody googled him and found this big article that makes it quite clear, he walked off base? One of the folks in the first photo later went on the talk shows and said he served with honor and distinction. 5 years into this presidency did nobody at the White House understand how some people would inevitably act, justifiably or not? Are you that bad at politics? There's no reason a president has to have a Rose Garden ceremony. There's no reason the parents have to be invited. You could have had a press conference at the Pentagon and not have the President involved at all. Then you add in the swap factor and ignoring the 30 day notification to Congress. It's an own goal, a headache they brought upon themselves.

Or is it worse? Did they know all this, but were too scared to tell the President he was making a mistake.


Check out this article (http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/former-obama-official-rose-garden-ceremony-was-to-tell-bergd)

[QUOTE]On Saturday, President Obama stood with the parents of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in the White House Rose Garden[B]

[KevinNYC]

2. I have a problem with this guy's father speaking the dialect of a terrorist entity at the White House and even sympathizing with them. Ever hear of the Muslim Brotherhood's "The Project"??? Why don't you look that up.


Tomato tomahto. He also tweeted about avenging the death of every Afghan child.

The president broke the law to make a lopsided "exchange" that included 2 people who are charged by the U.N. in the killing of thousands of Shiites. He gives the Taliban (and by proxy Al Qaeda) legitimacy by negotiating with them and he let's this deserter's dad turn the Rose Garden into a mosque.


The guys father is apparently a very, very religious dude. However, he is a Christian, a Calvinist they say. The dude had his kid kept hostage in the dark for 5 years, he should be off limits. Maybe he said some stuff that might make his son's captor's more likely to release him. As point out, there's plenty you criticize the president for.

Also dialect of a terrorist entity is just some stupid simplistic xenophobic shit. It's also the language of the Afghan forces fighting the Taliban.

[KevinNYC]

This guy didn't break a smile in any videos I've seen being rescued. Maybe I'm just mistaken?
I don't see that mattering either way. There's only one video of him being rescued, the one released by the Taliban and that was only the moment of exchange. That's probably a moment when you just hope nothing goes wrong. They also say that his health started deteriorating. It's not like we have videos of him in the military hospital, safely back on a military base.

FWIW, Supposedly he tried to escape twice.


i don't know if this has been said but the top Republican in the Armed Services Committee didn't know about the desertion stories. It seems most if not all of our politicians didn't know until the platoon started talking....

and even then you better be 110% sure a fellow soldier deserted and was not taken so you can kind of get the sense of protocol(even if you suspect he deserted) from the hierarchy.
They too, didn't seem to read that 2012 Rolling Stone article on the guy which was probably the most in depth piece of journalism on him.

[rufuspaul]

The dude had his kid kept hostage in the dark for 5 years, he should be off limits.


Not criticizing him per se as much as our president for providing a worldwide stage. He should've had the Stones' Sympathy for the Devil playing in the background.

[KevinNYC]

Not criticizing him per se as much as our president for providing a worldwide stage.


Not criticizing him per se as much as our president for providing a worldwide stage.

Yeah, your criticisms have been more on target/legitimate. And that was more aimed at other posters and the idea itself. The I-get-to-make-shit-up-about-you-because-I-dislike-your-politics shit is annoying. Because the only reason you would grow a beard is because you sympathize with the Taliban, right? You heard about the Fox and Friends clip criticizing the father's beard and implying it was Un American? Meanwhile this guy just spoke at the Republican Leadership Conference

http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Phil-Robertson-RLC.jpg

and Fox and Friends had them on several times
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Duck+Dynasty+Duck+Dynasty+Stars+Visit+Fox+50VvGTGE TrKl.jpg
and even promoted their Halloween Costume
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/related_photogallery_182_height/2013/10/fox_and_friends_halloween.jpg

and even did a location shoot with them
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/09/18/elisabeth-brian-steve-watch-duck-dynasty-robertsons

[KevinNYC]

You're acting like Obama having a photo taken with a hostage's father is the same as a picture of him getting blown by an underage page or something.

You guys need to lighten up.but that is something you have to do as president.


Ex intel guy on Twitter

Folks, for 5 years it's been the worst kept secret in the CENTCOM AOR that #Bergdahl's relationship with the Taliban was, ahem, complicated.

Says it's going to be ugly when it comes out

[rufuspaul]

Today Obama said he's not surprised by controversies "whipped up in Washington".

It's just a personal thing with me but damn he comes across as so arrogant sometimes. I don't know what it is, body language, tone, something. It's like every time he's asked anything that might question his leadership or decision making his replies all sound like "Look, I'm smarter than all of you, I know what's best and anyone who disagrees is just too stupid to understand".

I pine for the days when George Bush would just say something dumb. It made me feel a lot better. :oldlol: