American held hostage by al Qaeda appeals to Obama... (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

A note to to Tim, Todd and others who have represented "That was the deal."

That was not the deal.

This was the deal:

The next day, American forces had a chance to free Bowe. The battalion operations officer, call sign GERONIMO 3, met with two tribal elders from the nearby village. The elders had been asked by the Taliban to arrange a trade with U.S. forces. The insurgents wanted 15 of their jailed fighters released, along with an unidentified sum of money, in exchange for Bowe.

That was the deal in 2009.And we have stayed in Afghanistan while teh price has gone UP every single day. As we got closer to leaving, after we stated it was a matter of policy to abandon Afghanistan, the incentive for the Taliban to negotiate anything has gone DOWN.

Now that this deal has been made the five worst people that could have been let go have been let go.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in reference to something I wrote.

Pretty much this, which in one way or other has been echoed here and there by a few others (Henry being one):

...That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

This pretty much sums up my position. If the US government prosecutes his ### for desertion or treason, or whatever the facts support, I wont care one bit. But that hasnt happened, and US soldiers belong here and not in the hands of our enemies. A lot of so-called troop supporters in here arguing vehemently about how we should leave US soldiers in captivity. Pretty remarkable.

Todd, the question you raised a page ago was whether anyone here would make the trade or not. If the question was whether we should make serious attempts to bring him home, I believe most/all would say "yes."

That is the trade.

It's being assumed that the deal was the deal was the deal. Not so. That was not the case. The "price" started out very low.

If the goal has been to leave Afghanistan the whole time the surge looks like a waste, our time in Afghanistan under Obama at least has been a waste.

And since 2009 certainly the price for Bergdahl has gone up and up and up. And then Obama decides to finally trade for him at the very moment we are leaving, after we have announced our withdrawal, absolutely maximizing the price that would be asked of us.

What price would you have paid Saints? And what if they said no? You'd have left him there to rot?

TG that's a rhetorical device you just deployed. We could have paid a number of prices well before this past week, in fact the US had 5 years to negotiate. One thing I would not have done is left Bergdahl there AND continued to send US troops into death and danger when all I planned to do was pull out anyway.

 

[timschochet]

So after the exchange why didn't we take the taliban crew off the board with a couple of armed drones

Because we have to deal with the Taliban in the future.

No we don't. When we leave, we go. It will be our Afghan allies dealing with the Taliban.

You mean our Afghan stooges. And we will still have to be very involved in that even after we leave.

There are men, women and children not in the government who will be on the firing line. Soccer stadium executions, villagers killed in teh streets, that stuff is real. Or it was until we showed up.

Damn right its real. But again, our priority is not a free Afghanistan but a non-Islamist Pakistan.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So after the exchange why didn't we take the taliban crew off the board with a couple of armed drones

Because we have to deal with the Taliban in the future.

No we don't. When we leave, we go. It will be our Afghan allies dealing with the Taliban.

You mean our Afghan stooges. And we will still have to be very involved in that even after we leave.

There are men, women and children not in the government who will be on the firing line. Soccer stadium executions, villagers killed in teh streets, that stuff is real. Or it was until we showed up.

Damn right its real. But again, our priority is not a free Afghanistan but a non-Islamist Pakistan.

And Obama has had the same priorities since 2009. He had 5 years to deal for Bergdahl (for less than what we gave) but he has sat there in captivity and meanwhile he has kept prosecuting a war that he did not believe in.

And again, we won't be dealing with the Taliban, they have nothing to negotiate with us. it will be the victims and innocents we just talked about who will be getting the business end of teh gun, whip and burkha in a couple years.

 

[timschochet]

What Todd wrote and what I wrote is very different. Based on your evidence, the price may be higher than it was, but I wrote that I don't regard it as too high and I still don't.

You were both saying the same thing - the deal was the deal, either we take the deal or we don't. It's impossible for you to logically claim that the top 5 on the Taliban list was a justified price when they were originally asking for 15 field fighters and a ham sandwich.

Not impossible at all. You own a car worth $10,000, and you offer it to me for $500. For whatever reason, I can't make the deal. Then I contact you a month later to see if the cars still for sale, and now you want $2500. Not the same deal as before but still a great deal.

 

[mr roboto]

What Todd wrote and what I wrote is very different. Based on your evidence, the price may be higher than it was, but I wrote that I don't regard it as too high and I still don't.

You were both saying the same thing - the deal was the deal, either we take the deal or we don't. It's impossible for you to logically claim that the top 5 on the Taliban list was a justified price when they were originally asking for 15 field fighters and a ham sandwich.

Not impossible at all. You own a car worth $10,000, and you offer it to me for $500. For whatever reason, I can't make the deal. Then I contact you a month later to see if the cars still for sale, and now you want $2500. Not the same deal as before but still a great deal.

Really?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I wouldn't exactly call it a great deal there, Tim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What Todd wrote and what I wrote is very different. Based on your evidence, the price may be higher than it was, but I wrote that I don't regard it as too high and I still don't.

You were both saying the same thing - the deal was the deal, either we take the deal or we don't. It's impossible for you to logically claim that the top 5 on the Taliban list was a justified price when they were originally asking for 15 field fighters and a ham sandwich.

Not impossible at all. You own a car worth $10,000, and you offer it to me for $500. For whatever reason, I can't make the deal. Then I contact you a month later to see if the cars still for sale, and now you want $2500. Not the same deal as before but still a great deal.

Yaah. I think we have all refrained from making Clippers/Redskins trade analogies for fear of trivializing or oversimplifying a serious issue. Oh well.

 

[timschochet]

President Bush released 500 Taliban from Guantanamo; I don't know how many of them were high ranking but you gotta figure at least a few were just as bad. Of these, 30% returned to do battle against us.

President Obama has released 80 Taliban from Gitmo including these 5; of these, 5% returned to do battle against us. (According to the Daily Beast, this is because Obama introduced much stricter rules regarding these releases. But everyone needs to understand that eventually they're ALL going to be released.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

President Bush released 500 Taliban from Guantanamo; I don't know how many of them were high ranking but you gotta figure at least a few were just as bad. Of these, 30% returned to do battle against us.

President Obama has released 80 Taliban from Gitmo including these 5; of these, 5% returned to do battle against us. (According to the Daily Beast, this is because Obama introduced much stricter rules regarding these releases. But everyone needs to understand that eventually they're ALL going to be released.)

1700 of 2300 US deaths in Afghanistan have come under Obama and Bergdahl sat in captivity for 5 years, why again?

 

[timschochet]

President Bush released 500 Taliban from Guantanamo; I don't know how many of them were high ranking but you gotta figure at least a few were just as bad. Of these, 30% returned to do battle against us.

President Obama has released 80 Taliban from Gitmo including these 5; of these, 5% returned to do battle against us. (According to the Daily Beast, this is because Obama introduced much stricter rules regarding these releases. But everyone needs to understand that eventually they're ALL going to be released.)

1700 of 2300 US deaths in Afghanistan have come under Obama and Bergdahl sat in captivity for 5 years, why again?

Because of the surge. Why else?

 

[tommyGunZ]

So after the exchange why didn't we take the taliban crew off the board with a couple of armed drones

Because we have to deal with the Taliban in the future.

No we don't. When we leave, we go. It will be our Afghan allies dealing with the Taliban.

You mean our Afghan stooges. And we will still have to be very involved in that even after we leave.

There are men, women and children not in the government who will be on the firing line. Soccer stadium executions, villagers killed in teh streets, that stuff is real. Or it was until we showed up.

Damn right its real. But again, our priority is not a free Afghanistan but a non-Islamist Pakistan.

And Obama has had the same priorities since 2009. He had 5 years to deal for Bergdahl (for less than what we gave) but he has sat there in captivity and meanwhile he has kept prosecuting a war that he did not believe in.

And again, we won't be dealing with the Taliban, they have nothing to negotiate with us. it will be the victims and innocents we just talked about who will be getting the business end of teh gun, whip and burkha in a couple years.

I think you are mistaken regarding Obama's hawkishness toward Afghanistan.

 

[timschochet]

My point, Saints, is that as usual this story is being taken out of a larger context. You posted the bios of the 5 guys being released, and they are certainly bad guys, no question. But in order to evaluate what this actually means, we would have to look at the list of 500 guys that Bush released, and we would have to look at the 75 other guys that Obama released. And we would have to examine in detail what our plans are for the end of this conflict- from everything I understand, it involves releasing all the rest of the Taliban currently in Guantanamo.

When you look at it that way, releasing these 5 guys seems almost meaningless. And all of this talk about if those 5 guys attack the USA it will destroy Obama's legacy- what about the 30% of Bush's releases that went back into the war against us? That's why this rhetoric is so way over the top.

 

[timschochet]

Now, the following passage is from Think Progress, so no doubt many of you will question the source. However, the information appears to be accurate:

The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

This is my understanding of the issue. If you believe that Think Progress got this wrong, please explain why. Because if this is true, then the release of these 5 guys should be considered meaningless.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Now, the following passage is from Think Progress, so no doubt many of you will question the source. However, the information appears to be accurate:

The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

This is my understanding of the issue. If you believe that Think Progress got this wrong, please explain why. Because if this is true, then the release of these 5 guys should be considered meaningless.

Tim,

Why do you suppose Obama hasn't said something like "I have to release these guys anyways so it really just moved that date up."? I mean, given how much criticism he's getting over this that would be a pretty good response if true, don't you think?

 

[timschochet]

Now, the following passage is from Think Progress, so no doubt many of you will question the source. However, the information appears to be accurate:

The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

This is my understanding of the issue. If you believe that Think Progress got this wrong, please explain why. Because if this is true, then the release of these 5 guys should be considered meaningless.

Tim,

Why do you suppose Obama hasn't said something like "I have to release these guys anyways so it really just moved that date up."? I mean, given how much criticism he's getting over this that would be a pretty good response if true, don't you think?

No. Because although it's true (at least that's my understanding) its surely not going to make the public very happy to hear it.

 

[humpback]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

 

[Greggity]

Now, the following passage is from Think Progress, so no doubt many of you will question the source. However, the information appears to be accurate:

The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

This is my understanding of the issue. If you believe that Think Progress got this wrong, please explain why. Because if this is true, then the release of these 5 guys should be considered meaningless.

Tim,

Why do you suppose Obama hasn't said something like "I have to release these guys anyways so it really just moved that date up."? I mean, given how much criticism he's getting over this that would be a pretty good response if true, don't you think?

No. Because although it's true (at least that's my understanding) its surely not going to make the public very happy to hear it.

I am sure he will lie like he always does and dumb people will believe him. Thats how it works....

 

[timschochet]

Suppose Bergdahl had been killed by the Taliban? Can you imagine what the attacks would have been like? There would have been no mention of deserting, and Obama would have been attacked for being weak and leaving a soldier behind.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Suppose Bergdahl had been killed by the Taliban? Can you imagine what the attacks would have been like? There would have been no mention of deserting, and Obama would have been attacked for being weak and leaving a soldier behind.

He was there for 5 years, why did Obama leave him at risk there for so long in the first place?

 

[timschochet]

Rick Perry suggests this trade was done in order to distract the public from the VA scandal. Oops.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

President Bush released 500 Taliban from Guantanamo; I don't know how many of them were high ranking but you gotta figure at least a few were just as bad. Of these, 30% returned to do battle against us.

President Obama has released 80 Taliban from Gitmo including these 5; of these, 5% returned to do battle against us. (According to the Daily Beast, this is because Obama introduced much stricter rules regarding these releases. But everyone needs to understand that eventually they're ALL going to be released.)

1700 of 2300 US deaths in Afghanistan have come under Obama and Bergdahl sat in captivity for 5 years, why again?

Because of the surge. Why else?

The surge was part of the campaign. 1700 of 2300 US deaths in Afghanistan, with and without the surge, have come under Obama and Bergdahl sat in captivity for 5 years, why again?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Now, the following passage is from Think Progress, so no doubt many of you will question the source. However, the information appears to be accurate:

The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

This is my understanding of the issue. If you believe that Think Progress got this wrong, please explain why. Because if this is true, then the release of these 5 guys should be considered meaningless.

Tim,

Why do you suppose Obama hasn't said something like "I have to release these guys anyways so it really just moved that date up."? I mean, given how much criticism he's getting over this that would be a pretty good response if true, don't you think?

No. Because although it's true (at least that's my understanding) its surely not going to make the public very happy to hear it.

The public that is aware of what happened is already unhappy about it. At least this would give people a reason to understand why he did it. The notion that this is going to foster some new level of cooperation between the Taliban and the Afghanistan government is not compelling or believable, except to you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now, the following passage is from Think Progress, so no doubt many of you will question the source. However, the information appears to be accurate:

The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

This is my understanding of the issue. If you believe that Think Progress got this wrong, please explain why. Because if this is true, then the release of these 5 guys should be considered meaningless.

Well then Obama should have tied Burgdahl to the detainees at all, he could have released them - and others at any time. If he wanted to get Burgdahl in exchange he could have done that in 2009 or any time after.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It needs to be stressed again and again that the release of Bergdahl was part of a larger deal, of which we are not privy to all of the details. But the notion of a straight 5 for 1 trade, which so many people here and elsewhere are making, is apparently not accurate. So please stop arguing that "the price was too high"; you don't know everything that we paid for.

That being said, IMO even if it was a straight 5 for 1 trade, the price was not too high.

Do you factor in the lives of those who may have been lost searching for him?

In terms of this trade? No.

So where do they count if not as part of the "price"?

They are American lives that were sadly lost in a never ending war in which the results will at best be negligible. I feel terrible about them, and every soldier lost in the last 13 years. What has it all been for?But in terms of this trade discussion, not relevant.

Any one else want to chime in on this? Do people actually believe it's irrelevant?

It's absolutely relevant.

So is whether Burgdahl was just AWOL, or if he deserted, or if he defected.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So after the exchange why didn't we take the taliban crew off the board with a couple of armed drones

Because we have to deal with the Taliban in the future.

No we don't. When we leave, we go. It will be our Afghan allies dealing with the Taliban.

You mean our Afghan stooges. And we will still have to be very involved in that even after we leave.

There are men, women and children not in the government who will be on the firing line. Soccer stadium executions, villagers killed in teh streets, that stuff is real. Or it was until we showed up.

Damn right its real. But again, our priority is not a free Afghanistan but a non-Islamist Pakistan.

And Obama has had the same priorities since 2009. He had 5 years to deal for Bergdahl (for less than what we gave) but he has sat there in captivity and meanwhile he has kept prosecuting a war that he did not believe in.

And again, we won't be dealing with the Taliban, they have nothing to negotiate with us. it will be the victims and innocents we just talked about who will be getting the business end of teh gun, whip and burkha in a couple years.

I think you are mistaken regarding Obama's hawkishness toward Afghanistan.

Am I? He sent in the surge. Why?

If he was as dovish as you say - and the facts now bear that out - then he should have been withdrawing in 2009.

 

[humpback]

Suppose Bergdahl had been killed by the Taliban? Can you imagine what the attacks would have been like? There would have been no mention of deserting, and Obama would have been attacked for being weak and leaving a soldier behind.

Are the 6 soldiers still alive in this make believe scenario? Easy choice for me.

 

[Slapdash]

17 pages? What is the story here?

Very good question(s).

Almost every political thread(and yes this is political)ends up the same way.The left who support Obama defend him no matter what and on the other hand those on the right are critical no matter what.Rinse and repeat.

Right. When it is everyone versus Tim, however, it usually means Obama ####ed up pretty badly. Just haven't been following the issue closely between work and a dynasty start-up over the last week.

 

[squistion]

Suppose Bergdahl had been killed by the Taliban? Can you imagine what the attacks would have been like? There would have been no mention of deserting, and Obama would have been attacked for being weak and leaving a soldier behind.

Exactly.

 

[johnnycakes]

17 pages? What is the story here?

Ask Timmay. Without him, this would only be 3 pages.

 

[Henry Ford]

Suppose Bergdahl had been killed by the Taliban? Can you imagine what the attacks would have been like? There would have been no mention of deserting, and Obama would have been attacked for being weak and leaving a soldier behind.

Exactly.

Especially after all the Republicans had come out in favor of a swap. I mean, John McCain endorsed the idea, and the president didn't get it done?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

What Todd wrote and what I wrote is very different. Based on your evidence, the price may be higher than it was, but I wrote that I don't regard it as too high and I still don't.

You were both saying the same thing - the deal was the deal, either we take the deal or we don't. It's impossible for you to logically claim that the top 5 on the Taliban list was a justified price when they were originally asking for 15 field fighters and a ham sandwich.

Not impossible at all. You own a car worth $10,000, and you offer it to me for $500. For whatever reason, I can't make the deal. Then I contact you a month later to see if the cars still for sale, and now you want $2500. Not the same deal as before but still a great deal.

Oof

 

[tommyboy]

Pretty sure I could trade an old buick for a 2014 Tesla straight up with some of the morons in here.

 

[TPW]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

 

[glock]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

What would John McCain say?

 

[HellToupee]

17 pages? What is the story here?

Ask Timmay. Without him, this would only be 3 pages.

he got us again

 

[Slapdash]

17 pages? What is the story here?

Ask Timmay. Without him, this would only be 3 pages.

he got us again

Master fisherman

 

[dozer]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

What a bunch of bull####.

 

[Zegras11]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

What a bunch of bull####.

What branch did you serve in?

 

[dozer]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

What a bunch of bull####.

What branch did you serve in?

What's it to you?

 

[timschochet]

17 pages? What is the story here?

Ask Timmay. Without him, this would only be 3 pages.

he got us again

Master fisherman

This is a pretty major issue- its dominating Fox news. I am hardly the person piuahing it along. If it were up to me it wouldnt be much of a story.

 

[Widbil83]

17 pages? What is the story here?

Ask Timmay. Without him, this would only be 3 pages.

he got us again

Master fisherman

This is a pretty major issue- its dominating Fox news. I am hardly the person piuahing it along. If it were up to me it wouldnt be much of a story.

As Biden would say, "this is a big ####### deal!"

 

[MaxThreshold]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

What a bunch of bull####.

What branch did you serve in?

I'm curious to know too.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

What a bunch of bull####.

 

[dozer]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

What a bunch of bull####.

What branch did you serve in?

I'm curious to know too.

I did not serve.

Thank you to those that did. I’m proud of you and the United States military. You represent one of my favorite parts of being an American. Our might in the field of battle.

Deserters should be investigated, court martialed, and tried for desertion which is what I believe should happen to Bergdahl. I think he’s an #######.

Now answer my question. What’s it to you? And what does my not serving have to do with that bull#### article?

 

[3C's]

This just in: Ralph Peters is a huge dbag.

 

[Ghost Rider]

17 pages? What is the story here?

Ask Timmay. Without him, this would only be 3 pages.

he got us again

Master fisherman

This is a pretty major issue- its dominating Fox news. I am hardly the person piuahing it along. If it were up to me it wouldnt be much of a story.

It's dominating CNN, too. Every time I've turned on CNN in the last few days when flipping around the dial, they were talking about it.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

I'm curious to know too. I did not serve.

Thank you to those that did. I’m proud of you and the United States military. You represent one of my favorite parts of being an American. Our might in the field of battle.

Deserters should be investigated, court martialed, and tried for desertion which is what I believe should happen to Bergdahl. I think he’s an #######.

Now answer my question. What’s it to you? And what does my not serving have to do with that bull#### article?

oh my bad, not good posting then. I thought you were calling something else bull####.

You not serving has everything to do with it as how can you judge a man if you haven't walked a mile in his shoes.

 

[squistion]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.

But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”

Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.

This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World.

What a bunch of bull####.

What branch did you serve in?

Can't speak for him, but I served in the same branch as **** Cheney.

 

[dozer]

I'm curious to know too.

I did not serve.

Thank you to those that did. I’m proud of you and the United States military. You represent one of my favorite parts of being an American. Our might in the field of battle.

Deserters should be investigated, court martialed, and tried for desertion which is what I believe should happen to Bergdahl. I think he’s an #######.

Now answer my question. What’s it to you? And what does my not serving have to do with that bull#### article?

oh my bad, not good posting then. I thought you were calling something else bull####.You not serving has everything to do with it as how can you judge a man if you haven't walked a mile in his shoes.

The article was bull####.

The only person I'm judging is Bergdahl. I think he's a deserter, and in my judgment he should be tried for desertion, which has not happened.

Again, my deepest respect to those who have served honorably.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There are a couple exigences the WH has claimed explain its reason to not inform Congress according to law:

1. That they might lose the deal if they did ...

Can't find the link, but Time is reporting that the administration claims that telling Congress would have axed the deal and Bergdahi. Take it for what it is worth without the link and because of "lateness" of the claim.