Jump to content


Bowe Bergdahl- POW or Deserter?


Recommended Posts

Still should have gotten him back. If only to try him. I don't think a POW exchange is that uncommon (well, nowadays, yes, but only for the lack of American POWs in recent decades).

 

I'm a bit skeptical about these 5 Taliban who were released, but for every one of them there are a thousand crazier guys being radicalized. Did they get charged, or were they going to be charged for anything? I don't think America's safety has been materially affected by not keeping a few of these guys in detention. But I'm sure Qatar will "monitor" them.

 

This. And let's not forget this isn't just an 'Obama' thing, no matter how hard TGHusker herps and derps, as the prior administration was also involved in securing Bergdahl.

 

If anyone should apologize to those family members, it should be Bergdahl (assuming he is found guilty), and frankly, the U.S. Military for taking Bergdahl on when, had they not let their standards lax in an effort to get bodies to fill uniforms, Bergdahl would not have been accepted.

 

As for Susan Rice's comments, yes, she shouldn't have said what she did without having all of the facts. But then again, when has having all the facts kept Tea Party idiots and the extreme fringe of the GOP from opening their mouth? Or is TGHusker now asking for all of them to apologize for every falsehood and misstep they've taken as well?

Link to comment

 

Still should have gotten him back. If only to try him. I don't think a POW exchange is that uncommon (well, nowadays, yes, but only for the lack of American POWs in recent decades).

 

I'm a bit skeptical about these 5 Taliban who were released, but for every one of them there are a thousand crazier guys being radicalized. Did they get charged, or were they going to be charged for anything? I don't think America's safety has been materially affected by not keeping a few of these guys in detention. But I'm sure Qatar will "monitor" them.

 

This. And let's not forget this isn't just an 'Obama' thing, no matter how hard TGHusker herps and derps, as the prior administration was also involved in securing Bergdahl.

 

If anyone should apologize to those family members, it should be Bergdahl (assuming he is found guilty), and frankly, the U.S. Military for taking Bergdahl on when, had they not let their standards lax in an effort to get bodies to fill uniforms, Bergdahl would not have been accepted.

 

As for Susan Rice's comments, yes, she shouldn't have said what she did without having all of the facts. But then again, when has having all the facts kept Tea Party idiots and the extreme fringe of the GOP from opening their mouth? Or is TGHusker now asking for all of them to apologize for every falsehood and misstep they've taken as well?

 

Good grief :facepalm: you are all over the map - you bring in the tea party, the last admin (double good grief :facepalm::facepalm: 6+ years in and you still bring up Bush when that wasn't even the topic - get over it - must be the "Bush derangement syndrome". If this happened under Bush I'd be saying the same thing. If Condi Rice said Berg served wt honor and Bush released 5 high ranking terrorist, I'd say the same thing. You also need to get over the Man-Crush you have on Obama. It isn't anti-American to disagree wt the president and to be critical of him and to label anyone who does as being Tea Party (again way off topic ) is showing blind faith in Obama and childish. I may be conservative but I'm not tea party. I do agree that Berg should be apologizing.

Link to comment

 

 

Still should have gotten him back. If only to try him. I don't think a POW exchange is that uncommon (well, nowadays, yes, but only for the lack of American POWs in recent decades).

 

I'm a bit skeptical about these 5 Taliban who were released, but for every one of them there are a thousand crazier guys being radicalized. Did they get charged, or were they going to be charged for anything? I don't think America's safety has been materially affected by not keeping a few of these guys in detention. But I'm sure Qatar will "monitor" them.

 

This. And let's not forget this isn't just an 'Obama' thing, no matter how hard TGHusker herps and derps, as the prior administration was also involved in securing Bergdahl.

 

If anyone should apologize to those family members, it should be Bergdahl (assuming he is found guilty), and frankly, the U.S. Military for taking Bergdahl on when, had they not let their standards lax in an effort to get bodies to fill uniforms, Bergdahl would not have been accepted.

 

As for Susan Rice's comments, yes, she shouldn't have said what she did without having all of the facts. But then again, when has having all the facts kept Tea Party idiots and the extreme fringe of the GOP from opening their mouth? Or is TGHusker now asking for all of them to apologize for every falsehood and misstep they've taken as well?

 

Good grief :facepalm: you are all over the map - you bring in the tea party, the last admin (double good grief :facepalm::facepalm: 6+ years in and you still bring up Bush when that wasn't even the topic - get over it - must be the "Bush derangement syndrome". If this happened under Bush I'd be saying the same thing. If Condi Rice said Berg served wt honor and Bush released 5 high ranking terrorist, I'd say the same thing. You also need to get over the Man-Crush you have on Obama. It isn't anti-American to disagree wt the president and to be critical of him and to label anyone who does as being Tea Party (again way off topic ) is showing blind faith in Obama and childish. I may be conservative but I'm not tea party. I do agree that Berg should be apologizing.

 

 

First, I misspoke about Bergdahl--I had meant other POWs held by the Taliban, who were exchanged in similar fashion during the Bush Admin. The herp-a-derp from extremist ilk was that Obama shouldn't have exchanged Guantanamo detainees for Bergdahl, or any other POW for that matter. But this was a precedent already set by Bush, and frankly, it what has been done during other conflicts in the past. The only difference now is that there's such an ignorant, vitriolic hatred of Obama, that history and precedent is willfully overlooked in the service of lambasting Obama on what is perceived to be another misstep by his detractors.

 

As for your posts about 'Bush Derangement Syndrome', it's obvious you can't separate yourself from your Fox News echo-chamber enough to engage in critical thought in the real world. Precedent has always been a part of how America has operated, and it's willfully ignorant and short-sighted to blast Obama for something that has been done by other Presidents, including his predecessor in the same conflict.

 

It's not anti-American to disagree with the President, as long as critical and rational thought has gone into said criticism--otherwise it becomes knee-jerk, vitriolic, irrational hatred. This is the derp from the 'Bagger and extremists who hijacked the GOP that has continually devolved their critiques into childish, ignorant, destructive, and ultimately unpatriotic verbal manure. But hey, as long as they're holding/quoting a Bible and have a flag around them, it's 'Murican, right?

 

As for my supposed love of Obama...well, I love how everything is simple black/white or right/wrong in your world--if I don't criticize Obama, I must LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE him, right?

 

If anything in the past seven pages deserves a facepalm, it's your inability to see that just because someone supports the actions of the President, it doesn't mean they're supportive of the person or favorable to his actions. Just like there's still good in the GOP, and possibly even the Tea Party--problem is, it's so wrapped in jingoistic and biblical ignorance, it's getting hard to parse out the good from the bad. Just like every party and politician has a misstep from time to time--but again, I sure as heck don't see you crying for GOP or Tea Party members to apologize for their miscues, just as you're calling for Obama to apologize for what you perceive to be a misstep by him.

 

---

 

So, back to the topic at hand, I'm glad to see at least you agree that Bergdahl should apologize to the families (again, provided he's found guilty). But let's not forget that had recruiting standards not been relaxed when he was brought on, this may not have happened in the first place. Hopefully it's something the military can learn from going forward.

 

Also, to head of any of the 'BUT OBAMA NEGOTIATED WITH TERRORISTS111?!1!?!!?!?!1' derp, an interesting article from FactCheck.org reminds folks that the Afghan Taliban isn't on the list of foreign terrorist organizations, and that the United States has been negotiating with them for years as part of the reconciliation process for Afghanistan.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Maybe I'm underinformed or just not reading something correctly but didn't Bergdahl desert his unit in June of 2009? What did the previous administration have to do with securing his release. I'm genuinely curious. It's just not adding up for me.

 

It was a misstep on my part--I had meant to discuss POW exchanges that took place during the prior administration, and not Bergdahl specifically.

Link to comment

 

 

 

Still should have gotten him back. If only to try him. I don't think a POW exchange is that uncommon (well, nowadays, yes, but only for the lack of American POWs in recent decades).

 

I'm a bit skeptical about these 5 Taliban who were released, but for every one of them there are a thousand crazier guys being radicalized. Did they get charged, or were they going to be charged for anything? I don't think America's safety has been materially affected by not keeping a few of these guys in detention. But I'm sure Qatar will "monitor" them.

 

This. And let's not forget this isn't just an 'Obama' thing, no matter how hard TGHusker herps and derps, as the prior administration was also involved in securing Bergdahl.

 

If anyone should apologize to those family members, it should be Bergdahl (assuming he is found guilty), and frankly, the U.S. Military for taking Bergdahl on when, had they not let their standards lax in an effort to get bodies to fill uniforms, Bergdahl would not have been accepted.

 

As for Susan Rice's comments, yes, she shouldn't have said what she did without having all of the facts. But then again, when has having all the facts kept Tea Party idiots and the extreme fringe of the GOP from opening their mouth? Or is TGHusker now asking for all of them to apologize for every falsehood and misstep they've taken as well?

 

Good grief :facepalm: you are all over the map - you bring in the tea party, the last admin (double good grief :facepalm::facepalm: 6+ years in and you still bring up Bush when that wasn't even the topic - get over it - must be the "Bush derangement syndrome". If this happened under Bush I'd be saying the same thing. If Condi Rice said Berg served wt honor and Bush released 5 high ranking terrorist, I'd say the same thing. You also need to get over the Man-Crush you have on Obama. It isn't anti-American to disagree wt the president and to be critical of him and to label anyone who does as being Tea Party (again way off topic ) is showing blind faith in Obama and childish. I may be conservative but I'm not tea party. I do agree that Berg should be apologizing.

 

 

First, I misspoke about Bergdahl--I had meant other POWs held by the Taliban, who were exchanged in similar fashion during the Bush Admin. The herp-a-derp from extremist ilk was that Obama shouldn't have exchanged Guantanamo detainees for Bergdahl, or any other POW for that matter. But this was a precedent already set by Bush, and frankly, it what has been done during other conflicts in the past. The only difference now is that there's such an ignorant, vitriolic hatred of Obama, that history and precedent is willfully overlooked in the service of lambasting Obama on what is perceived to be another misstep by his detractors.

 

As for your posts about 'Bush Derangement Syndrome', it's obvious you can't separate yourself from your Fox News echo-chamber enough to engage in critical thought in the real world. Precedent has always been a part of how America has operated, and it's willfully ignorant and short-sighted to blast Obama for something that has been done by other Presidents, including his predecessor in the same conflict.

 

It's not anti-American to disagree with the President, as long as critical and rational thought has gone into said criticism--otherwise it becomes knee-jerk, vitriolic, irrational hatred. This is the derp from the 'Bagger and extremists who hijacked the GOP that has continually devolved their critiques into childish, ignorant, destructive, and ultimately unpatriotic verbal manure. But hey, as long as they're holding/quoting a Bible and have a flag around them, it's 'Murican, right?

 

As for my supposed love of Obama...well, I love how everything is simple black/white or right/wrong in your world--if I don't criticize Obama, I must LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE him, right?

 

If anything in the past seven pages deserves a facepalm, it's your inability to see that just because someone supports the actions of the President, it doesn't mean they're supportive of the person or favorable to his actions. Just like there's still good in the GOP, and possibly even the Tea Party--problem is, it's so wrapped in jingoistic and biblical ignorance, it's getting hard to parse out the good from the bad. Just like every party and politician has a misstep from time to time--but again, I sure as heck don't see you crying for GOP or Tea Party members to apologize for their miscues, just as you're calling for Obama to apologize for what you perceive to be a misstep by him.

 

---

 

So, back to the topic at hand, I'm glad to see at least you agree that Bergdahl should apologize to the families (again, provided he's found guilty). But let's not forget that had recruiting standards not been relaxed when he was brought on, this may not have happened in the first place. Hopefully it's something the military can learn from going forward.

 

Also, to head of any of the 'BUT OBAMA NEGOTIATED WITH TERRORISTS111?!1!?!!?!?!1' derp, an interesting article from FactCheck.org reminds folks that the Afghan Taliban isn't on the list of foreign terrorist organizations, and that the United States has been negotiating with them for years as part of the reconciliation process for Afghanistan.

 

But...then when someone criticizes the President you rant on about "Fox News echo chamber" and the tea party.

Link to comment

Victor - I receive your corrections with a humble heart. I painted you wt the same broad brush I thought you were painting me with. Again, my apologies. By the way I'm not a fox watcher - at least not more than what I watch CNN - both about the same - which is very little as I don't have time to sit in front of the TV. You are correct about Bush also releasing prisioners. Your statement as the prior administration was also involved in securing Bergdahl. set me off in my criticism. Thank-you for correcting. With your correction above, I would have agreed with you - that we've negotiated prior than this situation. I do still however (whether agreed to by TP or Fox or not - not my concern) personally believe that the concessions of giving away top terrorist leaders was heavily weighted in the favor of the other side. However, I'll give Obama this benefit of the doubt: our society here in the USA does have a different value on life and so we often go to the extreme to secure the liberty of our citizens - so I shouldn't be so harsh on the outcome. He was still a soldier and we traditionally do all we can to bring them all home.

Link to comment

But...then when someone criticizes the President you rant on about "Fox News echo chamber" and the tea party.

 

Jesus T***y F*****g Christ...there's a difference between criticism (which implies critical thought was used) and knee-jerk vitriol because Obama's name is associated with something. The later is extremely prevalent among the more conservative members of this forum, who typically identify with the Tea Party movement, and typically has its roots in the Fox News echo-chamber. If there was some sort of critical thought that said that said what Obama did deviates from historical precedent, was not strategically sound, or had no merit, all with supporting reasons why, then that's a discussion worth having.

 

Instead, what's occurring here parrots the discussions in Washington, with the Tea Party and GOP Extremists spewing obstructionist vitriol just because Obama's name is attached. Look at how Hagel was grilled for this, when his predecessors have done similar actions to obtain POWs before. Yet, because he's attached to Obama, Hagel is raked over the coals and slandered by the Tea Party/GOP Extremists.

 

Jumping up and down, propagating ignorance, and riling people up to purposely be obstructionist due to their hatred of an individual, all at the expense of our country, cannot be justified, no matter how many supporters here parrot their talking points. It doesn't matter how many flags you wrap around it, or how many bibles you set it next to, the Tea Party and their supporters are, for the most part, still anathema to having any sort of meaningful, intelligent dialog about how to improve this country.

 

---

 

As for the topic at hand, that was a miscue on the part of Rice, and that needs to be addressed should Bergdahl be found guilty, and hopefully they learn to wait until the facts are in before talking about the subject. But this is hardly an isolated incident of a politicized position holder in Washington saying something in error before learning all the facts--it commonly happens on both sides, but the righteous indignation and subsequent calls for action seem to only come from one side of the discussion on a constant basis.

 

No one has been, is, or ever will be perfect. The question is whether or not the same level of scrutiny is upheld, regardless of the office holder or the political persuasion of the person involved. And I find the levels of scrutiny that are used with Obama by his most virulent of detractors are woefully disproportional to those used with previous sitting presidents.

Link to comment

 

But...then when someone criticizes the President you rant on about "Fox News echo chamber" and the tea party.

 

Jesus T***y F*****g Christ...there's a difference between criticism (which implies critical thought was used) and knee-jerk vitriol because Obama's name is associated with something. The later is extremely prevalent among the more conservative members of this forum, who typically identify with the Tea Party movement, and typically has its roots in the Fox News echo-chamber. If there was some sort of critical thought that said that said what Obama did deviates from historical precedent, was not strategically sound, or had no merit, all with supporting reasons why, then that's a discussion worth having.

 

Instead, what's occurring here parrots the discussions in Washington, with the Tea Party and GOP Extremists spewing obstructionist vitriol just because Obama's name is attached. Look at how Hagel was grilled for this, when his predecessors have done similar actions to obtain POWs before. Yet, because he's attached to Obama, Hagel is raked over the coals and slandered by the Tea Party/GOP Extremists.

 

Jumping up and down, propagating ignorance, and riling people up to purposely be obstructionist due to their hatred of an individual, all at the expense of our country, cannot be justified, no matter how many supporters here parrot their talking points. It doesn't matter how many flags you wrap around it, or how many bibles you set it next to, the Tea Party and their supporters are, for the most part, still anathema to having any sort of meaningful, intelligent dialog about how to improve this country.

 

---

 

As for the topic at hand, that was a miscue on the part of Rice, and that needs to be addressed should Bergdahl be found guilty, and hopefully they learn to wait until the facts are in before talking about the subject. But this is hardly an isolated incident of a politicized position holder in Washington saying something in error before learning all the facts--it commonly happens on both sides, but the righteous indignation and subsequent calls for action seem to only come from one side of the discussion on a constant basis.

 

No one has been, is, or ever will be perfect. The question is whether or not the same level of scrutiny is upheld, regardless of the office holder or the political persuasion of the person involved. And I find the levels of scrutiny that are used with Obama by his most virulent of detractors are woefully disproportional to those used with previous sitting presidents.

 

The problem is....who on here do you think watches Fox News or is a part of the Tea Party? Your posts seem to indicate there are some on here that do.

Link to comment
  • 5 months later...
  • 3 months later...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...