Why Team Obama was blindsided:
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. (Military people don’t necessarily all like each other, but they know they can depend on each other in battle — the sacred trust Bergdahl violated.)
President Obama did this to himself (and to Bergdahl). This beautifully educated man, who never tires of letting us know how much smarter he is than the rest of us, never stopped to consider that our troops and their families might have been offended by their commander-in-chief staging a love-fest at the White House to celebrate trading five top terrorists for one deserter and featuring not the families of those soldiers (at least six of them) who died in the efforts to find and free Bergdahl, but, instead, giving a starring role on the international stage to Pa Taliban, parent of a deserter and a creature of dubious sympathies (that beard on pops ain’t a tribute to ZZ Top). How do you say “outrageous insult to our vets” in Pashto?
Nor, during the recent VA scandal, had the president troubled himself to host the families of survivors of those vets who died awaiting care. No, the warmest attention our president has ever paid to a “military family” was to Mr. and Mrs. Bergdahl.
He’s from a different country than many of us.
Popcorn popped, waiting for the talking points to arrive…
Me, too, Leland. Baghdad Jim is probably out carrying water for the Thug-ocracy but he’ll be showing up soon with the rest of the Eloi. Meanwhile, before we get distracted laughing at them, let’s have a laugh courtesy MAD Magazine . . . .
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/03/check-out-mad-magazines-brutal-spoof-poster-for-barack-obamas-unfortunate-new-movie/#
What part of “we don’t leave our people behind” is confusing you, Rand?
As General Dempsey said on his Facebook: the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity. This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him. As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we’ll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred. In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family.
Or as John McCain said: Update: Asked specifically by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the prospect of a 5-for-1 prisoner exchange, McCain replied, “I would support. Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
Leland – enough “talking points” for you?
What part of “we don’t leave our people behind” is confusing you, Rand?
The part where he apparently decided that he wasn’t any longer one of “our people.”
And at what cost?
Of course McCain would “consider” a generic prisoner exchange. So would I. It doesn’t mean that he or I would have supported this particular one. It was a shitty deal.
And the first of the Eloi check in! Congrats, Admiral! You’ve beaten Baghdad Jim to the draw!
The part where he apparently decided that he wasn’t any longer one of “our people.”
You don’t decide that someone is no longer ours while they’re in captivity.
And at what cost?
What cost would you pay? Would you pay less for Bergdahl than some other captive?
It’s a tiresome cycle: the GOP demands that Obama do X (intervene in Libya, bring back Bergdahl, etc.), Obama does X, the GOP is outraged that Obama did X. The criticism is completely unprincipled.
You don’t decide that someone is no longer ours while they’re in captivity.
We didn’t have to decide. He did it for us.
What cost would you pay? Would you pay less for Bergdahl than some other captive?
Yes, but I wouldn’t have paid that price for any individual captive (and I wouldn’t expect to be ransomed for that amount were I the captive).
He did it for us.
Again, that’s something that’s better sorted out when he isn’t in captivity. John McCain declared himself an “air pirate” and we didn’t write him off as “no longer ours”.
I wouldn’t have paid that price for any individual captive
Easier said than done for someone in elected office. What do you think of Netanyahu’s decision to trade over a thousand captives for one soldier, or of the huge public campaign that was mounted to press for a deal to free him?
I think it was a mistake, but at least in that case it was in response to public demand, and not over the objections of his own military (AFAIK). And it wasn’t for a clear deserter, and possible traitor.
And it wasn’t for a clear deserter, and possible traitor.
You want the president to decide which soldiers are worth bringing home, and which aren’t?
I’d prefer it be left to the military in the region.
“You want the president to decide which soldiers are worth bringing home, and which aren’t?”
No.
What Gregg said, “No”. Further Obama didn’t have that right in this case. Arguably, a President has never had that authority, as transferring of prisoners with another nation is usually handled by treaties, which require the advise and consent of the Senate. But that argument is moot because, Congress clarified his authority, and Obama chose to violate the law he signed and overstep his authority.
Alas, Obama has no problem violating laws or enforcing other treaties erroneously on US civilians.
Indeed he seems to almost revel in violating laws, with his pen and his phone.
“I’d prefer it be left to the military in the region.”
Either you are unfamiliar with the constitution or you are unfamiliar with the military. The President is the Commander in Chief of all forces, and he issues
direct orders to his Combatant Commanders. These are all 4 star generals.
In the case of Afghanistan , that is under the supervision of CENTCOM.
General Austin, who commands CENTCOM is in MacDill AFB.
So, it appears you either want some 3 star to make decisions without consulting the 4 star, or you want the 4 star to not consult with the CinC.
Wow….
“We didn’t have to decide. He did it for us.”
No, it means in your opinion, he’s a traitor and deserves to be abandoned.
If he’s really a traitor, he deserves a trial and can be shot.
The President, made an executive decision and you don’t like it.
No surprise.
“You don’t decide that someone is no longer ours while they’re in captivity.”
Dolt. HE – BERGDAHL – decided that and stated that. HE left. HE deserted.
It’s a tiresome cycle:.
yes it is:
Obama does something immoral, illegal, and (in some cases) idiotic. You rise to his defense
every.
single.
time.
and you do it without facts and logic.
Obama does something immoral, illegal, and (in some cases) idiotic.
No matter what Obama does, you’ll label it as immoral, illegal, and/or idiotic, and you’ll do it without facts or logic.
“No matter what Obama does, you’ll label it as immoral, illegal, and/or idiotic, and you’ll do it without facts or logic.”
Wrong again:
I was for Obama’s decision on launch capabilities to go Commercial.
You must have an infinite capacity for living with the fact that you are so often wrong.
No matter what Obama does, you’ll label it as immoral, illegal, and/or idiotic, and you’ll do it without facts or logic.
So you don’t see how, to give the current example, it could be considered immoral, idiotic, and possibly even illegal to trade POWs in an active war for a deserter? It’s just another case of Obama being unfairly labeled?
Here’s some considerations to add to your blanket, uninformed opinion. First, what happens if those former POWs kill more people? Now, the moral calculus is that we rescued a deserter (who might not have needed rescuing before we began the trade, I might add) and killed some people in exchange for releasing a number of enemy POWs. That doesn’t make sense right there.
It also creates a market for kidnapping people.
Third, this could a prelude to some sort of appeasement or giveaway to parties such as the Taliban who are notorious for both their inability to compromise and perfidy.
My view is that Obama would have to first stop committing immoral, illegal, and idiotic acts. Then you would have legitimate grounds for your concerns.
“It’s a tiresome cycle: the GOP demands that Obama do X (intervene in Libya, bring back Bergdahl, etc.), Obama does X, the GOP is outraged that Obama did X. The criticism is completely unprincipled.”
Obama could have gone to congress on Libya but chose not to. Why not, considering Republicans would have supported him? There was no push by the GOP to get Bergdahl out but they likely would have supported it had Obama gone to congress and had worked out a better deal. It is unlikely that the Obama administration even negotiated. They probably just gave into the initial demand.
This is just more Obama incompetence. He can’t work with people at home to accomplish shared goals because he is too ideological and egotistical and he views appeasement of our enemies as an accomplishment of smart diplomacy.
Well, you all are welcome to impeach him.
List the crime as exchanging terrorists for a POW.
Make the case and make it the issue of the election.
There are lots of things that can be “the issue of the election”. For instance, one more retraction in GDP, and we’ll have the another official recession, and a likely source of the new recession will be Obamacare:
“CBO and JCT can no longer determine exactly how the provisions of the ACA that are not related to the expansion of health insurance coverage have affected their projections of direct spending and revenues,” the CBO wrote. “The provisions that expanded coverage established entirely new programs or components of programs that can be isolated and reassessed. Isolating the incremental effects of those provisions on previously existing programs and revenues four years after enactment of the ACP is not possible.”
Then there is the VA problem that the Democrats still haven’t resolved. As for the released Taliban leaders, then Democrats will be sweating it out hoping they don’t come back to attack Americans. They have more reason to make it an issue and distance themselves from the President.
So you would leave behind a mentally ill soldier? If the soldier says “I’m a taliban!” or “I’m a Martian!” or “I’m 3/4 polar bear and 1/4 waterfowl!” they are asserting they are not one of us, and really, all three are pretty darn crazy.
Not talking about if the deal was shitty or if the cost was too high – assume the cost was one penny.
If I could wave a wand and get him home, of course I’d do so.
“So you would leave behind a mentally ill soldier?”
Are you suggesting Bergdahl is mentally ill?
” If the soldier says “I’m a taliban!” or “I’m a Martian!” or “I’m 3/4 polar bear and 1/4 waterfowl!” they are asserting they are not one of us, and really, all three are pretty darn crazy.”
1) One of those is not like the others.
2) Why is he crazy if a soldeir says “I am a Taliban!”?
So here you are using a pretty cagey linguistic sleight of hand. You ask if Rand would leave behind the mentally ill – as if it was relevant in this case. Maybe you were trying to give an example where Rand’s thesis would be wrong.
But it isn’t relevant in this case – no one has said he’s mentally ill.
BUT THEN, you assume he’s mentally ill because he says he’s a Taliban (“….all three are pretty darn crazy”).
You becircle yourself.
So try and be a little more clear:
1) Are you saying Bergdahl *IS* mentally ill?
2) If you are, what is your proof?
3) Are you saying he was mentally ill at the time he deserted?
– or did the mental illness come later?
How about we bring him home and then figure out what he’s done, and why, and what the consequences should be.
If we can do it at an acceptable cost. Apparently, we couldn’t.
“How about we bring him home and then figure out what he’s done, and why, and what the consequences should be.”
That would be fine *IF* he wasn’t brought home at the cost of releasing 5 high value terrorists who will most likely plot to kill Americans again.
The forest isn’t really that dense…why can’t you see the trees?
Or do you just like to consider only half the equation because the other half proves you to be either blind or idiotic and in any case totally wrong?
“Maybe you were trying to give an example where Rand’s thesis would be wrong.”
Yes. I’m more interested in philosophical principles than in the messy specifics. I apologize if that was confusing.
Did he declare “I’m a Taliban” willingly or was he tortured? A whole lot of US aviators declared themselves “air pirates” after a stay at the Hanoi Hilton.
You don’t seem to be very much in touch with the story.
Chris,
As far as I know, he never said ” “I’m a Taliban” — that was just my example case. Again, sorry to be confusing.
My understanding is that he put down his weapon, and left his post unarmed, after questioning the war effort. There is reason to think he lost his will to be a soldier, but I’m not aware of any evidence thathe had any desire to join the enemy.
Apparently there is much of which you are not aware.
Rand, this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/
has quotes from the people who knew him best when he was on duty. No one mentions anything about him wanting to help or identify with the enemy. If you know otherwise, tell me. Otherwise, I’m left with the impression that you just took a cheap shot at me, and I can’t imagine why you’d do that. Were you make a joke?
I know that Jake Tapper has been interviewing his former unit mates, and there have been reports of notes that he left, and radio chatter. That CNN report is quite behind the times.
Did he declare “I’m a Taliban” willingly or was he tortured? A whole lot of US aviators declared themselves “air pirates” after a stay at the Hanoi Hilton.
Gerrib, is your argument that the Vietnam POWs willingly deserted their post to be captured? Because the information suggesting Bergdahl’s willingness to desert and find the Taliban came prior to any stay with them in captivity. I doubt many Vietnam vets would find your analogy to be reasonable or logical.
I don’t know if Bergdahl willingly left his post or not. That’s what a court-martial is to determine. I heard that he was unhappy with the war – although in my experience soldiers frequently are – but any declarations he may have made after being captured have to be considered made under duress.
“Deserting” and “wanting to be captured by the Taliban” are two separate things, and as far as I’m concerned anybody wanting the later is mentally ill.
My scenario: he has a treatable slow-growing brain tumor. The tumor makes him nuts. The nuttiness leads him away from being a warrior and toward being like his free-thinking overly-experimental father. We can rebuild him. We have the technology. He will be better than he was before. Better…stronger…faster.
To answer seriously:
Chris asked: What part of “we don’t leave our people behind” is confusing you, Rand?
Rand answered: The part where he apparently decided that he wasn’t any longer one of “our people.”
Rand’s answer made it sound like he was willing to leave an “apparent” deserter behind, regardless of cost. That struck me as odd, since if the person doesn’t receive a trial (and medical evaluation), Rand wouldn’t know what really happened and why.
“Rand’s answer made it sound like he was willing to leave an “apparent” deserter behind, regardless of cost. That struck me as odd, since if the person doesn’t receive a trial (and medical evaluation), Rand wouldn’t know what really happened and why.”
I can’t speak for Rand, but I’m willing to leave a deserter behind unless the cost is extremely low.
And certainly the cost of 5 high value big shot terrorists is way too high.
I agree. It sounds like the cost was too high. As an American, I hope there is a secret additional element to the story, maybe the deal is the public part of a better deal. Maybe not. But some comments here are not just complaining about the cost.
The Israeli prisoner exchange is an example of an exchange which was part of a bigger transaction which could have benefitted Israel, which is why Netanyahu went for it.
As a newly minted far-left Progressive, I can only say “You tell ’em, Comrade Bob-1!” You bet Rand would leave a polar bear behind, even one with foul water. It’s just more evidence of the insanity of denialists. When will they realize that global warming is real, and that smart people like you and me need to be in charge of the post-industrial world?
We don’t know if he decided to not be “one of our people.” We have these things called “court martials” that figure stuff like that out.
Funny, coming from a guy who claimed George Zimmerman, officers at the scene, and paramedics lied about Zimmerman’s injuries prior to trial. You’ll pardon the snorting of popcorn…
Leland scores.
Apparently, a white Hispanic using legitimate self-defense gets every unsubstantiated strawman in the book thrown at him and Adrimal Geribal spares no ridiculous what-if to spare someone who has overwhelming evidence of desertion against them. Disingenuous and inconsistent.
No matter what Chris Gerrib does, he keeps getting labeled with things like “disingenuous”, “inconsistent”, and of course, “hypocrisy”. It’s so unfair.
I thought zimmerman had the minimum essentials for a self defense case.
In the worst possible light, Zimmerman started a fight with trayvon martin and shot him when the fight went bad.
In the best possible light, Zimmerman went down to a place where he needed to
shoot his way out. Thus spending hundreds of thousands on a criminal defense,
ended up getting divorced and ruined his life.
Zimmerman went down to a place where he needed to shoot his way out.
You really are a moron.
“What part of “we don’t leave our people behind” is confusing you, Rand? ”
What part of – he left us so we weren’t leaving anyone behind – do you not understand?
Chris, he and his father are traitors to this country. His son should be shot rather than the disgrace of calling him an honorable hero. He is neither. Releasing top level enemies during war means Obama is also a traitor to this country.
The next traitor that demands we not question their patriotism should be airdropped on the Taliban.
Chris, he and his father are traitors to this country.
How dare a father try to get his son back alive.
His son should be shot rather than the disgrace of calling him an honorable hero.
Should he be shot before or after a court martial?
Releasing top level enemies during war means Obama is also a traitor to this country.
Israel released a thousand enemies during war to get one of their soldiers back. I suppose Benjamin Netanyahu is a traitor to his country.
The next traitor that demands we not question their patriotism should be airdropped on the Taliban.
Because our country is all about executing people for expressing themselves.
“Because our country is all about executing people for expressing themselves.”
Under Obama and his Thugocracy, this government is all about harrassing people for expressing themselves.
Hey, it ain’t like he made a movie that incited a riot in north Africa or something!
“Because our country is all about executing people for expressing themselves.”
Considering that various government agencies under the Obama administration were conspiring to throw political dissidents in jail in addition to other forms of persecution, is it too much of a leap to think that executions would follow? Lets not forget that Democrat’s militant activists regularly try to blow up buildings and use physical threats and intimidation in the name of politics.
Unions always burning down people’s businesses and houses while environmentalists try and assassinate people. Socialists and anarchists ran rampant through the streets for years with the goal of putting everyone they dislike up against the wall.
How dare a father try to get his son back alive.
Non-Sequitur… has nothing to do with the fact they are traitors.
Should he be shot before or after a court martial?
The moment they found him AWOL. You know why red coats wore red don’t you?
Israel released…
Again with the Non-Sequitur. At least you keep with the script.
Because our country is all about executing people for expressing themselves.
AWOL is not speech. Soldiers are not allowed to speak freely. They are being ordered not to speak about this but it is such a disgrace they have to.
We only know six real heroes died because of his actions. We don’t know how many more were.
So Bergdahl and/or his dad “made war against the United States or provided aid and comfort her enemies?” That’s the definition of treason.
There are reports that Bergdahl helped the Taliban target Americans.
What in the hell “help” could one PFC provide to target Americans? What vast secret knowledge would PFC Bergdahl have that would trump the local knowledge of people who’ve been fighting each other in that area since Alexander the Great came through and the US since 2001? And how the hell could he help while sitting in a house in Pakistan?
Also, reports by who? The Taliban? Since when do we take their word?
Reports by two different sergeants in his unit that the Taliban fire grew more accurate after his desertion.
Reports by two different sergeants in his unit that the Taliban fire grew more accurate after his desertion. – So Bergdahl’s holding shooting classes? Really? And the Taliban wouldn’t want to get that on video? “American sees error of ways, holds training classes for Jihadi Freedom Fighters!”
So Bergdahl’s holding shooting classes? Really?
That seems to be roughly what the Taliban are claiming. Seems the PFC tried to be really useful. Of course, the Taliban could be lying, but no more so than Gerrib’s false assertion that Bergdahl couldn’t have aided the Taliban.
Chris, damned right he’s provided aid and comfort to our enemies. What part of propaganda do you not understand?
“he and his father are traitors to this country.”
How dare a man disagree with US Government policy and even express it in words.
BTW, the US Constitution defines Treason
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
So I’m not sure how a man in the US ever adhered to the enemies of this country.
“What part of “we don’t leave our people behind” is confusing you, Rand? ”
What part of “don’t put yourself in harm’s way to get your comrades or countrymen killed” don’t you understand, Chris?
My parents, let us say, had deep intel on what was going to happen in Bosnia and in fact did in fact happen. Some short years before all of this blew up (we all thought the trigger was going to be the passing of Josip Broz, but the actual trigger came later with the fall of the Berlin Wall), my parents decided to do that “tourist thang” visiting Sarajevo. I am told it is a very beautiful place.
Momma tells me, “Paul, if we are taken hostage by people claiming to be (one ethnic faction), don’t believe it because that kind of deception (a false flag operation) is how they do things — it would be (that other ethnic faction) doing this.”
I turn around and say, “Ma, if you and Dad are taken hostage in Bosnia, I am going to go on Nightline and say, “Ted,” (everyone appearing on the program calls Mr. Koppel by his first name). Ted, my parents went ‘over there’ fully knowing the risks, in fact, they told me they knew there were risks. As their son, I am calling upon the President not to risk the lives of our brave soldiers and Marines in a rescue attempt. My parents knew what they were getting into, and I cannot bear the thought of any of our men and women in uniform losing their lives getting them back.”
I meant this in all seriousness, and my folks had their great vacation in Sarajevo along with their observation of vandalism of places of worship (for people who don’t understand this sort of thing, these matters get investigated in the U.S. as racial hate crimes) along with Mom’s little war story about how she made Dad turn the rental car around when she picked up vibes of entering a “no go” zone.”
Chris, what gives you the stature, what gives you the street cred to snark at Rand “what part of ‘we don’t leave our people behind’ is confusing you, Rand?” My parents would have ascribed such naivete as a general cultural characterstic of all Americans, but I tried to persuade them that not all (native born) Americans were that way.
Whatever kind of ethnic and cultural streetfighting nastiness characterized the former Yugoslavia, and yes my parent knew what they were “getting themselves into” going to this place because they each barely made it out alive the time they left that place, Afghanistan, Afghanistan! Afghanistan is former Yugoslavia to a cubed power.
Kipling barely begun describing the reality on the ground in such places, and (yes under President Bush but intensified on account of the campaign promises of President Obama), we had American combat power in such a place.
So why aren’t there more American prisoners to worry about? One, “those people” don’t have a habit of taking prisoners and two, our military trains our guys not to be taken prisoner in that war.
So it appears this guy finds himself in a remote command post “disillusioned with the War” and “ashamed of his country” and decides to slip outside “the wire” and “go native.” I guess this is a luxury that we exceptionally American citizens engage in, that we can be patriots who are ashamed of our country, disillusioned with the War fought be two Presidents from opposite sides of the ideological divide, and we can just saunter into the village and do that cum-ba-ya thang. And it appears that the Military tried to cover this inconvenient truth up. WHAT WAS THIS GUY THINKING! WHAT WAS PRESIDENT OBAMA THINKING! WHAT ARE YOU, CHRIS, THINKING! NO ONE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD (I have checked) THINKS THAT WAY!
Chris, you don’t always “want your people back at whatever cost.” I told that to my own parents and they took me seriously. I couldn’t look at myself again if an American soldier or a Marine had to die to get tham back.
Paul Milenkovic- and if Bergdahl had volunteered to go on a mission where we weren’t going to attempt a rescue, I would be okay with not attempting a rescue. I’ve had several shitbirds in my command at one time or another. If any of them had hit the water, fell, jumped or pushed, I would have gone back for them. (Actually spent a day – a full day – looking for two air wing guys that fell off of the Saratoga.)
We don’t pick and choose who we go back and get.
“We don’t pick and choose who we go back and get.”
We don’t?
Who says?
Your examples of a no-rescue missionor people falling off ships are utterly irrelevant to the case.
“We don’t pick and choose who we go back and get.”
Wrong. The United States military has knowingly sacrificed the lives of United States and Allied POWs for what were considered more important considerations. In World War II.
From “Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45,” by Max Hastings:
“A tragic side effect of the submarine war was that it cost the lives of around 10,000 Allied prisoners, indeed perhaps as many as one-third of all those who perished in captivity. Nimitz’s captains had no means of identifying transports carrying POWs, on passage to become slave labourers in the Japanese home islands, though in the latter part of the war Magic decrypts did indicate that certain convoys were carrying prisoners. The U.S. Navy adopted a ruthless view, that destruction of the enemy must take priority over any attempt to safeguard POW lives. It is hard to see how commanders could have done otherwise: if the Japanese had perceived that prison ships were spared, they would certainly have started to carry Allied personnel as hostages. Most of the hapless victims simply vanished, their fates unknown to their attackers.”
So much for the “sacred trust” of not leaving US military personnel behind, since forever. If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and POTUS want to claim not leaving anyone behind is current policy, fine, but they cannot honestly claim that has always been the absolute policy of the United States, nor can they claim the lives and living conditions of American POWs has always trumped any and all other wartime considerations.
” but they cannot honestly claim that has always been the absolute policy of the United States, nor can they claim the lives and living conditions of American POWs has always trumped any and all other wartime considerations.”
True but US Forces have quite often launched operations solely to get
POWs back. Wether it was the raid to get back the Mayaguez, the cabantuan raid,
TF Baum, Son Tay…
I think the command and white house did what they thought was best, and
it’s just unamerican to attack bringing home an american soldier. If he’s guilty of
charges, he should be tried and given due process.
To dn-guy:
I have no problem with trying to get Bergdahl back, and getting him back, regardless of his reasons for leaving his assigned duty station, and if he wanted to come back now. I do object to the price paid for getting him back, during an ongoing war. WWII history demonstrates US command authorities have sometimes valued POW lives lower than war objectives, such as future loss of more lives than POWs saved by extending enemy capabilities to wage war. Sad, but as Sherman said, War is Hell.
BlueMoon
“We don’t pick and choose who we go back and get.”
Yes, we never leave a person behind unless it is in Benghazi.
“Popcorn popped, waiting for the talking points to arrive…”
Yeah, popcorn, like the sound of gunfire in the distance?
I watched that “D-Day 360” program on PBS last night. The lack of comments here is like the first wave of soldiers on Omaha Beach. At first there was quiet. A deadly quiet. Then came the machine gun fire. Followed by morters. And after that, the “88” gun in a steel-reinforced concrete revetment. And popup mines for anyone who made it to the fields beyond the sea wall.
You had better “get off that beach” while you can, because a fusilade from an anti-tank weapon is only a matter of time . . .
Oh, I knew the fusillade was coming, but the counter battery arguments are very massive, and for people like Gerrib, who like to use the appeal of authority, he’s going up against other men and women who definitively served honorably (Susan Rice just loves her some talking points) and in some cases were in Bergdahl’s unit. This was a pretty massive mistake by Obama, and people would do better to admit that upfront. He’s not going to be impeached, so take your lumps. Complaining about it keeps it in the news longer, and don’t worry about the VA moving out of the headlines, the vets aren’t about to forget that they still can’t see a Primary Care Physician for over 90 days.
In this case, I agree with O’Reilly…..
1) This is not stupidity…the trade was done on purpose with full knowledge of what/who Bergdahl is.
2) Obama has come to the conclusion that his administration is not going to achieve it’s goals…through Constitutional means (e.g. Cap and Trade failed in the Democratic Senate) – he does not know how to work with Congress nor does he know how to persuade.
He knows the economy is not going to turn around; Obamacare is never going to be popular; Obama understands his job approval rating will stay in the cellar.
Therefore…….
Public opinion simply does not matter any more. Obama will do whatever he wants even if he violates the law, assumes powers he does not have etc. – consequences be damned.
O’Reilly concludes:
“Obama knows that at least half, half of the American public is totally disengaged from political reality. They don’t know anything. And they don’t care to know. Many live in a high tech bubble, lost in cyberspace. Caught up in their own selfish pursuits. Therefore, he knows the President does, that he can razzle-dazzle, make speeches and survive. That’s a big change in this country when you have half of the folks not caring a whit about what our leadership does. Apathy breeds corruption and incompetence, does it not?”
I’ll take it one step further.
The deal with the Lefty Dems is:
Obama will do, by fiat, all that *they* and he wants . They are allowed to complain – in order to salvage their re-election prospects, SO LONG AS, they don’t actually DO anything to reverse what Obama has done.
So when you see these dems carping about Bergdahl, the thing to do is watch carefully what they *DO*.
Meanwhile . . .
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/04/soldier-army-told-us-to-lie-about-bergdahls-capture/
This story obviously is “hot air”–put out by the dissension-fomenting forces of Emmanuel Goldstein!
And we want Bergdahl’s captors reading all the gossip about his capture? Maybe they could hand the article to Bergdahl and say “see, even your country doesn’t want you any more.”
“And we want Bergdahl’s captors reading all the gossip about his capture?”
Unlike lefties, we do not want to silence people we are not afraid of the truth nor speaking the truth. We understand that one truth is that we have free speech here and gossip is a side effect of that. But that side effect that ought not silence people, nor limit free speech.
Unlike lefties we do not hide who and what we are. Nor do we hide the fact that we believe in ourselves and in our system.
” Maybe they could hand the article to Bergdahl and say “see, even your country doesn’t want you any more.” ”
And the problem with that is……..??
And yet when Jane Fonda exercised her free speech and posed on an unloaded AA gun in Hanoi she was called a traitor.
Soldiers do not have rights of free speech, at least when it comes to military operations. That’s called operational security. The point of operational security is (in this case) to avoid giving information potentially harmful to Bergdahl to his captors.
“And yet when Jane Fonda exercised her free speech and posed on an unloaded AA gun in Hanoi she was called a traitor. ”
Yes. Because AGAIN we have free speech.
What part of free speech do you not understand? Probably all of it.
That’s the trouble with you lefties, you cannot acept the fact that the best system isn’t perfect and can never be perfect.
Maybe they could hand the article to Bergdahl and say “see, even your country doesn’t want you any more.”
When are they, assuming you mean Taliban, going to do that? Or are you claiming the hospital in Germany is hold Bergdahl captive, which I guess arguably may be true if he might be facing a court martial?
I do get an impression from the soldiers that served with Bergdahl wanted him back so he could face a court martial, and I doubt that they wanted him back by giving up 5 Taliban leaders.
The Taliban has access to the Internet.
That reason his unit was forbidden from speaking out had more to do with domestic politics than opsec. Just like the Benghazi survivors. We have seen that Obama and the Democrats are not content with ordering the military not to speak. They want to tell everyone what they can and can’t say, especially if the speech is critical of Obama and the Democrats.
After reading the comments here, I’m seeing a pattern.
What those defending this action seem to be doing is looking at this issue in isolation and basing their judgement on it in that light. If indeed this issue was of that nature, they might even have a point.
However, the fact of the matter is that reality doesn’t work that way; actions have effects. In this case, one of those effects is 5 top terrorists are now free to return to their craft. How many innocent people will thus die? Frankly, I see this as an issue with many on the left, (and a few on the right); on many issues, they view them in isolation, ignoring the real-world reality that things have effects and consequences often quite disparate from the core issue.
If the stories we’re hearing regarding Bergdahl being a deserter are true, then of course nothing should have been done. However, even if he was someone who had done no wrong and been captured in the line of duty, this price is still far too high. “Leave no one behind” is a good and moral rule, but like any rule it must be weighed against reality. For example, It would be morally indefensible to knowingly send a thousand troops to their deaths to save one.
As for the father… quite frankly, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding everything he said between his son’s capture and release; he may well have been simply trying to help his son by appearing sympathetic to the Taliban. However, that motive ceased the moment his son was released, so we’ll see.
CJ – we didn’t send a thousand men to their deaths to save one. We traded 5 men who have been out of circulation for a decade to get one of ours back. Not only that, those five men were a precondition of the Taliban sitting down for peace talks. Since we’ve already made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan, releasing them AND getting ours back made sense.
Since we’ve already made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan, releasing them AND getting ours back made sense.
Not really. A rational decision would be to end hostilities prior to a prisoner exchange. It is not always the case (sometimes trades are made during war), but giving back a few leaders for a PFC (remember Gerrib, earlier you were the one claiming he was useless) in a war still being fought is not rational.
I really don’t care what Israel does, it is not my country. I do however hope for our leaders to be rational. There is no evidence Obama was a leader here or rational. Obama certainly appears to have violated a law that he signed. Oh, he made a statement, but statements are not the law.
CJ – we didn’t send a thousand men to their deaths to save one.
We didn’t? And how, exactly, do you know that? We do not know what those released terrorist commanders are going to do in the future, so they may very well cause that many, or more, deaths. That, after all, is what terrorists do.
As for the Taliban sitting down for peace talks… anyone can talk. We’ve been down this road with Iran and others; they agree to talk, and the word they speak is “no”. That’s not exactly helpful. And as you yourself say, since when do we take their word?
This action makes no sense by any metric.
I wonder if it would be possible to spread the idea that one of the released POWs is actually a turncoat, without identifying which one, and thus putting all five under suspicion if or when they return to being terrorists.
To generalize the above idea: there might be ways to neutralize the threat the five pose.
Bob-1, there was a sure-fire way to neutralize the threat posed by these five POWs. Don’t release them. One further question that rears its ugly head here is whether Obama would have paid as much for a genuine US POW in Afghanistan or if he did because Bergdahl was a deserter. We just might find out.
“I wonder if it would be possible to spread the idea that one of the released POWs is actually a turncoat”
Things like this are tried all of the time. I don’t think it is very effective. What would be effective is implanting tracking devices.
“Not only that, those five men were a precondition of the Taliban sitting down for peace talks. ”
Obama has been engaged in peace talks with the Taliban for years. They set up special offices in Qatar a long time ago. Your characterization of what is at the link is wrong. The Taliban are as untrustworthy as Obama. No good deal will be reached and no agreement will be adhered to.
It is obvious to everyone, at this point, that Obama sucks at foreign relations and negotiating with people from different cultures.
” Since we’ve already made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan, releasing them AND getting ours back made sense.”
They should have been tried by a military tribunal years ago and if found guilty, executed. Then they could not be bargaining chips.
And since when is a demand of the other side an absolute requirement for us to comply?
One thing I agree with Obama on; taking no prisoners (using drone strikes, for example, to kill rather than capture) has its upsides – no problematic prisoners.
Oh, we are still taking prisoners, just not as many. Instead of gitmo, we rendition them to other countries or keep them in black site prisons on the high seas.
I think the only entity that can judge Sgt Bergdahl is a Military inquiry or tribunal
constituted under Army Regs and UCMJ.
I don’t know if Bergdahl, Deserted, Defected or just got snagged while going down to get some
afghan strange in the village.
I find it sad that people have concluded he is a traitor/deserter.
@ dn-guy,
What about a written confession? Would you accept that in lieu of a military court’s judgement?
I would expect a Court Martial or Federal court to weigh all evidence, determine
the facts, and issue a judgement.
Bergdahl is a deserter, a defector or a POW. I think the army has dealt with this before
and has something called the UCMJ.
Would you be willing to accept the results of a Board of Inquiry or a Article 13 hearing?
No one here cares what you think, you moron.
There’s something I don’t understand. When Obama was first campaigning to become President, one of his core promises was to close down Guantanamo Bay. Many people voted for him based on that; the antiwar contingent was vocal in support.
And yet here it is almost six years later, and Gitmo remains open. However, Obama has just demonstrated that he can transfer prisoners out of there at a whim and the stroke of a pen. How come he didn’t just transfer everyone out in his first 100 days and keep his promise, if he had that authority all along?
So apparently Bergdahl was so happy about his stay in captivity that he escaped twice, once “In his first escape, Afghan sources said he avoided capture for three days and two nights before searches finally found him, exhausted and hiding in a shallow trench he had dug with his own hands and covered with leaves.”
The second time, he “In his second bid for freedom, which has not been previously reported, Bergdahl made it to a remote village in the mountainous part of Pakistan, the former Afghan official said. The villagers simply returned him to his captors in the Haqqani Network. The U.S. officials were not familiar with details of the second escape attempt.”
Here’s the real story of how Obama got “blindsided.” He thought that all those people wearing POW / MIA bracelets and flying black flags for 20+ years were serious, and they really wanted all Americans back. What he didn’t understand is that various keyboard commandos wanted to pick and choose who was coming back like they were buying apples at the Piggly-Wiggly.
If this is report is true – I am personally very happy he was displeased with the living arrangements provided by the people he wanted to visit.
Once he deserted his post, he abandoned his US Army affiliation. I don’t care if he liked the arrangements he sought or not. The results of his decision are because of his actions – not the Army’s nor his fellow soldiers’.
Not only did he desert, there appears to be evidence he sought out the Taliban forces to provide aid and comfort to their forces.
Even if he ‘only’ deserted, he is dead to me – just as dead as the soldiers who died searching for him following is decision to desert.
After several American lives were lost, the officers of real commandos, not keyboard commandos, did indeed pick and chose “who was coming back like they were buying apples at the Piggly-Wiggly” by either calling off or not ordering rescue operations.
One of the characteristics of autism spectrum is “one trial learning”, that is, if a person learns something or adapts to something, they cannot unlearn it or make the adaptation. Another characteristic is the inability to pick up on social cues, distinctions, and gradations, say, between a man who was taken prisoner because he was shot down deep inside enemy territory on a combat mission, and yes, did break in response to torture but offered heroic resistance (by any definition of the word) until reaching that point, and a man who abandoned his comrades and delivered himself to the arms of the enemy because he had “issues.”
So are you saying that our President is on the autism spectrum, that he sees the bracelets and black flags and starts saying “4:30. Wapner. 4:30. Must watch Wapner!”? That our President is that socially maladapted that as Commander in Chief he couldn’t “read” the military people under his command to announce this thing as “one of the difficult decisions as Commander-in-Chief I needed to make” instead of offering a celebratory tone?
Well stated Paul.
“So apparently Bergdahl was so happy about his stay in captivity that he escaped twice, ”
The romanticism that people on the left have for the Taliban and other tyrants quickly dissipates when they are forced to live as the little people under the iron fist instead of as favored fellow travelers who wield the iron fist. Remember all those human shields that went to Iraq?
“The romanticism that people on the left have for the Taliban and other tyrants quickly dissipates when they are forced to live as the little people under the iron fist instead of as favored fellow travelers who wield the iron fist.” Even Baghdad Jim and Admiral Gerrib would probably take it on the lam if they had to live in a society where their stupid ideas were put into full practice.
As was entirely predictable after Obama’s insane action:
From Time:
“A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahl’s release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets.
“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking by telephone on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.” ”
No one could have imagined that outcome huh? (\sarc)
Now the Obama Thug-ministration claims on TV and elsewhere that they just HAD to move fast because they believe Bergdahl was ill. So they could not inform Congress of their intentions first.
This is so obviously ridiculous that I’m surprised they couddutter those words with a straight face. Although they know the Gerribs and Bob-1’s and Jim’s of the world would lap it up whole hog:
When it comes to lapping up and swallowing Obama excuses without the slightest critical thought applied, Jim, Gerrib, dn, and Bob-1 are the first hogs to the trough.
The reason it’s ridiculous and not an excuse for ignoring Congress, is that they could have mentioned that little fact to Congress and tried to persuade them that Bergdahl was ill. And ask Congress to ok the swap and waive the 30 days.
If The Thug-in-Chief had a reasonable case, and the abillity to persuade people, he could have gotten his waiver and all would be legal.
But of course, that wasn’t REALLY the reason they didn’t tell Congress.
So in the Bergdahl case we have the outlines of the rest of the Obama Thugocracy:
Between now and the 2014 election, Obama will attempt to do what he wants and the only metric he will use to decide whether or not to do something will be:
Will they impeach me over it?
If the answer is no, they will not impeach me, he’ll do what he wants. Look for Democrats running for re-election to bray mightily against what Obama does but in actuality do nothing to inhibit or stop Obama.
Between now and 2014, that answer is almost certainly to be a “no”…..there will be no impeachment before the election.
AFTER 2014, it depends upon the results of the election. If the GOP commands super majorities in the Senate and maintains or enlarges their majority in the House, then Obama might decide to move with a little more care.
Unless, of course, he calculates that the GOP Congress still will not impeach him. In which case he’ll do what he wants, and the Democrats will resume running interference for Obama.
Taliban Commander: More Kidnappings to Come After Bergdahl Deal.
Aryn Baker @arynebaker
“A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahl’s release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets.”
http://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/
Bob Clark
To those above who said, “We don’t leave people behind.” What about Benghazi? We left all of those people behind and not just the four who died but the dozens of others who were seriously injured and still recovering. We didn’t even secure the site of the attack for months so that investigators could get in.
It isn’t surprising that Obama feels such an affinity for Bergdahl. Both Bergdahls parrot many of the anti-American left wing talking points. The elder Bergdahl might get a cabinet position. All too often Democrats side with the Taliban butchers rather than the people who need our help fending them off. Never again has transmorphed into maybe a few more times.
It is great that Bergdahl is back. I don’t care if he is a traitor because he is our traitor but the price was too high. It was a terrible exchange. The idea that freeing these 5 people will lead to peace is naive at best. It is as if Obama has learned nothing from his foreign policy failures. And Obama hasn’t learned from his domestic failures either.
Obama showed once again how lawless his administration is while his zealots are chanting, “It’s the law!” on other issues. You can’t claim to stand for the rule of law and act in the manner Obama and the Democrats have been over the last five years. This incident also shows how dishonest the Obama administration is. Once again, Rice was sent out to flat out lie to the American public. Bergdahl wasn’t about to die. They have been working on this deal for years, there was no time critical need to do this now without notifying congress.
To those above who said, “We don’t leave people behind.” What about Benghazi?
But Wodun, those were civilians, and apparently, we do leave civilians behind:
“The deal to free Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban detainees held by the U.S. military nixed a broader effort by the Department of Defense to include other U.S. citizens held by the Taliban and its allies, according to a top congressional aide.”
Along with leaving behind the civilians, we set the precedence to not only trade for hostages but to make unequal trades that greatly benefit our enemies. So look for more kidnappings with high ransoms. It is what Obama calls Smart Diplomacy!
“Trust me. I have a Nobel.” Ha:
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2014/06/swap/
The Obama-Thug-ocracy’s explanation of there being no time to contact Congress because they feared for Bergdahl’s health based on a video is ridiculous.
Here is another reason why:
The timeline if events is:
That video was shot in December
White House gets it in January.
It is now June.
So where was all this urgency? Where was the time crunch?
There was no urgency; there was no time crunch.
It’s another Obama lie.