Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 7:16:33 GMT -5
I am sure that the few "non-liberal" posters on this board/thread will be among the first to testify before the House and Senate "Hindsight is 20/20" Committees! They clearly know more about this situation than many in Washington are willing to share with the public YET! Clearly CellarRat has supernatural powers enabling him to read my mind before I have even heard both sides - there clearly is much more to this story than that released so far. Gorvy, IMO, made the only well reasoned post - I agree, this is very troubling but unlike the rest of you, I'm not jumping to conclusions this early. The things I do know at this point: Bergdahl will be prosecuted by the military if the story about leaving his post proves factual. The previous Administration clearly put us into a war in a country (Afghanistan) with a terrorist group (Taliban) in its government - the ban on negotiating with terrorists would leave us with no escape clause! We should have quietly executed all of the terrorist prisoners after capture/interrogation rather than taking the high-American road and putting them in Gitmo awaiting some form of "justice"! Reports from some Republican leaders say that some 35% of released terrorists find their way back into combat - since we claim we don't know where any of these terrorists are, how do we know who they are? What am I missing? Ok - CR - have at it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MP I will take a crack first. Yes, there could be more info that we don't know. But here's the possibilities. A. More info proves that this deal was smart for us. B. More info proves its as bad or worse than we fear. C. There is no more info. What will this show?? I lean toward incompetence and a lack of foreign policy. I will say again that a free state has to question the decisions of its leaders. How long do you accept this before we know anything and have blind faith in this admin? A couple other things. Why did some in the admin state unequivocally that Bergdahl served his country admirably when at the least we know that is in question. Rice said this on a Sunday show (see a pattern?). It's these patterns that are making me question the competence or even motives more and more. I will try to get back to this when I have more time. I agree with your three possibilities. What continues to trouble me is that the "questioning" of decisions by our leaders seems to be always cast under the prism that "anything Obama" is, by definition, wrong! That is then followed up by total belief in all facts that support that view while completely discounting the possibility that there are things not known yet. All the facts aren't known and I'm sure that some will never be known. My thinking/bias is likely influenced by a 40 year career with the military in a top secret environment which adhered to the "need to know" policy. I accept that there are things we shouldn't be told - telling us also tells our enemies and we have a plethora of them. I am also a conspiracy theory fan and I'm silently hoping that the five Taliban animals that were released have transmitting microchips planted somewhere in their bodies! Track them in Qatar for a year and see who they contact and then follow them back to their vipers' nests in Afghanistan, Pakistan or one of the other WTFistans with drones and then deliver the parting coup de grace. As to the comments on Berdahl's service - not surprising given that he received two promotions while in captivity. Not sure how "automatic" they are (based solely on years in service?) or justified by his actual service record prior to his capture. If the pentagon thought he deserted I would highly doubt that the top brass would agree to promote him in absentia. If his buddies believed he deserted I'm sure they shared those views early on and that they would have been evaluated and taken into consideration. I cringed that poor Susan Rice is once again put in the limelight having to deliver a message that won't be heard by so many on the right. She definitely earns her salary, IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 7:22:13 GMT -5
One more thing on this related to not telling Congress. We were told that this was necessary because Bergdahl may not have made the 30 day waiting period. Well, he looked OK in that video. I know..there might be more info, but even Dianne Feinstein agrees with me on that. Agree - on the surface he looks ok and not at death's door but not all illnesses appear the same way - look at the guy released to Libya - he looked dead when released and POOF he was cured! Perhaps Bergdahl's life threatening condition was caused by potential heavy metal poisoning - an AK47 injection! We will learn more on his condition I'm sure. On the surface it appears that the Administration was grabbing at straws since they apparently misjudged the reaction from guys on this board!!!  |
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886 
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Jun 4, 2014 9:43:27 GMT -5
|
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Jun 4, 2014 14:18:58 GMT -5
Impeach now and stop this madness.
To me this is a crystal clear slam dunk. Nearly all left leaning folks were taken by surprise and are critical of this move and the soldiers who were on the ground with the soldier are ALL saying in various shapes and forms that he deserted his post and his country. There was an open investigation into the soldier and yet Barack Hussien Obama traded 5 of the highest value prisoners we housed in Cuba for him.
Also, watch it will take a while to come out but I guarantee there's a payoff here too. The group that was holding him are known to be for all intents and purposes for profit kidnappers.
Read multiple sources and don't follow blindly people - impeach now. Call you US Rep. and demand it.
|
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Jun 4, 2014 14:34:14 GMT -5
|
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jun 4, 2014 15:03:48 GMT -5
MP - sorry man, but it's been a known fact that this rat f*cker was a deserter for years. There are stories about him going back to 2010 by numerous news outlets. Heck, he wasn't listed by the military as a POW...because he deserted. This whole "wait for more info" thing is just smoke. Even if he was a legit POW, why trade 5 for 1...and by most accounts 5 senior level guys for a single pfc? That's a bad deal mathematically and strategically all else aside.
At this point, and I say this in all seriousness, Obama needs to come up with some reasonable answers as to why we shouldn't consider him treasonous. If we were just going to get this guy back and execute him or lock him up for life, why trade 5 generals for him? It almost seems like Obama is trying to do the wrong thing.
If, as some have suggested, this was a way to provide cover for emptying Gitmo, then why start with the 5 worst guys? Start with some low level scum. None of this makes sense. Sorry, but when you lose Chris Matthews and NPR, you're on the wrong side of the issue as a Dem. There needs to be a transparent explanation as to why this went down and in the way it did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:58:59 GMT -5
Obama wants peace that's why he let them go ...........
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Jun 4, 2014 16:54:24 GMT -5
Obama wants peace that's why he let them go ........... Based on what?? Our past success that the Taliban are trustworthy or just hope & a prayer? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 17:55:37 GMT -5
Obama wants peace that's why he let them go ........... Based on what?? Our past success that the Taliban are trustworthy or just hope & a prayer? Either take your pick. I was just passing along what I heard a caller on Dennis Miller say. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 5:48:19 GMT -5
MP - sorry man, but it's been a known fact that this rat f*cker was a deserter for years. There are stories about him going back to 2010 by numerous news outlets. Heck, he wasn't listed by the military as a POW...because he deserted. This whole "wait for more info" thing is just smoke. Even if he was a legit POW, why trade 5 for 1...and by most accounts 5 senior level guys for a single pfc? That's a bad deal mathematically and strategically all else aside. At this point, and I say this in all seriousness, Obama needs to come up with some reasonable answers as to why we shouldn't consider him treasonous. If we were just going to get this guy back and execute him or lock him up for life, why trade 5 generals for him? It almost seems like Obama is trying to do the wrong thing. If, as some have suggested, this was a way to provide cover for emptying Gitmo, then why start with the 5 worst guys? Start with some low level scum. None of this makes sense. Sorry, but when you lose Chris Matthews and NPR, you're on the wrong side of the issue as a Dem. There needs to be a transparent explanation as to why this went down and in the way it did. Gee, I wonder if all the Republicans who had been screaming for years for the O-Administration to get this guy back somehow missed all of the "truth" you say has been around since 2010. Funny thing politics, now those same Republicans are scrambling to delete their previous tweets, etc. Might be the first time in American history that the release of a POW was IMMEDIATELY turned into a political football. This football is aptly named as it truly shows how it has two ends and those are/were both used by the right, but then they are always "right"! |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jun 5, 2014 6:48:23 GMT -5
MP - Playing politics with our soldiers is BS - on both sides. I don't like it. That doesn't change the facts as they stand currently.
I don't recall all that "screaming" by Repubs but I won't argue that point. I would argue that nobody was suggesting this kind of trade.
In any case, regardless of who is screaming for what, it is incumbent upon the president to do the right thing. Clearly he thought this was the right thing. This is so clearly wrong. Why can't you just say that he screwed the pooch on this one? If not, just show me how this is a good decision. Repubs had nothing to do with this decision (nor did most Dems by the looks of it) so this is all on the president. Offer up some reasonable policy explanation please (stuff that stands on its own merit).
|
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Jun 5, 2014 6:48:40 GMT -5
MP - I certainly hope you are just stirring the pot and having off-season fun with this 'fight' on the board....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 12:31:29 GMT -5
MP - I certainly hope you are just stirring the pot and having off-season fun with this 'fight' on the board.... LMAO! You nailed it. I certainly do not think anything I say will be seriously evaluated by the players that seem so "right" all of the time (Pun intended). Pushing buttons is fun in its own right (there is that word again). I hit "create post" and then see how long it takes th24 to do a FOX video query, copy the link and post it - no muss, no fuss and certainly no brain energy required by him/her/it. Some facts that the Obama head hunters will choke on: 1)McCain, just a few months ago was screaming for the administration to get this guy back (he apparently wasn't on the memo that declared the guy a deserter/traitor or whatever). 2)The released Taliban ex-leaders are classified as non-combatants and not terrorists - that's why they are in Gitmo 3)When hostilities end next year (read that = we pull our forces out with no MISSION ACCOMPLISHED photo op) all of the non-combatants in Gitmo are, by law, to be released so this group would go free in a year anyway (that's the basis for the year in Qatar BTW) 4)Had Bergdahl died in captivity in the near term (or been beheaded as someone on this thread thought possible) AND word got out that the administration was close to a deal but couldn't work one out, the right would be like flies on shit criticizing Obama, et al. 5)The US has been NEGOTIATING with the Taliban for well over a year in an effort to end the "war" and allow us to exit - the Taliban is, like it or not, a participant in the Afghanistan government - sort of a catch-22 for those that say they are terrorists and the US will never negotiate with terrorists - poppycock (remember Iran Contra) A question - I wonder how many good bad guys are in Gitmo whose release would have made the right less righteous regarding a trade? Yes, it is slow on the Siena hoop front and the Off-Topic area gives me great entertainment - it is so very easy to predict what response I can elicit and from whom - life is good. I head to a quite island on the lake this afternoon for the weekend so I will have to wait until late Sunday to see what gems of political right thinking result from this one. Have at it guys - you've got three days to work on it. |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jun 5, 2014 15:03:02 GMT -5
1. Nope he wasn't. Nor was Senator Diane Feinstein.
2. Non-combatants has to do with the manner in which they were acquired I think. IE: it wasn't on a battlefield. They are ALL acknowledged terrorists.
3. Only people on the left think that's smart. Not arguing the point as it seems like a lefty technicality to free the bad guys.
Additionally, didn't Obama just ask for more money to fight terrorism? Doesn't that mean that hostilities haven't and aren't anticipated to end?
4. Doesn't make it a good decision, it makes it a political one. All politics, all the time.
5. There's negotiation and there's negotiation. Interesting take. Best case this was a bad deal.
"Good" bad guys? No such thing, just less bad and worse. The guy who was somebody's bodyguard might be a better choice than a head honcho.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 15:30:50 GMT -5
On McCain:
Some lawmakers who have spoken critically in recent days of the Bergdahl deal had appeared, not too long ago, to have endorsed the concept of a prisoner swap, in which he could be exchanged for Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Take Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). On Feb. 18, 2014, he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he could support such an arrangement, albeit reserving judgment for some of the details:
COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.
McCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release — Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence-building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man.
I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details. [...]
COOPER: So if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?
McCAIN: 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.
The day after Bergdahl’s release was secured, however, McCain was on the Sunday morning talk shows questioning why the administration would release the “hardest of the hard core.” On Monday, the following day, he stressed that he “would not have made this deal.”
“I would have done everything in my power to repatriate him and I would have done everything I possibly could. But I would not have put the lives of American servicemen at risk in the future,” he said.
On McCain and other Republicans!
Republicans are executing some Looney Tunes-style moves as they scramble to condemn the deal releasing Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, after having earlier called on the Obama administration to work hard to secure his release:
In the clearest contradiction, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in February that he “would be inclined to support” “an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man,” like the one Taliban officials had offered in 2012. He has since labeled Obama’s deal “ill-founded” and a “mistake.” [...]
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — has also said that the U.S. “must make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family.” But appearing on Fox News just days after Bergdahl’s release, Inhofe criticized the administration for agreeing to free “people who have killed Americans, people who are the brain power of Taliban.”
New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte ran the same play, focusing repeatedly on the need for Bergdahl's release. Basically, for these charmers, it was "Bring him home, bring him home, why aren't you doing whatever is needed to bring him home? Sure, swap some prisoners, just bring him home" only to be followed by "why did you do that?" once Bergdahl was released. And if President Obama hadn't gone through with the deal and news of that had gone through, McCain would likely have gone charging onto the Sunday morning talk shows to denounce the president for leaving an American soldier in captivity. It's all about opposing Obama with these guys, always.
Several Republicans also celebrated Bergdahl's release on Twitter, only to delete those tweets as the issue became politicized. Those stalwarts include Reps. Lee Terry and Mark Amodei and Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst. For Democrats, meanwhile, the bottom line continues to be this:
|
|
