DescentBB

Well after another "If I had a son" moment, the Obama administration is faced with another "He's really a thug" dose of reality. Susan Rice exclaimed how Bergdahl was a innocent and was now home with his family where he could recuperate and heal from his captured ordeal. How we rescued a captured soldier by trading the worst Islamnoterrorist we had and the trade was worth it as this is what America does to get it's soldiers back.

Sadly the truth is coming out and Bergdahl is being charged with desertion. Wonder how much our Obama loving press will cover the trial. I wonder how much those that were all for the trade now will say it was not worth it. I'm not holding my breath.

wtf? No one ever implied he was some innocent returned to his family and friends. They simply stated that he was an American soldier, and he
was returned home. No one granted him hero status, and the investigation began immediately after debriefing the guy. Go easy on the loonisphere spin, seriously, it makes you look unhinged.

I heard Obama joined the Taliban, lured Berghdahl into desertion, became the President, and then traded for Bergdahl so his captured friends could re-join their fight.

wasn't there a secret plot by obama and putin involved in there somehere, capitulated by the left wing to destabilize the economy and send the money to the mexican cartel?

callmeslick wrote:wtf? No one ever implied he was some innocent returned to his family and friends. They simply stated that he was an American soldier, and he
was returned home.

That is not true slick. ( imagine that...)
The Obama administration said: 'he served with honor and distinction'.

callmeslick wrote:No one granted him hero status, and the investigation began immediately after debriefing the guy.

That's not true slick.
(maybe we should have a sub forum where you could post these alternate realities that you make up...)
The investigation was well under way the minute he walked off the base and his fellow soldiers and his immediate supervising officers knew he deserted long before any debriefing. Evidence supporting their assertions was gathered from the locals there well before we got him back.

There was a parade scheduled for his homecoming that was cancelled due to thousands of veterans planning to show up and protest.


'Go easy on the loonisphere spin' indeed.

I heard Bergdahl has put together an exploratory committee for a 2016 presidential run.

callmeslick wrote:wtf? No one ever implied he was some innocent returned to his family and friends. They simply stated that he was an American soldier, and he
was returned home. No one granted him hero status, and the investigation began immediately after debriefing the guy. Go easy on the loonisphere spin, seriously, it makes you look unhinged.

slick I keep telling you to research before you post but alas you don't. From the mouth of Susan Rice:

“He is going to be safely reunited with his family. He served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years, but what's most important now is his health and well being, that he have the opportunity to recover in peace and security and be reunited with his family. Which is why this is such a joyous day.”

"Sergeant Bergdahl wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield." She adds, "We have a sacred obligation that we have upheld since the founding of our republic to do our utmost to bring back our men and women who are taken in battle, and we did that in this instance."

so, why is this some sort of sinister plot, Woody?

callmeslick wrote:so, why is this some sort of sinister plot, Woody?

Anybody say it was a sinister plot? One could see ulterior motives considering it was known he deserted and still Obama traded 5 very bad guys to get the mutt back. Last I checked we don't trade with terrorist groups let alone trade for a deserter.

puhlease, get the politics out of it, and similar stuff has occurred in every war. Now, the media is playing up torture by the Taliban, who knows what will be seen, but bringing him home was the right thing to do, and the 'trade' really isn't any threat to us. It really isn't.

woodchip wrote:Last I checked we don't trade with terrorist groups

Sure we do. We just don't usually call them "terrorist groups" while we're doing business.

We may have known he was a deserter from the moment he disappeared, but he's our deserter. I'm not a military guy, so I don't know how this falls into the whole "never leave a man behind" credo, but it seems to me that we definitely should've made the effort to get this guy back. I mean, what if the stories about him being a deserter turned out to be inaccurate? Should that matter? If he really was a hero, would it then be ok to trade some of their guys to get him back?

I know you only really care about this as a way to trash Obama, but maybe a grudging tip of the cap might be in order for pursuing charges against this guy when they could've just as easily swept it under the rug to keep their supposed charade going.

Vander wrote:

woodchip wrote:Last I checked we don't trade with terrorist groups

Sure we do. We just don't usually call them "terrorist groups" while we're doing business.

We may have known he was a deserter from the moment he disappeared, but he's our deserter. I'm not a military guy, so I don't know how this falls into the whole "never leave a man behind" credo, but it seems to me that we definitely should've made the effort to get this guy back. I mean, what if the stories about him being a deserter turned out to be inaccurate? Should that matter? If he really was a hero, would it then be ok to trade some of their guys to get him back?

I know you only really care about this as a way to trash Obama, but maybe a grudging tip of the cap might be in order for pursuing charges against this guy when they could've just as easily swept it under the rug to keep their supposed charade going.

Keep your cap on because the Obama administration never wanted the court martial (obviously it shines a bad light on their trade) and contrary to slick's previous assertions the desertion does matter to the ranks.
http://time.com/3758957/army-to-try-sgt ... sbehavior/

Vander, common sense isn't going to stop the neurosis around Obama for some of these folks. Read elsewhere here.

As quoted from a soldier in Will's link:

“While I strongly believe that we, as Americans, are duty bound to never leave one of our own behind,” Kumpf says, “I strongly hope that the government does what it needs to do to punish Mr. Bergdahl for his crimes.”

What happened to you woodchip? I mean, as a former "soldier" and all, I figured you'd have this sort of mindset (like the rest of us normal people). That's sort of why we all know you're completely full of it.

I heard some of the defense that will be used last night.

According to his lawyer Bergdahl left his post to go and find a “general officer” to rat out….errrr report some misbehavior in the ranks.

Sure, and that’s why he headed in the wrong direction…

Z.. wrote:As quoted from a soldier in Will's link:

“While I strongly believe that we, as Americans, are duty bound to never leave one of our own behind,” Kumpf says, “I strongly hope that the government does what it needs to do to punish Mr. Bergdahl for his crimes.”

What happened to you woodchip? I mean, as a former "soldier" and all, I figured you'd have this sort of mindset (like the rest of us normal people). That's sort of why we all know you're completely full of it.

No kidding. Woody here should have been supporting this guy, be it for good or ill, but instead we get what we get. Ductus Exemplo, indeed.

Vander wrote:

Sure we do. We just don't usually call them "terrorist groups" while we're doing business.

Our policy has been not to deal with terrorists. Calling them something else still does not abrogate the policy.

Vander wrote:
We may have known he was a deserter from the moment he disappeared, but he's our deserter. I'm not a military guy, so I don't know how this falls into the whole "never leave a man behind" credo, but it seems to me that we definitely should've made the effort to get this guy back. I mean, what if the stories about him being a deserter turned out to be inaccurate? Should that matter? If he really was a hero, would it then be ok to trade some of their guys to get him back?

Hero or deserter is irrelevant. By doing so it just markets our troops as commodity's for the enemy to take and use to get something in return. Let me ask you, would it of been ok to trade Bergdahl for a vial of military grade anthrax?

Z.. wrote:As quoted from a soldier in Will's link:

“While I strongly believe that we, as Americans, are duty bound to never leave one of our own behind,” Kumpf says, “I strongly hope that the government does what it needs to do to punish Mr. Bergdahl for his crimes.”

What happened to you woodchip? I mean, as a former "soldier" and all, I figured you'd have this sort of mindset (like the rest of us normal people). That's sort of why we all know you're completely full of it.

As a soldier I would of held no more regard for a deserter than I did Jane Fonda. I don't seem to remember any effort to trade anything with North Vietnam for our POW's so why should we make any effort for a deserter? I'm not sure you understand the difference between desertion or being captured.

I have empathy for Bergdahl, like I have empathy for lots of criminals. But he certainly doesn't deserve to be excused from responsibility for his actions and absolutely does not deserve praise.
I have contempt for the Obama administration for trying to hold him up as an exemplary soldier that they rescued from captivity. And exemplary is exactly the way they tried to spin his character suggesting he served with "honor and distinction".
I have contempt for people trying to protect the administration from criticism on the matter because they are volunteering to own the lie being promoted.

Where is the Rose Garden ceremony for the rest of the deserters? There won't be one, primarily because it would be bad politics. There was one for Bergdahl because he was a part of a trade where we returned 5 very bad people to the jihad against us and so Bergdahl had to be painted as something he wasn't, and only because of self serving politics, not because Bergdahl earned it.

Ferno wrote:...Woody here should have been supporting this guy...

Yea, Woody, where is your I Heart Deserters pin?

where is YOUR innocent until proven guilty pin?

No one here has all of the facts. The details around this man's life are complicated and mostly unknown to the public. Modern US warfare is different today than when you served.

Feel free to ride the media bus and go to whatever destination they choose for you.

vision wrote:No one here has all of the facts. The details around this man's life are complicated and mostly unknown to the public. Modern US warfare is different today than when you served.

Feel free to ride the media bus and go to whatever destination they choose for you.

The destination Obama was trying to deliver all of us to was the worst.

Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama

It really is like a sickness you guys have. I can't imagine being so obsessed with someone. It's like he is a lover that broke your heart. A malevolent deity with some sort of power that in reality doesn't exist outside your imagination.

vision wrote:Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama

It really is like a sickness you guys have. I can't imagine being so obsessed with someone. It's like he is a lover that broke your heart. A malevolent deity with some sort of power that in reality doesn't exist outside your imagination.

So when your point is challenged you get frustrated and go into adolescent-rant-mode as a defense mechanism.

Will is calling someone 'adolescent'? Precious, and dripping with irony.

Will Robinson wrote:So when your point is challenged you get frustrated and go into adolescent-rant-mode as a defense mechanism.

No one challenged my point. And you have repeatedly proved mine. Learn to read.

If there is more discussion around the original topic, feel free to start a new thread, because this one is done.