US Politics: we are all liberals, we are all conservatives

[Shryke]

I could see them releasing low level enemy combatants still being held, but leaders like the 5 traded for Bergdahl? Hard for me to imagine just freeing them. Those types will either be tried by the US, or they will be eventually transferred to some other prison. But I could easily see the government holding some of the prisoners for a much longer time. If we can justify drone striking a US citizen on foreign soil for being an "imminent threat", it should be trivial for the government to justify continued detainment.

I would be, but the key thing is they don't want to. The Obama Admin has been trying to get rid of alot of these Gitmo guys for years. They've already traded away the ones they could get people to take.

[TrackerNeil]

There's something chilling about what this whole situation reveals; to some there seem to be two categories for people, and if you're not in one, you're in the other. Bergdahl was a hero and now he's a dirtbag.

If I were in the Bergdahl family I'd be very disturbed at how this political conversation has changed suddenly, and I'd be looking into home protection.

[Prince of the North]

nm

[Why So Serious?]

Why aren't people talking about conscientious objection? If half of what Bergdahl claimed to have happened actually did happen, I'd think there's a good case to be made to conscientiously object to the actions and to his enlistment. But the court does need to sort this out.

Why would people talk about that? There's no documentation whatsoever that he applied for conscientious objector status and he's never claimed that he had.

[Why So Serious?]

Regardless, has the governments actually said that they are just going to release everyone they are holding in Guantanamo? No trial for alleged crimes?

I saw this earlier in the thread as well, I've never seen anyone say that other than a small handful of left leaning websites that seem to be just speculating, people here seem to be taking that as gospel, however. Seems to be quite a few people on both sides of this discussion throwing erroneous or pointless shit at the wall and hoping it sticks for the "gotcha" effect.

When you have the chance DebL66, could you also response to stories about how unprofessional these guys' conducts were and the potential murder of a civilian Afghan child by them when she was ran over?

How is that even remotely relevent to the accusations that Bergdahl left his post?

I guess it bears repeating: noted terrorist appeaser Benjamin Netanyahu traded over a thousand prisoners, including almost 300 convicted murderers, for one Israeli soldier last year.

So? Netanyahu is neither American, nor is he generally regarded as a decent human being by anyone with a brain in their head.......why would anything he does matter in the context of the discussion on this board about Bergdahl?

[Zman1863]

My two cents on Bergdahl:

I agree in essentials with the principle that a country should make efforts to bring its soldiers home regardless of circumstances. My problem isn't the trade so much as the stunningly stupid way the administration chose to portray it. They grossly miscalculated that if they focused on Bergdahl's story that they could deflect what they thought would be the the controversy, releasing of the five Taliban.

The problem is that suspicions about Bergdahl were known to the news reading public well in advance of the trade. Yet Obama chose to orchestrate the Rose Garden appearance with the parents. Then they send Susan Rice out to read talking points. (What did this woman do to Obama to become his whipping girl. First Benghazi and now this?) Early on I saw at least one article quoting an administration source about how Bergdahl would not face punishment. And of course now those sorts of comments cast doubt on whether the pentagon will be allowed to conduct a proper investigation of the guy.

They should have justified the trade completely on the basis of the principle that the U.S. won't leave its soldiers behind and that circumstances would nevertheless be investigated. Instead they tried to use an at best premature (at worst, a complete lie) "returning hero" argument to diffuse questions about the Gitmo guys. It would have been better to ride out questions about the actual deal than having to deal with what they've created. I could have supported the administration's justifications for the trade on its own.

Not the attempt to spin. And Seven Hells that beard. I've not been able to find any explanation of it that makes any sense.

[The Notorious]

How is that even remotely relevent to the accusations that Bergdahl left his post?

Because the accusations could be motivated by rogue soldiers who want people to question the credibility of bergdahl and not look too closely at people who might have committed war crime?

[The Notorious]

My two cents on Bergdahl:

I agree in essentials with the principle that a country should make efforts to bring its soldiers home regardless of circumstances. My problem isn't the trade so much as the stunningly stupid way the administration chose to portray it. They grossly miscalculated that if they focused on Bergdahl's story that they could deflect what they thought would be the the controversy, releasing of the five Taliban.

.

Well let me ask you this ..... Why would the release of the taliban detainees are so controversy for you now when quite many other detainees at gitmo were already released for awhile now?

I think you just been too caught up in the rightwing spin and smear machine that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

[Why So Serious?]

My two cents on Bergdahl:

I agree in essentials with the principle that a country should make efforts to bring its soldiers home regardless of circumstances. My problem isn't the trade so much as the stunningly stupid way the administration chose to portray it. They grossly miscalculated that if they focused on Bergdahl's story that they could deflect what they thought would be the the controversy, releasing of the five Taliban.

The problem is that suspicions about Bergdahl were known to the news reading public well in advance of the trade. Yet Obama chose to orchestrate the Rose Garden appearance with the parents. Then they send Susan Rice out to read talking points. (What did this woman do to Obama to become his whipping girl. First Benghazi and now this?) Early on I saw at least one article quoting an administration source about how Bergdahl would not face punishment. And of course now those sorts of comments cast doubt on whether the pentagon will be allowed to conduct a proper investigation of the guy.

They should have justified the trade completely on the basis of the principle that the U.S. won't leave its soldiers behind and that circumstances would nevertheless be investigated. Instead they tried to use an at best premature (at worst, a complete lie) "returning hero" argument to diffuse questions about the Gitmo guys. It would have been better to ride out questions about the actual deal than having to deal with what they've created. I could have supported the administration's justifications for the trade on its own.

Not the attempt to spin. And Seven Hells that beard. I've not been able to find any explanation of it that makes any sense.

While I personally wouldn't support the justification, I couldn't agree more about the political sideshow that they created about this. Obama is too polished of a politician to chalk this up as sheer naivety, so you have to really question what the hell the point of the whole Rose Garden display was. My only guess is that he knew this would brew "controversy" on the right and willingly invited it, what political capital it earns is anyone's guess.

[The Notorious]

Wait, what "returning hero" sideshow? Did obama pinned a purple heart on bergdahl that i am not aware of?

[Why So Serious?]

Because the accusations could be motivated by rogue soldiers who want people to question the credibility of bergdahl and not look too closely at people who might have committed war crime?

Ah, I see......so the dozen soldiers that have, thus far, come out against this guy are all "rogues" who want to cover up war crimes? Riiiiiiight.

You do realize that the conduct of the men in his unit on that night and the preceding nights are not only not news but are not in question, right? For all the vitriol you've thrown at the right on this thread (some of it deserved) you are bending over backwards to concoct an imaginary story to fill your narrative. Fits right in with the far left: "US soldiers are war criminals!!!" stereotype and sounds as absurd as the "Obama is Kenyan Muslim America-Hater" of the very people you have been mocking in page after page here.

[Why So Serious?]

Wait, what "returning hero" sideshow? Did obama pinned a purple heart on bergdahl that i am not aware of?

You're commenting on this topic and you don't know there was a Rose Garden presser where they brought out Bergdahl's parents to comment?

Here it is, I don't really know how you missed it though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm6u4voY44g

[Paladin of Ice]

Not the attempt to spin. And Seven Hells that beard. I've not been able to find any explanation of it that makes any sense.

Maybe he's hoping to be confused with one of the guys from Duck Dynasty? Nobody on the Right seems to have a problem with their beards.

[The Notorious]

I dont know their motive but they sound as credible as the former comrades of kerry who came out and swifted boated him with lies.

But let me ask you this, why is the accusation that bergdahl might have left his post even relevant at all? What does that accusation has to do with the fact that he was held captive and the US done the right thing by bringing him back by the most prudent mean at our disposal?

[TrueMetis]

Wait, what "returning hero" sideshow? Did obama pinned a purple heart on bergdahl that i am not aware of?

Obama has a photo op in the rose garden with Bergdahl's parents, but since he wasn't there I'm not sure how that counts as a "returning hero" sideshow. Is this guy even in the US yet? Last I checked he was in a medical facility in Germany.

[The Notorious]

You're commenting on this topic and you don't know there was a Rose Garden presser where they brought out Bergdahl's parents to comment?

Here it is, I don't really know how you missed it though:

I am well aware of that press conference. I see a press conference with grateful parents about to unite with their son. I think you see what you want to see.

[The Notorious]

Obama has a photo op in the rose garden with Bergdahl's parents, but since he wasn't there I'm not sure how that counts as a "returning hero" sideshow. Is this guy even in the US yet? Last I checked he was in a medical facility in Germany.

Yup, the rightwing and their stooges really jump the gun on that one. Give us a call when obama gives bergdahl a medal or something ...... Now that's a "hero return."

[Why So Serious?]

I dont know their motive but they sound as credible as the former comrades of kerry who came out and swifted boated him with lies.

But let me ask you this, why is the accusation that bergdahl might have left his post even relevant at all? What does that accusation has to do with the fact that he was held captive and the US done the right thing by bringing him back by the most prudent mean at our disposal?

Neither Kerry nor that idiotic swift boat campaign have anything to do with this discussion. Are you capable of talking about a topic on it's own merits or is your MO to constantly resort to some kind of perceived partisan jab?

How is it relevant? It's simple what the issue is, IMO: it's incredibly shitty PR for a President to be trading 5 enemy personnel for a guy who, at best, was derelict in his duty and, at worst, was conducting treasonous behavior. We bash presidents all the time for poor leadership, this is a case where many believe Obama got it wrong.

The accusation has quite a bit to do with his captivity. Do you really not understand the correlation? If the worst accusations are true....which are those being made by the soldiers you inexplicably accuse of war crimes....he abandoned his post and his unit...i.e. he deserted. That charge carries serious consequences, up to and including the death penalty (not saying I believe he would or should be charged with that btw). If the speculation of some of those same soldiers and others is true, he willingly handed himself over and gave up intel to the enemy, that is the more serious charge of treason (which, if true, I WOULD support the death penalty for).

As for the US doing the right thing and bringing him back? I'd say no. I'm all for my government abandoning idiots. That includes people like Bergdahl, those 3 students that decided to go hiking in Iran, that reporter that "wandered over' into North Korea, the Korea war vet that defected to the PRK, those stupid parents that decided to take their infant on a sailing cruise around the world, etc. I certainly don't think we should be sending 5 guys who hated us to begin with....and have even more reason to hate us now that we've imprisoned them without trial for a decade +.

[Why So Serious?]

I am well aware of that press conference. I see a press conference with grateful parents about to unite with their son. I think you see what you want to see

Why have the presser at all unless it's to score political points? Had Bergdahl been a regular POW and we used JSOC to get him out of captivity, I'd say go for it. Bring out the parents, wheel out the band, put a flag in the background with a sign that says "America. Fuck Yeah".

When the guy has this many question marks behind him and this much already-known vitriol set against him by the military community and you bust him out by trading 5 pretty bad guys, it might not be the most politically astute move to be hosting a presser at all. Shit he could have just followed his playbook from the Jessica Buchanan rescue. Instead he made it look like amateur hour and opened himself up to a world of controversy....stupid move...unless the controversy was intended in the first place.