“He had concerns about certain conditions in the unit and things that happened in the unit and he figured that the only way to get any attention to them would be to get that information to a general officer,” Bergdahl’s lawyer, Eugene Fidell, told me Thursday. Based on that, Fidell could argue that Bergdahl was thus technically "absent without official leave" (AWOL), rather than a deserter. The distinction could mean the difference between one month of confinement or life in prison for his client.
Sarah Palin Quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information, nor does it condone the swap Obama ultimately did
Allen West quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information. The second part is question with regards to the swap. He suggested there's been no indication from Obama about trying to get Bergdahl back wihtout a way to have media "highlights" regarding it. Well, he did take action to get him back...and there were ways of making it a "media highlight", by propping him up as a hero who served with "distinction and honor". At the time of the comment however, publicly, West was correct in his impression
John McCain quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information. Clearly indicated he'd need to know the details, but in general he'd support ways of bringing him home. And that an exchange would be something to consider. If I say I would consider selling my house as a means of dealing with my debt, that doesn't mean I agree with you offering me $10 for it. His comment absolutely gives him reasonable wiggle room to still be critical of the actual deal.
Kelly Ayotte quote - Statement is not wrong based on new information, however it does condone the swap Obama ultimately did. Ayotte claimed that they should do "all [they] can" to find and bring him home. A swap of 5 prisoners is part of "all they can". If she complained about the swap, she was being rather hypocritical.
James Inhofe quote - Ditto to the above
Jim Hoft - Statement isn't changed by the desertion news, but is in terms of whether or not Obama was ultimately going to lave him behind. Does not really give an indication of "any means necessary" type approach, so doesn't automatically means based on this quote that he should agree with the actual swap.
Michele Malkin - Prior to the desertion news really even permeating any line of media, and again doesn't really indicate in any way that she'd have to agree with the Obama deal.
Rich Nugent - Nothing contradictory based on the desertion news, but like Ayotte and Inhofe, he'd be a hypocrite if he criticized the deal to get Bergdahl after claiming we should do "everthing possible" to retrieve left behind soldires.
Susan Rice Quote - Absolutely is contradicted given the news of him being guilty of desertion. A deserted is not one who served with "honor"
-edit-
My above post was in error in terms of the notion of desertion. For some reason I thought he had previously been charged, and this was the conviction. Susan Rice's comment thus is questionable, not clearly contradicted, as he's not been found guilty of desertion at this point.
Sarah Palin Quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information, nor does it condone the swap Obama ultimately did
Allen West quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information. The second part is question with regards to the swap. He suggested there's been no indication from Obama about trying to get Bergdahl back wihtout a way to have media "highlights" regarding it. Well, he did take action to get him back...and there were ways of making it a "media highlight", by propping him up as a hero who served with "distinction and honor". At the time of the comment however, publicly, West was correct in his impression
John McCain quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information. Clearly indicated he'd need to know the details, but in general he'd support ways of bringing him home. And that an exchange would be something to consider. If I say I would consider selling my house as a means of dealing with my debt, that doesn't mean I agree with you offering me $10 for it. His comment absolutely gives him reasonable wiggle room to still be critical of the actual deal.
In August 2011, the Associated Press reported that Afghan negotiators were seeking the release of Taliban fighters in exchange for Bergdahl, naming specifically Khairkhwa, Fazi and Wasiq. In January 2012, the Guardian newspaper reported that Washington would free Khairkhwa and Noori, and possibly Fazi, in exchange for getting the Taliban to open an office in Qatar for peace talks.
In a March 9, 2012, report, the Afghanistan Analysts Network issued a long report on the Guantanamo Five, which actually found that the men were less hard-line than believed.
Then in August 2012, Reuters reported that the Obama administration had offered to trade “five senior Taliban leaders” — including Khairkhwa, Wasiq, Noori and Fazi — for Bergdahl. The headline on Business Insider’s Web site was: “The US Wants To Trade Five Taliban Leaders In Guantánamo For This One American POW.”
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.
Kelly Ayotte quote - Statement is not wrong based on new information, however it does condone the swap Obama ultimately did. Ayotte claimed that they should do "all [they] can" to find and bring him home. A swap of 5 prisoners is part of "all they can". If she complained about the swap, she was being rather hypocritical.
James Inhofe quote - Ditto to the above
On Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) railed against the Obama administration’s deal with the Taliban last week for the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Inhofe chastised the outcome as one that resulted from negotiating with terrorists and one that was motivated by an obsession to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Ayotte May 22nd 2014 said:“With 29 percent of former Guantanamo detainees having reengaged or being suspected of reengaging in terrorism, the administration’s decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests. It also sets a precedent that could encourage our enemies to capture more Americans in order to gain concessions from our government.”
I just read that the scum bucket is going to claim that he left to report abusive practices in his unit and intended to come back. This will be another Bradley Mannng defense.
I'm sick and damned tired of these traitors and cowards being turned into martyrs.
Jim Hoft - Statement isn't changed by the desertion news, but is in terms of whether or not Obama was ultimately going to lave him behind. Does not really give an indication of "any means necessary" type approach, so doesn't automatically means based on this quote that he should agree with the actual swap.
Ralph Peters, an action-thriller writer who serves as a "strategic analyst" for Fox News, took to the air to condemn Bowe as an "apparent deserter." The Taliban, he declared, could save the United States on "legal bills" by executing him.
According to officials familiar with the internal debate, there are those in both Congress and the Pentagon who view Bowe as a deserter, and perhaps even a traitor. As with everything in Washington these days, the sharp political discord has complicated efforts to secure his release.
Michele Malkin - Prior to the desertion news really even permeating any line of media, and again doesn't really indicate in any way that she'd have to agree with the Obama deal.
Rich Nugent - Nothing contradictory based on the desertion news, but like Ayotte and Inhofe, he'd be a hypocrite if he criticized the deal to get Bergdahl after claiming we should do "everthing possible" to retrieve left behind soldires.
"But what angers me so much about this situation is that knowing full well that there was strong opposition to a prisoner swap in Congress, the Administration decided to go behind our backs and release the detainees without the notification required by law,"
Susan Rice Quote - Absolutely is contradicted given the news of him being guilty of desertion. A deserted is not one who served with "honor"
-edit-
My above post was in error in terms of the notion of desertion. For some reason I thought he had previously been charged, and this was the conviction. Susan Rice's comment thus is questionable, not clearly contradicted, as he's not been found guilty of desertion at this point.
Lest we forget, we didn't just trade 6 terrorist savages for this deserter....
Lest we forget, we didn't just trade 6 terrorist savages for this deserter....
So you are claiming that the DOD knew that he was a deserter, had informed the president.. and that he ordered this men sent in to find him?
Considering the desertion was already known about since 2010, as per MMCs admission, and her comment was made in 2014, then she did in fact flip-flop.
Utter nonsense, there were negotiations for 5 years on this issue that obviously didn't make any highlights except for sporadic mentions in the news. It'll be posted bellow because they also relate to McCain's words.
McCain was well aware of the details, hell the media was well aware of the details.
Reality is Bergdahl even if found guilty will not face a death sentence and even in the unlikely case of being sentenced to the maximum, it will be life in prison - he'll probably be eligible for parole after much less time. More likely is he will face a minimum or just a dishonorable. If he does get jail time, I would think Obama would consider exonerating Bergdahl on his way out of office.
The left will protect Obama regardless of the potential damage he has and will continue to inflict by the White House's incompetence and world view. It's the new norm. There are little to no reasonable Democrats left and those that are, will not stay or will not run for Congress.
I just read that the scum bucket is going to claim that he left to report abusive practices in his unit and intended to come back. This will be another Bradley Mannng defense.
I'm sick and damned tired of these traitors and cowards being turned into martyrs.
You obviously didn't read through the thread, but his desertion "news" were known since at least 2010.
If we go by your standards of contradiction, even if it turns out he's convicted, she's still right considering how the information available.
Not in thay order.
Okay,,, in what order?
Honestly,.. I don't see what the issue is here. Bergdahl was captured and held by the enemy. Maybe he deserted.. maybe he flipped out.. maybe maybe maybe.
At the end of the day.. the DOD, the president.. etc acted on the information that they had at the time... which apparently didn;t even reach a level that they charged Bergdahl with desertion until he got back.
That's beyond the fact that he has not been actually CONVICTED of anything.
So I can't see the error in trying to get one of our own back. If anything.. I want our president to error on bringing back all those we put in harms way.
You don't get it. I forget, what was obama trying to deflect in the media at the time? GITMO? or some other **** he was involved with that made him look bad, you remember?
You don't get it. I forget, what was obama trying to deflect in the media at the time? GITMO? or some other **** he was involved with that made him look bad, you remember?
Okay,,, in what order?
Honestly,.. I don't see what the issue is here. Bergdahl was captured and held by the enemy. Maybe he deserted.. maybe he flipped out.. maybe maybe maybe.
At the end of the day.. the DOD, the president.. etc acted on the information that they had at the time... which apparently didn;t even reach a level that they charged Bergdahl with desertion until he got back.
That's beyond the fact that he has not been actually CONVICTED of anything.
So I can't see the error in trying to get one of our own back. If anything.. I want our president to error on bringing back all those we put in harms way.
right.. I don't get it...
So the reason that Obama/DOD sent soldiers out to look for Bergdahl was because they thought it would deflect the media?
Or was it that the DOD had evidence that supported a charge against Bergdahl,,,, but they didn't charge him with desertion until he was returned because they all wanted to have something to distract the media with?
Seriously... explain your rationale...
Seriously, are you suggesting 8 american lives were worth bringing bergdahl who was hailed by the administration as an honorable soldier, who deserted his post, back, was worth it?
Seriously... explain your rational...
Then you'd be complaining about US livestock being traded for soldiers. :lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?