Originally Posted By vbdad55 Democrat - GOP- Independent -- lefty or righty if one assesses what's going on right now over this the lack of knowledge or common sense or both is scary. when a left leaning magazine like Mad nails you- I think the White House may have jumped the shark this time. Hillary already distancing herself from this decision saying she wanted much tougher deal. Survey on MSNBC 2/3 do not favor this deal. I'm stunned. Sold the farm to try and distract from VA mess ( typical Chicago politics trick) - and made a worse blunder. How did his peeps not know the military was going to try this guy for treason ? If the 5 leaders kill Americans with a future plan..this will get even worse. What the hell was the White House thinking ? ---pro Taliban tweets from the Rose Garden on El Jazeera... I'll bet Rahm is glad he's the heck out of there, of course if he was still there this likely doesn't happen. Like em or hate em, Rahm is competent. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2014/06/03/barack-obamas-unfortunate-new-movie">http://www.madmagazine.com/blo...ew-movie</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Democrat - GOP- Independent -- lefty or righty if one assesses what's going on right now over this the lack of knowledge or common sense or both is scary. when a left leaning magazine like Mad nails you- I think the White House may have jumped the shark this time. Hillary already distancing herself from this decision saying she wanted much tougher deal. Survey on MSNBC 2/3 do not favor this deal. I'm stunned. Sold the farm to try and distract from VA mess ( typical Chicago politics trick) - and made a worse blunder. How did his peeps not know the military was going to try this guy for treason ? If the 5 leaders kill Americans with a future plan..this will get even worse. What the hell was the White House thinking ? ---pro Taliban tweets from the Rose Garden on El Jazeera... I'll bet Rahm is glad he's the heck out of there, of course if he was still there this likely doesn't happen. Like em or hate em, Rahm is competent. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2014/06/03/barack-obamas-unfortunate-new-movie">http://www.madmagazine.com/blo...ew-movie</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/5vv3v2/a-magnificent--wonderful-story">http://thedailyshow.cc.com/vid...ul-story</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It had NOTHING TO DO with never leaving a soldier behind. It had to do with Obama wanting to close Gitmo, and by getting rid of five of the most dangerous men there that will now be easier to accomplish. Obama blew this one BIG TIME.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I supported Obama throughout his first term and voted for his re-election. But he is wearing thin in his second term. He just isn't very competent.
Originally Posted By ecdc America: Where people freak out over fake scandals (Bergdahlghazi) and ignore real ones (the VA).
Originally Posted By ecdc It's no wonder why conservative politicians went back and retroactively deleted tweets and posts supporting Bergdahl's release when they realized it didn't fit with the "anything Obama does ever is horrible and wrong and bad" narrative.
Originally Posted By ecdc We were for Sgt. Bergdahl's release before we were against it! <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/MattBinder">http://twitter.com/MattBinder</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder There's more to the Bergdahl thing than meets the eye. It's more than just a five for one swap because he's the last guy there. All the politicos who want to make a big deal over this are going to just for the sake of it, but if they stop to think for a moment they'd realize there's a reason why they all don't get intelligence briefings. They'd blab like hell. Instead, they blab about things they don't know about. When new presidents assume transition to office, they have already received a redacted security briefing once it's determined they're a serious candidate for office, mainly so they don't go off half-cocked and say things that would be impossible to accomplish or worry other countries, etc. If they win, they get another, less edited version of things and their first "oh sh--" moment occurs. Several of them. Once in office, they get the raw version and crap in their pants. They had no idea, etc. It's why, for example, people say things like "I'm going to close Gitmo before the month is out" and it's still open years later or "I'll tell China or Russia or Iran to kiss my grits" and years later nothing of the sort ever happened. Extrapolate that to the Bergdahl situation, and it will be some time before the true story comes out.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo There is so much politicking here, it’s hard to cut through the crap. I’m a bit queasy on this whole event though. I can only hope the UCMJ, and the (hopefully) subsequent investigation can sort through the stench non-politically. But, if it was merely about closing Gitmo, why start with these five? There is an equation off somewhere.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But, if it was merely about closing Gitmo, why start with these five? There is an equation off somewhere.>> Get rid of the most dangerous ones first. Congress and the public would be less resistant to incarcerating the less dangerous ones in the U.S.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Amused me to see Oliver North speak out against the White House negotiating with the enemy to secure the release of hostages... More right-wing hypocrisy.
Originally Posted By Donny Hear what Men who served with Bergdahl have to say about him. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mrctv.org/videos/soldier-tells-fncs-kelly-we-would-all-die-bergdahl">http://www.mrctv.org/videos/so...bergdahl</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The U.S. Armed Forces are going to never leave anyone behind... even if their plan is to court martial them once they are back in custody. I'm sure they have tried to rescue people before that weren't very nice people or good soldiers. What others think of Bergdahl is really rather irrelevant at this point. What I really questioned about Obama's decision was to release five very dangerous prisoners from Gitmo in exchange for him. But since then I've heard the argument that once the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan the U.S. would either have to charge or release those being held. Besides the political problems in trying to bring them to U.S. soil to stand trial, I think the government decided it would be better to exchange them for Bergdahl than have to publicly release just what information they had from these guys and how that information was obtained.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Plus, you know they're going to be tracked, and maybe even "droned" as soon as they leave Qatar. Bill Maher last night said "We didn't so much release them as give them a running start." Also, this very deal had been in the works for a couple of YEARS (even published in the NY Times back then); it fell through then, but was sort of always on the table waiting for the right moment - with that moment being the imminent cessation of formal hostilities, as RT mentioned. But Senators including McCain were briefed on it back then and either signaled their okay or didn't object. Now, of course, they're acting all outraged at the very idea. Obama could have perhaps handled this better in terms of telling Congress (although Congress DOES leak like a sieve) and presenting it to the public, but the outlines of the deal are hardly some big outrage. Even the likes of Raul Labrador (!) and Charles Krauthammer (!!) are saying so.
Originally Posted By Donny When any soldier says I will do anything to bring a brother home we don't mean and never mean return the enemy to the battlefield.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***When any soldier says I will do anything to bring a brother home we don't mean and never mean return the enemy to the battlefield*** Uh huh...cause America *never* does prisoner exchanges... <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://edge1.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/McCain_Prisoner_Swap.jpg">http://edge1.politicususa.netd...Swap.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc So just to be clear: Republicans are mad that the President of the United States arranged the release of a POW, and they've even taken to attacking the character of the POW while he recuperates in the hospital and cannot defend or explain himself, and they've also taken to attacking the POW's parents for the absurd crime of wanting to get their son home in any way that they can? Can you fathom the plume of smoke coming from Fox News after all the heads exploded if Democrats decided to attack a United States soldier who was captured and held for years by the enemy?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 We've done prisoner exchanges since the beginning of this country, in EVERY war.
