Bowe Bergdahl

[Anonymous]

Then they need to stop advertising as such. Come join the Army and see thw world. It's not just a job, it's an adventure. Other than that, I agree, as a free-thinker, he should not have joined the military. And I don't know if he is a deserter or not, but the military code is leave no servicemember behind. Let the court martial figure out the legalities.

+1. See also, "An Army of One."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My son was adopted from a foreign country. He was almost five when he came to the US. In a year, he could not speak his native language.

You seriously aren't comparing a 5 year old losing his native tongue after a year and only have been talking less than 4 years with an adult (speaking in excess of 20 years) forgetting his native tongue. Apples to oranges.

The PP said people don't lose their language which is bullcrap. The POW was in captivitiy for 5 years without any English. Yes, I am comparing my son. He was in America hearing English 24/7 and lost his native language in less than a year. A language that he had heard since the day of his birth. And the first language he spoke, so no it is not apples to oranges.

I have also heard in the adoption community where older children from both Russia and China can no longer speak the language of their homeland. You obviously don't know about what you post.

[Anonymous]

Comparing a 5 year losing native language to a 28 year old losing native language is indeed apples to oranges.
Adoptive Mother

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Comparing a 5 year losing native language to a 28 year old losing native language is indeed apples to oranges.
Adoptive Mother

From what I've read, Bergdahl didn't completely lose use of English. It sounds like he has a number of issues with which to deal and language is just one of them. Arguing this point is a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing a 5 year losing native language to a 28 year old losing native language is indeed apples to oranges.
Adoptive Mother

From what I've read, Bergdahl didn't completely lose use of English. It sounds like he has a number of issues with which to deal and language is just one of them. Arguing this point is a waste of time.

I don't disagree at all, but perhaps this comment is best addressed with the one who raised it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just an observation - Conservatives are not the only ones against this exchange. There are plenty of Dems/Liberals speaking out against it. And, there are Conservatives speaking out in support of it. So, go ahead and make this a partisan issue. It is not.

This issue is simply support or oppose, it's bashing Obama for not freeing Bergdahl and then bashing him for freeing Bergdahl. Can you find one individual of any political persuasion that has consistently said, "Bergdahl is a traitor and we should do nothing to free him"? There probably is such a person, but I don't know about him. Rather, I see a lot of conservatives who flip-flopped once Bergdahl was exchanged.

What I see are a lot of people (both Conservative and Liberal-- including Feinstein) who are expressing concern that the President acted unilaterally and did not provide notice to Congress, but I guess we all find exactly what we go looking for...

This is the issue. This is the ONLY issue as far as I am concerned. Bergdahl's character is not at issue at all. Obama's compliance with the law is the only question. Have an investigation and a hearing and release the facts. I think we can all get on board with that.

Yes, no doubt he should have consulted Congress - despite the fact that the Taliban said they would execute Bergdahl if anything about the negotiations were leaked. And no doubt some idiot Congressman (probably Republican) would blab about it, Bergdahl would have been on video being beheaded and somehow the Republicans would find a way to blame Obama.

Verily, you people are idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just an observation - Conservatives are not the only ones against this exchange. There are plenty of Dems/Liberals speaking out against it. And, there are Conservatives speaking out in support of it. So, go ahead and make this a partisan issue. It is not.

This issue is simply support or oppose, it's bashing Obama for not freeing Bergdahl and then bashing him for freeing Bergdahl. Can you find one individual of any political persuasion that has consistently said, "Bergdahl is a traitor and we should do nothing to free him"? There probably is such a person, but I don't know about him. Rather, I see a lot of conservatives who flip-flopped once Bergdahl was exchanged.

What I see are a lot of people (both Conservative and Liberal-- including Feinstein) who are expressing concern that the President acted unilaterally and did not provide notice to Congress, but I guess we all find exactly what we go looking for...

This is the issue. This is the ONLY issue as far as I am concerned. Bergdahl's character is not at issue at all. Obama's compliance with the law is the only question. Have an investigation and a hearing and release the facts. I think we can all get on board with that.

Yes, no doubt he should have consulted Congress - despite the fact that the Taliban said they would execute Bergdahl if anything about the negotiations were leaked. And no doubt some idiot Congressman (probably Republican) would blab about it, Bergdahl would have been on video being beheaded and somehow the Republicans would find a way to blame Obama.

Verily, you people are idiots.

If the investigation shows that the Administration had reason and the right to act promptly, then that's fine. Rather than condemn and speculate, we need to allow an investigation to determine all the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just an observation - Conservatives are not the only ones against this exchange. There are plenty of Dems/Liberals speaking out against it. And, there are Conservatives speaking out in support of it. So, go ahead and make this a partisan issue. It is not.

This issue is simply support or oppose, it's bashing Obama for not freeing Bergdahl and then bashing him for freeing Bergdahl. Can you find one individual of any political persuasion that has consistently said, "Bergdahl is a traitor and we should do nothing to free him"? There probably is such a person, but I don't know about him. Rather, I see a lot of conservatives who flip-flopped once Bergdahl was exchanged.

What I see are a lot of people (both Conservative and Liberal-- including Feinstein) who are expressing concern that the President acted unilaterally and did not provide notice to Congress, but I guess we all find exactly what we go looking for...

This is the issue. This is the ONLY issue as far as I am concerned. Bergdahl's character is not at issue at all. Obama's compliance with the law is the only question. Have an investigation and a hearing and release the facts. I think we can all get on board with that.

Then why not hear directly from Bergdahl? So many questions could be answered that way.

If he had a dispute with America, let him air it. If he renounced his citizenship or declared jihad, let him say so. And let him explain what happened on the day and weeks following his desertion.

Why is the administration hiding him? Let the man speak.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just an observation - Conservatives are not the only ones against this exchange. There are plenty of Dems/Liberals speaking out against it. And, there are Conservatives speaking out in support of it. So, go ahead and make this a partisan issue. It is not.

This issue is simply support or oppose, it's bashing Obama for not freeing Bergdahl and then bashing him for freeing Bergdahl. Can you find one individual of any political persuasion that has consistently said, "Bergdahl is a traitor and we should do nothing to free him"? There probably is such a person, but I don't know about him. Rather, I see a lot of conservatives who flip-flopped once Bergdahl was exchanged.

What I see are a lot of people (both Conservative and Liberal-- including Feinstein) who are expressing concern that the President acted unilaterally and did not provide notice to Congress, but I guess we all find exactly what we go looking for...

This is the issue. This is the ONLY issue as far as I am concerned. Bergdahl's character is not at issue at all. Obama's compliance with the law is the only question. Have an investigation and a hearing and release the facts. I think we can all get on board with that.

Then why not hear directly from Bergdahl? So many questions could be answered that way.

If he had a dispute with America, let him air it. If he renounced his citizenship or declared jihad, let him say so. And let him explain what happened on the day and weeks following his desertion.

Why is the administration hiding him? Let the man speak.

Seriously? You are suggesting that the Administration is hiding Bergdahl? They guy was held as a hostage for 5 years. For long periods of time, he was confined to a cage. Who knows what type of psychological damage was done. Give the guy a chance to recover. Do you not understand how deranged you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just an observation - Conservatives are not the only ones against this exchange. There are plenty of Dems/Liberals speaking out against it. And, there are Conservatives speaking out in support of it. So, go ahead and make this a partisan issue. It is not.

This issue is simply support or oppose, it's bashing Obama for not freeing Bergdahl and then bashing him for freeing Bergdahl. Can you find one individual of any political persuasion that has consistently said, "Bergdahl is a traitor and we should do nothing to free him"? There probably is such a person, but I don't know about him. Rather, I see a lot of conservatives who flip-flopped once Bergdahl was exchanged.

What I see are a lot of people (both Conservative and Liberal-- including Feinstein) who are expressing concern that the President acted unilaterally and did not provide notice to Congress, but I guess we all find exactly what we go looking for...

This is the issue. This is the ONLY issue as far as I am concerned. Bergdahl's character is not at issue at all. Obama's compliance with the law is the only question. Have an investigation and a hearing and release the facts. I think we can all get on board with that.

Yes, no doubt he should have consulted Congress - despite the fact that the Taliban said they would execute Bergdahl if anything about the negotiations were leaked. And no doubt some idiot Congressman (probably Republican) would blab about it, Bergdahl would have been on video being beheaded and somehow the Republicans would find a way to blame Obama.

Verily, you people are idiots.

Just like they did to Daniel Pearl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
^^ Just an observation - Conservatives are not the only ones against this exchange. There are plenty of Dems/Liberals speaking out against it. And, there are Conservatives speaking out in support of it. So, go ahead and make this a partisan issue. It is not.


This issue is simply support or oppose, it's bashing Obama for not freeing Bergdahl and then bashing him for freeing Bergdahl. Can you find one individual of any political persuasion that has consistently said, "Bergdahl is a traitor and we should do nothing to free him"? There probably is such a person, but I don't know about him. Rather, I see a lot of conservatives who flip-flopped once Bergdahl was exchanged.


What I see are a lot of people (both Conservative and Liberal-- including Feinstein) who are expressing concern that the President acted unilaterally and did not provide notice to Congress, but I guess we all find exactly what we go looking for...


This is the issue. This is the ONLY issue as far as I am concerned. Bergdahl's character is not at issue at all. Obama's compliance with the law is the only question. Have an investigation and a hearing and release the facts. I think we can all get on board with that.



Yes, no doubt he should have consulted Congress - despite the fact that the Taliban said they would execute Bergdahl if anything about the negotiations were leaked. And no doubt some idiot Congressman (probably Republican) would blab about it, Bergdahl would have been on video being beheaded and somehow the Republicans would find a way to blame Obama.

Verily, you people are idiots.

Oh, hell. Why do we even bother to have laws... Remember your complacency when it is a Republican in office. Verily, "you people" are short-sighted idiots.

[Anonymous]

If the investigation shows that the Administration had reason and the right to act promptly, then that's fine. Rather than condemn and speculate, we need to allow an investigation to determine all the facts.

Investigation? What investigation? This "transparent" Administration has not demonstrated a willingness to timely and completely turn over documents for any investigation. Stonewall, deflect, blame and dodge...

[Anonymous]

So why is Bergdahl being hidden away on a closed military base? Why can't his parents see him, or the media talk to him? The administration claims he forgot how to speak English and that he needs to be reintegrated into western society? What B.S !! No one forgets their language entirely - especially this quickly.

More likely is the possibility he has become such a Taliban supporter that he refuses to speak English.

As for keeping him hidden and muzzled, the more rational explanation is that his anti-American agenda is so foul that the government can't dare show him in public for the disgrace of giving 5 terror leaders to the enemy in exchange for a deserter who apparently hates the country that "rescued" him from the "captors" he sought out.


My son was adopted from a foreign country. He was almost five when he came to the US. In a year, he could not speak his native language.

You are comparing a four year old to a grown man. Not a fair comparison.

[Anonymous]

Yes, no doubt he should have consulted Congress - despite the fact that the Taliban said they would execute Bergdahl if anything about the negotiations were leaked. And no doubt some idiot Congressman (probably Republican) would blab about it, Bergdahl would have been on video being beheaded and somehow the Republicans would find a way to blame Obama.

What is your source for that? I know it is certainly possible, but we didn't start hearing that until the other "reasons" were discounted.

[Anonymous]

Yes, no doubt he should have consulted Congress - despite the fact that the Taliban said they would execute Bergdahl if anything about the negotiations were leaked. And no doubt some idiot Congressman (probably Republican) would blab about it, Bergdahl would have been on video being beheaded and somehow the Republicans would find a way to blame Obama.

Also, they notified Congress about binLaden raid. They could have notified Congress. They were just afraid Congress would object.