Bowe Bergdahl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ are you off your meds again?!!?

actually I agree with everything he said and I'm as liberal as they come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some of you get caught up in the most absurd things and try to make it into the biggest issue in the history of life.

rice says he served "honorably" and this is what is getting all of you in an uproar? I find the statement silly, but I damn sure haven't spent my days going on and on about how this is the worst thing to happen in an administration in the history of this country.

you don't like Obama. we get it. you all have a better shot of arguing real valid points about this situation such as Obama not notifying congress, if bergdahl should be punished for walking away, or anything that is rational and practical.

again, if this guy was a true full blooded evil soldier who went to join the Taliban, I don't know the rules, but I assume were trying to arrest him at that time as oppose to rescuing him. meaning, the military would have classified him accordingly (which they never did no matter how many people in his unit go running to fox news saying hes a deserter) and I would hope the US would go arrest or kill his ass cause at that point hes an enemy.

this isn't a liberal talking point. its common sense following logic on how rules and procedures should operate. working of that premise alone, you conservatives can argue all day about Obama never going to congress about this. that actually makes sense.

Yes, servicing "honorably" means something in the military, something many of you on this board don't understand and the impact of which the administration gravely underestimated.

Furthermore, it isn't just conservatives arguing about this as much as you want to make this an us against them argument.

Serving "honorably" in military parlance doesn't mean anything other than that you didn't get anything less than an honorable discharge on your DD 214.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Astounding.

There were a few men killed looking for Bergdahl. That has not been debated. Men in those units came forward and said out of the six reported, three were not a result. That was good of these soldiers, and it seems liberals here are willing to take the at their word, as I've read

The men in Bergdahll's unit came forward and stated that he went AWOL. They were there, they knew him, and they expected it based on his prior questions to fellow soldiers. This bit of information, liberals here are not willing to consider factual. Not surprising.

Rice came forward saying Bergdahl served honorably. Obama and those in his administration did not expect these soldiers to talk, let alone to conservative media. They clearly do not understand that a good soldier would not allow the families of those killed in action to live on not knowing the truth. Bad miscalculation on the administration's part. Bad.

The Taliban had no reason not to behead him, unless they were getting something from holding him. He was reportedly allowed to carry a gun with them, and shot with them. If you don't think that's unusual, I would advise you to speak to men who were there.

People get killed during wars, that's why they suck! You don't leave anyone behind or is that what you want to do in the future? Perhaps you'd like to be the final arbiter of who is rescued and who gets left behind.

It's not about the leaving or not leaving behind, though I know that's a huge liberal talking point meant to distract from the lies. The soldiers in his unit spoke out because Susan Rice lied about him serving honorably.

That's a lie. She didn't speak until Sunday. Nice try though.

And the soldiers spoke to conservative media this past week. They state, themselves, that's why they spoke out

Oh, we should trust conservative media? Like the Swift Boaters who got caught lying their asses off?

[Anonymous]

Serving "honorably" in military parlance doesn't mean anything other than that you didn't get anything less than an honorable discharge on your DD 214.

Susan Rice is not military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some of you get caught up in the most absurd things and try to make it into the biggest issue in the history of life.

rice says he served "honorably" and this is what is getting all of you in an uproar? I find the statement silly, but I damn sure haven't spent my days going on and on about how this is the worst thing to happen in an administration in the history of this country.

you don't like Obama. we get it. you all have a better shot of arguing real valid points about this situation such as Obama not notifying congress, if bergdahl should be punished for walking away, or anything that is rational and practical.

again, if this guy was a true full blooded evil soldier who went to join the Taliban, I don't know the rules, but I assume were trying to arrest him at that time as oppose to rescuing him. meaning, the military would have classified him accordingly (which they never did no matter how many people in his unit go running to fox news saying hes a deserter) and I would hope the US would go arrest or kill his ass cause at that point hes an enemy.

this isn't a liberal talking point. its common sense following logic on how rules and procedures should operate. working of that premise alone, you conservatives can argue all day about Obama never going to congress about this. that actually makes sense.

Yes, servicing "honorably" means something in the military, something many of you on this board don't understand and the impact of which the administration gravely underestimated.

Furthermore, it isn't just conservatives arguing about this as much as you want to make this an us against them argument.

Serving "honorably" in military parlance doesn't mean anything other than that you didn't get anything less than an honorable discharge on your DD 214.

No. An honorable discharge is proof of serving honorably. It is not the actual service.

[Anonymous]

Oh, we should trust conservative media? Like the Swift Boaters who got caught lying their asses off?

You think the soldiers are lying? Note: they are not "media".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Astounding.

There were a few men killed looking for Bergdahl. That has not been debated. Men in those units came forward and said out of the six reported, three were not a result. That was good of these soldiers, and it seems liberals here are willing to take the at their word, as I've read

The men in Bergdahll's unit came forward and stated that he went AWOL. They were there, they knew him, and they expected it based on his prior questions to fellow soldiers. This bit of information, liberals here are not willing to consider factual. Not surprising.

Rice came forward saying Bergdahl served honorably. Obama and those in his administration did not expect these soldiers to talk, let alone to conservative media. They clearly do not understand that a good soldier would not allow the families of those killed in action to live on not knowing the truth. Bad miscalculation on the administration's part. Bad.

The Taliban had no reason not to behead him, unless they were getting something from holding him. He was reportedly allowed to carry a gun with them, and shot with them. If you don't think that's unusual, I would advise you to speak to men who were there.

People get killed during wars, that's why they suck! You don't leave anyone behind or is that what you want to do in the future? Perhaps you'd like to be the final arbiter of who is rescued and who gets left behind.

It's not about the leaving or not leaving behind, though I know that's a huge liberal talking point meant to distract from the lies. The soldiers in his unit spoke out because Susan Rice lied about him serving honorably.

That's a lie. She didn't speak until Sunday. Nice try though.

And the soldiers spoke to conservative media this past week. They state, themselves, that's why they spoke out

Oh, we should trust conservative media? Like the Swift Boaters who got caught lying their asses off?

Bill O'Reilly complained that Bergdahl's father looked like a muslim with his beard. He must hate ZZ Top.

".....O’Reilly, in his typically insightful style that has made him the darling of angry, old white people across the country, stated: “The reason I said that Robert Bergdahl looks like a Muslim is because he looks like a Muslim.” Bingo! Journalism at its best!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Astounding.

There were a few men killed looking for Bergdahl. That has not been debated. Men in those units came forward and said out of the six reported, three were not a result. That was good of these soldiers, and it seems liberals here are willing to take the at their word, as I've read

The men in Bergdahll's unit came forward and stated that he went AWOL. They were there, they knew him, and they expected it based on his prior questions to fellow soldiers. This bit of information, liberals here are not willing to consider factual. Not surprising.

Rice came forward saying Bergdahl served honorably. Obama and those in his administration did not expect these soldiers to talk, let alone to conservative media. They clearly do not understand that a good soldier would not allow the families of those killed in action to live on not knowing the truth. Bad miscalculation on the administration's part. Bad.

The Taliban had no reason not to behead him, unless they were getting something from holding him. He was reportedly allowed to carry a gun with them, and shot with them. If you don't think that's unusual, I would advise you to speak to men who were there.

People get killed during wars, that's why they suck! You don't leave anyone behind or is that what you want to do in the future? Perhaps you'd like to be the final arbiter of who is rescued and who gets left behind.

It's not about the leaving or not leaving behind, though I know that's a huge liberal talking point meant to distract from the lies. The soldiers in his unit spoke out because Susan Rice lied about him serving honorably.

That's a lie. She didn't speak until Sunday. Nice try though.

And the soldiers spoke to conservative media this past week. They state, themselves, that's why they spoke out

Oh, we should trust conservative media? Like the Swift Boaters who got caught lying their asses off?

Bill O'Reilly complained that Bergdahl's father looked like a muslim with his beard. He must hate ZZ Top.

".....O’Reilly, in his typically insightful style that has made him the darling of angry, old white people across the country, stated: “The reason I said that Robert Bergdahl looks like a Muslim is because he looks like a Muslim.” Bingo! Journalism at its best!

He hates Amish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am suspicious. After all this time, his fellow soldiers want to blame him!
Perhaps they have something to hide. Bullying and hazing is a problem in the military


There was a gag order

They had to sign non-disclosure not to talk as long as he was "away".

so they could have something to do with it. After all, they would prefer for him to be in Afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, we should trust conservative media? Like the Swift Boaters who got caught lying their asses off?

You think the soldiers are lying? Note: they are not "media".

Yeah, no kidding - neither were the Swift Boaters but FOX and conservative media ate their lies right up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some of you get caught up in the most absurd things and try to make it into the biggest issue in the history of life.

rice says he served "honorably" and this is what is getting all of you in an uproar? I find the statement silly, but I damn sure haven't spent my days going on and on about how this is the worst thing to happen in an administration in the history of this country.

you don't like Obama. we get it. you all have a better shot of arguing real valid points about this situation such as Obama not notifying congress, if bergdahl should be punished for walking away, or anything that is rational and practical.

again, if this guy was a true full blooded evil soldier who went to join the Taliban, I don't know the rules, but I assume were trying to arrest him at that time as oppose to rescuing him. meaning, the military would have classified him accordingly (which they never did no matter how many people in his unit go running to fox news saying hes a deserter) and I would hope the US would go arrest or kill his ass cause at that point hes an enemy.

this isn't a liberal talking point. its common sense following logic on how rules and procedures should operate. working of that premise alone, you conservatives can argue all day about Obama never going to congress about this. that actually makes sense.

Yes, servicing "honorably" means something in the military, something many of you on this board don't understand and the impact of which the administration gravely underestimated.

Furthermore, it isn't just conservatives arguing about this as much as you want to make this an us against them argument.

Serving "honorably" in military parlance doesn't mean anything other than that you didn't get anything less than an honorable discharge on your DD 214.

No. An honorable discharge is proof of serving honorably. It is not the actual service.

Over 95% of everyone who serves in the military gets an honorable discharge - so the bar's not all that high for what is called "honor."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am suspicious. After all this time, his fellow soldiers want to blame him!
Perhaps they have something to hide. Bullying and hazing is a problem in the military


There was a gag order

They had to sign non-disclosure not to talk as long as he was "away".

so they could have something to do with it. After all, they would prefer for him to be in Afghanistan.

You clearly have not heard any of the interviews. They also said THEY would have been willing to die searching for him. They all said they are glad he is back, but that he needs to be accountable for the fact that he left the post - they said their mission totally changed after he disappeared.
And, by the way, not ONE of the people in his unit have spoken up to say that he did NOT desert.

[Anonymous]

After watching and reading many of the media reports on this story, my opinions are:

1. Bergdahl left his post without authorization. Whether this is desertion, going AWOL, or whatever will hopefully be determined by a full investigation by the ARMY. I only hope they are able to investigate without interference by the White House.
2. The president’s administration, in their arrogance, thought the American public would celebrate this deal. They “spiked the football” by bringing the Bergdahls to the WH and having Susan Rice make her Sunday appearance. I believe that they thought by doing this, the media and the American people would celebrate. They evidently did not foresee other soldiers from his unit speaking out. Nor did they foresee the questions they would get from the Dems in Congress.
3. Obama did not give the mandatory 30 days notice because he knew it would not be approved based on the push back he had received when this topic was broached previously. I do NOT believe that his health was in jeopardy or that the Taliban said they would kill him if the deal went public. I believe they are saying this simply to get around the 30-day rule.
4. I do not believe this deal is a good one. I do believe we should do everything to bring a soldier home, even a deserting one, but I believe there were other options that would have been much more acceptable to the American people and Afghanistan.
5. Many Americans are not believing the stories advanced by this administration because we have been lied to in the past. It is hard to trust someone who is not truthful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am suspicious. After all this time, his fellow soldiers want to blame him!
Perhaps they have something to hide. Bullying and hazing is a problem in the military


There was a gag order


They had to sign non-disclosure not to talk as long as he was "away".

A non -disclosure? Really? Sound fishy, in the military they have a system for for dealing with things they don't want out in public....any guess what it is?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people on this board required to put a C or a L next to their name so we can identify their political persuasion? Obviously, you have read accounts of those who served with him who feel he did not seve honorably. Perhaps, we should ask the to identify their political affiliation. This is not a conservative vs liberal issue. I don't know why people feel compelled to turn every political discussion into an us vs them scenario. No wonder Washington is so dysfunctional, individual citizenry are, also.

You said "it isn't just conservatives arguing about this as much as you want to make this an us against them argument". Asked to give an example of a non-conservative arguing, you say that you can tell one from another. If you have no evidence for your statement, why are you making it? Of course, you include the obligatory attempt to change the subject. You are unable to support your own argument, so Washington is dysfunctional. It appears that conservatives live in a world in which they can say anything and it is universally accepted. Challenge them even the slightest bit and they have no idea what to do.

does ANYONE think he served honorably? if desertion is honorable, you guys have pretty low standards!