Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who wanders straight into the enemy, unarmed, and unprepared, is mentally ill. He should be brought back and conservatives will regret attacking him so quickly.

That is not the only possibility. There may be another reason he “wanders straight into the enemy” but I am not even going to state the reason because it would be called a “conspiracy theory.” I also won’t call your excuse a way to rationalize bad behavior, either.

Well, he didn't act like a deserter. A deserter is interested in self-preservation.

He obviously didn't join them like some jihadi.

He didn't bring a weapon with him, so he wasn't going postal like that solider who shot up a village.

The only thing left is "death by cop".

No. The other possibility is that he did intend to join them like some jihadi, but that the Taliban decided that he was much more useful to them as a POW. Considering what they got for Bergdahl, I would say that such a decision would have proved to have been spectacularly correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Well, he didn't act like a deserter. A deserter is interested in self-preservation.

He obviously didn't join them like some jihadi.

He didn't bring a weapon with him, so he wasn't going postal like that solider who shot up a village.

The only thing left is "death by cop".

Huh? There are reports that he shipped his stuff home before they went to the outpost.

People who commit suicide often give their belongings away first.

Well, he didn't act like a deserter. A deserter is interested in self-preservation.

He obviously didn't join them like some jihadi.

He didn't bring a weapon with him, so he wasn't going postal like that solider who shot up a village.

The only thing left is "death by cop".

Huh? There are reports that he shipped his stuff home before they went to the outpost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who wanders straight into the enemy, unarmed, and unprepared, is mentally ill. He should be brought back and conservatives will regret attacking him so quickly.

That is not the only possibility. There may be another reason he “wanders straight into the enemy” but I am not even going to state the reason because it would be called a “conspiracy theory.” I also won’t call your excuse a way to rationalize bad behavior, either.

Well, he didn't act like a deserter. A deserter is interested in self-preservation.

He obviously didn't join them like some jihadi.

He didn't bring a weapon with him, so he wasn't going postal like that solider who shot up a village.

The only thing left is "death by cop".

Anonymous wrote:

That is not the only possibility. There may be another reason he “wanders straight into the enemy” but I am not even going to state the reason because it would be called a “conspiracy theory.” I also won’t call your excuse a way to rationalize bad behavior, either.

Homeland is a tv show--you know, fiction.

And, you know what they say - “Reality is stranger than fiction."

That is not the only possibility. There may be another reason he “wanders straight into the enemy” but I am not even going to state the reason because it would be called a “conspiracy theory.” I also won’t call your excuse a way to rationalize bad behavior, either.

Homeland is a tv show--you know, fiction.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who wanders straight into the enemy, unarmed, and unprepared, is mentally ill. He should be brought back and conservatives will regret attacking him so quickly.

That is not the only possibility. There may be another reason he “wanders straight into the enemy” but I am not even going to state the reason because it would be called a “conspiracy theory.” I also won’t call your excuse a way to rationalize bad behavior, either.

Anyone who wanders straight into the enemy, unarmed, and unprepared, is mentally ill. He should be brought back and conservatives will regret attacking him so quickly.

An article recounting some of the Afghan villagers memory of Bergdahl’s actions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/04/exclusive-afghan-villagers-recall-when-bergdahl-stumbled-into-their-midst/?hpid=z1

Among the most tantalizing mysteries surrounding Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s departure from his U.S. military base in 2009 is this: Was he trying to find the Taliban? Or did he simply wander away and get captured? Politicians and members of the military have criticized the Obama administration’s decision to swap five jailed Taliban leaders for Bergdahl, saying the soldier may have deserted.

Until now, few details have emerged about the circumstances of Bergdahl’s disappearance from his base. But The Washington Post has reached Afghan villagers who spotted Bergdahl shortly after he slipped away from his base. To them, it’s clear something was wrong with the American. And he seemed to be deliberately heading for Taliban strongholds, they say.

“It was very confusing to us. Why would he leave the base?” said Jamal, an elder in the village of Yusef Khel, about a half-mile from the American military installation. (Like many Afghans, he goes by only one name). “The people thought it was a covert agenda – maybe he was sent to the village by the U.S.”

Locals remember Bergdahl walking through the village in a haze. They later told Afghan investigators that they had warned the American that he was heading into a dangerous area.

“They tried to tell him not to go there, that it is dangerous. But he kept going over the mountain. The villagers tried to give him water and bread, but he didn’t take it,” said Ibrahim Manikhel, the district’s intelligence chief.

“We think he probably was high after smoking hashish,” Manikhel said. “Why would an American want to find the Taliban?”

Residents still remember the massive search effort that followed Bergdahl’s disappearance. But the village eventually returned to normal – albeit still with grave problems from Taliban fighters – and few locals thought about the American soldier until this past week, when his face flashed across Afghan news programs.

“I had forgotten about that abducted American,” said Manikhel. “I hope the U.S. can re-arrest the Talibs that they released.”

"In response to those of you interested in my personal judgments about the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergdahl, the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity. This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him. As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we’ll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred. In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family. Finally, I want to thank those who for almost five years worked to find him, prepared to rescue him, and ultimately put themselves at risk to recover him."

-- Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman, JCS

'Nuff said!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this long thread so maybe this has already come up, but why in the world did we five them FIVE prisoners for our ONE? Why wasn't it one-for-one?

Our President decided he needed what he thought would be a feel good story involving the military to distract America from the VA scandal. So he released as many terrorist commanders as was necessary to secure Bergdahl's immediate release. The only consideration were the political optics. Obama, in his limitless arrogance, did not expect Bergdahl's fellow soldiers to start opening their mouths and blow the "honor and distinction" narrative he was counting on to smithereens.

Everything is a conspiracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this long thread so maybe this has already come up, but why in the world did we five them FIVE prisoners for our ONE? Why wasn't it one-for-one?

Our President decided he needed what he thought would be a feel good story involving the military to distract America from the VA scandal. So he released as many terrorist commanders as was necessary to secure Bergdahl's immediate release. The only consideration were the political optics. Obama, in his limitless arrogance, did not expect Bergdahl's fellow soldiers to start opening their mouths and blow the "honor and distinction" narrative he was counting on to smithereens.

Because, these soldiers were told to sign nondisclosure agreements. I understand not speaking up while he was in custody of the Taliban, but according to one of the soldiers in his unit, they were told that the “story” is that he was captured.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this long thread so maybe this has already come up, but why in the world did we five them FIVE prisoners for our ONE? Why wasn't it one-for-one?

Our President decided he needed what he thought would be a feel good story involving the military to distract America from the VA scandal. So he released as many terrorist commanders as was necessary to secure Bergdahl's immediate release. The only consideration were the political optics. Obama, in his limitless arrogance, did not expect Bergdahl's fellow soldiers to start opening their mouths and blow the "honor and distinction" narrative he was counting on to smithereens.

Anonymous wrote:

I really don't see how this is becoming a partisan issue. Pretty sad that the left is defending this move.

It is going to be controversial when you (1) release prisoners of war when the war is still ongoing and (2) when you praise a deserter.

Personally, I'm ok with exchanging the prisoners but can see where there would be legitimate 2nd guessing. But I'm not ok with making this guy out to be a hero and hope he faces charges.

This became a partisan issue when you nut jobs made it one. You and your kind are just disgusting. You have tried and convicted this soldier in the press to score political points and the people doing it did every thing they could to avoid service- think Cheney, Beck, O'Reilly, Rush etc. You say Bergdahi got others killed, while just brushing over all the military member killed and wounded in Iraq, a war that you republican lied us in to. Calling the POWs exchanged terrorist, while republicans release over 500 with the same classification and who fought against after release. Yep let's roll some more interviews of the soldiers who served with Bergdahi saying we should not have got him back b/c he didn't drink beer with us. I am sick of you fucks. You have crossed the line. Fuck you hope you and your kind burn in hell.

I have not heard ONE service member serving with Bergdahl say this. In fact, they are happy he is back. What troubles them, and what they are talking out about is the fact that he is being heralded as one who served “honorably and with distinction” when THEY say this is not the case. The bond between soldiers serving in war is tight - probably a lot more tight than many marriages. They have each others’ backs. They would DIE for their fellow soldiers. So, when every one who has spoken up has said he deserted his post, I tend to believe them. Had he not, THEY WOULD BE THE FIRST TO BE CELEBRATING and speaking out about his service. The thing so many Americans are wrestling with is that some of our soldiers probably would be here today IF this soldier had not made the choice he made. And, there would not be 5 nasty human beings walking free in Qatar to carry on with their terrorists ways down the road.
I have not heard ONE person say he should not be back. Those who are questioning this deal are upset about the release of the 5 individuals AND the fact that Obama made this decision without consulting Congress.
And, by the way, nice language. Go wash out your mouth with soap.

I haven't read this long thread so maybe this has already come up, but why in the world did we five them FIVE prisoners for our ONE? Why wasn't it one-for-one?