OH MY GOSH. Have you read the background on these people? Freedom fighters? If this were not so serious, this would be hilarious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This word is used loosely. We invaded their country, so are they terrorists or freedom fighters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He didn't take his weapon. If he wanted to fight for them, he would take his weapon.

Laugh, no. If he were carrying his weapon and they spotted him first (much the more likely possibility) they would simply have shot him on sight. Under no circumstances would they have ever allowed him to keep his weapon or engage in combat on their behalf without a considerable amount of time passing. The way he could aid them right away was to give them information on how better to kill American soldiers. He didn't need any weapon for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He didn't take his weapon. If he wanted to fight for them, he would take his weapon.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they chipped the guys before letting them leave gitmo?

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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

No. Actually, it is his squad and team members who are saying that he got others killed.
By the way, Bush had nothing to do with this. Afghanistan is Obama's war.