Looks like the soldiers who were killed and wound looking Bergdahi were killed and wound in other operations, not looking for Bergdahi. More conservative lies to undermine the US military.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Conservative. I do think we needed to get him back. Not sure that the exchange was the right way. I also think the Rose Garden was for political purposes and so you are getting a political reaction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A chronological example of conservatives' response to this saga:

In fairness to them, they hadn't been told whst to think until really recently. I heard some members of congress actually deleted tweets of approval

Anonymous wrote:A chronological example of conservatives' response to this saga:

Why is fox allowed to broadcast lies to our troops? They should be off AF network.

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.

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/

A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahl’s release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets.

“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking by telephone on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

Vomit, just vomit. Our President is an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:I don't care one way or the other about this soldier, but I think the president should resign. He's violated his oath of office to protect the nation. Releasing the five highest ranking Gitmo prisoners while we're still at war is an astounding dereliction of duty.

I'm a Democrat.

Anonymous wrote:I've been reserving judgment on this while I learned more about it. I read the Rolling Stone profile from 2012, and that portrait, along with everything being reported this week, has led me to believe that this "swap" was a huge, huge mistake. I'm sorry, but the guy joined the Army to have an "adventure." He was raised by parents who were proud to live "off the grid." I support the right of anyone to live the way they want to, but when you are raised to be a free-thinker and a free-spirit and seek adventure, you have no business joining the Army, through which you become accountable to your fellow soldiers and your country. The Army is not a game where you join up to see the sights and maybe do some good along the way. This is just an incredibly naive way to think. And his actions and his attitude about his service were incredibly selfish. His experience of the Army, his capture and detainment were all a result of choices he made. The results are unfortunate, but they are his to own. The security and safety of our country and our that of our allies should not be compromised because his choices turned out to be catastrophic for him. I am bitterly disappointed in our President and whichever advisors supported this move.

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...

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, do you know what a freedom fighter is? To them, the U.S.A. Is an aggressive force, who invaded and occupied their land in an aggressive force. A freedom fighter resists against an illegitimate or oppressive force or government. We are that force in Afghanistan. It's a war I get it, but do you really expect the entire citizenry to just sit back without attempting to fight back. And because it was/is a war of aggression POWs occur. Or do you think that anyone who fights back against the US is an automatic terrorist. I know people like you think that we, the united states of America, are omnipotent and omniscient, everybody else should bow down and heal, but thats not reality

So, this lovely gentleman is a “freedom fighter?” If he is a “freedom fighter” then Charles Manson is a mercy killer.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl was a senior commander in the Taliban army in the 1990s, rising to become its chief of staff. He is thought by many to have supervised the killing of thousands of Shiite Muslims near Kabul between 1998 and 2001. According to WikiLeaks documents, he was also present at the 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Micheal Spann, the first U.S. citizen killed in the Afghan war.

Interesting that "thought by many" and "present at" are now grounds for 12 year confinement. The same people complaining about America becoming a dictatorship have surprisingly low bars for burdens of proof. At this rate, "looked at me funny" will be grounds for execution. Oh, I forgot, it already is in "stand your ground" states.

Equally interesting that members of Congress, who evidently have a lot more detail about these 5 “upstanding individuals” also refer to them as TERRORISTS. Except maybe Pelosi and Reid who will stand behind Obama regardless of his actions.

The term "terrorist" means absolutely nothing. It is simply used to describe someone we don't like. By any normal definition of the word, most of the Syrian opposition would be "terrorists" and the US would be a state supporter of terrorism and we would have to sanction ourselves. For that matter, when Afghan jihadists were fighting Soviets, we supplied them with weapons and funding. The Taliban was born in Pakistani training camps that the US supported. But, now they are terrorists.

Time was that when you said that someone was a "killer of Americans," you had some evidence that they had killed Americans. These days, you can just randomly call anyone a killer of Americans without the slightest proof. Then, accuse others of not being factual. Must be nice being a conservative and not being troubled by facts.

Guess you don’t believe John McCain either:
John McCain welcomed the release of soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was held for five years by Islamic Islamists, but said the men being freed had 'the blood of Americans on their hands'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644959/These-terrorists-blood-Americans-hands-McCain-leads-Republicans-hit-illegal-Guantanamo-Bay-prisoner-release-exchange-Americas-prisoner-war.html#ixzz33nZNB1Pb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The five freed detainees, McCain said, "are the hardest of the hard-core. These are the highest high-risk people.” (CBS Face the Nation)

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you prefer terms like "individual sought by the U.N. for suspected gross human rights violations in the deaths of thousands of Shiite Muslims" ?? That description fits in this case.

In any event stop arguing semantics to try to minimize the crimes of these 5 individuals.

Haha, You hate Muslims. Now why all the concern for the Shiites.