Never leaving a soldier behind is not merely a "liberal talking point" as some have suggested...it's part of the Warrior's Ethos...a critical part. Think about it this way: soldiers must always feel like their unit has their back and would risk their lives to rescue them...Period. They shouldn't have to worry if their unit will sit on their hands while debating the value of their life. Our military has a commitment to never leave a soldier behind, and our President is the leader tasked with making sure soldiers aren't left behind. Period. The military will deal with him if he truly went AWOL and if charges are warranted...they're cool like that, so there's no need to worry about this. Things are heating up over there anyways...maybe these new threats from Gitmo give us cover to drop some big bombs or extend our stay instead of ramping down as planned. In short, Obama and the Generals aren't morons.

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.

I get that it means something and does rice saying it hold any weight on how he is treated based on that honor? as commander in chief, I guess Obama can give him that "official" title and bestow whatever honor come with that? I don't know and wont pretend to know, so I wont talk out my ass about it and make blanket statements and count them as fact to be right.

as for the Obama not going to congress. I was clear that arguing this is valid, meaning im happy to engage in a constructive argument about this because there is merit behind being upset about this. I say this as a democrat. what im trying to get at is you and your ilk are better at sticking to this argument rather than throwing around red herrings and other nonsense.

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.

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

Do you have an example of a non-conservative who is arguing that Bergdahl didn't serve honorably?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

"Huge liberal talking point" put on sign by guy described as "of an arch-conservative bent":

What a stupid talking point. How the hell were people supposed to know he was a deserter who's desertion helped get other American soldiers killed when his fellow soldiers were under an NDA and not talking?

Seriously, have you been in a cave for the past five years? You didn't know the circumstances of his disappearance before now? Whether he is a deserter remains to be seen. But, the fact that he simply left the base has been known all along.

Has the administration been living in caves for the last 5 years? Has Susan Rice? What the hell is she going on TV saying then that he served with "honor" and "distinction". What distinction is that? The distinction of being a deserter, possibly a traitor, and being a cause a bunch of his fellow soldiers getting killed? That is quite an honor and distinction right there.

So maybe they were confused by the house resolutions to free the guy.

Going back to earlier posts, I believe the issue is notification to Congress. All other issues are yet to be sorted out. I think there is a lot of finger pointing going on with both Conservatives and Liberals simply looking for a "gotcha" moment. Par for the course here and sadly in this county.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

"Huge liberal talking point" put on sign by guy described as "of an arch-conservative bent":

What a stupid talking point. How the hell were people supposed to know he was a deserter who's desertion helped get other American soldiers killed when his fellow soldiers were under an NDA and not talking?

Seriously, have you been in a cave for the past five years? You didn't know the circumstances of his disappearance before now? Whether he is a deserter remains to be seen. But, the fact that he simply left the base has been known all along.

Has the administration been living in caves for the last 5 years? Has Susan Rice? What the hell is she going on TV saying then that he served with "honor" and "distinction". What distinction is that? The distinction of being a deserter, possibly a traitor, and being a cause a bunch of his fellow soldiers getting killed? That is quite an honor and distinction right there.

Very typical. Did you or did you not know the circumstances of Bergdahl's leaving the base until now? If so, why are you acting like you didn't? What does the Administration and Rice have to do with what you knew or didn't know?

You have gone from "'no one gets left behind' is a liberal talking point to "how did we know he was a traitor" (something you still don't know, but only think) to "what about Rice?". Trying to have a discussion with you is like herding cats. You are all over the place and not going in a straight line.

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.

So then you are fine with the release? You are simply opposed to the phrase used by Susan Rice. She is correct on that point. As of this moment he has served honorably. The rest is just scuttlebutt. There's always scuttlebutt. The military runs on scuttlebutt. The Chiefs and Master Sergeants use it all the time to keep the junior enlisted confused and submissive. Thankfully in addition to scuttlebutt the military also has the UCMJ. At present and until the UCMJ has decided differently, Susan Rice is correct, Sgt. Bergdahl has served honorably.

You using a magnifying glass to split those hairs? I am not ok with the way he was released - something is mighty wrong here.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

"Huge liberal talking point" put on sign by guy described as "of an arch-conservative bent":

What a stupid talking point. How the hell were people supposed to know he was a deserter who's desertion helped get other American soldiers killed when his fellow soldiers were under an NDA and not talking?

Seriously, have you been in a cave for the past five years? You didn't know the circumstances of his disappearance before now? Whether he is a deserter remains to be seen. But, the fact that he simply left the base has been known all along.

Has the administration been living in caves for the last 5 years? Has Susan Rice? What the hell is she going on TV saying then that he served with "honor" and "distinction". What distinction is that? The distinction of being a deserter, possibly a traitor, and being a cause a bunch of his fellow soldiers getting killed? That is quite an honor and distinction right there.

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.

So then you are fine with the release? You are simply opposed to the phrase used by Susan Rice. She is correct on that point. As of this moment he has served honorably. The rest is just scuttlebutt. There's always scuttlebutt. The military runs on scuttlebutt. The Chiefs and Master Sergeants use it all the time to keep the junior enlisted confused and submissive. Thankfully in addition to scuttlebutt the military also has the UCMJ. At present and until the UCMJ has decided differently, Susan Rice is correct, Sgt. Bergdahl has served honorably.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

"Huge liberal talking point" put on sign by guy described as "of an arch-conservative bent":

What a stupid talking point. How the hell were people supposed to know he was a deserter who's desertion helped get other American soldiers killed when his fellow soldiers were under an NDA and not talking?

Seriously, have you been in a cave for the past five years? You didn't know the circumstances of his disappearance before now? Whether he is a deserter remains to be seen. But, the fact that he simply left the base has been known all along.

The soldiers from his platoon think that it put their lives in danger. They also said that it messed up their mission--that the dynamics changed dramatically.

Anonymous wrote:I thought we had a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorist for the logical reason that it breeds more terrorism.

I would think that the Bergdahl exchange will endanger Americans not just in Afghanistan but all over the world.

We also have a long-standing practice of not adhering to that policy. Reagan negotiated for US hostages held in Lebanon, providing missiles -- as well as a key-shaped cake -- to Iran. Also, given that the Taliban was the de facto government when hostilities commenced, one could argue that we didn't negotiate with terrorists but rather an ousted government. Of course, this is complicated by the US practice of calling anyone with a beard a terrorist.