Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, just can't see how swapping five of the worse Taliban for one deserter-and perhaps collaborator--is a good thing. And, spiking the football in the Rose Garden. Just doesn't make sense.

You don't know if he is a deserter. I thought in America one was innocent before proven guilty. You people think like commies.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, just can't see how swapping five of the worse Taliban for one deserter-and perhaps collaborator--is a good thing. And, spiking the football in the Rose Garden. Just doesn't make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicants have been crying like babies that the White House hasn't dine enough to bring home the marine in Mexico. So he brings home this soldier and it's waaaaah he's endangered America.

The only way obama can win is if someone can turn him white.

Great in depth analysis there.

How about a "win" for Obama if he leaves the deserter in the hands of his Taliban friends and makes a more subtantial effort to get the guy who accidentally crossed into Mexico? They did it wrong with both guys.

We traded five bad guys for this goof ball? Good trade Mr. President.

Or you can keep harping on irrelevant race issues. Becuase in your mind that is the only reason a conservative could disagree with this president. Again, great analysis.

NP here and sorry, but it's not "mocking" the GOP, it's a statement of FACT about what the GOP DOES. If you don't like someone calling out the truth then maybe you need to reconcile that with your precious GOP.

Fine- and the truth will come out eventually- it always does. For all we know, he was mentally ill and had a breakdown (which seems plausible, would you walk off into the wilderness of Afghanistan without even a gun?!?). But this type of speculation seems cruel and grotesque, especially when you think about his family.
[Report Post]



Wonder how the families of those killed searching for him feel today.



Can you imagine what the family members of dead Iraq war veterans feel? Their sons and daughters died because someone wanted to save face for his daddy.

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously?? The primary function of the republican party appears to be to hold investigations of anything Barack Obama does. I would not be surprised if they started issuing subpoenas over Let's Move.

That's right. Change the subject and mock the GOP. You do know that this is a very serious issue, don't you. Maybe, not to you, but , it is quite serious to our soldiers. Not a good move on Obama's part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously?? The primary function of the republican party appears to be to hold investigations of anything Barack Obama does. I would not be surprised if they started issuing subpoenas over Let's Move.

That's right. Change the subject and mock the GOP. You do know that this is a very serious issue, don't you. Maybe, not to you, but , it is quite serious to our soldiers. Not a good move on Obama's part.

Ooooh, look, it's Mr. Serious!

Here, let me explain the pp's statement to you since you are too busy being self-righteous to get the point: the Republicans have been so indiscriminate and over-the-top in their "investigations" that they have lost what little credibility they originally had. Meanwhile, I still do not understand what the real purpose of the Iraq war was and how so many people could die and so much money spent with seemingly NO investigations or interest in anyone being held accountable. Is that NOT a serious issue to the GOP or anyone else?

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously?? The primary function of the republican party appears to be to hold investigations of anything Barack Obama does. I would not be surprised if they started issuing subpoenas over Let's Move.

That's right. Change the subject and mock the GOP. You do know that this is a very serious issue, don't you. Maybe, not to you, but , it is quite serious to our soldiers. Not a good move on Obama's part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain this from the NYT article? If he went AWOL as claimed, why has he promoted by the Army twice since his capture? I don't get it. Where is the evidence he went AWOL?

"The latest evidence indicating that Sergeant Bergdahl, who was promoted twice while being held as a prisoner, was still alive came in January, when the American military obtained a video showing him alert but also apparently in declining health."

The Army does not have him classified as a deserter, yet. However, the soldiers who served with him have said that is exactly what he is. IF there is an investigation, I am betting that nothing will come of it since it will reflect poorly on this administration’s decision to make the trade. And, that is IF. I doubt there will be an investigation.

Seriously?? The primary function of the republican party appears to be to hold investigations of anything Barack Obama does. I would not be surprised if they started issuing subpoenas over Let's Move.

Seriously?? The primary function of the republican party appears to be to hold investigations of anything Barack Obama does. I would not be surprised if they started issuing subpoenas over Let's Move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain this from the NYT article? If he went AWOL as claimed, why has he promoted by the Army twice since his capture? I don't get it. Where is the evidence he went AWOL?

"The latest evidence indicating that Sergeant Bergdahl, who was promoted twice while being held as a prisoner, was still alive came in January, when the American military obtained a video showing him alert but also apparently in declining health."

The Army does not have him classified as a deserter, yet. However, the soldiers who served with him have said that is exactly what he is. IF there is an investigation, I am betting that nothing will come of it since it will reflect poorly on this administration’s decision to make the trade. And, that is IF. I doubt there will be an investigation.

Anonymous wrote:Ll

Strange tweet from Bergdahl's dad.