Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 05, 2014

President Barack Obama on Thursday stood by his decision to negotiate for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. "We have a basic principle. We do not leave anybody wearing the American uniform behind. We had a prisoner of war whose health had deteriorated and we were deeply concerned about, and we saw an opportunity and we seized it, and I make no apologies for that," Obama said. "We had discussed with Congress the possibility that something like this might occur, but because of the nature of the folks that we were dealing with and the fragile nature of these negotiations," he continued. "We felt it was important to go ahead and do what we did, and we're now explaining to Congress the details of how we move forward. But this basic principle that we don't leave anybody behind and this basic recognition that often means prisoner exchanges with enemies is not unique to my administration."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Obama explained that the release of Bergdahl should not be a "political football," but said he wasn't surprised that it became a controversy in Washington.

"I'm never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington, right? That's par for the course," he said.

"I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents, and that the American people understand that this is somebody's child, and that we don't condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back," Obama concluded.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-05 10:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why would he need to tell us this? Nobody is expecting an apology.

What people are expecting is for his administration to lie and cover up for Bergdahl regardless of how much evidence that he was a deserter is presented.

#2 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-05 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good.

I hope he continues to double-down on this.

In doing so, he and his party will get exactly what they deserve.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

What people are expecting is for his administration to lie and cover up for Bergdahl regardless of how much evidence that he was a deserter is presented.
#2 | POSTED BY SULLY

I have plenty of confidence that this administration will meet those expectations.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"What people are expecting is for his administration to lie and cover up for Bergdahl regardless of how much evidence that he was a deserter is presented."

Another one who knows things that he can't actually really know. There was an investigation in 2010 but the report about it is classified.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-05 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What people are expecting is for his administration to lie and cover up for Bergdahl regardless of how much evidence that he was a deserter is presented.

#2 | Posted by Sully at 2014

What evidence is that? A lot of what I've seen seems suspect and even more is contradicted by other reports.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-05 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good.

I hope he continues to double-down on this.

In doing so, he and his party will get exactly what they deserve.

#3 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Spoken like the myopic partisan you have unabashedly become:

On Wednesday, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer expressed his support for the Obama administration's decision to negotiate Bowe Bergdahl's freedom.

"Look, had the choice been mine, I would have made that same choice," Krauthammer said. "It's a difficult decision and I would not attack those who would have done otherwise."

"The reason we put a value on the individual human life the way that the ones at the other end of the table don't," Krauthammer said. "That's why we always end up with unequal swaps." www.huffingtonpost.com

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday urged Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's critics not to "judge" him until all the facts are in and sharply defended the extensive and risky search efforts that claimed the lives of some of his fellow soldiers.

"We did a huge number of operations to try to stop the Taliban from being able to move him across the border into Pakistan," McChrystal told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview. "And we made a great effort and put a lot of people at risk in doing that, but that's what you should do. That's what soldiers do for each other."

Asked whether he would have made the same prisoner swap, McChrystal replied: "We don't leave Americans behind. That's unequivocal."
news.yahoo.com


The only reason this has become framed in partisanship is because of the rightwing media crusade to paint it that way.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-05 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Further:

Former Bush administration official, John Bellinger made a great case for supporting President Obama's decision to swap five Taliban prisoners for the lone U.S. POW. In a refreshing interview, he told Fox News' Happening Now, that since the war was winding down and they couldn't have tried the Afghanistan prisoners in US courts, their only option was to free them eventually so making the trade made sense and and that George Bush would have made the same decision.

"I'm not saying this is clearly an easy choice but frankly I think a Republican, a president of either party, Republican or Democratic, confronted with this opportunity to get back Sgt. Bergdahl, who is apparently in failing health, would have taken this opportunity to do this," he added. "I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration." crooksandliars.com

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-05 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only reason this has become framed in partisanship is because of the rightwing media crusade to paint it that way.

No. The reason this has become partisan is because the administration gave an undeserving man a hero's welcome and it outraged those who served with them to a point where they felt so strongly about it they violated non-disclosure agreements to speak out.

Obama supporters are amazing.

Name your controversy - let's go with Benghazi - Obama fires the first salvo by politicizing an event. Then, when his opposition fires back they are the ones being partisan hacks.

I guess it just speaks to the O-Crew's perpetual sense of victimhood, holier-than-thou BS that it becomes impossible for them to see the self-irony of their positions.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

A lot of what I've seen seems suspect and even more is contradicted by other reports.
#6 | POSTED BY ZED

What other reports?

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

#9

Your blindness to reality is appalling. Perhaps you haven't noticed but many Democrats have scurried to the hills because the rightwing smear machine has hit overdrive and the spineless wonders refuse to stand on principles. There are myriad Republicans who stand by Obama's decision and it appears your major gripe is in how Obama spoke about Bergdahl in front of his parents and the press corps. I could really care less about the optics and I care more about the principle of not leaving soldiers behind even if they might be subject to prosecution after the fact.

Little minds have trouble separating that due process isn't just for show, it means that the CIC is not supposed to taint any future investigation by showing bias prior to it taking place. The facts will eventually come forward and he will be judged by the military as to his actions. However, none of that should obfuscate our nation's responsibility to seek out all our military personnel who become captured on the battlefield unless they publicly disavow their allegiance to this nation without being under duress or coercion.

The REPUBLICANS I quoted above state it better than I do, or are they blind followers of the cult of Obama too Jeff?

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-05 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#7 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

[...] It's news because the folks are pissed. They may not care about Putin and the Ukraine or Bashar Al Assad and Syria but they damn well care about our men and women overseas and they won't forget about the VA or Benghazi or Bergdahlgate.

#12 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-05 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

What people are expecting is for his administration to lie and cover up for Bergdahl regardless of how much evidence that he was a deserter is presented.
#2 | POSTED BY SULLY

If Rice had come out and said "We know Bergdahl might be a deserter (or something to that effect), but the administration feels we leave no American left behind", rather than he served with "honor and distinction", I might give it to them.

At least in that case let the chips fall where they may.

But they did try to lie and cover up for Bergdahl, when evidence is all around WashingtonDC that perhaps he wasn't "honorable".

Just like Benghazi, just like IRS, just like Fast and Furious.

If you lie, the truth will get out. If you tell the truth it will set you free....

#13 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-05 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Just like Benghazi, just like IRS, just like Fast and Furious.
If you lie, the truth will get out. If you tell the truth it will set you free...."

Just like all those things that have been investigated ad nauseum....the American people have caught on to the Republican game and aren't fooled.....turn everything into a scandal and pretty soon nothing is a scandal.....Republicans have become the little boy who cried wolf too many times.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-05 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Little minds have trouble separating that due process isn't just for show, it means that the CIC is not supposed to taint any future investigation by showing bias prior to it taking place

The problem is the administration did exactly that with the hero's welcome in the rose garden and Rice characterizing him as having served with 'honor and distinction'.

These things matter, Tony.

You may feel compelled to give this administration a pass no matter what, but he mightily pissed off and outraged those who served with this guy.

Read Andrea's post. The administration knew that releasing the Taliban dream team for 1 soldier would be controversial, particularly when extra-legal measures were taken to get it done. They decided to mitigate that by making this guy seem like a hero. It was a terrible decision and they are now paying for it.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just like all those things that have been investigated ad nauseum....the American people have caught on to the Republican game and aren't fooled.....turn everything into a scandal and pretty soon nothing is a scandal.....Republicans have become the little boy who cried wolf too many times.

#14 | POSTED BY DANNI

The only investigation that has been concluded was 'Fast and Furious' and that one only because Obama invoked executive privilege. Not sure how details of a gun-running scheme could be a matter of national security and thus need to be hidden, but while the MSM gave him a pass (when do they not?) the GOP didn't. So, when the next scandal came along and the administration went back to its same playbook, the GOP dug in.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

"it means that the CIC is not supposed to taint any future investigation by showing bias prior to it taking place"

He tainted any future investigation when he held a ceremony in the rose garden and sent Susan Rice out to lie once again that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. Had Obama just sucked it up instead of making this political he would have taken a short term hit on the release but, he hurt himself a lot when he wasn't honest about the soldiers record. I'm fine with Bergdahl coming home and I'm glad for him and his family but, he has serious serious questions to answer.

#17 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-05 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

There has been more investigation of Benghazi than we had over 9-11-2001 and no one refused to testify under oath in the ridiculously repetitive Benghazi investigations. I don't mind debating this nonsense with you Jeff but I do not have to pretend that any of these investigations have been conducted out of any real concern about national security or any other legitimate reason other than gotcha politics. ----, when Daryl Issa is involved it goes without saying what the real purpose is.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-05 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Had Obama just sucked it up instead of making this political he would have taken a short term hit on the release but, he hurt himself a lot when he wasn't honest about the soldiers record. I'm fine with Bergdahl coming home and I'm glad for him and his family but, he has serious serious questions to answer.

Unless I've missed something, Bergdahl's "record" up to the point where he walked off wasn't in question nor was his service in the field. The controversy is about his alleged desertion and regardless of what his fellow soldiers say, no investigation can be completed without hearing Bergdahl's side of the story before any final conclusions can be reached.

Up until Saturday, Bergdahl's release was a meme from the GOP and it's Congressional members who have repeatedly asked Obama to be more proactive in achieving his release from captivity. This cause was indeed noble for the myriad of reasons stated above by many in and related to the military. The "facts" of Bergdahl's separation were as widely known to these Republicans as it has become universally known now but there was no outcry against efforts to secure his release.

The President did what he was supposed to do at that time: praise a soldier for his service to country and his resolve in surviving for 5 years in captivity. I'm sorry if I see where Obama can and still may become critical of Bergdahl's behavior and actions after the facts of his separation are all on the table and he's allowed due process to tell his side of the story yet many others can't and see hypocrisy where none exists. It seems fairly obvious to me.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-05 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

when Daryl Issa is involved it goes without saying what the real purpose is.

Daryl Issa is a hack and he never should have been charged with leading this investigation.

Hopefully this creepy-looking Gowdy guy plays it straight.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It royally pissed me off that he wanted to leak cherry-picked testimony for political gain.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tony,

Has Obama ever done or said anything that you disagree with?

Believe it or not, I am not trying to be a jerk with that question.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm actually trying to help you and I'll explain why once you answer.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless I've missed something, Bergdahl's "record" up to the point where he walked off wasn't in question
#19 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

You did miss this:

Bergdahl had left base before, according to 2010 report
The report, known in the military as a 15-6 investigation, cited testimony from Bergdahl's fellow soldiers who said he had walked off the base alone before -- out of "boredom" – according to this official.
www.foxnews.com

#24 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-05 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#22-23

Of course he has. But I think the difference is that I can intellectually understand most of the reasons why he's chosen the decisions he has based on both the past and the present. When we started here back in 2003, the seeds were already sown for the expanding executive and the utter fecklessness of Congress to stand up to it. Fear was the common denominator and Americans demanded to be protected. Only a blind person would have thought that the continuation of the "times" (post 9-11 paranoia and jingoism) were going to be different in functionality. Yes, Obama ran as being different than W, but the times aren't much different than W's times and the problems remain the same.

What I do believe to be unfair is the notion that any President can or should expect to enjoy 100% loyalty from his supporters nor 100% opposition from his opponents. Obama's coalition remains fractured because he's been completely unable to enact the liberal's wetdream agenda, often capitulating policy before negotiations ever begin. Go to Firedoglake and see if you can find anyone in agreement with anything he's done.

But what I also see is an intractable opposition who'll abandon positions they've always held for the sake of trying to thwart any type of movement away from stagnation just for the sake of politics even when it harms more than it could ever help.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-05 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#25

Good answer.

Now I'll explain why I said I was trying to help you.

Fairly or not, you are often perceived as a blind Obamabot.

A post like #25 improves your credibility, which is what I was hoping to accomplish.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fairly or not, you are often perceived as a blind Obamabot.

Anyone wanting to question my "credibility" need only click on my name and read my posts devoid of the flotsam of many imbeciles who's rantings surround them. I don't post on every subject and certainly not on every thread critical of Obama for whatever reason.

If we could, I would love to go back to 2007 and repost what I thought and said about Obama before he became the nominee and candidate. I also posted a thread about him from one of his law school classmates from Harvard that was written on Townhall. Obama's never been a wide-eyed liberal trying to transform the world. He's always been a pragmatist fully aware and cognizant of his limitations and fully aware of his opponents and their capabilities, strengths and weaknesses.

He's far from perfect and obviously flawed as all humans are. I wouldn't want his job for all the tea in China nor would I wish it upon my worst enemy.

#27 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-05 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

No, Tony, no! This only works if we all agree that Obama promised to be the Most Liberal President in History, nay even the Most Liberal Person in History.

Only then can people in both fringes be hysterical about how disappointed they are in him.

#28 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-05 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

When will Obama apologize for being a secret Muslim and stealing all our guns and bibles and "taking" all the white women?

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-05 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29

After he takes off his mask and reveals he's really the Queen of England.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-06-05 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29 yea it's becomming more clear by the day, Obama is a Muslim AND an enemy bent on destruction of the USA and Israel. He couldn't have been more effective in that if he had wanted to. Pretty clear where his allegiances are (ie: Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Al Qaeda).

Oh and Michael Obama is a man too. Her index finger is shorter than her ring finger. That's a male attribute used to identify male/female skeletons that's as effective as the difference in the pelvis. It means like the fake birth certificate their so-called parenthood is fake too (adoptions).

#31 | Posted by xyzpdq at 2014-06-05 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pretty sure if there is a Michael Obama, it is a man.

#32 | Posted by kersh at 2014-06-06 12:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

regardless of how much evidence that he was a deserter is presented.
#2 | POSTED BY SULLY

Without him present to give his side to a real investigation.

Any semblance of fair-mindedness by some has been thrown out the window.

Their ODS is too strong.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

When will Obama apologize for being a secret Muslim and stealing all our guns and bibles and "taking" all the white women?

#29 | Posted by donnerboy

When he watches the evening News next time.

#34 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-06 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Without him present to give his side to a real investigation.

Any semblance of fair-mindedness by some has been thrown out the window."

Its been known that he walked off the base for years.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

- walked off the base for years.

Is not necessarily a criminal offence, nor worthy of dismissing 5 years as a POW in which he tried to escape. Until the GOP media consultants got involved, the military had pretty much decided that time served would more than cover any problem with his being off base.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Is not necessarily a criminal offence"

Its a really bad thing to do during a war. I don't care if the scumbag thing he did is legal or not. He's a scumbag for doing it.

"nor worthy of dismissing 5 years as a POW"

I don't understanding your burning need to give him "credit" for being held as a captive when he's the one who is directly responsible for the situation. This was an extremely likely outcome of his walking off base and he knew that before he did it.

You know who I admire more than him? Everyone who was over there who didn't go out of their way to get captured.

"Until the GOP media consultants got involved, the military had pretty much decided that time served would more than cover any problem with his being off base."

That's fine. I don't care if he goes to jail. Let's just be honest about what he did and what he is and what he is not. He's not a hero. He did not serve with honor and distinction. If you want to make a case that the deal should have been done anyway, fine.

Is "stop lying" too much to ask for from your crowd?

#37 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-06 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is not necessarily a criminal offence, nor worthy of dismissing 5 years as a POW in which he tried to escape. Until the GOP media consultants got involved, the military had pretty much decided that time served would more than cover any problem with his being off base.

#36 | Posted by Corky

It's not necessarily honorable, as in discharge.

#38 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-06 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

-He's a scumbag for doing it.

lol, this guy punched out several insurgents who were trying to recapture him, which is more than you have ever done.

-He did not serve with honor and distinction.

As the military is much more familiar with the circumstances and felt like 5 years as a POW was more than enough time served for whatever offence he might have possibly committed... I'm going to say your opinion is pretty much like something else everyone has.

"stop lying"

I am not the one lying about him being a "deserter", which is a legal term in the military where, among other things, there must be proof that he had no intent of ever returning, which is a tough standard to prove.

So, it is you who is lying here.

Is "stop lying" too much to ask for from your crowd?

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh and Michael Obama is a man too. Her index finger is shorter than her ring finger. That's a male attribute used to identify male/female skeletons that's as effective as the difference in the pelvis. It means like the fake birth certificate their so-called parenthood is fake too (adoptions).

#31 | POSTED BY XYZPDQ AT 2014-06-05 10:58 PM | FLAG: SO FULL OF IT YOU STINK

You vapid nitwit. I cannot believe you would say something that stupid. You are quoting a generalization loosely based on possibility but far from an absolute truth. A lot of women have the longer ring finger and the current theory is that it has to do with the developing female fetus being exposed to testosterone. It can happen if the mother is under stress or if the daughter is born third or fourth in line with older male siblings immediately preceding her. It may be male hormones that determine the length but not maleness. There are plenty of womanly women that that characteristic.

Since you are up on length Michel's ring finger you might be interested to know that statistically speaking she fits the current archetype of women with long ring fingers in that she is tall, athletic, successful and married to the leader of the free world.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Lemme see... what have you done with your loooonnngggg manly ring finger except attempt to give yourself a lobotomy via a nostril whilst stopped at red lights? Probably nothing as significant as what Michel Obama has accomplished.

So what does your ring finger determine about you? That you will come into a public forum and spout off junk science in a weak effort to bolster the cesspool of nonsense adhered to by the fellow ring finger challenged who would buy into your dribble?

That sounds about right.

In closing I give to you a glimpse of my longest finger... guess which one it is...

#40 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-06-06 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"lol, this guy punched out several insurgents who were trying to recapture him, which is more than you have ever done."

He also endangered the lives of dozens, if not hundreds, of people - which is dumber and more selfish than anything even you have ever done.

"As the military is much more familiar with the circumstances and felt like 5 years as a POW was more than enough time served for whatever offence he might have possibly committed... "

I already said I don't care if they punish him or not. And why are you pretending this is any way addresses the point of whether he served with honor and distinction? Sometimes your responses to specific comments are so nonsensical that you remind me of those old dolls that spout random comments when you pull the string.

"I am not the one lying about him being a "deserter", which is a legal term in the military where, among other things, there must be proof that he had no intent of ever returning, which is a tough standard to prove."

I'm not interested in technicalities. I'm a real person, not some party hack with an agenda. In reality, he deserted his post and endangered others.

Ever time you clowns claim he served with honor and distinction you are knowingly telling a lie.

#41 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-06 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

the military had pretty much decided that time served would more than cover any problem with his being off base.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 10:15 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

His fellow soldiers spoke out long ago and they have every right to speak out now. Maybe they feel he should be punished just like any other soldier instead of being treated like he served with honor and distinction just b/c he got captured (which is his own fault)and traded for high ranking Taliban.

#42 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

-He also endangered the lives of dozens, if not hundreds, of people - which is dumber and more selfish than anything even you have ever done.

Another myth. You just keep repeating thee same lies.

Can Bowe Bergdahl Be Tied to 6 Lost Lives? Facts Are Murky

www.nytimes.com

-whether he served with honor and distinction?

He did so for 5 years as a POW. Why do you continue to lie about that?

-I'm not interested in technicalities.

translated: "I'm not interested in facts."

Yeah, it's obvious that words have no meaning for you.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sully, at best Bergdahl is guilty of dereliction of duty and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt. He willingly left his post and the definition of dereliction is very specific. It doesn't matter if you needed to clear your head or if you wanted to take a walk. You can't leave your post. So that alone shows he didn't serve with honor or distinction. After a investigation if he didn't aid the enemy which some of his fellow soldiers think he has I feel five years in the hands of the Taliban is probably enough as far as jail time but, by leaving should probably at best be dishcarged if not dishonorably discharged. I think he's a deserter b/c of the combination of his emails prior to leaving and the fact that he made to a village 2 miles away shows he had no real intention of coming back. With all of that said his platoon leader Beutow says he heard radio and cell chatter that there was a American looking for someone who spoke english so he could find the Taliban. If that's true we have a whole lot more here than dereliction of duty.

#44 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

"He did so for 5 years as a POW. Why do you continue to lie about that?"

You don't know what he did for those five years.

#45 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

You don't know what he did for those five years.

#45 | POSTED BY DALTON AT 2014-06-06 10:57 AM | FLAG:

Indeed. It was clear he played badmitton with his "hosts". It was Club Med Afghan Style.

The metal cage... think of it as a relaxation sauna.

#46 | Posted by 726 at 2014-06-06 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

#45

I know he risked his life when he tried to escape and after 3 days of hiding with no food or water, he put up a good fight against several of his captors, according to them.

Which is more than I can imagine you and your ilk doing.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Another myth. You just keep repeating thee same lies."

No, you're lying here. I didn't say those six deaths were linked to him. I said he endangered lives. 100% true. You knew this before you posted, liar.

"He did so for 5 years as a POW. Why do you continue to lie about that?"

This is nonsensical blather that you seem to think is some kind of actual point. No matter how many times you vomit this forward, it doesn't mean anything to sensible people.

"translated: "I'm not interested in facts.""

No, it means what I said it means. I'm interested in what he did and how it could affected others. I'm not interested in legal technicalities. You're obsessed with technicalities because you can't defend this dirtbag from a right/wrong standpoint.


#48 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-06 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

- I said he endangered lives. 100% true.

Citation necessary.

You don't know for a fact that any lives were endangered in the time he was gone.

-nonsensical blather

Perhaps to someone moronic enough to think that being a POW is not being still being in the service... and in his case doing so with distinction.

- I'm not interested in legal technicalities.

No, you are interested in lying about him being a "deserter", when that is an opinion, not a fact.

I should be getting paid for all the schooling you are getting here.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

#44 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. When I say he deserted its because we all know damn well that he walked off base with the intention of deserting. That he managed to get captures so quickly as to technically absolve him of that charge doesn't change what he really is.

#50 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

-we all know damn well that he walked off base with the intention of deserting.

Dr. Frist Psychics who can read a person's "intentions" thousands of mile away, lmao!

Desertion, according to military lawyers, is extremely difficult to prove in court because they must prove the intent not to ever return.

Of course, that isn't necessary in a public lynching where ignorant opinions hold sway.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Citation necessary."

Nope. Walking off the base knowing full well people will have to look for you is endangering lives. That you would even try to deny this proves what a sorry shill you've become.

"Perhaps to someone moronic enough to think that being a POW is not being still being in the service... and in his case doing so with distinction."

He left base knowing he would likely to be captured and he was captured. He chose captivity over serving. That you would try to forward this as some kind of honorable service again proves what an empty shill you are.

"No, you are interested in lying about him being a "deserter", when that is an opinion, not a fact."

We all know what he is. And now we know what you are: A hollow shill.

#52 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

-is endangering lives.

Yeah? How many lives did he endanger? 1? A dozen or maybe 100's as you said?

You have no idea that any lives were endangered at all. You don't know if he was on guard duty, for how long or when or if there were other guards.

You are just making this crap up as you go along.

-knowing he would likely to be captured

Still reading minds, I see.

-He chose captivity over serving.

What a ludicrous assertion. Although I'm losing count there are so many.

-We all know what he is.

"everyone knows" is among the most blatantly juvenile mindsets and poorest excuses for an argument ever invented.

- A hollow shill.

Says the ODS sufferer.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. When I say he deserted its because we all know damn well that he walked off base with the intention of deserting. That he managed to get captures so quickly as to technically absolve him of that charge doesn't change what he really is.

#50 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag

I agree that he is a deserter. It defies logic to think he walked to a village 2 miles away and asked if anyone spoke english and he wanted to talk to the taliban is planning on coming back. I was just pointing out the best case scenario of dereliction of duty to show that even if that's all it is the administration lied once again claiming he served with honor and distinction.

#54 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You have no idea that any lives were endangered at all. You don't know if he was on guard duty, for how long or when or if there were other guards."

It doesn't matter if he was on guard duty. He knew that people would be sent to look for him. And he knew those people would run the risk of being shot and killed while looking for him.

This was previously explained. You're just out of talking points I guess.

#55 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nobody is stupid enough to believe that the disappearance of a soldier from a remote outpost in Indian country doesn't endanger the lives of his fellow soldiers in the remote combat outpost. Those same nobodies also can't possibly be dumb enough to not realize that resources are then reallocated and missions scrubbed so that they can be refocused on finding some selfish scumbag that has now further jeopardized their well being by putting them unnecessarily in harms way to look for him.

"I've got enough soldiers here at this remote outpost in a war zone" said nobody, ever.

When you have to go so far out of your way to play stupid by pretending he didn't jeopardize the safety and well being of others, you should stop and realize you're doing so in the mistaken belief that you are protecting your team.

#56 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-06 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Beutow his platoon leader said last night that they went from "hearts and mind" missions to the local villages to help the locals to chasing intelligence trying to find the Taliban through radio chatter. Which obviously is going to make the missions much more dangerous. Also, the Army admits that once they determined Bergdahl simply walked off his post they relocated assets they had sent to the area to find him.

#57 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

-This was previously explained.

also #56 |

Yeah, like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about.

www.nytimes.com

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Two soldiers died during the most intense period of the search after Sergeant Bergdahl's June 30 disappearance. Both were inside an outpost that came under attack, not out patrolling and running checkpoints looking for him. The other six soldiers died in late August and early September."

among other facts in the linked article that make assigning all these deaths to the search ridiculous.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why would you even bother with that? Are you mentally ill? You've posted this already and have already been told that it doesn't relate to what we're talking about.

Nobody is talking about these six deceased soldiers or any other deceased soldier specifically.

Walking off your post in a warzone is a selfish move that endangers lives - regardless of whether anyone actually died looking for Bergdahl. This is a fact. You can pretend to be posting links that distpute this all day and it will still remain a fact.

#60 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

among other facts in the linked article that make assigning all these deaths to the search ridiculous.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's not what we're talking about. You know that. You're a pathetic liar and shill.

#61 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

-He knew that people would be sent to look for him. And he knew those people would run the risk of being shot and killed while looking for him.

Of course you are talking about that. Do you even read what you write?

The denial is as strong as the psychic abilities in this one.

The article, which you still have apparently not read, disputes the idea that more soldiers were endangered.

If anything, it points out there were more soldiers provided for what were standard patrols, making them safer than before.

By a clue if you afford one.

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Good. I hope he continues to double-down on this. In doing so, he and his party will get exactly what they deserve."

Frank Luntz might disagree with you on this, JEFF J. Or at least his Twitter account does:

mobile.twitter.com

"Pro Tip: Attacking the actions that led to the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is a surefire way to lose in 2014."

#63 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-06-06 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The article, which you still have apparently not read, disputes the idea that more soldiers were endangered."

Beyond any doubt, he endangered lives. If you found a link to someone claiming otherwise, that person is simply wrong.

#64 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#64

lol, like I said, afraid to expose himself to what other people think... people who know a lot more of the facts than he does.

That's what happens when you believe your opinions are facts.

You also get to make up your own definitions for words... like "deserter", so it's a win-win for the close-minded.

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

But on Friday, Rice and her colleagues circled the wagons.

"I realize there has been lots of discussion and controversy around this," Rice told CNN. "But what I was referring to was the fact that this was a young man who volunteered to serve his country in uniform at a time of war. That, in and of itself, is a very honorable thing."

Looks like Rice is backing off of her comments about Bergdahl serving with honor and distinction. Now signing up is a very honorable thing but, much different than serving with honor and distinction.

#66 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like Rice is backing off of her comments about Bergdahl serving with honor and distinction. Now signing up is a very honorable thing but, much different than serving with honor and distinction.

#66 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 01:16 PM

This is an argument you've lost. You lost because you're trying too hard, and because you're bloody-minded.

Reminds me of the scene from the recent movie "Pompeii". A Roman Senator threatens to denounce someone for describing Titus as the "new" Emperor.

Seems that "new" implies incompetence, from a certain nasty point of view, and is therefore a hanging offense when uttered.

#67 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-06 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like Rice is backing off of her comments about Bergdahl serving with honor and distinction. Now signing up is a very honorable thing but, much different than serving with honor and distinction.

#66 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because unlike someone who is posting anonymously on a blog, Rice has to maintain credibility. That means no making clearly idiotic comments and no spitting in the faces of every soldier who does their job by complimenting Bergdahl. She can't just keep doubling down on ridiculousness like certain other people....

#68 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

After he takes off his mask and reveals he's really the corpse of Karl Marx.
#30 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

FTFY!

#69 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-06 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zed is Susan Rice a nasty person for back tracking on "Bergdahl served with honor and distinction" to "signing up is honorable'?

#70 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sully, it's hilarious that some here have emotionally invested so much to defend obvious false statements like "served with honor and distinction" to have their idols back track on them. Now they have dug so deep they will just keep on diggging now. I don't know if it's pride or stupidity but, it's entertaining.

#71 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Face it Zed. Rice has had to admit that Bergdahl didn't serve with honor and distinction. Merely that signing up is honorable.

#72 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

DALTON -

Rice jumped the shark. What else should be expected?

#73 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-06 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#71 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

When the story first broke, alot people here and elsewhere were saying that Bergdahl being a good soldier or deserter or anything in between should have no effect on the decision to try to recover him.

This is going to end up being the administration's official position on this. Bergdahl can't be reasonably portrayed as a good soldier but this other argument does make sense.

I don't know why the Obama defenders didn't just stick with this position - which is what they will be going back to next week after the Obama admin admits Bergdahl's behavior was very wrong at times.

It is like the apologists are going out of their way to be wrong. They've latched onto Rice's statement without realizing that Rice was never totally comitted to it.

Its annoying that they do this but if you take a step back its also kind of interesting to watch.

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-06 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never get tired of watching Sully curb stomp Corky. I hope this can go on for another hundred posts.

#75 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-06-06 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

why should he...this LIAR never is accountable for anything and all he has to say is ...I just saw it on the news and YOU PEOPLE here and the other zealots just go on and say...OH WELL never mind then

OR you're like the senile FORMER texan bob schiefer who COVERS FOR OBAMA when he said in interview..."well I'm not so sure he was briefed about it"....

what a total bucket of....of ...bucket of...nonsense..

I wonder where the name thing is from HARRY that said something about the buck stopping?

#76 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-06 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't know why the Obama defenders didn't just stick with this position -"

The defenders are only doing what they do after Obama stuck out his political neck. The smart thing for him to have done was take the heat for releasing the members of the Taliban. In typical Obama fashion he had to make it political b/c he was afraid of the blow back from the American people when it came out that he released highly ranked members of the Taliban that we have been fighting since 2001 with at best flimsy checks and balances. He knew once everyone found out these guys were free to roam the country and communicate with the Taliban in Afghanistan people would be questioning him. He thought he could get a distraction and political victory lap out of Berndahl and his family not thinking other soldiers would speak out about being pissed that a deserter got a heros welcome. Rice was just trying to sell the narrative on the Sunday shows by claiming he served with honor and distinction.

#77 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

AND THE STORY continues to say...lets put it this way...'in flux'.

NEW YORK TIMES NOW SAYS he HAD to do it RIGHT NOW or they were going to kill him......

soooooooooooo I guess they JUST found out....

#78 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-06 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rice jumped the shark. What else should be expected?

#73 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-06 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag

I know. What is amazing is how many here continue to jump with them but, can never admit it.

#79 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-06 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

A lot mythinformation mindlessly parroted around here.

www.drudge.com

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#75

Libertarians are the most boring people in the world.

#81 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A lot mythinformation mindlessly parroted around here.
www.drudge.com
#80 | POSTED BY CORKY A"

Lot of mythinformation then links to his own comments.
Intentional or otherwise, you gotta admit it is funny.

#82 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-06 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

A lot mythinformation mindlessly parroted around here.

www.drudge.com

Don't be so hard on yourself, Corky. Sometimes you do a ton of research and still parrot mythinformation.

#83 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-06-06 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#80 | Posted by Corky

Lol, Corky. I assume you were aiming for this?

Unless you were being intentionally self-deprecating? If so, you may have misjudged your audience.

#84 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-06-06 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Egotists never apologize - it's a given.

#85 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-06 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama: 'No Apologies' for Bergdahl Release

Christ almighty.....LOL. What is the deal with this Obama guy?

Alexander Bolton of The Hill reports that the administration has now apologized to congressional leaders for failing to inform them in advance of the deal to release five senior Taliban leaders in exchange for capture US soldier Bowe Bergdahl. But the members of Congress – including liberal Democrats such as Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein are not satisfied. And for good reason:

The Obama administration has apologized for bypassing Congress before it released senior Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay as part of a controversial prisoner exchange.

The expression of regret was a major shift for the White House, which had previously offered a defiant defense on why it could not adhere to the notification provisions of a 2013 law.

volokh

www.washingtonpost.com

Bold is for Roma, what a tool.

rwd

#86 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-06-06 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bold is for Roma, what a tool.

rwd

This bold is for you, a moron.

Obama: 'No Apologies' for Bergdahl Release

He was't referring to the manner in which the decision was made, he was speaking about the principle of leaving any soldier behind as a captive of the battlefield enemy.

Even my gerbil could understand the difference.

#87 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-07 07:08 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Why would Obama apologize? The Freed Taliban Commander Tells Relative He'll Fight Americans Again .. now neither of them has any regrets and they would both do it again.

Birds of a feather.

#88 | Posted by LouisS at 2014-06-07 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Even my gerbil could understand the difference.

#87 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2014-06-07 07:08 AM | FLAG: and we know the lefties know a lot about gerbils ;)

#90 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-07 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wingnuttery is awesome. How many "Scandals" and hysterical predictions of doom and gloom has this President withstood? It's not serious, of course, and will end up being yet another right wing -----------. They'll love it while they are pumping away, of course, and afterward they'll think it meant something. But in the real world, life ... and the Obama Presidency ... will go on as it has over the entirety of this President's term.

#91 | Posted by midiman at 2014-06-07 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort