Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, June 07, 2014

Rolling Stone: The return of U.S. prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Guantanamo-held Taliban of varying importance has become the most important foreign policy story in the country this week. As a result, there has been a lot of great reporting on what the swap does and doesn't mean, how it happened, and how it could affect the war in the future. Unfortunately, there has also been a lot of reporting that is either sensationalistic, simplistic or straight-up inaccurate.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

In trying to grapple with how the U.S. conducts matters of war, peace, and international law enforcement, it's important to separate fact from fiction. Below are four examples of things everybody seems to know, which just happened to be either incorrect or far from certain.

MYTH: This sets a dangerous precedent that the U.S. will negotiate with terrorists

MYTH: These five Taliban are the hardest of the hardcore

MYTH: Six to eight U.S. soldiers died looking for Bergdahl

MYTH: The swap shows Obama's willful disregard for the law and his embracing of an imperial presidency

Comments

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

A lot mythinformation mindlessly parroted around here.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Is it a myth that B. Hussein spiked the football in the Rose Garden?

Or that Rice jumped the shark (undoubtedly ordered by B. Hussein)?

#2 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-06 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

MYTH: Rolling Stone is worth reading.

#3 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-06-06 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Rolling Stone has the credibility of the Weekly World News.

"The return of U.S. prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl"

Bowe Bergdahl was no more a prisoner of war than were the young women held hostage by Ariel Castro. He was a hostage. Maybe a kidnap victim.

But he was not a Prisoner of War. Making that claim implies that the Taliban are acting in line with the Geneva Conventions, which they aren't. Had he been a prisoner of war, the Taliban would have been obligated to provide him with certain rights. They didn't.

Nor were the Gitmo detainees prisoners of war, as being entitled to POW status carries responsibilities thatthe Taliban don't recognize. Legally, they're just criminals. With no right to repatriation at the cessation of the conflict. The US could, quite easily, charge the Taliban with violation of US laws, and lock them away for it forever. If it is shown that they killed, the penalties could be even more severe.

#4 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-06-06 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Bowe Bergdahl was no more a prisoner of war than were the young women held hostage by Ariel Castro. He was a hostage. Maybe a kidnap victim.

Pentagon had him listed as a "Missing-Captured" since they stopped using the POW designation in 2000. They never once referred to him as a POW. But don't tell that to CORKY or RCADE, they prefer the laymen use of POW even though it's not officially warranted.

But he was not a Prisoner of War. Making that claim implies that the Taliban are acting in line with the Geneva Conventions, which they aren't. Had he been a prisoner of war, the Taliban would have been obligated to provide him with certain rights. They didn't.

A very good point.

Nor were the Gitmo detainees prisoners of war, as being entitled to POW status carries responsibilities thatthe Taliban don't recognize. Legally, they're just criminals.

No, legally they were designated "Enemy Combatants" and then if charged and convicted of a crime, they were then considered criminals. The five Taliban traded for Bergdahl were being held without evidence of them committing a crime. Only being part of the "war." Now that the "war" is over (drawing down?), they could no longer hold those detainees that they could not charge with a crime. And since the Taliban is not considered terrorist, the five Taliban traded for Bergdahl would have seen their freedom within the year anyways. It was a win, and an even bigger win considering we got the trade done without giving up money (they were originally asking for millions!) or weapons.

The US could, quite easily, charge the Taliban with violation of US laws, and lock them away for it forever.
#4 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

For what? They didn't commit any crimes on U.S. soil. Those that they attacked were on Afghani soil, who were attacking them. Be cognizant of who attacked the U.S. and who attacked the Taliban.

If they could have been charged with a crime, they would have been. B. Hussein Obama's justice department has been sorting through the detainees at Gitmo to determine who they can charge and who they can't. The five traded were five that could not be charged. They would have been let free anyways. The trade was a win. Granted, B. Hussein didn't have to spike the football in the rose garden.

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-06 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Legally, they're just criminals. With no right to repatriation at the cessation of the conflict. The US could, quite easily, charge the Taliban with violation of US laws, and lock them away for it forever.

Incorrect.

the U.S. would not be able to hold them forever. Indeed, it is likely that the U.S. would be required, as a matter of international law, to release them shortly after the end of 2014, when U.S. combat operations cease in Afghanistan.
...
Moreover, the Taliban leaders' backgrounds demonstrate that it would have been legally difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute them in federal courts -- as many human rights groups have urged -- because U.S. criminal statutes did not apply to their activities in Afghanistan and because the U.S. military had not collected evidence about them that would have been admissible in federal court. And, if the Taliban had actually been treated as POWs under the Geneva Conventions (for which there has always been a good argument), they would have had to be prosecuted in a military court, not a civilian court, pursuant to Article 102 of the Third Geneva Convention.
www.lawfareblog.com

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-06 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

"Making that claim implies that the Taliban are acting in line with the Geneva Conventions, which they aren't."

Are you claiming that we were acting in line with the Geneva Conventions?

#7 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-06 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Rolling Stone has the credibility of the Weekly World News.
#4 | Posted by madbomber

Your assessment of journalistic integrity is laughable.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-06 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The US could, quite easily, charge the Taliban with violation of US laws, and lock them away for it forever.
#4 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

And is that the America you favor, where people can be locked away forever simply upon being charged with a crime?

One wonders why you wear the uniform.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-06 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"For what?"

Murder. Assault. Jaywalking.

it really doesn't matter. the distinction between a Prisoner of War (POW) and other detainees is that the Geneva Conventions lays out the roles and responsibilities of the POW and the detaining organization. The Taliban didn't adhere to the GC while conducting operations against US forces. That leaves them in violation of the GC, which means that any organization who detains a member of the Taliban has no obligation to regard them as a POW or extend to them the privileges of a POW. There is no expectation that any member of the Taliban should ever be repatriated.

"Incorrect."

To say this is incorrect would be to imply that the Taliban were operating in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and would therefor qualify as prisoners of war. I'm not aware that the Taliban ever made any attempt to follow the Geneva Conventions, which would suggest to me that they would be subject to penalties regarding violations. A Taliban fighter injured while attacking US forces would not be a POW unless he was following the GC requirements for an armed combatant-wearing a recognize bale uniform or symbol, carrying arms openly, following a designated chain of command. If they did not doe these things, they could be denied POW privileges and tried as a criminal.

"Your assessment of journalistic integrity is laughable."

What's your take on the author's claim of Bergdahl being a POW?

"And is that the America you favor, where people can be locked away forever simply upon being charged with a crime?"

Not locked away. Charged. It's up to the courts to determine guilt.

Realistically, I think that most Taliban fighters would be set free. They didn't follow the GC, but their cavemen. They've never heard of it. And they were representative of a government, sort of.

Al Quaeda and the foreign fighters though, they don't have that luxury. Most of the AQ fighters are the Islamic Bill Ayers. Spoiled rich kids obsessed with a cause.

#10 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-06-06 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

A Taliban fighter injured while attacking US forces would not be a POW unless he was following the GC requirements for an armed combatant-wearing a recognize bale uniform or symbol, carrying arms openly, following a designated chain of command.

What if he wasn't attacking but exercising his inherent right of self-defense?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-06 10:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Your assessment of journalistic integrity is laughable."

What's your take on the author's claim of Bergdahl being a POW?

My take is he's writing as a writer, not a lawyer.

What's yours?

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-06 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

To say this is incorrect would be to imply that the Taliban were operating in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and would therefor qualify as prisoners of war.

Irrespective of Taliban compliance with the Genevan Conventions it is beyond question that the US is bound by those conventions. The POW label has been consciously and intentionally avoided when referring to Guantanamo detainees.

All that said, what legal authority exists to detain those persons from Afghanistan after the end of hostilities?

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-06 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

-But don't tell that to CORKY or RCADE, they prefer the laymen use of POW even though it's not officially warranted.

You might want to point out that the same is true for the people who call him a, "deserter", which is also a layman use of the term.

He's not a deserter until proven so in a military court, and that's not easy to do.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-06 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Myth: Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter.

"Desertion can be difficult to prove, said Ret. Maj. Gen. John Altenburg Jr., a Washington attorney who served 28 years as a lawyer in the Army.

'There has to be some evidence that he intended never to come back - that he intended to remain away from his unit permanently,' Altenburg said.

'I don't know if they'll charge him with anything. It will depend on the circumstances of his return and what he has to say.'

Mary Schantag, chairman of the P.O.W. Network, an educational nonprofit group founded in 1989, said it's futile to speculate.

'He is an American soldier in enemy hands. Period. Bring him home,' she said.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and former Marine who served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, agreed.

'It's hard to imagine any circumstance where his captivity won't be viewed as time served,' said Hunter, R-Calif."

www.dailymail.co.uk

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-07 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Myth: There was no urgent need to move without waiting for 30 days for Congress.

Behind P.O.W.'s Release: Urgency and Opportunity
Concern for Health of Bowe Bergdahl Drove Prisoner Exchange

www.nytimes.com

Myth: Bowe Bergdahl definitely intended to desert and left behind a letter.

www.nytimes.com

Myth: Bowe Bergdahl did not serve with honor and distinction as a POW for 5 years.

"The militants miscalculated. Bergdahl took advantage of the lax conditions and ran.

Mullah Sangin and his brother Mullah Balal, who had been put in charge of the prisoner, organized a search as soon as the escape was discovered. Nevertheless, the sources say, Bergdahl successfully avoided capture for three days and two nights.

The searchers finally found him, weak, exhausted, and nearly naked -- he had spent three days without food or water -- hiding in a shallow trench he had dug with his own hands and covered with leaves.

Even then, he put up a ferocious fight. The two gunmen who found him first were unable to subdue him.

"He fought like a boxer," Hanif was told. It took five more militants to overpower him. Now back in custody, he is kept shackled at night, and his jailers are taking no chances. They constantly move him from place to place, hoping to elude any U.S. efforts to find him, Hanif says. Another Afghan source says the American's captors shuttle him back and forth across the border."

www.thedailybeast.com

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-07 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

btw, JOHN KNEFEL writes for The Nation, Salon, Alternet, Truth -Out... dissing Rolling Stone as the article source is stupid.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-07 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

That leaves them in violation of the GC, which means that any organization who detains a member of the Taliban has no obligation to regard them as a POW or extend to them the privileges of a POW. There is no expectation that any member of the Taliban should ever be repatriated.

Wow.

Just. Wow.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-07 12:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Had he been a prisoner of war, the Taliban would have been obligated to provide him with certain rights. They didn't.
#4 | Posted by madbomber

I guess John McCain wasn't a prisoner of war, since his captors didn't provide him with certain rights. Derp!

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-07 04:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

SAVING SERGEANT BERGDAHL: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
BY JOHN CASSIDY

"Does this e-mail prove that Bergdahl was a deserter or even, as some right-wing commentators are suggesting, a traitor who aided and abetted the Taliban?

No, it doesn't. If anything, he sounds more like Captain Yossarian, the antic antihero of Joseph Heller's "Catch 22" -- who considers his superiors to be nuts and eventually goes AWOL -- than Sergeant Brody, the double-dealing protagonist of "Homeland."

In his early twenties, engaged in a war on the other side of the world that many people, including his Commander-in-Chief, would ultimately decide was counterproductive, Bergdahl, seemingly, had had enough.

And that, for now, is about all we know.

"As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we'll learn the facts," General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a statement on Tuesday. "Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty."

www.newyorker.com

short article, very informative

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-07 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Myth: Reagan didn't negotiate with terrorists

#21 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-06-07 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Myth: There was no urgent need to move without waiting for 30 days for Congress.
Behind P.O.W.'s Release: Urgency and Opportunity

-- CORKY

Tell that to Feinstein!

No Evidence of ‘Credible Threat' to Bergdahl: Feinstein

The Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman said she's not convinced there was a "credible threat" against the life of freed Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl that motivated the White House to keep its plans secret.

"I don't think there was a credible threat," U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein said in an interview yesterday for Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" airing this weekend. "I have no information that there was."

Senators were told at a June 4 classified briefing that President Barack Obama's administration had received indications that Bergdahl's life could be jeopardized if the detainee exchange proceedings were disclosed or derailed, according to a government official who sought anonymity.

Feinstein, a California Democrat, is among lawmakers who criticized the administration's decision not to adhere to a law requiring 30 days' notice to Congress before releasing detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba.

www.bloomberg.com

#22 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-07 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Myth: Reagan didn't negotiate with terrorists
#21 | POSTED BY DREWINNJ

Yup:

It's hard to place exactly when "We don't negotiate with terrorists" entered the political lexicon. It's pretty clear that it was Ronald Reagan who first said it, maybe during the 1980 campaign, maybe later. What matters is that it was rank hypocrisy from the moment it flew out of his mouth. His transition team negotiated the Iranian hostages' release behind Jimmy Carter's back. That was certainly negotiating with terrorists. And what was the Iran-Contra affair? The overture was made to Iran (a terrorist state in American eyes, then and now) in the first instance in an effort to free some American hostages being held in Lebanon. The president who didn't negotiate with terrorists negotiated a deal that gave the terrorism-sponsoring state more than 2,000 anti-tank missiles, maintaining in his mind the fiction that he hadn't negotiated with terrorists through the belief that his people were dealing only with Iranian "moderates." What these "moderates" were going to do with 2,000 anti-tank missiles except give them to the non-moderate, terrorism-sponsoring regime then engaged in a war with Iraq is one of the puzzles of the Reagan mind, but let's press on...

www.thedailybeast.com


And there's this:
Though staunchly opposed by Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the plan was authorized by Reagan, who stated that, "We were not trading arms for hostages, nor were we negotiating with terrorists".[40] Now retired National Security Advisor McFarlane flew to London to meet with Israelis and Ghorbanifar in an attempt to persuade the Iranian to use his influence to release the hostages before any arms transactions occurred; this plan was rejected by Ghorbanifar.[39]

On the day of McFarlane's resignation, Oliver North, a military aide to the United States National Security Council (NSC), proposed a new plan for selling arms to Iran, which included two major adjustments: instead of selling arms through Israel, the sale was to be direct, and a portion of the proceeds would go to Contras, or Nicaraguan paramilitary fighters waging guerrilla warfare against the democratically-elected Sandinista government, at a markup.

en.wikipedia.org


Not only was he negotiating with terrorists, he was supporting terrorists.

#23 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-07 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Reagan admitted that they negotiated with terrorists:

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind."[63]
en.wikipedia.org

#24 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-07 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#24...as you most eloquently put it..wasn't only the arms for hostages deal, it was funneling money to the "freedom fighters / contras" who killed a lot of innocents. but hey, it's St. Ronnie..

#25 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-06-07 08:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

thump your "impeach" chest girls. bring it...lots of blather...less on the balls department. Wouldn't expect anything less from any of you....

can read you like cheap novel..low information indeed

#26 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-06-07 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Croky, you're working overtime to get out the propaganda aren't you.

#27 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-06-07 11:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Myth # 5:

Fox is news.

#28 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2014-06-08 12:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Myth #6 Alexandrite knows what new is! After all she watches MSNBC, CNN, and all the other liberal clap trap.

#29 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-06-08 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

and all the other liberal clap trap.
#29 | POSTED BY MCMLCXX

Which includes what?

#30 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-08 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the GOP co-ordinates with FauxNews and they find some GIs in Bergdahl's Unit willing to trash him and by inference and more importantly trash Obama. Immediately all loyal conservative Rethugs around the country and on this site swallow the stories and repeat them as loudly as possible. They don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, but Obama is a Dictator. LOL, what a bunch of morons.

#31 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-08 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

MYTH: Bergdahl was the misfit coward in his unit

Bergdahl Was in Unit Known for Its Troubles

The platoon was, an American military official would assert years later, "raggedy."

To many of those soldiers, Sergeant Bergdahl was viewed as standoffish or eccentric, smoking a pipe instead of spitting tobacco, as so many soldiers do, and reading voraciously when others napped or watched videos.

But he was not isolated from his platoon mates, some said. And while he was, like other soldiers in the platoon, often disappointed or confused by their mission in Paktika, some of his peers also said that Sergeant Bergdahl seemed enthusiastic about fighting, particularly after the platoon was ambushed several weeks before his disappearance.

"He'd complain about not being able to go on the offensive, and being attacked and not being able to return fire," said Gerald Sutton, who knew Sergeant Bergdahl from spending time together on their tiny outpost, Observation Post Mest Malak, near the village of Yahya Khel, about 50 miles west of the Pakistani border.

Mr. Sutton said he had struggled to square the popular portrayal of Sergeant Bergdahl as brooding and disenchanted with the soldier he knew.

"He wanted to take the fight to the enemy and do the mission of the infantry," he said, adding, "He was a good soldier, and whenever he was told to do something, he would do it."

www.nytimes.com

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-08 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Freedom and Democracy is America's greatest myth:

The majority of Europeans and North Americans appear to be thoroughly apathetic towards the state of the world. They keep stuffing themselves on cheap subsidized food and amusing themselves with the latest gadgets. They keep voting in those right-wing governments and they believe, increasingly and blindly, that their societies are an inspiration to the rest of the world as the sole examples of democracy and freedom.

We certainly know that our country was founded on genocide and built on slavery. The recognition of these facts should make us humble. Yet we boast. Our official narrative is to proclaim the exceptionalism of our birth as a nation, the gift to the world of our selfless, humanitarian democracy, fully armed to fight for right everywhere. An idea before which humanity should stand in awe. Never mind how we act, see the Idea. Worship the Idea. Bow to the Idea. Beyond the Idea, however lurks the act, the perpetuation of our unexamined virgin birth in violence.

The rebel's weapon is the proof of his humanity. That is the tragic truth that we will come to know, if history has anything to say about it. Unless we step in and stop the madness. (Luciana Bohne)

www.counterpunch.org

#33 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-08 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, America is the worst at freedom and democracy...other than most other countries.

Russia, China, and Somalia are currently viable alternativesfor teh totally cynically alienated... Russia for rwingers in love with Vlad and the RT, China for Maoist lefties, and Somalia is a Paradise for libertarians.

The point being that constructive criticisms that offer solutions are one thing, and more is needed. The constant whining of destructive criticism that offers no solutions and laughably portrays teh US as as worst in the world, however, is quite another.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-08 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a way to twist the truth... Holy crap.

#35 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-08 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky,

Of course its been very good for some of us. But not if you're a native Indian, or black man, or target of US military aggression or even soft economic aggression. The point isn't that its so bad for most of us domestics, its that our alleged purpose and motives are a fraud. Even Hussein and Gadhafi provided free education and health care for all their citizens. US enforced sanctions on Iraq before Shrub's invasion killed 500,000 Iraqi children. Madilyn Albright admits this and says it was worth it. That we don't understand this ourselves while everyone else in the world does is tragic.

#36 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-08 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

The dr conservatives are out for blood. Not surprised.

They seem to love projecting their own behaviors on others.

#37 | Posted by klifferd at 2014-06-09 08:18 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The biggest myth in this story is that he served with honor and distinction. At best he's guilty of dereliction of duty.

#38 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Who is projecting anything in regards to Bergdahl klifferd?

#39 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 08:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

The biggest myth in this story is that he served with honor and distinction. At best he's guilty of dereliction of duty.

#38 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Don't forget "captured on the field of battle".

Another huge whopper.

#40 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Anytime one is captured in a war zone, they can be said to have been, "captured on the field of battle", as niggardly a point as that may be.

Also, he served for 5 years as a POW, tortured and confined to a small dark cell after trying to escape and fighting off his captors, is service with honor and distinction, despite the claims to the contrary.

That some people are so myth-informed is amazing.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#41 | POSTED BY CORKY

You can spin this any way you want. It doesn't change the fact that this administration royally pissed off and offended pretty much everybody who serves in the military.

This type of 'qualification' or 'clarification' coming from the administration (and you) only further insults the intelligence of those who have served.

Contrary to Obama's belief, these people are not stupid. As much as you might like to pretend otherwise, Obama really stepped in it. The best thing he could do is say that he and Rice mis-spoke and that while this guy is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the accounts of his disappearance by those with whom he served are very troubling.

But doing so would require introspection. It would require a CiC who actually cares. It would require a leader to display humility and even admit making a mistake. In short, it will never happen.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

He also fired a ak-47 with his captors. Played soccer with them. There is more to the story than he tried to escape. Fact is if he doesn't leave his post he more than likely doesn't get captured. Then we don't have to trade five of the Talibans best players to get him back. At best he's guilty of dereliction of duty. At worst we will have to wait and see. The pentagon likely already knows the outcome considering there is a classified file that was built while he was being held captive.

#43 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

#42

lol, obviously your only concern is the political aspect.... whether Obama can be blamed or not.

You should run as a GOP candidate in your district.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Come on Jeff. Do you think president politics isn't going to take advantage of a situation and spike the football? This moron has no idea what he's done and how angry the military is when you claim that a guy that walked off the job served with honor and distinction.

#45 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

FBI: Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's parents have received threats

www.cnn.com

Ya'll keep stirrin' up the yahoos, now.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why the rush to rancor over Bowe Bergdahl?

www.washingtonpost.com

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

lol, obviously your only concern is the political aspect.... whether Obama can be blamed or not.

My 'concern' is immaterial to the discussion.

Obama stepped in it big time. Now he's experiencing blow-back. That isn't concern, it's just stating the obvious.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Fox News wonders: Should the military execute Bowe Bergdahl?

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace wants to know if killing the rescued POW should be "on the table"

www.salon.com

Nice friends you have.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-just stating the obvious.

From a rwinger POV.

Perhaps a job at Fox and Friends?

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

He also fired a ak-47 with his captors. Played soccer with them.

I don't actually have a problem with any of that.

He was captive for 5 years. He had no idea if he'd ever be released. At some point - "Hey, do you want to join us for a game of soccer or do you want to sit in your cell" - one chooses the former, particularly if the stories are true that he made at least one unsuccessful attempt to escape.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

As Bowe Bergdahl Heals, Details Emerge of His Captivity

"He's said that they kept him in a shark cage in total darkness for weeks, possibly months," said one American official. CNN reported Friday that Sergeant Bergdahl said he was held in a metal box or cage, but the officials on Saturday offered new details. He was kept there apparently as punishment for one or possibly two attempted escapes, as first reported by the Daily Beast website last week and confirmed by an American official.

"It's safe to assume" that Sergeant Bergdahl was "held in harsh conditions," a senior Defense Department official said Saturday. "These are Taliban, not wet nurses." Details of other mistreatment were not released.

www.nytimes.com

Yeah, he should be shot. Or at least verbally flogged in public.

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Of course this is a political issue with political ramifications.

It seems that Obama's cheerleaders believe he should be exposed to NO politics....ever.

It IS quite obvious that much of the military takes exception to the reference of Bergdahls' service.

I've never been in the military so I won't judge the military for their opinion nor will I judge Bergdahl either.

But it's full on retarded to ignore the political blow back Obama is experiencing because he CHOSE to make this a bigger media event that it needed to be.

#53 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-09 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

And you thought 5-for-1 was lopsided? The Bowe Bergdahl deal, visually compared

www.washingtonpost.com

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

From a rwinger POV.

No, from a POV whereby everybody who served (or is currently serving) who are also speaking up about this are condemning the administration for giving this guy the hero treatment. That is what I am seeing. I have yet to see a single military person speak on behalf of Bergdahl. I have yet to see a single military person take the position that the administration did the right thing by giving this guy the hero treatment.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

I see Corky is still trying to sell somebody on the notion that he gives a single flip about Bergdahl.

Obviously, he doesn't. It's all about Obama.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-09 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

- I have yet to see a single military person speak on behalf of Bergdahl.

Only because your eyes are closed.

MYTH: Bergdahl was the misfit coward in his unit

Bergdahl Was in Unit Known for Its Troubles

The platoon was, an American military official would assert years later, "raggedy."
To many of those soldiers, Sergeant Bergdahl was viewed as standoffish or eccentric, smoking a pipe instead of spitting tobacco, as so many soldiers do, and reading voraciously when others napped or watched videos.

But he was not isolated from his platoon mates, some said. And while he was, like other soldiers in the platoon, often disappointed or confused by their mission in Paktika, some of his peers also said that Sergeant Bergdahl seemed enthusiastic about fighting, particularly after the platoon was ambushed several weeks before his disappearance.

"He'd complain about not being able to go on the offensive, and being attacked and not being able to return fire," said Gerald Sutton, who knew Sergeant Bergdahl from spending time together on their tiny outpost, Observation Post Mest Malak, near the village of Yahya Khel, about 50 miles west of the Pakistani border.

Mr. Sutton said he had struggled to square the popular portrayal of Sergeant Bergdahl as brooding and disenchanted with the soldier he knew.
"He wanted to take the fight to the enemy and do the mission of the infantry," he said, adding, "He was a good soldier, and whenever he was told to do something, he would do it."

www.nytimes.com

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The Rolling Stone? What does Vanity Fair think?

#58 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-09 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Of course rwingers have been quoting an older RS story on this for over a week now.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

#57 | POSTED BY CORKY

Your link didn't disprove my point.

His platoon-mates aren't criticizing him as a soldier. They aren't saying that Bergdahl didn't get along OK with them. What they are blasting is his desertion. In the snippet you provided Mr. Sutton doesn't defend his desertion. He says some other positive things about the guy but doesn't defend him walking off his post.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jeff, I don't actually have a problem with Bergdahls time being held captive. You do what you can to improve your chance to live.I'm just pointin out that there is more to the story than Corky's willing to admit when he post that Bergdahl tried to escape. Nice work Corky. Trashing soldiers who actually completed their obligation to serve while praising a soldier who walked out on his. All in the name of politics.

#61 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"He says some other positive things about the guy but doesn't defend him walking off his post."

this is where corky will tell soldiers how they should feel about Bergdahls alleged desertion.

I think the military has it's own opinion about a soldier that apparently did what Bergdahl did. I'll let them keep their opinion.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-09 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

- his desertion.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Walking off post is not desertion.

He had walked off and returned before.

Funny to me how all this faux outrage created by GOP media consultants and their Swiftboaters becomes instant fact for people who WANT to believe it because it is an attack on the hated American President Obama.

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...the hated American President Obama."

LOL....

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-09 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm willing to wait for an investigation before trashing the last American POW of these wars.

Others have an obvious Darryl Issa type agenda.

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

POW in the layman sense, lol.

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bergdahl Wasn't Only Soldier to 'Walk Off' Afghan Outposts

"At least a dozen guys just walked off their posts" in Afghanistan since 2009 for a variety of reasons, said an experienced soldier, one of four Afghan war veterans familiar with the incidents who spoke to ABC News. The other sources estimated the number could be more than a dozen.

There is no evidence that any of the soldiers who walked off post were charged with any form of desertion or intended to join the enemy. All were disciplined in various ways, the military sources said.

"This happens in wartime," said Gary Solis, a retired Marine Corps prosecutor who has taught law at West Point and Georgetown University.

The most infamous incident involved Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, a Stryker Brigade soldier who left a U.S. special operations camp in Kandahar province one night in March 2012 without authorization or apparently being noticed and entered a local village.

Bales gunned down 16 Afghan civilians, half of whom were small children, and set their remains on fire. He was charged with murder by the Army, pleaded guilty and received a life prison term.

abcnews.go.com

Just imagine the outrage from the right about Bales... oh, wait...

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

At best he's guilty of dereliction of duty when he walked off his post. The fact that he was seen in a village 2 miles away looks like desertion.

#68 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now Susan Rice doesn't even agree with you Obama supporters. She's clarified her comments to say that his signing up was honorable. Not actually his service was honorable and with distinction.

#69 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did anyone claim those other people served with honor and distinction?

#70 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There is no evidence that any of the soldiers who walked off post were charged with any form of desertion or intended to join the enemy. All were disciplined in various ways, the military sources said."

Sorry about your fantasies going unfulfilled.

#71 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-those other people .... were not POWs for 5 years, tortured, and tried to escape.

His serve then was honorable and of distinction.

#72 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

service

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm willing to wait for an investigation before trashing the last American POW of these wars.
Others have an obvious Darryl Issa type agenda.

#65 | POSTED BY CORKY

Take it up with his service mates. They are the ones sharing their stories.

The rest of us are just reacting to what they are saying.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Anytime one is captured in a war zone, they can be said to have been, "captured on the field of battle", as niggardly a point as that may be."

He didn't even have his gun with him. He was no more engaged in battle than he was curing cancer.

And that you still want to give him credit for being a POW when he irresponsiblity went out of his way to become one proves how much you hate logic.

#75 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Anytime one is captured in a war zone, they can be said to have been, "captured on the field of battle", as niggardly a point as that may be."

He didn't even have his gun with him. He was no more engaged in battle than he was curing cancer.

And that you still want to give him credit for being a POW when he irresponsiblity went out of his way to become one proves how much you hate logic.

#76 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now Susan Rice doesn't even agree with you Obama supporters. She's clarified her comments to say that his signing up was honorable. Not actually his service was honorable and with distinction.

#69 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's the problem with being a blind sycophant. Corky is more committed to what Rice said than Rice ever was. Why? Because unlike Corky, she cares about her credibility and isn't going to double down on stupid by trying to defend statements that are undoubtedly false. She clarified and moved on. But Corky married the obviously false statements.

You won't find Obama or Rice saying that a guy who went out his way to get captured is a better soldier for having been held as a POW. That's ridiculous to anyone with half a brain. Only Corky will make such silly arguments.

Let's just be thankful Bergdahl never harmed himself or Corky would be talking about how he deserves a Purple Heart.

#77 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-The rest of us are just reacting to what they are saying.

Knee-jerking, unwilling to wait for investigation that might burst their Obama Hate balloons.

#77

Talking about the poster rather than what he posts is a sure sign of having no argument.

John McCain did over 30 videos for the North Vietnamese and his service as a POW is still considered to be honorable.

You just hate hate logic.

- engaged in battle

Is not the definition for being on a battle field.

Let's just be glad that Karl Rove doesn't give medals to his sycophantic Swiftboaters, 'cause Sully would have a chest full.

"There is no evidence that any of the soldiers who walked off post were charged with any form of desertion or intended to join the enemy. All were disciplined in various ways, the military sources said."

Sorry about your fantasies going unfulfilled.

#78 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's something when you have the white house slandering the soldiers who actually completed their mission and commitment all the while claiming someone who walked off his post served with honor and distinction.

#79 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's something when you have the soldiers slandering a POW for GOP media consultants rather than waiting to testify under oath to an investigation.

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

John McCain did over 30 videos for the North Vietnamese and his service as a POW is still considered to be honorable.
You just hate hate logic.

No one is seriously ripping this guy's 'service as a POW'.

He is being ripped for deserting. Everybody who was actually there when he walked away is adamant that he deserted.

Some of them believe he may have been collaborating with the Taliban either willingly or under duress as the frequency and accuracy of Taliban attacks increased noticeably almost immediately after he was captured. They also acknowledge that it is impossible to improve said collaboration and that it all may be a coincidence. That is the extent of criticism of his 'service as a POW'.

McCain didn't dive off an aircraft carrier and swim over the a N. Vietnamese scout boat. He wasn't captured as a result of deserting.

You are moving the goalposts all over the place and seem to be attempting to complicate a simple issue.

His troop-mates are all saying, unequivically, that he deserted and was captured as a result of said desertion. They also claim that he was actively seeking out the Taliban based upon radio transmissions they heard. Desertion is a cardinal sin in the military and it carries extremely harsh penalties if proven in a Court Martial. For political reasons, in order to make the prisoner exchange more palatable to the public, Obama decided to give Bergdahl the hero treatment and in doing so he mortally angered and offended those who are serving and who have served. And they are speaking up about it. In doing so, Obama is receiving a LOT of backlash which you seem to think is grossly unfair. Take it up with his troop-mates.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's something when you have the soldiers slandering a POW for GOP media consultants rather than waiting to testify under oath to an investigation.

#80 | POSTED BY CORKY A

The nerve of those guys! Exercising their 1st Amendment rights and screwing up Obama's false-narrative that this guy is a hero.

It was/is widely believed within the military that this guy is a deserter. If Obama didn't know that when he lionized the guy then it demonstrates gross incompetence on the part of his administration. If Obama was aware of the back-story and decided to lionize the guy anyway - well, he deserves the backlash he's receiving.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

-No one is seriously ripping this guy's 'service as a POW'.

Yes they are. They are claiming that he could not have possibly served with honor and distinction as a POW because of teh way he was captured.

Which is as ignorant as it sounds.

-His troop-mates are all saying, unequivically, that he deserted

No, they all are not. I gave you the link above.

www.nytimes.com

And you don't get top make up your own definition of, "deserter".

It is a military term of law that is difficult to prove, and is not fulfilled by "walking off". He had done that before and returned, as have others... who were never charged with desertion.

"There is no evidence that any of the soldiers who walked off post were charged with any form of desertion or intended to join the enemy. All were disciplined in various ways, the military sources said."

- mortally angered and offended

Dram queen college? SO, Obama is to blame for the GOP consultants Swiftboating Bergdahl for political purposes?

And his platoon mates are heros for obliging them in a public lynching rather than waiting for an investigation to testify?

Wacky world of rwingers.

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#82

As I have said, for rwingers and their enablers this is much more about castigating Obama than about Bergdahl.

#84 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

These soldiers that are speaking out have already given their testimony which is why the Army concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl walked off his post. They are speaking out now b/c despite knowing he likely walked off his post Obama and Rice claimed he served with honor and distinction.

#85 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those soldiers speaking out haven't mentioned Obama even once. They just wanted to let the American people know that Bergdahl left his post.

#86 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yes they are. They are claiming that he could not have possibly served with honor and distinction as a POW because of teh way he was captured.

Which is as ignorant as it sounds."

"The way he was captured" = abandoning his post.

And yes it invalidates any claim that he served with honor and distinction.

Even Rice realized this and eventually backed off her statement.

You're literally making excuses for a quote that the originator has backed away from.... If you were capable of independent thought I'd ask you to let that one sink in.

#87 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Bergdahl walked off his post.

Which is not desertion.

And he walked off and came back before, as have over a dozen others in that war, none of which were charged with desertion.

Next thing ya know, rwingers will want to charge Sarah Palin with deserting her post as Gov of Alaska.

You bet'cha!

#88 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

-yes it invalidates any claim that he served with honor and distinction.

That is one rwing enabler's opinion... not a fact at all.

#87

You are just like the other rwingers, more concerned about Rice and Obama than Berghdal.

It's pretty damn funny, really.

#89 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes they are. They are claiming that he could not have possibly served with honor and distinction as a POW because of teh way he was captured.

What they are saying is that his desertion nullifies any claims of serving with 'honor and distinction'. He could have found a cure for cancer while serving as a POW and it wouldn't change the fact that he deserted.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Next thing ya know, rwingers will want to charge Sarah Palin with deserting her post as Gov of Alaska.

You bet'cha!
#88 | POSTED BY CORKY

FF!

#91 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-09 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Those soldiers speaking out haven't mentioned Obama even once. They just wanted to let the American people know that Bergdahl left his post.

Yeah, that's hwy they jined up with the GOP media consultants, they jsut want Americans to know he left his post.

That's all. Really. No, really.

#92 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess those who are solely motivated by partisanship can't conceive of the notion that others are NOT solely motivated by partisanship.

This is why Obama sees nothing wrong with the act itself of giving this guy the hero treatment - the backlash is solely partisan and nothing more, in his view.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the fact that he deserted.

Fact... I don't think that word means what you think it means.

He left his post, which is not the same as desertion to the military.

You and Sully can make up definitions all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

#94 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

-NOT solely motivated by partisanship.

Riiight. The GOP media consultants running this Swiftboat effort with the cooperation of some members of the platoon are not partisans.

Of course, I gave you the story as told by a member of his unit who actually spent a lot of time at a guard station with him, but you have no comment about that.

#95 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-09 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You don't think those in the military are capable of knee-jerk reactions?

#96 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-09 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Yeah, that's hwy they jined up with the GOP media consultants, they jsut want Americans to know he left his post."

When you have the US government trampling on your 1st ammendment rights, having a huge political party in your corner is

These guys fear reprisal for speaking out. It makes perfect sense that they will accept help from powerful allies. The GOP may be using them for its own ends but that doesn't mean they don't have their own agenda. The two groups both want the story out for different reasons.

What's funny is that you give a guy who obviously did wrong more than just the benefit of the doubt but you dismiss guys who really did serve honorably quite easily.

#97 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is why Obama sees nothing wrong with the act itself of giving this guy the hero treatment..

#93 | Posted by JeffJ

When did Obama do that?

Your statement is partisan schlock.

#98 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-09 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Those soldiers speaking out haven't mentioned Obama even once. They just wanted to let the American people know that Bergdahl left his post.
Yeah, that's hwy they jined up with the GOP media consultants, they jsut want Americans to know he left his post.
That's all. Really. No, really.
#92 | POSTED BY CORKY

Let's try this a different way:

Scenario A: The military views this guy as a deserter. Obama negotiates a controversial prisoner swap for this guy and 5 Taliban heavy-weights. Obama gives this guy the hero treatment. The troops are outraged and speak out publicly about this guy deserting.

Scenario B: Obama negotiates the prisoner swap and says this (no rose garden parade - just a simple media address: "Today we released 5 Taliban leaders from Gitmo in exchange for captured soldier, Sgt Bergdahl. I know that people are going to be concerned that these released detainees will return to the field of battle. It's a legitimate concern that I share. I felt it was a price worth paying to bring back a soldier who has been held captive by the Taliban for 5 years. I also understand that this soldier is controversial as his platoon-mates allege that he walked off - that he just left and in doing so ended up being captured. While Sgt Bergdahl will receive a presumption of innocence, as all Americans do, we take these allegations seriously and a full investigation will take place. Regardless of the controversy surrounding Sgt Bergdahl, I still believe we did the right thing by bringing him home."

Had Obama gone with scenario B he'd be facing a lot less back-lash. But instead he went with Option A.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"-Bergdahl walked off his post.

Which is not desertion."

You're obsessed with technicalities because it is all you have.

Whether it is desertion or deriliciton of duty it was still a very irresponsible thing to do and the consequences of his idiocy were horrible for him, his families and everyone who had to risk their lives looking for him (whether anyone died looking for him or not, lives were put at risk).

Someone who screws up this badly did not serve with honor and distinction whether he's technically a deserter or not. It is pathetic that you spend so much time claiming otherwise.

#100 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't think those in the military are capable of knee-jerk reactions?

#96 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-09 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag

They are capable but, weren't motivated to speak out until Obama used Bergdahl for a political victory lap. They are pissed that they actually did serve out their committment. Even knowing Bergdahl is guilty at best of dereliction of duty they still went out and tried to find him. Once the Army concluded he left his post they moved resources they were using to try and find Bergdahl and decided they wouldn't conduct missions that would risk the platoons safety trying to find him.

#101 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fact is none of these soldiers went public until Obama tried to sell him as a soldier that served with honor and distinction.

#102 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

but you have no comment about that.

I did comment on that. Scroll up.

You don't think those in the military are capable of knee-jerk reactions?

Anybody is capable of knee-jerk reactions.

When did Obama do that?

In the rose garden just over a week ago.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

When did Obama do that?

Your statement is partisan schlock.

#98 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-09 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

He did it when he made the announcement in the rose garden. Then sent Susan Rice out to over sell it when she lied and claimed he served with honor and distinction. Which now even she has walked back to it was honorable that he signed up. It's pathetic now that the white house feels it needs to slander soldiers that actually completed their service. I'd love to know what the special forces soldiers that had to risk their lives to get Bergdahl back think of his leaving his post.

#104 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#104 | Posted by Dalton

We obviously differ significantly on the definition of "hero treatment". But the right's proclivity towards claiming Obama did so (strawman) to vilify him, is not surprising at all.

#105 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-09 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Scenario B: Obama negotiates the prisoner swap and says this (no rose garden parade - just a simple media address: "Today we released 5 Taliban leaders from Gitmo in exchange for captured soldier, Sgt Bergdahl. I know that people are going to be concerned that these released detainees will return to the field of battle. It's a legitimate concern that I share. I felt it was a price worth paying to bring back a soldier who has been held captive by the Taliban for 5 years. I also understand that this soldier is controversial as his platoon-mates allege that he walked off - that he just left and in doing so ended up being captured. While Sgt Bergdahl will receive a presumption of innocence, as all Americans do, we take these allegations seriously and a full investigation will take place. Regardless of the controversy surrounding Sgt Bergdahl, I still believe we did the right thing by bringing him home."

I'm quite certain that all obamabots and otherwise partisan ----- will agree THAT is exactly what should have happened.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-09 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

102

Some went public years ago in The Rolling Stone article written by Hutchinson. They did it prior to knowing Obama/rice were going to try to make him look like a hero. They were setting the record straight.

#107 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-09 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#107 I should have been more clear. They didn't go on TV to a much broader audience until Obama tried to claim Bergdahls service was honorable with distinction. Once Obama did that they reached out to several media companies to get their message out. I don't believe they would have done this a second time had Obama down played Bergdahls trade.

#108 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hero treatment" is a succinct way of saying:

Obama went to the Rose Garden along with his Idaho parents (who conveniently just happened to be in DC) to celebrate his return and paint his service in a positive light and Susan Rice went on the Sunday circuit and proclaim that he served with 'honor and distinction'.

That's what I mean when I say 'hero treatment'.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

We obviously differ significantly on the definition of "hero treatment".

well, the only hero that the WH cared about was Obama himself, which is why they staged the Rose Garden event, invited the parents, etc....they believed that Obama would look like a stud for this exchange.

my guess is whomever pushed for making it so visible has gotten their @$$ chewed off, if not fired.

#110 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-09 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're crazy Eberly. Nobody gets fired in this administration. Think about it. Obama knew for three years that his signature legislation was going to be rolled out and he couldn't even be bothered if the web site was going to work. Even after that disaster nobody was fired.

#111 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

The rose garden fiasco only shows how out of touch Obama and his white house is with the military.

#112 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-09 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

We obviously differ significantly on the definition of "hero treatment". But the right's proclivity towards claiming Obama did so (strawman) to vilify him, is not surprising at all.

#105 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

He made a huge deal that the guy was coming home and in the process painted his service in the best possible light. He also sent Susan Rice onto the Sunday circuit to proclaim he 'served with honor and distinction'.

That's not a strawman, it's what actually happened.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#100

An amazing feat of walking back nearly everything he said in the last week, rofl!

"No. he's not really a "deserter" until the military court says so. No, deaths cannot be directly attributed to him."

Now if he can just get over the hump of "thinking" that it is impossible that the soldier served with distinction as a POW, no matter how he got there, he could just not have posted all week.

-He made a huge deal that the guy was coming home

The last American prisoner of these wars comely home IS a huge deal.

www.drudge.com

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Right now we can just say that Bergdahl was derelict in his duty for certain. That's excluding the 2010 report that didn't make any conclusion until they recovered the soldier. It is strange the reports that Bergdahl wants to be considered a private rather than a SGT saying that he didn't earn that promotion.

#115 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-10 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"An amazing feat of walking back nearly everything he said in the last week, rofl!

"No. he's not really a "deserter" until the military court says so. No, deaths cannot be directly attributed to him.""

ROFL! You're full of crap!

I never said that any deaths can be directly attributed to him. What I've always said and what is still a fact is that he knowingly risked the lives of others when he left camp the way he did. Whether or not anyone actually died as a result of his extreme selfishness is secondary to the fact that he was willing to get others killed through his selfish actions.

My position on whether or not he's technically a "deserter" is that it doesn't matter. His intentions were that of a deserter. The only reason he wouldn't qualify is that he managed to get himself captured too quickly. Had it taken him longer to get captured he would be considered a deserter but he would be no worse a soldier or a person.

He's a selfish idiot either way. That's my position just like it was last week.

#116 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-10 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

-he knowingly risked the lives of others when he left camp the way he did.

Considering that he, and over a dozen other soldiers, had walked off post before and returned without being captured or anyone being killed, your assumptions are laughable.

- His intentions

We are all still astounded by your psychic abilities.

-He's a selfish idiot either way.

Just another opinion. (yawn)

-That's my position just like it was last week.

Hahahaha!

You've disparaged him as a known deserter who caused the deaths of, and I quote, "possibly hundreds" of other soldiers.

And you still hold to the idiocy that a POW cannot possibly have served with distinction no matter how he was captured.

#117 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

When you are derelict in your duty (leaving your post) you can't at the same time served with honor and distinction. Yes, those other guys who left their post didn't serve with honor and distinction either.

#118 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-10 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You've disparaged him as a known deserter who caused the deaths of, and I quote, "possibly hundreds" of other soldiers."

That's a lie. I said he could have risked the lives of hundreds of others. As far as calling him a deserter, that's what he was going for. I'm not giving him credit for having been captured quickly.

"And you still hold to the idiocy that a POW cannot possibly have served with distinction no matter how he was captured."

Another lie. What I said is that since this selfish jackass went out of his way to be capture, I don't give HIM any credit for having been a POW.

At least telling fibs is a step up from parrotting talking points, Corky.

#119 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-10 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

- that's what he was going for

What do you charge for psychic readings?

Fiddy cents?

You know, I don't think I've ever seen so many caveats in one post, rofl!

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

The pathetic part is the white house smearing these soldiers that have dared to speak out hurting Obama's little victory lap. These guys actually fulfilled their committment to their country and the administration has the nerve to slander them as swiftboaters? Notice they don't attack their stories just them as soldiers. Even worse is the New York times claiming they were a poorly run unit over nothing more than wearing bandanas and t-shirts while digging fox holes in 100 degree heat. Either way those little issues hardly rise to the level of willingly leaving one's post walking 2 miles to the nearest village for no apparent reason other than desertion.

#121 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-10 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

You know, I don't think I've ever seen so many caveats in one post, rofl!

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

If that made you "rofl" then you should just keep lying all the time. People will clarify and then you can have a nice laugh.

You've basically become Bibbles anyway. Not like lying could affect your credibility.

#122 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-10 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#122

I can see where one could be in danger of lying by quoting you.... according to you.

#123 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Click Sully's post history and count the number of posts he has corrected corky on that exact strawman (attributed deaths). I'll bet it is literally 20 times. At what point does that reach obvious actionable trolling? That is Eddie territory.

#124 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-10 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#124

And he said he plonked me.... how sweet!

But I bet you are still wrong as usual.

Eddie territory would be obtusely denying calling the guy a deserter for a week as if that were a fact.

Defending that kind of idiocy would be 101 territory.

#125 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Eddie territory would be obtusely denying calling the guy a deserter for a week as if that were a fact."

Another lie. I have never denied calling him a deserter. He left camp with no intention of coming back so I call him a deserter.

The previous lies I've had to correct are:

Your claiming that I attributed deaths directly to Bergdahl.

Your claiming that I said no POW can serve with honor and distinction.

#126 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-10 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

-with no intention of coming back

lol, no wonder his psychic readings are so cheap.

-Your claiming that I attributed deaths directly to Bergdahl.
Your claiming that I said no POW can serve with honor and distinction.

You have repeatedly lynched him on both accounts.

One only need review your comments to see that. If one were to have a strong enough stomach.

#127 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You have repeatedly lynched him on both accounts."

I don't know if you're lying or stupid but this just isn't true.

Saying he risked the lives of others is not he same as saying anyone actually died as a result.

My criticism of his stint as a POW has nothing to do with any other POWs.

These are fairly simple distinctions. You might be retarded.

#128 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-10 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

-These are fairly simple distinctions.

These are semantic loopholes to hide the lynching.

#129 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

#129 Then you must be pissed that the white house is lynching his fellow soldiers who actually served their committment and didn't simply leave their post.

#130 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-10 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

These are semantic loopholes to hide the lynching.

#129 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

The inability to understand fairly simple logical differences between superficially similar statements is a sign of low intelligence.

#131 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-10 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Arguing that "everybody knows" and "I don't bother with technical definitions" is a sign of low intelligence.

Not to mention low self-esteem.

#132 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#130

They don't even talk about them. Sheeez.

#133 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not to mention low self-esteem.

#132 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is rich coming from such a transparent sycophant. You don't even have self esteem. Your self image is tied to someone else's reputation.

#134 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-10 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

-a transparent sycophant.

Says the ODS sufferer.

#135 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Says the ODS sufferer."

What's ODS mean? Obama d***k sucker?

#136 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-10 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Oh, now look who's being Abusive.

#137 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah they don't talk about Bergdahl's platoon mates. One white house officials said the "may be psychopaths" and other white house aides have called them swiftboaters. Then conveniently the New York times does a story with anonymous sources claiming they were raggity and had no discipline b/c they wore t-shirts and bandanas. YOu've linked to those stories but, sure they don't mention them. Notice no one attacks their accounts of Bergdahl just them personally.

#138 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-10 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have to admit, no one is better at playing stupid than Nulli... except maybe Dalton, but he isn't playing.

#139 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have to admit, no one is better at playing stupid than Nulli... except maybe Dalton, but he isn't playing.

#139 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL. Corky. Instead of insults you could have just said you have no retort and left it at that. If you had any credibility or honesty you would admit that the white house has leaked and insinuated these guys can't be believed b/c their raggity or psychopats. We've all seen it. Not b/c anyone with common sense knows Bergdahl at best is guilty of dereliction of duty and didn't serve with honor and distinction as was claimed. You and Obama just want everyone ot stfu and not mess up his pitiful victory lap.

#140 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-10 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Oh, now look who's being Abusive.

#137 | Posted by Corky "

Translation: I've flagged you.

#141 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-10 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What's ODS mean? Obama d***k sucker?"

A five letter word that starts with d and ends with k that needs asterisks to block it's use. Hmm, i'm not familiar with the existence of such a word.

#142 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-10 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, one too many asterisks, stupidgator.

#143 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-10 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey, i was just looking for an explanation. If there is a new swear word i would like to expand my vocabulary.

#144 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-10 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a weirdo...

#145 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-10 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.
~ Tex Guinan~

#146 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-10 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

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