• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bowe Bergdahl, once missing U.S. soldier, charged with desertion

I just read that the scum bucket is going to claim that he left to report abusive practices in his unit and intended to come back. This will be another Bradley Mannng defense.

I'm sick and damned tired of these traitors and cowards being turned into martyrs.
 
Now that I can post a link - Bergdahl's Defense Is He Was Planning to Come Back - Bloomberg View

“He had concerns about certain conditions in the unit and things that happened in the unit and he figured that the only way to get any attention to them would be to get that information to a general officer,” Bergdahl’s lawyer, Eugene Fidell, told me Thursday. Based on that, Fidell could argue that Bergdahl was thus technically "absent without official leave" (AWOL), rather than a deserter. The distinction could mean the difference between one month of confinement or life in prison for his client.

So your defense is that, while in a combat zone, you felt the need to report "certain conditions" to a General and to do that you figured that wandering off outside the wire was the best way to find one? This is about the most stupid excuse I have ever heard and the ONLY reason I can even think of offering it is that someone in the White House wants to make this incident into an excuse to further scrub the ranks of officers and soldiers who actually do their job.
 
Sarah Palin Quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information, nor does it condone the swap Obama ultimately did

Allen West quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information. The second part is question with regards to the swap. He suggested there's been no indication from Obama about trying to get Bergdahl back wihtout a way to have media "highlights" regarding it. Well, he did take action to get him back...and there were ways of making it a "media highlight", by propping him up as a hero who served with "distinction and honor". At the time of the comment however, publicly, West was correct in his impression

John McCain quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information. Clearly indicated he'd need to know the details, but in general he'd support ways of bringing him home. And that an exchange would be something to consider. If I say I would consider selling my house as a means of dealing with my debt, that doesn't mean I agree with you offering me $10 for it. His comment absolutely gives him reasonable wiggle room to still be critical of the actual deal.

Kelly Ayotte quote - Statement is not wrong based on new information, however it does condone the swap Obama ultimately did. Ayotte claimed that they should do "all [they] can" to find and bring him home. A swap of 5 prisoners is part of "all they can". If she complained about the swap, she was being rather hypocritical.

James Inhofe quote - Ditto to the above

Jim Hoft - Statement isn't changed by the desertion news, but is in terms of whether or not Obama was ultimately going to lave him behind. Does not really give an indication of "any means necessary" type approach, so doesn't automatically means based on this quote that he should agree with the actual swap.

Michele Malkin - Prior to the desertion news really even permeating any line of media, and again doesn't really indicate in any way that she'd have to agree with the Obama deal.

Rich Nugent - Nothing contradictory based on the desertion news, but like Ayotte and Inhofe, he'd be a hypocrite if he criticized the deal to get Bergdahl after claiming we should do "everthing possible" to retrieve left behind soldires.

Susan Rice Quote - Absolutely is contradicted given the news of him being guilty of desertion. A deserted is not one who served with "honor"

-edit-

My above post was in error in terms of the notion of desertion. For some reason I thought he had previously been charged, and this was the conviction. Susan Rice's comment thus is questionable, not clearly contradicted, as he's not been found guilty of desertion at this point.

The point of his thread, which he has already confirmed, was that republicans wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl home and after the president did, they opposed bringing him home and criticized the president for doing so... That of course is not true.

The criticism leveled by republicans and conservatives was based on the deal Obama made for what his Administration dishonestly insinuated was a war hero. They never said or implied that Bergdahl should not be brought home as he claims.
 
Sarah Palin Quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information, nor does it condone the swap Obama ultimately did

Considering the desertion was already known about since 2010, as per MMCs admission, and her comment was made in 2014, then she did in fact flip-flop.

Allen West quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information. The second part is question with regards to the swap. He suggested there's been no indication from Obama about trying to get Bergdahl back wihtout a way to have media "highlights" regarding it. Well, he did take action to get him back...and there were ways of making it a "media highlight", by propping him up as a hero who served with "distinction and honor". At the time of the comment however, publicly, West was correct in his impression

Utter nonsense, there were negotiations for 5 years on this issue that obviously didn't make any highlights except for sporadic mentions in the news. It'll be posted bellow because they also relate to McCain's words.

John McCain quote - Statement is not wrong based on the new information. Clearly indicated he'd need to know the details, but in general he'd support ways of bringing him home. And that an exchange would be something to consider. If I say I would consider selling my house as a means of dealing with my debt, that doesn't mean I agree with you offering me $10 for it. His comment absolutely gives him reasonable wiggle room to still be critical of the actual deal.

McCain was well aware of the details, hell the media was well aware of the details.

Did John McCain flip-flop on the Bergdahl deal? - The Washington Post

In August 2011, the Associated Press reported that Afghan negotiators were seeking the release of Taliban fighters in exchange for Bergdahl, naming specifically Khairkhwa, Fazi and Wasiq. In January 2012, the Guardian newspaper reported that Washington would free Khairkhwa and Noori, and possibly Fazi, in exchange for getting the Taliban to open an office in Qatar for peace talks.

In a March 9, 2012, report, the Afghanistan Analysts Network issued a long report on the Guantanamo Five, which actually found that the men were less hard-line than believed.

Then in August 2012, Reuters reported that the Obama administration had offered to trade “five senior Taliban leaders” — including Khairkhwa, Wasiq, Noori and Fazi — for Bergdahl. The headline on Business Insider’s Web site was: “The US Wants To Trade Five Taliban Leaders In Guantánamo For This One American POW.”

He even discussed this deal with Anderson Cooper:

COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.

McCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence-building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.

Kelly Ayotte quote - Statement is not wrong based on new information, however it does condone the swap Obama ultimately did. Ayotte claimed that they should do "all [they] can" to find and bring him home. A swap of 5 prisoners is part of "all they can". If she complained about the swap, she was being rather hypocritical.

James Inhofe quote - Ditto to the above

Inhofe: Bergdahl Swap Part of Obama's 'Obsession to Close Gitmo' - Breitbart

On Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) railed against the Obama administration’s deal with the Taliban last week for the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Inhofe chastised the outcome as one that resulted from negotiating with terrorists and one that was motivated by an obsession to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Ayotte May 22nd 2014 said:
“With 29 percent of former Guantanamo detainees having reengaged or being suspected of reengaging in terrorism, the administration’s decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests. It also sets a precedent that could encourage our enemies to capture more Americans in order to gain concessions from our government.
 
I just read that the scum bucket is going to claim that he left to report abusive practices in his unit and intended to come back. This will be another Bradley Mannng defense.

I'm sick and damned tired of these traitors and cowards being turned into martyrs.

Yea I read that too.

It won't fly though. Obama thought he could kill two birds with one stone by emptying out Gitmo AND returning a Soldier " who served with Honor and distinction " home.

Well like so many of his misadventures it backfired on him.

He assumed that the Military would play ball but the fact that they didn't shows their not bending to Obama's Political gimmicks one bit.

They will try him and find him guilty for dessertion because thats exactly what he did ( among other things )
 
bergdahl-soldiers.jpg




Lest we forget, we didn't just trade 6 terrorist savages for this deserter....
 
Jim Hoft - Statement isn't changed by the desertion news, but is in terms of whether or not Obama was ultimately going to lave him behind. Does not really give an indication of "any means necessary" type approach, so doesn't automatically means based on this quote that he should agree with the actual swap.

You obviously didn't read through the thread, but his desertion "news" were known since at least 2010.

Bowe Bergdahl: America's Last Prisoner of War by Michael Hastings | Rolling Stone

Ralph Peters, an action-thriller writer who serves as a "strategic analyst" for Fox News, took to the air to condemn Bowe as an "apparent deserter." The Taliban, he declared, could save the United States on "legal bills" by executing him.

According to officials familiar with the internal debate, there are those in both Congress and the Pentagon who view Bowe as a deserter, and perhaps even a traitor. As with everything in Washington these days, the sharp political discord has complicated efforts to secure his release.

Michele Malkin - Prior to the desertion news really even permeating any line of media, and again doesn't really indicate in any way that she'd have to agree with the Obama deal.

I can concede on this one.

Rich Nugent - Nothing contradictory based on the desertion news, but like Ayotte and Inhofe, he'd be a hypocrite if he criticized the deal to get Bergdahl after claiming we should do "everthing possible" to retrieve left behind soldires.

GOP Urged White House To 'Do All It Can' To Get Bowe Bergdahl

"But what angers me so much about this situation is that knowing full well that there was strong opposition to a prisoner swap in Congress, the Administration decided to go behind our backs and release the detainees without the notification required by law,"

Susan Rice Quote - Absolutely is contradicted given the news of him being guilty of desertion. A deserted is not one who served with "honor"

-edit-

My above post was in error in terms of the notion of desertion. For some reason I thought he had previously been charged, and this was the conviction. Susan Rice's comment thus is questionable, not clearly contradicted, as he's not been found guilty of desertion at this point.

If we go by your standards of contradiction, even if it turns out he's convicted, she's still right considering how the information available. ;)

Did John McCain flip-flop on the Bergdahl deal? - The Washington Post
 
bergdahl-soldiers.jpg




Lest we forget, we didn't just trade 6 terrorist savages for this deserter....

Yep.

Those men that gave their lives in a attempt to try and find him are now going to be accused of " abusive practices " by him as a defense for desertion.

He's going to claim he left base to report the wide spread abuse by the young men that risked their lives for him.

This smells like the Obama administration has gotten involved.
 
bergdahl-soldiers.jpg




Lest we forget, we didn't just trade 6 terrorist savages for this deserter....

So you are claiming that the DOD knew that he was a deserter, had informed the president.. and that he ordered this men sent in to find him?
 
Considering the desertion was already known about since 2010, as per MMCs admission, and her comment was made in 2014, then she did in fact flip-flop.

How is it a flip flop?

Let's ignore for one moment that her quote DID NOT STATE A SINGULAR THING about bringing ihm home, or what needs to done (it simply says that they're praying for him, and that it shows we havne't defeated terrorism). Let's also ignore for one moment that accepting, the time lines you and Grim seem to be working on, your own quote acknowledges that her quote was in 2009 meaning prior to the desertion being known.

Even ignoring all those things, it's still not a "flip flop" unless she has specifically suggested we shouldn't have brought him back under any circumstance because he's an (accused) deserter.

Utter nonsense, there were negotiations for 5 years on this issue that obviously didn't make any highlights except for sporadic mentions in the news. It'll be posted bellow because they also relate to McCain's words.

McCain was well aware of the details, hell the media was well aware of the details.

And even with his discussion with Cooper, he caches his comments in less than absolutes, such as "inclined to support". Again, indicating support for a prisoner to be recovered is not the same as suggesting that you would absolutely be okay with any means necessary being done to regain said prisoner. Just like saying that I support selling my car doesn't mean I'm suggesting I'd support selling it for absolutely any offer that was negotiated in any fashion imaginable.


Then Ayotte was being a hypocrite on this matter and did clearly flip flop
 
Reality is Bergdahl even if found guilty will not face a death sentence and even in the unlikely case of being sentenced to the maximum, it will be life in prison - he'll probably be eligible for parole after much less time. More likely is he will face a minimum or just a dishonorable. If he does get jail time, I would think Obama would consider exonerating Bergdahl on his way out of office.

The left will protect Obama regardless of the potential damage he has and will continue to inflict by the White House's incompetence and world view. It's the new norm. There are little to no reasonable Democrats left and those that are, will not stay or will not run for Congress.

I do hold out some hope. The narcissistic spineless weasel Obama will do everything possible to delay the trial until after he leaves office. So if his predecessor respects the honor and dignity of the military, Bergdahl just might get the penalty deserving of his crime. If a dem is elected Bergdahl will be appointed to the Joint Chiefs.
 
I just read that the scum bucket is going to claim that he left to report abusive practices in his unit and intended to come back. This will be another Bradley Mannng defense.

I'm sick and damned tired of these traitors and cowards being turned into martyrs.

Welcome to the liberalization of America.
 
You obviously didn't read through the thread, but his desertion "news" were known since at least 2010.

No, I didn't read through the thread. The topic doesn't massively interest me. I primarily read the first page.

Whether or not Hoft knew that Bergdahl was a potential deserted when he made the statement is irrelevant. Him being a deserter doesn't mean he wasn't captured. It doesn't mean he wasn't still alive. And it doesn't mean that Hoft felt it was sad that he believed Obama would leave him behind. Nothing you posted counters the notion you bolded, that the actual charge of disertion doesn't actually alter or conflict with Hoft's previous statement.

And again, you simply ignore the primary point of the post, which was noting the difference between saying/hoping/suggesting/praying/wanting to see a soldier be brought home and suggesting it should be done by any means necessary, as it relates to complaining about the President's means of actually returning him home. Nothing from the quote you had of John Hoft suggests it's hypocritical of him to complain about Obama taking the measures he took to get Hoft back. It would ONLY be hypocritical now if he was suggesting we shouldn't, under any method, brought Bergdahl back.


While there's portions of Nugent's comments that I think are hypocritical, this one you cite are not. Suggesting he can do "all it can" inherently suggests all that one can LEGALLY do. There's absolute question regarding the legality of the method in which the exchange happened, which is at least a grey area for him to complain about a bit. That said, in a general sense I stick by my previous statement that he seemed rather hypocritical in condmenation of the deal after claiming that "everything possible" should be done to retrieve people.

If we go by your standards of contradiction, even if it turns out he's convicted, she's still right considering how the information available. ;)

Actually, we're not considering...as you've repeatedly asserted, the suggestion that he was a potential deserter was known back in 2010, meaning that such a statement being made prior to the actual full process of justice playing out was either ridiculous ignorant or purpsefully misleading.
 
Not in thay order.

Okay,,, in what order?

Honestly,.. I don't see what the issue is here. Bergdahl was captured and held by the enemy. Maybe he deserted.. maybe he flipped out.. maybe maybe maybe.

At the end of the day.. the DOD, the president.. etc acted on the information that they had at the time... which apparently didn;t even reach a level that they charged Bergdahl with desertion until he got back.

That's beyond the fact that he has not been actually CONVICTED of anything.

So I can't see the error in trying to get one of our own back. If anything.. I want our president to error on bringing back all those we put in harms way.
 
Okay,,, in what order?

Honestly,.. I don't see what the issue is here. Bergdahl was captured and held by the enemy. Maybe he deserted.. maybe he flipped out.. maybe maybe maybe.

At the end of the day.. the DOD, the president.. etc acted on the information that they had at the time... which apparently didn;t even reach a level that they charged Bergdahl with desertion until he got back.

That's beyond the fact that he has not been actually CONVICTED of anything.

So I can't see the error in trying to get one of our own back. If anything.. I want our president to error on bringing back all those we put in harms way.



You don't get it. I forget, what was obama trying to deflect in the media at the time? GITMO? or some other **** he was involved with that made him look bad, you remember?
 
You don't get it. I forget, what was obama trying to deflect in the media at the time? GITMO? or some other **** he was involved with that made him look bad, you remember?

right.. I don't get it...

So the reason that Obama/DOD sent soldiers out to look for Bergdahl was because they thought it would deflect the media?

Or was it that the DOD had evidence that supported a charge against Bergdahl,,,, but they didn't charge him with desertion until he was returned because they all wanted to have something to distract the media with?

Seriously... explain your rationale...
 
You don't get it. I forget, what was obama trying to deflect in the media at the time? GITMO? or some other **** he was involved with that made him look bad, you remember?

The biggest thing that made Obama look bad was him and members of his administration making Bergdahl out to be some kind of hero, and refusing to acknowledge the truth about the circuimstances of his disappearance. They kept sticking to the "He served with honor" line, which is why all those men who served with him went public.

... but yes, I believe it was the GITMO thing.
 
Last edited:
Okay,,, in what order?

Honestly,.. I don't see what the issue is here. Bergdahl was captured and held by the enemy. Maybe he deserted.. maybe he flipped out.. maybe maybe maybe.

At the end of the day.. the DOD, the president.. etc acted on the information that they had at the time... which apparently didn;t even reach a level that they charged Bergdahl with desertion until he got back.

That's beyond the fact that he has not been actually CONVICTED of anything.

So I can't see the error in trying to get one of our own back. If anything.. I want our president to error on bringing back all those we put in harms way.

Uhm while Susan Rice was calling him a Soldier that served with " honor and distinction " and while his fFather was mumbling in Pashto in the Rose Garden Soldiers that were THERE when he deserted were giving interviews on a Variety of radio and TV News shows.

There accounts seem to be accurate given the Military's decision to prosecute him for desertion.
 
right.. I don't get it...

So the reason that Obama/DOD sent soldiers out to look for Bergdahl was because they thought it would deflect the media?

Or was it that the DOD had evidence that supported a charge against Bergdahl,,,, but they didn't charge him with desertion until he was returned because they all wanted to have something to distract the media with?

Seriously... explain your rationale...



Seriously, are you suggesting 8 american lives were worth bringing bergdahl who was hailed by the administration as an honorable soldier, who deserted his post, back, was worth it?

Seriously... explain your rational...
 
Seriously, are you suggesting 8 american lives were worth bringing bergdahl who was hailed by the administration as an honorable soldier, who deserted his post, back, was worth it?

Seriously... explain your rational...

A student I care about lost a very close friend as a result Bergdahl. We didnt know it at the time. Such treachery from a short sighted Amerca hating fool!
 
Then you'd be complaining about US livestock being traded for soldiers. :lol:

Livestock don't go on to deliberately kill people., dip****.
 
Back
Top Bottom