Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 90

Thread: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

  1. #31
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,140
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    I can't say I'm in agreement with Krauthammer, but I sure as hell respect his opinion.

    When it comes to the prisoners we traded for bergdahl, on the surface it doesn't seem like a very wise trade, but not being involved in the process or in the presidents position, I can't say for certain that I wouldn't have agreed with that swap.

    I do however, completely disagree with the president bypassing congress on this thing. We have laws for a reason, and this administration seems to think those laws don't apply to them and do whatever the hell they want... This is wrong and quite frankly, scares the hell out of me. Obama is setting a precedence that will pave the way for every president that follows him to do the same if they so choose.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    "As Feinstein the Democrat set him out." What the **** does that mean??
    Means she got up in front of the Press and said he broke the Law.....after his people says he hasn't. Then she and the other Chairs Admitted BO never contacted them After BO said he did. Once again showing he has lied.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, the Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan before we invaded that country.
    Yeah back in 2001.....since then they haven't ruled anything but their tribes. Plus what do you have to say about BO not telling the New Afghan Government with their New President about this exchange. The one that signed the agreement to allow us to keep 9800 there and the US for another decade?

    Then what would you say about BO initiating contact with the Taliban.....who had walked away from Peace talks? Oh Talks..... and without the Ruling government of Afghanistan. Can you say Bush did anything like this?

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    That's funny as hell. There are rumors that Michelle O might run for Senate, perhaps she should move to California and run for Feinstein's seat.
    Whats so funny PB of actually using the Senate Intel Chair who clearly said BO broke the law. Which you already know and have been shown in 4 or 5 other threads.

    You didn't want to say you didn't know that Feinstein didn't release such a statement now did you?



    Democrat Dianne Feinstein: Obama Broke The Law With Bergdahl Swap....

    Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss said the administration violated the law by failing to address serious concerns they had about the deal to swap Bergdahl for five Taliban detainees. Chambliss said he had not had a conversation with the White House about a possible exchange for at least 18 months.

    "It comes to us with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went ahead with no consultation, totally not following law," Feinstein told reporters following a closed door meeting. "And in an issue with this kind of concern to a committee that bears the oversight responsibility, I think you can see that we're very dismayed about it ." .....snip~


    Democrat Dianne Feinstein: Obama Broke The Law With Bergdahl Swap - Katie Pavlich

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...oke-law-3.html


    Now isn't that some funny **** admitted openly in front of the Press..

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The Taliban are not the ruling Authority
    And how is that relevant? What is yer response to my question about men taken prisoner by the Viet Cong and other forces not part of a "ruling Authority"?

    >>Go read the NY Times and they will aptly point that out to ya.

    I read the NYT on a regular basis. Do you? What information published in that newspaper would you have me address?

    >>Taliban NON-Combatants With a Designation of Terrorists

    I think you mean "unlawful" combatants. I expect those killed and wounded by Taliban forces would be surprised to discover that they were attacked by "non-combatants."

    >>He is a Deserter

    That is something to be determined in a legal proceeding.

    >>BO set this up. To try and gain Kudos with closing out the Afghanistan war. It has backfired in his face now.

    That is yer partisan judgement. Republicans have been calling for the President to act to have Bergdahl returned. Our involvement in the war in Afghanistan is coming to an end. In what way are Republicans in Congress calling for it to continue? Some say they want additional US forces kept there. Is there a call for a continuation of extensive combat operations?

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Yeah back in 2001.....since then they haven't ruled anything but their tribes.
    We've been fighting a war against the Taliban. They had an American POW. Seems rather simple to understand.

    >>Plus what do you have to say about BO not telling the New Afghan Government with their New President about this exchange. The one that signed the agreement to allow us to keep 9800 there and the US for another decade?

    I say the government it Kabul has been calling for the release of those men. They want to end the war against the Taliban if they can. The political leadership of the Taliban will be required to have that happen.

    U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan James Cunningham, speaking to reporters in Kabul, said the Karzai administration had been made aware of the impending prisoners' swap.

    "It's not behind the government's back. The government's known that we're trying to (do) this for a long time, and they agreed to it and they supported it," he said.

    "The only thing that was not transparent to anybody was the actual timing – the fact that there was an agreement and the timing. It certainly doesn't undermine the government and they never expressed any concern to us that it would undermine the government." — Reuters, June 3, 2014

    >>Then what would you say about BO initiating contact with the Taliban.....who had walked away from Peace talks? Oh Talks..... and without the Ruling government of Afghanistan.

    Are you claiming that the Karzai administration hasn't been seeking to negotiate a peace settlement with the Taliban?

    Karzai has backed peace talks with the hardline Islamist Taliban movement, which ruled Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 and has fought a bloody insurgency since then against U.S.-led forces in the country. — from that Reuters article

    You might even find reporting about this in the NYT.

    >>Can you say Bush did anything like this?

    I figure he was busy in Iraq.

    >>As Feinstein the Democrat set him out.

    I don't know what you mean by "set him out." The administration's position is clear.

    In December, Obama issued a signing statement that said the executive branch should have the flexibility "to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers."

    The administration has defended the prisoner swap, pointing to the signing statement as a clear indication that Congress was put on notice, and that lawmakers knew for a long time about the possibility of such a swap.

    "We have consulted with Congress for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover Sergeant Bergdahl," Obama said in Poland on Tuesday morning. "We saw an opportunity. We were concerned about Sergeant Bergdahl's health. We had the cooperation of the Qataris to execute an exchange, and we seized that opportunity. And the process was truncated because we wanted to make sure that we did not miss that window." — Dianne Feinstein Disappointed Lawmakers Not Given 30-Day Notice on Bergdahl Swap, National Journal, June 3, 2014

    Feinstein has been critical of the administration's actions, but she's quoted in that article saying that "the president certainly has an executive authority that he can use."

    In my view, the errors in this affair have been political rather than legal, as outlined in this article: Explaining The Bergdahl Swap Hasn't Been Obama's Finest Hour," NPR, June 5, 2014.
    Last edited by mmi; 06-06-14 at 11:26 AM.

  6. #36
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    I can't say I'm in agreement with Krauthammer, but I sure as hell respect his opinion.

    When it comes to the prisoners we traded for bergdahl, on the surface it doesn't seem like a very wise trade, but not being involved in the process or in the presidents position, I can't say for certain that I wouldn't have agreed with that swap.

    I do however, completely disagree with the president bypassing congress on this thing. We have laws for a reason, and this administration seems to think those laws don't apply to them and do whatever the hell they want... This is wrong and quite frankly, scares the hell out of me. Obama is setting a precedence that will pave the way for every president that follows him to do the same if they so choose.

    Naw, if it were the reverse the media would be in full retard mode right now, and dems have never shied away from aggressive congressional action. Our current crop of republicans in the congress (less maybe a short list of good ones) are too weak kneed to pursue the offender-n-chief.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    And how is that relevant? What is yer response to my question about men taken prisoner by the Viet Cong and other forces not part of a "ruling Authority"?

    >>Go read the NY Times and they will aptly point that out to ya.

    I read the NYT on a regular basis. Do you? What information published in that newspaper would you have me address?


    >>Then what would you say about BO initiating contact with the Taliban.....who had walked away from Peace talks? Oh Talks..... and without the Ruling government of Afghanistan.

    Are you claiming that the Karzai administration hasn't been seeking to negotiate a peace settlement with the Taliban?

    I don't know what you mean by "set him out." The administration's position is clear.

    The administration has defended the prisoner swap, pointing to the signing statement as a clear indication that Congress was put on notice, and that lawmakers knew for a long time about the possibility of such a swap.



    Feinstein has been critical of the administration's actions, but she's quoted in that article saying that "the president certainly has an executive authority that he can use."

    In my view, the errors in this affair have been political rather than legal, as outlined in this article: Explaining The Bergdahl Swap Hasn't Been Obama's Finest Hour," NPR, June 5, 2014.


    We will go with the one that shows it for what it is.....from the NY Times.


    The Taliban is not a legitimate combatant – its members are ‘illegitimate combatants,’ the term applied to them by our government. Nor is the Taliban an enemy state – like say Nazi Germany. Therefore the release of five senior Taliban commanders and leaders in exchange for an American solider was much closer to the payment of ransom than a valid exchange.

    I find it hard to see the difference between this "exchange" and the ransoms paid by France, Canada, and Germany for their citizens held captive by terrorist in Africa. The money they paid and the prisoners released were critical in building Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb into a force that would have overrun the West African country of Mali had French military forces not intervened.

    Much the same is true in this case. The "illegal combatants" released from Guantanamo killed American troops and thousands of Shia civilians. In all likelihood they will return to lead extremists in activities that will result in more terrorist attacks.

    When the United State sets this type of precedent – whether in Africa or the Middle East – it strengthens extremism and confirms upon their organizations a certain degree of legitimacy.

    The terrorists have learned this lesson well. So well that they now understand that the more public sympathy generated the more likely the price demanded will be paid.

    But the price – aiding the growth of terrorists around the globe is too high.....snip~

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...t-a-dangerous-

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...ry-lied-6.html


    Oh and in answer to all you thru up. Here are all your answers.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...n-captors.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pol...dahl-swap.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...broke-law.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...-exchange.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...desertion.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...errorists.html

    After you get thru all I have in these let me know and I will grab ya the other 6 or 7 with all that I have on The Taliban and all of BO's issues connected and in correlation to the issue. As well as the Taliban.

    This way I wont have to keep repeating myself over another 20 or so threads on the matter. Plus you will be brought up to date.....then discover how much I Know about this issue.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,992

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    We will go with the one that shows it for what it is.....from the NY Times.


    The Taliban is not a legitimate combatant – its members are ‘illegitimate combatants,’ the term applied to them by our government. Nor is the Taliban an enemy state – like say Nazi Germany. Therefore the release of five senior Taliban commanders and leaders in exchange for an American solider was much closer to the payment of ransom than a valid exchange.

    I find it hard to see the difference between this "exchange" and the ransoms paid by France, Canada, and Germany for their citizens held captive by terrorist in Africa. The money they paid and the prisoners released were critical in building Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb into a force that would have overrun the West African country of Mali had French military forces not intervened.

    Much the same is true in this case. The "illegal combatants" released from Guantanamo killed American troops and thousands of Shia civilians. In all likelihood they will return to lead extremists in activities that will result in more terrorist attacks.

    When the United State sets this type of precedent – whether in Africa or the Middle East – it strengthens extremism and confirms upon their organizations a certain degree of legitimacy.

    The terrorists have learned this lesson well. So well that they now understand that the more public sympathy generated the more likely the price demanded will be paid.

    But the price – aiding the growth of terrorists around the globe is too high.....snip~

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...t-a-dangerous-

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...ry-lied-6.html


    Oh and in answer to all you thru up. Here are all your answers.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...n-captors.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pol...dahl-swap.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...broke-law.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...-exchange.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...desertion.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...errorists.html

    After you get thru all I have in these let me know and I will grab ya the other 6 or 7 with all that I have on The Taliban and all of BO's issues connected and in correlation to the issue. As well as the Taliban.

    This way I wont have to keep repeating myself over another 20 or so threads on the matter. Plus you will be brought up to date.....then discover how much I Know about this issue.
    MMC do us all a favor.

    if you are going to speculate about the political ramifications of a story, speculate away.

    HOWEVER

    please make sure sure you actually have facts to verify, given how little facts are actually known about this story.

    A classified military report detailing the Army’s investigation into the disappearance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in June 2009 says that he had wandered away from assigned areas before — both at a training range in California and at his remote outpost in Afghanistan — and then returned, according to people briefed on it.

    The roughly 35-page report, completed two months after Sergeant Bergdahl left his unit, concludes that he most likely walked away of his own free will from his outpost in the dark of night, and it criticized lax security practices and poor discipline in his unit. But it stops short of concluding that there is solid evidence that Sergeant Bergdahl, then a private, intended to permanently desert.

    Whether Sergeant Bergdahl was a deserter who never intended to come back, or simply slipped away for a short adventure amid an environment of lax security and discipline and was then captured, is one of many unanswered questions about his disappearance.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/wo...port-says.html

    there is one thing we do know about the facts of this story: we know that we don't know anything for sure.
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    MMC do us all a favor.

    if you are going to speculate about the political ramifications of a story, speculate away.

    HOWEVER

    please make sure sure you actually have facts to verify, given how little facts are actually known about this story.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/wo...port-says.html

    there is one thing we do know about the facts of this story: we know that we don't know anything for sure.



    UWS.....don't try and re-paint what you can't. Speculate????? .....now that there is a Body Article 32 will take place.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...broke-law.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pol...dahl-swap.html

    U.S. concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl walked away

    A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.

    The military investigation was broader than a criminal inquiry, this official said, and it didn't formally accuse Bergdahl of desertion. In interviews, members of his unit portrayed him as a naive, "delusional" person who thought he could help the Afghan people by leaving his army post, the official said.

    U.S. military and intelligence agencies had made every effort to monitor Bergdahl's location and his health, the official said, through both signals intelligence and a network of spies.....snip~

    U.S. concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl walked away

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...desertion.html

    UWS, you do need to.....now catch back up to present day and time. Just sayin!

    Or you can even ask all those around here that was hitting up my Poll.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

    I heard his comments last night, and I will agree with part of it. "we in this nation value life more so than the animals".

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •