• 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!

Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal[W:30]

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.

BHO needs to become the 2nd President to ever get elected to Congress in 2018 or 2020, when He's ready.
To outdo Adams, we need Speaker Obama to set which things straight need to be set .
 
OH look at filthy :lamo
Here is the obvious question. Look at the repeated irregular or unskillful blows. Such is the "blow" delivered by NIMBY? Seems so, like an ill wind that skims the surface of a fetid pool of offal, long may NIMBY blow away? You tell us NIMBY, after all this is your tightly corded knot of brilliance. Yes of course we acknowledge that you can look at things as well declare, oh look! What societal import or reward is it you think should be showered upon you that is not already given that of the average newborn? By all means, do share. This can only get more nimble as it spasms or should we call it, progresses through the NIMBY cortex?:cool:
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Infractions have been handed out. If you want to attack each other instead of addressing the OP, you know the proper place to do that. Stick to the topic.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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?
 
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-pa...stein-admits-bo-and-his-team-broke-law-3.html


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

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:
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-
 
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. :cool:


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/break...ied-looking-bergdahl-and-military-lied-6.html


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


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...celebrated-xmas-played-badminton-captors.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...-mckeon-announces-hearings-bergdahl-swap.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...enstein-admits-bo-and-his-team-broke-law.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...y-clinton-defends-bowe-bergdahl-exchange.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...rently-seeking-punish-bergdahl-desertion.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...ve-never-supported-engagement-terrorists.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.
 
We will go with the one that shows it for what it is.....from the NY Times. :cool:


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/break...ied-looking-bergdahl-and-military-lied-6.html


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


http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...celebrated-xmas-played-badminton-captors.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...-mckeon-announces-hearings-bergdahl-swap.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...enstein-admits-bo-and-his-team-broke-law.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...y-clinton-defends-bowe-bergdahl-exchange.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...rently-seeking-punish-bergdahl-desertion.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...ve-never-supported-engagement-terrorists.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/world/asia/bowe-bergdahl-walked-away-before-military-report-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.
 
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/world/asia/bowe-bergdahl-walked-away-before-military-report-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????? :roll: .....now that there is a Body Article 32 will take place.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...enstein-admits-bo-and-his-team-broke-law.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...-mckeon-announces-hearings-bergdahl-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-pa...rently-seeking-punish-bergdahl-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.
rolleyes.png
 
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".
 
UWS.....don't try and re-paint what you can't. Speculate????? :roll: .....now that there is a Body Article 32 will take place.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...enstein-admits-bo-and-his-team-broke-law.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...-mckeon-announces-hearings-bergdahl-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-pa...rently-seeking-punish-bergdahl-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.
rolleyes.png

MMC please cite what article you are quoting from.

and let me throw this out.

The report is also said to cite members of his platoon as saying that he may have taken a shorter unauthorized walk outside the concertina wire of his combat outpost in eastern Afghanistan before he left for good, in an episode that was apparently not reported up the chain of command. The newspaper Military Times on Wednesday first reported that claim, also citing officials familiar with the military’s report.

But the report is said to contain no mention of Sergeant Bergdahl’s having left behind a letter in his tent that explicitly said he was deserting and explained his disillusionment, as a retired senior military official briefed on the investigation at the time told The New York Times this week.

Asked about what appeared to be a disconnect, the retired officer insisted that he remembered reading a field report discussing the existence of such a letter in the early days of the search and was unable to explain why it was not mentioned in the final investigative report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/world/asia/bowe-bergdahl-walked-away-before-military-report-says.html

if you think you know all the facts of this story, i think you are wrong.
 
MMC please cite what article you are quoting from.

and let me throw this out.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/world/asia/bowe-bergdahl-walked-away-before-military-report-says.html

if you think you know all the facts of this story, i think you are wrong.

UWS you need to go and read those links I have up.....Just sayin. ;)

Oh and that one was the AP and Yahoo......here it is up here in this thread with More about Bergdahl and what you didn't know.





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.

Instead, the U.S. government pursued negotiations to get him back over the following five years of his captivity — a track that led to his release over the weekend.

One official, who spoke on grounds of anonymity because the person wasn't authorized to discuss the subject by name, said there were concerns about Bergdahl's mental and emotional as well as physical health.

And in Kabul Monday, the Afghan Foreign Ministry called the swap "against the norms of international law" if it came against the five imprisoned Taliban detainees' will. The ministry said: "No state can transfer another country's citizen to a third country and put restriction on their freedom."

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


Oh, and it was in this thread too. Imagine that!!!!! :shock:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ebrated-xmas-played-badminton-captors-10.html
 
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?

Besides invading the wrong country, resulting in thousands of needless deaths for our soldiers?
 
We will go with the one that shows it for what it is.....from the NY Times.

From an editorial published in the NYT. That is not their reporting. The author is a retired foreign service officer who has called for an end to the US embargo of Cuba and a significant expansion of our financial support to UN efforts in Africa. I take it you also agree her on those issues.

Let me ask you this: Suppose the Taliban held several American soldiers who were not reported to have left their bases voluntarily. Would you have opposed a prisoner exchange for them?

Are you aware that civilians being held hostage by the Taliban could also have been exchanged? Only Bergdahl, a POW whether you like it or not, was traded.

Since yer so enamoured of the NYT reporting of this story, why didn't you comment on the article cited by Unitedwestand13? Here are the opening paragraphs:

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.

The issue is murky, the report said, in light of Sergeant Bergdahl’s previous episodes of walking off. The report cites accounts from his unit mates that in their predeployment exercise at the Army’s National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., he sneaked or crawled off a designated course or range either to see how far he could go or to see a sunrise or sunset. — "Bergdahl Is Said to Have History of Leaving Post," NYT, June 5, 2014​

That AP report based on information from an anonymous source. It states explicitly that Bergdahl was not even accused of desertion. Others here have pointed that out, but you don't seem to take notice.

The Pentagon's official position is clear: no conclusions regarding Bergdahl's actions should be made before a thorough investigation can be completed. "Army will conduct 'comprehensive' review of Bergdahl disappearance, captivity," Stars and Stripes, June 3, 2014.

>>After you get thru all I have in these let me know

I'm not going to read yer input to any other threads on this topic. Yer posts here have convinced it would be a waste of my time. If you have something worth listening to, you should be able to state it briefly.

>>then discover how much I Know about this issue

Like I say, I don't think you have the first clue.
 
From an editorial published in the NYT. That is not their reporting. The author is a retired foreign service officer who has called for an end to the US embargo of Cuba and a significant expansion of our financial support to UN efforts in Africa. I take it you also agree her on those issues.

Let me ask you this: Suppose the Taliban held several American soldiers who were not reported to have left their bases voluntarily. Would you have opposed a prisoner exchange for them?

Are you aware that civilians being held hostage by the Taliban could also have been exchanged? Only Bergdahl, a POW whether you like it or not, was traded.

Since yer so enamoured of the NYT reporting of this story, why didn't you comment on the article cited by Unitedwestand13? Here are the opening paragraphs:

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.

The issue is murky, the report said, in light of Sergeant Bergdahl’s previous episodes of walking off. The report cites accounts from his unit mates that in their predeployment exercise at the Army’s National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., he sneaked or crawled off a designated course or range either to see how far he could go or to see a sunrise or sunset. — "Bergdahl Is Said to Have History of Leaving Post," NYT, June 5, 2014​

That AP report based on information from an anonymous source. It states explicitly that Bergdahl was not even accused of desertion. Others here have pointed that out, but you don't seem to take notice.

The Pentagon's official position is clear: no conclusions regarding Bergdahl's actions should be made before a thorough investigation can be completed. "Army will conduct 'comprehensive' review of Bergdahl disappearance, captivity," Stars and Stripes, June 3, 2014.

>>After you get thru all I have in these let me know

I'm not going to read yer input to any other threads on this topic. Yer posts here have convinced it would be a waste of my time. If you have something worth listening to, you should be able to state it briefly.

>>then discover how much I Know about this issue

Like I say, I don't think you have the first clue.



Well once you get done checking those other threads out.....then get back with me. Until then you aint talkin about nothing around here Nube.
 
Well once you get done checking those other threads out then get back with me.

Not gonna happen. I'm confident it's all just more regurgitated claptrap. You don't answer the questions I've put to you, and I'm sure that's because you don't have anything to say.

>>Until then you aint talkin about nothing around here Nube.

As I see things, I've already contributed more to this discussion than you have or, more to the point, are even capable of.
 
Not gonna happen. I'm confident it's all just more regurgitated claptrap. You don't answer the questions I've put to you, and I'm sure that's because you don't have anything to say.

>>Until then you aint talkin about nothing around here Nube.

As I see things, I've already contributed more to this discussion than you have or, more to the point, are even capable of.


Thats due to you not knowing the Taliban are listed as Non-combatants and that's by our ownselves. As well as being listed down as Terrorists. All the rest of that confusion and deflections you threw up doesn't mean much. Try sticking to one issue at a time. It will help you out going forward.

Even Basic Wiki can help you out with the discovery.


Oh and You haven't.....and you really don't have much credibility around here so that pretty much ends that until you can.....like build some up. Just sayin!
 
Thats due to you not knowing the Taliban are listed as Non-combatants and that's by our ownselves.

I've already noted that you must mean "unlawful" or "illegal" combatants. "Non-combatants" are innocent civilians, typically women and children.

>>you really don't have much credibility around here so that pretty much ends that until you can.....like build some up

So you think that thousands of posts gives you credibility? I'd say content would be a better focus for judging that quality.
 
I've already noted that you must mean "unlawful" or "illegal" combatants. "Non-combatants" are innocent civilians, typically women and children.

>>you really don't have much credibility around here so that pretty much ends that until you can.....like build some up

So you think that thousands of posts gives you credibility? I'd say content would be a better focus for judging that quality.

Their considered Terrorists and they are on the National Counter Terrorism Agency's List.

Well that's what all those threads are about.....and what I have in them. Eventually you will learn about who and who doesn't put content up around here. ;)
 
SHOCKER!!! Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO.com

Charles Krauthammer says he supports President Barack Obama’s deal to bring Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl home.
“Had the choice been mine I would have made the same choice,” Krauthammer told Fox News’ “Special Report” on Wednesday. “It’s a difficult decision, and I would not attack those who have done otherwise.”




Read more: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO.com

Krauthammer said those in the West “put a value on the individual human life the way that the ones at the other end of the table don’t,” specifically citing an example in which Israelis had to release 1,000 terrorists in exchange for one sergeant who had been taken captive.

Read more: Charles Krauthammer backs Bowe Bergdahl deal - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO.com

we value life, they(the taliban)DO NOT!!

charles has it right.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom