• 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!

Kerry: 'Offensive' to leave an American behind

This coming from and unconvicted traitor who abandoned his shipmates in Vietnam.

By JEREMY HERB | [h=5]6/8/14 9:13 AM EDT[/h]
Secretary of State John Kerry is defending President Barack Obama's prisoner swap, saying it would be “offensive and incomprehensible” to consciously leave behind an U.S. soldier

Kerry: 'Offensive' to leave an American behind - POLITICO.com

Was it only offensive and incomprehensible now? What about the last 5 years? Sometimes I don't think these prima donnas think before they spout off.

I'm glad he was released. I'm not sure we made the best deal possible, but at least now the matter can be investigated properly.
 
Have they been convicted of a crime?

Yes, we know that they are Really Bad People - we get that. But how many years should we keep them locked away without them having been convicted of a crime?

Same goes for everyone in Gitmo, btw - esp. the 80 or so who have been cleared to be sent back to their home country...but can't go because the Republicans won't allow any funding to be available for them to go.

Many leftists are more worried about terrorists than the American public or their military. It seems to be a matter of mis-education or, to put it another way, you've been taught BS all your life.
 
So, do you favor leaving soldiers behind? Personally, I am kinda against it myself.

Do you favor the President of the United States breaking the law?

The administration initially said the exchange was urgent because they believed that Bergdahl’s health had deteriorated so much that his death could have been imminent. Officials have since said their greatest fear was that his value to his captors was rapidly diminishing after three years of sporadic and unsuccessful negotiations and as the U.S. combat withdrawal from Afghanistan drew near.

“When Bergdahl was let go, what we were told was . . . he was in poor health, and they were concerned that if they did not make this exchange that his life would be in danger as a result of bad health,” Chambliss said. “Well, no intelligence supported that.

Bowe Bergdahl said he was tortured, kept in a cage by Taliban, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post

Three years of negotiations and the POTUS had to break the law to get him home? Who said he was in poor health? The Taliban?

Obama does things how and when he wants to because he thinks he's above the law.

Bergdahl is responsible for what happened to him, not the US military. I'm surprised they looked for him, given the situation.

Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life. He slipped off the remote military outpost in Paktika Province on the border with Pakistan and took with him a soft backpack, water, knives, a notebook and writing materials, but left behind his body armor and weapons — startling, given the hostile environment around his outpost.

Bowe Bergdahl said he was tortured, kept in a cage by Taliban, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post

The guy is obviously not a genius. I guess he's just a trusting liberal thinking that if you're nice to terrorists they'll be nice to you.
 
Are you naive to thinks the guys we released from Gitmo are just to go back tp Afghanistan and be "Happy Campers"

Not only is Barrack Obama releasing the worst of the worst from Gitmo he is also withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and in two years says there will be less than 5,000 there. Would anyone care to serve therewhen they know they have little protection and that their own president will not have their backs?

It will be a bloodbath for Americans troops there. If Obama wants to retreat he should withdraw everyone now not allow any man, or woman, to be left behind.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063385448 said:
Do you favor the President of the United States breaking the law?



Bowe Bergdahl said he was tortured, kept in a cage by Taliban, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post

Three years of negotiations and the POTUS had to break the law to get him home? Who said he was in poor health? The Taliban?

Obama does things how and when he wants to because he thinks he's above the law.

Bergdahl is responsible for what happened to him, not the US military. I'm surprised they looked for him, given the situation.



Bowe Bergdahl said he was tortured, kept in a cage by Taliban, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post

The guy is obviously not a genius. I guess he's just a trusting liberal thinking that if you're nice to terrorists they'll be nice to you.

I am not really sure where my words confused you. They seem,ed straightforward enough. Here, let me help you out a bit:L did I state than any and every method is the right way to not leave our troops behind? If not, then why would you assume otherwise? Reading Is Fundamental...
 
Are you naive to thinks the guys we released from Gitmo are just to go back tp Afghanistan and be "Happy Campers"

I suspect that the intelligence community hopes not. These guys are sure to be carefully watched and tracked, probably using means we would never even dream of, in hopes they lead us to more bad guys. Just a guess on my part, but I think it is not a bad one.
 
I am not really sure where my words confused you. They seem,ed straightforward enough. Here, let me help you out a bit:L did I state than any and every method is the right way to not leave our troops behind? If not, then why would you assume otherwise? Reading Is Fundamental...

Then why is Barrack Obama going to cut back troops there and leave less that 5,000 of them behind?
 
Many leftists are more worried about terrorists than the American public or their military. It seems to be a matter of mis-education or, to put it another way, you've been taught BS all your life.

Yeah, shame on us for believing that it's wrong to keep people locked up forever without trial. I guess Stalin was doing the right thing, then - trials, don't matter, just send 'em all over to the Gulag and keep them for as long as he thinks is necessary. "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is for weaklings, not for real human beings!
 
Um, no, these guys are NOT all the "baddest of the bad". Some were flat-out innocent. We put out a bounty on bad guys in Afghanistan, and some of the people there got the bright idea that all they had to do was to point out people that they didn't like and tell the Americans that "those people are planning to attack you!" or "We heard them laughing about killing your troops!"...

...and our side ate it up - we'd pay the bounty, swoop in and get these guys and bring them to Guantanamo...and then we'd find out that maybe, just maybe they were innocent all along. Right now, there's 86 who have been cleared to go back to their home countries...but the House Republicans won't let them go.

For the 86 prisoners, it's a plight almost Kafkaesque in its cruel absurdity: though the United States believes they should be released from their concrete cells at Guantanamo Bay, they have stayed in prison, often for years, not because of any crime they committed or immediate threat they pose, but because of diplomatic and political hurdles out of their control.

For the Obama administration, it's a maze with no obvious exits: it doesn't want to keep these prisoners locked up in Gitmo, which is politically and diplomatically costly, not to mention antithetical to Obama's stated desire to close the prison, but Congress has forbidden the prisoners from being transferred to U.S. soil. Though the administration had searched for foreign countries to which the detainees could be released, it appears to have since given up, having closed the office responsible for finding those countries.


"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"...unless, of course, you're stuck in Gitmo...because if you are, it doesn't matter if you're innocent...because America's AFRAID that you might do something bad if we let you go...

...never mind that by refusing to let you go home, we've probably succeeded in radicalizing most of your family who are outraged that we took you and won't let you go. By keeping Gitmo open, by not letting the ones go home who should've been gone a long time ago, we're probably creating a heck of a lot more terrorists than we would have otherwise....and so more of our troops die.

Its amazing how you ignore that during the second world war we held thousands of Germans in custody without trials and when the war was over and our troops safe then we received them and not before.
 
Was it only offensive and incomprehensible now? What about the last 5 years? Sometimes I don't think these prima donnas think before they spout off.



I'm glad he was released. I'm not sure we made the best deal possible, but at least now the matter can be investigated properly.


I don't want one American killed by one of these bastards for the release of one at best a deserter and at worse a traitor.
 
I suspect that the intelligence community hopes not. These guys are sure to be carefully watched and tracked, probably using means we would never even dream of, in hopes they lead us to more bad guys. Just a guess on my part, but I think it is not a bad one.


If you believe that you live in fantasy land. Wake up.
 
Not only is Barrack Obama releasing the worst of the worst from Gitmo he is also withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and in two years says there will be less than 5,000 there. Would anyone care to serve therewhen they know they have little protection and that their own president will not have their backs?

It will be a bloodbath for Americans troops there. If Obama wants to retreat he should withdraw everyone now not allow any man, or woman, to be left behind.


I don't believe that "Cut and Running" like cowards is the thing to do. Its like surrendering to the enemy.
 
Yeah, shame on us for believing that it's wrong to keep people locked up forever without trial. I guess Stalin was doing the right thing, then - trials, don't matter, just send 'em all over to the Gulag and keep them for as long as he thinks is necessary. "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is for weaklings, not for real human beings!

So you would clog up American courts for generations in order to try international terrorists according to US law? You would also have those serving on the field being used as witnesses, while other terrorists try to sabotage these trials. It is weaklings who will allow themselves and others to be victims of terrorists.
 
I don't believe that "Cut and Running" like cowards is the thing to do. Its like surrendering to the enemy.

But they don't call it that, nor do they use the more modest "retreat". Instead they are "ending the war in Afghanistan" bbeievung, it seems, that the other side is willing to end the war as well.

Not along ago the Al Qar=eda flag was raised in Fallujah and today the Al Qaeda flag flies in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city.

Soon all traces of American involvement will disappear in Afghanistan also with many sacrificing their lives for a President who only knows retreat, and mollifying America's enemies. How many American's would want to jeopardize their lives for a cowardly President like this, who does leave soldiers behind. just as he did in Benghazi?

Did you read, btw, that a Presidential spokesperson called the terrorists "Gentlemen"? State Dept Spokeswoman Harf Calls Terrorists Released in Bergdahl Trade "Gentlemen"
 
I suspect that the intelligence community hopes not. These guys are sure to be carefully watched and tracked, probably using means we would never even dream of, in hopes they lead us to more bad guys. Just a guess on my part, but I think it is not a bad one.

Seems, despite all the evidence, you still believe in Obama and always hope a correct decision is just around the corner.
 
So, do you favor leaving soldiers behind? Personally, I am kinda against it myself.

No, but trading away 5 top value prisoners is the wrong way to go about it.

Look, we sent in a Seal team to land in the backyard of the Worlds most wanted man, killed him and his bodyguards before they could get a shot off, and did it all with out one casualty.

The fact is he wanted to dump Gitmo detainees.

With no concern for the future threat on American soldiers OR Afganis who have been fighting the Taliban along side American soldiers.

And to top it off, he thought nothing more of the American people than to offer up blatant lies.
 
Seems, despite all the evidence, you still believe in Obama and always hope a correct decision is just around the corner.

Believing in our intelligence community is entirely different from what you said. You do amuse me though. I wonder how you will try and twist this into something I did not say...
 
I don't want one American killed by one of these bastards for the release of one at best a deserter and at worse a traitor.

That's an assumption. I don't want to see anyone killed either, but I'd rather Bergdhal's actions be investigated and acted upon.
 
That's an assumption. I don't want to see anyone killed either, but I'd rather Bergdhal's actions be investigated and acted upon.

Yes but releasing these guys instead of waiting for a complete surrender and withdrawal by us increases the chances of our guys getting killed. Oh and make no mistake about it Obama is surrendering to his radical Muslim buddies.
 
No, but trading away 5 top value prisoners is the wrong way to go about it.

Look, we sent in a Seal team to land in the backyard of the Worlds most wanted man, killed him and his bodyguards before they could get a shot off, and did it all with out one casualty.

The fact is he wanted to dump Gitmo detainees.

With no concern for the future threat on American soldiers OR Afganis who have been fighting the Taliban along side American soldiers.

And to top it off, he thought nothing more of the American people than to offer up blatant lies.

I am afraid once we leave there will be a bloodbath of Afghans who supported us. They are not ready to take over.....
 
I am afraid once we leave there will be a bloodbath of Afghans who supported us. They are not ready to take over.....

Unlike Vietnam, Afghanistan is landlocked and there will be no millions of Afghan Boat People fleeing Afghanistan like what happened to those South Vietnamese who were friendly to American soldiers during the Vietnam War and had to flee for their lives after the North occupied Saigon.
 
I am afraid once we leave there will be a bloodbath of Afghans who supported us. They are not ready to take over.....

And those 4,800 troops who will be forced to remain there. Leaving these men behind is just looking for trouble, much as was predicted in Benghazi. This notion of Obama's 'no man left behind' policy only serves to highlight again his lying ways.
 
I am afraid once we leave there will be a bloodbath of Afghans who supported us. They are not ready to take over.....

LOL...you neo-cons always say the same thing. You are never happy unless we have never ending war to fuel the war corporations.
 
I don't want one American killed by one of these bastards for the release of one at best a deserter and at worse a traitor.

What happened to the "Navy Pride" that just 10 days ago was on this site proclaiming that Obama's big mistake was that he didn't get him released sooner? Oops....I guess the Limbaugh talking points hadn't made it to him yet.....
 
Its amazing how you ignore that during the second world war we held thousands of Germans in custody without trials and when the war was over and our troops safe then we received them and not before.

It's amazing how you compare this to WWII without putting more thought into the comparison itself. A better comparison would be dealing with a defeated and occupied Germany...because even though there are terror attacks going on even today in Afghanistan, terror attacks were going on in Germany for quite some time after we defeated her. We have occupied Afghanistan, and we occupied Germany...and we allowed many thousands of Germans - many of whom almost certainly believed strongly in the Nazi ideal - to go home. But we're not doing the same for the Afghans because the Republicans are afraid of what they might do.

But that's the real difference between what we were then and what the Right is today. Then, we did not let fear of what somebody might do rule our actions. Today, our Right does.
 
Back
Top Bottom