• 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!

White House apologizes to lawmakers over secret POW Swap.....

Slander is not erroneous. Slander involves intent.

Normally yes, but I'm being very specific about the response from one poster who I have observed does not include intent - their slander is blind partisan based.
 
Hmm, they gave you the bartender merit badge and now you grow the balls to come out and ad hom? Lol. Alright, look - you got something to get Obama on? Send a letter to your representative and get him on the impeachment wagon. I dare ya. I'll be diamonds to German sausages that he sends you a nice polite letter thanking you for your contributions and telling you he'll do all he can. Then, he'll go to congress, make a fuss and **** off on the matter after 6 months. The best part is that Conservatives actually sounded the drums to get him back by any means necessary. Then, like the Judas' they are turned on the administration. Try to impeach Obama on this and just like in 90s when you made Clinton look good over a blowjob. The most you'll get it is a goodhearted action which didn't have the benefits expected.

Don't be silly, I've spoken up on what I believe ever since I got here. If you're trying for free beer, by getting on my good side, forget it. :lol:
 
The WH has admitted they broke the law. The claim was "unique and exigent circumstances".

Yeah, work for you, nothing to see here. :roll:
 
Don't be silly, I've spoken up on what I believe ever since I got here. If you're trying for free beer, by getting on my good side, forget it. :lol:


Be careful about those Unlabeled Beers American. :mrgreen:

3.png
 
You're being too kind, M.
They'd love to have him and he'd love to be had.

As for "incompetence", look at it this way ... one might be inclined to say Susan Rice is incompetent based on her 2 Sunday performances, until one considers that she was hired for her ability to lie with wild abandon in front of a very large audience ... then I say "incompetence" is not the right word.
 
You're being too kind, M.
They'd love to have him and he'd love to be had.

As for "incompetence", look at it this way ... one might be inclined to say Susan Rice is incompetent based on her 2 Sunday performances, until one considers that she was hired for her ability to lie with wild abandon in front of a very large audience ... then I say "incompetence" is not the right word.

I don't know B......that CNN poll and his own team calling him out. Says things might be on the Change. Now we just Need Republicans act and not sit back and do nothing.
 
Normally yes, but I'm being very specific about the response from one poster who I have observed does not include intent - their slander is blind partisan based.

Then it is not slander. It is error.
 
Ya know ... I was thinking about something along the lines of why he even got that thing to begin with, and it started me thinking whether he's got his eyes on something like UN Secretary General after he mercifully leaves his current position.
Or do you think that's not big enough for him?

Not sure I've said it here, but I've been saying since year 2 of his presidency that his ultimate goal is a seat in the UN. So he has to be like a dog sniffing and licking the butt of every world hoodlum out there.
 
Those criticizing Obama for specifically for the fact of freeing this individual, who demanded previously he be freed would be hypocrites.

Those critizing Obama for potentially breaking the law in an effort to free this invididual, and who demanded previously he be freed, are not hypocrites. Those are not the same thing.

Those criticizing Obama for potentially giving away far too much in return for him, and who demanded previously he be freed, are not hypocrites. Those are not the same thing.

Those latter two instances are not complaining that he was freed...it's complaining about actions taken to get to that end point. Basically, to claim that all these folks are hypocrites one would basically need to suggest everyone speaks, thinks, and acts from the notion that the ends always justify the means.

I can't really figure out what you are trying to say here. I posted the first article about this on my FB page thinking it to be great news. Then one of my veteran friends pointed out that Obama had traded him for 5 jihadists. Then I learned he is an Islamic convert. Then I learned he is a deserter. Then I learned Obama broke a law he, himself, signed into law when he did this. My opinion on this topic has evolved to say the least. So if you want to label me a hypocrite, knock yourself out. It is not apparent to me that you are the sharpest crayon on the box.

I am a mere retired nurse. Obama is the president of the United States. He should have had it together before he did this, and clearly he did not. Or if he did, he is aiding and abetting the enemy.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I've said it here, but I've been saying since year 2 of his presidency that his ultimate goal is a seat in the UN. So he has to be like a dog sniffing and licking the butt of every world hoodlum out there.

great_minds.jpg
 
I can't really figure out what you are trying to say here.

I'm trying to suggest that calling people hypocrites based on previously wanting this guy released, but being opposed to it now in light of new information OR being opposed to certain aspects of it, are not "hypocrites".

Much like one would not be a hypocrite if they wanted Obama to get rid of Holder but then got upset if he murdered Holder in an effort to "get rid of him", I don't think someone who wanted Bergdahl freed but is upset as to the METHOD of that attaining that freedom isn't a hypocrite.

One could have wanted him freed, but still honestly and unhypocritically be upset about the possible illegal action in the process of freeing him.

One could have wanted him freed, but still honestly disagree with the extent of what we gave to get his freedom

One could have wanted him freed, but then became bothered by him being freed once they gained further information about his possible transgressions before being a POW.

I'm not trying to label you a hypocrite. On the contrary, I'm suggesting you and others like you aren't.

To go on a flip side for liberals...

I'd say the same if there are/were liberals that were calling for Bergdahl to be released, and then criticize the METHOD if instead of swapping prisoners Obama ramped up ground troop engagement against the Taliban until he could be recovered physically, essentially resurging the Afghanistan war for the single prisoner. They would not be "hypocrites" because even though they wanted the President to get the guy back it's still possible to disagree with the method they went aobut it.

Or lets say they want to get the POW back, but once he's gotten back it's discovered he potentially raped some Afghaney women and tortured some detainee's. I sincerely doubt we've be hearing claims of "SWIFT BOATING" if that occured, nor do I think the individuals on the left would take kindly to be called hypocrites for changing thier opinion on a matter once further information came to light.
 
Lately I've heard that there was talk of a deal of ransom for Bergdahl but that wouldn't have done anything re Gitmo so that was scrapped.

Link please.
 
I'm trying to suggest that calling people hypocrites based on previously wanting this guy released, but being opposed to it now in light of new information OR being opposed to certain aspects of it, are not "hypocrites".

Much like one would not be a hypocrite if they wanted Obama to get rid of Holder but then got upset if he murdered Holder in an effort to "get rid of him", I don't think someone who wanted Bergdahl freed but is upset as to the METHOD of that attaining that freedom isn't a hypocrite.

One could have wanted him freed, but still honestly and unhypocritically be upset about the possible illegal action in the process of freeing him.

One could have wanted him freed, but still honestly disagree with the extent of what we gave to get his freedom

One could have wanted him freed, but then became bothered by him being freed once they gained further information about his possible transgressions before being a POW.

I'm not trying to label you a hypocrite. On the contrary, I'm suggesting you and others like you aren't.

To go on a flip side for liberals...

I'd say the same if there are/were liberals that were calling for Bergdahl to be released, and then criticize the METHOD if instead of swapping prisoners Obama ramped up ground troop engagement against the Taliban until he could be recovered physically, essentially resurging the Afghanistan war for the single prisoner. They would not be "hypocrites" because even though they wanted the President to get the guy back it's still possible to disagree with the method they went aobut it.

Or lets say they want to get the POW back, but once he's gotten back it's discovered he potentially raped some Afghaney women and tortured some detainee's. I sincerely doubt we've be hearing claims of "SWIFT BOATING" if that occured, nor do I think the individuals on the left would take kindly to be called hypocrites for changing thier opinion on a matter once further information came to light.


Well, my personal opinion has 'changed' the more information I have gotten. IMO, this particular soldier should have been the LAST one we tried to bring home given that he is a deserter. It would be different if he had been captured in the actual service of the US, but trading 5 high ranking Taliban for him? That's absurd. No doubt Obama will try to add this guy's status as a deserter to the long list of things he has been clueless about over the last 6 years. I have lost count of the number of 'I didn't know.........' memes he has used. However, as a member of the general public, in addition to the many things I don't WANT to know, there is a lot that I didn't know. Good news turned to bad pretty quickly in this case.
 

Heya B......Check this thread out I had up Back in Feb on Bergdahl. Check my response out back then.

Report: US Wants to Swap Taliban for Bergdahl.....

The Obama administration has decided to revive talks with the Afghan Taliban in an effort to free the only known American soldier in captivity in exchange for the release of Taliban prisoners held at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, The Washington Post reported late Monday.

bowe_bergdahl-ts300.jpg


Five Taliban prisoners who have been held at Guantanamo for years would be released to protective custody in exchange for the release of Bergdahl, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2009, the newspaper reported, citing current and former U.S. officials familiar with the decision.

The Post reported that senior officials from the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies decided within the past month to allow the release of all five prisoners at the same time, though the exchange offer has not been formally made.

The report comes a month after U.S. officials confirmed they'd received a video showing Bergdahl, 27, in poorer health than previous footage taken in the years since he went missing in Afghanistan on June 30, 2009. Bergdahl was based on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska when he was captured.

The effort to revive talks comes amid U.S. frustration over Afghan President Hamid Karzai's refusal to sign a long-term security agreement with the U.S. that he agreed to last year. The pact would provide the legal basis for any U.S. forces to remain in Afghanistan as trainers and advisers after the international combat mission ends in December.....snip~

Report: US Wants to Swap Taliban for Bergdahl | Military.com

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...17-report-us-wants-swap-taliban-bergdahl.html


Who decided to revive talks with the Taliban. Who does the Washington Post say it was?

Oh no.....not the State Dept weighing in again. :doh
 
Last edited:
Link please.

He was held by the Hakani network

They pretty much are the funding engine of the Taliban.

Hard to believe money didnt change hands at some point
 
He was held by the Hakani network

They pretty much are the funding engine of the Taliban.

Hard to believe money didnt change hands at some point



Thats Right Fenton :2wave: .....and we have straight from them. Not to mention even Gates brought it all up.


Afghan Taliban: US soldier Bergdahl a 'precious bird'

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Members of the Afghan Taliban confirmed to NBC News on Thursday that they are still holding the American soldier Bowe Bergdahl who disappeared from his base in Afghanistan in 2009, but claimed he sometimes stops eating and drinking.

“He is our special guest, and we consider him a precious bird, that’s why our men are taking care of him. We have been arranging food of his choice, but sometimes he stops eating and drinking and his hunger strike continues for a few days,” said a senior member of the Afghan Taliban, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Only official Afghan Taliban spokesmen Qari Yousaf Ahmadi and Zabihullah Mujahid, are allowed to interact with media.

Bergdahl was later shifted to Pakistan’s tribal areas and held in the mountains, according to the Taliban commander. His captor, Sangeen, died in a U. S. drone attack last year in Pakistan’s North Waziristan.

Two years ago, when the Taliban opened their office in Qatar for peace talks with the U.S., there were prospects of an exchange of prisoners. The Haqqani network handed Bergdahl over to the Afghan Taliban because they wanted to exchange him for their top five commanders being held at Guantanamo Bay, the Taliban commander said.

“U.S. officials had promised us that first they would exchange prisoners and then start peace talks. But it didn’t take place. And finally when there was no hope of prisoners’ swap, the soldier was returned to the Haqqani network,” the Taliban commander said.

Gates added that he’s glad his captors have apparently taken care of him.....snip~

Afghan Taliban: US soldier Bergdahl a 'precious bird' - World News

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

Actually the first time the Taliban made demands.....they demanded 21 be released and that they be given 1 million dollars.
 
Should BO have to apologize for this guy?


One of Obama's GITMO Five Releases Helped With Lead-Up to 9/11.....

0.png


Writing in the Weekly Standard, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Senior Fellow Thomas Joscelyn writes that the "Taliban 5" are worse "than we've heard." In fact one of them, Mohammad Fazl, played a key roll in the lead-up to the 2001 9/11 terror attacks.

Mohammad Fazl, who served as the Taliban’s army chief of staff and deputy defense minister prior to his detention at Guantánamo, did not have a hand in planning the actual 9/11 hijackings. Along with a notorious al Qaeda leader, however, Fazl did help coordinate a military offensive against the enemies of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan the day before. And Osama bin Laden viewed that September 10 offensive as an essential part of al Qaeda’s 9/11 plot.



Good News: One of Obama's GITMO Five Releases Helped With Lead-Up to 9/11 - Katie Pavlich
 
Back
Top Bottom