Released Taliban - More Kidnappings Inbound

[Dwaar]

From the New York Times:


Asked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, a commander laughed. “Definitely.”

The commander, who is close to the senior Taliban leadership based in Kandahar, Afghanistan and Quetta, Pakistan, and is close to the negotiations, describes scenes of intense jubilation among the Taliban leadership and their supporters. Candies and sweet pastries are being passed around, he says, speaking to TIME via telephone from the Kandahar area.

Those close to the leadership and the detainees are feasting on “whole goats cooked in rice”—a special meal usually reserved for celebrations. “I cannot explain how our people are happy and excited over this unbelievable achievement.” (He too has been known to TIME for several years). “This is a historic moment for us. Today our enemy for the first time officially recognized our status.”

The news of the detainees’ release, says the commander from Kandahar, spread like a wildfire. “Besides our field commanders and fighters, our leader Mullah Mohammad Omar is so happy and is anxiously waiting to see his heroes,” he says.

There was some disgruntlement among Taliban ranks over the terms, admits the Kandahar commander. Some members wanted a ransom payment for Bergdahl, in addition to the release of the Guantanamo detainees. But the leadership prevailed. “We told them that these five men are more important than millions of dollars to us,” he says. He was more tolerant of complaints from Taliban foot soldiers that pointed out that for all the celebrations surrounding the officials’ release, there was no reward or recognition for the Taliban fighters who captured Bergdahl in 2009. But that’s not likely to get in the way of future attempts to kidnap American soldiers, across all ranks.

Asked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, he laughed. “Definitely,” he says. “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

---Really wish people would stop living in their fantasy world, and realize Islamic Fundamentalists are in this for the long haul. Our lack of resolve to recognize this, and think they have the same values as we do, is absurd. Just because the US and it's people "may be tired of war", does not mean that the war just stops.

[Warriorbird]

I tend to think we ought to obsess less about the Middle East.

[Gelston]

If we had no troops there, sure. Until that time I don't feel we obsess enough.

[Warriorbird]

No troops there would be an excellent step.

[Dwaar]

No troops there would be an excellent step.

Al-Qaeda lover! Hang him!

Just joking WB. :)

[Tgo01]

Obama! Obama! Obama!

[Atlanteax]

Wait wait, the administration was considering paying out millions for a captured deserter?

[Androidpk]

I tend to think we ought to obsess less about the Middle East.

Get ready for less of the Middle East and more of the Pacific.

[Warriorbird]

Get ready for less of the Middle East and more of the Pacific.

Hopefully it matters more.

[GuildRat]

I tend to think we ought to obsess less about the Middle East.

Wow....just wow.

[Taernath]

Asked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, a commander laughed. “Definitely.”

You know, I don't think the Taliban were exactly passing up opportunities to kidnap soldiers beforehand.

[Androidpk]

You know, I don't think the Taliban were exactly passing up opportunities to kidnap soldiers beforehand.

True but I doubt they were ever seriously expecting to be able to trade one low ranking soldier for 5 mid-level Taliban commanders. That is quite the incentive for them.

[Back]

I'm still confident we released those guys with full eyes on them. They may be celebrating now, they may return to the game, but thats just going to be better for us if we have them under reliable surveillance.

[Dwaar]

I'm still confident we released those guys with full eyes on them. They may be celebrating now, they may return to the game, but thats just going to be better for us if we have them under reliable surveillance.

Excellent, so conceivably more people can die trying to capture/kill them later on. The deal gets better and better for one side. I'll let you decide which side that is.

[bremerial]

Wait wait, the administration was considering paying out millions for a captured deserter?

Was that guy a deserter? I've lost touch with this story.

[Dwaar]

Was that guy a deserter? I've lost touch with this story.

Yes, he was a deserter.

[Androidpk]

I'm still confident we released those guys with full eyes on them. They may be celebrating now, they may return to the game, but thats just going to be better for us if we have them under reliable surveillance.

There is a book called First Commandment that was released awhile back and it involves 5 detainees from Guantanamo that were secretly released. Before the release their blood was spiked with special radioisotopes that could be tracked by satellite. Seemed like a good idea but it didn't work.

[bremerial]

Yes, he was a deserter.

Damn! Am happy for his family that he's back home but...damn! They going to try him for desertion? Not exactly a good news story. :(

[Androidpk]

Damn! Am happy for his family that he's back home but...damn! They going to try him for desertion? Not exactly a good news story. :(

There was already a preliminary investigation in 2010 and they determined that he did leave his post. Now that they can actually talk to him there will be a full investigation and judging from the evidence so far and testimony from his squadron he could be looking at a dishonorable discharge or at the very least a big chicken dinner. I doubt he'll serve any time though considering he's been a prisoner for the last 5 years.

[Dwaar]

There was already a preliminary investigation in 2010 and they determined that he did leave his post. Now that they can actually talk to him there will be a full investigation and judging from the evidence so far and testimony from his squadron he could be looking at a dishonorable discharge or at the very least a big chicken dinner. I doubt he'll serve any time though considering he's been a prisoner for the last 5 years.

Once the investigation is complete, and if he is proven guilty of desertion (which with the current information, I don't see how they could find otherwise)... I think he should lose all rank, pay, and benefits.

He should not receive any compensation for his military time - no VA healthcare, no retirement pay, no nothing. Then put him on probation (just in case he was/is turned/sympathetic - and there is any possibility that he could act against the US), with "time served" for the 5 years he was captive, and let him return to his family.

[Back]

Yes, he was a deserter.

Actually there is no conclusive proof that he was. The Pentagon has not said he was.

Still, there is a difference between "deserting" and being "captured".


Excellent, so conceivably more people can die trying to capture/kill them later on. The deal gets better and better for one side. I'll let you decide which side that is.

Thats not the point. The point of having them under reliable surveillance is to stop people from dying.


There was already a preliminary investigation in 2010 and they determined that he did leave his post. Now that they can actually talk to him there will be a full investigation and judging from the evidence so far and testimony from his squadron he could be looking at a dishonorable discharge or at the very least a big chicken dinner. I doubt he'll serve any time though considering he's been a prisoner for the last 5 years.

If he does turn out to be a deserter then yes, full investigation, and charges. But again there is a difference between "desertion" and "capture".


Once the investigation is complete, and if he is proven guilty of desertion (which with the current information, I don't see how they could find otherwise)... I think he should lose all rank, pay, and benefits.

He should not receive any compensation for his military time - no VA healthcare, no retirement pay, no nothing. Then put him on probation (just in case he was/is turned/sympathetic - and there is any possibility that he could act against the US), with "time served" for the 5 years he was captive, and let him return to his family.

I'm repeating myself too much at this point.

[Back]

There is a book called First Commandment that was released awhile back and it involves 5 detainees from Guantanamo that were secretly released. Before the release their blood was spiked with special radioisotopes that could be tracked by satellite. Seemed like a good idea but it didn't work.

That is a work of fiction.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0FWr76sfBFcC&dq=First+Commandment+Isotopes&source=gbs_navlinks_s

[Dwaar]

Back... you must not have served in the military. He deserted his Unit, during a time of war, at an outpost, endangering everyone in the AO. Because of his OWN actions, he was held in captivity.

As for "conclusive proof"... you think the Pentagon is the only one that can give that? I'd remind you of what they did to Pat Tillman, but you probably don't know who that is.

As for "having them under reliable surveillance is to stop people from dying"... Again, you apparently have no idea of how the Intelligence Cycle works, and what it takes in regards to manpower and technology. Real people have to do those things. Real people go into harms way every day, so others can be ignorant of what is really going on. Real people make the sacrifices necessary to keep others safe. Real people will die trying to "keep them under reliable surveillance", or when they eventually are captured or killed.

Their release and what they are able to do now that they are out, is huge. Only those that work in the field, or have worked in it, really understand it. Those 5 individuals will have huge impact on many things in the future. They do not have to pick up weapons and kill someone, they are now symbols for others and their cause. Their rhetoric alone, will lead to the death of thousands throughout various parts of the world. But hey, so long as not on our lands right.

[Androidpk]

That is a work of fiction.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0FWr76sfBFcC&dq=First+Commandment+Isotopes&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Fiction yes but still a novel idea. And yes, I was aware I was talking about a fictional book, I've read all of them.

[Androidpk]

Actually there is no conclusive proof that he was.

I'll let the upcoming investigation decide but judging from what is known it doesn't look good. Army deployments are what, at least 12 months? Probably longer? He shipped most of his gear home from Afghanistan despite being there for only a month. He left a note behind saying he was leaving for the mountains to find himself. He was witnessed leaving the base, without his gear and weapon, with (3?) other Afghanis. All seems pretty damning.

[Back]

I'll let the upcoming investigation decide but judging from what is known it doesn't look good. Army deployments are what, at least 12 months? Probably longer? He shipped most of his gear home from Afghanistan despite being there for only a month. He left a note behind saying he was leaving for the mountains to find himself. He was witnessed leaving the base, without his gear and weapon, with (3?) other Afghanis. All seems pretty damning.

No doubt there is a shit storm of people claiming this or that. I agree there should be a proper investigation. Until then I think it is a shame his hometown cancelled the celebration of the return home of this soldier's 5 years in captivity by the Taliban because of security risks here in America.

[Back]

Back... you must not have served in the military. He deserted his Unit, during a time of war, at an outpost, endangering everyone in the AO. Because of his OWN actions, he was held in captivity.

As for "conclusive proof"... you think the Pentagon is the only one that can give that? I'd remind you of what they did to Pat Tillman, but you probably don't know who that is.

As for "having them under reliable surveillance is to stop people from dying"... Again, you apparently have no idea of how the Intelligence Cycle works, and what it takes in regards to manpower and technology. Real people have to do those things. Real people go into harms way every day, so others can be ignorant of what is really going on. Real people make the sacrifices necessary to keep others safe. Real people will die trying to "keep them under reliable surveillance", or when they eventually are captured or killed.

Their release and what they are able to do now that they are out, is huge. Only those that work in the field, or have worked in it, really understand it. Those 5 individuals will have huge impact on many things in the future. They do not have to pick up weapons and kill someone, they are now symbols for others and their cause. Their rhetoric alone, will lead to the death of thousands throughout various parts of the world. But hey, so long as not on our lands right.

No, not military. But American. Trial by jury. Leave no soldier behind. And I am confident this was not a naive acquiescence by our military commanders. Funny, seems I have more trust in them than you.

[Dwaar]

No doubt there is a shit storm of people claiming this or that. I agree there should be a proper investigation. Until then I think it is a shame his hometown cancelled the celebration of the return home of this soldier's 5 years in captivity by the Taliban because of security risks here in America.

I do agree that it was a shame that his hometown had to cancel their event. They are just trying to celebrate a hometown sons return, they should not have been threatened.

The pieces will fall where they may, but it is not the citizens of his hometown fault.

[Aluvius]

To restate what I tried to get across in the previous thread, the value in this swap wasn't actually about the prisoners but the negotiations themselves. It gives ammunition for our regional allies, obviously Qatar but others as well, and the US to use in future negotiations with the Taliban. Our relationship with the Taliban is going to be more and more important for our national security aims in the region than our military operations very soon. They'll be running a significant portion of the country at the very least. Our allies there want us negotiating with them. Besides, we don't have any other choice since we've blown our wad on the fallacy of hard power being able to accrue any strategic gains in the region. 13 years of war and we've created an Iranian client state (Iraq) and ... hell, I don't even know what we've done in Afghanistan.

No matter the hysteria among the media, the public and grandstanding politicians at least our national security professionals are reacting in a way that makes me feel better. Even former Bush administration officials have come out in support of the swap for the realpolitik reasons outlined above, but if you're only watching cable news you'll never hear about them. USA Today of all places had a decently level headed article on this the other day.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/01/bergdahl-release-taliban-prisoner-trade/9835759/

One of the experts makes a point that these were Taliban government officials and not Al Qaeda terrorists. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan when we invaded, these prisoners weren't being held under terrorism charges so its likely that we made the trade now (and got Bergdahl in return) since they would be released soon anyway.

Doesn't anyone else look at things from this view point?

[Dwaar]

No, not military. But American. Trial by jury. Leave no soldier behind. And I am confident this was not a naive acquiescence by our military commanders. Funny, seems I have more trust in them than you.

I am realistic. I also know how the system works.

The military commanders did not make this call. They can only make recommendations, and our politicians will do whatever they want. It is also ingrained in most military personnel, to not discuss anything that was talked about, once a decision has been made.

It is well documented the disdain that Obama and many in his administration has towards the military. Stump speeches and such may make most think otherwise, but the President's inner circle do not like taking advice from the military.

Also, your naïve belief that it's so easy to "keep someone under surveillance" and that people will not die doing it, is in all honesty a good thing I suppose. People shouldn't have to worry about that on a daily basis. They should be able to enjoy their lives. But those that do such work, know what is required, and know what the release of five individuals like this will mean to operations across the world. Thousands die every day due to some asshole influencing others to kill, these five are going to add to it.

[Dwaar]

To restate what I tried to get across in the previous thread, the value in this swap wasn't actually about the prisoners but the negotiations themselves. It gives ammunition for our regional allies, obviously Qatar but others as well, and the US to use in future negotiations with the Taliban. Our relationship with the Taliban is going to be more and more important for our national security aims in the region than our military operations very soon. They'll be running a significant portion of the country at the very least. Our allies there want us negotiating with them. Besides, we don't have any other choice since we've blown our wad on the fallacy of hard power being able to accrue any strategic gains in the region. 13 years of war and we've created an Iranian client state (Iraq) and ... hell, I don't even know what we've done in Afghanistan.

No matter the hysteria among the media, the public and grandstanding politicians at least our national security professionals are reacting in a way that makes me feel better. Even former Bush administration officials have come out in support of the swap for the realpolitik reasons outlined above, but if you're only watching cable news you'll never hear about them. USA Today of all places had a decently level headed article on this the other day.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/01/bergdahl-release-taliban-prisoner-trade/9835759/

One of the experts makes a point that these were Taliban government officials and not Al Qaeda terrorists. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan when we invaded, these prisoners weren't being held under terrorism charges so its likely that we made the trade now (and got Bergdahl in return) since they would be released soon anyway.

Doesn't anyone else look at things from this view point?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/release-of-taliban-detainees-rattles-afghan-villagers-1401924687

The "Taliban" are straight up killers. No one ever said they were Al-Qaeda terrorists. The five released, two are wanted for war crimes and genocide. They want an Islamic caliphate, everywhere. They will kill and murder thousands, or inspire others to do it. We had them in captivity, and honestly should have just killed them after their usefulness was done. We are to civilized for that though. Morals and such can be a bitch sometimes.

This is a boxing match with no 12 rounds. Their are feints, jabs, body shots, knockdowns, but it will never end. There is no bell. Sadly it seems that peoples resolve and fortitude is reserved for the latest Bieber sighting or new Iphone.

This is not Germany or Japan after WW2. This is not England after the Revolutionary War. This is, whether we like it or not, an ideological war (one they've been fighting for thousands of years). They will take our money, make promises, say what needs to be said... and keep on attacking.

[Dwaar]

Oh also... those that were holding him were part of the Haqqani network. Try doing some research and understanding things are a lot more complicated than "Al-Qaeda", "Taliban", or "terrorist".

[Warriorbird]

Wow....just wow.

We did what we needed to in Afghanistan. Then we went to the wrong country completely, which we eventually rectified. How long will we prop our installed governments up?

[Warriorbird]

Classy people are threatening his parents.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/07/us/sgt-bowe-bergdahl-controversy/index.html

[subzero]

Damn! Am happy for his family that he's back home but...damn!

Yeah...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V5Dz2Q2eob4


They going to try him for desertion? Not exactly a good news story. :(

Nothing about this is good. He should be tried.

[Taernath]

Actually there is no conclusive proof that he was. The Pentagon has not said he was.

Still, there is a difference between "deserting" and being "captured".

I'm repeating myself too much at this point.

We've already had this conversation in the other thread. Everything is pointing to him being a deserter, now the question is did he desert or did he willingly collaborate?

[Gelston]

No, not military. But American. Trial by jury. Leave no soldier behind. And I am confident this was not a naive acquiescence by our military commanders. Funny, seems I have more trust in them than you.

He won't get a trial by jury, he is military. He'll get a courts-martial, it is a bit different. That is why there are lawyers who specialize in it as opposed to regular criminal trials. While a panel appears to function as a jury, there are a few differences.

With a desertion conviction, he could get the death penalty, due to the circumstances surrounding it. They haven't executed anyone for desertion since WW2 though, and I doubt they would here either. I'm thinking reduction to E1, forfeiture of pay and allowances, 10 years imprisonment, and dishonorable discharge. This is a felony conviction. If they determine he collaborated with the enemy, he would again face death. Again, I doubt they'll give him death, but take the earlier and add probably another 10-20 years.

Judging by the letters he sent his parents, he sounded like a shitbag who was whining about having joined military. Such things as "In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing shit bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools...I am sorry for everything here." lead me to believe this. I've run into that type before. He was a specialist, btw, he got Sgt because while in a PoW status, promotion is non-competitive.

Also Pk, it is squad and platoon. Not squadron. Fuckin chair force.

[Parkbandit]

Actually there is no conclusive proof that he was. The Pentagon has not said he was.

Still, there is a difference between "deserting" and being "captured".



You should seriously read up on him.

[Taernath]

Such things as "In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing shit bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools...I am sorry for everything here." lead me to believe this. I've run into that type before.

Isn't it funny how people who've been in can immediately spot dirtbags by that kind of language?

[Back]

Something I think people have backwards. Our private > 5 Taliban leaders. I think it displays our value of our soldier and our confidence those 5 guys aren't a threat. We have more of them than they have of us. Like how the Israelis will trade 1000 Palestinians for a few Israeli soldiers.

[Gelston]

He isn't a private.

[Parkbandit]

Something I think people have backwards. Our private > 5 Taliban leaders. I think it displays our value of our soldier and our confidence those 5 guys aren't a threat. We have more of them than they have of us. Like how the Israelis will trade 1000 Palestinians for a few Israeli soldiers.

It's like you purposely desire to remain completely ignorant about this.

Why?

[Back]

How so? I've invested a decent amount of time reading everything.

This was published today. He doesn't sound like a collaborator to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/08/bergdahl-torture-taliban_n_5468218.html


PARIS (AP) — U.S. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has told people treating him at an American military medical facility in Germany that he was tortured, beaten and held in a cage by his Taliban captors in Afghanistan after he tried to escape, a senior U.S. official said Sunday.


The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss what Bergdahl has revealed about the conditions of his captivity. The New York Times first reported on the matter.

[Androidpk]

Also Pk, it is squad and platoon. Not squadron. Fuckin chair force.

I actually never saw what his mos was but I'm assuming 11b which would indeed be squad but technically the army does have squadrons, for armored cav and air cav.

[Androidpk]

Something I think people have backwards. Our private > 5 Taliban leaders. I think it displays our value of our soldier and our confidence those 5 guys aren't a threat. We have more of them than they have of us. Like how the Israelis will trade 1000 Palestinians for a few Israeli soldiers.

Do some more digging. A number of detainees at Guantanamo have been released over the past 5 years. Somewhere around 80. These particular five guys though.. there release has been shot down every time for to the military and intelligence community pointing to a top secret report stating that they are very dangerous people. They objected to this trade but were overruled by the White House.

[Back]

Do some more digging. A number of detainees at Guantanamo have been released over the past 5 years. Somewhere around 80. These particular five guys though.. there release has been shot down every time for to the military and intelligence community pointing to a top secret report stating that they are very dangerous people. They objected to this trade but were overruled by the White House.

If you have a link I'd like to read it. Not being "OMG SOURCE" but genuinely would like to read about this.

This whole thing is Cliven Bundy all over again. Spurious claims were taken as gospel at first then the real truth was revealed.

[Dwaar]

Something I think people have backwards. Our private > 5 Taliban leaders. I think it displays our value of our soldier and our confidence those 5 guys aren't a threat. We have more of them than they have of us. Like how the Israelis will trade 1000 Palestinians for a few Israeli soldiers.

You really think those 5 guys aren't a threat? Go back and read my earlier post. Anyone who doesn't think they are a threat, really don't understand how things work over there.

This was like trading our Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, two 4-star Generals, and our CIA director for..... Justin Bieber. From an impact on the battlefield standpoint, those 5 will go back to killing and inspiring others to do it. Bergdahl will never contribute to the war effort in any capacity again.

The 5 come out of captivity as heroes to those that follow their ideology. The 5 do not go home and play x-box, or worry about the next great TV show, or cry on their pillows. They have a resolve and ideology to continue what they were doing before. That will be to kill and impose Sharia law on.. first, Afghanistan... then the rest of the world or any region of influence they can. That is not an assumption, that is fact.

In doing so, yes our military and other personnel will do what they can to stop them... in that process more people will die.

I fully stand by "leave no one behind".. and it is our obligation to try by all means necessary to get our people back. This deal though I would never have made. Read up on the Code of Conduct http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/codeofconduct1.htm. Good for Bergdahl he tried to escape... what I think (and this is conjecture), is that just like he did to his Squad, and our Nation... he joined a cause, realized oh shit - this isn't what I thought it would be, then tried to walk off again. Only they caught him and they are not us. So they put the smack down on him for a bit, to keep him in line.

Also... the Israelis operate under a completely different set of rules than we do, in an area much smaller than Afghanistan. They have no qualms about "kill one of ours, we'll kill 100 of yours" to ensure their safety and livelihood. The Soldiers they get back, go back into the fight in some form or fashion to ensure the safety of their homeland. The US fortunately has enough people in it, where we can care for our POW's and they no longer need to reenter the fight.

[Androidpk]

If you have a link I'd like to read it. Not being "OMG SOURCE" but genuinely would like to read about this.

This whole thing is Cliven Bundy all over again. Spurious claims were taken as gospel at first then the real truth was revealed.

http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/

[Methais]

Hillary wasn't exactly crazy about the way this trade ended up either.


WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton staked out a skeptical position on a Taliban prisoner swap for released soldier Bowe Bergdahl in internal administration deliberations when she served as secretary of state, according to reports on the evolution of the deal.

The leaked descriptions of a tough-minded Clinton allow the possible presidential candidate to carve out some distance from President Obama, who ultimately authorized an exchange for Bergdahl, even as Clinton expresses general support in public for the deal that first emerged on her watch.
Since Obama stood with Bergdahl’s parents in the White House Rose Garden to announce the sergeant’s release, the deal has come under fire from lawmakers for the price paid (five prisoners from Guantánamo Bay), risks that the detainees could return to the battlefield, and the administration’s failure to inform Congress.
Clinton “was heavily involved from the beginning, she was very skeptical of the arrangement, she was very wary of it,” a former administration official told the Daily Beast. “If we had come to some agreement, she perhaps would have backed it, but we never got to that point.”

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) said Clinton felt that members of the Haqqani network, who were holding Bergdahl captive, were “really bad guys.”

“She was reluctant to enter into negotiations with them,” he said.
Officials told CNN that Clinton favored stricter restrictions on monitoring the five detainees who got released. The terms of the final deal related to the conditions of their release have come under fire by Sen. John McCain and others, after Reuters reported detainees were already spotted wandering around Doha, Qatar.
The administration has said the ex-detainees, who include high-ranking former Taliban officials, must remain in Qatar for a year, but hasn’t spelled out all the terms of their post-confinement status.
Clinton publicly defended the idea of negotiating with the Taliban in public.
“You don’t make peace with your friends,” she testified before a congressional committee in 2011. “There first would have to be a demonstrated willingness on the Taliban’s part to negotiate and to meet the conditions already laid out for joining negotiations.”

The terms under consideration during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department would have included a series of confidence-building measures. The Taliban would open an office in Doha, Qatar, and renounce terrorism. The Guantánamo detainees would have been released in two batches, the second of which would have been simultaneous with Bergdahl’s release.

In public comments on Monday, Clinton was supportive of Obama’s action — although she did leave some room for distancing should the former detainees re-emerge as a threat.
“This young man, whatever the circumstances, was an American citizen — is an American citizen — was serving in our military,” Clinton said. “The idea that you really care for your own citizens and particularly those in uniform, I think is a very noble one.”

But she hedged: “I think we have a long way to go before we really know how this is going to play out … You don’t want to see these five prisoners go back to combat. There’s a lot that you don’t want to have happen.”
Clinton wasn’t the only official to harbor doubts about the swap. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, indicated the idea didn’t fly when the administration briefed her panel on it.
“There were very strong views and they were virtually unanimous against the trade,” she told a group of reporters Tuesday.
The Washington Post reported that Clinton was part of a group from Obama’s first-term cabinet that opposed the terms of the exchange, citing a former senior administration official.
They included Defense Secretary Robert Gates, CIA Director Leon Panetta and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

On Wednesday night, Clinton’s camp pushed back against the notion that she was against a deal.
“The notion that Secretary Clinton ever rejected a transfer like this out of hand is not accurate,” said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill.

“In fact, she authorized negotiations with the Taliban that included a transfer for Sgt. Bergdahl. She set a high bar and insisted on strict conditions for any deal, but as she said this week, America has a noble tradition that we leave no soldier behind.”

http://nypost.com/2014/06/04/hillary-clinton-was-very-wary-of-bergdahl-prisoner-swap/

[Dwaar]

If you have a link I'd like to read it. Not being "OMG SOURCE" but genuinely would like to read about this.

This whole thing is Cliven Bundy all over again. Spurious claims were taken as gospel at first then the real truth was revealed.

I like that you really want to learn about this. For real outlook on it, read foreign news outlets. I actually read news from the Middle East, in Arabic, and the mood about the release of these 5 people is absurdly happy for those that follow their ideology. They pretty much "beat the great satan". That is us by the way. Normal citizens of Afghanistan and other regions that will be affected by their return, are in pure fear and preparing for the onslaught. The minute we're out of Afghanistan (very much like Iraq), the amount of killing that will occur is going to be huge.

Of course, no one over here will care or even realize it. Much like Iraq, people will forget about it (speaking of, when is the last time you heard of what is going on over there?). But thousands will die.

[Aluvius]

Oh also... those that were holding him were part of the Haqqani network. Try doing some research and understanding things are a lot more complicated than "Al-Qaeda", "Taliban", or "terrorist".

I guess I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. Of course I'm aware that the Haqqani's were also involved in holding him but I found it unnecessary to restate every detail of the situation in a discussion posting about it. Just like everyone else .. just like you do in your own posts.

The Haqqani and Taliban are essentially synonymous, its leader was a minister in the Taliban government when we invaded Afghanistan. They are both Pashtun organizations and the Haqqani Network's stated goals are returning the Taliban to power. We've been negotiating with the Haqqani's since 2011 at the urging of our regional ally Pakistan. As we should be. As every every president of every political stripe has done with our enemies since forever. Its because we need Pakistan, we certainly can't defeat them with drones and running sweeps from FOP's. Scratch that, we can't defeat them no matter what but with negotiations and the help of our regional allies we can mitigate to the best of our ability (and for a hell of a lot cheaper).

That's the best we can achieve. America needs to calm down and accept it. I understand its hard to do when so many of our cultural elites have a vested interest in doing exactly the opposite and fanning the flames, but its something we should work on. Turn off cable news, delete those Obummer emails from your uncle/coworker, dig deeper beyond WSJ articles interviewing "scared Afghan villagers" (sorry but I have to /eyeroll at that one). Start using our minds to think again and not leading with our heart/gut all the time which turns out to be a disastrous way to make decisions looking back since 2001.

I understand that you are agitated, but there's no reason to take it out on me for pointing out actual strategic political security reasons for the trade instead of going on about 1000 year wars. Islamists don't pose any greater of a threat than any other enemy we've faced. In fact they're much smaller of an existential threat than Germany, Japan or England. They're more the equivalent of Pancho Villa.

The Taliban are exactly like other national enemies and we'll negotiate with them just like we always have no matter who is the president. I'm just thankful that our national security leadership (both Republican and Democratic) isn't infected yet by this sort of populist hysteria.

Here's a quote from Mitt Romney's national security advisor if you think he would have done anything differently, just listen to the political-security jargon (I included more than the quote, its an interesting snippet):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/01/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-us-policy-has-changed-now-we-make-deals-t/

"There’s little that’s actually new here," said Mitchell Reiss, who worked in the State Department under President George W. Bush and served as national security adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "It may be new to certain individuals. Whether it’s new or not is not as important as whether it’s sound policy and promotes national security. That’s the ground where there’s a more legitimate debate."

In his book, Negotiating with Evil, Reiss wrote that America actually has a detailed history of negotiating with terrorists and rogue regimes that support terrorist activity. How long? Even the Founding Fathers struck agreements with terrorists of the time: pirates.

George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson "accommodated what today would be viewed as terrorists," Reiss wrote. "They each authorized payment to the Barbary pirates, and the U.S. Senate even ratified a treaty that enshrined the annual provision of naval supplies as ‘protection.’ "

A century later, President Teddy Roosevelt granted demands from the descendants of those pirates to secure the release of captured American resident Ion Perdicaris.

Recent history

To his credit, Cruz said the policy of not engaging terrorists was decades old, not centuries. But there are more recent examples where, as Reiss wrote, "American presidents have negotiated with terrorists and rogue regimes to secure the release of hostages, to arrange temporary cease fires and to explore whether a more permanent truce might be possible."

Here’s a few, according to Reiss’ book:

After the North Koreans captured the U.S.S. Pueblo in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson apologized for spying as part of negotiations to secure the release of 83 American prisoners.


In 1970, President Richard Nixon pressured Israel, Switzerland, West Germany and Britain to release Palestinian prisoners after two airlines were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.


During the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 to 1981, President Jimmy Carter agreed to unfreeze $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets after more than a year of negotiations with the Iranian revolutionaries.


In perhaps the most famous swap, after seven Americans were captured in Beirut, Lebanon, President Ronald Reagan agreed to send missiles to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.


President Bill Clinton’s administration sat down with Hamas in attempts to negotiate peace with Israel. His administration also worked directly with the Taliban nearly two decades ago on several occasions to see if the group would hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.


Reiss also noted that President George W. Bush engaged in negotiations with Iran and North Korea even after decreeing them part of the "Axis of Evil."

James Jeffrey, a former ambassador to Iraq under Obama and deputy national security adviser for George W. Bush, agreed that "there have been many cases of negotiations with terrorists or rogue regimes for the return of Americans."

[Back]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/after-release-from-taliban-bowe-bergdahl-suffers-from-skin-and-gum-disorders-but-is-physically-sound.html?hp&_r=2



Officials would not disclose if Sergeant Bergdahl has made any special requests. One thing, however, that does rub him wrong is when hospital staff call him “sergeant,” the result of two automatic promotions while a captive.


“He says, ‘Don’t call me that,’ ” said one American official. “ ‘I didn’t go before the boards. I didn’t earn it.’ ”

[Dwaar]

Aluvius,
Excellent post and well thought out. Except for the one point you make about ""scared Afghan villagers" (sorry but I have to /eyeroll at that one)." Those are real people that will die and suffer. Don't diminish what they will go through, as we discuss what we as a Nation do.

First the Haqqani Network: http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/haqqani-network-terrorist-designation-act-2012 . Yes of course there are interwoven associations between all of these groups. They are not simply a part of the Taliban, nor simply an independent actor. They are however, by our own Government and Obama, labeled a terrorist organization.

You are correct on many points, we make deals with all types of bad people across the world (the Saudi's especially, but that is a whole other conversation for another time), and have forever. That is the nature of international relations. To mitigate the impact upon our Nation and our interests.

The distinction here is, most interactions or deals that are developed, is against others that know we can negatively impact their interests on a large scale. Nation states, etc. The issue with Islamic Ideology, is that it is not a single state. It is not one Nation. It is not contained to one specific area in the world. They do not, and will not be content with monetary compensation or a designated "homeland".

They are dedicated to spreading that ideology to everywhere they can. They do not need large armies. They do not need tanks, uniforms, ships, and planes. They do not seek relationships with other nation states to ensure they are left alone. There is no end to this, until the aliens come from space and unite us as a planet (being a tad snarky here).

They will take whatever we give them. They will use our belief and thought processes against us, to appear to come to some form of "peace". Then they will wait. They see this in the framework of time that most people can not comprehend. They know people get bored, or get tired, or get excited about something else. They will let the world worry, and the US specifically worry about the actions of Russia and the Chinese over the next decade or two. They know that every 4 years America will do something different, because we're so rooted in our political divide. That the American public is ignorant and only consume thoughts in 140 character tweets these days.

This is the Taliban, this is Al-Qaeda, this is Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghrib, this is Abu-Sayyef, this is al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Al-Badr, Ansar al-Sharia (Tunisia), Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Muslim Brotherhood, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi. That is just to name a few.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

Until people understand them, they will think it's so easy to deal with them. When this is a completely different animal that we are dealing with.

Note *** This applies to Islamic Fundamentalists. I have nothing against practicing Muslims nor Islam. I know many that are, and they are wonderful people. This only applies to those that pervert the faith (or as they see it, are enforcing it as it was meant to be) and cause harm to millions around the world.

[Latrinsorm]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/release-of-taliban-detainees-rattles-afghan-villagers-1401924687

The "Taliban" are straight up killers. No one ever said they were Al-Qaeda terrorists. The five released, two are wanted for war crimes and genocide. They want an Islamic caliphate, everywhere. They will kill and murder thousands, or inspire others to do it. We had them in captivity, and honestly should have just killed them after their usefulness was done. We are to civilized for that though. Morals and such can be a bitch sometimes.

This is a boxing match with no 12 rounds. Their are feints, jabs, body shots, knockdowns, but it will never end. There is no bell. Sadly it seems that peoples resolve and fortitude is reserved for the latest Bieber sighting or new Iphone.

This is not Germany or Japan after WW2. This is not England after the Revolutionary War. This is, whether we like it or not, an ideological war (one they've been fighting for thousands of years). They will take our money, make promises, say what needs to be said... and keep on attacking.Come on, this was pretty funny.

And it's interesting you bring up Germany and Japan after WW2. Do you ever wonder why no neo-Nazi terrorist groups sprang up? No imperialist partisans in Japan? As WW2 demonstrated beyond any debate, it wasn't because Germans and Japanese were such nice guys. Do you think we killed all the Nazis on the battlefield?

Bottom line, Germany killed more people in two battles than the entire Middle East has in a hundred years. (That's a literal hundred years.) How did we establish a lasting peace there, and how is it impossible to do so elsewhere?

[Androidpk]

Which two battles? And are you including casualty numbers from the Iran/Iraq war? Granted accurate numbers are hard to come by but I find your claim to be incredulous.

[Tgo01]

And it's interesting you bring up Germany and Japan after WW2. Do you ever wonder why no neo-Nazi terrorist groups sprang up? No imperialist partisans in Japan?

I never wondered about it before but I wonder about now.

Do you have the answers or are you just teasing me? :(

[Dwaar]

Come on, this was pretty funny.

And it's interesting you bring up Germany and Japan after WW2. Do you ever wonder why no neo-Nazi terrorist groups sprang up? No imperialist partisans in Japan? As WW2 demonstrated beyond any debate, it wasn't because Germans and Japanese were such nice guys. Do you think we killed all the Nazis on the battlefield?

Bottom line, Germany killed more people in two battles than the entire Middle East has in a hundred years. (That's a literal hundred years.) How did we establish a lasting peace there, and how is it impossible to do so elsewhere?

Excellent points from another poster!

I'm not trying to imply they were nice guys. This now starts delving into the basis motivations, and is where I was hoping this would go.

Germany and Japan, yes they used some control mechanisms that have been proven to be effective in religious conversion to accomplish what they wanted, but at the end of the day the rest of the world said no, and beat them into submission. The world united and killed enough people, to completely cower them. They also were able to be dealt with in normal means of negotiations.

I think (and this is my viewpoint), it has to do with the religious basis of our current situation. Islamic Fundamentalists are motivated by their religious zeal and the interpretation of the Koran. This ideological basis is what makes it so much different to deal with than others. It is also what allows really bad people, to influence others to do what they want. It is easy for them, once beaten in a military sense, to invoke the rhetoric and claim that it is an "attack on Islam", thus starting the cycle all over.

There are also a lot more of those that follow Islam, than Neo-Nazis as you like to point out. Giving them a much larger pool to draw from and influence to harm others. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

When you have 20%+ of the world population as a group to draw from, it's a bit more widespread than one nation state.

Interestingly the number of Christians slightly outnumbers them. http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

Research the number of attacks by Islamic Fundamentalist groups on Christians though, or non-believers, and you may be surprised.

[Latrinsorm]

Which two battles? And are you including casualty numbers from the Iran/Iraq war? Granted accurate numbers are hard to come by but I find your claim to be incredulous.Leningrad and Stalingrad, baby. What else would I pick? And I think the proper terminology would be that you are incredulous, my claim would be incredible. I'm pretty sure I've clearly answered all your points; how'd I do, Hightower? :)

The number I have for I/I is 1.125m. I made the spreadsheet a long time ago so I'm not sure where it's from.
I never wondered about it before but I wonder about now.

Do you have the answers or are you just teasing me? If you want to know what's really sick, we (President Truman and I) were pretty sure there were going to be German terrorists, perhaps because of their bitching code name "Werwolf". So we gave the Allied forces carte blanche to deal with anyone they were pretty sure was one, and thousands of teenagers were executed, towns full of civilians were bombed, etc. Whoops! Ha ha, sorry fellas!

Obviously as an empiricist it's hard for me to figure out the answers given the paucity of data: there are only so many cases where a nation of fanatics suddenly weren't any more. The best I can figure is wealth makes peace, peace makes wealth; poverty makes war, war makes poverty. Getting from the latter cycle to the former is the question, therefore the answer to German peace is the answer to the German economic revival. Combine the miracle of the mixed economic system with the Marshall Plan and voila! (Literally: mach schnell!) We are good buddies!

Now imagine someone gets up in Congress and says "hey guys, let's give $530 billion to the Middle East with no strings attached" and didn't happen to be a universally admired 5-star general. Probably wouldn't go over so well.

[Androidpk]

War makes poverty? Tell that to Halliburton!

[Dwaar]

Leningrad and Stalingrad, baby. What else would I pick? And I think the proper terminology would be that you are incredulous, my claim would be incredible. I'm pretty sure I've clearly answered all your points; how'd I do, Hightower? :)

The number I have for I/I is 1.125m. I made the spreadsheet a long time ago so I'm not sure where it's from.If you want to know what's really sick, we (President Truman and I) were pretty sure there were going to be German terrorists, perhaps because of their bitching code name "Werwolf". So we gave the Allied forces carte blanche to deal with anyone they were pretty sure was one, and thousands of teenagers were executed, towns full of civilians were bombed, etc. Whoops! Ha ha, sorry fellas!

Obviously as an empiricist it's hard for me to figure out the answers given the paucity of data: there are only so many cases where a nation of fanatics suddenly weren't any more. The best I can figure is wealth makes peace, peace makes wealth; poverty makes war, war makes poverty. Getting from the latter cycle to the former is the question, therefore the answer to German peace is the answer to the German economic revival. Combine the miracle of the mixed economic system with the Marshall Plan and voila! (Literally: mach schnell!) We are good buddies!

Now imagine someone gets up in Congress and says "hey guys, let's give $530 billion to the Middle East with no strings attached" and didn't happen to be a universally admired 5-star general. Probably wouldn't go over so well.

One distinction with all of this... we are not fighting the Middle East. The Middle East is a region with many varied people and interests. This is an ideology of a HIGHLY influential bad people, that control and influence others to commit atrocities across all regions of the world. This is not some defined Nation State that we can isolate and cower into submission.

Also, we give billions already to many groups in the Middle East. If we did it with no strings attached, they'd just thank us for the money and keep doing whatever they were already doing. Hell, most of them already do.

[Latrinsorm]

Excellent points from another poster!

I'm not trying to imply they were nice guys. This now starts delving into the basis motivations, and is where I was hoping this would go.

Germany and Japan, yes they used some control mechanisms that have been proven to be effective in religious conversion to accomplish what they wanted, but at the end of the day the rest of the world said no, and beat them into submission. The world united and killed enough people, to completely cower them. They also were able to be dealt with in normal means of negotiations.

I think (and this is my viewpoint), it has to do with the religious basis of our current situation. Islamic Fundamentalists are motivated by their religious zeal and the interpretation of the Koran. This ideological basis is what makes it so much different to deal with than others. It is also what allows really bad people, to influence others to do what they want. It is easy for them, once beaten in a military sense, to invoke the rhetoric and claim that it is an "attack on Islam", thus starting the cycle all over.

There are also a lot more of those that follow Islam, than Neo-Nazis as you like to point out. Giving them a much larger pool to draw from and influence to harm others. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

When you have 20%+ of the world population as a group to draw from, it's a bit more widespread than one nation state.

Interestingly the number of Christians slightly outnumbers them. http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

Research the number of attacks by Islamic Fundamentalist groups on Christians though, or non-believers, and you may be surprised.I think the interesting comp would be % of Nazis who became Werwolfs to the % of Muslims who become terrorists, but the first number is so hazy as to be useless at this point. 70 stubborn SS officers can't do near as much damage as 2,200 terrorists even though the incidence rate would be the same for both populations, then you start getting into critical mass for socially sustaining a sub-population and so on. Still, I think Germany can give us hints for solving this scenario. Nationalism substitutes very neatly for Islam.

[Latrinsorm]

One distinction with all of this... we are not fighting the Middle East. The Middle East is a region with many varied people and interests. This is an ideology of a HIGHLY influential bad people, that control and influence others to commit atrocities across all regions of the world. This is not some defined Nation State that we can isolate and cower into submission.

Also, we give billions already to many groups in the Middle East. If we did it with no strings attached, they'd just thank us for the money and keep doing whatever they were already doing. Hell, most of them already do.Sure, but the trick is that we don't give the money to the groups, like we didn't give the money to the Nazi party. Give it to the countries and you dry up the recruitment base. And the figure I found said we give $48b (http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html) in total worldwide aid. Heavily weighted to the Middle East, but still off by an order of magnitude from a Marshall-level plan.

[Dwaar]

Sure, but the trick is that we don't give the money to the groups, like we didn't give the money to the Nazi party. Give it to the countries and you dry up the recruitment base. And the figure I found said we give $48b (http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/fast-facts.html) in total worldwide aid. Heavily weighted to the Middle East, but still off by an order of magnitude from a Marshall-level plan.

I'm feeling you on that. The one and best thing we could do, though it might sound cliché is education. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, these groups impose and slaughter anyone trying to educate or improve themselves. Hence why our involvement is so vital in many of these parts of the world. We can't simply toss money at it, and hope it will be fixed.

[subzero]

And it's interesting you bring up Germany and Japan after WW2. Do you ever wonder why no neo-Nazi terrorist groups sprang up? No imperialist partisans in Japan? As WW2 demonstrated beyond any debate, it wasn't because Germans and Japanese were such nice guys. Do you think we killed all the Nazis on the battlefield?

Bottom line, Germany killed more people in two battles than the entire Middle East has in a hundred years. (That's a literal hundred years.) How did we establish a lasting peace there, and how is it impossible to do so elsewhere?

Atomic bombs. We can't have our good ole middle eastern oil contaminated now, can we?

[Gelston]

Come on, this was pretty funny.

And it's interesting you bring up Germany and Japan after WW2. Do you ever wonder why no neo-Nazi terrorist groups sprang up? No imperialist partisans in Japan? As WW2 demonstrated beyond any debate, it wasn't because Germans and Japanese were such nice guys. Do you think we killed all the Nazis on the battlefield?

Bottom line, Germany killed more people in two battles than the entire Middle East has in a hundred years. (That's a literal hundred years.) How did we establish a lasting peace there, and how is it impossible to do so elsewhere?

False. The Iran-Iraq War killed from 500,000 to 1.2m depending on which estimates you use. The Eastern Theater of WW1 against the Ottoman Empire had up to 5m deaths and casualties, including civilians. Counting only Triple Entente powers, the Ottomans killed around 1.5m. Saddam's crimes against the Kurds ranged from 75,000 deaths to 462,000. The Syrian Civil War ranges up to 162,000. Note that casualties is dead and/or wounded numbers.

The two battles you bring up refer to Stalingrad and Leningrad, and how many the Germans killed. In Stalingrad, the Russians suffered 750,000 casualties. During Leningrad, 1 million soldiers who were either killed or captured, and again, 1 million civilian casualties.

So, in the last 100 years from only the examples above, folks from the Middle East have killed anywhere from 2.2m to 3m in instances taken out of a total of around 15 years. Yes, those two battles you mentioned were vicious battles, but that is what happens when you toss two massive armies at each other. If you add in the Holocaust, you'd have had a point, but you didn't.

[Androidpk]

If you consider Afghanistan to be a part of the middle east then the Russian/Afghan war adds a few more million casualties to that.

[Latrinsorm]

False. The Iran-Iraq War killed from 500,000 to 1.2m depending on which estimates you use. The Eastern Theater of WW1 against the Ottoman Empire had up to 5m deaths and casualties, including civilians. Counting only Triple Entente powers, the Ottomans killed around 1.5m. Saddam's crimes against the Kurds ranged from 75,000 deaths to 462,000. The Syrian Civil War ranges up to 162,000. Note that casualties is dead and/or wounded numbers.

The two battles you bring up refer to Stalingrad and Leningrad, and how many the Germans killed. In Stalingrad, the Russians suffered 750,000 casualties. During Leningrad, 1 million soldiers who were either killed or captured, and again, 1 million civilian casualties.

So, in the last 100 years from only the examples above, folks from the Middle East have killed anywhere from 2.2m to 3m in instances taken out of a total of around 15 years. Yes, those two battles you mentioned were vicious battles, but that is what happens when you toss two massive armies at each other. If you add in the Holocaust, you'd have had a point, but you didn't.Your own figures add up to 2.75m vs. 2.6m, so... how is what I said false? :)

[Gelston]

2.7 > 2.6 and I only did 4 events covering 14 years. And not even everything in those 14 years.

[Warriorbird]

Depending on your definition of the Middle East his numbers were VERY conservative, science/philosophy guy.

[Latrinsorm]

2.7 > 2.6 and I only did 4 events covering 14 years. And not even everything in those 14 years.2.7 is the German side. You also did the 4 highest events, which I say not to hold against you but to stress that it's comparatively slim pickings for the other 86.
Depending on your definition of the Middle East his numbers were VERY conservative, science/philosophy guy.Then again, the Ottoman Empire extended well outside of the Middle East. Nobody would define Budapest as being in it, for example.

[Dwaar]

2.7 is the German side. You also did the 4 highest events, which I say not to hold against you but to stress that it's comparatively slim pickings for the other 86.Then again, the Ottoman Empire extended well outside of the Middle East. Nobody would define Budapest as being in it, for example.

Budapest is such a cool city. Little shady, but very cool.

[Androidpk]

Budapest is such a cool city. Little shady, but very cool.

Shady how? It's always been at the top of my list in regards to places I want to explore. On my "deployment" in '04 my flight had a layover there but we weren't allowed off the plane :(

[Dwaar]

Shady how? It's always been at the top of my list in regards to places I want to explore. On my "deployment" in '04 my flight had a layover there but we weren't allowed off the plane :(

It's a beautiful city and lots of history. Would definitely recommend going there. Just when the lights go down, be very aware of where you are at. The main tourist locations along the Danube are perfectly safe... once you get in the side streets, there is plenty of shadiness to go around. Plus be careful what nightclubs and such you go to, the Russian "mob" influence is all over.

[Gelston]

2.7 is the German side. You also did the 4 highest events, which I say not to hold against you but to stress that it's comparatively slim pickings for the other 86.Then again, the Ottoman Empire extended well outside of the Middle East. Nobody would define Budapest as being in it, for example.

Well, except the fighting on that front was firmly in the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire of WW1 was pretty much all in the Middle East. And yes, I picked the top 4 events to go against your top 2. There are still many many more. I didn't even put in the current Iraq fighting, which by some estimates tops 1m.

[Jarvan]

Something I think people have backwards. Our private > 5 Taliban leaders. I think it displays our value of our soldier and our confidence those 5 guys aren't a threat. We have more of them than they have of us. Like how the Israelis will trade 1000 Palestinians for a few Israeli soldiers.

They traded 1000 foot soldiers for a captured female I think. Maybe not female tho, it's been awhile.

They DON'T trade major people in the Hamas organization. That's just stupid.

It would have been like if we captured a Nazi Colonel in charge of a concentration camp that ordered the death of thousands of Jews... then released him and 4 of his captains for a private first class that walked of off the Normandy invasion and went looking for German soldiers.

Imagine how THAT would have been thought of back during WW2.

[Jarvan]

False. The Iran-Iraq War killed from 500,000 to 1.2m depending on which estimates you use. The Eastern Theater of WW1 against the Ottoman Empire had up to 5m deaths and casualties, including civilians. Counting only Triple Entente powers, the Ottomans killed around 1.5m. Saddam's crimes against the Kurds ranged from 75,000 deaths to 462,000. The Syrian Civil War ranges up to 162,000. Note that casualties is dead and/or wounded numbers.

The two battles you bring up refer to Stalingrad and Leningrad, and how many the Germans killed. In Stalingrad, the Russians suffered 750,000 casualties. During Leningrad, 1 million soldiers who were either killed or captured, and again, 1 million civilian casualties.

So, in the last 100 years from only the examples above, folks from the Middle East have killed anywhere from 2.2m to 3m in instances taken out of a total of around 15 years. Yes, those two battles you mentioned were vicious battles, but that is what happens when you toss two massive armies at each other. If you add in the Holocaust, you'd have had a point, but you didn't.

Also, don't ignore the thousands that die every year from internal terrorism. You hear all the time of people blowing up Christian churches in the middle east.

[Back]

They traded 1000 foot soldiers for a captured female I think. Maybe not female tho, it's been awhile.

They DON'T trade major people in the Hamas organization. That's just stupid.

It would have been like if we captured a Nazi Colonel in charge of a concentration camp that ordered the death of thousands of Jews... then released him and 4 of his captains for a private first class that walked of off the Normandy invasion and went looking for German soldiers.

Imagine how THAT would have been thought of back during WW2.

Would have, could have, should have. Sounds like you have more confidence in them than you do in our own leaders.

[Methais]

Would have, could have, should have. Sounds like you have more confidence in them than you do in our own leaders.

Considering who our leader is...well yeah.

[Parkbandit]

How so? I've invested a decent amount of time reading everything.



How so? How many times do you have to be corrected until you realize maybe you don't know much about the subject?

[Atlanteax]

Back has absolutely zero experience with the military, so he just does not understand.

[Parkbandit]

Back has absolutely zero experience with the military, so he just does not understand.

You don't need to have military experience to know the basics of this.

[Back]

How so? How many times do you have to be corrected until you realize maybe you don't know much about the subject?

As I've said I have read all points of view. I think most people are getting their opinion from Facebook. I have my own opinion. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and not afraid to admit it. If this guy really turns out to be in collusion with them then fuck him. But thats not what I am drawing from what I have read.

[Taernath]

As I've said I have read all points of view. I think most people are getting their opinion from Facebook. I have my own opinion. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and not afraid to admit it. If this guy really turns out to be in collusion with them then fuck him. But thats not what I am drawing from what I have read.

So are you saying you believe he deserted now?

[Parkbandit]

As I've said I have read all points of view. I think most people are getting their opinion from Facebook. I have my own opinion. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and not afraid to admit it. If this guy really turns out to be in collusion with them then fuck him. But thats not what I am drawing from what I have read.

Baby steps...

Question #1: Do you believe, given the available evidence, that Burgdahl deserted his post?

[Back]

I can't say definitively that he did or did not. Some in his unit say he did. The Pentagon's investigation has not come to that conclusion. I've said before in this thread that if it is found that he did then punish him accordingly.

[Tenlaar]

I can't say definitively that he did or did not.

YOU JUMP TO A CONCLUSION BASED ON A SMALL AMOUNT OF SEVENTH HAND INFORMATION RIGHT NOW, YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!

(Just saved you half a day of PB posts to get to the same place.)

[kutter]

Something tells me if the Administration could find one guy from his unit that did not think this guy was a shitbag we would have heard from him by now. The silence however is deafening.

[Back]

YOU JUMP TO A CONCLUSION BASED ON A SMALL AMOUNT OF SEVENTH HAND INFORMATION RIGHT NOW, YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!

(Just saved you half a day of PB posts to get to the same place.)

Heh. Well, him being missing from his base is pretty compelling evidence that he did walk. I don't believe anyone saw him leave though. And maybe he intended to come back. Still, dude was captured, beaten, tortured, kept in a cage for trying to escape. I certainly don't think he intended to get captured. Claims that soldiers died looking for him are also not definitively proven. Those claims account for all the deaths in his unit from the time he disappeared. From what I've read they had ideas about where he might have been once they knew he was captured but decided NOT to go get him.

[Parkbandit]

I can't say definitively that he did or did not. Some in his unit say he did. The Pentagon's investigation has not come to that conclusion. I've said before in this thread that if it is found that he did then punish him accordingly.

I haven't heard 1 account from the people he served with that said he didn't leave his post. Have you?

He left a letter saying he was leaving. Everyone he served with that went on record say he left. Do you think it's more or less likely he deserted his post? Since we don't know for 100% certainty, we have to make an educated guess.

What's yours?

[Tgo01]

And maybe he intended to come back.

So we give the guy the benefit of the doubt just because he got captured?

Seems to me if you purposefully leave your post then get captured that you no longer get the benefit of the doubt that you "wanted" to come back.

Here's a novel idea; don't leave your post.

[Parkbandit]

Heh. Well, him being missing from his base is pretty compelling evidence that he did walk. I don't believe anyone saw him leave though. And maybe he intended to come back.

Whether or not he intended to come back has nothing to do with his desertion though. Either he left or he didn't leave.

All evidence says he left.


Still, dude was captured, beaten, tortured, kept in a cage for trying to escape. I certainly don't think he intended to get captured.

Since he deserted his post and walked into the wilds.. don't you think anyone had to know that being captured would be a strong possibility? Is he not responsible for his action (desertion)?

I have a difficult time feeling bad for him, since he put himself into that situation. I have the same lack of empathy for a burglar that gets killed trying to break into someone's home.


Claims that soldiers died looking for him are also not definitively proven. Those claims account for all the deaths in his unit from the time he disappeared. From what I've read they had ideas about where he might have been once they knew he was captured but decided NOT to go get him.

I'm mixed on this. On one hand, had Bergdahl not deserted, then maybe these soldiers would still be alive. On the other hand, anytime they go out on patrols, there is a possibility that they can be killed.

[Back]

Without conclusive evidence he walked, or even if there was conclusive evidence, we're supposed to just condemn him to life or death in the hands of the enemy? Nah, no way. You'll never convince me that is the best resolution.

[Tgo01]

Without conclusive evidence he walked

Wait, this is still in dispute?

[Back]

The FBI is investigating death threats sent to his family. How fucked up is that?

[Tgo01]

The FBI is investigating death threats sent to his family. How fucked up is that?

Good distraction attempt.

[Back]

Good distraction attempt.

Distraction from? You already know my opinion. There is no way in hell you are going to convince me that if he deserted we should condemn him to life or death in the hands of the enemy.

[Parkbandit]

Without conclusive evidence he walked, or even if there was conclusive evidence, we're supposed to just condemn him to life or death in the hands of the enemy? Nah, no way. You'll never convince me that is the best resolution.

What?

We're not putting him on a trial by jury (lol).. we're looking at the case, given the information we've heard so far and making an educated guess on whether or not he deserted his post.

So, yes or no.. do you believe he deserted his post, given the evidence you have read?

[Taernath]

You could have a sworn statement being read aloud by Bergdahl himself that he deserted his post, and Back would still argue that it's not compelling enough.

[Back]

What?

We're not putting him on a trial by jury (lol).. we're looking at the case, given the information we've heard so far and making an educated guess on whether or not he deserted his post.

So, yes or no.. do you believe he deserted his post, given the evidence you have read?

How many times do I have to repeat myself? It looks like he did, some say he did, but the military's own investigation has not come to that conclusion. Still, you're never going to convince me that we should condemn him to the hands of our enemy. Thats beyond fucked up.

[Methais]

You could have a sworn statement being read aloud by Bergdahl himself that he deserted his post, and Back would still argue that it's not compelling enough.

A video could surface of Bergdahl recording himself saying "Fuck you guys, I'm walking away and deserting my post!" and then he sets the camera down and you see him walking off into the distance until he's no longer in sight, and Backwolff would argue that there's no proof that the video is real or that he didn't record it just as a joke.

[Back]

You could have a sworn statement being read aloud by Bergdahl himself that he deserted his post, and Back would still argue that it's not compelling enough.

Maybe he will. And if he does then try him. I've always said if he did desert then try him. But don't tell me we should have left him in the hands of the enemy. Thats worse than death.

[Taernath]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? It looks like he did, some say he did, but the military's own investigation has not come to that conclusion.

The investigations conducted with the month after his disappearance did. So unless there is some groundbreaking evidence the Pentagon has been sitting on for the past 5 years, the official investigation probably will, too.

[Back]

The investigations conducted with the month after his disappearance did. So unless there is some groundbreaking evidence the Pentagon has been sitting on for the past 5 years, the official investigation probably will, too.

If it did then why is it going to continue?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/joint-chiefs-chairman-dempsey-army-still-may-pursu/


Gen. Martin Dempsey (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/martin-dempsey/), chairmanhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/joint-chiefs-chairman-dempsey-army-still-may-pursu/#) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday the Army (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/army/) may still pursue an investigation into the conduct of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bowe-bergdahl/), who was recently freed after nearly five years of being held captive in Afghanistan.

Gen. Dempsey (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/martin-dempsey/) told The Associated Presshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/joint-chiefs-chairman-dempsey-army-still-may-pursu/#) that U.S. military leaders “have been accused of looking away from misconduct” but said “it’s premature” to assume they would do so in Sgt. Bergdahl (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bowe-bergdahl/)’s case.

Sgt. Bergdahl (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bowe-bergdahl/) was recently freed from nearly five years of being held in captivity by the Taliban (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/taliban/) in Afghanistan in exchange for the transfer of five former Guantanamo Bay prison detainees to Qatar.

Some of Sgt. Bergdahl (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bowe-bergdahl/)’s fellow soldiers have in recent days said he essentially abandoned his post in 2009 when he was taken captive by the Taliban (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/taliban/). The Washington Times also reported Monday that the Pentagon on multiple occasions knew where Sgt. Bergdahl (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bowe-bergdahl/) was being held but commanders scrapped rescue missions because they were unwilling to risk casualties for a man they believed to be a “deserter,” according to sources familiar with the plan.

[Parkbandit]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? It looks like he did, some say he did, but the military's own investigation has not come to that conclusion. Still, you're never going to convince me that we should condemn him to the hands of our enemy. Thats beyond fucked up.

So, you agree with most of the evidence that Bergdahl deserted his post?

DISCLAIMER: YOUR ANSWER WILL NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE PUT HIM TO DEATH OR LEAVE HIM IN THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. THIS IS ONLY YOUR EDUCATED GUESS ON WHETHER OR NOT HE ABANDONED HIS POST.

[Back]

This does not sound like the Army investigation concluded that he walked.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/bowe-bergdahl-pentagon-army-investigation-2009-disappearance-classified-107376.html


The Army conducted an investigation into Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s disappearance after his disappearance in 2009, but it remains classified to this day, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

Defense Department spokesman Col. Steve Warren said he would not detail the conclusions the Army reached in its first look into what became of Bergdahl, who was returned to American special operators over the weekend after five years as a Taliban prisoner.



Warren said the Pentagon has no plans to release the secret Bergdahl investigation and reporters would have to try to get it under the Freedom of Information Act.


“I’ll be standing by for your FOIA requests,” he said.


Army Secretary John McHugh said Tuesday that the Army will begin a new look at Bergdahl’s situation once he is psychologically and medically able to participate.
“The Army will then review this in a comprehensive, coordinated effort that will include speaking with Sgt. Bergdahl to better learn from him the circumstances of his disappearance and captivity,” McHugh said. “All other decisions will be made thereafter, and in accordance with appropriate regulations, policies and practices.”


Warren said he would not comment on reports that Bergdahl told his fellow soldiers he was leaving his unit or made clear in other ways that he was deliberately walking away — as compared to subsequent claims that he’d lagged behind a foot patrol.


Bergdahl remains under medical and psychiatric care at a military hospital in Germany, Warren said, as part of a slow process of reintegration that could take weeks or months.


He still has not spoken with his parents, Warren said, but officials declined to provide many more details about the man whose exchange for five top Taliban commanders has made him a political lightning rod for politicians in Washington and other Afghanistan veterans.


Warren said he did not know whether Bergdahl realizes he has become a subject of controversy in the United States, though access to news reports and the Internet are, or will, become a part of his adjustment process.


Some Afghanistan vets and family members of fallen soldiers want Bergdahl to be punished for desertion, arguing he deliberately walked away from his unit in 2009 before he fell into the hands of the Taliban — and recklessly endangered those who went looking for him.


The mother of one soldier said to have died in the subsequent search for Bergdahl told Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140602/NEWS/306020055/Gold-Star-mom-guy-worth-my-son-s-life-) that his return stirred “very raw emotions.”


“This guy was worth my son’s life?” asked Sondra Andrews, mother of fallen Army 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews.


Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said on Tuesday there will be plenty of time for the Army to determine the circumstances of Bergdahl’s disappearance, but that he remains “innocent until proven guilty.”

[Atlanteax]

Hey Back...

A guy who runs over two people and kills them, with ample video evidence, is 'innocent until proven guilty' in court ...

But you would *expect* him to be found guilty, yes?

If so, you agree Bergdahl left his post. =)

[Back]

Hey Back...

A guy who runs over two people and kills them, with ample video evidence, is 'innocent until proven guilty' in court ...

But you would *expect* him to be found guilty, yes?

If so, you agree Bergdahl left his post. =)

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

[Back]

YOU JUMP TO A CONCLUSION BASED ON A SMALL AMOUNT OF SEVENTH HAND INFORMATION RIGHT NOW, YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!

(Just saved you half a day of PB posts to get to the same place.)

Prophetic.

[Atlanteax]

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

That was not the question. The question was whether you agree that he left his post.
Is the reason why you are avoiding conceding what is apparent, because it is an issue of US Tribunal vs Taliban to you?
How does that affect the 'before' where he left his post?

.

As for my above example (the hit & run killing 2), are you going to take the position that he was not guilty if you (hypothetically) did not believe in capital punishment?

[Back]

That was not the question. The question was whether you agree that he left his post.
Is the reason why you are avoiding conceding what is apparent, because it is an issue of US Tribunal vs Taliban to you?
How does that affect the 'before' where he left his post?

.

As for my above example (the hit & run killing 2), are you going to take the position that he was not guilty if you (hypothetically) did not believe in capital punishment?

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

[Atlanteax]

By your avoidance of the question, it can be inferred that you (1) agree that he deserted his post, and (2) dislike the thought of him being left to the Taliban.

In the meantime, it is my position that after a member of the armed forces that willingly deserts, the US is no longer liable for his/her well-being (and may potentially be considered a hostile instead).

So yes, if the Taliban ends up torturing/killing him, then it is just a matter of a Darwin Award recipient (wandering off and then getting captured) meeting his fate.

[Back]

By your avoidance of the question, it can be inferred that you (1) agree that he deserted his post, and (2) dislike the thought of him being left to the Taliban.

In the meantime, it is my position that after a member of the armed forces that willingly deserts, the US is no longer liable for his/her well-being (and may potentially be considered a hostile instead).

So yes, if the Taliban ends up torturing/killing him, then it is just a matter of a Darwin Award recipient (wandering off and then getting captured) meeting his fate.

I think if you look back at my posts you can see my answer. You guys are asking me to repeat myself.

I think your opinion about leaving him to the enemy is disgusting and un-American.

[waywardgs]

Nothing about this adds up.

[Sorcasaurus]

Nothing about this adds up.

Very little of this does. It being a PR distraction makes perfect sense.

[Wrathbringer]

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

He sentenced himself to that.

[Methais]

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

Let's pretend he never got captured, but everything else with the evidence about the desertion so far still stands.

Do you think he deserted his post?

[Atlanteax]

I think your opinion about leaving him to the enemy is disgusting and un-American.

I think your opinion that he should be welcomed home as a hero after deserting his post and contributing to other soldiers being killed, is disgusting and un-American.

[Back]

Let's pretend he never got captured, but everything else with the evidence about the desertion so far still stands.

Do you think he deserted his post?

Dude, go back and re-read my posts.

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

[Back]

I think your opinion that he should be welcomed home as a hero after deserting his post and contributing to other soldiers being killed, is disgusting and un-American.

Dude, go back and re-read my posts. I've never called him a hero.

[Atlanteax]

Let's pretend he never got captured, but everything else with the evidence about the desertion so far still stands.

Do you think he deserted his post?

Back apparently does not want to 'repeat himself' but he is saying 'yes' without actually posting 'yes'.
http://tjsullivan.com/20-ways-to-acknowledge-something-without-saying-yes-or-no/

[Sorcasaurus]

I am unclear on this, what is the actual punishment for deserting ones post? If it's abroad and he runs, does it make him a fugitive/wanted person?

I know you're striped of rank/pay and given dishonorable discharge, but is there a legal punishment like fines/jail time etc?

[Atlanteax]

Dude, go back and re-read my posts. I've never called him a hero.

You also never said that other soldiers were unharmed by his actions.

[Tgo01]

I am unclear on this, what is the actual punishment for deserting ones post? If it's abroad and he runs, does it make him a fugitive/wanted person?

I know you're striped of rank/pay and given dishonorable discharge, but is there a legal punishment like fines/jail time etc?

I think you can get the death penalty for desertion, I doubt that would happen with this guy though.

[Back]

You also never said that other soldiers were unharmed by his actions.

Given that I wasn't there and don't have the facts. But I do know he did not intentionally kill soldiers in his unit.

I can understand people being pissed off, but I can't understand leaving him in the hands of the Taliban as justified in this situation.

[Atlanteax]

Given that I wasn't there and don't have the facts. But I do know he did not intentionally kill soldiers in his unit.

I can understand people being pissed off, but I can't understand leaving him in the hands of the Taliban as justified in this situation.


By your avoidance of the question, it can be inferred that you (1) agree that he deserted his post, and (2) dislike the thought of him being left to the Taliban.

Thanks for affirming the above.

[Sorcasaurus]

I think you can get the death penalty for desertion, I doubt that would happen with this guy though.

Found it, and you are right. That is the obviously the maximum penalty, and the authority of punishment is given to the Court-Martial.

There is a distinction made between AWOL and desertion. For those interested it's sections 85 and 86:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf

[Back]

Thanks for affirming the above.

Whatever, man. I don't think I've avoided letting you know my opinions.

[Tisket]

Well, one bright spot in this: releasing the five from Guantanamo makes killing them much easier now that we are no longer responsible for keeping them alive. Hope we follow up on that ASAP.

I'm betting none of the five survive the next year.

[Androidpk]

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

How about a free vacation to Fort Leavenworth?

[Back]

Well, one bright spot in this: releasing the five from Guantanamo makes killing them much easier now that we are no longer responsible for keeping them alive. Hope we follow up on that ASAP.

I'm betting none of the five survive the next year.

Good point. I don't think we'd have released them if we were not confident we could keep track of and use them reliably. Kerry has flat out said if they get back into the fight we would kill them. Period.


How about a free vacation to Fort Leavenworth?

I stated numerous time if he is found guilty of desertion then punish him. But lets get him home first and not leave him to live or die in the hands of the Taliban.

[Taernath]

I think you can get the death penalty for desertion, I doubt that would happen with this guy though.

If it turns out that he was beaten/tortured and not a collaborator, I'd be satisfied with time served and forfeiture of any pay and privileges he may have been awarded.

[Latrinsorm]

Something tells me if the Administration could find one guy from his unit that did not think this guy was a shitbag we would have heard from him by now. The silence however is deafening.That's what they said about the birth certificate too, though. The absence of evidence really isn't evidence of absence.
How about a free vacation to Fort Leavenworth?I dunno, that place has really bad reviews on kayak.com.

[Jarvan]

I can't say definitively that he did or did not. Some in his unit say he did. The Pentagon's investigation has not come to that conclusion. I've said before in this thread that if it is found that he did then punish him accordingly.

The Pentagon hasn't released it's findings publicly, tho a Senior official said that he did.


"The Pentagon has never stated that Bergdahl walked off his base, noting that any inquiries into what happened were missing Bergdahl's side of the story. An official investigation, classified "secret," was opened but it was never completed, a Pentagon spokesperson said today.

But the senior official who spoke to ABC News said a note that Bergdahl left at his post before he walked away could help tell the story.

The note, the official said, showed Bergdahl's disillusionment with the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and indicated that Bergdahl believed he knew a better way. The official speculates that Bergdahl was idealistic in the extreme and may have gone out on his own to solve problems with which the U.S. military struggled for years.

After finding the note, military investigators "concluded rather quickly that he had deserted," a former senior defense official said.

The current senior official said it's unclear how Bergdahl got off base the night in June 2009 when he disappeared - he possibly hid in the trunk of a vehicle -- and it's still unclear how he came in contact with the Taliban. The official said despite rumors that have previously circulated, Bergdahl did not marry while in captivity."

Here is the thing.. unless he was a super secret spy for the CIA or military intelligence... there is ZERO reason for him to leave his military base during wartime. None. Zilch. Considering he left without his gear, is a clear indication that he deserted. Whats he going to do, say "No I didn't, I went to buy a gift for my mom."

Oh ok, it's all good then.

I can't think of one reason he can give at this point after the note he left that would make what he did "OK".


If it did then why is it going to continue?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/joint-chiefs-chairman-dempsey-army-still-may-pursu/

Want to know why it will continue? Because there is no fucking way in hell that he will be tried for desertion WHILE Obama is in office. Until Obama is out of office this will be "Under investigation". Hell, if Hillary wins it may continue to be under investigation.

Obama CAN'T have one of his Legacy pieces tarnished by the guy being found guilty of deserting. Least not while he is in office.. afterward.. he can claim.. "well, I had no idea at the time.... The first I have heard of it is on the news."

[Jarvan]

Dude, go back and re-read my posts.

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

Dude.. can't answer a question. If he deserted his post, I would have told the Taliban to kill him. Saves us a bullet and some meals.

[Androidpk]

It has a 5 star rating on Tripadvisor. The yelp review are pretty good too.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't ask what soldiers do to make each other yelp.

[Back]

Dude.. can't answer a question.

Dude, some people either can't read or comprehend or have extremely short term memories or are just plain fucking stupid.


If he deserted his post, I would have told the Taliban to kill him. Saves us a bullet and some meals.

Thats horrible.

[Methais]

Dude, go back and re-read my posts.

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

You're not getting it, are you?

Take the whole being captured thing out of the equation for a moment. Suppose he just showed back up on base one day instead of being captured, and all the other evidence is exactly the same.

If you were being forced to take an opinion poll where the question was, "Do you believe that based on so-and-so evidence, that Bergdahl deserted his post?" would your answer be YES or NO?

[Parkbandit]

Very little of this does. It being a PR distraction makes perfect sense.

From what? The VA scandal?

I don't think this Administration is that savvy.. in fact, it appears to be the exact opposite.

[Back]

You're not getting it, are you?

Take the whole being captured thing out of the equation for a moment. Suppose he just showed back up on base one day instead of being captured, and all the other evidence is exactly the same.

If you were being forced to take an opinion poll where the question was, "Do you believe that based on so-and-so evidence, that Bergdahl deserted his post?" would your answer be YES or NO?

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

[Parkbandit]

Well, one bright spot in this: releasing the five from Guantanamo makes killing them much easier now that we are no longer responsible for keeping them alive. Hope we follow up on that ASAP.

I'm betting none of the five survive the next year.

I'd like to believe this.. but I'm betting these scumbags just go back to doing what they were doing prior to their vacation at Gitmo.

[Warriorbird]

It seems like he deserted. I don't get why he'd be held 5 years if he actually was collaborating. They LOVE parading collaborators around and we kill them with drone strikes. I don't know why we'd send them a POW, but there's the possibility he was some sort of intelligence asset. It doesn't make so much sense to trade prisoners for him otherwise, even if we need to open negotiations and were going to let them go.

[Parkbandit]

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

You really are retarded.

[Tisket]

I'd like to believe this.. but I'm betting these scumbags just go back to doing what they were doing prior to their vacation at Gitmo.

I'm leaning toward believing that, after being out of contact and in US custody this long, that the Taliban won't trust them with any serious planning in the future. They might get a heroes welcome but access to vital information? Probably not so much.

[Parkbandit]

It seems like he deserted. I don't get why he'd be held 5 years if he actually was collaborating. They LOVE parading collaborators around and we kill them with drone strikes. I don't know why we'd send them a POW, but there's the possibility he was some sort of intelligence asset. It doesn't make so much sense to trade prisoners for him otherwise, even if we need to open negotiations and were going to let them go.

Yea.. I don't think there is much evidence that he collaborated. He tried to escape, he was tortured and put in a small cage. Even the Taliban said they thought he was some trap.

I'm in the he just deserted, looking for a greener pasture and found out too late that it was nothing but sand.

[Parkbandit]

I'm leaning toward believing that, after being out of contact and in US custody this long, that the Taliban won't trust them with any serious planning in the future. They might get a heroes welcome but access to vital information? Probably not so much.

You don't need vital information to be an effective terrorist scumbag.

[Androidpk]

I don't ask what soldiers do to make each other yelp.

Don't ask the soldiers, ask the seamen.

[Gelston]

I'm leaning toward believing that, after being out of contact and in US custody this long, that the Taliban won't trust them with any serious planning in the future. They might get a heroes welcome but access to vital information? Probably not so much.

They have leadership qualities and will be that much more hardened and respected now. Consider how long Nelson Mandela was imprisoned.

[Johnny Five]

Man... Back..... lol...

[Methais]

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

I'm sorry, but according to the poll question from my previous post, he was never captured by the enemy.

This was evidenced by the part of my post, which you even quoted, that said:


Take the whole being captured thing out of the equation for a moment. Suppose he just showed back up on base one day instead of being captured, and all the other evidence is exactly the same.

So again...let's pretend we're in an alternate reality where everything happened the way it did except he never got captured.

Based on the evidence, do you believe he deserted? You can't play your "blah blah at the hands of the enemy" card because he never got captured in this version. He just simply showed back up on base a month later and was like "Hi guys!"

Do you believe he deserted or not, based on the current evidence?

[Tisket]

They have leadership qualities and will be that much more hardened and respected now. Consider how long Nelson Mandela was imprisoned.

The Taliban need to watch Homeland!

[Gelston]

The Taliban need to watch Homeland!

Hah, I bet they do. The ones that don't live out in the country anyways. The rural areas of Afghanistan have barely more technology than the year 0.

[Back]

I'm sorry, but according to the poll question from my previous post, he was never captured by the enemy.

This was evidenced by the part of my post, which you even quoted, that said:



So again...let's pretend we're in an alternate reality where everything happened the way it did except he never got captured.

Based on the evidence, do you believe he deserted? You can't play your "blah blah at the hands of the enemy" card because he never got captured in this version. He just simply showed back up on base a month later and was like "Hi guys!"

Do you believe he deserted or not, based on the current evidence?

I don't need all the hypothetical nonsense. Here is a post of mine from earlier today.


How many times do I have to repeat myself? It looks like he did, some say he did, but the military's own investigation has not come to that conclusion. Still, you're never going to convince me that we should condemn him to the hands of our enemy. Thats beyond fucked up.

[Jarvan]

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

Back has gone past ludicrous stupidity, and has reached Plaid stupidity.

[Back]

You really are retarded.

Answer the question.

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

[Gelston]

Answer the question.

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

No. We should have gotten him out a different way, however.

In my Platoon, we used to say things like "Regardless of how much of a dumbass this motherfucker is, he is our dumbass and we're going to take care of him." Bergdahl is America's dumbass and we need to take care of him. I don't think the method in which we got him out was the best, or the correct, way.

[Parkbandit]

Answer the question.

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

No.

See how easy answering a simple question is? Now maybe you can stop parroting that stupid line in every post in this thread?

[Jarvan]

Answer the question.

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

Obama could have tracked him down and droned him to death. He has that power you know.

[Androidpk]

Answer the question.

Should we sentence him to life or death in the hands of the enemy?

I think if we had the opportunity to go in and rescue him then we should have. Apparently, and I'll have to go find this article again, they had an inclination of where he was (this being recently) but the military basically said no, they didn't want to risk any more soldiers for this guy. I think that is rather telling, same with everything that has been said by his squad mates and squad leader. In my personal experience in the military, as well as that of friends and family, people tend to stick up for each other and have each others backs. So to me it seems telling that no one in uniform is defending him.

[Androidpk]

Obama could have tracked him down and droned him to death. He has that power you know.

I started to laugh then remembered it's true :(

[Tgo01]

It really is quite interesting to read Back's posts in this thread when he said things like this about the Zimmerman case:


I will just say from the facts that we do know my opinion is Zimmerman needs to be in jail for murder.

Keep in mind this was before Zimmerman had even been arrested. We have about 100 times more information about this Bergdahl guy then we knew about the Zimmerman case at that point in time yet Back was already prepared to put Zimmerman away for life and is willing to give Bergdahl a hero's welcome.

One has to ask themselves why, why are Back's opinions so extreme in both of these cases? Is it because Zimmerman is Hispanic? Is it because this case makes Obama look bad and Obama is black?

I'm not saying Back is racist...I'm just saying he's racist.

Naww, we cool, Back!

[Warriorbird]

I started to laugh then remembered it's true :(

He probably would have if he actually collaborated.

[Parkbandit]

It really is quite interesting to read Back's posts in this thread when he said things like this about the Zimmerman case:



Keep in mind this was before Zimmerman had even been arrested. We have about 100 times more information about this Bergdahl guy then we knew about the Zimmerman case at that point in time yet Back was already prepared to put Zimmerman away for life and is willing to give Bergdahl a hero's welcome.

One has to ask themselves why, why are Back's opinions so extreme in both of these cases? Is it because Zimmerman is Hispanic? Is it because this case makes Obama look bad and Obama is black?

I'm not saying Back is racist...I'm just saying he's racist.

Naww, we cool, Back!

LOL.

x100

One actually has to ask themselves why, why are Backlash's opinions always 180 degrees of the actual outcome?

[Methais]

It really is quite interesting to read Back's posts in this thread when he said things like this about the Zimmerman case:



Keep in mind this was before Zimmerman had even been arrested. We have about 100 times more information about this Bergdahl guy then we knew about the Zimmerman case at that point in time yet Back was already prepared to put Zimmerman away for life and is willing to give Bergdahl a hero's welcome.

One has to ask themselves why, why are Back's opinions so extreme in both of these cases? Is it because Zimmerman is Hispanic? Is it because this case makes Obama look bad and Obama is black?

I'm not saying Back is racist...I'm just saying he's racist.

Naww, we cool, Back!

He hates white Hispanics, but only when the media tells him to.

[Androidpk]

It really is quite interesting to read Back's posts in this thread when he said things like this about the Zimmerman case:



Keep in mind this was before Zimmerman had even been arrested. We have about 100 times more information about this Bergdahl guy then we knew about the Zimmerman case at that point in time yet Back was already prepared to put Zimmerman away for life and is willing to give Bergdahl a hero's welcome.

One has to ask themselves why, why are Back's opinions so extreme in both of these cases? Is it because Zimmerman is Hispanic? Is it because this case makes Obama look bad and Obama is black?

I'm not saying Back is racist...I'm just saying he's racist.

Naww, we cool, Back!

This is what you call blindly following political party narrative and it's the number one reason why I feel so disenfranchised from politics today.

[Jarvan]

Hmm... anyone else notice that the news of the VA scandal has been almost zilch for a week?

[Androidpk]

Seems like there really hasn't been any new coverage since Shinseki stepped down and a bunch of people were fired from that one hospital in Phoenix. I have to say that I love the VA hospital I go to and my doctor there is just plain awesome.

[Briem]

Not like this could ever be proven, nor would any agency or branch of the military confirm or deny it even if it was...but anyone ever think that all this publicity of him being a deserter is just an elaborate rouse for getting back a valuable asset that was purposely made to look like a deserter to infiltrate a hostile group and gather intelligence, locations, training specifics, munitions reports, and establish links for possible future use? It is the perfect cover to have him come back because either the enemy thinks A) he has turned and they have a cell to place in the US for intel or B) he comes home a disgraced or hung soldier in their eyes as he returns to the US. Either way it would have been a genius strategy.

Second point of fact, regardless of whether he is a deserter or not, a troop signs up knowing that regardless of what happens to him/her the US will do what it can to return that soldier home. Whether he will be warmly received is not part of the equation or whether they get to live free once returned home doesn't factor either...but they sign up and have the expectation to be brought back if captured. When he returns home anyhow, if he has indeed deserted or not, he will have a massive debrief and will be monitored for the rest of his days if not in jail or if not an operative.

[Taernath]

Not like this could ever be proven, nor would any agency or branch of the military confirm or deny it even if it was...but anyone ever think that all this publicity of him being a deserter is just an elaborate rouse for getting back a valuable asset that was purposely made to look like a deserter to infiltrate a hostile group and gather intelligence, locations, training specifics, munitions reports, and establish links for possible future use?

lolno

[Androidpk]

lolno

lolno intensifies

[Parkbandit]

Seems like there really hasn't been any new coverage since Shinseki stepped down and a bunch of people were fired from that one hospital in Phoenix. I have to say that I love the VA hospital I go to and my doctor there is just plain awesome.

Come on. People were fired. This fabricated crisis by the far right is now over.

Nothing to see here.

[Warriorbird]

Come on. People were fired. This fabricated crisis by the far right is now over.

Nothing to see here.

More reasonable than most of the others. Like most of Obama's real faults they've dropped it though.

[subzero]

Claims that soldiers died looking for him are also not definitively proven.

Semantics; they phrase things in such a way that one cannot say, "On day X, when we were looking for our deserter, so-and-so were killed on this mission."


I think your opinion about leaving him to the enemy is disgusting and un-American.

If you leave the 'safety' of your base on some fucking spirit quest/soul searching or whatever the hell he was doing in enemy territory, can you really say we left him? If he was out with his squad and something went down, he got lost, injured, etc, then you might be on to something. At that point you could consider him as having been left behind. That is not what happened here. He left. Into enemy territory. A place where anyone with two functional brain cells knows they're going to at the very least capture you if the opportunity exists.

Let's try it like this: If a dude jumps off an airplane, the airplane didn't leave him behind. He jumped off; he left the airplane.


I don't ask what soldiers do to make each other yelp.

Of course not. You'd have a camera in their tent recording it, so asking would be redundant.


I'm leaning toward believing that, after being out of contact and in US custody this long, that the Taliban won't trust them with any serious planning in the future. They might get a heroes welcome but access to vital information? Probably not so much.

They're decoys at best now. Maybe figureheads to rouse the rabble.


Not like this could ever be proven, nor would any agency or branch of the military confirm or deny it even if it was...but anyone ever think that all this publicity of him being a deserter is just an elaborate rouse for getting back a valuable asset that was purposely made to look like a deserter to infiltrate a hostile group and gather intelligence, locations, training specifics, munitions reports, and establish links for possible future use?

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this guy is the equivalent of a Warcraft peon.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmbflJhPvWg

[Ker_Thwap]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/haqqani-network-militants-killed-u-s-drone-strike-taliban-n129526?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

[Back]

Semantics; they phrase things in such a way that one cannot say, "On day X, when we were looking for our deserter, so-and-so were killed on this mission."



If you leave the 'safety' of your base on some fucking spirit quest/soul searching or whatever the hell he was doing in enemy territory, can you really say we left him? If he was out with his squad and something went down, he got lost, injured, etc, then you might be on to something. At that point you could consider him as having been left behind. That is not what happened here. He left. Into enemy territory. A place where anyone with two functional brain cells knows they're going to at the very least capture you if the opportunity exists.


Even then I would not condemn him to the hands of our enemies.

[Dwaar]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/haqqani-network-militants-killed-u-s-drone-strike-taliban-n129526?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Glad to hear. Thanks for posting.

Now just keep on doing it.

[Gelston]

Back, you should honestly learn when to shut up.

[Androidpk]

I've seen a couple articles that stated that the combat outpost keating was delayed in closing down because helicopters and other resources needed for that were used in the search for Bergdahl. That's the outpost that was attacked by 300 taliban, resulting in 8 dead americans and a lot of wounded.

[Atlanteax]

I've seen a couple articles that stated that the combat outpost keating was delayed in closing down because helicopters and other resources needed for that were used in the search for Bergdahl. That's the outpost that was attacked by 300 taliban, resulting in 8 dead americans and a lot of wounded.


Even then I would not condemn him to the hands of our enemies.

Even tho he more or less directly contributed to this?

[Methais]

Even then I would not condemn him to the hands of our enemies.

What if George Zimmerman joined the military and did the same thing?

[Androidpk]

What if George Zimmerman joined the military and did the same thing?

Depends on how many back soldiers died as a result of him going AWOL.

[Atlanteax]

What if George Zimmerman joined the military and did the same thing?

"But that is different!!!"

[Tgo01]

Someone in Obama's administration suggests Bowe Bergdahl's former platoon mates are "psychopaths." (http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/05/bergdahls-army-comrades-may-be-psychopaths-says-administration-official/)


An administration press secretary suggested overnight that U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl might have been justified in deserting his battlefield post, partly because his platoon-mates might have been “psychopaths.”

Bergdahl might “be worthy of sympathy” for distrusting his leadership and for having “walked off,” said Brandon Friedman, a Democratic activist, a former Iraq and Afghan veteran and now a top public affairs official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Outsiders shouldn’t jump to conclusion about Bergdahl’s actions, said Friedman, the author of a scathing book about his military experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, “The War I Always Wanted.”

“Here’s the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions [commenters]: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?” he tweeted late Wednesday.

Here's the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership? (1/5)

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) June 5, 2014

“What if he grew disillusioned with what he saw, didn’t trust his leadership, and walked off? Legal? No. Worthy of sympathy? Maybe,” Friedman tweeted near midnight at the end of June 4.

What if he grew disillusioned with what he saw, didn't trust his leadership, and walked off? Legal? No. Worthy of sympathy? Maybe. (2/5)

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) June 5, 2014

“If that were the case, the soldiers in his platoon would have all the more reason to smear him publicly now,” he continued.

If that were the case, the soldiers in his platoon would have all the more reason to smear him publicly now. (3/5)

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) June 5, 2014

“Given other examples, it’s not out of the realm of possibility–and more reason to withhold judgment until after an investigation,” he said.

Given other examples, it's not out of the realm of possibility–and more reason to withhold judgment until after an investigation. (4/5)

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) June 5, 2014

“I’m not a fan of such speculation, but this story could not be more unbalanced–with so many premature calls of ‘traitor,’” he concluded.

I'm not a fan of such speculation, but this story could not be more unbalanced–with so many premature calls of "traitor." (5/5)

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) June 5, 2014

The tweets were initially publicized by The Free Beacon.

White House flacks are betting that public sympathy for Bergdahl will trump concerns about the strategic damage from Obama’s agreement to swap five top Taliban leaders for the soldier. “I think the principle of leaving no man behind will ultimately win out,” a top White House official told The Hill.

The bet is being undermined, however, by many of Bergdahl’s former comrades, who say he deserted them in June 2009. Some of his former comrade also say he collaborated with the local Taliban fighters to attack U.S. forces.

Also, a U.S. Army report unveiled by The Daily Caller said that so many U.S. assets were assigned to recover Bergdahl that other Taliban groups were able to almost overrun an Army base, dubbed Combat Outpost Keating. Eight U.S. soldiers were killed in that attack.

White House officials and Pentagon officials have declined to release the formal investigation of Bergdahl’s desertion, but critical fragments are being leaked to reporters.

GOP legislators in Congress are expected to ask for copies of the investigation.

Friedman has sided with Democratic Party since he quit the military in 2004.

In July 2007 Friedman delivered the weekly national radio address for the Democratic Party, when he urged a full retreat from Iraq, even though President George W. Bush’s “surge” counterattack was destroying the factional and al-Qaida force that were trying to overcome Iraq’s elected government.

“The fact is, the Iraq war has kept us from devoting assets we need to fight terrorists worldwide — as evidenced by the fact that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and al-Qaida has been able to rebuild… We need an effective offensive strategy that takes the fight to our real enemies abroad. And the best way to do that is to get our troops out of the middle of this civil war in Iraq,” he said.

In the same year, he also headed VoteVets.org, which tried to rally veterans to vote Democratic.

In 2009, he started working for President Barack Obama’s administration as a press aide in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In March, he began working as a deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at HUD.

I don't think it gets much more disgusting than this.

[Tenlaar]

I, too, am disgusted by people believing in that stupid "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit. They're almost as bad as people who misrepresent what is in an article so that they can draw conclusions based on what isn't actually said.

[Tgo01]

I, too, am disgusted by people believing in that stupid "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit.

I'm not sure what you're going on about. Bergdahl's former platoon mates are witnesses. Do you often demonize witnesses and tell them "Remember, innocent until proven guilty"? If so might I suggest you put down the crack and pick up some marijuana; same risk of psychosis but much cheaper.


They're almost as bad as people who misrepresent what is in an article so that they can draw conclusions based on what isn't actually said.

I'm honestly not sure if you're even responding to my post at this point. Maybe you're responding to an earlier post but forgot to quote it?

[Tenlaar]

I'm not sure what you're going on about. Bergdahl's former platoon mates are witnesses. Do you often demonize witnesses and tell them "Remember, innocent until proven guilty"? If so might I suggest you put down the crack and pick up some marijuana; same risk of psychosis but much cheaper.
How have I demonized anybody? Do you think the saying is "innocent until proven guilty unless somebody comes forward as a witness, at which point fuck an investigation they're guilty?"


I'm honestly not sure if you're even responding to my post at this point. Maybe you're responding to an earlier post but forgot to quote it?
No sir, that was all you. You took an article about tweets from a guy in the Department of Housing and Urban Development saying "we don't know what happened, wait for a trial before he is declared a traitor" and turned it into "Obama's libtard bestie said Bergdahl's platoon are psychopaths so he's innocent, OBAAAAAAMAAAAAA!"

[Tgo01]

How have I demonized anybody? Do you think the saying is "innocent until proven guilty unless somebody comes forward as a witness, at which point fuck an investigation they're guilty?"

The dude in the article is demonizing them. I'm trying to point out how absurd it is by asking if YOU demonize witnesses? Since you apparently took offense at that suggestion why aren't you mad at this guy for demonizing them?

There is a fine line between "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Oh come on, those witnesses are just a bunch of psychopaths!" Which is kind of odd. You apparently have no problem with this guy calling those soldiers psychopaths without a trial but you have a problem with these guys saying they think Bergdahl is a deserter.

I think your bias is showing.


No sir, that was all you. You took an article about tweets from a guy in the Department of Housing and Urban Development saying "we don't know what happened, wait for a trial before he is declared a traitor" and turned it into "Obama's libtard bestie said Bergdahl's platoons are psychopaths so he's innocent, OBAAAAAAMAAAAAA!"

Uhhhhhhh?

I said he suggested his former platoon mates were psychopaths.


What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?” he tweeted late Wednesday.

That's...like...exactly what he did.

I think we're getting to the root of your problem here; you really should read your own posts and my posts before responding :O

[Taernath]

Fuck Bergdahl, this guy is the hot new deserter of the month:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/29/us/hassoun-marine-desertion/


A U.S. Marine corporal who was declared a deserter twice has turned himself in to authorities and is on his way to Virginia.
Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun failed to report for duty in January 2005 at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, the Marine Corps said in a statement. He is expected to arrive in Norfolk, Virginia, on Sunday.

Hassoun, 34, is believed to have been in Lebanon for much of the time he was gone, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to talk to the media. It was not immediately clear where he turned himself in to authorities.

Before his 2005 disappearance, he had disappeared in Iraq, just one year earlier. The Marines charged Hassoun, who served as a truck driver and translator, with desertion and theft.

[Tgo01]

Fuck Bergdahl, this guy is the hot new deserter of the month:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/29/us/hassoun-marine-desertion/

The name sounds Muslim therefore he is innocent.

[Wrathbringer]

I, too, am disgusted by people believing in that stupid "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit. They're almost as bad as people who misrepresent what is in an article so that they can draw conclusions based on what isn't actually said.

Obama thinks it's stupid too. He just drones american citizens rather than go through due process.

[Taernath]

The name sounds Muslim therefore he is innocent.

Innocence of Muslims?

[Latrinsorm]

The dude in the article is demonizing them. I'm trying to point out how absurd it is by asking if YOU demonize witnesses? Since you apparently took offense at that suggestion why aren't you mad at this guy for demonizing them?

There is a fine line between "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Oh come on, those witnesses are just a bunch of psychopaths!" Which is kind of odd. You apparently have no problem with this guy calling those soldiers psychopaths without a trial but you have a problem with these guys saying they think Bergdahl is a deserter.

I think your bias is showing.



Uhhhhhhh?

I said he suggested his former platoon mates were psychopaths.



That's...like...exactly what he did.

I think we're getting to the root of your problem here; you really should read your own posts and my posts before responding :OThis reminded me of a speech (https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/a80806fbebea8dd285257015006e1943/09613ff986b2a86885257599001505c1?OpenDocument) I once read regarding "natural killers" or "aggressive psychopaths" in the Army. I present it without further comment.

[Kembal]

Something's gone haywire with this administration's management of issues. Don't understand how they make Bergdahl's release such a big deal if there were questions about his desertion, don't understand what the fuck was happening at the VA (and WB is right, the Republicans should be going after that one even more than they are), and the ACA website rollout was a complete mess. Those are straight up managerial issues that any competent manager who's paying attention to the details should've known about in advance and averted before they happened.

Policy wise, I'm still glad I voted for Obama. I just wish he was a more competent manager and/or he had competent managers under him.

[Androidpk]

Something's gone haywire with this administration's management of issues. Don't understand how they make Bergdahl's release such a big deal if there were questions about his desertion, don't understand what the fuck was happening at the VA (and WB is right, the Republicans should be going after that one even more than they are), and the ACA website rollout was a complete mess. Those are straight up managerial issues that any competent manager who's paying attention to the details should've known about in advance and averted before they happened.

Policy wise, I'm still glad I voted for Obama. I just wish he was a more competent manager and/or he had competent managers under him.

He is a terrible leader.

Maybe we’ve been conned. There’s a growing recognition that Barack Obama is an incompetent poser, working out of his depth, and his administration is the gang that can’t shoot straight. There’s a lot of evidence to support that belief.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/3/pruden-en-route-to-the-third-world/

[Kembal]

He is a terrible leader.

I'm coming from a business school background, so I think of leadership and management as two different things/skillsets. He's not a terrible leader, in my opinion...he sets policy direction pretty well, and he does inspire others to work for him (excepting the military, but that's a different ball of wax). Could he do better? Certainly. But the dynamics with Congress have made that difficult.

But on management, esp. in the second term, he's getting an D- from me. His administration's ability to execute on their own priorities is mindnumblingly awful. Congress is not an excuse here. If it weren't for the new EPA power plant rule, I'd be giving him an F. (He gets zero credit for fixing the ACA website after it blew up on Oct. 1. You don't get credit for fixing the messes you created yourself.)

Wish I could link to the article that explains the difference between leadership and management, but I'm pretty sure that the Harvard Business Review keeps it behind a paywall. :/

[Androidpk]

I'm coming from a military background and I think both his leadership and managerial skills are both piss poor. I regret voting for him in 2008.

[Tenlaar]

I think we're getting to the root of your problem here; you really should read your own posts and my posts before responding :O

The root of the problem is you changing the meaning of what people say in your head. Saying "what if this happened, we don't have all the information" is not the same as saying "we have all the information, this happened." It's a pretty easy distinction to make if you aren't trying to find things to be outraged about.

The only bias you are seeing is the one that you feel compelled to assign to everybody you interact with who doesn't agree with you.

[Tgo01]

The root of the problem is you changing the meaning of what people say in your head. Saying "what if this happened, we don't have all the information" is not the same as saying "we have all the information, this happened." It's a pretty easy distinction to make if you aren't trying to find things to be outraged about.

I'm still not 100% convinced you actually read my post/the story.

The guy called his former platoon mates psychopaths. Okay okay. To be fair he just heavily insinuated it. I'm not sure how you read his tweets and all you got was "Huh, all he's saying is 'innocent until proven guilty.'"

Because to me it sure as hell sounds like he's saying "The guy who willingly left his post is a hero and the ones saying he's a deserter are a bunch of psychopaths."

Then again about a week ago you were trying to blame a 12 year old girl for getting raped because she was a slut so...I dunno. In that case you were trying to defend Hilary and now you're apparently trying to defend Obama.

I guess I can see the pattern.


The only bias you are seeing is the one that you feel compelled to assign to everybody you interact with who doesn't agree with you.

What bias is that exactly?

[Wrathbringer]

I'm coming from a military background and I think both his leadership and managerial skills are both piss poor. I regret voting for him in 2008.

I also regret you voting for him in 2008.

[Parkbandit]

I'm coming from a business school background, so I think of leadership and management as two different things/skillsets. He's not a terrible leader, in my opinion...he sets policy direction pretty well, and he does inspire others to work for him (excepting the military, but that's a different ball of wax). Could he do better? Certainly. But the dynamics with Congress have made that difficult.

But on management, esp. in the second term, he's getting an D- from me. His administration's ability to execute on their own priorities is mindnumblingly awful. Congress is not an excuse here. If it weren't for the new EPA power plant rule, I'd be giving him an F. (He gets zero credit for fixing the ACA website after it blew up on Oct. 1. You don't get credit for fixing the messes you created yourself.)

Wish I could link to the article that explains the difference between leadership and management, but I'm pretty sure that the Harvard Business Review keeps it behind a paywall. :/

I couldn't disagree more. The only leadership type qualities I can see in this man is that he's generally likable (is that even a trait to be an effective leader?), an ability to inspire (I still remember a speech he gave back in 2006 that really was inspirational.. even for me) and maybe if I push it.. support of your team (this can probably be argued more effectively as a weakness, since he can't fire anyone that should be fired... Sebelius...) Other than that, I can't name a single positive quality that this man has that makes him an effective leader.

He certainly doesn't surround himself with the best and brightest.
Accountability - The buck stops here.. but it's not my fault. Real leaders take blame and give credit. He does the opposite.
Thin skin
Arrogant and egotistical.
Lead by example? Really? You believe that a family vacation to the Hamptons during the "great recession" is a good idea?

The man is an excellent campaigner... but as a leader, he is a dismal failure.

[Methais]

PB is only saying that because he hates black people.

[Warriorbird]

PB is only saying that because he hates black people.

Because he hates Democrats.

[Parkbandit]

Because he hates Democrats.

Actually I don't hate anyone. I disagree with Democrats on their belief that socialism and bigger government is the answer to all of society's problems.

But, feel free to state your case as to how think President Obama is such a great leader.

[Warriorbird]

Actually I don't hate anyone. I disagree with Democrats on their belief that socialism and bigger government is the answer to all of society's problems.

But, feel free to state your case as to how think President Obama is such a great leader.

I don't. I don't think that you would give him credit even if he were though.

[Kembal]

I couldn't disagree more. The only leadership type qualities I can see in this man is that he's generally likable (is that even a trait to be an effective leader?), an ability to inspire (I still remember a speech he gave back in 2006 that really was inspirational.. even for me) and maybe if I push it.. support of your team (this can probably be argued more effectively as a weakness, since he can't fire anyone that should be fired... Sebelius...) Other than that, I can't name a single positive quality that this man has that makes him an effective leader.

He certainly doesn't surround himself with the best and brightest.
Accountability - The buck stops here.. but it's not my fault. Real leaders take blame and give credit. He does the opposite.
Thin skin
Arrogant and egotistical.
Lead by example? Really? You believe that a family vacation to the Hamptons during the "great recession" is a good idea?

The man is an excellent campaigner... but as a leader, he is a dismal failure.

I don't see all of those (I don't begrudge the man his vacations, wherever they are. Presidents from both parties always advise the incoming president to make sure to take vacations.), and I do think he holds himself accountable partially. (see ACA website) However, he definitely has a thin skin, and he can come across as arrogant.

The three positive qualities you listed above are some of the main reasons I don't consider him a terrible leader. That plus he seems relatively clear on policy direction.

[Jarvan]

I don't see all of those (I don't begrudge the man his vacations, wherever they are. Presidents from both parties always advise the incoming president to make sure to take vacations.), and I do think he holds himself accountable partially. (see ACA website) However, he definitely has a thin skin, and he can come across as arrogant.

The three positive qualities you listed above are some of the main reasons I don't consider him a terrible leader. That plus he seems relatively clear on policy direction.

He isn't accountable. This is a guy that learns of every single mess in the news. He is anti-accountable.

He doesn't even come close to a good leader. A GOOD leader can get things done when everything is stacked against him. Obama can get things done ONLY when he has a super Majority, and even then it takes 2 years and someone's death. yeah yeah.. Republicans are obstructionists. Every party is when the other is in power. A good leader deals with it.

VERY rarely does a president's party control both houses for any length of time. Yet we got stuff done. Hell, look at Reagan, he never had control of the Congress, he got stuff done. Clinton even got stuff done after he lost the House. Why? Because they didn't say.. "well fuck you, if you won't do what I want, I got a pen and a phone and I will do it anyway".

Now.. does that sound like what a good leader would say?

Yeah.. in communist China maybe.

[Warriorbird]

He isn't accountable. This is a guy that learns of every single mess in the news. He is anti-accountable.

He doesn't even come close to a good leader. A GOOD leader can get things done when everything is stacked against him. Obama can get things done ONLY when he has a super Majority, and even then it takes 2 years and someone's death. yeah yeah.. Republicans are obstructionists. Every party is when the other is in power. A good leader deals with it.

VERY rarely does a president's party control both houses for any length of time. Yet we got stuff done. Hell, look at Reagan, he never had control of the Congress, he got stuff done. Clinton even got stuff done after he lost the House. Why? Because they didn't say.. "well fuck you, if you won't do what I want, I got a pen and a phone and I will do it anyway".

Now.. does that sound like what a good leader would say?

Yeah.. in communist China maybe.

It'd be really great for you if this was actually true. Unfortunately it isn't. A year of negotiations and countless changes are exactly not failing to negotiate.

Now, his own mess ups? Those are sad. He has so much support from massive Internet powers. Why not get them to help with ACA?

[Jarvan]

It'd be really great for you if this was actually true. Unfortunately it isn't. A year of negotiations and countless changes are exactly not failing to negotiate.

Now, his own mess ups? Those are sad. He has so much support from massive Internet powers. Why not get them to help with ACA?

You mean countless changes as in his 34 changes AFTER the ACA was passed?

Also.. the ACA was passed with a super majority. It never would have passed in a fractured congress. Hell, never would have passed with less then 60 votes. (good thing really)

What has he done lately?

[Androidpk]

ACA was/is a disaster that never should have happened. We should have gone the route of a single payer system completely separate from employment.

[Warriorbird]

ACA was/is a disaster that never should have happened. We should have gone the route of a single payer system completely separate from employment.

We should have. I don't blame Obama for that though.


You mean countless changes as in his 34 changes AFTER the ACA was passed?

Also.. the ACA was passed with a super majority. It never would have passed in a fractured congress. Hell, never would have passed with less then 60 votes. (good thing really)

What has he done lately?

It's really telling how you can blank out over a year of reality. I wish I could do that sometimes. Might help with the memory of my 20s.

[Androidpk]

How can you not blame him? He met behind closed doors with insurance companies.

[Warriorbird]

How can you not blame him? He met behind closed doors with insurance companies.

After he got completely screwed because he was naive and got played like Charlie Brown with Lucy with the football by the Republican Party for a year. Meeting behind closed doors with insurance companies was to get things done after he recklessly clung to the idea that bipartisanship would be easy in the White House like Congress.

[Tgo01]

How did the Republicans play him for a year exactly?

[Warriorbird]

How did the Republicans play him for a year exactly?

It's been explained. You could do some actual research or stick to platitudes, talking points, and trolling attempts. I predict you'll choose the second.

[Tgo01]

It's been explained. You could do some actual research or stick to platitudes, talking points, and trolling attempts. I predict you'll choose the second.

If it's been explained then link it to me, please :(

[Parkbandit]

I don't. I don't think that you would give him credit even if he were though.

Its like you try to add something intelligent to the thread, but consistently fail on purpose.

[Parkbandit]

I don't see all of those (I don't begrudge the man his vacations, wherever they are. Presidents from both parties always advise the incoming president to make sure to take vacations.),

Neither do I... I just don't think he should be jetsetting to places like the Hamptons during the same time period that he is claiming is the worst economic time period since the 1930's. It shows how disconnected he is from the typical American.


and I do think he holds himself accountable partially. (see ACA website)

A real leader doesn't hold himself "partially" accountable. And when he does "attempt" to claim responsibility, it's usually with a caveat.


However, he definitely has a thin skin, and he can come across as arrogant.


The three positive qualities you listed above are some of the main reasons I don't consider him a terrible leader.

Being a likable person, a good campaigner and an ability to inspire people doesn't make you an effective leader without the other qualities.


That plus he seems relatively clear on policy direction.

Compare his direction during campaign mode vs. reality.

[Parkbandit]

After he got completely screwed because he was naive and got played like Charlie Brown with Lucy with the football by the Republican Party for a year. Meeting behind closed doors with insurance companies was to get things done after he recklessly clung to the idea that bipartisanship would be easy in the White House like Congress.

It's not his fault the mean Republicans were picking on him!

LOL

[Warriorbird]

If it's been explained then link it to me, please :(

Obama naively wanders into office. He spends nearly a year of totally mishandled negotiation in which he gives away most of the good aspects of the bill for promised but fictional Republican support. A vast list of amendments are made. Olympia Snowe in particular does a fantastic job of holding Obama entranced with the promise of Republican votes before finally, finally, tearing even her vote away because of party "pressure." Kennedy dies and the Democrats run a total fucking idiot which dramatically empowers conservative Democrats (since Reid and Pelosi are terrible at their jobs) to push for even further with brinkmanship for their support. Eventually Obama realizes how badly he's been played and just got to "fuck it pass what we can mode."

The Republicans promptly feed you guys the "Obama didn't negotiate!" meme and you believe it till death. Obama, since he's naive, takes it personally and never trusts them again. Most of his time for positive change is dissipated at this point. The two parties in Washington cease to even talk. The Republicans spend their time on troll bills that feature no actual chance of passing the Democratic Senate so they can whine about those awful Democrats. Obama's better at whining about the awful Republicans and the military and intelligence services get Bin Laden, which he can ride to a second term. The Republicans wear down America with their big win that the bill isn't that great and convince people that (in spite of it coming from conservative principles) it is the apocalypse and that Obama "didn't negotiate on it!" They make tremendous Congressional gains with bashing that bill that could've been better but they made like it is. So now the Republicans can't let their story go and Obama can't and we've had years wasted. The Republicans were successful at preventing the economy from getting better during Obama's Presidency with hopes that they can take credit for once a Republican wins again. They're scared of Hillary because she's very talented and the smart ones are targeting her. The rest still can't move on from ginned up Obama panic and carping about ACA.


Its like you try to add something intelligent to the thread, but consistently fail on purpose.

It's like you're too old to move forward. It's okay. You've had a good life.

[Tgo01]

Obama naively wanders into office. He spends nearly a year of totally mishandled negotiation in which he gives away most of the good aspects of the bill for promised but fictional Republican support. A vast list of amendments are made. Olympia Snowe in particular does a fantastic job of holding Obama entranced with the promise of Republican votes before finally, finally, tearing even her vote away because of party "pressure." Kennedy dies and the Democrats run a total fucking idiot which dramatically empowers conservative Democrats (since Reid and Pelosi are terrible at their jobs) to push for even further with brinkmanship for their support. Eventually Obama realizes how badly he's been played and just got to "fuck it pass what we can mode."

The Republicans promptly feed you guys the "Obama didn't negotiate!" meme and you believe it till death. Obama, since he's naive, takes it personally and never trusts them again. Most of his time for positive change is dissipated at this point. The two parties in Washington cease to even talk. The Republicans spend their time on troll bills that feature no actual chance of passing the Democratic Senate so they can whine about those awful Democrats. Obama's better at whining about the awful Republicans and the military and intelligence services get Bin Laden, which he can ride to a second term. The Republicans wear down America with their big win that the bill isn't that great and convince people that (in spite of it coming from conservative principles) it is the apocalypse and that Obama "didn't negotiate on it!" They make tremendous Congressional gains with bashing that bill that could've been better but they made like it is. So now the Republicans can't let their story go and Obama can't and we've had years wasted. The Republicans were successful at preventing the economy from getting better during Obama's Presidency with hopes that they can take credit for once a Republican wins again. They're scared of Hillary because she's very talented and the smart ones are targeting her. The rest still can't move on from ginned up Obama panic and carping about ACA.

You sure it wasn't more like Obama wasn't pushing for an individual mandate and was negotiating with Republicans then Obama suddenly decided an individual mandate was required and it was now non negotiable and that pissed Republicans off and they withdrew their support? Then the Senate voted 60-39 (all Republicans opposed) so they could shut Republicans out of any negotiations then the House, once again afraid of any Republican input on the matter, withdrew their own healthcare plan and decided to just vote on the Senate version so no Republicans would be needed for any vote?

Revisionist history is a wondrous thing.

[Warriorbird]

You sure it wasn't more like Obama wasn't pushing for an individual mandate and was negotiating with Republicans then Obama suddenly decided an individual mandate was required and it was now non negotiable and that pissed Republicans off and they withdrew their support? Then the Senate voted 60-39 (all Republicans opposed) so they could shut Republicans out of any negotiations then the House, once again afraid of any Republican input on the matter, withdrew their own healthcare plan and decided to just vote on the Senate version so no Republicans would be needed for any vote?

Revisionist history is a wondrous thing.

So is legislative history. Yawn.

[Tenlaar]

I'm still not 100% convinced you actually read my post/the story.

The guy called his former platoon mates psychopaths. Okay okay. To be fair he just heavily insinuated it. I'm not sure how you read his tweets and all you got was "Huh, all he's saying is 'innocent until proven guilty.'"

Because to me it sure as hell sounds like he's saying "The guy who willingly left his post is a hero and the ones saying he's a deserter are a bunch of psychopaths."

Then again about a week ago you were trying to blame a 12 year old girl for getting raped because she was a slut so...I dunno. In that case you were trying to defend Hilary and now you're apparently trying to defend Obama.

I guess I can see the pattern.

Here is the pattern that you should be seeing: you jump to very firmly held conclusions without the evidence required to support them, and then take my (or anybody's) pointing that out as both agreeing with and defending your opposition. You cannot see that at no point did I blame a 12 year old girl for getting raped, I only said that you have no evidence whatsoever to base your conclusion that Clinton is a lying slut shamer on - and yet you immediately and forcefully took that stance. Just as you cannot see that this random guy who's tweets nobody should really give a shit about to begin with is saying that people should not label somebody a traitor without sufficient evidence. I know that it seems very difficult to keep yourself in check and not grab on to your first gut reaction for dear life but it's worth trying.

Now tell me this, Terrence. Let's use one of those hypotheticals that people love so much. Say there is a soldier that has been sending letters home about how he doesn't like what is happening where he is stationed, that he feels it is wrong. He writes about how he doesn't think that he can continue supporting this cause, and he makes his unhappiness with what is happening known to those he is stationed with. One day he just cannot take it any more so he removes his gear and he walks away from his post. On his way to wherever he was trying to go he is captured. With me so far?

Ok, here's the tricky part. Imagine it is mid 2003 and the post this soldier is walking away from is Abu Ghraib. If those responsible had managed to cover it up and it never became a scandal, would you be calling that soldier a traitor for becoming disgusted and walking away from that situation?

I know that you are going to want to reply with something about how the situations are not comparable, but that's the whole point. You do not know what was happening where he was posted, you do not know what caused him to decide to walk away, and you are certainly in no position to label the man a traitor. Because you do not have the evidence needed for such a pronouncement.

[Parkbandit]

Obama naively wanders into office. He spends nearly a year of totally mishandled negotiation in which he gives away most of the good aspects of the bill for promised but fictional Republican support. A vast list of amendments are made. Olympia Snowe in particular does a fantastic job of holding Obama entranced with the promise of Republican votes before finally, finally, tearing even her vote away because of party "pressure." Kennedy dies and the Democrats run a total fucking idiot which dramatically empowers conservative Democrats (since Reid and Pelosi are terrible at their jobs) to push for even further with brinkmanship for their support. Eventually Obama realizes how badly he's been played and just got to "fuck it pass what we can mode."

The Republicans promptly feed you guys the "Obama didn't negotiate!" meme and you believe it till death. Obama, since he's naive, takes it personally and never trusts them again. Most of his time for positive change is dissipated at this point. The two parties in Washington cease to even talk. The Republicans spend their time on troll bills that feature no actual chance of passing the Democratic Senate so they can whine about those awful Democrats. Obama's better at whining about the awful Republicans and the military and intelligence services get Bin Laden, which he can ride to a second term. The Republicans wear down America with their big win that the bill isn't that great and convince people that (in spite of it coming from conservative principles) it is the apocalypse and that Obama "didn't negotiate on it!" They make tremendous Congressional gains with bashing that bill that could've been better but they made like it is. So now the Republicans can't let their story go and Obama can't and we've had years wasted. The Republicans were successful at preventing the economy from getting better during Obama's Presidency with hopes that they can take credit for once a Republican wins again. They're scared of Hillary because she's very talented and the smart ones are targeting her. The rest still can't move on from ginned up Obama panic and carping about ACA.

I always wondered what history looked like when you were so in love with the guy you voted for you really didn't know what was happening. Good to know.


It's like you're too old to move forward. It's okay. You've had a good life.

Typical Progressive. Being a racist is bad (only if you are a Republican though), but an ageist is still "cool".

[Warriorbird]

I always wondered what history looked like when you were so in love with the guy you voted for you really didn't know what was happening. Good to know.



Typical Progressive. Being a racist is bad (only if you are a Republican though), but an ageist is still "cool".

You're definitely rational and balanced about him.

I love it when you somehow complain when people say things about you when that's your modus operandi. To make it clear though, I'd say the same if you were 18 and unable to move on, like some of my young Tea Party and Occupy fanatics.

[Tgo01]

Now tell me this, Terrence. Let's use one of those hypotheticals that people love so much. Say there is a soldier that has been sending letters home about how he doesn't like what is happening where he is stationed, that he feels it is wrong. He writes about how he doesn't think that he can continue supporting this cause, and he makes his unhappiness with what is happening known to those he is stationed with. One day he just cannot take it any more so he removes his gear and he walks away from his post. On his way to wherever he was trying to go he is captured. With me so far?

Ok, here's the tricky part. Imagine it is mid 2003 and the post this soldier is walking away from is Abu Ghraib. If those responsible had managed to cover it up and it never became a scandal, would you be calling that soldier a traitor for becoming disgusted and walking away from that situation?

I know that you are going to want to reply with something about how the situations are not comparable, but that's the whole point. You do not know what was happening where he was posted, you do not know what caused him to decide to walk away, and you are certainly in no position to label the man a traitor. Because you do not have the evidence needed for such a pronouncement.

You sure do have a knack for blaming the victims (in this case his former platoon mates because they were now short handed) while at the same time claiming to not be blaming the victims.

You sure are sounding exactly like the guy making these tweets; the platoon was full of psychopaths and this guy had enough and just wanted to peacefully walk away from all of the atrocities going on.

Where is YOUR proof? That sure is some heavy handed allegations with...let's see...NOTHING to back it up with. Not even Obama has (yet) gone as far as to claim Bergdahl was just trying to escape his war hungry, murdering loving, mad men former platoon mates because he couldn't bear to see them shoot another unarmed 2 year old in cold blood again.

I mean. Wow. Kudos, Tenlaar. Kudos.

[Vorpos]

I always wondered what history looked like when you were so in love with the guy you voted for you really didn't know what was happening. Good to know.



Typical Progressive. Being a racist is bad (only if you are a Republican though), but an ageist is still "cool".

They're finished using the word racist. The new word of the week is xenophobe.

[Kembal]

Neither do I... I just don't think he should be jetsetting to places like the Hamptons during the same time period that he is claiming is the worst economic time period since the 1930's. It shows how disconnected he is from the typical American.

Isn't every modern President? The only ones that I think even come close to being connected are Reagan and Clinton. Both Bushes, Nixon, Ford, Carter....none of them were.


A real leader doesn't hold himself "partially" accountable. And when he does "attempt" to claim responsibility, it's usually with a caveat.

I really don't know how much the dynamics with Congress plays into this here. But to be honest, I don't think we've had a President in a long time that's held themselves accountable for all of their failures. Maybe Bush Sr.?


Being a likable person, a good campaigner and an ability to inspire people doesn't make you an effective leader without the other qualities.

No, but since he does have those qualities, I can't say he's a terrible leader either. (The ability to inspire is definitely not something everyone has) Average? I could live with that description.

Compare his direction during campaign mode vs. reality.[/QUOTE]

Look, as a liberal, if you look at the reforms he's done in terms of domestic policy, outside of financial reform and immigration, he's made progress on everything. (financial reform, outside of the CPFB, I'm not sure he's done enough to call it progress) Foreign policy, he is relatively committed to the idea that America shouldn't get into any new wars, and he's kept it that way. I'm sure conservatives don't like what he's doing (and they have every right to disagree with it), and for certain there are others (including liberals/progressives) who don't like the policy solutions he comes up with (not using single payer, etc.) but I think it's clear he has a direction in mind.

What he doesn't have are the managerial execution skills.

[Luntz]

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - LYNDON B. JOHNSON, 1960, remark to Bill Moyers, "What a Real President Was Like," Washington Post, 13 November 1988

[Parkbandit]

You're definitely rational and balanced about him.

I love it when you somehow complain when people say things about you when that's your modus operandi. To make it clear though, I'd say the same if you were 18 and unable to move on, like some of my young Tea Party and Occupy fanatics.

LOLWUT?

You would say this to an 18 year old?


It's like you're too old to move forward. It's okay. You've had a good life.

Riiiiiiight.

I get it. You hate people who are older than you are and don't hide it. It's ok to admit it.. just like I admit that I dislike stupid people. I can't help what year I was born in just like you can't help it that you weren't born as smart as most people.

We both have our crosses to bear.. except I at least admit mine.

[Parkbandit]

They're finished using the word racist. The new word of the week is xenophobe.

Until after the 2014 election cycle.. then it's going to be ZOMG SEXIST if Hillary decides to run.

[Warriorbird]

LOLWUT?

You would say this to an 18 year old?

Riiiiiiight.

I get it. You hate people who are older than you are and don't hide it. It's ok to admit it.. just like I admit that I dislike stupid people. I can't help what year I was born in just like you can't help it that you weren't born as smart as most people.

We both have our crosses to bear.. except I at least admit mine.

It's funny how there's been more ist comments from one party than another in this thread. It's also great when you go from whining about me saying something to you tossing some more things on. Very mature. Being unwilling to change knows no age boundaries.

The reverse discrimination whining is predictable too. Hopefully you use it to rationalize another loss.

[Parkbandit]

Isn't every modern President? The only ones that I think even come close to being connected are Reagan and Clinton. Both Bushes, Nixon, Ford, Carter....none of them were.

I don't see it being the same. Maybe the Clintons and Nixon.. but the Bushes (is that how you pluralize their name? I honestly don't know) or Ford and certainly not Carter.


I really don't know how much the dynamics with Congress plays into this here. But to be honest, I don't think we've had a President in a long time that's held themselves accountable for all of their failures. Maybe Bush Sr.?

Go back through all the "scandals" during the past 6 years. His favorite excuse is "Well gee, the first I heard of it was on the news!" I'm not asking him to take full responsibility for everything bad that happens.. but he has a habit of blaming himself when things go right.. and blaming others (mostly Bush) when things go wrong. I never felt that way with any other President.


No, but since he does have those qualities, I can't say he's a terrible leader either. (The ability to inspire is definitely not something everyone has) Average? I could live with that description.

I expect more from the President of the United States than an "average" leader.


Look, as a liberal, if you look at the reforms he's done in terms of domestic policy, outside of financial reform and immigration, he's made progress on everything.

Looking at it as a liberal.. you are probably ok with his healthcare push (not single payer, no federal abortions, etc..) , the "stimulus", DADT, increased dependency on welfare, unemployment and social security (disability).. but what else?

Energy: We became the #1 oil and gas producer in the world under Obama. And he certainly hasn't "invested" enough into green energy for you, has he?
Education: What's he done? Not much.. and certainly nothing that has helped.
Space: He gutted NASA and now has us begging Russia for rides into space. (I'm not sure if that's a liberal thing or not to be honest)
Taxes: Why haven't they been raised in a meaningful way to punish the rich?
Economy: The gap between rich and poor is higher now than when he took office. Quantitative easing seems like it's only giving rich people more wealth and offering the poor nothing in return.

I can't imagine if I were a liberal I would be happy with his performance to date. Hopefully, he can step it up for your side with Executive Orders.


Foreign policy, he is relatively committed to the idea that America shouldn't get into any new wars, and he's kept it that way.

Really? So that is the entire liberal foreign policy platform: Keep out of new wars?

One thing I remember Obama campaigning on was how the world hates us because of GW Bush... but it doesn't seem like they like us any more today. Heck, Europe probably dislikes us more now.


I'm sure conservatives don't like what he's doing (and they have every right to disagree with it), and for certain there are others (including liberals/progressives) who don't like the policy solutions he comes up with (not using single payer, etc.) but I think it's clear he has a direction in mind.

Given that he had a Democrat controlled Senate and House.. it could have been FAR worse for us Conservatives. I'm perfectly fine with the House opposing any more left tilting and hopefully, the Senate will turn Republican in the Fall.


What he doesn't have are the managerial execution skills.

On that we most certainly agree.

[Parkbandit]

It's funny how there's been more ist comments from one party than another in this thread. It's also great when you go from whining about me saying something to you tossing some more things on. Very mature. Being unwilling to change knows no age boundaries.

Right. It makes perfect sense for you to say "It's like you're too old to move forward. It's okay. You've had a good life." to an 18 year old.

You are really digging in your heels on that? Hilarious.


The reverse discrimination whining is predictable too. Hopefully you use it to rationalize another loss.

What reverse discrimination was I whining about? It's like you purposely try to make no sense.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself at this point and now I feel like a bully.

[Warriorbird]

Right. It makes perfect sense for you to say "It's like you're too old to move forward. It's okay. You've had a good life." to an 18 year old.

You are really digging in your heels on that? Hilarious.



What reverse discrimination was I whining about? It's like you purposely try to make no sense.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself at this point and now I feel like a bully.

It's a real stretch when you can't even remember your own posts.

[Latrinsorm]

One thing I remember Obama campaigning on was how the world hates us because of GW Bush... but it doesn't seem like they like us any more today. Heck, Europe probably dislikes us more now. This at least we can investigate quantitatively (http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/group/3/). I would say that on net we find:

more favorable - France, Germany, Spain
no change - Britain, Poland, Russia
less favorable - none

Going around the world...

Asia
more - Indonesia, South Korea
same - China, Japan
less - Pakistan

Middle East and North Africa
more - none
same - Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey
less - Egypt

Americas
more - Argentina
same - Mexico, Canada
less - none

All told, his record goes 6 won, 11 drawn, 2 lost. A success!

[Tgo01]

This at least we can investigate quantitatively (http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/group/3/). I would say that on net we find:

That is like the worst reference in the history of referencedom.

What, Netherlands hasn't had an opinion since 2005? Sweden only had an opinion a year before Bush left office? Lithuanians didn't exist until 2011 and haven't existed since?

[Kembal]

I don't see it being the same. Maybe the Clintons and Nixon.. but the Bushes (is that how you pluralize their name? I honestly don't know) or Ford and certainly not Carter.

You'd know Nixon better than I would. I'm basically basing my opinion off of Watergate, but he did do quite a bit domestic policy wise.


Go back through all the "scandals" during the past 6 years. His favorite excuse is "Well gee, the first I heard of it was on the news!" I'm not asking him to take full responsibility for everything bad that happens.. but he has a habit of blaming himself when things go right.. and blaming others (mostly Bush) when things go wrong. I never felt that way with any other President.

I'm not sure I saw this on all the "scandals", but I'll grant that this definitely did happen with the VA scandal.


I expect more from the President of the United States than an "average" leader.

That I agree with.


Looking at it as a liberal.. you are probably ok with his healthcare push (not single payer, no federal abortions, etc..) , the "stimulus", DADT, increased dependency on welfare, unemployment and social security (disability).. but what else?

Energy: We became the #1 oil and gas producer in the world under Obama. And he certainly hasn't "invested" enough into green energy for you, has he?
Education: What's he done? Not much.. and certainly nothing that has helped.
Space: He gutted NASA and now has us begging Russia for rides into space. (I'm not sure if that's a liberal thing or not to be honest)
Taxes: Why haven't they been raised in a meaningful way to punish the rich?
Economy: The gap between rich and poor is higher now than when he took office. Quantitative easing seems like it's only giving rich people more wealth and offering the poor nothing in return.

I can't imagine if I were a liberal I would be happy with his performance to date. Hopefully, he can step it up for your side with Executive Orders.

- Energy: This honestly happened in spite of him. I live in Houston, so oil and gas is a way of life here. He did stop offshore drilling for quite a while after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Clean energy wise, yes, he could have done more. I'm starting to think Keystone XL is dead.
- Education: If he gets the early childhood education piece passed somehow, it'll be a big step. Race to the Top/Common Core: I haven't made up my mind on whether this was a good idea or not. Keep reading conflicting articles.
- Space: Ok, I agree that's been a black mark so far. (I'm still really pissed about one of the shuttles not coming to Houston) But if the commercial spacecraft program gets off the ground (like SpaceX is looking like it will), then I think it'll work pretty well.
- Taxes: He got this one right where it needs to be. Taxes don't need to be any higher to close the deficit, given economic recovery.
- Economy: QE is a last ditch response because there hasn't been further fiscal stimulus. I'd prefer fiscal stimulus as opposed to monetary stimulus any day of the week when faced with a recession. Congress hasn't obliged after the first stimulus.




Really? So that is the entire liberal foreign policy platform: Keep out of new wars?

Majority of Americans seem to be of that opinion. Israel-Palestine is going nowhere, Ukraine will beat its separatists on its own (Russia's not going to go to bat there), Iran's a maybe as to whether it'll work, and I suspect China's going to be focused on internal domestic issues shortly (they've got a slowly mushrooming bank crisis over there). I think people were pissed he even sent 300 military advisers to Iraq, they're that much against U.S. military intervention.


One thing I remember Obama campaigning on was how the world hates us because of GW Bush... but it doesn't seem like they like us any more today. Heck, Europe probably dislikes us more now.

Germany certainly does. Not sure about the rest.


Given that he had a Democrat controlled Senate and House.. it could have been FAR worse for us Conservatives. I'm perfectly fine with the House opposing any more left tilting and hopefully, the Senate will turn Republican in the Fall.

I obviously hope for the opposite with regards to the Senate, but I'm almost certain the Republican margin in the House will diminish. (though it won't flip)

[Thondalar]

This at least we can investigate quantitatively (http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/group/3/). I would say that on net we find:

more favorable - France, Germany, Spain
no change - Britain, Poland, Russia
less favorable - none

Going around the world...

Asia
more - Indonesia, South Korea
same - China, Japan
less - Pakistan

Middle East and North Africa
more - none
same - Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey
less - Egypt

Americas
more - Argentina
same - Mexico, Canada
less - none

All told, his record goes 6 won, 11 drawn, 2 lost. A success!

Weird...looking at the numbers you linked, since 2009 (when Obama took office) to now I see:

Europe
more favorable: Spain, Russia
same: Poland
less favorable: Britain, France, Germany

Asia
more favorable: Japan
same: South Korea
Less Favorable: China, Indonesia, Pakistan

Middle East and North Africa
More: Israel, Turkey
Same: none
Less: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon

Americas
More: Argentina
Same: none
Less: Mexico, Canada, USA (go figure)

That gives me a total of 6 wins, 2 draws, and 12 losses.

[Thondalar]

I explored that site a little further...I think an even more telling metric, for this particular discussion, is that "Confidence in the U.S. President" has dropped since 2009 in every single country polled except Israel...which is really frickin' odd since Obama has stated his support for an autonomous Palestinian State for some time now.

[Jarvan]

I'm not sure I saw this on all the "scandals", but I'll grant that this definitely did happen with the VA scandal.

He heard about fast and Furious from the News.
VA Scandal, News.
IRS... News again.
ACA.. News.

[Parkbandit]

You'd know Nixon better than I would. I'm basically basing my opinion off of Watergate, but he did do quite a bit domestic policy wise.

Yea.. I remember being 6 and thinking to myself that Nixon is disconnected........


I'm not sure I saw this on all the "scandals", but I'll grant that this definitely did happen with the VA scandal.

It started with Fast and Furious and since the press let him get away with it, then it happened when the NSA was spying on Merkel, the VA and also the IRS scandal. Those are off the top of my head, so there are probably more.

Maybe he should attend more of his meetings instead of tuning into the Today Show to get his daily intelligence briefings.



- Energy: This honestly happened in spite of him. I live in Houston, so oil and gas is a way of life here. He did stop offshore drilling for quite a while after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Clean energy wise, yes, he could have done more. I'm starting to think Keystone XL is dead.
- Education: If he gets the early childhood education piece passed somehow, it'll be a big step. Race to the Top/Common Core: I haven't made up my mind on whether this was a good idea or not. Keep reading conflicting articles.
- Space: Ok, I agree that's been a black mark so far. (I'm still really pissed about one of the shuttles not coming to Houston) But if the commercial spacecraft program gets off the ground (like SpaceX is looking like it will), then I think it'll work pretty well.
- Taxes: He got this one right where it needs to be. Taxes don't need to be any higher to close the deficit, given economic recovery.
- Economy: QE is a last ditch response because there hasn't been further fiscal stimulus. I'd prefer fiscal stimulus as opposed to monetary stimulus any day of the week when faced with a recession. Congress hasn't obliged after the first stimulus.

I forgot about a few of these that would be considered good news for liberals (common core, Keystone dead) but are you suggesting that liberals are happy about the gutting of NASA and switching it to the private sector and taxes being where they need to be? You might want to have your "I'm a Liberal" card out for.. ready for inspection and confiscation.


Majority of Americans seem to be of that opinion. Israel-Palestine is going nowhere, Ukraine will beat its separatists on its own (Russia's not going to go to bat there), Iran's a maybe as to whether it'll work, and I suspect China's going to be focused on internal domestic issues shortly (they've got a slowly mushrooming bank crisis over there). I think people were pissed he even sent 300 military advisers to Iraq, they're that much against U.S. military intervention.

We're not talking about Americans.. we're just talking about liberals. The same people who were upset with our standing in the world under the evil Bush II Empire.



I obviously hope for the opposite with regards to the Senate, but I'm almost certain the Republican margin in the House will diminish. (though it won't flip)

I'm not sure about that... but I'll gladly trade a few House seats for a Senate majority... especially since Dirty Harry did away with the 2/3rds majority required. I would like that to come back and bite him in his ass.

[Atlanteax]

I'm coming from a military background and I think both his leadership and managerial skills are both piss poor. I regret voting for him in 2008.

Lots of absentee votes while Senator and his experience prior = Community Organizer.

Unfortunately, back in 2008, people were willing to overlook the total lack of experience (particularly vs McCain) due to the 'he is not Bush' sentimentality (and also the "Oh, I want to be part of voting in a black guy for President" sentimentality)

[Back]

Lots of absentee votes while Senator and his experience prior = Community Organizer.

Unfortunately, back in 2008, people were willing to overlook the total lack of experience (particularly vs McCain) due to the 'he is not Bush' sentimentality (and also the "Oh, I want to be part of voting in a black guy for President" sentimentality)

Perfectly valid. Don't forget the "I like the idea of universal healthcare" and of course the "I'm not voting for a crazy old warmonger and a dipshit" mentality.

[Atlanteax]

Perfectly valid. Don't forget the "I like the idea of universal healthcare" and of course the "I'm not voting for a crazy old warmonger and a dipshit" mentality.

Yep, Palin was/is a dipshit...

Tho I think we would have had a deal with Iran by now if McCain was President, due to his song...

[Tenlaar]

You sure do have a knack for blaming the victims

the platoon was full of psychopaths

claim Bergdahl was just trying to escape his war hungry, murdering loving, mad men former platoon mates

I mean. Wow. Kudos, Tenlaar. Kudos.

Your ability to take the simple words "don't know" and twist them to mean exactly what you are trying to rail against is truly astounding.

[Wrathbringer]

Yep, Palin was/is a dipshit...

Tho I think we would have had a deal with Iran by now if McCain was President, due to his song...

We'd have been better off with Palin than this obummer guy.

[Hightower]

"How can you not blame him? He met behind closed doors with insurance companies."

Pretty much. I believe in the goal of healthcare for The People, but I'm not convinced the ACA is producing the results we want. Much of the blame goes to congress for playing politics instead of getting down to business. A give-and-take likely would have produced better results. But you'd be naive to look at how this was handled and not also blame Obama for the results. This was a joint effort, no matter how you look at it!

~Taverkin

[Hightower]

We'd have been better off with Palin than this obummer guy.

Vote for W with boobs!

~Taverkin

[Latrinsorm]

That is like the worst reference in the history of referencedom.

What, Netherlands hasn't had an opinion since 2005?Tulip fanciers, what can you do?
Sweden only had an opinion a year before Bush left office?There was a big gap in Muppet movies from '99 to '11, too. Coincidence?
Lithuanians didn't exist until 2011 and haven't existed since?All die of malnourish.
Weird...looking at the numbers you linked, since 2009 (when Obama took office) to now I see:The question was whether they liked us more than when Bush was in office. Certainly 2009 was a high water mark for almost everyone, but that proves the point rather than rebutting it.

[Thondalar]

The question was whether they liked us more than when Bush was in office. Certainly 2009 was a high water mark for almost everyone, but that proves the point rather than rebutting it.

What it proves is that the world had high hopes for him when he took office, and now they realize how much of a failure he is.