US soldier Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban in Afghanistan

[chuckd]

In short, Congress is who decides what constitutes a High Crime and Misdemeanor. Not following an established law is good enough reason if Congress so decides.

You are correct that Congress does have the right to act as judge and jury against a president and impeach for any spurious reason. Crikey, they tried to get Clinton impeached for being fellated by a female intern. We can agree to disagree on what constitutes a high crime or whether not informing Congress in this particular situation constitutes criminal misdemeanor.

I am proud of Obama and Rice, a rare stance on my part I might add, for standing up for their convictions and performing their job in a neutral manner and not convicting this man of anything until he gets his day in court. I would not want to be a soldier who would have to worry whether his government might equivocate on seeking his release from captivity based upon the hearsay and opinion of his fellow soldiers. Those of you who were ever in a grunt infantry unit comprised primarily of undereducated 19 year olds know what I am talking about. I am not implying that there is no evidence to suggest that he might have deserted, but there is also no evidence that Bergdahl was anything other than a US soldier being held hostage by the Taliban. That he was not your or not someone else's ideal image of a US soldier is irrelevant. Or from another perspective, as someone compared it on a recent newscast, if a troubled sailor attempts suicide by jumping off a ship the ship's captain does not simply look over the stern and say "screw you sailor" and sail away.

John:

Do you honestly believe this entire scenario came up at this exact moment in time by coincidence?

This prisoner swap wasn't about securing Bergdahl's release. It was to gain another Bin Laden football spiking moment when one is desperately needed in the Oval Office.

With Obama's foreign policy in tatters, his rating dropping in the polls, Putin pushing him around in The Ukraine, the Veteran's Administration scandal, IRS, Benghazi Select Committee coming up and all the other attendant problems this White House has fostered, he needed something to break the public's concentration with his foibles.

This transfer could have been made any time during the past five years but he was still on top then so he had nothing to gain.

He probably thought he could get away with this exchange and shine the light once again on his claims of winning the war against terror.

He and his handlers badly miscalculated the reception he would receive and even some Democrats have joined those Republicans that have come out against the swap.

He rolled the dice yet again and came up "snake eyes"...a recurring theme in this White House.

[pmarlin]

This website is very detailed and offers the best on what really happened.

http://www.bouhammer.com/?s=bergdahl

[Chicog]

I'll say it again: It's just more petty Republican point scoring.

And the fact is they've known about this deal being on the cards since 2011.

I don't blame Obama for not telling them in advance, we know certain Republicans leak like a sieve.

Obama administration officials first discussed with senior House Republicans the possibility of swapping five terrorism detainees from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in late November 2011, according to senior GOP aides.

The possible prisoner exchange was discussed again during a briefing on Jan. 31, 2012, after senior House Republicans sent two letters to the Obama administration seeking more information on the possibility of the swap, said the aides, who were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

The outlines of the proposed Bergdahl swap had been public since the spring of 2012. Several news organizations, including The Washington Post, had learned of the proposal much earlier but refrained from reporting on it at the request of the Pentagon, which argued that public disclosure that Bergdahl was a subject of a negotiation between the Taliban and the United States could put his life at risk.

This will be another one of those never ending GOP wannabe "Scandals" that never seem to amount to much more than petulant whinging.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/03/white-house-first-discussed-bergdahl-prisoner-exchange-with-house-gop-leaders-in-nov-2011/

[Chicog]

Gotta love Fox's take on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0jpImbkR5c

The self-righteous indignation of some of them is just hilarious.

[Ulysses G.]

And the fact is they've known about this deal being on the cards since 2011.

So what? They did not approve the deal and Obama violated the law by not giving them 30 days notice. The fact that they knew it was a possibility does not change anything.

[Chicog]

And the fact is they've known about this deal being on the cards since 2011.

So what? They did not approve the deal and Obama violated the law by not giving them 30 days notice. The fact that they knew it was a possibility does not change anything.

The fact that they can't keep their mouths shut is a perfectly good reason for not notifying them until after the fact.

[Scott]

A troll post has been deleted along with a reply. Continue with the inflammatory trolling and you will be suspended.

You have been warned.

[PiPiFFS]

If you look at this deal as a necessary step at ending the war, it is much easier to take. I am not a big Obama fan but it appears as if the administration saw it as a step in the right direction.

+

The trouble is this isn't a necessary step to ending a war. it is a face saving, political manoeuvre to try and back out of a war they have lost totally without admitting defeat. The US as have the Uk troops have had their asses kicked big time as did the Soviets when they tried to invade the country.

Obama has tried to use getting this man back as a way to try to start a dialogue with the government they deposed when they invaded and it has backfired in a massive way due to the man in question being a deserter.

The sorry thing is that Obama will come out of this as he normally does smelling of roses and a few token sacrificial lambs will be offered to appease the public and it will be business as usual.

This from a non American looking from the outside

[Johpa]

John:

Do you honestly believe this entire scenario came up at this exact moment in time by coincidence?

This prisoner swap wasn't about securing Bergdahl's release. It was to gain another Bin Laden football spiking moment when one is desperately needed in the Oval Office.

With Obama's foreign policy in tatters, his rating dropping in the polls, Putin pushing him around in The Ukraine, the Veteran's Administration scandal, IRS, Benghazi Select Committee coming up and all the other attendant problems this White House has fostered, he needed something to break the public's concentration with his foibles.

This transfer could have been made any time during the past five years but he was still on top then so he had nothing to gain.

He probably thought he could get away with this exchange and shine the light once again on his claims of winning the war against terror.

He and his handlers badly miscalculated the reception he would receive and even some Democrats have joined those Republicans that have come out against the swap.

He rolled the dice yet again and came up "snake eyes"...a recurring theme in this White House.

I won't respond to your speculations on political machinations nor your airing of the most recent and already tired anti-Obama laundry list complied by Roger Ailes, but we might find agreement upon any declaration of winning the "war against terror". The use of terror as a tactic has been around since time immemorial as how else can you describe events ranging from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the fire bombing of Dresden. And the US has negotiated with those who have used the tactics of terror for many decades. Why, if I recall correctly, there was a document signed at the US presidential retreat of Camp David between Begin and Arafat, two acknowledged "terrorists". The entire concept of a "war on terror" is a propaganda fiction, just like the equally ridiculous war on drugs: it is never fully defined, victory can never be attained against a fictional enemy, and thus such wars proceed, to the profits of the few, without end. In regards to Bergdahl, the US was never in negotiation with "terrorists" as that is a fictional one -dimensional representation of the Taliban.

[Chicog]

If you look at this deal as a necessary step at ending the war, it is much easier to take. I am not a big Obama fan but it appears as if the administration saw it as a step in the right direction.

+

The trouble is this isn't a necessary step to ending a war. it is a face saving, political manoeuvre to try and back out of a war they have lost totally without admitting defeat. The US as have the Uk troops have had their asses kicked big time as did the Soviets when they tried to invade the country.

Obama has tried to use getting this man back as a way to try to start a dialogue with the government they deposed when they invaded and it has backfired in a massive way due to the man in question being a deserter.

The sorry thing is that Obama will come out of this as he normally does smelling of roses and a few token sacrificial lambs will be offered to appease the public and it will be business as usual.

This from a non American looking from the outside

From another non-American, Obama didn't start this war and he's right in ending it.

[chuckd]

Obama's recidivism rate looks like it might go up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NBCNEWS HOMELATESTSEARCH

Freed Taliban Commander Tells Relative He'll Fight Americans Again

BY MUSHTAQ YUSUFZAI

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - One of the five Taliban leaders freed from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan, according to a fellow militant and a relative.

"After arriving in Qatar, Noorullah Noori kept insisting he would go to Afghanistan and fight American forces there,” a Taliban commander told NBC News via telephone from Afghanistan.

Noori pushed to return to Afghanistan after learning that the U.S. had provided written assurances that no country would arrest any of the five freed for a year as long as they lived peacefully, one of his relatives told NBC News by telephone from Afghanistan.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/freed-taliban-commander-tells-relative-hell-fight-americans-again-n124451

[chuckd]

John:

Do you honestly believe this entire scenario came up at this exact moment in time by coincidence?

This prisoner swap wasn't about securing Bergdahl's release. It was to gain another Bin Laden football spiking moment when one is desperately needed in the Oval Office.

With Obama's foreign policy in tatters, his rating dropping in the polls, Putin pushing him around in The Ukraine, the Veteran's Administration scandal, IRS, Benghazi Select Committee coming up and all the other attendant problems this White House has fostered, he needed something to break the public's concentration with his foibles.

This transfer could have been made any time during the past five years but he was still on top then so he had nothing to gain.

He probably thought he could get away with this exchange and shine the light once again on his claims of winning the war against terror.

He and his handlers badly miscalculated the reception he would receive and even some Democrats have joined those Republicans that have come out against the swap.

He rolled the dice yet again and came up "snake eyes"...a recurring theme in this White House.

I won't respond to your speculations on political machinations nor your airing of the most recent and already tired anti-Obama laundry list complied by Roger Ailes, but we might find agreement upon any declaration of winning the "war against terror". The use of terror as a tactic has been around since time immemorial as how else can you describe events ranging from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the fire bombing of Dresden. And the US has negotiated with those who have used the tactics of terror for many decades. Why, if I recall correctly, there was a document signed at the US presidential retreat of Camp David between Begin and Arafat, two acknowledged "terrorists". The entire concept of a "war on terror" is a propaganda fiction, just like the equally ridiculous war on drugs: it is never fully defined, victory can never be attained against a fictional enemy, and thus such wars proceed, to the profits of the few, without end. In regards to Bergdahl, the US was never in negotiation with "terrorists" as that is a fictional one -dimensional representation of the Taliban.

I am curious how many times I have to tell you good people that...I DO NOT RECEIVE OR WATCH FOX NEWS AND HAVEN'T FOR NEARLY SIX YEARS!!!! (pardon me for raising my voice.)

Roger Ailes hardly gives me talking points, but thanks for trying to make the connection.

I find it rather interesting that you consider the bombing of Dresden an act of terror. Never heard it put quite that way.

[simple1]

John:

Do you honestly believe this entire scenario came up at this exact moment in time by coincidence?

This prisoner swap wasn't about securing Bergdahl's release. It was to gain another Bin Laden football spiking moment when one is desperately needed in the Oval Office.

With Obama's foreign policy in tatters, his rating dropping in the polls, Putin pushing him around in The Ukraine, the Veteran's Administration scandal, IRS, Benghazi Select Committee coming up and all the other attendant problems this White House has fostered, he needed something to break the public's concentration with his foibles.

This transfer could have been made any time during the past five years but he was still on top then so he had nothing to gain.

He probably thought he could get away with this exchange and shine the light once again on his claims of winning the war against terror.

He and his handlers badly miscalculated the reception he would receive and even some Democrats have joined those Republicans that have come out against the swap.

He rolled the dice yet again and came up "snake eyes"...a recurring theme in this White House.

I won't respond to your speculations on political machinations nor your airing of the most recent and already tired anti-Obama laundry list complied by Roger Ailes, but we might find agreement upon any declaration of winning the "war against terror". The use of terror as a tactic has been around since time immemorial as how else can you describe events ranging from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the fire bombing of Dresden. And the US has negotiated with those who have used the tactics of terror for many decades. Why, if I recall correctly, there was a document signed at the US presidential retreat of Camp David between Begin and Arafat, two acknowledged "terrorists". The entire concept of a "war on terror" is a propaganda fiction, just like the equally ridiculous war on drugs: it is never fully defined, victory can never be attained against a fictional enemy, and thus such wars proceed, to the profits of the few, without end. In regards to Bergdahl, the US was never in negotiation with "terrorists" as that is a fictional one -dimensional representation of the Taliban.

I am curious how many times I have to tell you good people that...I DO NOT RECEIVE OR WATCH FOX NEWS AND HAVEN'T FOR NEARLY SIX YEARS!!!! (pardon me for raising my voice.)

Roger Ailes hardly gives me talking points, but thanks for trying to make the connection.

I find it rather interesting that you consider the bombing of Dresden an act of terror. Never heard it put quite that way.

It is well know the strategic bombing to Germany did as a matter of policy incorporate 'terror bombing' in an endeavour to reduce the morale of the Geman population. A quote from Churchill:

'It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.'

[Credo]

All the politicing and hyperventilating over this guy. He was a prisoner of war. The only POW in Afghanistan. He has been released. Did you think it would be OK for the US to abandon him there? Do you think he should be tried in the court of Republican opinion and then left in Afghanistan?

[Ulysses G.]

The American military knew exactly where he was for years and they did not rescue him, because they knew he was a deserter. Why violate the rule against bargaining with terrorists and trade someone who left on his own for 5 major war criminals?

Edited June 8, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

The American military knew exactly where he was for years and they did not rescue him, because they knew he was a deserter. Why violate the rule against bargaining with terrorists and trade someone who left on his own for 5 major war criminals?

Really, 'they' knew he was a deserter? 'They' didn't suspect that he might be a deserter, 'they' knew it? Can you show some proof of a trial where this was determined or is this just another attempt to deflect from a discussion?

Do 'they' have trials in abstentia in the military? Is that what happened.

[Ulysses G.]

There is tons of evidence that he deserted. To send him to a military prison or shoot him, there would need to be a trial. That does not apply to deciding whether or not to trade 5 high level terrorists for a deserter, when bargaining with terrorists is against the rules.

[chuckd]

All the politicing and hyperventilating over this guy. He was a prisoner of war. The only POW in Afghanistan. He has been released. Did you think it would be OK for the US to abandon him there? Do you think he should be tried in the court of Republican opinion and then left in Afghanistan?

Bergdahl was never officially listed as a POW. He was listed by the Pentagon as "missing/captured".

I don't really think he should have been left there but since the Taliban who had him originally wanted money for him, that might have been better PR for this administration than giving up five very high level terrorists.

Everything I have seen shows him relishing his sojourn with the enemy in Pakistan. Guess he finally got homesick for a good hamburger and fries.

Looks like his trial is being held by a bi-lateral jury as well. Republican and Democrat.

Ya' think?

[PiPiFFS]

If you look at this deal as a necessary step at ending the war, it is much easier to take. I am not a big Obama fan but it appears as if the administration saw it as a step in the right direction.

+

The trouble is this isn't a necessary step to ending a war. it is a face saving, political manoeuvre to try and back out of a war they have lost totally without admitting defeat. The US as have the Uk troops have had their asses kicked big time as did the Soviets when they tried to invade the country.

Obama has tried to use getting this man back as a way to try to start a dialogue with the government they deposed when they invaded and it has backfired in a massive way due to the man in question being a deserter.

The sorry thing is that Obama will come out of this as he normally does smelling of roses and a few token sacrificial lambs will be offered to appease the public and it will be business as usual.

This from a non American looking from the outside

From another non-American, Obama didn't start this war and he's right in ending it.

Granted he didn't start the war but he certainly did very little to bring it to an end since he got elected. if he really wanted to end it he would admit defeat and just pull out all the troops there. it really is as easy as that. Politicians though can't or wont admit they got it wrong even when all the evidence points to utter and complete failure.

As for other posts trying to make out this man is innocent till proven guilty. the reports I have read has him leaving a note telling his mates he was leaving to join the Taliban and had already left his post once before. The fact they knew where he was and just left him there also tells me they were in no desperate rush to get him back.

given the political media frenzy of Obama rescuing a hero from the clutches of the evil Taliban or swapping him for 5 highly dangerous terrorists which do you think any politician would opt for ? Unless of course he knew just who he was risking lives to rescue

its a no brainer

And as much as I am a non American the release of these 5 men has implications for the whole of the Western world not just the USA.

Edited June 8, 2014 by PiPiFFS

[Credo]

All the politicing and hyperventilating over this guy. He was a prisoner of war. The only POW in Afghanistan. He has been released. Did you think it would be OK for the US to abandon him there? Do you think he should be tried in the court of Republican opinion and then left in Afghanistan?

Bergdahl was never officially listed as a POW. He was listed by the Pentagon as "missing/captured".

I don't really think he should have been left there but since the Taliban who had him originally wanted money for him, that might have been better PR for this administration than giving up five very high level terrorists.

Everything I have seen shows him relishing his sojourn with the enemy in Pakistan. Guess he finally got homesick for a good hamburger and fries.

Looks like his trial is being held by a bi-lateral jury as well. Republican and Democrat.

Ya' think?

Thanks for the level-headed and informative post. Personally, I would have had real problems with money being given to the Taliban, but getting rid of Gitmo prisoners seems like a good idea.

Once he is tried, we will have a better idea of what really happened.

[Goat Roper]

All the politicing and hyperventilating over this guy. He was a prisoner of war. The only POW in Afghanistan. He has been released. Did you think it would be OK for the US to abandon him there? Do you think he should be tried in the court of Republican opinion and then left in Afghanistan?

Credo, first of all he was not a prisoner of war, he was a deserter that went over to the enemy. Just for drill how many years did you serve on active duty in the military and were subject to the UCMJ?

[Credo]

All the politicing and hyperventilating over this guy. He was a prisoner of war. The only POW in Afghanistan. He has been released. Did you think it would be OK for the US to abandon him there? Do you think he should be tried in the court of Republican opinion and then left in Afghanistan?

Credo, first of all he was not a prisoner of war, he was a deserter that went over to the enemy. Just for drill how many years did you serve on active duty in the military and were subject to the UCMJ?

And you know he is a deserter how? You were in a court where that was decided? You saw the note? You know it was written by him?

[arjunadawn]

Will he be impeached as talk has it ?

It also couldn't have come at a worse time for Obama when the world is remembering a great American President !

I assume, since it is June 6th, D-Day, that you are referring to FDR, the president whose social and fiscal policies the US Republican party as well as the faux Democrats like Clinton have been zealously trying to erase since the clarion call by Lewis Powell in 1971 to turn back the clock and allow unbridled free market capitalism to be the over riding economic mantra of our times. They also trash talked your great economist Keynes. Golly, that didn't go over too well so yes indeed, we should remember FDR with D-Day being but one a minor footnote of his administration.

And alas, for you, failing to inform an indolent and untrustworthy Congress is not an impeachable offense.

This prisoner trade is not an impeachable offense; per se. However, it is ripe for oversight and it's in these shadows and defilades behind Obama's overt public acts of destroying America that the kernels of treason and impeachment are found. When so many circumstances of every public act smack so strongly of coercion and deceit and diminishment, and when so many end products of executive choices result in the degradation of America power and reputation, then here impeachable offenses will be found! It's in these places it will be realized that Obama consistently gives succor and aid to [our] enemies- morally, economically, and militarily! Make no mistake: this is not an incompetent president- he is by nature ruthless and Machiavellian.

[chuckd]

All the politicing and hyperventilating over this guy. He was a prisoner of war. The only POW in Afghanistan. He has been released. Did you think it would be OK for the US to abandon him there? Do you think he should be tried in the court of Republican opinion and then left in Afghanistan?

Bergdahl was never officially listed as a POW. He was listed by the Pentagon as "missing/captured".

I don't really think he should have been left there but since the Taliban who had him originally wanted money for him, that might have been better PR for this administration than giving up five very high level terrorists.

Everything I have seen shows him relishing his sojourn with the enemy in Pakistan. Guess he finally got homesick for a good hamburger and fries.

Looks like his trial is being held by a bi-lateral jury as well. Republican and Democrat.

Ya' think?

Thanks for the level-headed and informative post. Personally, I would have had real problems with money being given to the Taliban, but getting rid of Gitmo prisoners seems like a good idea.

Once he is tried, we will have a better idea of what really happened.

Getting rid of Gitmo prisoners in accordance with the law HE signed would very likely not have raised such a furor.

Therein lies the problem. Obama simply didn't follow his own law. Nothing new here but this time his own party is miffed with him.

I do believe Bergdahl will have a difficult time defending his actions. All the e-mails he sent out prior to his little walkabout, coupled with the fact he sent all his personal belongings, including his laptop, home to his parents a few days before he left his duty station in the dead of night will take some explaining.

If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it ain't no swan.

[Goat Roper]

All the politicing and hyperventilating over this guy. He was a prisoner of war. The only POW in Afghanistan. He has been released. Did you think it would be OK for the US to abandon him there? Do you think he should be tried in the court of Republican opinion and then left in Afghanistan?

Credo, first of all he was not a prisoner of war, he was a deserter that went over to the enemy. Just for drill how many years did you serve on active duty in the military and were subject to the UCMJ?

And you know he is a deserter how? You were in a court where that was decided? You saw the note? You know it was written by him?

So you agree with all the Democrat politicians (that were not at the OP), his entire platoon told the world what happened and you are defending this jerk, please answer my question, how long were you on active duty in the military, ever served in a combat zone and were ruled by the UCMJ? My guess is zero. Just another bleeding heart liberal is my guess.

[Ulysses G.]

Personally, I would have had real problems with money being given to the Taliban, but getting rid of Gitmo prisoners seems like a good idea.

If they are going to go out and kill more civilians and Americans - which is likely according to the statistics - how would that be a "good idea"?

[Goat Roper]

Personally, I would have had real problems with money being given to the Taliban, but getting rid of Gitmo prisoners seems like a good idea.

If they are going to go out and kill more civilians and Americans - which is likely according to the statistics - how would that be a "good idea"?

UG, we are dealing with the Micheal Moore of TVF, we will never get through to this liberal. He will have more spin than a dollar-top.

[Credo]

I don't know what they are going to do, but the American's are leaving. So not too many plan to be around for them to kill.

And when do they get to go back to Afghanistan?

[Scott]

This might be interesting:

Fact Checker Says John McCain DID Flip-Flop On Bowe Bergdahl

John McCain has spent much of the past week denying that he changed his position about exchanging Taliban prisoners for American soldier Bowe Bergdahl. So he probably wasn't happy on Friday morning, when the Washington Post's official fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, sided with the people who think McCain flip-flopped on Bergdahl.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/john-mccain-flip-flop-bergdahl_n_5460622.html

[arjunadawn]

Personally, I would have had real problems with money being given to the Taliban, but getting rid of Gitmo prisoners seems like a good idea.

If they are going to go out and kill more civilians and Americans - which is likely according to the statistics - how would that be a "good idea"?

Credo-

In what upside down world is the value of money greater than the power of a mind to lead and to kill and to maim and to invoke dark ideas, seed misogyny, and magnify evil? You suggest money being given to the Taliban crosses some moral or intellectual line but releasing the darkest architects of Sharia madness is "a good idea?" These men where by all accounts, Afghan and ISAF, murderers long before 2001. Are ideas like your's really formed on the same planet that formed mine?

CREDO- your assertion is just indefensible, from any point of view. I've already considered your options; you cannot improve your position on this point.

Edited June 8, 2014 by arjunadawn