Politics 2014

[Hixter]

It seems that the right wing media machine wants to declare Bergdahl guilty so they can declare Obama guilty and proceed ASAP with impeachment hearings.

There's plenty of dissent on the other side of the aisle, too, with the latest coming from former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. I'd also suppose expect that most Democrats up for election in November will either distance themselves from the deal or remain mum.

[KevinG]

There's plenty of dissent on the other side of the aisle, too, with the latest coming from former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. I'd also suppose expect that most Democrats up for election in November will either distance themselves from the deal or remain mum.

 

There is a large difference between the dissent from those on the left and the shear vitriolic statements that have come from the right.  Obviously the level has to do with party affiliation, but what the right has done so far is beyond the pale.  Are the questions that need be answered, of course.  But the rush to judgement that has been done is terrible, but it is what everyone should come to expect in this day in age.  

[Hixter]

what the right has done so far is beyond the pale. 

What exactly are you referring to?

[KevinG]

What exactly are you referring to?

 

Well the treatment of Bergdahl's father in the media; The rush to brandish Bergdahl a terrorist and a traitor before all facts are known; The outrage like this is some unprecedented occurrence and claims that this proves Obama is a terrorist sympathizer; The calls for impeachment.  

 

Listen, there are questions that need to be asked, which needs answers to, but why can't wait until all the facts are out there before we rush to judgement?

 

Just playing a hypothetical, say Bergdahl had been killed by the Taliban.  You think the Right's response would be, well at least we didn't give up 5 terrorist for him.  Hell no.  The right would be slamming the President for not getting a deal done to release him.   

[NoJ]

Maybe he did walk away from his unit and that fact was proven in court.....I say let the law decide his fate.

[Hixter]

Just playing a hypothetical, say Bergdahl had been killed by the Taliban.  You think the Right's response would be, well at least we didn't give up 5 terrorist for him.  Hell no.  The right would be slamming the President for not getting a deal done to release him.   

I think most people of any political party would say that trading 5 dangerous terrorists -- while the war is still ongoing -- for a deserter with self-professed anti-American feelings, would be a bad idea. It would have been darkly ironic if the Taliban he so eagerly sought out had killed him.

[froggie]

slight change of whatever... come visit australia!. apparently our PM has become world famous.... for wrong reasons!

 

[KevinG]

I think most people of any political party would say that trading 5 dangerous terrorists -- while the war is still ongoing -- for a deserter with self-professed anti-American feelings, would be a bad idea. It would have been darkly ironic if the Taliban he so eagerly sought out had killed him.

 

Wow, just wow.  

 

Just another example of your rush to judgement before all the facts are known.  Nearly, every statement in there is conjecture, but   

 

But more on this amazing flip/flop by the Right.  In October of 2013 there is an article from FreedomOutpost.com slamming Obama for not doing anything to free Bowe Bergdahl.  http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/obama-leaves-american-pow-sgt-bowe-robert-bergdahl-rot-afghanistan-provides-excuses/.  Most amazingly is this quote:

 

 

The war in Afghanistan continues to wind down. For years, the United States has been releasing Afghan detainees from military prisons in Afganhistan. This has been going on periodically, every year, since Sgt. Bergdahl was captured. So why is Bergdahl not home today? My very real fear is---like so many others---Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl may be left behind.

 

But you know that was Oct 2013, but just go to their page today.  You would think that Bergdahl is gonna enter this country with a suicide vest and blow up the eastern seaboard.  And heaven help you if you venture into the comment section of the site.  

 

But that is a far right wing nut job website.  It is not like there was a former POW politician and presidential candidate that wanted to bring Bergdahl back at any cost and then changed his mind.  Well that is if you don't count John McCain.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/06/did-john-mccain-flip-flop-on-the-bergdahl-deal/

 

It all goes back to my original thought.  No matter what this president does or says the Right will claim the opposite and hold countless hearings and threaten impeachment.  But you know what, these GOP politicians are smart.  They know that doing this is nothing more then a ruse to gin their base.  I am sure this will be used in fundraising emails and in voting efforts later this fall.  It is amazing what our political system has come to.  

[Hixter]

Wow, just wow.  

 

Just another example of your rush to judgement before all the facts are known.  Nearly, every statement in there is conjecture

What's conjecture?  That the men are dangerous? The 5 Taliban were judged to be at high risk to continue their battle with America if they were to be released. A family member of one of the men has reported that after his release he promised to go back to Afghanistan and fight Americans.

 

It isn't conjecture that he deserted, either. He packed all of his valuables and sent them home. He was seen crawling away from the base by Afghan nationals. Others reported that he was asking where he could find the Taliban. He's a deserter at best and possibly a traitor at worst.

 

It isn't conjecture that he had anti-American feelings, either, as his own e-mails testify. 

 

I'm not going to fault anyone for changing their mind about Bergdahl's case, as some of the information only surfaced after his release. Especially potent are the words from his platoon members who were subjected to confidentiality agreements that kept them from discussing the case.

[Sir Stewart]

Have you ever been unsure of what to believe, Hix old man?

[Hixter]

It's Friday afternoon, so I believe I'll have a beer.

[John Smith]

What exactly are you referring to?

Seriously?

[John Smith]

The Taliban are who we are fighting over there they are not a terrorist organization in the eyes of out government, they are simply the enemy. Our media has declared them terrorists, but those guys are POWs and would have been freed anyway. Anyone who says this makes things more dangerous for our troops is an idiot, those people are already fighting us and trying to kill our troops, this exchange adds nothing to the danger level, except to arm idiots with rhetoric of course.

[uncool2pillow]

Ask Malala Yousazai if she thinks the Taliban are terrorists.

[Hixter]

The Taliban are who we are fighting over there they are not a terrorist organization in the eyes of out government

White House: Yes, The Taliban Is a Terrorist Organization

 

those guys are POWs and would have been freed anyway.

It standard practice to wait until the cessation of hostilities before POWs are released. Such release is conditional upon the promise that they will not return to fight their former captors. And these were not your average POWs, they were from the upper echelons of the enemy's command structure. Such prisoners are often tried for war crimes after the end of hostilities.

 

Anyone who says this makes things more dangerous for our troops is an idiot

“Is there a possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely." -- President Obama

[KevinG]

What's conjecture?  That the men are dangerous? The 5 Taliban were judged to be at high risk to continue their battle with America if they were to be released. A family member of one of the men has reported that after his release he promised to go back to Afghanistan and fight Americans.

 

It isn't conjecture that he deserted, either. He packed all of his valuables and sent them home. He was seen crawling away from the base by Afghan nationals. Others reported that he was asking where he could find the Taliban. He's a deserter at best and possibly a traitor at worst.

 

It isn't conjecture that he had anti-American feelings, either, as his own e-mails testify. 

 

I'm not going to fault anyone for changing their mind about Bergdahl's case, as some of the information only surfaced after his release. Especially potent are the words from his platoon members who were subjected to confidentiality agreements that kept them from discussing the case.

 

Well yes it is all conjecture, you don't know the whole story.  There really isn't anyone who does.  But you are ready to condemn a man based upon things that you have read, heard or been told.  Hell he might all of those things you suggest, but you don't know, nor do I.  

 

You are jumping to a conclusion to fit your narrative.  Just as the left did with Zimmerman, it wasn't right when they did it, nor is it right when you do it.  

 

If you are fine with living in a world that is so black and white great.  Me I prefer to think and gather all facts before I rush to judgement.  But then again clear thought is not good TV.   

[uncool2pillow]

No, it is not.

 

At a minimum, he needs to be tried for desertion and given a dishonorable discharge. He should also have to repay the costs of the search efforts. If it is found that he collaborated with the enemy, he should be executed. As an earlier poster said, precedent has been set and it's all good.

 

He does say the guy deserves a trial.

[IRememberDBoon]

this makes me pine for the old days of "Umbrellagate" or "Feet on the deskgate" or "Dijon mustardgate" or maybe the horrid beer he had with the cop and dr gates

[Hixter]

Well yes it is all conjecture, you don't know the whole story.  There really isn't anyone who does.  But you are ready to condemn a man based upon things that you have read, heard or been told.

I'm quite adept at sifting through evidence and coming to a conclusion. To date, all of the evidence from parties close to the situation hasn't exactly painted Bergdahl as a model soldier. No, I wasn't there, but I wasn't aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft, either, but I'm quite confident that it actually went to the moon.

 

Me I prefer to think and gather all facts before I rush to judgement.

Likewise, and so far none of the facts have contradicted the presumption that Bergdahl was a deserter and, possibly, a traitor. As someone else has mentioned, I want him to have his day in court, but the desertion charge seems like a slam-dunk case.

[IRememberDBoon]

DANG! That didn't take long.

We now have CHEWINGGUMGATE at the D-Day ceremony!

OH THE HORROR!!

Apollo 11 mission and Bergdahl in Afghanistan. Same body of knowledge exists on those two for sure.

[KevinG]

Likewise, and so far none of the facts have contradicted the presumption that Bergdahl was a deserter and, possibly, a traitor. As someone else has mentioned, I want him to have his day in court, but the desertion charge seems like a slam-dunk case.

 

The key phrase in your statement here is "so for none of the facts have contradicted the presumption..."

 

See that may be the key difference here.  Whereas, before I judge I like to have all of the facts, whereas it seems that you have already judged him and considered him guilty.  Which many on the right have done as well.  You have labeled him a traitor and a terrorist with half of a story, really that I take issue with.  Really why do you want him to have his day in court?  I mean sure it is a slam dunk, so why even have a trial?    

 

Also you claim he was a deserter, which is actually untrue.  From what I have read, Bergdahl was actually AWOL, you can't be considered a deserter until 31 days of being AWOL.  Mother Jones has an interesting article on this one.  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/quick-facts-army-deserters-bergdahl

 

From day one of the Bergdahl thing I have said there is something fishy about the whole thing.  But clearly there is a lot more to this story then anyone knows.  To label Bergdahl as anything but a returned POW at this point is a disservice to our system of justice.  And to do what some people are doing to his family is downright despicable.

[NoJ]

I wonder why he hasnt spoken with his family yet. Very odd.

[Hixter]

Whereas, before I judge I like to have all of the facts, whereas it seems that you have already judged him and considered him guilty. 

It is quite possible  -- and even reasonable -- to look at the available evidence and make a judgment call. I'm neither judge nor jury, but I'm allowed to have an opinion. OJ Simpson was acquitted, but in my mind he'll always be a murderer, and I arrived at that opinion by considering the available evidence. As of this moment, all the available evidence points to Bergdahl being a deserter. 

 

You have labeled him a traitor and a terrorist

No I haven't. I've never called him a terrorist and I said that he may be a traitor. That distinction will depend on whether or not he aided the enemy.

 

Really why do you want him to have his day in court?  I mean sure it is a slam dunk, so why even have a trial?

Because it's the law. Because that's how things are done.

 

Also you claim he was a deserter, which is actually untrue.  From what I have read, Bergdahl was actually AWOL, you can't be considered a deserter until 31 days of being AWOL.

That is untrue. The UCMJ defines a deserter as someone who walks away from his place of duty with no intention of returning. There is no time limit that divides AWOL and desertion. Read Article 85 of the UCMJ for more information.

 

 

 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/05/1304556/-The-GOP-is-Heading-for-a-World-iof-Hurt-on-Bergdahl-here-s-why

 

 

 

According to the now famous article by Michael Hastings about Bergdahl, his unit was basically a bunch of undisciplined fuck ups who went out on patrol without helmets, lost weapons, totally lacked morale and respect for military authority, etc. At least two commanders were actually demoted! So, you have to take with a grain of salt the accusations being made against Bergdahl by these people. Especially now that we know they failed to report Bergdahl left the base without permission on a prior occasion, and are still telling the media that he is a "deserter" when they know damn well that's not true.

 

 

...the infamous "ashamed to be an American" e-mails that numbnuts like Sarah Palin keep using to attacking Bergdahl, were actually quite patriotic in context. He was complaining about the low caliber of person he had to suffer through in his unit, and how crappily they treated the Afghans (In one case, he said they indifferently ran over a child with a truck!). He was ashamed of the way the military operated there.

 

That last piece is what people really don't want to talk about: our military is loaded with rejects, degenerate rapists, and people who are happy to have a license to kill. Ever since the shitty treatment Vietnam vets got returning home, we have been brainwashed into thinking that ALL military personnel are automatically "heroes," which is a load of bollocks. There are good and bad in the service, just like in every corporation. Many people enter the service because they want an excuse to shoot people (Oh, yes, I have heard them referring to "sand niggers"...let's not mince words). And many others are the dregs of society who dropped out of school, can't get a job, socially maladjusted, etc.

 

Let's give Bo Bergdahl the benefit of the doubt for 5 minutes and accept that he was a standup guy. Imagine what it would do to your head to see an Afghani child run over by a truck? Maybe he lost a few of his marbles. What person in their right mind would walk off and try to just join the Taliban? Whatever the situation was, his case is already being adjudicated in the court of public opinion, when none of us have all the facts.

[John Smith]

Hixter is god, apparently infallible and never ever wrong.