Bad precedent

[Bronco]

-
“Bergdahl e-mailed his parents saying he ‘was ashamed to be an American’”
I’m ashamed he is an American too.



Their son is 4th from the left

Looks like the work of Obama Bin Lyin again

A cover up just like Benghazi': Outraged parents of officer who died hunting for 'deserter' ...
The Daily Mail Online ^ | June 2, 2014 | Daniel Bates

The furious parents of an officer who they claim was killed while searching for freed Taliban prisoner Bowe Bergdahl today said that they have been lied to as part of a ‘cover up just like Benghazi’.
The mother and father of Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews are angry that they have been told different stories about how their son died.

First his commanders said that their son was blown up while hunting a Taliban commander - but only now that Bergdahl has been freed after five years in captivity are they learning the truth.
Lt Andrews’ parents told MailOnline that their own son branded Bergdahl a ‘deserter’ before he was killed.

In an exclusive interview his father Andy Andrews told MailOnline: ‘For his family it’s good to get him back but we will never be able to get our son back because of the actions of this guy (Bergdahl).
‘I think people need to be aware that the guy was not a hero and American lives have been lost trying to save this deserter’....

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

[CID1990]

I can't imagine all of this trading happened without some military intelligence..?
What we're presuming based on the posts on this thread is that nobody talked to anybody in out Military before making the trade - Right...

Because we all on here know more than the President did about the situation



Now that Might be true, we all might know more than the president did going in...
but does that seem likely?

Me thinks there's more at play here than originally noted

The intel went only as far as that they knew he was alive and the Taliban had him. They could have known a lot more than that and it wouldnt matter- this admin's disdain for the military and seeking military advice is well documented and known in military circles. The soldiers who were there know the score and they are making it known they aren't happy. Other soldiers died looking for this guy.

But that said, we HAVE to try to get him back- it doesnt matter if he is a deserter or not. So that's really not at issue- and to be honest, we are throwing these gitmo guys back into circulation anyway- might as well get something out of it.

The issue here is the hero's welcome at the WH. If his brothers in arms are correct and he did in fact walk away from post, then that was a major fvckup in a forest of fvckups. Dont assume for a second that this was done in close conference with the military because that is not how this WH rolls.

[CitadelGrad]

Unfortunately, that's the view from the partisan crowd - whichever party you back can't do anything wrong, because likely the other party did something similarly wrong before so they balance each other out. Kind of ignores the general question of whether something done was right or wrong, but partisans tend not to be bothered with details like that.

The right seems to have this very selective memory, far more so than the left, when it comes to things like this. They want to impeach and execute Obama and Hillary over Benghazi, but want to forget the myriad embassy bombings under Bush, or Beirut.

The OP talks about a bad precedent, like this has never happened before. Which is clearly untrue.

The issue isn't about bombings, which are difficult to prevent, especially in foreign countries. The issue is that there was no attempt to intervene during the eight hours in which the attacks took place. In fact, the order to stand down was issued. Don't you have even the slightest curiosity about what Panetta, Clinton and Obama did while the attacks were taking place? Don't you wonder why Obama didn't even bother to go to the Situation Room for updates? Don't you care that when Obama went to bed that night, he knew there would be dead Americans in Benghazi when he woke up, yet apparently didn't give a fuck?

[CID1990]

Unfortunately, that's the view from the partisan crowd - whichever party you back can't do anything wrong, because likely the other party did something similarly wrong before so they balance each other out. Kind of ignores the general question of whether something done was right or wrong, but partisans tend not to be bothered with details like that.

The right seems to have this very selective memory, far more so than the left, when it comes to things like this. They want to impeach and execute Obama and Hillary over Benghazi, but want to forget the myriad embassy bombings under Bush, or Beirut.

The OP talks about a bad precedent, like this has never happened before. Which is clearly untrue.

Just because you are the Special Flower of CS doesn't mean you can create parallels where none exist, Jon

[Ibanez]

Hmmm. Being in home POWs is great. But negotiating with terrorists? I was under the impression that we don't do that. And now, 1 POW = 5 terrorists. Not sure I like this. Plus, doesn't Congress need to approve any GITMO releases? Sounds like this happened way too fast for that to occur.

[Ibanez]

but you had no problem with Reagan trading arms for the Iranian hostages, right?

. Jesus. That was 20+ years ago. It has no bearing. You can't excuse Obamas actions because some Republican did something long ago.

[Chizzang]

Its hard for some folks to see that Obama is actually a pretty crappy President...
He's a lot of things and a reasonably complex personality - but - a crappy President

Yes, He's done some cool stuff and tried to accomplish some good
but mostly over shadowed by stupid gaffs and horrid appointments

[CAA Flagship]

It was fun last night bouncing between CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. CNN and Fox were hammering the deal and questioning the legality. MSNBC spent most of the time defending the legality, but not taking a side on whether it was a smart thing to do. Overall, I would say that the 3 news sources collectively gave a to the situation.

What is so interesting about this one case is the many moving parts.
The major ones:
1. Is he a deserter or not? Should this matter when it comes to searches and negotiations?
2. Should we be trading Gitmos, or anything else for that matter, for Americans (soldiers, civilians, deserters, patriots, etc.)?
3. What is the law/policy for trading and was it followed correctly?

[Col Hogan]

but you had no problem with Reagan trading arms for the Iranian hostages, right?

Yes, I did...are you trying to say because one thing was done in the. 80's then we must excuse it today???

[dbackjon]

but you had no problem with Reagan trading arms for the Iranian hostages, right?

So you'd be in favor of all day TV hearings...just like Reagan

The GOP does that anytime the admin farts

[dbackjon]

but you had no problem with Reagan trading arms for the Iranian hostages, right?

Yes, I did...are you trying to say because one thing was done in the. 80's then we must excuse it today???

Good for you.

No - but the fainting spells from the GOP would make one think this was a unique event in American History.

[Col Hogan]

Yes, I did...are you trying to say because one thing was done in the. 80's then we must excuse it today???

Good for you.

No - but the fainting spells from the GOP would make one think this was a unique event in American History.

It is unique...there are categories of actions, but each is unique...

Democrats wanted blood in the 80s...

[CID1990]

So you'd be in favor of all day TV hearings...just like Reagan

The GOP does that anytime the admin farts

this admin has had some particularly rancid farts

this latest one was likely illegal

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

but you had no problem with Reagan trading arms for the Iranian hostages, right?

Why would we?

Its not even close to the same thing......please tell me you know guns and humans are different?


In a perfect world the Gitmo Dream Team comes back to kill Americans like they will but Obamas daughters, McCain, Reid and Pelosi are all caught in the blast.

Then and only then would this have been a good idea.

[andy7171]

but you had no problem with Reagan trading arms for the Iranian hostages, right?

Why would we?

Its not even close to the same thing......please tell me you know guns and humans are different?


In a perfect world the Gitmo Dream Team comes back to kill Americans like they will but Obamas daughters, McCain, Reid and Pelosi are all caught in the blast.

Then and only then would this have been a good idea.

Hmmm. This.

[Chizzang]

It's an old problem...
We train and arm the Taliban
and call them freedom fighters when they're fighting the EVIL EMPIRE (see Reagan's Russians)
Some day in 30 years we might be arming them again to fight somebody else for us

We were allies with the Bin Laden Family for 100 years... Oops then one day we weren't

Whoever we're calling freedom fighters today (wherever they might be) we'll likely be fighting them sometime in the very near future... or whenever they try to form a government we can't completely control or manipulate

Meh... go figure

[kalm]

If the guy deserted, he wasn't worth the trade.

But I'm not sure we even know to what extent the Gitmo prisoners are bad guys. Weren't there more than a few who were given up by rival clans without a clear association to the Taliban?

I like how everyone in this instance believes the Government regarding how bad they are.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes, He's done some cool stuff and tried to accomplish some good

Like what? But please don't say "try to make sure everyone has health insurance" or "try to make sure everyone gets health care." Government trying to do that is neither cool nor good.

This guy has no business being President and never had any business being President. He is EASILY the worst President of my lifetime including Nixon.

[kalm]

Yes, He's done some cool stuff and tried to accomplish some good

Like what? But please don't say "try to make sure everyone has health insurance" or "try to make sure everyone gets health care." Government trying to do that is neither cool nor good.

This guy has no business being President and never had any business being President. He is EASILY the worst President of my lifetime including Nixon.

In the big picture, he has:

1) Grown the wealth of the "producer" class, consolidating their power.

2) Maintained the military industrial complex

3) Continued the War on Drugs

4) Failed to prosecute a single Wall Street banker

[Chizzang]

Yes, He's done some cool stuff and tried to accomplish some good

Like what? But please don't say "try to make sure everyone has health insurance" or "try to make sure everyone gets health care." Government trying to do that is neither cool nor good.

This guy has no business being President and never had any business being President. He is EASILY the worst President of my lifetime including Nixon.

Well that's a good question Johnny... I'll focus on the sh!t a Republican President wouldn't ever touch

1)
Obama did sign the new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade for soldiers
1a)
and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans (that is active now)
2)
Obama removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
3)
He took money from the F-22 Boondoggle and moved it to Increased infrastructure spending
(roads, bridges, power plants) after 30 years of neglect
4)
He did work to close offshore tax safe havens and hidden income accounts as well as the Swiss bank thing to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
5)
He did end the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs
6)
Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies - in place of it - new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practice of buttfucking the poor
7)
Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources...

That ^ is the "Not going to happen under a Republican" list
It ain't much but it is something...

[kalm]

That last post is sure to bring out the wolves.

[Chizzang]

That last post is sure to bring out the wolves.

Just sit back and watch the TROLL MASTER work...

[CID1990]

Like what? But please don't say "try to make sure everyone has health insurance" or "try to make sure everyone gets health care." Government trying to do that is neither cool nor good.

This guy has no business being President and never had any business being President. He is EASILY the worst President of my lifetime including Nixon.

Well that's a good question Johnny... I'll focus on the sh!t a Republican President wouldn't ever touch

1)
Obama did sign the new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade for soldiers
1a)
and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans (that is active now)
2)
Obama removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
3)
He took money from the F-22 Boondoggle and moved it to Increased infrastructure spending
(roads, bridges, power plants) after 30 years of neglect
4)
He did work to close offshore tax safe havens and hidden income accounts as well as the Swiss bank thing to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
5)
He did end the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs
6)
Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies - in place of it - new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practice of buttfucking the poor
7)
Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources...

That ^ is the "Not going to happen under a Republican" list
It ain't much but it is something...

meh

[Chizzang]

meh

Move along Mr.
I'm trolling for grumpy old Republicans...

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

So you'd be in favor of all day TV hearings...just like Reagan

The GOP does that anytime the admin farts

I believe most of us call them "Sharts".