Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Obama makes no apoligy for Bergdahl release because...

Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 9:00 AM

Obama makes no apoligy for Bergdahl release because... 


after all he was "somebody's child."  This is the flipping President of the US.  What an absurd comment.

"I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today."

Last edited 06/05/2014 9:01 AM by lex24

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 9:13 AM

Come On Dude 


what did you think he was going to say, something you liked?

our state of grace is gone.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 9:21 AM

Re: Obama makes no apoligy for Bergdahl release because... 



I have come to the conclusion that Obama's mind is like a Rubik's Cube.

The problem is that the colors never have been nor ever will be aligned.

His decision making process absolutely sucks!

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/05/2014 9:58 AM

Re: Obama makes no apoligy for Bergdahl release because... 



lex24 wrote: after all he was "somebody's child."  This is the flipping President of the US.  What an absurd comment.
and it's not even original. It's straight from the movie I, Robot.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 10:25 AM

Re: Obama makes no apoligy for Bergdahl release because...HES A 


MOSLEM BROTHER.
"...I thought something is brewing inside the head of this Coach. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on."

Jack Handy
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 11:32 AM

Re: Come On Dude 


wrote: what did you think he was going to say, something you liked?

I don't knee jerk respond negatively to Obma's statements.  This one is absurd.  I don't want a President making decisions because its "someone's child."  Nor do I want that to be given as a reason for any action.  We are all "someone's child" for gawd's sakes.  Even me.

"I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today."

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 12:20 PM

An Israeli negotiator & absolutely relevant perspective 


Interviewed on the radio today.  Amos Guiora, an Israeli now a law professor at U. of Utah, has actually conducted negotiations with Palestinian and other enemies of Israel.

"The purpose of negotiating with terrorists is to ensure the coming home of Israeli soldiers whether dead or alive.... 'never negotiate with terrorists' is nothing more than a mantra for public consumption."

"The larger question and the most important question is whether a soldier that has fallen into enemy hands-- however he fell into enemy hands-- the state has an obligation to bring him home.  If he committed a crime, if he abandoned his base, that can be discussed later.  But there is a contract between the state and the soldier that: We put you in harm's way, we owe you the duty to bring you home..."

He went on to describe his standard of balancing the threat of potential future harm from trading terrorists for soldiers, but said the greater value is the state living up to its obligations to soldiers.
He noted, that even the British eventually had to negotiate with the IRA (leading to some defacto amnesty) to achieve a greater objective.

This, above, seems like the most rational explication for the the Bergdahl deal.  I just wish the President had let Guiora drive the principles of the deal and likewise frame his statements on the matter.

"Those are my principles and if you don't like them...well, I have others"   Groucho Marx

Last edited 06/05/2014 12:24 PM by TLV01

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/05/2014 12:24 PM

I would not expect him to apologize 


But doubling down on this is pretty stupid.  

He made a number of mistakes here.  Trading five Talib heavies for Bergdahl was a mistake.  Trotting out the narrative that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction was a mistake.  Pulling his parents into the WH for a photo op with Obama the rescuer of wayward soldiers was a mistake.  Trotting out the narrative that we don't really know what happened was a mistake.  Trotting out the narrative that the avalanche of criticism from Bergdahls platoon mates is because they are a bunch of psychopaths was a mistake.

All of that was a mistake.  I wouldn't expect him to acknowledge that the smartest man ever to grace the oval office, who knows more about policy than any of his policy advisers, who know more about politics than any of his political advisers, screwed this up.  

Didn't expect that.  But even for Obama, this is just totally tone deaf.  Doubling down on the litany of errors is just stupid.  
roscoemaynard wrote: what did you think he was going to say, something you liked?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/05/2014 12:39 PM

Missing the point entirely 


The public policy is, "we don't negotiate with terrorists."  The reality is, we negotiate with terrorists all the time.  The fact that we negotiated with terrorists is not what has combat veterans so furious.  We are furious because

#1:  Obama gave up five heavy hitting Taliban leaders for one deserter.  The cost benefit analysis is way out of whack. 

#2:  The administration floated the narrative, via Susan Rice, that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction.

#3:  The nauseating spectacle of the deserter's parents being welcomed to the WH for the photo op, starring the savior who will never leave a heroic soldier behind.  Or a slightly confused soldier.  Or a deserter.  Whatever.  The narrative is, Obama saves POW's!

#4:  The equally nauseating narrative from Marie Harf that Bergdahl's platoon mates "don't really know what happened that night."  

#5:  The beyond belief narrative from Brandon Friedman that Bergdahl walked away because his platoon was full of psychopaths.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 12:40 PM

The Bottom Line 


and its hard to argue with anything that Mr. Guiora said.  I don't want the President apologizing for this.  I don't need that crap.  I don't want the world hearing an apology for this.  This isn't Obamacare.  I wouldn't want any President apologizing for this.  No way in hell.

our state of grace is gone.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 1:47 PM

If your hunter/killer radar is locked on Obama 


...then I agree:  it misses your point.   Nauseating spectacles trump a more measured assessment by a guy who has actually done the negotiating, knows the foes and can make a rational case for balancing risks and obligations.

The genuinely debatable point:   Were the 5 Taliban too much of a potential risk of real harm?  I don't know the answer to that.  We don't know enough and even then reasonable minds can disagree.  If invading Iraq involved, per Don Rumsfeld's marvelous trope: the Unknown Unknowns"  surely trying to predict real risks of future behavior for these 5 guys does, too.

All the rest.  Your nausea, the public back-and-forth of exactly what Bergdahl  did and which of the various narratives represent the true events and states of mind...all that at present --comes out of the world of politics and the media.  Noise, not much signal.

The answer is:  the nation and the Army gets its own back.  The Army gets the fraught task of sorting this out.  But I'd bet on a military investigation getting closer to the truth than reports on Breitbart or photo ops with Bergdahl's parents..  The Israeli got it right:  You get them back, then you sort it out.

"Those are my principles and if you don't like them...well, I have others"   Groucho Marx

Last edited 06/05/2014 4:27 PM by TLV01

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 2:01 PM

Re: Obama makes no apoligy for Bergdahl release because... 


Anyone disagree with the conclusion that the swap was illegal because Congress was not given the 30 day warning? 

Anyone actually believe there was a medical emergency which justified this?

"A line of peace might appear if we restructured the sentence our lives are making."
--Denise Levertov, Poet, former Prof. Emeritus of English

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 2:03 PM

To an extent this is Obama's Tillman moment 


I understand that making heroes out of POW's plays well.  And I don't begrudge that one bit.  It helps their families and it serves to unite us.  But sometimes it backfires.  Much like The  Bush Admin making Tilman's death out to be something it wasn't. 

I suspect both had movtives that were both "good" (wanting to make Tillman, given the sacrifice he had made and his compelling story,  a hero in his death certainly was better than the reality.  And had it been true - a much "better' flavor left in the mouths of his family etc.    Same with Berndahl.  Saying he was a hero etc given all he went through is better for the family etc.) and "not good" - it helps them politically.

"I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today."

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 2:05 PM

Re: The Bottom Line 



roscoemaynard wrote: and its hard to argue with anything that Mr. Guiora said.  I don't want the President apologizing for this.  I don't need that crap.  I don't want the world hearing an apology for this.  This isn't Obamacare.  I wouldn't want any President apologizing for this.  No way in hell.

To me the issue is this: Forget what Berndahl was or wasn't.  Did the US give up too much?  If these 5 truly are operational leaders etc, then I think it is a legitimate question to ask.  I know it sounds cold as he**.  But war isn't a pretty business.

"I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today."

Reply | Quote
  • MrQuick
  • Coaching Icon
  • 2125 posts this site

Posted: 06/05/2014 2:10 PM

And if Bergdahl had died in captivity 


You think the Foxsphere might be all over Obama for not getting him home at any cost?

John McCain  and other Obamo foes' flip flops on this and other issues is absolutely vertigo inducing.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 2:56 PM

no one left behind... or forgotten? 


how about those 4 in Benghazi?

Hypocrites.

and like the Benghazi 'video' narrative... the 'on death's door' narrative equally bullsh!t

Last edited 06/05/2014 3:01 PM by FrankO

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/05/2014 3:27 PM

Re: Obama makes no apoligy for Bergdahl release because... 


Don't know the legality of the 30 day rule.  I'd imagine there is some weasel room there for emergency action or something like that.

I wonder about the legality of holding the 5 guys who were traded.  As I understand it, they are not facing charges and they are Taliban, not Al Quaeda.  The US is leaving Afghanistan and ceasing hostilities (is that the correct term?) so on what legal basis can the 5 be held come next year?  Doesn't the US have to return all Taliban members as they are more like POW's than terrorists?  Captured in a conflict, formally affiliated with the then government of Afghanistan, not facing terrorist charges in a court, etc.?  It is certainly a murky war with murky legal questions, but doesn't the US release prisoners at the end of hostilities and isn't that where we are going as a country in Afghanistan?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 3:32 PM

Re: And if Bergdahl had died in captivity 



MrQuick wrote: You think the Foxsphere might be all over Obama for not getting him home at any cost?

John McCain  and other Obamo foes' flip flops on this and other issues is absolutely vertigo inducing.

I don't know ask Fox.  It is always amazing to me how much they get into the skins of liberals.

I can tell you that I would not have "blamed" Obama.  What I would have expected was for him to give a clear unambigous message that the US will not tolerate that.  MOAB's deliver that message quite well.

"I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today."

Last edited 06/05/2014 3:36 PM by lex24

Reply | Quote

Posted: 06/05/2014 3:36 PM

Re: If your hunter/killer radar is locked on Obama 


I agree with this take.  I have no idea how valuable the 5 Taliban are and don't think anyone on this board will ever know. I don't care if CNN puts up their bios, I think it is an area none of us will every get enough information on to be fully informed.  To me, the US must get its soldiers back and then sort it out.  The politics both ways are sad, but they are noise.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/05/2014 4:22 PM

Re: An Israeli negotiator & absolutely relevant perspective 


Except that there is no indication the Administration intends to review his conduct. 

Obama would be just fine if he did that. But that has not been a theme.

My mother used to tell me, "Elwood, in this world, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so nice."  For years I was smart.  I recommend nice.  You may quote me. - Elwood P. Dowd

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >