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 3  Next >

Bergdahl?

  • fldore
  • Captain
  • 2710 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 6/4/2014 9:21 AM

Bergdahl? 


What is going on with this story?  So we know he deserted the troops to wander off to China or India.  And he gets captured?  Was he really a prisoner?  Is he actually a traitor?  Has he flipped sides?

Who decided to give up 5 supposedly notorious prisoners in exchange for Bergdahl?  Was it the Army's call?  But if so, did they do so knowing he could potentially be a traitor?  Who actually negotiated the trade of 5 for 1?  

Everytime I read this story I feel like it has changed.  One of the downsides of 24/7 news cycle.



"You have undertaken to cheat me. I won't sue you for the law is too slow. I'll ruin you."  - Cornelius Vanderbilt
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/4/2014 9:41 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 


He deserted his unit and sought out the taliban.

Ultimately, this decision to trade prisoners for Bergdahl rests with the President. BO arrogantly did so in violation of the law that requires him to alert Congress a minimum of 30 days before such swap occurs.

Note to BO....your Pres and not King!!!banghead
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 9:58 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 


If the prez broke the law and was so wrong, impeach him. The charge can be gaining the release of an American soldier.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/4/2014 10:23 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 



VANDFAN wrote: If the prez broke the law and was so wrong, impeach him. The charge can be gaining the release of an American soldier.
There are some who have done just this. Bergdahl lost his status as American soldier when he deserted his unit. Six brave Americans died trying to find and "save" him. It was evident by soldiers there that Bergdahl gave enemy key intel that put undue danger on our soldiers.

I hope that Gen. Dempsey will have the unfettered ability to review this case and try this coward for desertion!
Reply | Quote
  • MATheta
  • Captain
  • 3710 posts this site

Posted: 6/4/2014 10:49 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 


Was he a prisoner?  Susan Rice claimed he had served "with honor and distinction".  She knew this was not true and yet this is what she again went on Sunday TV and said, similar to what she did after Benghazi.  The problem this time is that she can't say that she was relating the best information available.

It is almost as if the administration has absolute disdain for the American populous.  Senator Feinstein  said that the administration acted outside the law, but later received a phone call of apology for the "oversight." 

It is this type of trickle information that has to be amended again and again that has caused the President to have a majority believe he is not trustworthy.  I would suggest that it may be time for some to examine what they previously accepted as truth.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:00 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 



MATheta wrote: Was he a prisoner?  Susan Rice claimed he had served "with honor and distinction".  She knew this was not true and yet this is what she again went on Sunday TV and said, similar to what she did after Benghazi.  The problem this time is that she can't say that she was relating the best information available.

It is almost as if the administration has absolute disdain for the American populous.  Senator Feinstein  said that the administration acted outside the law, but later received a phone call of apology for the "oversight." 

It is this type of trickle information that has to be amended again and again that has caused the President to have a majority believe he is not trustworthy.  I would suggest that it may be time for some to examine what they previously accepted as truth.
The fact that Diane Feinstein called BO out on this is rather amazing and telling. Even the Dems are abandoning BO on this decision. This will come back to haunt them in the mid term elections and Dems like Feinstein know it !!!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:01 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 



cjdore wrote:...Six brave Americans died trying to find and "save" him. It was evident by soldiers there that Bergdahl gave enemy key intel that put undue danger on our soldiers...
This narrative, that 6 or 8 American soldiers died searching for Bergdahl, is a grotesque exaggeration, made by GIs who lost friends in Afghanistan & are looking for an object to blame it on, despite the lack of any real connection. Check out this analytical story in today's NY Times.

Two GIs died shortly after Bergdahl's AWOL, but they weren't out searching for him, they came under Taliban attack in their outpost. What?—did the Taliban not know that outpost was there until Bergdahl told the secret? Get real.

Six more GIs in the general area were also killed, but months later, while not performing any duties that can be reasonably related to Bergdahl.

It's obvious what's going on here: some of our soldiers are highly upset by the loss of their buddies, but just because they let their emotions overrule their brains, that doesn't mean that we should accept their distorted views.

Our discussion here should be calmer, more analytical, & fact-based.
They laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian. They're not laughing now. -Bob Monkhouse (1928-2003)
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:01 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 



MATheta wrote: Was he a prisoner?  Susan Rice claimed he had served "with honor and distinction".  She knew this was not true and yet this is what she again went on Sunday TV and said, similar to what she did after Benghazi.  The problem this time is that she can't say that she was relating the best information available.

It is almost as if the administration has absolute disdain for the American populous.  Senator Feinstein  said that the administration acted outside the law, but later received a phone call of apology for the "oversight." 

It is this type of trickle information that has to be amended again and again that has caused the President to have a majority believe he is not trustworthy.  I would suggest that it may be time for some to examine what they previously accepted as truth.
If Feinstein was a Republican, this board would erupt. There would be calls of indignation, implications of lower breeding, some sort of number equation, etc. . Very interesting "oversight" from a candidate who promised an open presidency.

Perhaps the Emperor Obama has no clothes?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:07 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 



WestCoastDore wrote: ...If Feinstein was a Republican, this board would erupt. There would be calls of indignation, implications of lower breeding...
Calling BS on this, my friend. Perhaps you're hoping to re-define a "board eruption" as anytime bhoyal posts, but that's not very realistic. The last time Biltmore or Mathknapp or I implied "lower breeding" here would have been the first time.
They laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian. They're not laughing now. -Bob Monkhouse (1928-2003)
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:21 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 


Bergdahl's actions will be considered within the context of the UCMJ, not by some informal court martial conducted by the media and the VandyMania Coffee Shop. 

He deserves a fair trial, and if he's guilty of crimes I can only trust that the military courts will make that determination and he'll face the appropriate consequences. If he's innocent, great. If he's an enemy of the state, I trust he'll face the consequences of that. 



Regardless, your subjective opinions based on hearsay really should have had more of an influence on the determination of whether or not he was worth retrieving. You should all be very righteous in your indignity right now.
Reply | Quote
  • fldore
  • Captain
  • 2710 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:28 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 



vebiltdervan wrote: .
This narrative, that 6 or 8 American soldiers died searching for Bergdahl, is a grotesque exaggeration, made by GIs who lost friends in Afghanistan & are looking for an object to blame it on, despite the lack of any real connection. Check out this analytical story in today's NY Times.

Two GIs died shortly after Bergdahl's AWOL, but they weren't out searching for him, they came under Taliban attack in their outpost. What?—did the Taliban not know that outpost was there until Bergdahl told the secret? Get real.

Six more GIs in the general area were also killed, but months later, while not performing any duties that can be reasonably related to Bergdahl.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/03/team-leade r-bowe-bergdahl-wanted-to-talk-to-taliban/

this is what his field commander said.... who knows what to think....

The Pentagon was not able to provide details on specific operations in which any soldiers were killed during that time were involved. 
Buetow says even though those operations were not "directed missions" to search for Bergdahl, there was an underlying premise of acting on intelligence to find the missing soldier.
"The fact of the matter is, when those soldiers were killed, they would not have been where they were at if Bergdahl hadn't left," says Buetow. "Bergdahl leaving changed the mission."

I'm still uncertain as to how we negotiated this exchange and why.  It sounds like we know he was a traitor.  Does he even want to return?  This whole thing is bizarre.



"You have undertaken to cheat me. I won't sue you for the law is too slow. I'll ruin you."  - Cornelius Vanderbilt
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:33 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 



fldore wrote:
vebiltdervan wrote: .
This narrative, that 6 or 8 American soldiers died searching for Bergdahl, is a grotesque exaggeration, made by GIs who lost friends in Afghanistan & are looking for an object to blame it on, despite the lack of any real connection. Check out this analytical story in today's NY Times.

Two GIs died shortly after Bergdahl's AWOL, but they weren't out searching for him, they came under Taliban attack in their outpost. What?—did the Taliban not know that outpost was there until Bergdahl told the secret? Get real.

Six more GIs in the general area were also killed, but months later, while not performing any duties that can be reasonably related to Bergdahl.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/03/team-leade r-bowe-bergdahl-wanted-to-talk-to-taliban/

this is what his field commander said.... who knows what to think....

The Pentagon was not able to provide details on specific operations in which any soldiers were killed during that time were involved. 
Buetow says even though those operations were not "directed missions" to search for Bergdahl, there was an underlying premise of acting on intelligence to find the missing soldier.
"The fact of the matter is, when those soldiers were killed, they would not have been where they were at if Bergdahl hadn't left," says Buetow. "Bergdahl leaving changed the mission."

I'm still uncertain as to how we negotiated this exchange and why.  It sounds like we know he was a traitor.  Does he even want to return?  This whole thing is bizarre.
So... it's ok for the Army to try to retrieve Berghdahl but not if their Commander In Chief tells them to. Got it!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:38 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 


If he doesn't want to return, all the more reason to get him. If he wants to work with the Taliban, we need to get him back and in a military court.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 11:59 AM

Re: Bergdahl? 



fldore wrote: ...http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/03/team-leade r-bowe-bergdahl-wanted-to-talk-to-taliban/

this is what his field commander said....who knows what to think....The Pentagon was not able to provide details on specific operations in which any soldiers were killed during that time were involved...Buetow says even though those operations were not "directed missions" to search for Bergdahl, there was an underlying premise of acting on intelligence to find the missing soldier...."The fact of the matter is, when those soldiers were killed, they would not have been where they were at if Bergdahl hadn't left," says Buetow. "Bergdahl leaving changed the mission"...
Count me still dubious. I'm not calling Buetow a liar, but I can easily imagine him redefining missions in retrospect. Hopefully the truth will come out in a courtmartial, & Buetow will probably be the prosecution's lead witness.

Meanwhile, until we know more truth about the matter, it's going off half-cocked for some, not on this forum, to be threatening impeachments, etc. Such an attitude is purely a function of hot air, rather than reason.
They laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian. They're not laughing now. -Bob Monkhouse (1928-2003)
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/4/2014 12:53 PM

Re: Bergdahl? 


I can just relay what I know to be true.......

Cadets at West Point and Midshipmen at the Naval Academy are PEOD about this prisoner exchange. these are future military leaders of our country who must take the orders of the Commander in Chief......Respect is earned and not freely offered!!!!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 1:14 PM

Re: Bergdahl? 



vebiltdervan wrote:
WestCoastDore wrote: ...If Feinstein was a Republican, this board would erupt. There would be calls of indignation, implications of lower breeding...
Calling BS on this, my friend. Perhaps you're hoping to re-define a "board eruption" as anytime bhoyal posts, but that's not very realistic. The last time Biltmore or Mathknapp or I implied "lower breeding" here would have been the first time.

My apologies if I painted with too broad of brush. However, Reputards? does have implication of a less than a stellar breeding program. pirate

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 1:45 PM

Re: Bergdahl? 



WestCoastDore wrote:
vebiltdervan wrote:
WestCoastDore wrote: ...If Feinstein was a Republican, this board would erupt. There would be calls of indignation, implications of lower breeding...
Calling BS on this, my friend. Perhaps you're hoping to re-define a "board eruption" as anytime bhoyal posts, but that's not very realistic. The last time Biltmore or Mathknapp or I implied "lower breeding" here would have been the first time.

My apologies if I painted with too broad of brush. However, Reputards? does have implication of a less than a stellar breeding program. pirate

 

Yes, my bad. I said it. I owned it. I'm owning it again. My mistake.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 2:14 PM

Re: Bergdahl? 





---------------------------------------------
--- cjdore wrote:

I can just relay what I know to be true.......

Cadets at West Point and Midshipmen at the Naval Academy are PEOD about this prisoner exchange. these are future military leaders of our country who must take the orders of the Commander in Chief......Respect is earned and not freely offered!!!!

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

The president really should consult students before making decisions.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/4/2014 3:02 PM

Re: Bergdahl? 



ORDore wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- cjdore wrote:

I can just relay what I know to be true.......

Cadets at West Point and Midshipmen at the Naval Academy are PEOD about this prisoner exchange. these are future military leaders of our country who must take the orders of the Commander in Chief......Respect is earned and not freely offered!!!!

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

The president really should consult students before making decisions.
No ORD but he should be wary of what the troops under his command think about his decision.......

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/03/berg dahls-release-spurs-backlash-among-soldiers.html?E SRC=navy-a.nl
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 3:20 PM

Re: Bergdahl? 



ORDore wrote:




The president really should consult students before making decisions.
Silly. That wasn't his point/contention.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >