American POW freed in prisoner swap. And the GOP doesn't like it.....

Here is a forward from one of the soldiers that served with him
Forwarded from Jeff Howard. "We were at OP Mest, Paktika Province, Afghanistan. It was a small outpost where B Co 1-501st INF (Airbone) ran operations out of, just an Infantry platoon and ANA counterparts there. The place was an Afghan graveyard. Bergdahl had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to "walk the earth" and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things. No one thought anything about it. He was a little “out there”. Next morning he's gone. We search everywhere, and can't find him. He left his weapon, his kit, and other sensitive items. He only took some water, a compass and a knife. We find some afghan kids shortly after who saw an american walking north asking about where the taliban are. We get hits on our voice intercepter that Taliban has him, and we were close. We come to realize that the kid deserted his post, snuck out of camp and sought out Taliban… to join them. We were in a defensive position at OP Mest, where your focus is to keep people out. He knew where the blind spots were to slip out and that's what he did. It was supposed to be a 4-day mission but turned into several months of active searching. Everyone was spun up to find this guy. News outlets all over the country were putting out false information. It was hard to see, especially when we knew the truth about what happened and we lost good men trying to find him. PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl. Many others from various units were wounded or killed while actively looking for Bergdahl. Fighting Increased. IEDs and enemy ambushes increased. The Taliban knew that we were looking for him in high numbers and our movements were predictable. Because of Bergdahl, more men were out in danger, and more attacks on friendly camps and positions were conducted while we were out looking for him. His actions impacted the region more than anyone wants to admit. There is also no way to know what he told the Taliban: Our movements, locations, tactics, weak points on vehicles and other things for the enemy to exploit are just a few possibilities. The Government knows full well that he deserted. It looks bad and is a good propaganda piece for the Taliban. They refuse to acknowledge it. Hell they even promoted him to Sergeant which makes me sick. I feel for his family who only want their son/brother back. They don’t know the truth, or refuse to acknowledge it as well. What he did affected his family and his whole town back home, who don’t know the truth. Either way what matters is that good men died because of him. He has been lying on all those Taliban videos about everything since his “capture”. If he ever returns, he should be tried under the UCMJ for being a deserter and judged for what he did. Bergdahl is not a hero, he is not a soldier or an Infantryman. He failed his brothers. Now, sons and daughters are growing up without their fathers who died for him and he will have to face that truth someday."

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/c...ier_bowe_bergdahl_freed_by_taliban_in/chvy4nm

 

It seems to me that the Administration was using the Bergdahl hostage situation as a political football to score points before we leave Afghanistan, and if it ever got out why Bergdahl was a hostage in the first place this would backfire in their faces. They have been working since he deserted to cover that all up. But they don't understand our military and how much desertion really is one of the worst things you can do, except for fighting for the other guys, which is starting to become a possibility. Obama was hoping everybody would shut up about this, but our military believe he has gone to far this time.

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

Why Was the FBI Investigating Michael Hastings’ Reporting on Bowe Bergdahl?

https://news.vice.com/article/why-w...g-michael-hastings-reporting-on-bowe-bergdahl

By Alice Speri

 

From what little I've heard I think it's a stretch to think Bergdahl was actually out to join the Taliban. If he was why didn't the Taliban instead use him as an infiltrator to get into US bases or why was he portrayed as a prisoner in videos instead of as a convert to the cause? I think the latter would've had much more propaganda value.

From what I can tell Bergdahl doesn't seem like he is all there and I am wondering if this was a case of lowered standards for recruiting and deployment so someone who probably shouldn't have been in the military was in.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...didnt-ris/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

I never said it would be easy, but if he was just a good private that got snatched up, they'd have gone after him. Since he was a deserter, they decided it wasn't worth it.

It wasn't an insult, you are pretending to be stupid, I don't actually believe you are.

Fair enough, I guess I keep forgetting that I am talking to civilians that have no idea what goes on in the military. You might think that they wouldn't look at the fact that he was a deserter, but they do. Also, as to the trade, there's a reason Obama refused to bring it before congress this time around, he knew NO ONE supported the idea because he was met with almost unanimous opposition the last time he brought it up. This time he decided to break the law and do things unilaterally.

If he wasn't a traitorous deserter, no one would care that people died in a search effort. It's a totally different situation when people die searching for a deserter than when they are searching for a real soldier. It is funny that you bring up pentagon reports, because initially they said he was captured while out on patrol even though it was a blatant lie.....keep buying the BS that the DOD puts out, I'll trust the actual people on the ground.

Simply an attempt to poison the well, I have an opinion that is critical of a president you support, so you attempt to demonize me. I've been saying from the beginning that this isn't a partisan issue because it's not. Both parties were against this stupid trade. I guess in your mind EVERYONE that disagrees with anything he does is out to get the president right?

No, this would have been stupid no matter which president broke the law to do it. Also, it would have been stupid for any president to break the law and trade 5 Taliban leaders for ANY private so the "bedrock principle of our nation" BS that you keep parroting is irrelevant.

No, I think if this was Bush instead of Obama, you'd agree with me that it was an incredibly stupid thing to do and it would be CNN and MSNBC leading the charge stoking the fire under people like you.

Also, if you were paying attention, I was mad about this well before the talking heads on the networks were paying attention. I heard about this from buddies still in the service almost immediately after word came down that he was released, back when this was being sold as a feel good story by all networks. The military is absolutely furious about this, and would be no matter who was the president.

 

Dude please relax with the 15x an hour posting of minor news articles and opinion pieces ... this isn't fox news or cnn and its drowning the conversation.

 

The guy went to France to join the French foreign legion. The military would send him home if he was sent back. AQ linked groups don't just release hostages. He gives them all the intel he has and when they don't need him anymore he convinces them that he can play the part and be a bargaining chip to get back 5 of the top terrorist we have in GITMO.

 

U mad bro? You haven't said anything relevant this entire thread. Tired over the pissing contests and actually posting relevant material to hopefully increase the level of debate here. But if you want to continue to spew your drivel, by all means continue. If you don't care for my posts, ignore me or report me. Until then I will continue to do as I please. Thank you for your concern.

 

No, apparently I am pretending to be conversing with an objective person.

You didn't answer my question or address my point at all. I guess you have to avoid history in order for your opinion to stand, so keep ignoring it, I'll keep calling you out until you show that you have some grasp of what you're talking about.

I'll trust the court that convicts Bergdahl and will reserve judgement on his desertion until he is tried.

I didn't even vote for Obama, I voted for Johnson/Grey. You have an opinion that depends on seeing Bergdahl as a deserter even though he hasn't even been charged. Your opinion also depends on seeing him as something other than a POW, which is a silly position.

Everyone who rails on about stupid **** like this, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, or the IRS "scandal" tells me that they are biased partisans. There are plenty of valid criticisms you could levy at Obama and I would agree fully, you're talking about stupid **** that wouldn't be brought up if he had an (R) behind his name on C-SPAN.

No, it is a large part of the issue. To start with, a 5:1 trade is hardly out of bounds if you look at the history of prisoner exchanges. The only way you have to make it look bad is to claim Bergdahl is a deserter, which brings innocent until proven guilty squarely to the forefront of the discussion.

They wouldn't be stoking the fire under me, I don't subject myself to garbage "journalism," a heading under which MSNBC, CNN, and Fox all belong.

If it had been Bush, I would have applauded him for doing an unpopular thing to get a service member home, even if it were only to stand trial for desertion or worse.

Then they need to get off their asses and convict him in a court of law rather than attacking him and Obama in the court of public opinion. It is telling that the one who is getting the majority of the flak over this is Obama, not the accused deserter.

 

Except there was a search and rescue attempt was carried out to try to find him that resulted in six casualties in his company.

Also from your own link.
[rquoter]A second source told The Washington Times that the rescue operation plans were “high risk” and became even less attractive in recent months when officials in the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command grew convinced that the Taliban and the militant Haqqani network, whose operatives were holding Sgt. Bergdahl, were eager to cut a deal for his release.
[/rquoter]

So the operation was very risky and they felt there might be a way to get him back without bloodshed. While many in the military's opinions weren't high about Bergdahl under the same circumstances a private in good standing they still might not have carried out a high risk operation to save them.

For example during the invasion of Iraq several US troops were captured including the famous case of private Jessica Lynch. In those cases the US didn't launch risky rescue operations to save them.

 

CNN: Obama Failed To Notify Congress About Bergdahl Prisoner Swap Because He Knew They Would Veto The Exchange…



CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger stated that a national security source not inside the Obama administration told her that “sometimes you don’t ask a question when you know what the answer’s going to be” in a discussion on the failure of the president to notify Congress about the exchange for Bowe Bergdahl. Borger responded affirmatively when host Wolf Blitzer clarified by asking if this mean asking “because they would have been opposed?” Borger also agreed with Blitzer when he stated “the president had clearly made up his mind what he wanted to do.”

 

Huh?

Did Bergdahl try to join the Foreign legion? I'm not sure what the last part has to do with anything unless you are saying Bergdahl was pretending to be held by the Taliban and actually joined them. Al Qaeda and related groups frequently feature people who have converted to their cause as major propaganda pieces. They are making a huge deal about the American who carried out a suicide mission in Syria

 

Dude, take a breath -- you're posting too much content.

 

And you post nothing. Have to make up for you.

 

I've posted in the thread -- you might be interested to read my opinion.

 

I'm actually not posting much on this thread but I am very interested in the issue. Other posters have made some pretty awesome posts (I'm not talking about the pissing contests) that have been buried by these updates.

You have posted many relevant articles but could you consolidate your posts or something? You are double posting all over the place.

I wasn't trying to be hostile and was most definitely not "mad bro"

 

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4k2ijh290Dw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

They absolutely launched an op to save Jessica Lynch....that's how you rescue POW's. Also, you seem to be forgetting all of the soldiers we lost capturing the 5 Taliban leaders, that's quite a bit of bloodshed, quite a bit more than it would have taken to launch an op to get the traitor out. Also, this pretty much destroys the credibility of interrogators. Half of their job is making prisoners feel helpless and alone, that they are never seeing the outside world again if they don't cooperate....the propaganda that will be resulting from this will absolutely hurt their efforts because they'll know that all they have to do is hold out till their buddies can kidnap a soldier and they'll be out.

I wouldn't have been thrilled about launching an op to "rescue" the deserter, but it would have been infinitely more appropriate than negotiating with terrorists for the release of 5 Taliban leaders.

 

Fair enough...I could be mistaken, but it doesn't change my point, which is how the topic was twisted into false narratives.

It might very well be un-Constitutional, but unless you are making a Ron Paul-esque argument that precedence is no excuse, well...there's precedence.

No, but it became one, and it's no longer a grown-up argument about policy. It's showtime. It's fodder for media and politicians, and the real story becomes a choice of two exaggerations.

Again...I wouldn't have made that decision, and I'm with them on that, but I also a grown-up and I understand why it happened and that it was inevitable. Exchanging prisoners at the end of a war shouldn't be creating these false narratives, even if the means by which it happened was unconventional and the people involved odious.

It's not un-important, it's just already decided and done and the people who were against it didn't get their way. I don't like it, but I also don't see it as this huge threat to world security or a clearly impeachable offense. And now? It's a litmus test, even though (and I'm glad we agree) it began as a non-partisan issue.

And you are left with variations of these unfair untruths which are hot sellers:

Dummie primitive redneck Republicans don't support the troops because they hate the president so much.

OR

Pinko girlie-man liberals are willing to exchange hardened terrorists for a deserter because they just agrree with anything the presdent does.

And that kind of irresponsible crap is way more dangerous than an army deserter, 5 derranged peasants that think God wants them to kill wizards, or a president continuing a precedent of executive exeption that nobody really minds when a president they like has that power.

 

Well said, repped.

 

I would agree that is happening, some are trying to make this whole issue partisan with false narratives when it simply isn't a partisan issue.

Any "precedent" would have had to have come before it was actually a law since it was a law signed by Obama himself. There is a chance that the law will be found unconstitutional which would absolve the administration from breaking the law, but going against EVERYONE on this issue was foolish.

I think that's the problem though, no one could defend the actions taken so instead they created a partisan pissing match in order to deflect from the actual story.

That's just it though, it wasn't inevitable. Actually, there's no way it would have happened if the administration had followed the law. EVERYONE was against it. They'd have been much better off just having an op done to rescue him, it would have been bad press one way or the other, but not nearly as bad as the foreign policy disaster that actually happened.

I do agree that it is over with and it is clearly not an impeachable offense. What needs to happen is that the deserter needs to be tried for his crimes and imprisoned or executed depending on the findings of a court marshal and I would support censuring the administration for their unilateral and illegal actions relating to the transfer so that hopefully something like this never happens again.