Why not? Even with “innocent before proven guilty”, swapping Taliban leaders for a grunt flies in the face of all the “don’t negotiate with terrorists” propaganda. Swapping for a deserter, let alone a traitor (which I don’t buy), makes it worse.
And neither do they, and they’re not letting that stop them; that is enough to make it “swiftboating.”
The area in Afghanistan where the outpost was is extremely remote and hostile. I doubt anyone was taking fog walks for jollies, especially unarmed.
I took his question to mean, “If I leave with the night-vision goggles, will you guys go on high-alert tearing up the countryside to recover the goggles so they don’t fall into enemy hands?” I’ve heard from service members that if you lose night-vision goggles in training, your squad is likely to pull duty searching for them for days. I can imagine how important it would be for troops in Afghanistan to keep night-vision goggles away from the fighters who are constantly attacking them, especially as night vision is one of our few true advantages.
So, short answer, I think he genuinely thought they’d be more likely to miss his equipment and track it down than him.
Only with the most liberal definition of “swiftboating”. The real swiftboating happened with people barely, or not at all, connected with Kerry and used demonstrably false accusations.
Erdosain, yes that’s probable. I think the issue of whether he was actually on guard duty when he left is the big question.
Because he had not had a trial and had not faced his accusers in court. Until he did, he was a US soldier, and it would be very wrong for the President or other military leadership to treat him any differently than any other US soldier who was captured by the enemy.
What other US soldier has been swapped for high level enemy leadership?
I’m not arguing that point. Maybe prisoner exchanges are a bad idea. But his alleged desertion should have absolutely nothing to do with any decisions made about trying to get him released.
You are arguing that we shouldn’t “treat him any differently than any other US soldier who was captured by the enemy” but I think he was. Perhaps for reasons as political as the people smearing him. And being all high principled about whether he’s guilty or not doesn’t make a difference is just kind of silly. It makes a difference to almost everyone.
What other US soldier have The Predictables been willing to leave behind?
I don’t get the reference.
I think the Rolling Stone story that you and I quoted answers that.
[QUOTE=Rolling Stone]
In the early-morning hours of June 30th, according to soldiers in the unit, Bowe approached his team leader** not long after he got off guard duty** and asked his superior a simple question: If I were to leave the base, would it cause problems if I took my sensitive equipment?
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine.
Hypothesis: Maybe he was sent on some sensitive and high-risk mission, and that’s why he asked about the consequences of his rifle or night vision being captured? It would explain a lot of things, including him asking that, his fellow soldiers being under NDAs, and him being valued highly in a prisoner exchange.
Alternately, maybe he was depressed, and trying to commit suicide-by-enemy-forces?
I just can’t see why a deserter would care what his superior thought about his night vision goggles. Deserting is already one of the worst crimes in the military; at that point theft of equipment doesn’t seem like it’d make much difference.
But the CNN article contradicts it.
Either he was worried that his goggles would be captured and used against his unit (unlikely, unless he really was committing suicide by Taliban), or he thought he had a better chance of slipping away from his unit permanently if they weren’t concerned about recovering his sensitive high-tech equipment.
I have a hard time believing this is a swiftboating. Who has a motive? Bergdahl’s not running for political office or advocating any position.
The likeliest explanation is that there’s been evidence all along that Bergdahl left under suspicious circumstances but people have held off on making public statements while he was being held captive.
Bergdahl isn’t the primary target. The story they’re trying to tell is that Obama has released terr’ists who hate our freedoms and are going to get back at us in exchange for someone we should have left over there anyway.
I dunno. I think the likeliest explanation is that FOX and RW News saw an opening to paint Obama as a fumbling child. *He gave up a bunch of high level operatives for one worthless traitor!!!1 *
I know that on Twitter yesterday people were saying that they should have beheaded Bergdahl. That level of vitriol probably is coming from the reflexive hate for Obama.
I completely endorse this post.
:smack:Thanks. I totally missed that.
Me as well. We hear all this yammering about how the troops are fighting for our freedoms, well that includes the troops themselves. The guy deserves a fair trial and to face his accusers. Maybe he was trying to commit suicide by enemy fire. Maybe he was going on a secret mission. But it seems to me that fairness demands that we get the guy out, debrief him, and get to the bottom of this fairly if we need to.