A sign in an office I used to work in read “Don’t Believe Everything You Know”.
Case in point: What we know about Bergdahl may not be so.
I wonder if this is the beginning of the un-Jewellization of Bergdahl. Will anybody be particularly shocked if it turns out these early reports about Bergdahl were mostly untrue?
If he’s not guilty of anything, I sincerely hope he’s exonerated from the rotten stuff guys like Terr have been saying about him. And if he’s guilty of something, I sincerely hope he’s appropriately punished.
You mean the classified military report that the military refuses to release and dares reporters to file FOIA suit to get? That military report?
Has it not sunk in that “They were doing everything they could” and “They were doing nothing at all” are *both *accurate statements?
[quote=“Oliveritaly, post:463, topic:689840”]
Believe me, the Israeli military *does *have that bond. There’s a reason **Terr **doesn’t live here any more.
Yes. Completely shocked.
It is wise to discount early reports about any fast-moving news issue - the fog of war, if you will, extended to the civilian world.
But the general reports on Bergdahl are not new and have stood for years without contradiction. Today, the administration is under great pressure to support its “hero” and “honor and distinction” statements and is unable to do so, even with the full power of the bureaucracy, the full might of the Pentagon, friends in the media and a large majority of Americans who want to believe in heroes.
Is there even a single member of his platoon who has said, “Look, he was a good guy and it would have been unlike him to desert”? How about loving parents giving a statement that says, “we believe he stood his post until the end”? Was the Rolling Stone article ever refuted, officially or not?
Our courts use the adversary system as a method for uncovering the truth. Politics is a cruder process, and meaner, and often practiced by keyboard commandos instead of professional advocates. Nonetheless, when coupled with a free press in which each news organ tries to beat its rivals, we usually get to some approximation of the truth, especially when it is a truth that we want to believe.
I don’t know Bergdahl’s state of mind for certain, nor can I or anyone I’ve seen describe the precise events that ended in his capture. It’s not impossible, but it would be completely shocking if there were a different story out there waiting to be told
Weaseling.
It confirms nothing of the sort–where did you get that?
The National Alliance was complaining because the government wasn’t (at least publicly) doing enough. “Low priority” isn’t the same thing as “no priority” or no efforts or nothing.
With nearly 8000 Americans to ask the DPRK about, Jenkins et al. weren’t the most important. I’ll agree that was true, and agree that was probably appropriate.
However, the National Alliance quotes the New York Times, which in turn quotes the U.S. State Dept: “The United States has sought to talk to this person” [Jenkins]. We don’t know how many times or through what means or with how much urgency, but when the U.S. seeks to talk to somebody, that isn’t the definition of “doing nothing” I would use.
When it comes to exchanges, as I pointed out, Israeli military does a lot of very stupid exchanges. There may be some reasons for it (such as drafted soldiers vs. volunteer ones) but the Tannenbaum exchange was particularly egregious. And of course the Arab ghouls collecting Israeli body parts in order to blackmail Israel later is one of the results. Good article about that: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/israel_not_a_model_for_us_on_prisoner_exchanges.html
“Low priority” is the euphemism for doing nothing. Unless you can point to some US efforts to get those guys?
Why would that be appropriate?
Yes. Talk. Not get back.
No, low priority is the euphemism for “low priority.” The government is perfectly capable of saying “not a priority” when they need a phrase that means “doing nothing.”
(E.g., the U.S. Army Southern Command is officially acknowledged as a low priority these days, but it still has thousands of troops assigned.)
Because when you have 8000 to get back, who were lost in a variety of circumstances across a wide area over a number of years, you have to make choices about who to pursue first, about where to spend your time and resources and limited leverage. It seems to me that the ones who were known to have been in POW camps, who were known to have been under duress, who were known to have not wanted to be there, should be higher on the list than one who says he’s happy right where he’s at. How would you prioritize them?
When you have a man who appears to be perfectly happy where he’s at, talking to him would normally be the first step: “are you happy here? are you under duress? do you want to come home?”
I definitely would prioritize them. But I have been told here that choosing between an (alleged) deserter and a hero is a nono. Want me to point you to the particular post?
We only had one prisoner in Afghanistan. What choice do you mean?
The hypothetical that I presented.
If you have to resort to a fantasy to make your point, you’ve already lost, 'kay?
Declaring yourself a winner means you lose. 'kay?
More spinning by the desperate White House.
Administration officials stressed that Bergdahl’s health was declining and time was of the essence to make a deal, if one was possible. Officials also stressed that once negotiations began they had to move quickly, for fear that a lag or a leak about the arrangements could put Bergdahl’s life in jeopardy.
**The Taliban did not issue any explicit warning that Bergdahl would be killed if the deal fell through or leaked, one person familiar with the discussions said.
**
and http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dianne-feinstein-bergdahl-no-threat-107526.html?hp=l1
Dianne Feinstein: No threat to Bergdahl
When you have two prisoners of war, one of whom is a hero and one of whom has a history of going AWOL, then no, their military record should not be a deciding factor.
However, Jenkins wasn’t known to be a POW, so the situations are not analogous.
I am not advocating prioritizing Jenkins lower because he was a deserter; I am advocating prioritizing them differently because of their differing conditions of confinement. That’s what I said before.
The Defense Dept, according to memoranda in the Eisenhower presidential library, is supposed to have had the names of over 900 American Army and Air Force personnel who were held prisoner by the North Koreans and never repatriated. Some of them were likely heroes; some may well have been captured because they went AWOL from their units. It doesn’t matter: they were a higher priority because they never had the chance to tell anybody whether or not they wanted to come home.
Feinstein, the Clintons and Panetta all have publicly broken from the White House on this issue in substantial ways. There are strong suggestions that this deal was not just new, but quite old, and that the 30-day notification window was a bipartisan compromise installed to prevent precisely this deal from taking place.
My personal view hasn’t changed much - terrible negotiation, but still a deal to do - but the WH political failure on this is beyond extraordinary. This is making Rick Perry’s debate prep, Mitt Romney’s binders full of women, Michael Dukakis’s tank ride and John Kerry’s windsurfing tour look like political genius.
Huh? He was as “known to be a POW” as Bergdahl was. Exactly how can you be “known to be a POW”? There was a conflict, Jenkins was a soldier, and he was held by the other side. Are you saying he was there voluntarily? How do you know (channeling some people on this thread) without getting him back and interviewing him?