Says the guy who played the OH MY FUCKING GOD HE’S MUSLIM!!! card. A lot of us don’t automatically genuflect and get the vapors every time someone mentions veterans or ohmygodohmygodohmygod The Troops.
You ask an absurd question. “Any price”? Of course not, the question is ridiculous. I wouldn’t give them Obama in trade, nor my grandmother. But they weren’t going to ask for that, were they? So, your phrasing is fundamentally dishonest, since you know good and well that there are limits on both sides of this equation.
Wait. Maybe I’m wrong about that. You do know that, yes?
(Used to be, i was totally certain that an enemy in our hands was better off than one of ours in their hands. I miss those days. But I’m still pretty confident that this is still largely true.)
If you didn’t care whether he was a deserter or not, that is, if that didn’t affect the justification for the price paid for him, you wouldn’t be so desperate to find even one platoon member of his that would not describe him as a deserter, as you tried to do earlier.
Of course it is. Just like yours was.
Veterans are worried about the precedent the transfer might set, Joe Davis, the director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, told USA Today. “We have a long history in this country of not negotiating with terrorists," he said. “And we just did.”
“If he was a captured prisoner of war, we wouldn’t be having this discussion," Davis said of Bergdahl. "He put his teammates in jeopardy, and you absolutely don’t do that in a combat zone.”
When did this long history of not negotiating start and end? George Washington negotiated with the terrorists of his day (the Barbary pirates); so did Ronald Reagan. Which presidents didn’t?
Or even who the fuck is this guy, and why should I care what he thinks?
I have a question. Perhaps the answer is buried somewhere in this thread that I have admittedly not taken the time to read through, if so I apologize but I’ll ask anyway -
Why did we run missions to try to rescue this guy that resulted in the deaths of 6 soldiers? I mean - at one time we must have thought he was deserving of rescue. What has changed? The same people who are saying he was a deserter and a piece of shit knew this prior to the rescue missions, right? Wouldn’t they have spoken up before we took the risk to get him out?
Nothing changed. And they signed non-disclosure documents.
DID we actually run missions specifically searching for him that resulted in the deaths of six soldiers?
What I’ve read is rather contradictory–some articles say we did, while others make it sound more like “oh, and look for Bergdahl” got added to every mission in the province in the months following his disappearance, including patrols that would have been run even without Bergdahl’s situation. When the U.S. had searched an area thoroughly looking for him, angering the locals in the process, and then a patrol doing reconnaissance of polling places before the elections gets attacked, is that Bergdahl’s fault or a direct outcome of the searches, or would the polling place have been a target even if Bergdahl had never existed?
Still not relevant.
Your analysis of my motivations is, not surprisingly, false.
But good try.
Got no major issues with the VFW, whateverness. Quite often they supply a respectable venue for a local rock band and you can go watch the young folks spazz out in interesting and creative ways.
It’s just that I don’t see any reason to believe that this guy has some special authority and expertise that I am bound to respect.
Definitely relevant to show what you keep denying: that veterans object to Bergdahl’s trade because of his behavior prior to his becoming POW. You know that VFW is a veterans’ organization, right? And the one I quoted was its official?
He doesn’t. But it would behoove the President’s defenders to stop arguing that this is just something ginned up by Republicans out to get the President. The Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon, but they didn’t originate the ciriticism. That started with his platoon mates.
It doesn’t show this at all. The only thing Davis says clearly is that we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists, and that (he believes) Bergdahl put his teammates in jeopardy. Neither of those statements conflict with anything I’ve been saying.
Oh sure. Republicans Support The Troops*. Before the deal was made, Republicans were all for the deal. The proposed swap for these exact same guys was known back in 2012. McCain went on record as supporting that particular swap. Now when it actually happens, they go ballastic as if they were blindsided. Out come the talking points:
Never Negotiate With Terrorists (except St. Ronald and Iran-Contra)
They’re Fighting For Our Freedom (except apparently the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty)
He’s A Deserter (at least that’s what the heresay is)
People Died Looking For Him (as it turns out, not so much)
OH MY GOD HE’S MUSLIM (said by those who lack the understanding of religious freedom in the US)
HIS DAD’S GOT A BEARD! HE MUST BE MUSLIM!! (said by the same guys who just got done verbally fellating the Duck Dynasty dude)
His hometown wants to give him a parade! (let’s give them death threats!)
His parents are happy! (death threats for them, too!)
The Republican response to this has been nothing short of spectacularly shameful. Initially, many praised him and his release. But then, Republican GroupThink took over and the deal HAD to be bad and Bergdahl HAD to be evil and unworthy of rescue because it was done under the Evil Muslim Obama. Absolutely disgusting.
- some restrictions apply
(post shortened)
Swapping for these five specific terrorists was shot down before. The Obama administration could have made a different deal. They chose instead to ignore Congress’s wishes, hide this swap from Congress, and empty 5 beds at GITMO. Even Democrats in Congress are disapointed/pissed with the Obamanation’s actions.
President Obama’s aides met with unanimous opposition from Congress when they first raised the possibility of releasing five Taliban guerrillas from Guantanamo Bay in 2011 and 2012, and administration officials publicly and repeatedly vowed to return to Capitol Hill before making any final moves.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/4/congress-twice-rejected-release-of-taliban-from-gi/
These five should never have been released.
Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa -
Khairkhwa was an early member of the Taliban in 1994 and was interior minister during the Taliban’s rule. He hails from the same tribe as Afghan President Hamid Karzai and was captured in January 2002. Khairkhwa’s most prominent position was as governor of Herat province from 1999 to 2001, and he was alleged to have been “directly associated” with Osama bin Laden. According to a detainee assessment, Khairkhwa also was probably associated with al Qaeda’s now-deceased leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. He is described as one of the “major opium drug lords in western Afghanistan” and a “friend” of Karzai. He was arrested in Pakistan and was transferred to Guantanamo in May 2002. During questioning, Khairkhwa denied all knowledge of extremist activities.
Mullah Mohammad Fazl -
Fazl commanded the main force fighting the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in 2001, and served as chief of army staff under the Taliban regime. He has been accused of war crimes during Afghanistan’s civil war in the 1990s. Fazl was detained after surrendering to Abdul Rashid Dostam, the leader of Afghanistan’s Uzbek community, in November 2001. He was wanted by the United Nations in connection with the massacre of thousands of Afghan Shiites during the Taliban’s rule. “When asked about the murders, he did not express any regret,” according to the detainee assessment. He was alleged to have been associated with several militant Islamist groups, including al Qaeda. He was transferred into U.S. custody in December 2001 and was one of the first arrivals at Guantanamo, where he was assessed as having high intelligence value.
Mullah Norullah Noori -
Noori served as governor of Balkh province in the Taliban regime and played some role in coordinating the fight against the Northern Alliance. Like Fazl, Noori was detained after surrendering to Dostam, the Uzbek leader, in 2001. Noori claimed during interrogation that “he never received any weapons or military training.” According to 2008 detainee assessment, Noori “continues to deny his role, importance and level of access to Taliban officials.” That same assessment characterized him as high risk and of high intelligence value.
Abdul Haq Wasiq -
Wasiq was the deputy chief of the Taliban regime’s intelligence service. His cousin was head of the service. An administrative review in 2007 cited a source as saying that Wasiq was also “an al Qaeda intelligence member” and had links with members of another militant Islamist group, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. Wasiq claimed, according to the review, that he was arrested while trying to help the United States locate senior Taliban figures. He denied any links to militant groups.
Mohammad Nabi Omari -
Omari was a minor Taliban official in Khost Province. According to the first administrative review in 2004, he was a member of the Taliban and associated with both al Qaeda and another militant group Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. He was the Taliban’s chief of communications and helped al Qaeda members escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Omari acknowledged during hearings that he had worked for the Taliban but denied connections with militant groups. He also said that he had worked with a U.S. operative named Mark to try to track down Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
McCain was for the deal before he was against it. McCain, like the rest of the Republicans, simply can’t stomach siding with Obama no matter what.
I am not a big fan of McCain but you are maligning him here. Read your own article/watch the video. McCain said in the past he’d support the deal if the price was one of the five - “depending on the details”.