Bergdahl Prisoner Swap

[Breadburner]

They should have let this dingle-berry live with his choice.......

[heironymouspasparagus]

So the answer is, No. You registered for the draft, which when I was eighteen was required by every male. Just saying you probably should back of the "chicken hawk" stuff.

No.  I shouldn't.  Actually, these guys actively went out of their way, having their Daddy's pull the strings to get them "trumped up" deferments.  It's not about me - it's about a guy who was in actual combat, lost 3 limbs from it, was decorated repeatedly, and then was lambasted by losers to the tune of the Senate seat in Georgia. it's about Chambliss and Rove doing what they did - as the draft-dodging weasels that they are.


Still is required of every male at 18.

[guido911]

No.  I shouldn't.  Actually, these guys actively went out of their way, having their Daddy's pull the strings to get them "trumped up" deferments.  It's not about me - it's about a guy who was in actual combat, lost 3 limbs from it, was decorated repeatedly, and then was lambasted by losers to the tune of the Senate seat in Georgia. it's about Chambliss and Rove doing what they did - as the draft-dodging weasels that they are.


Still is required of every male at 18.

Were you ever subject to the draft? I'd like to know if you had a high lottery number or were too young to get called up.

[Conan71]

No.  I shouldn't.  Actually, these guys actively went out of their way, having their Daddy's pull the strings to get them "trumped up" deferments.  It's not about me - it's about a guy who was in actual combat, lost 3 limbs from it, was decorated repeatedly, and then was lambasted by losers to the tune of the Senate seat in Georgia. it's about Chambliss and Rove doing what they did - as the draft-dodging weasels that they are.


Still is required of every male at 18.

Regardless of Chambliss' very brief citation in the article I posted how does the rest of that square with you?

Yet the White House managed to put Bowe Bergdahl's parents next to Obama for the Saturday announcement. They also insisted that the administration had ongoing consultations on the question of trading the five Taliban for Bergdahl. But the two chairs of the intelligence committees – Rep. Mike Rodgers, a Republican, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat – both said the last such consultation took place in 2011, and the overwhelming and bipartisan consensus opposed such a deal.

Obama asked Americans to accept his own assurances that the five released detainees would pose no threat to the United States. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel joined him in making those assurances and said that the cases had been reviewed thoroughly. The Daily Beast's Eli Lake and Time Magazine separately reported, however, that the review had been rushed through to get the conclusion desired by the White House. Lake's sources in the defense and intelligence communities called this "forcing the consensus," while Time Magazine's source made it even clearer. "There never was the conversation," the official reported. "This was out of the norm."

While Hagel backed Obama's story, others at the Pentagon strongly disagreed. Fox reporter Jim Angle reported that one source in the military said, "Many at the Pentagon advised the President not to make the trade." Senior officials at the Department of Defense had warned the White House that releasing these five detainees would be "like handing over five 4-star generals of the Taliban." Releasing them now, rather than at the end of US participation in Afghanistan that Obama plans for 2016, puts more than 32,000 Americans in Afghanistan at risk of these high-ranking Taliban commanders' re-entry into the war.

Nothing about Obama's performance in these scandals and debacles should give anyone confidence in his assurances -- not of security, not of competence, not even of being madder than anyone. The polling numbers suggest that Americans have finally reached a point where the incompetence and dishonesty are just too obvious to ignore any longer.

Let's try this again and you can explain why this was such a brilliant idea.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Were you ever subject to the draft? I'd like to know if you had a high lottery number or were too young to get called up.

I won the lottery!

[heironymouspasparagus]

And now we get the inevitable results of the blind, mindless incitement from the Murdochian PR media company..... death threats to Bergdahl's family...!

To paraphrase "the most interesting man in the world...";

Stay classy, Teabaggers!!

[Conan71]

There's no shortage of demented people who get a kick out of emailing death threats for any reason.

Meanwhile, here's that notorious tea-bagger Di-Fi going off again:

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee raised questions Sunday about the Obama administration argument that Congress wasn't informed about the prisoner swap for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because he might have been killed if the deal was made public.

The California Democrat told CBS' "Face the Nation" that she and the committee's top Republican, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, had been briefed previously about the operation and kept that information confidential.

"We understand the security of that, we have never violated that," said Feinstein, who has raised doubts about the so-called "credible threat" on Bergdahl's life several times since Congress was briefed about his June 5 release in exchange for five Taliban detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"I have heard of none," she continued.

Feinstein also raised questions about the administration's original argument that Bergdahl's health was in imminent danger, considering the Defense Department told Fox News and other news organizations this weekend that he is being treated for some nutritional deficits that would be considered normal after being in captivity for five years.

"I think his rapid recovery now may indicate he wasn't close to death," she said.

Chambliss said he also has heard no intelligence that supports the argument.

"Because he is in decent health, considering where he's been, they've changed their story," he told CBS. "They said, 'Well, no, we suspected his life might be in danger, if word got out of this pending, possible trade then his life may be in danger. Again, I can just tell you there is no intelligence to support that."

Feinstein also suggested that Congress take a look at the detainee release to make sure the United States "got something meaningful in exchange."

She said there was "no question" about the value of freeing just one U.S. serviceman but that Congress never got the opportunity to comment on what the country should give up in exchange.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Regardless of Chambliss' very brief citation in the article I posted how does the rest of that square with you?

Let's try this again and you can explain why this was such a brilliant idea.

We don't have enough information yet to know whether it was a brilliant idea or not.  If I were to GUESS, I would say at best, and most likely, it is a non-event - given the fact that we have been negotiating with the Taliban for many years, and are gonna release these guys in a relatively very short time frame anyway.  Since they ARE the ones who will be making up the recognized government of Afghanistan going forward!  Would be an awkward moment when their Embassy approaches our Embassy about giving back illegally held citizens (under International law).   (Small flashback moment to when Hugo Chavez was put in prison by the CIA backed regime of Perez in Venezuela, then released and became the first President elected by an unmolested election - repeatedly.  And how about the drum chant here for "regime change" of this massively popular elected official - 65% and more votes - so much for our principles of Democracy.)

Unless we continue to go against International Law by changing our law again to just leave them in Gitmo forever.  (I wouldn't actually mind that, but it is very likely to have serious side effects that more than outweigh any benefit.)

I don't imagine much of the Pentagon was in favor of this exchange (much like they were not in favor of Iraq) but that particular thing isn't their call (as it was not in Iraq).  You must know by now that I really appreciate that headline - "Relentless Incompetence" - it is such a perfect concise description of this and most of the Presidents we have had in recent decades!!  (Maybe we should look at a Presidential committee, with rotating chair, like Switzerland uses...??)

As for other topics - well the VA has been covered quite a bit - it takes much more than a few years to undo decades of BS.  There has been progress in the last 5 years, mostly due to stepping up and spending more, which was decades overdue.  And the endemic problems that have not yet been corrected date back to years before the 2005 OIG report!  (What was that?  What did Bush do?  Oh, yeah...nothing!!)  Shinseki had started to have an effect and made visible forward progress.  Tell me again why that is a bad thing?  We shall see if the next guy can administrate a continuation of that.

As for Bergdahl, well we certainly have an authoritative source in FauxNews there....with a statement from a former Pentagon official....   Does it not seem just the least bit strange that the Pentagon would find that it was "incontrovertible" that Bergdahl had left the unit when he disappeared on June 30, 2009 - and then NOT formally accuse him of at least desertion?  Obviously there must be more to the story, but that would not fit "The Script" would it??   And why would this remain classified for all this time - that is a fairly mundane type event that under the limited specific information available would seem to indicate a pretty cut and dried administrative thing.

What exactly does all this mean - dissemination maybe?
"The military investigation was broader than a criminal inquiry, this official said, and it didn't formally accuse Bergdahl of desertion. In interviews as part of the probe, members of his unit portrayed him as a naive, "delusional" person who thought he could help the Afghan people by leaving his Army post, said the official, who was present for the interviews."

Whole lot of jumping to conclusions going on.  And the comments from his other unit members are decidedly different from the above.  I wonder who has been 'coaching' them??

Polls are the lowest common denominator of intellectual activity.

And bottom line - we got drones!  And I wonder if maybe those guys have been "chipped" so we can follow their movements?  Maybe there is some benefit to letting them go, and then watch where they run to - kind of like watching a few cockroaches to see where they go, so you can apply the proper "treatment" for complete extermination!

[Conan71]

The big IF here is these were high-level operatives from the Taliban.  There's nothing to keep them from directing an insurgency while we still have our men over there for the next year and a half.  That's the most troubling issue as I see it.

Aside from that, the White House keeps changing their story as to why there was not adequate time to notify Congress of the impending trade.  It's just like Benghazi all over again.  Keep telling stories and hope one of them will stick.

[guido911]

And now we get the inevitable results of the blind, mindless incitement from the Murdochian PR media company..... death threats to Bergdahl's family...!

To paraphrase "the most interesting man in the world...";

Stay classy, Teabaggers!!

I think these threats were from a Soros-ian/Bloomberg-ian plot, masked as a Murdochian PR company. 

[guido911]

The big IF here is these were high-level operatives from the Taliban.  There's nothing to keep them from directing an insurgency while we still have our men over there for the next year and a half.  That's the most troubling issue as I see it.

Aside from that, the White House keeps changing their story as to why there was not adequate time to notify Congress of the impending trade.  It's just like Benghazi all over again.  Keep telling stories and hope one of them will stick.

Just read the NYT is blaming the Bergdahl desertion on his raggedly unit.

[guido911]

I won the lottery!

Congratulations. You are entitled to call people chicken hawks!!!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Congratulations. You are entitled to call people chicken hawks!!!

I wouldn't even use that word for those clowns.  Admin would censor for what I really call them....

I have completely and totally fulfilled ALL of my most fundamental rights/responsibilities of citizenship - I vote, and I have done jury duty, and I pay all the taxes I am required to pay!  Everything else is optional - I may be a conscientious objector (not enough information has been provided here) to military duty that would give me a legitimate exemption from same.  



Wasn't Richard Nixon eligible to be a conscientious objector, by being a Friend...?  Or did that religious proscription only apply to personal military duty, not to sending hundreds of thousands to fight a war his religion would not permit him to serve in?  But wait - as Commander in Chief, wouldn't that by definition mean he was serving in the military??  

[guido911]

I have never even been called to jury duty. I guess I fail the citizenship test. As for a conscientious objector, I am reminded of this:

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have never even been called to jury duty. I guess I fail the citizenship test. As for a conscientious objector, I am reminded of this:

You mean Richard Nixon....



You probably never will get to fulfill that part of your civic duty - jury duty.   Too bad...would give you an interesting perspective from the other side.