Of course they did not like the deal, it was against the law from our most up
front truthful administration ever.
Wait a minute! We're still trying to get Obama impeached over Benghazi!That's where the high crimes and misdemeanors were committed.Right?
@ TA1 - Alexandria, VA - "How about a simple "Welcome Home Soldier"
now - is that too much to ask?"If the guy is a deserter, yes.
Yes, it is.
@ UT Brit - London, England - "@IDC Ha, might want to check some of the
deals the US has done with terrorists in the past. If you think this is a new
thing you must not have any idea of your own history."Once
again, I say, like what? When? "Prisoner swaps"? Sure. But not
prisoner swaps with "terrorists".You're claim, backed
up with zero facts, is lacking.
Article quote: "Gen. Joseph Dunford spoke of the excitement that spread
through U.S. ranks when the sergeant's release was confirmed. "You
almost got choked up," he said. "It was pretty extraordinary."Did you catch that?....."excitement".Article quote:
"Hagel was met with silence when he told troops in a Bagram hangar:
"This is a happy day. We got one of our own back." It was unclear
whether the absence of cheers and applause came from a reluctance to display
emotion in front of the Pentagon chief or from any doubts among the troops about
Bergdahl.Did you catch that?......"silence".What
a snow job.I've been in the military for over 23 years. Troops
are not afraid to show emotions of joy and happiness. If we're in a mass
group and a leader gives us good news, we shout, clap and yell. LOUD!This story doesn't add up.If he walked away from his
responsibilities, ie, "deserted", that's bad. Even if he
didnt' desert, we negotiated with "terrorists" (calling them
legitimate "soldiers" from a legitimate government military is a farce)
and this will only embolden terrorists even more. 5 to 1? Not good
by any account.
Most of you posted your defense of this exchange of one deserter for 5 worldwide
criminal masterminds on June 1st or 2nd. How does the crow taste?
@buhler["Have we just put a price on other U.S. soldiers?" asked
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. "What does this tell terrorists, that if you capture
a U.S. soldier, you can trade that soldier for five terrorists?"" asked
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. This law was passed by both houses. Yes, I'm glad
the soldier is back, but does this make our troops safer?]You worry
about a soldier being captured and being deemed valuable, I'd be more
worried about a soldier being captured and NOT being deemed valuable since
there's only one logical outcome an enemy would choose with that.
Along UT Brit's line.... I am sure all those of us who are old enough to
remember the old "arms for hostages" that was done by one of the most
popular presidents with one of our most devout enemies. We've been there
before. We have exchanged POWs, We have exchanged Spies. Been
there, done that.I think rightly or wrongly the thing Obama is
trying to do is create closure on this chapter of US history. Those of us who
remember Vietnam, we left a lot of unfinished business at the end of that war -
a lot of men left behind or unaccounted for. I don't think we Obama
wanted to revisit that page from history.
@IDCHa, might want to check some of the deals the US has done with
terrorists in the past. If you think this is a new thing you must not have any
idea of your own history.
Great news that he is home.Negotiating with terrorists is stupid and
will likely cause other soldiers and citizens to die. Break the rule once,
probably pay for it many times.
BJMoose -"What did they want Bergdahl to be told? We'd love
to bring you home now but we have this silly rule we've got to follow so
see ya in a month."If Republicans in Congress had been powerful
enough to cause that delay, then Bergdahl should have been told the truth . . .
That yes we'd love to bring you home now but American
"Conservatives" don't think you're worth the effort.
" I wished he had had that philosophy in mind when he failed to send help to
Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, the U.S. Foreign Service Information
Management Officer in Benghazi, Libya. They were calling for help for hours and
the U.S. government did nothing to help them. It still begs the question.
Why?"rvalens2, here's why..there was no help available.
This has been established over, and over, and over. At some point
asking the same question again and again after you've been given the answer
by the most credible sources starts to look looney.
How about a simple "Welcome Home Soldier" now - is that too much to ask?
The U.S. "does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind." -
Barack ObamaHmm ... I wished he had had that philosophy in mind when
he failed to send help to Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, the U.S. Foreign
Service Information Management Officer in Benghazi, Libya. They were calling for
help for hours and the U.S. government did nothing to help them. It still begs
the question. Why?
The people on this comment board ought to be ashamed of themselves. Everyone is
complaining that a soldier is now home. This young man bravely fought so that
you could have the freedom to criticize the military and the leaders of our
nation. I think the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they
saw some of these comments! we should be thankful that finally a soldier is
home. This is not the the time to be politically divisive.
I'd love to see some evidence that the five prisoners traded for this US
soldier were some kind of threat to anyone, anywhere. After over a decade, of
the 757 known prisoners shackled into Guantanamo exactly three had charges
finally leveled against them. Over the years, those in Guantanamo have been
being super slowly (and quietly) released -- for total and complete lack of
cause.Our foreign policy is sadly largely without honor and without
reason. The people in Guantanamo were not those that attacked the US on 9/11.
The governments of Afghanistan and Iraq were not those that attacked the US on
9/11. Our wanton, revenge-fueled policy of scooping up anyone on the streets in
certain countries accused of being against foreign occupation (and keep in mind
that we were paying people hard cash to point out suspects with absolutely no
proof required) is much too similar to the terrorism we should be fighting --
sowing fear, hurt, and death amongst innocent people to make some sort of
political point on the flimsy argument that those people might be guilty by some
crazy broad interpretation of "association".I'm really
glad to see one more of our brave volunteers brought back home.
The Judge:Please study some history and you will find your statement
that "every other President", save Obama I guess, is truly laughable...
"This put a target on the back of every US soldier and citizen in the
world."Nonsense. A target's been on the back of every US
soldier and citizen in the world for over a decade. This does nothing to
increase its size. The fact that Bergdahl's the only prisoner the Taliban
has taken since 9/11 says something by itself.And despite all the
"we don't negotiate with terrorists" bluster we hear, we've
been quietly doing it at least since we released frozen assets of the Iranians
in exchange for the embassy hostages in 1980. We're in a war.
This man is an American soldier. We negotiated a prisoner exchange for him.
There's always a risk that the guys you let go will go back into the fight.
That's part of war. No soldier gets left behind. That's a promise
and if you have an opportunity to bring the man home, you take it. The Israelis do this fairly frequently. Considering they've exchanged
over 7000 prisoners for only 27 of their own (8 of them bodies), I'd say we
got a discounted rate at 5-to-1 instead of 259-to-1.
Why didn't we sweeten the pot with Ted Cruz as a throw in.
A soldier is now home. Let's not politicize this.
When I first heard the news that this young man was being freed and coming home
I was thrilled. I couldn't imagine anyone having any other reaction. I
guess I was wrong.
This put a target on the back of every US soldier and citizen in the world.
Thomas Jefferson learned this lesson the hard way 220 years ago, and presidents
have realized the folly of negotiating with terrorists ever since. Until the
reign of Obama the lawless.
"Now, this president when HE SIGNED IT, said he didn't think it
constitutional and has unilaterally decided he will break the law. "Good grief.... and had Obama let the Taliban kill this dude.... then we
would be having a whole different story. If you have a family member that
needs urgent medical help, are you worried about getting consent to speed first?
The emancipation proclamation was extra-constitutional by any
definition. Lincoln did not view the south as a foreign country, therefor did
not have the right to seize the property of the other combatant. But the
circumstances warranted a different solution.So if you must, please
Republicans, go ahead with impeachment hearings on Obama gaining the release of
this kid because he broke the rules. Do that, and good luck next election. You
already have lost the non-white male vote. You punish the president for not
leaving a soldier over seas, you can kiss the veteran vote off that you just
thought you had won with the VA issues.Somethings are not worth
being politicized... unfortunately not to Republicans it seems.
To my Liberal Democrat friends this is what the Republicans Said: "Have we
just put a price on other U.S. soldiers?" asked Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
"What does this tell terrorists, that if you capture a U.S. soldier, you can
trade that soldier for five terrorists?"" asked Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
This law was passed by both houses. Yes, I'm glad the soldier is back, but
does this make our troops safer?
PTSD is a very difficult thing to deal with. It would be befitting to people to
not judge another when they do not know the facts. I am glad he is back and hope
his health improves. He did not look well at all. Perhaps I am an eternal
optimist but wouldnt it be wonderful if this event could lead to a lessening of
hatred between us and those who hate us? We will never make progress to a
lasting peace if we are always looking for reasons, even valid ones, to hate and
seek retribution. EVEN the Taliban has good people who want to do good for their
people. Perhaps we can help them to learn better ways to air their grievances or
would it be better to continue to battle and hate? I mean us. We need to learn
to seek new ways and help others to do the same.
Okay, okay, complainers against Republicans. Seems Congress passed a law
demanding that the president of the USA not be allowed to negotiate with
terrorists unless he/she first consults with Congress. Part of the "advise
and consent" part of that thing called the U.S. Constitution. Now, this
president when HE SIGNED IT, said he didn't think it constitutional and has
unilaterally decided he will break the law. Welcome to lawlessness and chaos if
future presidents have his approach.Now as for the logic... once
you're past the emotion of it is good to get one of our soldiers back... is
it in this nation's best interest to swap one enlisted man with little
strategic impact on policy, who left his post and took a walk without notifying
his superiors and was captured... and trade him for 5 -- yes 5 -- high level
known Taliban terrorist leaders? Do you worry about such a precedent
being broken (not negotiating with terrorists) and setting a new level of cache
on what the US will pay for getting their guy back? How will you feel when the
next American soldier is captured and held for ransom? This is going to
Of course the Republicans do not like this. Should we expect anything else
I can't believe the audacity of McKeon and Inhofe in complaining about
Congress not getting their 30 days notice on a prisoner exchange. What did they
want Bergdahl to be told? We'd love to bring you home now but we have this
silly rule we've got to follow so see ya in a month. Sometimes bold
decisions have to be made and actions have to be taken. I think the
administration was 100% correct in doing what they did. I hope that McKeon and
Inhofe along with their party get skewered for their callousness and lack of
compassion over this incident. If they make any more noise about it I feel the
President is completely within his right to tell them the issue has been
addressed and is closed.