@ Uncle_Fester -- Exaggerate much? No one ever said those were "pious"
men. Just that we are leaving Afghanistan and it is typical to exchange
prisoners at the conclusion of a war. Nothing more, nothing less. You may not
like Obama (ya think?) but when you go way over the top with your criticism, it
just makes you sound silly.
To listen to the Obama administration it didn't give up any terrorists, it
gave up five long held pious men who pose no danger whatsoever to Americans and
we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for thinking otherwise. In fact, you should
be willing to have them for dinner and if you're not, you're a racist.
Since it has promoted the deserter it evidently feels that soldiers who abandon
their posts and their duty this is the new advancement path. I note the recent
forced retirements of many experienced high ranking officers, perhaps Obama
would like to put deserters in those positions, why not? Obama was forgotten
about fidelity to the constitution so what's a little desertion among
I can't believe the Chief's of Staff of any of the military services
and branches would agree to this deal. It did not show solidarity within the
uniformed military services. It had to have caused much grief with the families
of many of these valued and dedicated military members. If he had valued,
important and relative recent data that was secure and vital, that may have been
an important thing to consider. This man of his rank and responsibilities and
attitude prior to his departure from his post was less than stellar.He is not just a person walking down the street. He had committed to the
military service with a signing and swearing in for his tour of duty. From the Vietnam time frame we had many military people who violated their
duty and obligations but had a President at that time who had enough problems of
his own. Hopefully, we will know the real story of this soldier's plight
It's been over a month since he's been back. It's a bit curious
as to why it has taken the military so long to begin questioning him. With all that the current administration gave up to get him back, he's
probably been well coached over this past month in what to say to any questions
he receives. Obama has a lot at stake in how this turns out. If
Obama gave up 5 high-ranking terrorist Taliban officials for a mixed-up kid who
made the personal decision to desert his post and fellow soldiers, then that
makes the trade for him look pretty bad for Obama and will leave egg on his
face. There's little doubt that administration lawyers have
been in contact with Bergdahl's defense team to help strategize in order to
keep that from happening. Obama's poll numbers would then drop even further
than they already have.
What kind of commander would release five terrorists who have already killed
thousands? There were other options for getting Bergdahl's
I don't think that's true at all George. Things can be demonstrated
sufficiently to have him booted and punished. It does not require any admission.
The only way that he'll be in trouble is if he makes a public statement
that he walked away. That won't happen with the trade by our government.
There was a lot of people shot looking for him, Chicago politic is in place,
what do ya think will happen. No one will get egg on their face.
His brothers in arms are all quote vocal about what he did and it is going to be
very interesting to watch how he explains it all away, if he can. Either way
this clueless administration can promote him all it wants but nobody, underline
that word, in the service is ever going to trust him to have their back again.
He is simply a pariah.
This whole affair is "fishy". There appears to be a lot more to be
learned. I agree that you don't leave anyone behind. But we have,
sorrowfully. There has not been complete accounting for some Korean MIA's
and Vietnam MIA's. Some aircrew were believed to have been alive on the
ground but never made it to the Hanoi Hilton.That being said, there
must be disclosure on why Bergdahl apparently abandoned his post and unit. The
press seems to be ignoring his alleged discharge from USCG boot camp.The family dynamics for what little we've seen and heard about are
curious to say the least.I'm sure there's a book in here
somewhere, I hope it is accurate.
@mcclark,What's the purpose of your question? I don't get
I served as a US Army First Sergeant in Iraq. It is a terrible feeling to lose a
Soldier in a combat, whether he is killed in action or leaves his post.
That's a memory that will stick to a leader forever. If he walked away from
his post and the military gathers evidence, and it appears a violation of the
UCMJ occurred, the evidence will be presented in fact and the commander can
convene an Article 32 hearing to determine if a crime was committed or there was
a violation of the UCMJ. The only thing that could interfere with that is
overbearing command influence. It can start from the president on down. However
undue command influence can cause a loss of faith in the leadership. I hope that
will not be the case here. That being said, I don't trust the current
leadership in Washington.
I hope that the same people who question Bergdhal also question all the fellow
soldiers who were serving with him when he "left" his unit. They have
important information too.
And lets remember that no, he hasn't already "suffered enough" to
dismiss punishments for possible crimes. He got what he asked for. He
wanted(per his fellow troops) to leave the base and go find the enemy.
That's what apparently happened.If that is the truth, he's
a traitor and should be treated as such.
Good. If he's innocent then I'm sure that will be the conclusion. If
he's guilty of abandoning his fellow troops which put their lives in danger
later as they searched him then he should be punished to the fullest extend the