Attorney says Army has begun questioning Bowe Bergdahl

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    Aug. 7, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    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 comrades?

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    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 with fright.

  • Loconic Alpine, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 7, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    What kind of commander would release five terrorists who have already killed thousands?

    There were other options for getting Bergdahl's release.

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    Aug. 7, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Uncle_Fester Niskayuna, NY
    Aug. 7, 2014 5:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 8:02 p.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 6, 2014 7:50 p.m.


    What's the purpose of your question? I don't get it.

  • omahahusker Modesto, CA
    Aug. 6, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    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.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 5:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    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 law allows.