Barack Obama, Bowe Bergdahl and trading terrorists. Why the hate?

originally posted by: PLAYERONE01
well after doing some quick research it seems that the actual details of just how this soldier came to be held in captivity of the enemy are at best a little shady, and presumably that innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in America any more and the majority of you would like to see him hanged from the yardarm without even allowing the guy to give his own testimony preferring to believe the Taliban's version of events.
These actions I'm seeing on this thread repulse me, and i'm an Australian defending this American soldier from his vulturous countrymen, take a look at yourselves and see what you have become.

So his fellow soldiers in his unit are 'shady' and not trustworthy'?????
Okaaaay.....

Did I say the other soldiers were shady, I think not, I said the actual details were shady on the event. your attempt to misconstrue my comment is pathetic and amateurish at best.
ok, lets actually take a look at the scenario or the three conflicting different versions of events shall we as they may have unfolded.
1.On July 2, two U.S. officials told the AP the soldier had “just walked off” his base with three Afghans after his shift. He had no body armor or weapon and they said they had no explanation for why he left. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

2.On July 6, the Taliban claimed on their Web site that five days earlier “a drunken American soldier had come out of his garrison” and was captured by mujahadeen

3.In the video, Pfc. Bergdahl said he was lagging behind a patrol when he was captured.
Details of such incidents are routinely held very tightly by the military as it works to retrieve a missing or captured soldier without giving away any information to captors.
michellemalkin.com...

here is an article from the Blaze by Brad Thor which may clarify a few points
Negotiating With Terrorists: Inside the Capture and Release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

When Sgt. Bergdahl was picked up by the Haqqanis, he was described as diwana – the Pashtu word for intoxicated. He was with two or three Afghan soldiers he had walked off his Forward Operating Base with. It is believed the group was en route to indulge in further intoxicants.

www.theblaze.com...

For those members discussing the ramifications / situation concerning how this soldier was captured / kidnapped -
I doubt a court martial or any type of military trial will occur with the manner Obama is involved. He met the guy at the White House and welcomed him back with open arms.

I would wager Obama's action crossed the line of "undue command influence" which can affect any court proceeding.

I still think this entire incident smells of politics and nothing more. With that said I am glad the guy is back safe and sound and is innocent until proven guilty under the UCMJ.

a reply to: PLAYERONE01

At the top of your article it says:

Scroll down for updates…evidence of desertion mounting…


So when you scroll down to the latest update, it's this:

Received from a USARPAC soldier this morning:

“Please don’t list my name– I am here in Afghanistan– I know the story and the accounts that he was drunk or that he was lagging behind on patrol are not true– this soldier planned this move for a long time. He walked off the post with a day’s supply of water and had written down before that he wanted to live in the mountains. He has violated the Code of Conduct in his 28 minute speech and he is an e[m]barrassment to everyone who has worn the uniform. He made it to two towns and was asking for water when the locals turned him over to the Taliban. That is really all I can say– since we are still looking for this soldier.”

And this....

I’ve been reporting for over a week (along with the AP and WaPo) that Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, the US soldier who’s gone missing in eastern Afghanistan, walked off the base on his own accord. Now, somebody close to the people searching for Bergdahl has repeated this assertion saying that the soldier left “a note behind that said he was going to the mountains to find himself. He took a journal and 4 or 5 knives with him.” My source tells me that Bergdahl arrived at a village and asked if anybody spoke English. That’s when he was captured.
My source tells me that there is no doubt Bergdahl deserted, which in a time of war is punishable by a court martial at the least, or even execution.

So the reports from theses soldiers should be pretty accurate one would think
Also the link I provided earlier with other comments from fellow soldiers

It's the cover stories from MSM that try to throw people off

Yes--innocent until proven guilty, although I doubt any kind of charges against him will happen
But there are some military guys that are really upset that the media and others are trying to make hero out of him

They were there, so I guess they felt betrayed when he left them


www.cnn.com...

a reply to: daaskapital

I'm just looking for understanding in this particular post, not offering an opinion.

From what has been presented, the majority of information is that SGT Bergdahl left on his own, and not captured. The only evidence that he was captured comes from SGT Bergdahl himself. He may not be lying in his statement, I don't know, but he is definitely making a self-serving statement in the face of contradictory information.

Do we have an obligation to attempt to rescue him? It seems that everyone is agreeing that we have a duty to attempt to rescue our POWs. Should that be done at any price? I would think that some prices are too high. "We will give SGT Bergdahl back to you if you give us $100 million dollars and withdraw all soldiers."

The thread seems to be saying that it is vitally important that Qatar was involved, and that that changes things. Is the belief here that the trade would have happened even if Obama wasn't pushing for it?

The only question seems to be "Was the price too high?"

If I'm correct in all of my understandings, then I think I will have an opinion.

What about it OP? Do I understand the issues? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Prisoner trading has been part of war for a long time.

Also, the USA certainly does negotiate with terrorists...

DallasMorningNews

Ron Paul, I believe, pointed out that, in fact, we’ve done it before in the case of the Reagan administration’s talks with Iran aimed at winning the release of U.S. hostages held in Lebanon.


How about in 2007, when the U.S. negotiated with Sunni insurgent leaders in Iraq to get them to stop bombing U.S. troops and join the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq?

What about the Taliban in Afghanistan? We have negotiated in the past with them, and we will do it in the future.

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: daaskapital

Yes, to some it seems no matter what happens, people are so negative. I imagine even if Obama didn't have to give up 5 detainees, he still would have been criticized. Just can't win.

I wonder what's wrong with the mentality in my country sometimes.

I am Scottish and I get why people are upset about this, it isn't hard to understand, the US soldier in question had been cosying up to his hosts (captors seems to be the wrong word here.) There are several reports that he was helping train the Taliban from as far back as 4 years ago. Then of course there are the soldiers who lost their lives looking for the deserters. If that wasn't bad enough now your President has released 5 of the [alleged] most dangerous Taliban Generals in return for him. That sends a clear message to anyone who wants to get their friends out of Guantanamo, get your hands on a US soldier (even one that has joined your cause) and the job's done.

This whole thing stinks to the high heavens and, unless this is a strategic manoeuvre that he admits to, I can't see Obama being re-elected...

a reply to: djz3ro

Uhmmm Obama is a 2nd term president already ... commonly known as a Lame Duck president.

He isn't running for re-election and so doesn't give a hoot how this affects his chances!

a reply to: djz3ro

Dear djz3ro,

I'm sorry I've missed your other posts. I'll keep you in mind if I'm ever wealthy enough to visit (a long-standing dream of mine).

You did say one thing that brought a smile.

This whole thing stinks to the high heavens and, unless this is a strategic manoeuvre that he admits to, I can't see Obama being re-elected...

While it is a disgrace to our country and a near-fatal disaster that he was re-elected in 2012, he is barred by the Constitution from running for that office again. We have to find our joy where we can.

Now, removal from office by impeachment, that's another question. Hey, my smile is even broader.

Save a drink for me.

With respect,
Charles1952

This is probably going to come out a little weird.

Bergdahl: Was accused of desertion, almost immediately, by members of his own unit. Therefore, I don't care what happened to him. Nick Berg springs to mind. Hated hearing him scream, but that's the end he sacrificed himself to.

The prisoners in GITMO: Better they be released so we can hunt them down and kill them. That's not going to happen to them while they're locked up down there.

I think we ought to declare an end to the war on terrorism. It's a stupid war and it always was. Seems more like a cause ... just for something to spend money on. What we should have been doing is finding a means to end the state-sponsorship of terrorism. I credit Curtis LeMay with knowing the right way to get it done. I know ... not very subtle, not very fair ... but damn sure effective. And, it's not like Mercka's reputation could be put to greater suffering than it's presently experiencing either.

Color me neutral on the matter.

Smoke and mirrors, and spin, and more smoke and mirrors!

Quite how anyone can really believe anything the MSM or government say at any time, ever, is beyond me.

Five "high level" terrorist "Generals" released?
Most the people incarcerated at Gitmo have never been charged with anything at all. Those cleared for release years ago still languish there. Most there are who the US Government tell us they are, and we must not question that at all. To be honest, it's probably 5 hapless goat herders picked up at random just so that war criminal and serial coward Bush could wave some brown skinned foreigners at us, and declare them captured terrorists, just to fill up his shiny new torture facility and prison.

Anonymous postings from people claiming to be "out there" in Afghanistan are probably as BS laden as most other sources, after all, who is gonna check?

Would like to see something on how he was thought to have been captured. So far he was either drunk on duty or deserted . Either way people may have died as a result of his actions.

Back before 2012 elections there was a deal in the works to trade detainees for him . So Obama saying there was not enough time to inform congress is just another in a very long list of mis-statements. (lies)

worldnews.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: Elton

Good point... It reminded me of an interview on FoxNews with Sen. Claire McCaskill. She made the argument that it was a prisoner exchange. The downside is the possible argument that by doing this exchange it can give credibility / recognition to the group who held him.

We come back to the question -
Why now and not earlier? What changed between the time he was taken up to this point where an exchange all of a sudden became possible?

I still think its Politics.

President Bush presented 11 Medal of Honors during his presidency. Im pretty sure Obama has him beat. Again the recipients earned it so no issues there. Politicizing it on the other hand is an issue.

originally posted by: Britguy
To be honest, it's probably 5 hapless goat herders picked up at random just so that war criminal and serial coward Bush could wave some brown skinned foreigners at us, and declare them captured terrorists, just to fill up his shiny new torture facility and prison.

Not sure that would be possible, would the Taliban hand over such a useful resource in exchange for 5 randoms? If course I wouldn't rule out the possibility that those being released will be tagged with something undetectable to anyone else but if that happens we will never hear of it...

a reply to: daaskapital

Or, another way to look at Obama doing something like this is because he DOES support terrorists and he definitely doesn't gave a rats behind about saving some American as clearly defined by his Benghazi performance.

What does this really mean? It means he saw this as an excellent opportunity to USE the situation to "Free" some of his true brothers by pretending the need to rescue that poor bloke. Perfect crime, except it is Obama's M.O, and quite well known these days.

Does this help clarify things?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
We come back to the question -
Why now and not earlier? What changed between the time he was taken up to this point where an exchange all of a sudden became possible?

I still think its Politics.

I agree with you 100%, it's politics.

Wait a second.

Why isn't anyone asking the big question?

Why is Qatar involved and what do they have to gain by this?

How interesting is it that a lot of posts say "Besides, its Qatar doing the negotiating but not the US"? Maybe thats exactly what Obama needed in order to take the heat / eyes off of him.

Don't look behind the curtain. Nothing to see here.

a reply to: phantomjack

If I remember correctly Qatar has been used over the last few years to deal with the Taliban and act as a point of contact for the US.

Using Qatar seems logical considering the bulk of Arab nations don't care for the US. Qatar could also be one of the few Arab nations the Taliban does not have a beef with.

* - Iran / Iraq would most likely be a non starter for the US since those governments have a differing view of the Taliban.

* - Turkey most likely would not be acceptable by the Taliban since they are a NATO member.

* - Saudi Arabia would most likely not be a choice for the Taliban since Bin Laden was a Saudi citizen who had his citizenship revoked.

* - Pakistan is playing both sides of the fence and most likely would not be a US choice because of Bin Laden residing there.

* - Syria - our position on the conflict rules them out.

* - Iraq - The government there has issues with the US and has been realigning its foreign relations towards Iran.

* - Egypt - I cant say I have seen anything coming from them on this topic however they seem to be having coup issues every few months.

* - Lebanon has its own internal issues In addition to the Syrian issue that is spilling across their border.

* - Israel - obvious reasons.

* - The UAE / Yemen / smaller Arab states might not be seen as a viable option to either side based on political clout.

Just some possible reasons on why Qatar was picked.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That Qatar was even 'picked' shows that this is just a false front!

Maybe its all to do with Qatar and the EU wanting that Qatar / Turkey aka Syrian pipeline to be built.

SPECULATION: ====> USA tells Qatar to help out with its POW in Afghanistan issue ... and in return the USA will do something in Syria to help promote the oil pipeline to the EU.

originally posted by: DietJoke


That Qatar was even 'picked' shows that this is just a false front!

How is this a false front (how did you come to that conclusion)?

originally posted by: DietJoke
Maybe its all to do with Qatar and the EU wanting that Qatar / Turkey aka Syrian pipeline to be built.

I don't see that being built anytime soon based on the issues in Syria and now possibly Turkey.

originally posted by: DietJoke
SPECULATION: ====> USA tells Qatar to help out with its POW in Afghanistan issue ... and in return the USA will do something in Syria to help promote the oil pipeline to the EU.

Again there is not much that can be done due to Syria's internal issues. Secondly I don't think Qatar and Syria get along and I think they are one of the Arab nations to supply weapons to the Syrian opposition.