Is the Behind-the-scenes Bergdahl Story Yet to Break?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
It is now clear that the military knew precisely that Bergdahl was a turncoat and evidently was content to allow him to remain as a "captive" of the Taliban. Then the Obama administrations wanted to produce a "feel good" act for themselves on their own initiative so they decided to spring a wonderful surprise on everybody.

The surprise backfired in a way that no one in the White House could have imagined. The Obama administration walked themselves right into a self-made trap and the military kept mum on what they really knew about the situation and let them do it.

Obama's ongoing war on the military has suffered its first major loss in this quiet war. This time Obama's administration has screwed up royally by disaffecting the military and the public. This current issue has united general dissatisfactions from the military and the much of the public to a point where Obama's ideology must become conciliatory to win back favor or he will doggedly continue to pursue what some see as a broad plan to destroy America. By his further deeds we will know him.




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Maybe the Pentagon wanted this Administration to bumble again. After all, we all know that there are plenty of hard feelings between this Admin and the Military.



Well played Pentagon...well played.
edit on 6-6-2014 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Do i believe this story will grow legs, yes it's a certainty. Gonna keep ATS busy for the considerable future.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
It is now clear that the military knew precisely that Bergdahl was a turncoat and evidently was content to allow him to remain as a "captive" of the Taliban.


Sorry, but I'm having a problem getting past the first sentence of your post.

If the military was "content to allow him to remain in captivity," why did they continue to send more troops to go find him? Why were they willing to sacrifice more lives in the search? Apparently, someone in the military thought that getting him back was important enough to justify those searches back then, even if it was just to prosecute him for desertion.

That's one of my big reservations about this right-wing argument that he's un-important and that we should have just left him there to rot. Why was he important enough to search for then, but now all of a sudden, he not worth the time of day? Is it because Obama did it?

I would think that the families of those soldiers killed in the search for him after his disappearance would be relieved to know that the objective of that search was finally achieved, we got him back!

Whether or not he's guilty of any wrongdoing and any punishment he may or may not receive is another story, but the guy deserves his day in court and I'm glad we got him back.
edit on 6-6-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

How many more " deeds" will it take before we get to know him, the list is already insanely unbelievable, don't you think ??

About the only event left is an impeachment move which I think he wants, then a race war when the race baiters come out and say the reason for his impeachment is only about the color of his skin, then marshal law and wa la, game over, agenda accomplished, socialist dictator installed.

I don't believe Obama's installers came this far just to loose control now...unless there going to let Hillary finish it.

Bergdahl is just a patsy in all this.

Just my opinion.
edit on 6-6-2014 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

The military, after a time of intense investigation to find the guy, decided that he acted entirely on his own measure. At some point--certainly not in haste--they were quite content for him to have his way. And you can bet that there was much consternation in the local ranks about the effort and men lost trying to find him. And that disbelief and anger made its way up the chain of command if in unofficial ways. A turncoat is not easily forgotten even if he is no longer sought.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Flatfish

The military, after a time of intense investigation to find the guy, decided that he acted entirely on his own measure. At some point--certainly not in haste--they were quite content for him to have his way. And you can bet that there was much consternation in the local ranks about the effort and men lost trying to find him. And that disbelief and anger made its way up the chain of command if in unofficial ways. A turncoat is not easily forgotten even if he is no longer sought.


Nice try.....

So, I guess those families who lost loved ones in the searches should probably direct their anger at the military commanders in Afghanistan who ordered them to go look for this guy who they never wanted in the first place?

Either he was important enough to want to get back or he wasn't and if he was, then President Obama did the right thing in securing his release. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
It sounds like your are trying to make up another conspiracy.

Why don't you say he had a reaction to the one of the vaccinations that made him walk around mumbling.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
BERGDAHL FOR CONGRESS!!!



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Hold on

Obama obviously didn't see the need to get him back in the same context that the military did. Obama hailed him a hero upon his return.

Obama swore he'd shut down Gitmo. He didn't because the folks there are just too dangerous to go in willy nilly moving them around and what not. Flash forward to this story....and now all of a sudden those guys who were so dangerous that we sold our morals to keep them imprisoned aren't quite so dangerous.

Our government likely spent more than 1 life capturing these "dangerous terrorists". But they were willing to release them in exchange for just 1 person.

Yes. I can hve it both ways. Because there is a sizable trail of lies that allow for it.

We had a decades long policy of not negotiating with terrorists. What makes Bergdahl so special that we did for him what we have not done for countless others?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

the guy deserted five years ago.
the military immediately mobilized to "rescue" him.
honorable military men dies looking for him.

then probably about two weeks later
they piece together that he was a deserter.

quit looking.

five years later obama springs him for five taliban generals.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

the surviving families of men who died while looking for the
deserter were not told intimate details of how and why they were killed.
nor were they told that they were looking for a deserter.


how ignorant do you really think the military leadership is?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Hold on

Obama obviously didn't see the need to get him back in the same context that the military did.


Really? Did President Obama instruct them to quit looking for him? Did they ever really quit looking for him?


originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Obama swore he'd shut down Gitmo. He didn't because the folks there are just too dangerous to go in willy nilly moving them around and what not. Flash forward to this story....and now all of a sudden those guys who were so dangerous that we sold our morals to keep them imprisoned aren't quite so dangerous.


We sold our morals when we decided to indefinitely detain people at Gitmo without due process and the only reason Gitmo is still open today is because of Republican obstructionism, NOT because Obama changed his mind and NOT because these people are too dangerous to stand trial.


originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
We had a decades long policy of not negotiating with terrorists. What makes Bergdahl so special that we did for him what we have not done for countless others?


For starters, I don't believe that the Taliban is included on the State Depts. official list of terrorist organizations and what makes you think that we haven't done this for countless others?

Kinda makes it hard to explain this, now doesn't it?

time.com...

The Carter administration had long and intricate negotiations with the Iranians who took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran in 1979 (and whom Carter himself described as terrorists), winning the hostages’ release after Carter agreed to unfreeze about $11 billion in Iranian assets.

Ronald Reagan’s White House also horse traded with the Iranians for hostages—secretly trading arms for the release of Americans held in Lebanon, in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair. (Bolton, to his credit, acknowledges and condemns this infamous episode.)

In the mid-1990s Bill Clinton met with Gerry Adams, leader of the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, then still on the State Department’s terror list. (It was removed after peace accords in 1998.) The British government considered Adams himself a terrorist and urged Clinton not to see him.

During the Iraq War, the Bush administration cut deals with Sunni insurgents in Iraq’s Anbar province—working with and even paying people who had been killing American soldiers.
edit on 6-6-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Flatfish

the guy deserted five years ago.
the military immediately mobilized to "rescue" him.
honorable military men dies looking for him.

then probably about two weeks later
they piece together that he was a deserter.

quit looking.

five years later obama springs him for five taliban generals.


So, you're saying that they only looked for him for two weeks? Got any evidence to support that claim? I haven't seen anything to date that tells us just how long they looked for him or if they ever stopped looking. I'd just bet that every outbound patrol, (regardless of the main objective) was instructed to be on the look-out for anyone or anything that could lead them to his location, pretty much right up until his release.

www.cnn.com...

Former Army Sgt. Evan Buetow, Bergdahl's former team leader, elaborated on the accusations. "I can't say for a fact and I don't know if there is really anyone who can prove that soldiers died on a directed mission to find Bergdahl. However, every mission, especially in the following two or more months -- those were directed missions," he told CNN's Jake Tapper. "Everything after that, they were still missions that were in search of Bergdahl."
edit on 6-6-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Flatfish

the surviving families of men who died while looking for the
deserter were not told intimate details of how and why they were killed.
nor were they told that they were looking for a deserter.


how ignorant do you really think the military leadership is?


Ignorant enough to concoct the Pat Tillman story and try to sell it to his family and the American public.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
IF this was the case then why in the world did they send multiple patrols out searching for him? Perhaps this was before they knew that he was in Taliban custody, and they wanted to get to him first. That is the only thing I could think to explain these missions, unless it was a cover of some kind. If they did not want to tell people the truth then some would start asking questions about why nobody was out looking for him. This is a highly unusual case.

I was reading yesterday claims regarding the idea that the Taliban is not considered a terrorist group. Is this true? Supposedly it is a militant group with a terrorist wing. That does not sound right to me, but even if it were, would anyone actually consider the Taliban as a foreign power of some kind that could be negotiated with?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
IF this was the case then why in the world did they send multiple patrols out searching for him? Perhaps this was before they knew that he was in Taliban custody, and they wanted to get to him first. That is the only thing I could think to explain these missions, unless it was a cover of some kind. If they did not want to tell people the truth then some would start asking questions about why nobody was out looking for him. This is a highly unusual case.

I was reading yesterday claims regarding the idea that the Taliban is not considered a terrorist group. Is this true? Supposedly it is a militant group with a terrorist wing. That does not sound right to me, but even if it were, would anyone actually consider the Taliban as a foreign power of some kind that could be negotiated with?


Actually, it appears that they were classified as "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" or (SDGT) by executive order in 2002 but they are not on the State Depts. list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations," or (FTOs).

abcnews.go.com...

White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list.



Though the State Department has not designated the Afghan Taliban as an FTO, it has designated the group’s sister network, the Pakistani Taliban, as well as the Haqqani Network, a group closely associated with the Taliban that was believed to have been actually holding Bergdahl for most of his captivity. Hayden told ABC News the U.S. “did not negotiate with the Haqqanis” for Bergdahl.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I think it makes a lot of sense that the military actively looked for him in the first few weeks, even risking lives. This would be especially true if they already knew he defected, because he would have very valuable and timely information about positions of U.S.troops. It would be extremely important to make every effort to return him and prevent that information from getting out.

After a period of time that information is no longer timely, and therefore the impetus to search for him would be less. At that point the damage is already done, and therefore nothing to be gained by finding him.

Makes sense to me.

Why not you flatfish?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakesidepark
I think it makes a lot of sense that the military actively looked for him in the first few weeks, even risking lives. This would be especially true if they already knew he defected, because he would have very valuable and timely information about positions of U.S.troops. It would be extremely important to make every effort to return him and prevent that information from getting out.

After a period of time that information is no longer timely, and therefore the impetus to search for him would be less. At that point the damage is already done, and therefore nothing to be gained by finding him.

Makes sense to me.

Why not you flatfish?


That would certainly explain why we no longer want to get Edward Snowden back from Russia, now wouldn't it.


If given the opportunity, I bet we'd trade five more high value Gitmo detainees to get Snowden back, in a heartbeat!

While I agree that the military would definitely prefer to get him back sooner rather than later, I have no doubt that they still want him back and IMO, we owe it to him to do everything in our power to get him back.

The man volunteered to join the military in wartime, which is something that less than 1% of Americans are willing to do and that act alone is IMO, enough to warrant that he NOT be left behind when the war draws to a close.

All I can say is; If there's a chance that you would not take the opportunity to secure my release in the same circumstances, remind me to never ever consider fighting for you.
edit on 6-6-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

I would have to say that comparing Berghdal and Snowden is apples and oranges.

Snowden is a true thorn in the side of the Administration, and has yet to reveal everything he is holding. And this Administration will go after all that thorns them. So they will chase him forever.

I didn't say that the military had lost interest in getting Berghdal back, but that at some point risking more lives to find him becomes less of a priority, like I said, the most significant damage he could do is reveal timely information about U.S. forces locations and travels. Time passes and that information is no longer as damaging, and no longer worth risking troops on active searches for him.

I don't think the military intention was to rescue him and return him as a hero. Arrest him and sentence him is more like it. But no. That was all Obama. Obama needed to prove he 'cared' about American soldiers after the VA scandal broke loose, and came up with this winner of an idea. A win-win for Obama, he gives a great gift to the Taliban terrorists, and looks like a hero at home, at the same time. Or so he thought.

And I believe some in the Pentagon did hold information from Obama and let him do it, 'cause they knew this would blow up in his face. The military has no love for their commander-in-chief, even though they must submit to him. That is why Obama has purged so much of the military top leadership, as Obama needed to keep loyalty in the ranks and insure top commanders would do his bidding.

Is it enough to get this traitor (Obama, not Berghdal) put in jail??? I can only hope.

ADDED: He did join the military in wartime...but as more comes out about him, his intentions even then are becoming suspect. Combine that with his fathers love of terrorist video (see his YouTube favorites), and skill at speaking Farsi, and support for all the 'wrongfully detained' prisoners at Gitmo (see all his tweets, even to Taliban commanders, using Islamic Emirates account)...a reasomable person has to consider the possibility Berghdal is a traitor and treasonist, not JUST a deserter.
edit on 6-6-2014 by lakesidepark because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join