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

Meet the five terrorists who Obama let go back to mass kill again ...

www.youtube.com...

Statement from Bergdahl's Commander

"And I don't want him regarded as a hero," said Buetow. "I don't want him regarded as the example that soldiers should look up to, because he is the exact opposite of that."

a reply to: FlyersFan

Is not doubt in my mind, with the record of Obama so far when it comes to the middle east terrorist groups and backed coups he is a terrorist butt kisser.

He is a traitor to the nation.

a reply to: marg6043

America is under attack by the President of the United States. He directly aided the enemy who wants to destroy us. I don't think I've said that he's impeachable before this .... but his actions are impeachable. Hell ... He's technically Commander in Chief so maybe he could even be put in Leavenworth under UCMJ ...

a reply to: FlyersFan

I agree with you, the true colors of the muslim sympathizer president are out.

I challenge anybody to dispute this issue because the facts speaks for itself.

Look at the list of favoritism pro middle east terrorist that he got so far in the six years as president.

conservapedia.com...-_2009

Is despicable.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Holding them at Gitmo was a controversial decision at the time but that action, to me, makes sense. Aside from those directly involved in 9/11 (not gonna debate the ins and out / theories on 9/11), who did violate US law, the remainder did not.

Yes it has been a long tradition in America of imprisoning people that haven't been charged with no crimes. These people had nothing to do with 9/11.

Since we had congress declare the war on terror anyone captured is not required to be charged. They can be held as POW's until such time as hostilities end or an agreement is made to exchange / repatriate.

Wrong congress has not declared war since WW2. So these people are not POW's.

The US feeds, clothes, allows access to the military court system including defense attorneys..

They were also tortured something America isn't supposed to do. Not to mention the ones that were beaten to death.

www.youtube.com...

the youtube link brings to light that this whole prisoner exchange was engineered by the CIA

and the released, bearded American was set up to be a useful dummy when the time came,
it just so happened that the VA scandal & the need for Gitmo to release 5 enemy military leaders/commanders forced the CIA to spend their (alleged) POW asset

a reply to: St Udio

I am sure that the administration like all the ones before this one will use propaganda to twist the news to their own advantage and like everything done in this nation by those in power they will keep the population obfuscated, debating and fighting while the agendas will keep flowing.

I can not wait to for the series of events starts kicking in on full gear to play with the populations mind while manufacturing a different point of view as a test

originally posted by: daaskapital
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the information. You seem to be one of the only members capable of clear thinking in this thread, haha. Thanks for your civility and approach to discussions at hand.

You're welcome.

Im trying to take some feedback I asked for into account dealing with the manner I present my arguments. I'm sure I will fail at some point but at least im trying. Thanks for the comment by the way.

originally posted by: buster2010
Yes it has been a long tradition in America of imprisoning people that haven't been charged with no crimes. These people had nothing to do with 9/11.

I pointed out the 9/11 issue as a comparison / example however I never claimed they were involved in it. As for imprisoning without charges can you give me some examples?

originally posted by: buster2010
Wrong congress has not declared war since WW2. So these people are not POW's.

Forgive me - Congress authorized an AUMF (authorized use of military force) for the war on terror. Secondly the Constitution does not lay out the criteria to define war. Congress can use whatever term they want for military action. There is no requirement to use the term war.

originally posted by: buster2010
They were also tortured something America isn't supposed to do. Not to mention the ones that were beaten to death.

sources / examples?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: daaskapital
Obama let FIVE ]suspects with unconfirmed reports of blood on their hands go free all in exchange for one soldier who disappeared under unknown circumstances.

Dude ... get real ... they were murdering terrorists.

Says you, and the US.

The officers were held in Guantanamo Bay, without any formal charge. Most of them were only officers in the Taliban, without direct contact in military operations.

There is no 'may have said' about it. He said it. And common sense .. of course he joined the enemy.

We must look at everything he has said, and that includes his statements in the Taliban videos. He may have said bad things in the emails, but they are unconfirmed. As far as his statements in the Taliban videos go, wouldn't you say something if you were forced to? Exactly. None of it is confirmation for anything.

We know exactly what happened to him. It was his choice. And the fact that you refuse to call what Obama did and what this guy did disgusting ... but you like to toss it at me, a person pointing out that Obama broke the law ... dude THAT is disgusting.

No you don't. You weren't in his position...you're only relying on secondary information. I'm saying that you are disgusting for calling for the death of a man who actually did disappear under mysterious circumstances.

Again .. no 'BUT' .... he broke the law. He signed the law in and announced that it was unconstitutional so he wouldn't follow it. My god .. that's absurd. If it wasn't constitutional then he shouldnt have signed it ... and you can't just willy-nilly follow the law. The POTUS isn't above the law.

While you do speak the truth, i can't engage in discussion with someone who doesn't want to even read other points...

Thanks for the insult to everyone else. *shakes head*
Frankly, it's your thinking that doesn't seem clear on this thread.

Well what am i meant to say? When other members are calling Obama a terrorist sympathiser who wants nothing more than to release his extremist buddies? When other members are calling for the death of Bergdahl, even though the circumstances surrounding him remain somewhat unknown? Some of the stuff said in this thread is disgustingly ludicrous, and absolutely astounding.

I didn't insult everyone else, as i didn't call Xcathdra the only member to have a clear and objective perspective.

I can see why my thinking doesn't seem clear to you...you won't even bother about looking into things, and much rather call for the death of a man, without any evidence (other than statements from people who didn't even see him leave...)

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Meet the five terrorists who Obama let go back to mass kill again ...

www.youtube.com...

Oh, Fox News...how lovely...

I wouldn't trust much of what they have to say, even if the basic facts of which they claim, are true.

I have already looked into these guys, so i don't need to watch some Fox News propaganda about them...you can go ahead and continue watching it all, though.

a reply to: daaskapital

Looking at the pictures of the 5 terrorist, doesn't the second one named mullah looks like Osama. Darn this people love their looks don't they.

a reply to: daaskapital

I didn't insult everyone else, as i didn't call Xcathdra the only member to have a clear and objective perspective.

Funny (odd) ... Is there a clear and objective perspective on this? This seems (to me) to be an ideological conundrum.

Specific to Obama here, I disagree with him ideologically. That said, he was the choice of the voting majority ... and the decision to do what he did is his to make. In that light, I salute him for making a decision he must have known would draw fire on himself. That took balls.

You know there are going to be problems for Obama when you get taken to task by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (on the intelligence committee) on television. Apparently she was so pissed Obama sent one of his minions to apologize for not talking with her about this. Also over the last few years members of Obamas cabinet, when this topic would come up, told Obama no on releasing / exchanging them.

When Obama goes on tv and states Congress was notified of this, and Feinstein flat out states its not true there is a problem. I honestly think Obama just crossed the line in the sand where his own party is starting to not trust what he says. Except in this case the line in the sand is not one that will be ignored this go around.

I commented a few days ago about Claire Mccaskill (D-MO) and her appearance on FoxNews where she brought up the POW position, which at the time was valid.

Apparently she was asked by a reporter about her position now that more info came out. She refused to answer the question.

I am wondering if Jay Carney's resignation is linked to this scandal.


When you ignore Congress...
When you violate the Law...
When you ignore advice from your own cabinet members...
When you don't brief the intelligence committees...

To be honest I think the rumors about Obama declaring martial law are valid. I think its the only way Obama will be able to remain in office until his term expires. /end sarcasm

This was politics.... It blew up in the Presidents face....

Obama has absolutely no chance of doing anything meaningful his last few years in office. He is not a lame duck President... He is an Ostrich who has had his head shoved into the ground.

Harry Reid most likely signed his own political death warrant by protecting Obamas actions.

Apparently there is a question over the health comment the admin used to justify the exchange. The Army has begun an investigation for possible charges.


To add some conspiracy flavor to this -
Nostradamus made the Prediction about a 3rd world war which would be started by a person in a blue turbin. Obama is a Democrat, whose color is traditionally blue.

Susan Rice (Benghazi) apparently is making the rounds in defending the Sgt. and making the case for the admin.

I am curious who in the White House PR department thought it would be a good idea to use Susan Rice to sell this situation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Obama has absolutely no chance of doing anything meaningful his last few years in office. He is not a lame duck President... He is an Ostrich who has had his head shoved into the ground.

.

I agree with everything but this one, he is actually becoming the most dangerous president when it comes to abiding and aiding terrorist in the middle east and have a record to prove it.

The man is showing his true colors and he doesn't have to answer to congress, the voters and tax payers, because he is no running for president again.

a reply to: daaskapital

I just wanted to touch up on one of your points.

The people in Guantanamo bay no charge comment.

That issue can go either way.

During wars military pows are held however they are not charged with a crime. Since there is really no one nation that represents the Taliban / Al Qaeda / extremists.

This creates the problem of their status -
If we use the war on terror basis, which is what was used to capture them, then they are POW's where the rules are different when it comes to holding individuals without charges.

If we use the argument these people were captured outside of the war on terror then they should face charges and get their day in court.

Personally I am wondering if these guys were "tagged" during medical exams before being exchanged. By tagged I mean tracking devices injected into these guys.

originally posted by: marg6043

The man is showing his true colors and he doesn't have to answer to congress, the voters and tax payers, because he is no running for president again.

Fair enough...

Question -
Do you think we were asleep at the wheel (citizens) on Obama's actions? He essentially told the people what he was going to do over the years.

He commented near the start of his presidency that he was tempted to go it alone if Congress wont work with him.
He commented to Medvedev about a second term and better cover.

I think we all saw this coming and for some reason are shocked it occurred, if that makes sense.

originally posted by: marg6043

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Obama has absolutely no chance of doing anything meaningful his last few years in office. He is not a lame duck President... He is an Ostrich who has had his head shoved into the ground.

.

I agree with everything but this one, he is actually becoming the most dangerous president when it comes to abiding and aiding terrorist in the middle east and have a record to prove it.

The man is showing his true colors and he doesn't have to answer to congress, the voters and tax payers, because he is no running for president again.

I'd say you have succinctly articulated my greatest concern for National Security ... ATM. Couple that with X's post just prior to yours regarding Martial Law. I would not put that past Obama ... but we're not there quite yet.