Breaking News - The US has negotiated 'via' Qatar, a prisoner swap with the Taliban, the sole US POW, an army sergeant has been released in exchanged for the freeing of 5 senior Taliban commanders/politicians held at Guantanamo.
Time for a more general settlement?
Apparently the American has already been handed over to the US, supposedly several dozen US special forces meet with 19* Taliban fighters to conduct the handover.
The five Taliban are due to go to Qatar, living there for a year, before being transfered to Afghanistan.
* oddly specific, I'm just repeating AJ's coverage.
Quote from: mongers on May 31, 2014, 06:15:35 PM
Time for a more general settlement?
I can't imagine any terms the Taliban would be willing to accept that the good guys would be willing to offer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2014, 06:30:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 31, 2014, 06:15:35 PM
Time for a more general settlement?
I can't imagine any terms the Taliban would be willing to accept that the good guys would be willing to offer.
Form a coalition with Karzai's successor, rather than attempting to topple him?
Can our proposition be to execute them all?
Quote from: mongers on May 31, 2014, 06:32:11 PM
Form a coalition with Karzai's successor, rather than attempting to topple him?
Would they be offered the ministries of Adulterer Stoning and Kite Flyer Execution?
Welcome home soldier.
Quote from: mongers on May 31, 2014, 06:15:35 PM
exchanged for the freeing of 5 senior Taliban commanders/politicians held at Guantanamo.
You watch, they'll break their tracking collars off on a rocky outcropping as soon as they get home.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 31, 2014, 07:41:36 PM
Welcome home soldier.
His father mentioned how he's apparently having difficulty speaking English. YA WENT INJUN DINYA
I think it is a good sign that they took a prisoner and treated him as a prisoner rather than what typically happens to Americans and Israelis when captured. Whoever is rational enough to avoid the emotional satisfaction of torture and murder is somebody who both can be and should be spoken to.
Obama's probably grateful he could get rid of the guys at guantanamo, it's not like the could be sent anywhere.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2014, 08:23:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 31, 2014, 07:41:36 PM
Welcome home soldier.
His father mentioned how he's apparently having difficulty speaking English. YA WENT INJUN DINYA
Homeland scenario?
Quote from: Viking on May 31, 2014, 08:40:14 PM
I think it is a good sign that they took a prisoner and treated him as a prisoner rather than what typically happens to Americans and Israelis when captured. Whoever is rational enough to avoid the emotional satisfaction of torture and murder is somebody who both can be and should be spoken to.
Obama's probably grateful he could get rid of the guys at guantanamo, it's not like the could be sent anywhere.
Haha. Fair point there. Let's not hope the Taliban get wise to the fact the us doesn't actually want those prisoners
Obama closed Guantanamo a long time ago.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2014, 08:23:34 PMHis father mentioned how he's apparently having difficulty speaking English. YA WENT INJUN DINYA
More like Reek from game of thrones. :(
Quote from: Legbiter on June 01, 2014, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2014, 08:23:34 PMHis father mentioned how he's apparently having difficulty speaking English. YA WENT INJUN DINYA
More like Reek from game of thrones. :(
My name is Reek it rhymes with Dhimmi?
Quote from: Tyr on June 01, 2014, 12:45:47 AM
Haha. Fair point there. Let's not hope the Taliban get wise to the fact the us doesn't actually want those prisoners
Plus, if he releases them he can dronestrike them to death. The political price he pays for not being able to close guantanamo is much larger than he pays for flying death robots.
Quote from: viper37 on June 01, 2014, 12:39:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2014, 08:23:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 31, 2014, 07:41:36 PM
Welcome home soldier.
His father mentioned how he's apparently having difficulty speaking English. YA WENT INJUN DINYA
Homeland scenario?
Suspicions are raised as he comes home in moccasins and feathers in his hair.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2014, 06:30:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 31, 2014, 06:15:35 PM
Time for a more general settlement?
I can't imagine any terms the Taliban would be willing to accept that the good guys would be willing to offer.
Quote
The US defence secretary dismissed the criticism, saying this was an exchange of prisoners of war. He said that he hoped the deal would open the way to a wider peace process.
Interesting if true.
This actually solves two problems. First we get our guy back, second we get rid of guys at Gitmo. If we release them back in to the wild we can kill them later.
We released five dangerous terrorists and get a deserter in return.
At least we can put him on trial.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 02, 2014, 01:47:29 AM
We released five dangerous terrorists and get a deserter in return.
At least we can put him on trial.
Is he a deserter?
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 03:46:48 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 02, 2014, 01:47:29 AM
We released five dangerous terrorists and get a deserter in return.
At least we can put him on trial.
Is he a deserter?
Being captured is no excuse for missing duty! :mad:
I read somewhere that after five years he's struggling to speak English and speaks mostly Arab and/or Pashtu?
So, he must be a deserter, if he doesn't have the strength of will to cling to the One True Language.
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 03:46:48 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 02, 2014, 01:47:29 AM
We released five dangerous terrorists and get a deserter in return.
At least we can put him on trial.
Is he a deserter?
Yes, he left a note to that effect and sneaked off base to join the afghans to convince them to let him go home. He apparently also made comments to his squad mates prior to his desertion that he opposed the US and supported the afghans (apparently this nitwit believed that we were at war with the Afghans).
And now the White House is trying to portray this piece of shit as some sort of hero.
Quote from: Syt on June 02, 2014, 05:17:32 AM
I read somewhere that after five years he's struggling to speak English and speaks mostly Arab and/or Pashtu?
So, he must be a deserter, if he doesn't have the strength of will to cling to the One True Language.
At least he is gained some employable skills during his years away. :)
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 02, 2014, 06:13:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 03:46:48 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 02, 2014, 01:47:29 AM
We released five dangerous terrorists and get a deserter in return.
At least we can put him on trial.
Is he a deserter?
Yes, he left a note to that effect and sneaked off base to join the afghans to convince them to let him go home. He apparently also made comments to his squad mates prior to his desertion that he opposed the US and supported the afghans (apparently this nitwit believed that we were at war with the Afghans).
And now the White House is trying to portray this piece of shit as some sort of hero.
If so, I can only say
"gps implants in the released scumbags"
Quote from: mongers on May 31, 2014, 06:15:35 PM
Breaking News - The US has negotiated 'via' Qatar, a prisoner swap with the Taliban, the sole US POW, an army sergeant has been released in exchanged for the freeing of 5 senior Taliban commanders/politicians held at Guantanamo.
Time for a more general settlement?
Apparently the American has already been handed over to the US, supposedly several dozen US special forces meet with 19* Taliban fighters to conduct the handover.
The five Taliban are due to go to Qatar, living there for a year, before being transfered to Afghanistan.
* oddly specific, I'm just repeating AJ's coverage.
Fuck you Mongers.
Here are the names of the American Soldiers killed why actively looking for this faggot:
PFC Matthew Michael Martinek
SSG Kurt Robert Curtiss
SSG Clayton Bowen
PFC Morris Walker
SSG Michael Murphrey
2LT Darryn Andrews
These are just from the 501st Infantry, there are more from other units.
Quote from: Siege on June 02, 2014, 07:04:08 AM
Quote from: mongers on May 31, 2014, 06:15:35 PM
Breaking News - The US has negotiated 'via' Qatar, a prisoner swap with the Taliban, the sole US POW, an army sergeant has been released in exchanged for the freeing of 5 senior Taliban commanders/politicians held at Guantanamo.
Time for a more general settlement?
Apparently the American has already been handed over to the US, supposedly several dozen US special forces meet with 19* Taliban fighters to conduct the handover.
The five Taliban are due to go to Qatar, living there for a year, before being transfered to Afghanistan.
* oddly specific, I'm just repeating AJ's coverage.
Fuck you Mongers.
Here are the names of the American Soldiers killed why actively looking for this faggot:
PFC Matthew Michael Martinek
SSG Kurt Robert Curtiss
SSG Clayton Bowen
PFC Morris Walker
SSG Michael Murphrey
2LT Darryn Andrews
These are just from the 501st Infantry, there are more from other units.
:huh:
Don't shoot the messenger.
That is a pretty absurdly high price to pay for just one guy. I guess the Admin does not want anything left to tie it to Afghanistan when/if it pulls out?
Edit: Oh hi Hans good to see you. Hope things are going well.
I note Obama got some mature MILF hugging action yesterday. :cool:
The husband with the zztop/taliban beard, Obama not so interested in.
edit:
What Valmy said, .. Hi Hansie. :cheers:
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 03:46:48 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 02, 2014, 01:47:29 AM
We released five dangerous terrorists and get a deserter in return.
At least we can put him on trial.
Is he a deserter?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10868673/Bowe-Bergdahl-a-darker-story-behind-the-release-of-Americas-last-prisoner-of-war.html
Six men dead trying to rescue him and 5 command rank officers are exchanged for one seargent?
had the taliban been a european army they would have been insulted by the insult in the exchange.
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 09:24:54 AM
Six men dead trying to rescue him and 5 command rank officers are exchanged for one seargent?
had the taliban been a european army they would have been insulted by the insult in the exchange.
Yeah obviously it is not about him. It is about not wanting to be seen to leave a POW there. You should have seen the constant angst about all the POWs we supposedly left behind in Vietnam. This exchange shows desperation by the admin not to repeat that, at least IMO.
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 09:24:54 AM
Six men dead trying to rescue him and 5 command rank officers are exchanged for one seargent?
had the taliban been a european army they would have been insulted by the insult in the exchange.
I think you're missing the point that it's more than an exchange, those are senior commanders and officials/politicians in the last Taliban 'government', they're being release as a down payment or sign of 'goodwill'. I'd say the US wants to negotiate something that'll see Afghanistan project surviving for more than a couple of years.
An issue being the Afghans in Kabul aren't keen on talking with the Taliban, so maybe this is a measure of arm-twisting on the US's part ? :unsure:
Considering how horrible the Taliban is at holding territory outside of their tribal lands I think the most cost effective path would be just to help the Afghans blow them away should be ever be stupid enough to leave them again.
Quote from: mongers on June 02, 2014, 09:30:59 AM
An issue being the Afghans in Kabul aren't keen on talking with the Taliban, so maybe this is a measure of arm-twisting on the US's part ? :unsure:
Negotiating is seen as weakness in that part of the world. If the government in Kabul were to start they might as well just shoot themselves and get it over with, as it would destroy whatever legitimacy they have.
For the Taliban this deal was a great victory over the US.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2014, 09:27:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 09:24:54 AM
Six men dead trying to rescue him and 5 command rank officers are exchanged for one seargent?
had the taliban been a european army they would have been insulted by the insult in the exchange.
Yeah obviously it is not about him. It is about not wanting to be seen to leave a POW there. You should have seen the constant angst about all the POWs we supposedly left behind in Vietnam. This exchange shows desperation by the admin not to repeat that, at least IMO.
Can you really think that any reasonable accommodation can be reached with kind of savages that won't release prisoners at the end of a war? Just look at north korea.
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
Just some prostitutes.
"Negotiating with the Taliban" sounds like it might be an Ed euphemism for taking a dump.
Quote from: derspiess on June 02, 2014, 11:06:47 AM
"Negotiating with the Taliban" sounds like it might be an Ed euphemism for taking a dump.
IT IS NOW
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
I thought so. Didn't Chuck Norris rescue them? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on June 02, 2014, 01:32:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
I thought so. Didn't Chuck Norris rescue them? :hmm:
To the best of my knowledge there were none. Actual POWs were held in the DPRK. We can see the difference in dealing with the Vietnamese and the North Koreans.
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
I do not really recall. The Vietnam craziness is before my time, but when Clinton was trying to normalize relations with the Vietnamese in the 90s there was a big to do about POW/MIAs from twenty years earlier.
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 01:45:34 PM
Actual POWs were held in the DPRK.
You're not talking about the Pueblo crew or the defectors, are you?
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
I'm thinking here, if there were any POWs left in Vietnam after the war, and the US didn't want to pay for them, or admit to any kind of war crimes in Vietnam (the theory usually used in movies like Norris&Rambo), then why keep them? It costs money to keep a POW camp open, so why not liquidate them?
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2014, 03:17:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
I'm thinking here, if there were any POWs left in Vietnam after the war, and the US didn't want to pay for them, or admit to any kind of war crimes in Vietnam (the theory usually used in movies like Norris&Rambo), then why keep them? It costs money to keep a POW camp open, so why not liquidate them?
Ask Obama.
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2014, 03:17:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
I'm thinking here, if there were any POWs left in Vietnam after the war, and the US didn't want to pay for them, or admit to any kind of war crimes in Vietnam (the theory usually used in movies like Norris&Rambo), then why keep them? It costs money to keep a POW camp open, so why not liquidate them?
Vietnam never acknowledged any remaining POWs. They were all returned after the Paris Peace Accord in '73. However there were still a couple of thousand Americans listed as MIA, so their families kept agitating to try and find out what happened (and carried the faint hope they might still be alive).
No American POWs after 1973 were ever identified.
Did the US ever try to return McCain?
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2014, 03:17:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 02, 2014, 10:47:49 AM
(also, were there actually any POW left in vietnam? I know there were lots of MIAs, but were there actually any POWS?)
I'm thinking here, if there were any POWs left in Vietnam after the war, and the US didn't want to pay for them, or admit to any kind of war crimes in Vietnam (the theory usually used in movies like Norris&Rambo), then why keep them? It costs money to keep a POW camp open, so why not liquidate them?
You're 'over-thinking'.
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2014, 03:17:33 PM
I'm thinking here, if there were any POWs left in Vietnam after the war, and the US didn't want to pay for them, or admit to any kind of war crimes in Vietnam (the theory usually used in movies like Norris&Rambo), then why keep them? It costs money to keep a POW camp open, so why not liquidate them?
They'd still be a bargaining chip, and it would be kind of bad PR if anyone found out.
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2014, 03:24:54 PM
No American POWs after 1973 were ever identified.
I know that, I read the Wiki article :)
What I'm saying, is if you believe that Vietnam is keeping POWs, sorta like in Rambo and Chuck Norris' movies, what is the reasoning behind them keeping POWs?
The conspiracy theory is that the US govt abandonned these people because they didn't want to pay for their release.
if you keep hostages in exchange of payment and you,re told to fuck off, why would you keep them as prisoners if they are worthless, and a possible source of embarassement in the future?
There is no reason for them to have kept them. A lot died in captivity, due to injury, illness or mistreatment and the Communists were either unwilling or unable to come clean or verify it. It's not like they were running a centralized prisoner program, particularly on the local level.
There were a lot of draftees that simply made themselves disappear. Or worse. Had an instructor in college that showed us his slides of his time in Vietnam, picked out a couple guys in them where all that could be said was "Yeah, we were on a patrol one day and they just disappeared in the jungle, never did find them."
Can we hand over the guy's bearded, hippie father? I don't care for his hippie shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 02, 2014, 11:44:54 PM
There is no reason for them to have kept them. A lot died in captivity, due to injury, illness or mistreatment and the Communists were either unwilling or unable to come clean or verify it. It's not like they were running a centralized prisoner program, particularly on the local level.
There were a lot of draftees that simply made themselves disappear. Or worse. Had an instructor in college that showed us his slides of his time in Vietnam, picked out a couple guys in them where all that could be said was "Yeah, we were on a patrol one day and they just disappeared in the jungle, never did find them."
Quote
On the frieze inside the rotunda are inscribed in English these words:-
1939 - 1945
HERE ARE RECORDED THE NAMES OF TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND
SOLDIERS OF MANY RACES UNITED IN SERVICE TO THE BRITISH CROWN
WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN BURMA AND ASSAM BUT TO WHOM THE
FORTUNE OF WAR DENIED THE CUSTOMARY RITES ACCORDED
TO THEIR COMRADES IN DEATH
http://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/100/RANGOON%20MEMORIAL (http://www.cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/100/RANGOON%20MEMORIAL)
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2014, 08:21:54 AM
Can we hand over the guy's bearded, hippie father? I don't care for his hippie shit.
Oh sure, you've got a problem with him, but if his ass was wrestling gold-mining alligators in a pawn shop in Alaska on TLC you'd have his fucking merchandised lawn gnome.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 09:14:09 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2014, 08:21:54 AM
Can we hand over the guy's bearded, hippie father? I don't care for his hippie shit.
Oh sure, you've got a problem with him, but if his ass was wrestling gold-mining alligators in a pawn shop in Alaska on TLC you'd have his fucking merchandised lawn gnome.
I want to watch that show. :ph34r:
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2014, 10:07:30 PM
What I'm saying, is if you believe that Vietnam is keeping POWs, sorta like in Rambo and Chuck Norris' movies, what is the reasoning behind them keeping POWs?
I think the reasoning was that the Vietnamese were America-hating communist assholes that kept the POWs out of spite.
To brainwash them so they become Commies and undermine Amurican Capitalism and the Free World(tm) of course :evilcommie:
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 09:57:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2014, 10:07:30 PM
What I'm saying, is if you believe that Vietnam is keeping POWs, sorta like in Rambo and Chuck Norris' movies, what is the reasoning behind them keeping POWs?
I think the reasoning was that the Vietnamese were America-hating communist assholes that kept the POWs out of spite.
:yes:
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 09:57:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 02, 2014, 10:07:30 PM
What I'm saying, is if you believe that Vietnam is keeping POWs, sorta like in Rambo and Chuck Norris' movies, what is the reasoning behind them keeping POWs?
I think the reasoning was that the Vietnamese were America-hating communist assholes that kept the POWs out of spite.
That's not reasoning, thats confirmation bias. The Vietnamese did at some point stop behaving like uncivilized scum. The North Korens still do.
Conspiracy theory nuts thrive on confirmation bias. It is their lifeblood.
Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2014, 10:19:49 AM
That's not reasoning, thats confirmation bias. The Vietnamese did at some point stop behaving like uncivilized scum. The North Korens still do.
I was gonna put reasoning in quotes but felt too lazy.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:26:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2014, 10:19:49 AM
That's not reasoning, thats confirmation bias. The Vietnamese did at some point stop behaving like uncivilized scum. The North Korens still do.
I was gonna put reasoning in quotes but felt too lazy.
to be blunt all reasioning is ultimately rationalisation. People rarely go against their gut feelings.
Susan Rice said on ABC that this Bergdahl dude served with honor & distinction. She is truly an asset to this administration.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 11:11:52 AM
Susan Rice said on ABC that this Bergdahl dude served with honor & distinction. She is truly an asset to this administration.
She did not say what sort of honor and distinction. He certainly distinguished himself in the service.
Epic rant here: http://www.stonekettle.com/2014/06/negotiating-with-terrorists.html (http://www.stonekettle.com/2014/06/negotiating-with-terrorists.html)
Quote from: Maximus on June 03, 2014, 11:46:11 AM
Epic rant here: http://www.stonekettle.com/2014/06/negotiating-with-terrorists.html (http://www.stonekettle.com/2014/06/negotiating-with-terrorists.html)
LOL love it. Thaddeus Stevens never ranted against slavery so well.
Learned some interesting factoids from an NPR story about the swap.
As part of the same bill that forbade the administration from moving the Gitmo prisoners to US soil, Congress required the president to inform them 30 days prior to a release of any Gitmo prisoners. He appears not to have done this.
Obama issued a signing statement when he signed that bill, in which he basically said fuck you to the 30 day thing.
He has issued 30 signing statement so far. Double standard much? The NYT, among other stalwarts of the left, branded Bush's signing statement unconstitutional and criminal, but not a peep about Obama's.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Double standard much? The NYT, among other stalwarts of the left, branded Bush's signing statement unconstitutional and criminal, but not a peep about Obama's.
Um the leftists are teaming up with the libertarian rightists to fight this stuff. But maybe I am not sure what is a 'stalwart of the left'.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Learned some interesting factoids from an NPR story about the swap.
As part of the same bill that forbade the administration from moving the Gitmo prisoners to US soil, Congress required the president to inform them 30 days prior to a release of any Gitmo prisoners. He appears not to have done this.
Obama issued a signing statement when he signed that bill, in which he basically said fuck you to the 30 day thing.
He has issued 30 signing statement so far. Double standard much? The NYT, among other stalwarts of the left, branded Bush's signing statement unconstitutional and criminal, but not a peep about Obama's.
To be fair, that's a smaller number than Bush's signing statements. Though I don't know how they compare on % of signed bills.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 04:25:14 PM
To be fair, that's a smaller number than Bush's signing statements. Though I don't know how they compare on % of signed bills.
Still Obama has basically established everything Bush did that was of questionable constitutionality. You know, exactly the opposite of what he promised to do.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:28:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 04:25:14 PM
To be fair, that's a smaller number than Bush's signing statements. Though I don't know how they compare on % of signed bills.
Still Obama has basically established everything Bush did that was of questionable constitutionality. You know, exactly the opposite of what he promised to do.
I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What does "established everything Bush did that was of questionable constitutionality" mean when translated into English?
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 04:34:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:28:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 04:25:14 PM
To be fair, that's a smaller number than Bush's signing statements. Though I don't know how they compare on % of signed bills.
Still Obama has basically established everything Bush did that was of questionable constitutionality. You know, exactly the opposite of what he promised to do.
I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. What does "established everything Bush did that was of questionable constitutionality" mean when translated into English?
Do you care?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Learned some interesting factoids from an NPR story about the swap.
As part of the same bill that forbade the administration from moving the Gitmo prisoners to US soil, Congress required the president to inform them 30 days prior to a release of any Gitmo prisoners. He appears not to have done this.
Obama issued a signing statement when he signed that bill, in which he basically said fuck you to the 30 day thing.
He has issued 30 signing statement so far. Double standard much? The NYT, among other stalwarts of the left, branded Bush's signing statement unconstitutional and criminal, but not a peep about Obama's.
Presumably conservatives who defended Bush's signing statements will continue to defend Obama's.
Obama does things for a good cause.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Learned some interesting factoids from an NPR story about the swap.
As part of the same bill that forbade the administration from moving the Gitmo prisoners to US soil, Congress required the president to inform them 30 days prior to a release of any Gitmo prisoners. He appears not to have done this.
Obama issued a signing statement when he signed that bill, in which he basically said fuck you to the 30 day thing.
Did the NPR story quote anything recent about the Administration on this, or were they just coming up with an excuse for him on their own?
Because apparently the Administration apologized.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208070-white-house-apologizes-to-senate-intelligence
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 05:02:55 PM
Did the NPR story quote anything recent about the Administration on this, or were they just coming up with an excuse for him on their own?
How was Yi's story coming up with an excuse? :blink:
On the whole Bergdahl story I think this made some interesting points:
http://www.newsweek.com/truth-behind-bowe-bergdahl-pow-prisoner-swap-253218
And for those on Twitter it's worth having a look at Joshua Foust's timeline on this:
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 09:14:09 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2014, 08:21:54 AM
Can we hand over the guy's bearded, hippie father? I don't care for his hippie shit.
Oh sure, you've got a problem with him, but if his ass was wrestling gold-mining alligators in a pawn shop in Alaska on TLC you'd have his fucking merchandised lawn gnome.
I guess Seedy has decided to pick on me today.
But at least I don't have a bedtime.
And actually play my wargames.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 05:02:55 PM
Did the NPR story quote anything recent about the Administration on this, or were they just coming up with an excuse for him on their own?
Because apparently the Administration apologized.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208070-white-house-apologizes-to-senate-intelligence
I believe they read from the signing statement.
And not emotionally dead inside.
STOP INTERRUPTING MY FLOW YI
:weep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 06:19:14 PM
:weep:
:console:
Comedy is a fine art. And you tossed a bucket of urine on the stage.
You are still a good egg. Now get back to making iPads, chop chop.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent6.flixster.com%2Fquestion%2F68%2F47%2F14%2F6847148_std.jpg&hash=8b182bf13a0f8d055058a18e87b50525bed5cd06)
"Bowe Bergdahl is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known. "
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2014, 06:22:02 PM
Comedy is a fine art. And you tossed a bucket of urine on the stage.
You are still a good egg. Now get back to making iPads, chop chop.
So instead you settle for two double-taps, and then put one in Yi, execution-style, on GP. We see how it is.
I gotta be me. :)
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:39:30 PM
Do you care?
Yes if you were trying to make an intellectual argument. If it was just rhetoric, then no.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2014, 06:22:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 06:19:14 PM
:weep:
:console:
Comedy is a fine art. And you tossed a bucket of urine on the stage.
Uh, you were already
on the stage...
You're old.
I've got nothing.
:lol:
This whole thing just looks like an increasingly worse decision as more details emerge. Still not sure I understand what the Administration hoped to gain.
http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/
Another amateur political move by Obama. I'm sure the angle must have been "bringing a soldier home". Methinks someone didn't peek inside the cage before they bought the dog.
LOL, he gets a soldier in enemy custody released, it's an obvious political ploy. If he doesn't, he's abandoned him.
Black guy can't win for shit no matter what he does, film at 11.
I know we Democrats bitched and whined about Bush for 8 years, but I've been visiting the Tea Party groups on Facebook and such and the level of 'HANG HIM FOR TREASON' is absolutely incredible. I hate to play the black card but I'm going to anyway. Would conservatives be calling for such level of punishment if this was John Kerry? My gut says no.
No, I'm pretty sure they would want to hang John Kerry, too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 12:02:58 AM
No, I'm pretty sure they would want to hang John Kerry, too.
Don't they already?
Quote from: citizen k on June 03, 2014, 07:18:20 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent6.flixster.com%2Fquestion%2F68%2F47%2F14%2F6847148_std.jpg&hash=8b182bf13a0f8d055058a18e87b50525bed5cd06)
"Bowe Bergdahl is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known. "
Absolutely love that film :)
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:59:28 PM
This whole thing just looks like an increasingly worse decision as more details emerge. Still not sure I understand what the Administration hoped to gain.
http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/
Yeah, this is turning into a disaster and huge embarrassment on many levels.
Obama probably wanted one of these
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2011%2F10%2F18%2F1318948295271%2FBinyamin-Netanyahu-welcom-007.jpg&hash=b20119cc96e0211518e1ac3222bf03c71aecd145)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
LOL, he gets a soldier in enemy custody released, it's an obvious political ploy. If he doesn't, he's abandoned him.
Black guy can't win for shit no matter what he does, film at 11.
Change the record. Heard this one a million times.
And who wouldn't want to bask in the universal popularity that rivals that of Benjamin Netanyahu?
Quote from: Jaron on June 03, 2014, 11:58:46 PM
I know we Democrats bitched and whined about Bush for 8 years, but I've been visiting the Tea Party groups on Facebook and such and the level of 'HANG HIM FOR TREASON' is absolutely incredible. I hate to play the black card but I'm going to anyway. Would conservatives be calling for such level of punishment if this was John Kerry? My gut says no.
Dude they wanted to hang Clinton for being a far left traitor and he spent his administration signing right wing reform bills and free trade deals between blow jobs. This is less about ideology and more about partisan mental illness. Not that Obama isn't terrible or anything.
From what I've read, Republicans consider it a terrible move and a mistake, while Democrats think the GOP are manufacturing outrage for political reasons.
I understand why Obama did the exchange. I'd also understand if Bergdahl's platoon mates beat him into an unrecognizable pulp.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 08:44:08 AM
I understand why Obama did the exchange.
Yep. A necessary step, pity it seems to have been dearly bought indeed.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 08:26:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
LOL, he gets a soldier in enemy custody released, it's an obvious political ploy. If he doesn't, he's abandoned him.
Black guy can't win for shit no matter what he does, film at 11.
Change the record. Heard this one a million times.
Only you ignorant dumbass Obamahaters would actually give him shit for getting the last POW from 2 wars' worth of bullshit out.
You fuckers are so obscenely contrarian for the sake of it, if the guy had to launch ICBMs to save the planet from an asteroid, you'd give him shit for violating NPT first-use policy. Fucking assholes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 08:47:46 AM
Only you ignorant dumbass Obamahaters would actually give him shit for getting the last POW from 2 wars' worth of bullshit out.
I read that he wasn't on the POW list and there seems to be strong evidence he deserted.
QuoteYou fuckers are so obscenely contrarian for the sake of it, if the guy had to launch ICBMs to save the planet from an asteroid, you'd give him shit for violating NPT first-use policy. Fucking assholes.
I really did try to give him the benefit of the doubt from the beginning and I took some of the early criticism with a grain of salt. I'd actually love for Obama to do something I could applaud.
But if even half the stuff about this Bergdahl guy is true-- on top of the facts that we let five terrorist walk and that Obama technically broke the law by not giving Congress enough advance notice-- then I'd think even you would have to admit this was a pretty big fuckup.
If Dubya had done this I'd still call it a fuckup. And you'd agree with me.
Those "terrorists" are compromised now. And if we don't drone their asses into Nutella inside 24 months, then their buddies will do it.
And Chuck Hagel made his phone calls to the Hill. Just because every moron rape-redefining Rep. Teabaggins (R- Teabag End) didn't get a personal phone call from That Uppity Negro is simply more bullshit bleating. Even if he appeared before Congress, they'd interrupt him anyway.
But I suppose it's muh more palatable to trade arms for hostages instead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 09:20:17 AM
Those "terrorists" are compromised now. And if we don't drone their asses into Nutella inside 24 months, then their buddies will do it.
Keep telling yourself that, CountdeMustafa
QuoteAnd Chuck Hagel made his phone calls to the Hill. Just because every moron rape-redefining Rep. Teabaggins (R- Teabag End) didn't get a personal phone call from That Uppity Negro is simply more bullshit bleating. Even if he appeared before Congress, they'd interrupt him anyway.
Interesting. Wonder why the administration apologized for not notifying them? Feinstein seems to be a little pissed over it. You ought to call her & tell her she's wrong.
QuoteBut I suppose it's muh more palatable to trade arms for hostages instead.
HAIG'S FAULT
So what it the basic Republican talking point here? Should not have been done because the POW in question is an asshole, and hence we should impeach Obama?
That only US servicemen in Republican adminstrations deserve to come home, apparently.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2014, 10:14:48 AM
So what it the basic Republican talking point here? Should not have been done because the POW in question is an asshole, and hence we should impeach Obama?
Yes, that's exactly it.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 08:42:38 AM
From what I've read, Republicans consider it a terrible move and a mistake, while Democrats think the GOP are manufacturing outrage for political reasons.
More than just Republicans feel this has likely been a real mess. The admin may have expected this would be a shot in the arm for the failures of the VA, and multiple other scandals which are about once a month now. This swap has backfired badly. Was the swap done for political motives? Funny how just the Repubs are blamed for politicizing it.
Quote from: KRonn on June 04, 2014, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 08:42:38 AM
From what I've read, Republicans consider it a terrible move and a mistake, while Democrats think the GOP are manufacturing outrage for political reasons.
More than just Republicans feel this has likely been a real mess. The admin may have expected this would be a shot in the arm for the failures of the VA, and multiple other scandals which are about once a month now. This swap has backfired badly. Was the swap done for political motives? Funny how just the Repubs are blamed for politicizing it.
Ok as far as I know the swap was clean. How did it backfire? I mean besides paying a high price and the guy being perhaps a less than perfect soldier.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2014, 10:14:48 AM
So what it the basic Republican talking point here? Should not have been done because the POW in question is an asshole, and hence we should impeach Obama?
We negotiated with terrorists and therefore he should be impeached I think. But even the Republicans have to know we leave no man behind no matter how shitty. Politically we had to retrieve this dude if we ever hope to end the war.
If it turns out that he was in fact a deserter, I think we could have pulled out quite easily leaving this guy behind.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:04:22 AM
If it turns out that he was in fact a deserter, I think we could have pulled out quite easily leaving this guy behind.
Color me skeptical. His family was out there fighting for him.
Quote from: KRonn on June 04, 2014, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 08:42:38 AM
From what I've read, Republicans consider it a terrible move and a mistake, while Democrats think the GOP are manufacturing outrage for political reasons.
More than just Republicans feel this has likely been a real mess. The admin may have expected this would be a shot in the arm for the failures of the VA, and multiple other scandals which are about once a month now. This swap has backfired badly. Was the swap done for political motives? Funny how just the Repubs are blamed for politicizing it.
What's the part that's messy?
That people are casting aspersions on the soldier in question? Because "nah we don't like him" is a pretty fucked up reason to let someone rot. If he is a deserter, the US has methods for dealing with that that does not involve leaving someone as a perpetual POW; namely a court martial.
Is it the idea that there was a trade for him? Because in my view that's pretty standard.
It seems to me that there's a bunch of shrieking and people are buying into it, but I don't quite understand what the substance is to be honest,
Looks like Feinstein was actually more blunt than reported in the other article from yesterday:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/top-lawmakers-say-white-house-broke-law-bergdahl-deal-n121721
QuoteDemocratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss said the administration violated the law by failing to address serious concerns they had about the deal to swap Bergdahl for five Taliban detainees. Chambliss said he had not had a conversation with the White House about a possible exchange for at least 18 months.
"It comes to us with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went ahead with no consultation, totally not following law," Feinstein told reporters following a closed door meeting. "And in an issue with this kind of concern to a committee that bears the oversight responsibility, I think you can see that we're very dismayed about it ."
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:04:22 AM
If it turns out that he was in fact a deserter, I think we could have pulled out quite easily leaving this guy behind.
That's a silly ass attitude, but typical.
He's still on the muster roll, so he's still subject to the UCMJ. It will be dealt with accordingly, and in due time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:04:22 AM
If it turns out that he was in fact a deserter, I think we could have pulled out quite easily leaving this guy behind.
That's a silly ass attitude, but typical.
He's still on the muster roll, so he's still subject to the UCMJ. It will be dealt with accordingly, and in due time.
Or we could just tell the Taliban to cut his head off like they said they wanted to and save everyone time, effort (and apparently several lives).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 09:20:17 AM
And Chuck Hagel made his phone calls to the Hill. Just because every moron rape-redefining Rep. Teabaggins (R- Teabag End) didn't get a personal phone call from That Uppity Negro is simply more bullshit bleating. Even if he appeared before Congress, they'd interrupt him anyway.
Susan Rice apparently admits that they didn't notify within the required timeframe. And we all know she's never wrong on anything, right??
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/world/asia/afghanistan-bergdahl-release/
Quote"It was determined that it was necessary and appropriate not to adhere to the 30-day notification requirement, because it would have potentially meant that the opportunity to get Sgt. Bergdahl would have been lost," she said.
Obama (and to be fair most Presidents) will never deal with Congress more than he absolutely has to. Good on them for calling him on this.
That is a separate issue though.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:19:53 AM
Or we could just tell the Taliban to cut his head off like they said they wanted to and save everyone time, effort (and apparently several lives).
Yeah because we totally could walk away from this thing right after the Taliban beheaded an American soldier.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:19:53 AM
Or we could just tell the Taliban to cut his head off like they said they wanted to and save everyone time, effort (and apparently several lives).
That wouldn't be due process, I'm pretty sure.
I mean, do soldiers serving the US want to go knowing they may be abandoned and have their head cut off if it is politically convenient to frame them in a bad light?
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:44:59 AMSusan Rice apparently admits that they didn't notify within the required timeframe. And we all know she's never wrong on anything, right??
So the issue is the Administration didn't notify Congress within an appropriate timeframe? That seems a legitimate complaint, but one that's very different from what you were saying earlier.
I haven't heard any Republican talking points. All I've heard so is the guys in his platoon calling him a deserter, not deserving of a hero's welcome.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 11:47:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:19:53 AM
Or we could just tell the Taliban to cut his head off like they said they wanted to and save everyone time, effort (and apparently several lives).
Yeah because we totally could walk away from this thing right after the Taliban beheaded an American soldier.
Saves us the bullets for executing him ourselves or (more likely) the cost to house & feed him while he's in prison.
The problem is that Obama did it. One of the funny things is that Ollie North is crying foul. :lol:
Harry Reid knew about the deal on Friday. As far as I'm concerned, Congressional Leadership notification: satisfied.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 12:16:47 PM
The problem is that Obama did it. One of the funny things is that Ollie North is crying foul. :lol:
That settles it. When Ollie North or G. Gordon Liddy complain about Presidential shenanigans I consider the matter resolved, in favor of the president.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 12:00:32 PM
So the issue is the Administration didn't notify Congress within an appropriate timeframe? That seems a legitimate complaint, but one that's very different from what you were saying earlier.
I'm guessing you're not reading the entire thread. I originally listed that as one of the missteps. Seedy made the claim that congress was properly notified, and I came back with the Susan Rice quote.
If the only misstep had been the failure to notify congress, I really wouldn't get worked up about it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 12:17:29 PM
Harry Reid knew about the deal on Friday. As far as I'm concerned, Congressional Leadership notification: satisfied.
In what world do you live where one day equals thirty days?
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 12:23:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 12:00:32 PM
So the issue is the Administration didn't notify Congress within an appropriate timeframe? That seems a legitimate complaint, but one that's very different from what you were saying earlier.
I'm guessing you're not reading the entire thread. I originally listed that as one of the missteps. Seedy made the claim that congress was properly notified, and I came back with the Susan Rice quote.
If the only misstep had been the failure to notify congress, I really wouldn't get worked up about it.
Dude, you get worked up if the first lady is wearing a short sleeves.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 12:17:29 PM
Harry Reid knew about the deal on Friday. As far as I'm concerned, Congressional Leadership notification: satisfied.
In what world do you live where one day equals thirty days?
The world where the Commander-in-Chief has a good and compelling reason to act in his capacity in regards to time-sensitive issues of national security involvimg the armed forces. You know, just like the last President.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 12:17:29 PM
Harry Reid knew about the deal on Friday. As far as I'm concerned, Congressional Leadership notification: satisfied.
I'm not so concerned about this stuff but that's not the law. And I also don't think we can take the administration at their word of saying they broke Federal law in bypassing Congress because they had a short time window. These negoations must take a long time so I'd think there's plenty of time to inform Congress. The President is reported to have wanted this for a long time but was dissuaded by Intel officials. So there had to be plenty of time to follow the law, but the bigger point is about releasing these guys at all.
Does anyone think that the Pentagon and Intelligence officials were in favor of releasing these five Talibanistas from Gitmo? They were described as the worst of the worst. Wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the UN and/or internationally. Remember what the Taliban were doing when they were in power. Now they'll be free to do as they want within Qatar, living a life of luxury as martyrs. Later they'll be free to return to Afghanistan in a year (or less?) if they choose to and likely assume some of their leadership roles to bolster the Taliban.
Previous negotiations had suffered from leaks and more leaks, from the Pentagon to the Karzai government, blowing negotiations apart time and again. I can appreciate the Administration's resistance to letting every assclown on the Hill an opportunity to spill the beans, because we all know how sensitive they are to operational security.
But think of it this way, now they have something else othet than Benghazi to bitch about.
If they're Taliban rather than AQ, then most of their time prior to capture was spent thinking of ways to fuck up Afghanistan and not the US. Something to keep in mind.
Quote from: KRonn on June 04, 2014, 12:41:13 PM
Does anyone think that the Pentagon and Intelligence officials were in favor of releasing these five Talibanistas from Gitmo? They were described as the worst of the worst. Wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the UN and/or internationally. Remember what the Taliban were doing when they were in power. Now they'll be free to do as they want within Qatar, living a life of luxury as martyrs. Later they'll be free to return to Afghanistan in a year (or less?) if they choose to and likely assume some of their leadership roles to bolster the Taliban.
Seems like reasonable way out of holding onto them extrajudicially, no?
But even if you're fine with the status quo in Gitmo, prisoner exchanges are a thing that happens, and usually you are not fond of the people you keep imprisoned. Are you suggesting that the administration should have try to release someone less terrible in exchange? So the flaw is that they didn't negotiate hard enough? Or are you suggesting that prisoner exchanges shouldn't be engaged in at all?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 12:34:47 PM
Dude, you get worked up if the first lady is wearing a short sleeves.
I can't control myself. Her arms are too fabulous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2014, 12:49:54 PM
If they're Taliban rather than AQ, then most of their time prior to capture was spent thinking of ways to fuck up Afghanistan and not the US. Something to keep in mind.
Right; from what I've read they're more political actors than Kalid Sheikh Mohammed. And whether we like it or not, the Taliban has to be dealt with as a political entity re: Afghanistan's future. The opportunity to eradicate them was pissed away years ago, and now they're here to stay.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 01:21:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 12:34:47 PM
Dude, you get worked up if the first lady is wearing a short sleeves.
I can't control myself. Her arms are too fabulous.
Odd I figured you would be more worked up about her sartorial excellence and wonder where she bought her shirt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2014, 12:49:54 PM
If they're Taliban rather than AQ, then most of their time prior to capture was spent thinking of ways to fuck up Afghanistan and not the US. Something to keep in mind.
Right; from what I've read they're more political actors than Kalid Sheikh Mohammed. And whether we like it or not, the Taliban has to be dealt with as a political entity re: Afghanistan's future. The opportunity to eradicate them was pissed away years ago, and now they're here to stay.
What was that opportunity? Bloody conquest of Pakistan?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2014, 12:49:54 PM
If they're Taliban rather than AQ, then most of their time prior to capture was spent thinking of ways to fuck up Afghanistan and not the US. Something to keep in mind.
Right; from what I've read they're more political actors than Kalid Sheikh Mohammed. And whether we like it or not, the Taliban has to be dealt with as a political entity re: Afghanistan's future. The opportunity to eradicate them was pissed away years ago, and now they're here to stay.
A couple of them are wanted by the UN for war crimes for alleged murder of thousands. But they're just politicians, so we can let them go.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 01:21:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 12:34:47 PM
Dude, you get worked up if the first lady is wearing a short sleeves.
I can't control myself. Her arms are too fabulous.
Odd I figured you would be more worked up about her sartorial excellence and wonder where she bought her shirt.
Duh.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 01:23:36 PM
What was that opportunity? Bloody conquest of Pakistan?
By dropping everything we put into Iraq into the 'Stan instead, for starters.
But we had to manufacture a war instead, and make that the priority over avenging 9/11, because Saddam tried tah whack mah Daddy, and you don't mess with Texas, etc.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 01:27:51 PM
By dropping everything we put into Iraq into the 'Stan instead, for starters.
I'm not sure that necessarily would have given us substantially better results in Afghanistan. Unless maybe you wanted to invade Pakistan as well, though that's a whole other can of worms.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 08:38:55 AM
And who wouldn't want to bask in the universal popularity that rivals that of Benjamin Netanyahu?
Who released over a 1000 Hamas prisoners for Shalit.
As I say I think Joshua Foust's been right on this in the last 24 hours (and Snowden <_<):
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust
QuoteIf they're Taliban rather than AQ, then most of their time prior to capture was spent thinking of ways to fuck up Afghanistan and not the US. Something to keep in mind.
Indeed and a US ally will be needing to negotiate with the Taliban very shortly, if they're not already.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 01:25:57 PMA couple of them are wanted by the UN for war crimes for alleged murder of thousands. But they're just politicians, so we can let them go.
Uh... if the US cares about them being wanted by the UN for war crimes, why did you lock them up in Gitmo rather than hand them to a UN tribunal? It seems a bit weird to bring that up now...
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 01:25:57 PMA couple of them are wanted by the UN for war crimes for alleged murder of thousands. But they're just politicians, so we can let them go.
Uh... if the US cares about them being wanted by the UN for war crimes, why did you lock them up in Gitmo rather than hand them to a UN tribunal? It seems a bit weird to bring that up now...
Seems relevant when deciding whom to release.
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2014, 01:38:31 PMSeems relevant when deciding whom to release.
Also relevant when looking for reasons to be outraged.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2014, 01:38:31 PMSeems relevant when deciding whom to release.
Also relevant when looking for reasons to be outraged.
One has to be pretty tiresome to go looking about for reasons to be outraged.
At any rate, yeah, I'm not particularly outraged about this. :D
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2014, 01:41:49 PM
One has to be pretty tiresome to go looking about for reasons to be outraged.
At any rate, yeah, I'm not particularly outraged about this. :D
:hug: on both counts
I'm not losing sleep over it. I just think it is starting to look like an embarrassing fuckup and I'm disappointed in the Administration.
When in doubt about the merits of your case, it does no harm to claim your opponents are overreacting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 02:04:31 PM
When in doubt about the merits of your case, it does no harm to claim your opponents are overreacting.
When people are overreacting, it does no harm to claim that they are overreacting.
Quote from: KRonn on June 04, 2014, 12:41:13 PM
Does anyone think that the Pentagon and Intelligence officials were in favor of releasing these five Talibanistas from Gitmo? They were described as the worst of the worst. Wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the UN and/or internationally. Remember what the Taliban were doing when they were in power. Now they'll be free to do as they want within Qatar, living a life of luxury as martyrs. Later they'll be free to return to Afghanistan in a year (or less?) if they choose to and likely assume some of their leadership roles to bolster the Taliban.
Quote
Did Obama just swap five dangerous "terrorists" for Bergdahl, as Sen. Cruz alleges? It depends on your definition of "terrorism."
Four of the five men released into Qatar's custody, where they are supposed to remain for at least a year before being allowed to return home, were indeed senior members of the Taliban movement. The Taliban have been seeking the release of the five in exchange for Bergdahl since 2011, and there had been fitful progress in that regard, with Qatar acting as a mediator, since at least 2013.
Outgoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai has sought in recent years to find a reconciliation deal with the Taliban, and the release of the "Guantanamo Five" has been a part of those efforts.
Who are they? Khairullah Khairkhwa was governor of Herat during Taliban rule and is a founder of the group. Fazl Mazlum was head of their army. Nurullah Nuri was the Taliban's governor of Balkh province, and Abdul Haq Wasiq was the deputy head of Taliban intelligence. Mohammad Nabi Omeri is the most junior of the five, alleged by the US to have been the Taliban governments head of communications and has claimed that he had assisted the US in efforts to track down Mullah Omar, the titular head of the Taliban.
As best as can be made out, none of the released men were ever directly involved in efforts to mount terrorist attacks on the US or any other foreign country. Kate Clark, writing about the group for the Afghan Analysts Network in 2013, said that while accusations of war crimes against the men have been common in US press reports, evidence is scant.
Objections to their release appear based less on practical considerations, than on political ones, especially fears in the White House of being accused of dealing with the enemy during an election year
It seems important, therefore, to be honest about the allegations made about the five. All or some of the five have been labelled in press reports as war criminals, but without giving details of where, when and against whom the crimes supposedly took place. There is only real evidence against Mullah Fazl Mazlum and the allegations against him were known about at the time – that he had command responsibility when civilians were massacred and civilian property willfully destroyed. Many figures in government today have similar records. As will be looked at in depth in a second blog, claims made in the Guantanamo Bay tribunals and in press reports sourced to unnamed US officials, frequently do not stand up to close inspection.
There's also the concern that the arrest of some of these men actually contributed to the raging insurgency in Afghanistan. Clark writes: "At least one of the five, the former deputy intelligence chief, Abdul Haq Wasiq, was arrested in 2001 by the US army in a sting operation after he had handed himself in to the new Afghan government in good faith. This was one of many such detentions of major Taleban figures involving deception or duplicity in the early months of the US intervention... It was a tactic which helped sow the seeds of insurgency, in that it showed that Taleban would not be allowed to live in peace after the fall of their regime."
Anand Gopal dealt with this problem at length in a 2010 report for the New America Foundation, in which he argued that overtures from a group of senior Taliban commanders to surrender in exchange for freedom and getting out of politics were spurned as a combination of hubris, revenge-seeking by Afghan enemies, and US insistence that the Taliban should not be dealt with.
Karzai and other government officials ignored the overtures—largely due to pressures from the United States and the Northern Alliance, the Taliban's erstwhile enemy. Moreover, some Pashtun commanders who had been ousted by the Taliban seven years earlier were eager for revenge and were opposed to allowing former Taliban officials to go unpunished.
Widespread intimidation and harassment of these former Taliban ensued. Sympathetic figures in the government told Haqqani and others in the group that they should flee the country, for they would not be safe in Afghanistan. So the men eventually vanished across the border into Pakistan's Baluchistan province. Many of the signatories of the letter were to become leading figures in the insurgency.
Clark wrote of Khairkhwa that "during the Emirate, he was considered one of the more moderate Taleban in leadership circles" and she recounted meeting the man in September 2000. "Unlike many Taleban, he was comfortable speaking to a foreigner and, very unusually, happy to be interviewed in Persian (most Taleban would only speak Pashto at the time). Herat, where he was the governor, was noticeably more relaxed than Kabul, Mazar or Kandahar: I filmed openly in the city (then an illegal act), the economy was reasonably buoyant and women came up to chat – a very rare occurrence."
Fazl is probably the pick of the bunch when it comes to nastiness. In 1999 he was in charge of Taliban forces who participated in a scorched earth campaign in Shomali, with vast destruction of homes and orchards and the execution of civilians and captured Northern Alliance combatants. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans were displaced in that campaign.
Others in the group have been accused, without evidence, of having participated in massacres during the Afghan civil war that ended in Taliban victory. It seems a safe bet that these are not nice men.
But neither are many of the warlords the US and NATO helped bring to power in Afghanistan. Consider Abdul Rashid Dostum, who has served as army chief of staff under President Karzai. In 2001, as the US helped the Northern Alliance defeat the Taliban government, Dostum was credibly alleged to have been in command of troops that killed 2,000 Taliban detainees, some shot, most suffocated to death in shipping containers. That is not his only alleged crime, nor is he alone amongst the US and NATO's allies in the country. Human Rights Watch wrote in 2006:
Several of the worst perpetrators from Afghanistan's recent past are still active and engaging in widespread human rights abuses. Several highly placed members of the current Afghan government and legislature were implicated in war crimes during brutal fighting that killed or displaced hundreds of thousands of Afghans in the early 1990s and precipitated the rise of the Taliban. Most prominent among this group are parliamentarians Abdul Rabb al Rasul Sayyaf, Mohammed Qasim Fahim and Burhanuddin Rabbani, Minister of Energy Ismail Khan, Army Chief of Staff Abdul Rashid Dostum, and current Vice President Karim Khalili, all of whom continue to misuse positions of power.
If allegations of war crimes during Afghanistan's civil war amounts to being a terrorist, then the US has been treating with terrorists in Afghanistan for 13 years now.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0601/Five-Taliban-released-for-Sgt.-Bergdahl-This-is-how-wars-end.-video (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0601/Five-Taliban-released-for-Sgt.-Bergdahl-This-is-how-wars-end.-video)
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
When people are overreacting, it does no harm to claim that they are overreacting.
When you see outrage when others dispassionately raise objections, you end up losing credibility.
Dispassionately? Anyway did you see the leftists objecting to Obama's unconstitutionality Yi? Told you.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 01:25:57 PMA couple of them are wanted by the UN for war crimes for alleged murder of thousands. But they're just politicians, so we can let them go.
Uh... if the US cares about them being wanted by the UN for war crimes, why did you lock them up in Gitmo rather than hand them to a UN tribunal? It seems a bit weird to bring that up now...
Cause he doesn't give a shit about the UN nor do most Republicans. If they did Congress would pay the dues to the UN.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 02:44:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 01:25:57 PMA couple of them are wanted by the UN for war crimes for alleged murder of thousands. But they're just politicians, so we can let them go.
Uh... if the US cares about them being wanted by the UN for war crimes, why did you lock them up in Gitmo rather than hand them to a UN tribunal? It seems a bit weird to bring that up now...
Cause he doesn't give a shit about the UN nor do most Republicans. If they did Congress would pay the dues to the UN.
Most people don't feel that way about the UN? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 02:37:40 PM
Dispassionately? Anyway did you see the leftists objecting to Obama's unconstitutionality Yi? Told you.
I really don't know what point you're making. i was talking about Jacob describing Grabon and Speiss' reaction as "outrage."
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 02:44:21 PM
Cause he doesn't give a shit about the UN
:o What makes you say that? I participated in the 1989 Odd Fellows UN Pilgrimage, which helped steer me toward pursuing a degree in International Relations. As an Odd Fellow today I am active in helping today's high school students visit and learn about this vital international organization.
You don't strike me as being particularly odd. Republican suburban family man who enjoys watching sports and maybe plays the occasional war game?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 02:37:40 PM
Dispassionately? Anyway did you see the leftists objecting to Obama's unconstitutionality Yi? Told you.
I really don't know what point you're making. i was talking about Jacob describing Grabon and Speiss' reaction as "outrage."
I wasn't describing their reaction as outrage. I was describing GOP aligned media outrage as outrage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
When people are overreacting, it does no harm to claim that they are overreacting.
When you see outrage when others dispassionately raise objections, you end up losing credibility.
I find that you tend to interpret my posts to ensure maximum credibility loss in your eyes. I'm surprised I have any left to lose at this point, to be honest.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 02:44:21 PM
Cause he doesn't give a shit about the UN
:o What makes you say that? I participated in the 1989 Odd Fellows UN Pilgrimage, which helped steer me toward pursuing a degree in International Relations. As an Odd Fellow today I am active in helping today's high school students visit and learn about this vital international organization.
You should write you congressmen about the failure to pay dues.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 03:31:57 PM
I find that you tend to interpret my posts to ensure maximum credibility loss in your eyes. I'm surprised I have any left to lose at this point, to be honest.
You responded to comments by Grabon and Speiss concerning War Crimes indictments, which made no mention of GOP aligned media, with a claim of manufactured outrage, which also made no mention of GOP aligned media. The natural response of a reader is going to be that you were accusing those two of manufactured outrage. That seems to be the way your two interlocutors interpreted your comment.
If you're clarifying now that that's not what you intended, that's great, but don't be surprised if people misunderstand you.
And on that note, I'm not that impressed with "if crazy guys are ranting about Obama's decision then it must be OK" as a line of logic either. Crazy guys rant about everything. If we follow that logic then *nothing* Obama ever does is a mistake.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 02:37:40 PM
Dispassionately? Anyway did you see the leftists objecting to Obama's unconstitutionality Yi? Told you.
I really don't know what point you're making. i was talking about Jacob describing Grabon and Speiss' reaction as "outrage."
Just that in this country it is rarely dispassionately, we tend to run on outrage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 03:43:43 PMYou responded to comments by Grabon and Speiss concerning War Crimes indictments, which made no mention of GOP aligned media, with a claim of manufactured outrage, which also made no mention of GOP aligned media. The natural response of a reader is going to be that you were accusing those two of manufactured outrage. That seems to be the way your two interlocutors interpreted your comment.
It seems to me that we established that neither derspiess nor garbon are outraged about this, to our mutual satisfaction. Nothing else in our particular subset of the conversation was directed at any individual poster as far as I can see. That's all you reading between the lines and assuming it's all personal.
QuoteIf you're clarifying now that that's not what you intended, that's great, but don't be surprised if people misunderstand you.
I am rarely surprised when you misunderstand me. It seems that you and I have a severe communication gap, which has manifested itself many times here. I could break down the specifics of this particular case, but I don't know if it would lead anywhere interesting or useful.
As for "people" - or in this case derspiess and garbon - I am content with how things have gone thus far.
QuoteAnd on that note, I'm not that impressed with "if crazy guys are ranting about Obama's decision then it must be OK" as a line of logic either. Crazy guys rant about everything. If we follow that logic then *nothing* Obama ever does is a mistake.
I agree. That is not an impressive line of logic.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2014, 03:27:51 PM
You don't strike me as being particularly odd.
I have a membership card to prove it. Once I move up far enough in the Lodge I have plans to revitalize and modernize our military wing :menace:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 03:36:33 PM
You should write you congressmen about the failure to pay dues.
Only so much I can do, man. My support through Odd Fellows and my church (UNICEF) isn't enough for you?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2014, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 08:38:55 AM
And who wouldn't want to bask in the universal popularity that rivals that of Benjamin Netanyahu?
Who released over a 1000 Hamas prisoners for Shalit.
Well yes. However there was universal agreement that it was a necessary evil in israel. Everybody there has family in the army. Netanyahu gained political clout by getting Shalit released. He gained popularity.
"confidence building measure between US and taliban" ?
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 04:25:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2014, 03:36:33 PM
You should write you congressmen about the failure to pay dues.
Only so much I can do, man. My support through Odd Fellows and my church (UNICEF) isn't enough for you?
Tell those UNICEF people to wipe that powdered milk off their faces, it's unsightly. And flies on the eyelids make my nads climb up into my abdominal cavity. Ick.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2014, 05:00:50 PM
Well yes. However there was universal agreement that it was a necessary evil in israel. Everybody there has family in the army. Netanyahu gained political clout by getting Shalit released. He gained popularity.
Absolutely.
I think there's three issues here. One is whether the negotiation should have taken place at all - should we negotiate with 'terrorists'? Which is a political judgement really. Though I would note that in the last 13 years Iraqi groups have earned around $40 million, Afghan groups $20 million and Somali pirate almost $200 million trading for hostages. Similarly as in the Shalit example the Israeli government won't negotiate with Hamas, but they did and released over a 1000 Hamas prisoners to get him back. Going back there's obviously Iran-contra and questions over the UK government and Megrahi. So I don't think we can credibly start talking by saying we 'don't negotiate with terrorists'. But whether we should and in what circumstances and at what price.
Second thing is whether he's a deserter or not. I think that should be established in the usual way by a trial. It isn't unheard of for people to leave base even in Afghanistan. Here's a story by a journalist embedded in Bergdahl's unit of walking with him to the nearby ANA base - this isn't the only suggestion he'd done it before:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/i-met-bowe-bergdahl-before-he-went-missing-afghanistan
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140603/NEWS05/306030078/Sources-Bergdahl-may-walked-off-base-more-than-once
There's examples of soldiers who were killed off-base when they weren't meant to be there. Then of course there's the example of Robert Bales. It's not allowed but there's a big difference between him just wandering off for the night - as he'd done before - and deserting. Generally I think the best way to deal with that is through the normal process (though chances are he'll just be discharged as quietly as possible), as it is he's still just a US soldier who was 'missing-captured'.
Thirdly there's the stuff from his unit. This ties into the above and would be tested in a normal hearing for his 'desertion'. As it is I just think we shouldn't necessarily take soldiers' words for it. I think there'll be the same problems as with people in any institution (even on a tiny level like here) especially if they feel betrayed or if there's loss of life afterwards. There's enough cases - Danny Chen, Jill Metzger, Pat Tillman - to not give immediate credence to what his comrades think. Though it's worth investigating. Yes he wanted an AK and sent home his laptop. But there seems a tone that he shouldn't have been trying to learn Pushto or Dari and he shouldn't have been hanging around with local soldiers or drinking tea with village elders when something happened at the base, which I'm not convinced by.
At the minute I think there's a totally fair debate on whether there should've been a deal, but I think it's not quite right to be condemning him as a cowardly deserter when we simply don't know and that should be established. His comrades and him both deserve the benefit of the doubt. He may be, both stories could be true. But I think it's worth waiting for that to be established before we blame him for the deaths of lots of soldiers because that's a serious thing to say of a soldier even if it may turn out to be true.
I wonder if another issue is whether he should've been in the military at all. Reading about his background from an old article, he's not your image of a soldier. He was turned down by the Foreign Legion (who didn't want a home-schooled kid from Idaho). He seems like a very clever and serious guy but also quite intense, naive and lonesome. Someone who was looking for meaning (and a bit of adventure). I wonder if it weren't for the wars and needing manpower if he'd have been accepted in the forces at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
When people are overreacting, it does no harm to claim that they are overreacting.
When you see outrage when others dispassionately raise objections, you end up losing credibility.
There is nothing dispassionate about the Republican response. It is just Benghazi II. Politics, politics, politics.
I don't even think the Republican Party can recall the idea of actual governance or leadership anymore - it simply isn't part of their operating procedures anymore.
What about the Democrats criticizing the Administration on this? Are they crazy nutzo rightwingers, etc.?
If a soldier fled an area during a hot and apparently failing action only to be captured by the enemy despite the outcome of the action... would that soldier be worthy of a prisoner swap down the road?
Quote from: mongers on June 04, 2014, 06:15:34 PM
"confidence building measure between US and taliban" ?
All diplomats need to get shot.
Quote from: PRC on June 05, 2014, 12:27:31 AM
If a soldier fled an area during a hot and apparently failing action only to be captured by the enemy despite the outcome of the action... would that soldier be worthy of a prisoner swap down the road?
Yeah. How else are we going to get to prosecute him?
What if the soldier was a foreign national with pedophilic tendencies and was suspected of selling secrets to a communist power?
Sounds like the kind of guy who would never desert until every last Muslim was dead.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:48:11 PM
What about the Democrats criticizing the Administration on this? Are they crazy nutzo rightwingers, etc.?
Some of them possibly, some of them not. There are also, I expect, some legitimate criticism coming from Republican quarters but it kind of gets lost in the noise of the high-pitched outrage-machine.
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2014, 01:01:51 PM
Some of them possibly, some of them not. There are also, I expect, some legitimate criticism coming from Republican quarters but it kind of gets lost in the noise of the high-pitched outrage-machine.
What media sources are you following? As I mentioned earlier, I am unaware of any Republican talking points on this issue.
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2014, 01:01:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:48:11 PM
What about the Democrats criticizing the Administration on this? Are they crazy nutzo rightwingers, etc.?
Some of them possibly, some of them not. There are also, I expect, some legitimate criticism coming from Republican quarters but it kind of gets lost in the noise of the high-pitched outrage-machine.
I can tell you that none of the Dems criticizing the president are crazy nutso rightwingers.
Maybe it's being reported differently in Canada, but here the legit criticism (we gave up too much in the deal, Congress was not consulted in the legally mandated timeframe, etc.) does not seem to be drowned out by the the more extreme criticism (impeach, etc.). Actually on the whole I think the news coverage here has been pretty solid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/world/asia/bowe-bergdahl-case-shakes-democrats-confidence-in-administration.html
To be honest a lot of democrats see Obama as damaged goods by now and will actively seek to distance themselves from him.
Quote from: celedhring on June 05, 2014, 03:26:11 PM
To be honest a lot of democrats see Obama as damaged goods by now and will actively seek to distance themselves from him.
Especially in an election year ;)
Wonder if Seedy thinks they're racists.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2014, 01:18:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2014, 01:01:51 PM
Some of them possibly, some of them not. There are also, I expect, some legitimate criticism coming from Republican quarters but it kind of gets lost in the noise of the high-pitched outrage-machine.
What media sources are you following? As I mentioned earlier, I am unaware of any Republican talking points on this issue.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/04/Stonewall-Jackson-on-deserters
How do you know what Jake follows Raz? :unsure:
I was making you aware of Republican talking points.
Anyone else see the Taliban video of the POW handover ?
Kinda interesting to see video of something you only tend to see in films.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2014, 06:35:44 PM
I was making you aware of Republican talking points.
Fair enough. What are the Democratic talking points?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2014, 06:58:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2014, 06:35:44 PM
I was making you aware of Republican talking points.
Fair enough. What are the Democratic talking points?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faniq.com%2Fimages%2Fblog%2F837642e3b7050ef9ff62b581f1cbec49.jpg&hash=98627f71af7a581e6877ffd8495e1b02902334c0)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2014, 06:58:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2014, 06:35:44 PM
I was making you aware of Republican talking points.
Fair enough. What are the Democratic talking points?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqGt4CCT.gif&hash=4e29e9ac12df072f249f7442a2d25e08a929cc20)
I don't get it.
The fat dude doesn't care that the haters think he looks stupid strutting around like that. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2014, 07:57:09 PM
I don't get it.
People who hate Obama will hate Obama. It is sad for Berghdal though. Sarah Palin praised him in 2009 and calls him a traitor in 2014. If only a good conservative had secured his release. :(
The value of that talking point is that you can use it for any situation. :)
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2014, 01:01:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:48:11 PM
What about the Democrats criticizing the Administration on this? Are they crazy nutzo rightwingers, etc.?
Some of them possibly, some of them not. There are also, I expect, some legitimate criticism coming from Republican quarters but it kind of gets lost in the noise of the high-pitched outrage-machine.
I can tell you that none of the Dems criticizing the president are crazy nutso rightwingers.
Maybe it's being reported differently in Canada, but here the legit criticism (we gave up too much in the deal, Congress was not consulted in the legally mandated timeframe, etc.) does not seem to be drowned out by the the more extreme criticism (impeach, etc.). Actually on the whole I think the news coverage here has been pretty solid.
I'm not hearing much about Impeach from legislators. Probably that's mostly coming from talk show hosts, etc. Yeah, many Dems are speaking out against this trade, the legalities of it, the contradicting/changing info from the admin about his health or that he was about to be killed. Also a big point has been the release of these top leaders, detainees that Intel said should never be released. Saying how this was a sweet deal for the Taliban, Taliban saying it's a major victory, and will embolden them and other extremist groups to take US prisoners around the world..
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2014/06/will_when_the_president_goes_rogue
QuoteWASHINGTON — What Winston Churchill said of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — that he was a bull who carried his own china shop around with him — is true of Susan Rice, who is, to be polite, accident prone. When in September 2012 she was deputed to sell to the public the fable that the Benghazi attack was just an unfortunately vigorous movie review — a response to an Internet video — it could have been that she, rather than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was given this degrading duty because Rice was merely U.N. ambassador, an ornamental position at an inconsequential institution. Today, however, Rice is Barack Obama's national security adviser, so two conclusions must be drawn.
Perhaps she did not know, in advance of the swap of five terrorists for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the, shall we say, ambiguities about Bergdahl's departure from his platoon in Afghanistan, and the reportedly deadly consequences of his behavior. If so, then she has pioneered a degree of incompetence exotic even for this 10-thumbed administration. If, however, she did know, and still allowed Obama to present this as a mellow moment of national satisfaction, she is condign punishment for his choice of such hirelings.
Perhaps this exchange really is, as Obama said in defending it, an excellent thing "regardless of the circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be." His confidence in its excellence is striking, considering that he acknowledges that we do not know the facts about what would seem to be important "circumstances."
Such as the note Bergdahl reportedly left before disappearing, in which he supposedly said he did not approve of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. And the notably strong and numerous expressions of anger by members of Bergdahl's battalion concerning his comportment and its costs.
Obama did not comply with the law requiring presidents to notify Congress 30 days before such exchanges. Politico can be cited about this not because among the media it is exceptionally, well, understanding of Obama's exuberant notion of executive latitude but because it is not. Politico headlined a story on his noncompliance with the law "Obama May Finally Be Going Rogue on Gitmo." Politico said Obama's "assertive" act "defied Congress" — Congress, not the rule of law — in order "to get that process [of closing Guantanamo Bay prison] moving." It sent "a clear message" that "Obama is now willing to wield his executive powers to get the job done." Or, as used to be said in extenuation of strong leaders, "to make the trains run on time."
The 44th president, channeling — not for the first time — the 37th (in his post-impeachment conversation with David Frost), may say: "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Already the administration says events dictated a speed that precluded complying with the law.
This explanation should be accorded open-minded, but not empty-minded, consideration. It should be considered in light of the fact that as the Veterans Affairs debacle continued, Obama went to Afghanistan to hug some troops, then completed the terrorists-for-Bergdahl transaction. And in light of the fact that Obama waged a seven-month military intervention in Libya's civil war without complying with the law (the War Powers Resolution) that requires presidents to terminate within 60 to 90 days a military action not authorized or subsequently approved by Congress.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, says the administration told him he would be notified about negotiations for the release of terrorists. He now says he cannot "believe a thing this president says."
Obama says his agents "consulted with Congress for quite some time" about prisoner exchanges with the Taliban. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says there have been no consultations since 2011. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., says "I don't like it when the White House says the intelligence committees were briefed. Because we weren't." He says Obama is "referring to ... 2011-2012, when I was still in grade school."
Now, now. "Assertive" presidents can't be expected to "go rogue" without ruffling feathers. And omelets cannot be made without breaking eggs. Etc.
This episode will be examined by congressional committees, if they can pierce the administration's coming cover-up, which has been foreshadowed by the response to congressional attempts to scrutinize the politicization of the IRS.
If the military stalls on turning over files to Congress pertaining to the five years of Bergdahl's absence, we will at least know that there is no national institution remaining to be corrupted.
Poor Susan Rice, sent out yet again on last weekend's TV news shows to spin this swap.
Quote from: KRonn on June 06, 2014, 10:07:13 AM
I'm not hearing much about Impeach from legislators. Probably that's mostly coming from talk show hosts, etc. Yeah, many Dems are speaking out against this trade, the legalities of it, the contradicting/changing info from the admin about his health or that he was about to be killed. Also a big point has been the release of these top leaders, detainees that Intel said should never be released. Saying how this was a sweet deal for the Taliban, Taliban saying it's a major victory, and will embolden them and other extremist groups to take US prisoners around the world..
I think Lindsey Graham said that if the President does something like this again, they'll move to impeach him.
If there are really GOP "talking points", there are many different versions and they are all over the map. Dems usually seem to be more in sync with theirs.
Yeah any negotiation in that part of the world is seen as weakness and victory. That is why things get so fucked up there.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 10:12:12 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 06, 2014, 10:07:13 AM
I'm not hearing much about Impeach from legislators. Probably that's mostly coming from talk show hosts, etc. Yeah, many Dems are speaking out against this trade, the legalities of it, the contradicting/changing info from the admin about his health or that he was about to be killed. Also a big point has been the release of these top leaders, detainees that Intel said should never be released. Saying how this was a sweet deal for the Taliban, Taliban saying it's a major victory, and will embolden them and other extremist groups to take US prisoners around the world..
I think Lindsey Graham said that if the President does something like this again, they'll move to impeach him.
Lame by him, they won't impeach. That'll be a mess for the Republicans and they know it, as does Pres Obama. The President probably has more legal authority, if he can push the idea of the urgent timeline to make this swap, than he did on some of his other changes he's bypased Congress in health care, EPA, and elsewhere.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/politics/rice-cnn-interview/index.html
QuoteColleville-sur-Mer, FRANCE (CNN) -- President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Friday that her full-throated praise of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was appropriate given the former Taliban prisoner's willingness to go to war for his country -- despite questions about whether or not he deserted his Army colleagues.
:lol: Oh, Susan...
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 10:12:12 AM
If there are really GOP "talking points", there are many different versions and they are all over the map. Dems usually seem to be more in sync with theirs.
They all can boil down to "Obama bad!".
Tough to criticize a decision by the executive without criticizing the president.
"Republican talking point" seems to be gaining more and more currency among the Democratic pundocracy. Part and parcel of the ossification of the ability to debate anything on the merits. Another good one is "it's just common sense." Hear that one a lot too.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2014, 02:35:46 PM
They all can boil down to "Obama bad!".
Well they have a point there :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 02:48:51 PM
Tough to criticize a decision by the executive without criticizing the president.
"Republican talking point" seems to be gaining more and more currency among the Democratic pundocracy. Part and parcel of the ossification of the ability to debate anything on the merits. Another good one is "it's just common sense." Hear that one a lot too.
Welcome to 1998.
It's 2014.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 02:48:51 PM
"Republican talking point" seems to be gaining more and more currency among the Democratic pundocracy. Part and parcel of the ossification of the ability to debate anything on the merits. Another good one is "it's just common sense." Hear that one a lot too.
Again you have a coalition of Democrats and Republicans coming together right to counter executive over-reach but you just ignore that completely and cry about how Democrats are all Obamadrones and won't criticize him. I mean surely you never expected the Obama loyalists or party stalwarts to start aligning with Republicans did you? This is absurd.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 03:08:14 PM
Again you have a coalition of Democrats and Republicans coming together right to counter executive over-reach but you just ignore that completely and cry about how Democrats are all Obamadrones and won't criticize him. I mean surely you never expected the Obama loyalists or party stalwarts to start aligning with Republicans did you? This is absurd.
I said absolutely nothing of the sort. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 03:06:35 PM
It's 2014.
Says the guy who didn't understand the "Haters gonna Hate", gif.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2014, 01:18:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2014, 01:01:51 PM
Some of them possibly, some of them not. There are also, I expect, some legitimate criticism coming from Republican quarters but it kind of gets lost in the noise of the high-pitched outrage-machine.
What media sources are you following? As I mentioned earlier, I am unaware of any Republican talking points on this issue.
All the brouhaha about pre-emptively labelling him a deserter is part of the outrage-machine, IMO, and it gets kind of silly when people like FOX's Kimberly Guilfoyle suggests that Bergdahl would have been brought home in a body-bag had former comrades found him. O'Reilly calling Bergdahl's father a muslim because of his beard, and Palin accusing Bergdahl of having "horrid anti-American beliefs" are more of the same.
That whole "he is a deserter" thing is pretty distasteful too, IMO, at the very least until that's been established through proper juridical channels. The fact that the GOP pushed for Bergdahl's release in the past - including people like McCain (and Palin), and including having Bergdahl's father speak at GOP functions - and now it's all about smearing the man because it serves GOP interests to paint him as worthless (so they can attack Obama) is pretty sick.
Graham bringing up impeachment over this is pretty ridiculous in my opinion also.
Certainly, there can be some criticism on the "communicate with Congress" issue, there could also be something to "these guys are too valuable and/or bad to trade" (but from what I've read, they weren't really); but the media is full of Bergdahl's character being besmirched for political purposes and that is being fuelled both by GOP politicians and by aligned political operatives and media people.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 10:53:47 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/politics/rice-cnn-interview/index.html
QuoteColleville-sur-Mer, FRANCE (CNN) -- President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Friday that her full-throated praise of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was appropriate given the former Taliban prisoner's willingness to go to war for his country -- despite questions about whether or not he deserted his Army colleagues.
:lol: Oh, Susan...
What about all the Conservative praise for him...up until they all got the memo that this was another chance to attack the President?
Quote"Todd and I are praying for Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, his family, and all of his fellow soldiers who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom and protect democracy abroad," Governor Palin said. "The capture of Private Bergdahl and the bombings in Jakarta prove that we have not defeated terrorism, and that radical extremists will stop at nothing to attack Westerners and our ideals."
Sarah Palin in 2009
QuoteNo, Mr. President, a soldier expressing horrid anti-American beliefs – even boldly putting them in writing and unabashedly firing off his messages (http://nypost.com/2014/05/31/the-bizarre-tale-of-americas-last-known-pow/) while in uniform, just three days before he left his unit on foot – is not "honorable service." Unless that is your standard."
Sarah Palin 2014.
She's not the only one.
Quote"Then there is Army SGT Bowe Bergdahl still held by the Islamic terrorist Haqqani network, probably in Pakistan, in the same place where Osama Bin Laden was hiding. This past POW/MIA national day of recognition, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterated a pledge to secure the young Army NCO being held captive, but have there been any actions? Any time, attention, or even mention from the Commander-in-Chief? Nah, no camera highlights in it for him."
Allen West in 2013
Quote"Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that Barack Hussein Obama's unilateral negotiations with terrorists and the ensuing release of their key leadership without consult — mandated by law — with the U.S. Congress represents high crimes and misdemeanors, an impeachable offense.
Allen West in 2014
Quote"The mission to bring our missing soldiers home is one that will never end. It's important that we make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family."
James Inhofe in 2013
QuoteWell, my response is the president knew fell and well that these are the highest ranking Taliban people in captivity. And that's the issue. It wouldn't make any difference who Bergdahl was. [...] So they should have turned Hitler loose and that would have been the end of the war. No, that's on his face, it didn't pass the smell test."
James Inhofe in 2014
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/06/republicans-sgt-bergdahl-now/ And so on...
Other than Palin's comments, those don't seem like flip-flops. Basically they're saying "Something needs to be done to get Bergdahl out!" Then "No, not that!"
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 05:40:42 PM
All the brouhaha about pre-emptively labelling him a deserter is part of the outrage-machine, IMO, and it gets kind of silly when people like FOX's Kimberly Guilfoyle suggests that Bergdahl would have been brought home in a body-bag had former comrades found him. O'Reilly calling Bergdahl's father a muslim because of his beard, and Palin accusing Bergdahl of having "horrid anti-American beliefs" are more of the same.
Well yeah, if you follow the story on Fox you're going to get a lot of outrage. :mellow:
I, on the other hand, have been following it mostly on CNN, and have yet to see any outrage.
QuoteThat whole "he is a deserter" thing is pretty distasteful too, IMO, at the very least until that's been established through proper juridical channels. The fact that the GOP pushed for Bergdahl's release in the past - including people like McCain (and Palin), and including having Bergdahl's father speak at GOP functions - and now it's all about smearing the man because it serves GOP interests to paint him as worthless (so they can attack Obama) is pretty sick.
Disagree on these two. Members of his platoon came forward after the exchange was announced to express their opinions about Bergdahl's actions. I don't need to wait for a court verdict before I can start forming an opinion on whether he deserted or not.
The people who changed their tune were, AFAIK, unaware of the desertion allegation when they pushed for his release. It would be very peculiar if they did *not* change their stance when that came to light.
QuoteGraham bringing up impeachment over this is pretty ridiculous in my opinion also.
I'm a little iffyer on this one. I have read somewhere that members of Congress feel like they were lied to by the White House. That's not a joking matter.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 06, 2014, 06:44:55 PM
Other than Palin's comments, those don't seem like flip-flops. Basically they're saying "Something needs to be done to get Bergdahl out!" Then "No, not that!"
I screwed up Inhofe's comment. Last year he was saying that every thing should be done to get Bergdahl back.
Yi, as far as I know Bergdahl has not been convicted of anything, it would be inappropriate to take the tack of "Leave him to die" for an American citizen who has only been accused of something.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2014, 06:55:15 PM
Yi, as far as I know Bergdahl has not been convicted of anything, it would be inappropriate to take the tack of "Leave him to die" for an American citizen who has only been accused of something.
I get the sense you think this somehow rebuts something that I wrote.
You know Jake, I think I misinterpreted your statement. I read it to mean *discussion* of Bergdahl is dominated by GOP outrage, whereas now I'm thinking you mean GOP criticism is dominated by loopy outrage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 07:02:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2014, 06:55:15 PM
Yi, as far as I know Bergdahl has not been convicted of anything, it would be inappropriate to take the tack of "Leave him to die" for an American citizen who has only been accused of something.
I get the sense you think this somehow rebuts something that I wrote.
The desertion allegations are irrelevant as he has not been convicted of anything. If people were changing their opinion based on whether or not he should be saved based on allegations then they acting inappropriately.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 06:48:00 PM
Well yeah, if you follow the story on Fox you're going to get a lot of outrage. :mellow:
I, on the other hand, have been following it mostly on CNN, and have yet to see any outrage.
But CNN's the minnow of the news channels. You're wilfully blinding yourself to most American politics at the minute if you're not trying to keep up with the two outrage machines on either side. Especially because what starts as an outre attack on a blog often gets sanded down into a piece on Fox/MSNBC and later refined into respectable opinion on CNN or in a comment piece.
QuoteDisagree on these two. Members of his platoon came forward after the exchange was announced to express their opinions about Bergdahl's actions. I don't need to wait for a court verdict before I can start forming an opinion on whether he deserted or not.
But as I say let's not forget that troops lie, or with the best intentions misinterpret things, or don't understand the guy who doesn't quite fit in. As I've mentioned before a lot of the evidence seems to be that he was learning the language and trying to be friendly with local Afghans - such as his wanderings off-base to the local ANA post. We have the examples of Metzger and Tillman to remind us of that and I think if we want to call him a deserter (or someone else a murderer) it's best to wait for that to be established. Form an opinion, but I think it's wrong to just call him a deserter and definitely wrong to do it over national news.
From the perspective of policy I think it's even more clear. You can either not leave a soldier behind - who is officially missing-captured - or you can choose to do nothing based on allegations even if from other soldiers. I think it's clearly right that you negotiate for him as you would any other soldier and then establish whether he deserted or not rather than pre-judging the issue and leaving a soldier in enemy hands who may not have deserted, or may have had a breakdown, or whatever else.
QuoteThe people who changed their tune were, AFAIK, unaware of the desertion allegation when they pushed for his release. It would be very peculiar if they did *not* change their stance when that came to light.
Yeah, but those allegations were around in 2009. They're not new.
QuoteI'm a little iffyer on this one. I have read somewhere that members of Congress feel like they were lied to by the White House. That's not a joking matter.
Lied to how? I'm not clear on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 06, 2014, 09:51:08 PM
But CNN's the minnow of the news channels. You're wilfully blinding yourself to most American politics at the minute if you're not trying to keep up with the two outrage machines on either side. Especially because what starts as an outre attack on a blog often gets sanded down into a piece on Fox/MSNBC and later refined into respectable opinion on CNN or in a comment piece.
Sure yeah, but by the same token Fox and MSNBC are not what define "the tone of the national dialogue," which is what i was trying to get at.
QuoteQuoteDisagree on these two. Members of his platoon came forward after the exchange was announced to express their opinions about Bergdahl's actions. I don't need to wait for a court verdict before I can start forming an opinion on whether he deserted or not.
But as I say let's not forget that troops lie, or with the best intentions misinterpret things, or don't understand the guy who doesn't quite fit in. As I've mentioned before a lot of the evidence seems to be that he was learning the language and trying to be friendly with local Afghans - such as his wanderings off-base to the local ANA post.
This is the kind of argument you use in criminal court to beat the reasonable doubt level of proof. I agree that we have not established that Bergdahl is a deserter at that level of certainty. But as I already expressed, in public discourse we don't need that level of certainty to express an opinion.
QuoteFrom the perspective of policy I think it's even more clear. You can either not leave a soldier behind - who is officially missing-captured - or you can choose to do nothing based on allegations even if from other soldiers. I think it's clearly right that you negotiate for him as you would any other soldier and then establish whether he deserted or not rather than pre-judging the issue and leaving a soldier in enemy hands who may not have deserted, or may have had a breakdown, or whatever else.
Now here's the reasonable core of the debate IMO. How should one proceed as a principal with the information we have now? And here's also where I think the true cultural cleavage lies. Depending on where you fall on the spectrum, your attitude towards desertion in general, and desertion towards this particular group in this particular war, is going to differ vastly. And that's why I think Obama fucked this up, because nonpartisan, swing vote, middle America is going to end up saying he was a fucker and we paid to get him back.
QuoteQuoteThe people who changed their tune were, AFAIK, unaware of the desertion allegation when they pushed for his release. It would be very peculiar if they did *not* change their stance when that came to light.
Yeah, but those allegations were around in 2009. They're not new.
They never showed up on my radar, and my radar is motherfucking good.
QuoteLied to how? I'm not clear on this.
Dunno. It was a first impression blurb I read in some article I can't recall.
I must admit that I'm still not "getting" the congressional outrage. Yeah, they passed a law saying that the president wasn't the commander-in-chief when it comes to Gitmo POWs because... well, because. Obama signalled in his signing statement that Congress was overstepping its authority, though he didn't veto. Swapping their POWs for ours is a standard procedure, and one the CinC has had, in the past, exclusive control over. The Taliban had the leverage to get a pretty good deal.
That somebody on this board heard somewhere that some of the Taliban were "wanted by the UN" for "war crimes or something" is meaningless noise. "The UN" doesn't want people for war crime; the ICC does. The ICC didn't request extradition, as far as I can tell, so probably what people on this board 'heard" was mistaken, or they themselves misunderstood.
As far as Bergdahl costing money to incarcerate, the released Taliban cost a lot as well, so the US actually saved some money.
The one thing that impresses me about this whole thing is that the Republicans seem to have scored a major political victory by successfully portraying both Obama's failure to free Bergdahl in the past, and his success in the present, as incompetence. Winning a battle of wits against an unarmed man isn't that great an accomplishment, but they have done it.
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2014, 01:59:08 PM
I must admit that I'm still not "getting" the congressional outrage...
POTM
Did you read my posting of the Christian Science Monitor article? Like your post, a rational take on the situation. A few of the released Taliban are more functionaries and moderate members than blood thirsty terrorists. Hardly "worst of the worse".
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0601/Five-Taliban-released-for-Sgt.-Bergdahl-This-is-how-wars-end.-video
Quote from: citizen k on June 07, 2014, 06:45:56 PM
POTM
Did you read my posting of the Christian Science Monitor article? Like your post, a rational take on the situation. A few of the released Taliban are more functionaries and moderate members than blood thirsty terrorists. Hardly "worst of the worse".
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0601/Five-Taliban-released-for-Sgt.-Bergdahl-This-is-how-wars-end.-video
I did see that, and agree. The US rounded these guys up as part of a war not on terrorism, per se, but on a regime that didn't care that it was supporting terrorism. That these guys were POWs, not criminal terrorists, is demonstrated by the fact that the same congress that is whining about their release also passed laws making it illegal to give them trials. If they were criminals, they had a right to a speedy trial. The lack of a trial means either that Congress doesn't see them as criminals, or else that it was itself willing to violate the constitution.
Yeah, it sucks to release people who are enemies of the country. But life is full of choices that suck. Congress needs to man up and deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2014, 01:52:26 AMSure yeah, but by the same token Fox and MSNBC are not what define "the tone of the national dialogue," which is what i was trying to get at.
I think they are, far more than CNN or NPR or the NYT.
QuoteThis is the kind of argument you use in criminal court to beat the reasonable doubt level of proof. I agree that we have not established that Bergdahl is a deserter at that level of certainty. But as I already expressed, in public discourse we don't need that level of certainty to express an opinion.
I don't think it is. Public discourse doesn't need any level of certainty to express an opinion. That's never been an issue for public discourse. Which is generally fine. But that doesn't mean TV networks or politicians should be branding him a deserter. See here for the doubts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/world/asia/bowe-bergdahl-walked-away-before-military-report-says.html?hp&_r=0
QuoteA classified military report detailing the Army's investigation into the disappearance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in June 2009 says that he had wandered away from assigned areas before — both at a training range in California and at his remote outpost in Afghanistan — and then returned, according to people briefed on it.
...
But the report is said to contain no mention of Sergeant Bergdahl's having left behind a letter in his tent that explicitly said he was deserting and explained his disillusionment, as a retired senior military official briefed on the investigation at the time told The New York Times this week.
...
It is said to confirm certain other details relayed in recent accounts, including that Sergeant Bergdahl shipped his computer and a journal home before he disappeared. It also confirms that he left behind his body armor and weapon — an unwieldy SAW machine gun — taking with him water, knives and a compass.
The report speculates that he most likely left in darkness after the moon had set, following one of two possible routes through the concertina wire.
While much of the report is said to focus on disciplinary problems in his unit and a lack of accountability in its chain of command, it is also said to portray Sergeant Bergdahl as a free-spirited young man who read martial-arts books, drank tea with Afghan soldiers from whom he tried to pick up Pashto phrases, and maintained a collection of throwing stars and knives, which it documents in detail.
Its portrayal of him as a soldier is said to be positive, with quotes from both commanders and squad mates — apparently including some of the men now criticizing him — describing him as punctual, always in the correct uniform and asking good questions. It quotes colleagues as saying that he expressed some boredom and frustration that they were not "kicking down doors" more to go after insurgents who were destroying schools.
The report is also said to contain no mention of any alleged intercepts of radio or cellphone traffic indicating that Sergeant Bergdahl was asking villagers if anyone spoke English and trying to get in touch with the Taliban, as two former squad mates told CNN this week in separate interviews; they both said they remembered hearing about the intercepts from a translator who received the report.
So the sources for his desertion are a note no-one can find, testimony that can't be substantiated, anonymous Taliban quotes and a suggestion that he'd gone native. That shouldn't be enough to fuck up this guy's homecoming.
QuoteNow here's the reasonable core of the debate IMO. How should one proceed as a principal with the information we have now? And here's also where I think the true cultural cleavage lies. Depending on where you fall on the spectrum, your attitude towards desertion in general, and desertion towards this particular group in this particular war, is going to differ vastly. And that's why I think Obama fucked this up, because nonpartisan, swing vote, middle America is going to end up saying he was a fucker and we paid to get him back.
I disagree that it matters what your attitude to desertion or this war is. If we assume everything turns out true: that he did desert and that he was running off to India, where does that leave you? You're okay with effectively leaving him (still an American soldier) with the Taliban until they decide to behead him? In my view I think unless a British soldier was now actively fighting with the Taliban/whoever else against British forces they should be brought home.
From a policy perspective I can't see any alternative and I don't understand how you judge - short of a trial - which American soldiers deserve to be left in enemy hands? Either way the government'll be attacked. I don't think Obama fucked up, I think this was the right choice, but he definitely lost the political battle afterwards.
QuoteThey never showed up on my radar, and my radar is motherfucking good.
Okay. I think for most normal people that's fine. But with conservative politicians and media figures they either didn't know, which is also fine, but suggests they weren't reading much on Bergdahl's case before the rescue and the failure to free him was just a convenient stick to beat Obama with. Or they did know and they've just flip-flopped to whichever position allows them to attack Obama.
I think that's all part of the syntheticness of the outrage.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2014, 12:53:36 AM
I don't think it is. Public discourse doesn't need any level of certainty to express an opinion. That's never been an issue for public discourse. Which is generally fine. But that doesn't mean TV networks or politicians should be branding him a deserter.
The distinction between expressing an opinion and branding eludes me.
So the sources for his desertion are a note no-one can find, testimony that can't be substantiated, anonymous Taliban quotes and a suggestion that he'd gone native. That shouldn't be enough to fuck up this guy's homecoming.[/quote]
No substantiation? I've heard that numerous members of his platoon believe he was a deserter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2014, 01:56:04 AM
No substantiation? I've heard that numerous members of his platoon believe he was a deserter.
Aren't those examples of opinions that can't be substantiated? In a court-martial, they don't convict someone of desertion based on a vote of the opinions of the members of his unit.
I will say that they, at least, knew the guy. They have a right to an opinion. John McCain does not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2014, 01:56:04 AM
The distinction between expressing an opinion and branding eludes me.
'I think he deserted.' 'In my opinion, he's a deserter.' v. 'We released five dangerous terrorists and get a deserter in return.' The difference between stating an opinion and a fact has been ignored by a lot of news commentators this last week.
Every single one of the things Hans went on to say - the note, comments about opposing the US and supporting the Afghans - has either never been found or has been contested by other of his comrades.
Meanwhile, outside of the political air war, the consequences of this are that his home town have had to cancel a planned homecoming celebration for fear of disruption and the FBI are investigating death threats against his family.
QuoteNo substantiation? I've heard that numerous members of his platoon believe he was a deserter.
And numerous disagree with them. You know, Metzger's unit thought she'd run off to get an abortion. Though as grumbler says that's not substance either and convicting someone of desertion should be more than a show of hands among his comrades.
When you say disputed, are you talking about the guy in his unit in Alaska? If you're talking about guys in his unit in Afghanistan, could you indulge me in a link?
Also, do you demand the same standard of qualification from those who assert he was POW, such as the president? :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2014, 11:31:37 AM
When you say disputed, are you talking about the guy in his unit in Alaska? If you're talking about guys in his unit in Afghanistan, could you indulge me in a link?
I think it was in the NYT piece I linked, that some members in the military's investigation didn't think he deserted; others did. It's also in the big Hastings' Rolling Stone piece from 2012 I think someone linked to (which also mentions a Republican aide who thought the deal Obama discussed with the Senate in 2012 would be his Willie Horton moment and includes the desertion allegations). And, again, Joshua Foust's twitter :P
Some guys in his unit think he deserted, others don't. Based on everything that's out there I think he was definitely AWOL but it really doesn't seem clear that he deserted (and of course given that we know he routinely left base it's not beyond the ken of the Taliban or local sympathisers to notice that).
QuoteAlso, do you demand the same standard of qualification from those who assert he was POW, such as the president? :P
What needs to be qualified? I'm not sure what you mean. Doesn't POW just mean the Taliban would have to treat him well - rather than as they reportedly did torturing him, keeping him leashed and in a cage after his 2-3 escape attempts.
I think on that that he was a hostage and was treated as a hostage. But I've read that this was considered one of the first issues to deal with the Taliban on and almost as a test, or a 'confidence building measure', over negotiations. In that context I think it makes more sense to call him a PoW than a hostage.
Didn't see anything like that in the NYT link.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2014, 06:06:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 10:53:47 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/politics/rice-cnn-interview/index.html
QuoteColleville-sur-Mer, FRANCE (CNN) -- President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Friday that her full-throated praise of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was appropriate given the former Taliban prisoner's willingness to go to war for his country -- despite questions about whether or not he deserted his Army colleagues.
:lol: Oh, Susan...
What about all the Conservative praise for him...up until they all got the memo that this was another chance to attack the President?
Are you asking me? I can't really answer for them, but from what I've read they were making their statements before the dirt started to appear on Bergdahl. Our pal Susan kept spouting her ignorant talking points (and doubled down on them later) after we started hearing negative things about Bergdahl.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2014, 01:56:04 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2014, 12:53:36 AM
I don't think it is. Public discourse doesn't need any level of certainty to express an opinion. That's never been an issue for public discourse. Which is generally fine. But that doesn't mean TV networks or politicians should be branding him a deserter.
The distinction between expressing an opinion and branding eludes me.
QuoteSo the sources for his desertion are a note no-one can find, testimony that can't be substantiated, anonymous Taliban quotes and a suggestion that he'd gone native. That shouldn't be enough to fuck up this guy's homecoming.
No substantiation? I've heard that numerous members of his platoon believe he was a deserter.
His emails to his parents also seem to strongly reflect the mindset of a deserter or defector. Also, I'm puzzled by his father's reaction to them. He was apparently pretty supportive. Were it me, I'd be a bit freaked out by remarks like that & would try to contact Bowe's company commander to tell him he's probably not in the best mental state to be on the front line.
bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim
His father was definitely pulling out all the stops to get him back. Speaking directly to the Taliban in Pashtun? Holy shit.
I am glad he got his son back if nothing else.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 09:22:58 AM
His emails to his parents also seem to strongly reflect the mindset of a deserter or defector. Also, I'm puzzled by his father's reaction to them. He was apparently pretty supportive. Were it me, I'd be a bit freaked out by remarks like that & would try to contact Bowe's company commander to tell him he's probably not in the best mental state to be on the front line.
There's a bit difference between deserting and defecting. Though I think in the general discussion of him that's become blurred. What's the evidence he defected?
I'd also say his last e-mail also reflects the mindset of someone who's struggling with the indiscipline of his platoon and his experience - remember the story he told his dad about running over an Afghan child. Which I think as well as basic parental love explains his dad's response, even had he wanted to warn someone in command his sons' e-mails were full of moans about the lack of discipline and shifts in command.
I agree on his mental state. As I've said I think there's real issues over whether he should ever have been allowed in the army - based on what I've read about him.
He could have deserted. On balance I'd say he probably did - though he could just have gone on one of his semi-regular walks away and got captured - but it's not clear. The best suggestions he deserted, like the note, haven't been found by the military or have been disputed by other of his comrades. But it's not enough to smear him as a deserter without a trial - just so you can beat on the President - when the real consequences of that are things like his parents receiving death threats, his town not being able to celebrate his return.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2014, 10:20:37 AM
But it's not enough to smear him as a deserter without a trial - just so you can beat on the President - when the real consequences of that are things like his parents receiving death threats, his town not being able to celebrate his return.
Parents receiving death threats? Oh for fucksake.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 10:22:35 AM
Parents receiving death threats? Oh for fucksake.
Which is hardly shocking if you've got a lot of coverage saying 'he's a deserter' and blaming him for about every American death in the province. But it really annoys me when this sort of political air-war actually fucks with real, normal people.
Ought to do wonders for armed services recruiting in the future.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2014, 10:20:37 AM
There's a bit difference between deserting and defecting. Though I think in the general discussion of him that's become blurred. What's the evidence he defected?
Circumstantial, I guess. He would have to know that if he left his post he'd get captured. Plus he really seemed to have developed a great deal of animosity for this US Army and the USA as a whole.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2014, 10:20:37 AM
There's a bit difference between deserting and defecting. Though I think in the general discussion of him that's become blurred. What's the evidence he defected?
Circumstantial, I guess. He would have to know that if he left his post he'd get captured. Plus he really seemed to have developed a great deal of animosity for this US Army and the USA as a whole.
Psychological impact of war? It does weird things to people. Though there is nothing weird about developing animosity for the army while in the army.
Derfetus doubles as JAG investigator in the off-season.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
Ought to do wonders for armed services recruiting in the future.
I don't think people joining the army look at Bowe Bergdahl and see themselves in it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 10:07:09 AM
His father was definitely pulling out all the stops to get him back. Speaking directly to the Taliban in Pashtun? Holy shit.
True dat. Problem was he didn't promptly turn that shit off once his son was released.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
Ought to do wonders for armed services recruiting in the future.
The tree of liberty, at times, must we watered with the blood of innocents.
If people die as a result of the greater good of making sure Obama doesn't get anything done, then that is a small sacrifice in the overall scheme of what is important for America.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 10:07:09 AM
His father was definitely pulling out all the stops to get him back. Speaking directly to the Taliban in Pashtun? Holy shit.
True dat. Problem was he didn't promptly turn that shit off once his son was released.
AFAIK his son has refused to talk to him since being traded. So to him his son still hasn't returned. I forgive Bergdahls dad and Cindy Sheehan for being nutty and crazy. They are parents, they get to do that and they get to feel that. That doesn't mean we need to take them seriously a onion holders on the issues related to their sons though.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 10:39:09 AM
Circumstantial, I guess. He would have to know that if he left his post he'd get captured.
That's assuming he deserted though. As I say there's evidence he'd left base alone and unauthorised at least three times before Given that why would he think that if he left his post he'd be captured?
QuotePlus he really seemed to have developed a great deal of animosity for this US Army and the USA as a whole.
Yeah. I think Valmy's right there's the psychological impact. As I've said given what I've read I don't think he sounds like the sort of guy who would do well in the army (home schooled in religious and philosophical classics, quite intense, looking for adventure and meaning but a bit of a loner by all accounts).
To that I'd add that he was in a very ill-disciplined unit (they were filmed by a British journalists going on patrol in baseball caps instead of helmets; there were demotions and several changes of command at the base; one mission dragged on for hours because one of his comrades lost their gun) and from what I can gather he was profoundly affected by seeing an Afghan child run over.
Quote from: Viking on June 09, 2014, 10:40:38 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
Ought to do wonders for armed services recruiting in the future.
I don't think people joining the army look at Bowe Bergdahl and see themselves in it.
That isn't the point.
There is a culture around US military personnel, and that culture includes the idea that we will and have gone to extraordinary lengths to get our POW/MIAs back. This is part and parcel with the mythology of the US military and how we feel about those who server.
The idea that we will go to great lengths to get you back, but not so much if one party thinks there is political hay to be made by slandering you in order to go after the President, does real, if somewhat intangible damage to that mythos, such that it is.
But no worries. Obama is worth it.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2014, 10:20:37 AM
There's a bit difference between deserting and defecting. Though I think in the general discussion of him that's become blurred. What's the evidence he defected?
Circumstantial, I guess. He would have to know that if he left his post he'd get captured. Plus he really seemed to have developed a great deal of animosity for this US Army and the USA as a whole.
I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
True dat. Problem was he didn't promptly turn that shit off once his son was released.
What's he done?
Personally I quite like what I've read about him and like Viking I'm willing to cut a parent a lot of slack if they've lost a child or one's being held hostage.
I also think it must be hell that the routine advice from security consultants (and in this case the government) is that you do everything to stop the media from covering a situation like this, while for a parent you must just want to be doing everything you can to raise awareness and whatever else to get them home.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.
It was a political and military necessity.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:47:52 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 09, 2014, 10:40:38 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
Ought to do wonders for armed services recruiting in the future.
I don't think people joining the army look at Bowe Bergdahl and see themselves in it.
That isn't the point.
I think that is the point. The consequences of getting caught or killed are such that they basically out weigh any risk reward matrix unless their probability is negligible. If they are even considering joining getting captured and killed have been dismissed as possibilities or as something that happens to fruits like bergdahl.
The situation in israel is different, where they have conscription and mothers vote.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.
Agreed. And even if he did how would you decide who to abandon before you've held the trial? Could the conservative media perhaps set up some sort of panel to decide which dubious PoWs should be left to their eventual beheading and which should be traded for?
Though I do think defection's different. If he's now fighting for the other side (I think there was a case like that in the Korean war) then fuck him <_<
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:44:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
Ought to do wonders for armed services recruiting in the future.
The tree of liberty, at times, must we watered with the blood of innocents.
If people die as a result of the greater good of making sure Obama doesn't get anything done, then that is a small sacrifice in the overall scheme of what is important for America.
At least President Cruz will be able to tell which servicemen in captivity would deserve to come home, and which ones deserve to be willfully left behind, because then we'd have a real American in the White House.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2014, 10:51:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.
Agreed. And even if he did how would you decide who to abandon before you've held the trial? Could the conservative media perhaps set up some sort of panel to decide which dubious PoWs should be left to their eventual beheading and which should be traded for?
Though I do think defection's different. If he's now fighting for the other side (I think there was a case like that in the Korean war) then fuck him <_<
True enough, although even then I am almost even more interested in getting them back, simply so we can hang them ourselves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 10:53:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:44:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
Ought to do wonders for armed services recruiting in the future.
The tree of liberty, at times, must we watered with the blood of innocents.
If people die as a result of the greater good of making sure Obama doesn't get anything done, then that is a small sacrifice in the overall scheme of what is important for America.
At least President Cruz will be able to tell which servicemen in captivity would deserve to come home, and which ones deserve to be willfully left behind, because then we'd have a real American in the White House.
He's like Mexican and Canadian at the same time. I don' think there is any combination as un-american as that.
Quote from: Viking on June 09, 2014, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 10:53:47 AM
At least President Cruz will be able to tell which servicemen in captivity would deserve to come home, and which ones deserve to be willfully left behind, because then we'd have a real American in the White House.
He's like Mexican and Canadian at the same time. I don' think there is any combination as un-american as that.
. He's not black. That's a winner in Dumbfuckistan.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2014, 10:47:48 AM
That's assuming he deserted though.
Well, we both think that is likely.
QuoteAs I say there's evidence he'd left base alone and unauthorised at least three times before Given that why would he think that if he left his post he'd be captured?
From what I understand, the Taliban were thought to patrol just a few yards from their perimeter.
QuoteYeah. I think Valmy's right there's the psychological impact. As I've said given what I've read I don't think he sounds like the sort of guy who would do well in the army (home schooled in religious and philosophical classics, quite intense, looking for adventure and meaning but a bit of a loner by all accounts).
Almost seems like you & Valmy are making excuses for him.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.
Agree that we should put some effort into getting him back. We probably disagree on how much effort he's worth if he deserted.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.
Agree that we should put some effort into getting him back. We probably disagree on how much effort he's worth if he deserted.
You don't know if he deserted or not until you get him back though, at least you don't if you are the person making the decisions about how much effort to expend.
I don't think there should be any "rules" around such things - if someone is holding a US service member against their will, we should try to get them back regardless of what we suspect about crimes they may have committed prior to or in the act of his capture.
And I am 100% certain that if Obama was a Republican, you would agree.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:03:07 AMFrom what I understand, the Taliban were thought to patrol just a few yards from their perimeter.
As I said, maybe they noticed there's a soldier who likes wandering from base? Or a local sympathiser did and passed it on?
QuoteAlmost seems like you & Valmy are making excuses for him.
We don't know what happened. These are all factors and as relevant as the tone of his last e-mail to his parents - almost seems like you want to condemn him.
QuoteAgree that we should put some effort into getting him back. We probably disagree on how much effort he's worth if he deserted.
But it's still not established that he deserted.
As I say how can we decide if someone's a deserter or not? Try him in absentia or just get Sean Hannity's view?
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:03:07 AM
Almost seems like you & Valmy are making excuses for him.
No. I just don't pretend to judge deployed military people when I am sitting here on my ass. What sort of asshole would I have to be to do that? In any case we had to get that dude out regardless of how unhinged he may be. You are the one making excuses to avoid reality on that point. 'But I heard from his squadmates' roomates' dogsitter that he was a deserter so we could leave him behind!' Bullshit and you know it.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 11:07:51 AM
You don't know if he deserted or not until you get him back though, at least you don't if you are the person making the decisions about how much effort to expend.
You can form a pretty good idea from evidence gathered by an investigation.
Quote
And I am 100% certain that if Obama was a Republican, you would agree.
Then we might as well end our conversation there.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:14:14 AM
You can form a pretty good idea from evidence gathered by an investigation.
Quite. It's pretty inconclusive:
QuoteA classified military report detailing the Army's investigation into the disappearance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in June 2009 says that he had wandered away from assigned areas before — both at a training range in California and at his remote outpost in Afghanistan — and then returned, according to people briefed on it.
...
But the report is said to contain no mention of Sergeant Bergdahl's having left behind a letter in his tent that explicitly said he was deserting and explained his disillusionment, as a retired senior military official briefed on the investigation at the time told The New York Times this week.
...
It is said to confirm certain other details relayed in recent accounts, including that Sergeant Bergdahl shipped his computer and a journal home before he disappeared. It also confirms that he left behind his body armor and weapon — an unwieldy SAW machine gun — taking with him water, knives and a compass.
The report speculates that he most likely left in darkness after the moon had set, following one of two possible routes through the concertina wire.
While much of the report is said to focus on disciplinary problems in his unit and a lack of accountability in its chain of command, it is also said to portray Sergeant Bergdahl as a free-spirited young man who read martial-arts books, drank tea with Afghan soldiers from whom he tried to pick up Pashto phrases, and maintained a collection of throwing stars and knives, which it documents in detail.
Its portrayal of him as a soldier is said to be positive, with quotes from both commanders and squad mates — apparently including some of the men now criticizing him — describing him as punctual, always in the correct uniform and asking good questions. It quotes colleagues as saying that he expressed some boredom and frustration that they were not "kicking down doors" more to go after insurgents who were destroying schools.
The report is also said to contain no mention of any alleged intercepts of radio or cellphone traffic indicating that Sergeant Bergdahl was asking villagers if anyone spoke English and trying to get in touch with the Taliban, as two former squad mates told CNN this week in separate interviews; they both said they remembered hearing about the intercepts from a translator who received the report.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 11:07:51 AM
I don't think there should be any "rules" around such things - if someone is holding a US service member against their will, we should try to get them back regardless of what we suspect about crimes they may have committed prior to or in the act of his capture.
Shameful that there's actually a point of view out there like that, isn't it?
Surprising? Not really in this political atmosphere. But shameful? Definitely.
Just another variation on the theme in the ongoing definition game of who is an American, and who isn't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 11:07:51 AM
I don't think there should be any "rules" around such things - if someone is holding a US service member against their will, we should try to get them back regardless of what we suspect about crimes they may have committed prior to or in the act of his capture.
Shameful that there's actually a point of view out there like that, isn't it?
Surprising? Not really in this political atmosphere. But shameful? Definitely.
Just another variation on the theme in the ongoing definition game of who is an American, and who isn't.
I dig it in theory. Particularly also with the edge of other countries knowing that we won't stop to try and get our armed services members back.
But then there are also always practical concerns to weigh (though certainly not saying that congress has raised any valid ones in this instance!).
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2014, 11:17:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:14:14 AM
You can form a pretty good idea from evidence gathered by an investigation.
Quite. It's pretty inconclusive:
QuoteA classified military report detailing the Army's investigation into the disappearance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in June 2009 says that he had wandered away from assigned areas before — both at a training range in California and at his remote outpost in Afghanistan — and then returned, according to people briefed on it.
...
But the report is said to contain no mention of Sergeant Bergdahl's having left behind a letter in his tent that explicitly said he was deserting and explained his disillusionment, as a retired senior military official briefed on the investigation at the time told The New York Times this week.
...
It is said to confirm certain other details relayed in recent accounts, including that Sergeant Bergdahl shipped his computer and a journal home before he disappeared. It also confirms that he left behind his body armor and weapon — an unwieldy SAW machine gun — taking with him water, knives and a compass.
The report speculates that he most likely left in darkness after the moon had set, following one of two possible routes through the concertina wire.
While much of the report is said to focus on disciplinary problems in his unit and a lack of accountability in its chain of command, it is also said to portray Sergeant Bergdahl as a free-spirited young man who read martial-arts books, drank tea with Afghan soldiers from whom he tried to pick up Pashto phrases, and maintained a collection of throwing stars and knives, which it documents in detail.
Its portrayal of him as a soldier is said to be positive, with quotes from both commanders and squad mates — apparently including some of the men now criticizing him — describing him as punctual, always in the correct uniform and asking good questions. It quotes colleagues as saying that he expressed some boredom and frustration that they were not "kicking down doors" more to go after insurgents who were destroying schools.
The report is also said to contain no mention of any alleged intercepts of radio or cellphone traffic indicating that Sergeant Bergdahl was asking villagers if anyone spoke English and trying to get in touch with the Taliban, as two former squad mates told CNN this week in separate interviews; they both said they remembered hearing about the intercepts from a translator who received the report.
It'd be nice to see the report, but these details are enough for me conclude that he most likely deserted.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2014, 11:22:03 AM
I dig it in theory. Particularly also with the edge of other countries knowing that we won't stop to try and get our armed services members back.
But then there are also always practical concerns to weigh (though certainly not saying that congress has raised any valid ones in this instance!).
It's not a new concept; we've always gone the lengths necessary to bring back prisoners, and even remains, regardless of the circumstances. It's what we do.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.
Agree that we should put some effort into getting him back. We probably disagree on how much effort he's worth if he deserted.
derspiess has a point here. In point of fact, and mythology aside, we don't really do *everything* to get POWs back, it depends on the cost. If the cost were say withdrawing from all bases in the Middle East or handing over Guam to the Taliban, we obviously wouldn't do it. If OBL had been captured and not killed, I assume we wouldn't trade him back either. It is always a question of balance. And given that it does seem reasonable to take into account evidence of desertion in determining the price to pay.
I don't agree with the hysterical way the issue has been raised by some in the GOP -- especially given that the facts are unclear -- but I do think questions of the kind that Yi raised in the thread are legit.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2014, 11:35:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:48:46 AM
I really don't care if he deserted or not. We should still get him back either way.
Agree that we should put some effort into getting him back. We probably disagree on how much effort he's worth if he deserted.
derspiess has a point here. In point of fact, and mythology aside, we don't really do *everything* to get POWs back, it depends on the cost. If the cost were say withdrawing from all bases in the Middle East or handing over Guam to the Taliban, we obviously wouldn't do it. If OBL had been captured and not killed, I assume we wouldn't trade him back either. It is always a question of balance. And given that it does seem reasonable to take into account evidence of desertion in determining the price to pay.
I don't agree with the hysterical way the issue has been raised by some in the GOP -- especially given that the facts are unclear -- but I do think questions of the kind that Yi raised in the thread are legit.
I don't agree at all.
There is no question, of course, that there is a limit to the cost we will pay.
But I do not in any way agree that said limit ought to be influenced by speculation as to the circumstances of their capture. In a practical sense, I guess it is somewhat inevitable that there is going to be such influence, simply because it is a emotionally charged issue. But the people making the actual decisions should strive to be as dispassionate as possible. Simply because it sends a terrible message to our service members otherwise.
"If you get captured, we will go to great lengths to get you back. Unless we decide we don't like you, of course".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2014, 11:35:18 AMderspiess has a point here. In point of fact, and mythology aside, we don't really do *everything* to get POWs back, it depends on the cost. If the cost were say withdrawing from all bases in the Middle East or handing over Guam to the Taliban, we obviously wouldn't do it. If OBL had been captured and not killed, I assume we wouldn't trade him back either. It is always a question of balance. And given that it does seem reasonable to take into account evidence of desertion in determining the price to pay.
I agree there's a limit. I'm not sure about taking into account evidence of desertion, but I'm not either way on it.
Isn't the trouble though avoiding it becoming an issue of political cravenness?
As I say back in 2009 one of Fox's commentators said that, on the evidence that he was a deserter, the Taliban had done us a favour and should shoot him. Similarly Republican aides said they thought it'd be Obama's 'Willie Horton moment' and Republican PR firms are helping direct the media to Bergdahl's comrades who think he deserted.
I can see letting the evidence of desertion help determine the price, but I think in reality it would be more likely that it'd be the potential political difficulties that would decide it which I'm less comfortable with.
If it had happened in this day and age, Republicans wouldn't want to get back John McCain unless the President identified an offsetting budget cut to make up for the cost of his A-4 first.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 11:41:36 AM
But the people making the actual decisions should strive to be as dispassionate as possible. Simply because it sends a terrible message to our service members otherwise.
"If you get captured, we will go to great lengths to get you back. Unless we decide we don't like you, of course".
I don't think it is such a terrible thing to send the message that if you decide to walk off the base without leave, the powers that be may not pull out all the stops to get you back. In fact, not sending that message can be problematic. A big reason the military doesn't want its personnel walking off overseas bases in the first place is the risk of capture and blackmail by the enemy. A soldier posted in a dangerous area that is assured up front that if he goes AWOL and is captured, the US will do everything possible to get him back, is not being given the most optimal incentives.
You guys would do great in a PTSD group counseling session.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2014, 12:25:02 PM
I don't think it is such a terrible thing to send the message that if you decide to walk off the base without leave, the powers that be may not pull out all the stops to get you back. In fact, not sending that message can be problematic. A big reason the military doesn't want its personnel walking off overseas bases in the first place is the risk of capture and blackmail by the enemy. A soldier posted in a dangerous area that is assured up front that if he goes AWOL and is captured, the US will do everything possible to get him back, is not being given the most optimal incentives.
I don't think Bergdahl's experiences are of such a nature as to make emulation sound very tempting to others. I also don't think it is a good idea to conclude the trial and pass sentence while the possible perp is in enemy hands. The whole prospective hindsight thing sounds good as a policy when written on an internet discussion board, but it isn't much of a basis for policy in the real, non-internet-message-board world.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:23:02 AM
It'd be nice to see the report, but these details are enough for me conclude that he most likely deserted.
That's really sad.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:23:02 AM
It'd be nice to see the report, but these details are enough for me conclude that he most likely deserted.
That's really sad.
Okay, Raz.
Derfetus supports some of the troops. He has half a gold ribbon car magnet.
"If I had ten divisions of Siegys, our problems here would be over very quickly."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 03:36:42 PM
Derfetus supports some of the troops. He has half a gold ribbon car magnet.
"If I had ten divisions of Siegys, our problems here would be over very quickly."
If I had ten divisions of Siegys, I'd buy stock in Coors. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 03:36:42 PM
Derfetus supports some of the troops. He has half a gold ribbon car magnet.
"If I had ten divisions of Siegys, our problems here would be over very quickly."
All's well that ends well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 03:36:42 PM
Derfetus supports some of the troops. He has half a gold ribbon car magnet.
"If I had ten divisions of Siegys, our problems here would be over very quickly."
His support is apparently contingent on it being politically convenient.
Not that you would be any better if the situation was reversed, commie.Actually, I take that back - your support in the past has not been tribally motivated, even if you are rather extremely ideological (which is not exactly the same as being partisan).
He's full of excuses for Carter getting punked by Iran.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 03:22:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:23:02 AM
It'd be nice to see the report, but these details are enough for me conclude that he most likely deserted.
That's really sad.
Okay, Raz.
You are willing to believe a guy is a criminal based on hearsay from people who actually praised him in the official report, letters and documents he is alleged to have written that nobody can find.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 11:23:02 AMIt'd be nice to see the report, but these details are enough for me conclude that he most likely deserted.
And so the US should not have sought his release?
Or should they just have offered three Taliban dudes instead of five?
We didn't pay anything for that big eared dude who married a Japanese woman in North Korea. That was a reasonable price.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 03:40:15 PM
Actually, I take that back - your support in the past has not been tribally motivated, even if you are rather extremely ideological (which is not exactly the same as being partisan).
He hates Republicans. That's partisan enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 04:16:20 PM
You are willing to believe a guy is a criminal based on hearsay from people who actually praised him in the official report, letters and documents he is alleged to have written that nobody can find.
The leaked details of the report (obviously we don't have the full report to look through) combined with the emails mentioned in the Rolling Stone article tell me he probably deserted. I wish he hadn't, and I'd love to see strong evidence that he didn't.
What page (standard) is the RS article on?
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 04:37:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 04:16:20 PM
You are willing to believe a guy is a criminal based on hearsay from people who actually praised him in the official report, letters and documents he is alleged to have written that nobody can find.
The leaked details of the report (obviously we don't have the full report to look through) combined with the emails mentioned in the Rolling Stone article tell me he probably deserted. I wish he hadn't, and I'd love to see strong evidence that he didn't.
You don't need strong evidence he didn't. You don't have strong evidence he did. The leaked details of the report
do not name him as a deserter, even that along with the alleged emails are second hand. It is hearsay.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 04:23:20 PM
We didn't pay anything for that big eared dude who married a Japanese woman in North Korea. That was a reasonable price.
... I'm not familiar with this situation, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 04:43:19 PM
You don't need strong evidence he didn't. You don't have strong evidence he did.
Strong enough at this point to where I'd need some strong evidence to the contrary to change my mind.
QuoteThe leaked details of the report do not name him as a deserter, even that along with the alleged emails are second hand.
We don't even know what kind of report it was, and whether there were additional reports. And I thought his father provided the emails for the Rolling Stone article, but I can't say for sure.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 04:37:37 PMThe leaked details of the report (obviously we don't have the full report to look through) combined with the emails mentioned in the Rolling Stone article tell me he probably deserted. I wish he hadn't, and I'd love to see strong evidence that he didn't.
Fair enough.
Given the details of the report that you've seen, and the emails mentioned in Rolling Stone, what should have been done about the guy? What sort of deal (if any) would be acceptable to you?
And if there had been no such evidence; i.e. absent the leaked details of the report and the emails etc, assuming he was a regular POW, what sort of deal (if any) would be acceptable to you?
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2014, 05:04:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 04:23:20 PM
We didn't pay anything for that big eared dude who married a Japanese woman in North Korea. That was a reasonable price.
... I'm not familiar with this situation, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Kidnappers regards large ears as a serious price degrader?
A dude who deserted/defected whatever back in like '54. He taught NK spies English and played the heavy in some propaganda films. AFAIK North Korea just let him go (humanitarian grounds? illness?).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 05:07:42 PM
A dude who deserted/defected whatever back in like '54. He taught NK spies English and played the heavy in some propaganda films. AFAIK North Korea just let him go (humanitarian grounds? illness?).
Ok.
So do you feel that with Bergdahl, the US should have ignored him until the Taliban got bored of holding him and let him go or killed him?
Does this opinion change if there was no doubt that Bergdahl had not deserted at all? Say - and this is far-fetched obviously - but he was on some sort of officially sanctioned activity away from the base but that is being kept hushed up for security reasons?
How about if he was captured due to foolishness of some sort, rather than deliberate rejection of his duty (i.e. rather than saying "fuck it, I'm leaving" and walking out, he was sleeping with a girl in the village or teaching someone English/ learning the local language as part of his on individual hearts-and-minds campaign and got nabbed)?
Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether it's an opposition to prisoner-exchanges generally or whether, and to what degree, the allegations against Bergdahl figures into this.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 05:06:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 04:43:19 PM
You don't need strong evidence he didn't. You don't have strong evidence he did.
Strong enough at this point to where I'd need some strong evidence to the contrary to change my mind.
QuoteThe leaked details of the report do not name him as a deserter, even that along with the alleged emails are second hand.
We don't even know what kind of report it was, and whether there were additional reports. And I thought his father provided the emails for the Rolling Stone article, but I can't say for sure.
You can't say for sure and you don't know what kind of report it is, but that's strong enough evidence? You can't be serious.
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2014, 05:20:35 PM
Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether it's an opposition to prisoner-exchanges generally or whether, and to what degree, the allegations against Bergdahl figures into this.
The allegations most definitely figure into this.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 04:29:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 03:40:15 PM
Actually, I take that back - your support in the past has not been tribally motivated, even if you are rather extremely ideological (which is not exactly the same as being partisan).
He hates Republicans. That's partisan enough.
I want my Republican Party back. Like the way Anne Rice fags are pissed that tweeners and soccermoms have coopted the vampire meme with that
Twilight bullshit. Until then, I will be anti-Republican.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2014, 05:20:35 PM
Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether it's an opposition to prisoner-exchanges generally or whether, and to what degree, the allegations against Bergdahl figures into this.
The allegations most definitely figure into this.
Since the allegations most definitely figure into this, is a possible they are being trumpeted for political purposes?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 09, 2014, 03:50:53 PM
He's full of excuses for Carter getting punked by Iran.
It was a complicated situation. :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 06:12:11 PM
Since the allegations most definitely figure into this, is a possible they are being trumpeted for political purposes?
"Trumpeted?" Who's trumpeting the charges? The guys in his unit?
And of course anything is possible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 06:20:53 PM
"Trumpeted?" Who's trumpeting the charges? The guys in his unit?
And of course anything is possible.
Capitol Media Partners was the PR firm that helped bring the story Bergdahl's disgruntled unit members to the media spotlight. The person who brought the story forward, Richard Grennell, is described (by his partner in the firm) as a "well known Republican" (former Bush official, served briefly as foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney) and is also, apparently, a Fox News commentator.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27688219
After that, of course, we have the various Fox news people speculating that special forces would have killed rather than rescue Bergdahl had they found him, and the talk show circuit doing its thing.
I don't know if you'd call that trumpeting or not, of course, but there certainly seems to be some focus involved in getting the story out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 06:08:45 PM
Like the way Anne Rice fags are pissed that tweeners and soccermoms have coopted the vampire meme with that Twilight bullshit.
Yeah. :angry:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 05:44:14 PMThe allegations most definitely figure into this.
Okay, fair enough.
So if, at some point or other when the dust settles, it is confirmed that yeah the guy walked off because he was sick of it all or had ideological objections or some such, then you'll feel that the guy should have been left to rot?
On the other hand, if it emerges that he did not desert at all (but rather did something dumb), then the people smearing his character for political advantage are scumbags (especially since it potentially affected his chance of coming home in one piece)?
If so, fair enough, though it certainly puts a lot of political pressure on the process of determining the circumstances of his capture.
It will make it interesting to hear his version of the story, once it emerges. Will he say "yeah fuck it, I did desert because I have moral objections!" Will he say "here's my sob story," and if so, will it be convincing?
Quote from: Jacob on June 09, 2014, 07:34:02 PM
So if, at some point or other when the dust settles, it is confirmed that yeah the guy walked off because he was sick of it all or had ideological objections or some such, then you'll feel that the guy should have been left to rot?
What do we know about his living conditions? Has he been rotting for the last five years.
I would have been perfectly happy with a North Korea type deal, as I already said. Taliban sends Lurch a text message, says "this guy is eating all our food, never does his dishes, says he wants to see his mom and dad, will you take him?"
QuoteOn the other hand, if it emerges that he did not desert at all (but rather did something dumb), then the people smearing his character for political advantage are scumbags (especially since it potentially affected his chance of coming home in one piece)?
Don't get the bit about potentially affecting his chances.
If you're going to characterize anyone who objects to the exhange on the grounds of desertion as "smearing his character for political advantage," then it only seems fair to characterize people who support the exchange as "whitewashing his character for political advantage."
Hansmeister would've had his Taliban captors fired. And then given a 78-slide PowerPoint presentation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 07:56:39 PM
Hansmeister would've had his Taliban captors fired. And then given a 78-slide PowerPoint presentation.
If Obama had gotten him back, Hans would have branded himself a traitor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 07:43:03 PM
If you're going to characterize anyone who objects to the exhange on the grounds of desertion as "smearing his character for political advantage," then it only seems fair to characterize people who support the exchange as "whitewashing his character for political advantage."
Certainly the default assumption of a person is that they are not a criminal, or do you disagree?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 08:44:31 PM
Certainly the default assumption of a person is that they are not a criminal, or do you disagree?
What function does the word "default" serve in that sentance?
Adjective?
Ossum.
Are we talking about Bergdahl or a name picked at random from the phone book?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 09:40:35 PM
Ossum.
Are we talking about Bergdahl or a name picked at random from the phone book?
Either one. It would seem impossible to "whitewash" something or someone when they have not done anything wrong while certainly possible to smear someone who has done no wrong (and someone who has done wrong for that matter). Therefore they aren't two sides of the coin and it is not fair to describe those who support the return of an American POW as whitewashing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 07:43:03 PM
What do we know about his living conditions? Has he been rotting for the last five years.
I would have been perfectly happy with a North Korea type deal, as I already said. Taliban sends Lurch a text message, says "this guy is eating all our food, never does his dishes, says he wants to see his mom and dad, will you take him?"
Okay, I'm happy with "leave him as he is" rather than "left to rot". I don't know anything about his living conditions.
QuoteDon't get the bit about potentially affecting his chances.
Well, if it's generally been established in the public discourse that he deserted rather than was captured then it would seem that the politically safe course of action would be to not exchange those guys for him.
To the degree that Fox & friends did the "rescuers would have shot him if they found him" and "these guys from his unit thinks he was a total weirdo and he's probably anti-American" schtick and successfully portraying him a negative light before the deal, they increased the political risk of getting him out of there and correspondingly decreased his chances.
If that all happened after the deal then it's a moot point in this case, though it seem that we have established that any deal to release a prisoner in the future is subject to an inquiry into the character of the prisoner, that means the release of future prisoners may be pursued less vehemently if the potential optics are bad.
QuoteIf you're going to characterize anyone who objects to the exchange on the grounds of desertion as "smearing his character for political advantage," then it only seems fair to characterize people who support the exchange as "whitewashing his character for political advantage."
I don't think I buy that. I think the default assumption about a soldier is that they are serving their country, and that they are "heroes" (for the new value of "hero").
If you are moving the needle on that, without concrete evidence, then you are smearing his character. If you are sticking with the default, you are not whitewashing, until it is contrary to concrete evidence. The inverse equivalent would be to try to make Bergdahl out to some sort of special hero who'd done noticeable great things, without evidence to back that up.
I mean, say Bergdahl is not all those bad things he's been made out to be in this political battle? How likely is it that he can clear his name in the public eye, given how politically charged his release has become?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 09:51:20 PM
Either one. It would seem impossible to "whitewash" something or someone when they have not done anything wrong while certainly possible to smear someone who has done no wrong (and someone who has done wrong for that matter). Therefore they aren't two sides of the coin and it is not fair to describe those who support the return of an American POW as whitewashing.
Well not either one, because we don't have information about possible irregularities for a randomly picked person.
You're absolutely correct that if Berdahl is pure as the driven snow it is impossible to whitewash him. Also absolutely irrelevant.
You're trying to fit the square peg of innocent until proven guilty in criminal law into the round hole of policy and public opinion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 09:59:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2014, 09:51:20 PM
Either one. It would seem impossible to "whitewash" something or someone when they have not done anything wrong while certainly possible to smear someone who has done no wrong (and someone who has done wrong for that matter). Therefore they aren't two sides of the coin and it is not fair to describe those who support the return of an American POW as whitewashing.
Well not either one, because we don't have information about possible irregularities for a randomly picked person.
You're absolutely correct that if Berdahl is pure as the driven snow it is impossible to whitewash him. Also absolutely irrelevant.
You're trying to fit the square peg of innocent until proven guilty in criminal law into the round hole of policy and public opinion.
If we took a random a person out of the crowd named say. "Commodore Ki", we would not regard him as a traitor. It is impossible to whitewash him since we have no knowledge of anything he actually did. Now if a crazy person who claimed to have communicated with "Commodore Ki" for the better part of 10 years made all sorts of bizarre claims about "Commodore Ki" but has never actually met him or have any evidence and based his peculiar statements on stuff he remembered other people saying, refuting the madman's absurd statements wouldn't qualify as whitewashing either. If some person who ran a PR firm who is known to hate Commodore Ki decided to publicize the madman's raving about "foot massages" and the like I'd call that a smear, and defending the good Commodore would not be whitewashing. It would be just common sense and general decency.
You lost me at the crazy person part.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2014, 03:38:33 PM
If I had ten divisions of Siegys, I'd buy stock in Coors. :P
Why? They'd only buy a couple of slabs.
QuoteA dude who deserted/defected whatever back in like '54. He taught NK spies English and played the heavy in some propaganda films. AFAIK North Korea just let him go (humanitarian grounds? illness?).
Again that's a blurry line between desertion and defecting which are two rather different things.
QuoteWhat do we know about his living conditions? Has he been rotting for the last five years.
According to himself for large parts of it he was kept in a cage. I believe there's other sources that he was at least shackled most of the time after his first escape attempt. His physical condition in the last video looked extremely poor (and was part of the reason negotiations kicked up a gear) but he's less malnourished now, it looks like the Taliban fed him up before sending him home, though is still suffering from some physical problems.
QuoteTo the degree that Fox & friends did the "rescuers would have shot him if they found him" and "these guys from his unit thinks he was a total weirdo and he's probably anti-American" schtick and successfully portraying him a negative light before the deal, they increased the political risk of getting him out of there and correspondingly decreased his chances.
Some of Fox have at least always argued this since 2009, others haven't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL9P6W9vt6E
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2014, 11:19:16 PM
You lost me at the crazy person part.
Let me break down for you, if I made a bunch of accusations against you, you refuting them wouldn't really be a "whitewash".
It would really help if you chose one person to talk about and stuck to him, or stuck to the abstract.
Yi still uses a phone book.
:o It's all Haig's Hagel's fault!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/208803-obama-shifting-blame-for-bergdahl-trade-to-hagel
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2014, 07:56:39 PM
Hansmeister would've had his Taliban captors fired. And then given a 78-slide PowerPoint presentation.
:lol:
We need more articles telling us what Stonewall Jackson would have done.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 02:39:14 PM
We need more articles telling us what Stonewall Jackson would have done.
He would have sucked a lemon.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 02:39:14 PM
We need more articles telling us what Stonewall Jackson would have done.
He'd probably have given his left arm to get Bergdahl back.
LOL ZOMG TKers
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 02:39:14 PM
We need more articles telling us what Stonewall Jackson would have done.
He'd probably have given his left arm to get Bergdahl back.
Well Bergdahl was an American soldier so Jackson would probably have killed him.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 02:39:14 PM
We need more articles telling us what Stonewall Jackson would have done.
He'd probably have given his left arm to get Bergdahl back.
Well Bergdahl was an American soldier so Jackson would probably have killed him.
Jackson was an American officer.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:50:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 02:39:14 PM
We need more articles telling us what Stonewall Jackson would have done.
He'd probably have given his left arm to get Bergdahl back.
Well Bergdahl was an American soldier so Jackson would probably have killed him.
Jackson was an American officer.
I guess in the same sense the Hugo Chavez was. He lived in the Americas and was an Officer.
His country didn't have the word "America" in the name. Jackson's did.
It's like how both North Koreans and South Koreans are Koreans.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 10, 2014, 04:58:43 PM
His country didn't have the word "America" in the name. Jackson's did.
It's like how both North Koreans and South Koreans are Koreans.
Or that people in Europe are called "Europeans". Folks in Latin America have long taken umbrage at the idea that people of the United States reserve the term "American" for themselves.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:50:47 PM
Jackson was an American officer.
Was he? I thought he was a Tennessee militia commander. Officially I don't know if he was ever actually made an American Officer.
Tennessee even made him a general. Sort of funny how things worked back then.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 05:07:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:50:47 PM
Jackson was an American officer.
Was he? I thought he was a Tennessee militia commander. Officially I don't know if he was ever actually made an American Officer.
Tennessee even made him a general. Sort of funny how things worked back then.
Tennessee is'nt in America?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 05:03:25 PM
Or that people in Europe are called "Europeans". Folks in Latin America have long taken umbrage at the idea that people of the United States reserve the term "American" for themselves.
European is not their primary group identifier. At least not yet.
As for the Latin Americans, not only is continental identity weaker than national identity, it doesn't really include Americans/Canadians. As English is our language, we get dibs. So American/Latin American. In Spanish, they call us North Americans.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 05:07:12 PM
Was he? I thought he was a Tennessee militia commander. Officially I don't know if he was ever actually made an American Officer.
Tennessee even made him a general. Sort of funny how things worked back then.
Stonewall, not Andrew. :secret:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 10, 2014, 05:20:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 10, 2014, 05:03:25 PM
Or that people in Europe are called "Europeans". Folks in Latin America have long taken umbrage at the idea that people of the United States reserve the term "American" for themselves.
European is not their primary group identifier. At least not yet.
As for the Latin Americans, not only is continental identity weaker than national identity, it doesn't really include Americans/Canadians. As English is our language, we get dibs. So American/Latin American. In Spanish, they call us North Americans.
Where exactly are you going with this?
Actually, I take it back. Chavez considered himself a Venezuelan. But Jackson considered himself a Virginian. /shrug
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:50:47 PM
Jackson was an American officer.
Maybe for the America you were rooting for, but it was the wrong one, secessionist rat fuck.
A marine corps general (ret) weighs in: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140609/NEWS/306090040/Mattis-Bergdahl-release-makes-Taliban-vulnerable?sf27122491=1
Meanwhile, Rand Paul brings further gravitas to the criticism by suggesting that they should have traded Five Democrats instead of the five Taliban guys: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/06/rand-paul-lets-trade-5-democrats-not-5-taliban/
Why would the Taliban want 5 Democrats? That doesn't make sense on any level.
Oh wait, Rand Paul, got it.
Heh, the central Europeans think they're insecure now, just wait until President Paul's in charge.
So, do you think Putin will execute the entire Polish officer corps in an even bigger forest this time around, just to beat Stalin's record?
Quote from: citizen k on June 10, 2014, 05:17:57 PM
Tennessee is'nt in America?
An American Officer means in the regular army. Anyway it was the wrong Jackson :blush:
Which was a weird mistake for me to make since I just made a Stonewall joke a few posts before. I guess I never thought of Stonewall as anything but a Confederate Officer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 04:50:47 PM
Jackson was an American officer.
Maybe for the America you were rooting for, but it was the wrong one, secessionist rat fuck.
Not gonna take that troll bait, Mr. 1861 Baltimore Riots. I'm more of a Northern man than you are.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2014, 07:33:28 PM
Why would the Taliban want 5 Democrats? That doesn't make sense on any level.
Fair point. Would probably be a war crime of some sort.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 10:54:05 PM
An American Officer means in the regular army. Anyway it was the wrong Jackson :blush:
Not sure it's that open & shut.
QuoteWhich was a weird mistake for me to make since I just made a Stonewall joke a few posts before. I guess I never thought of Stonewall as anything but a Confederate Officer.
Confederate States of America. The Confederates considered themselves as American as you or I. Remember, some of them called the start of the Civil War the "Second American Revolution".
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:59:33 PM
Not gonna take that troll bait, Mr. 1861 Baltimore Riots. I'm more of a Northern man than you are.
Nigga, please. None of my people landed on these shores prior to 1870. Shit was over by then.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:02:43 PM
Confederate States of America. The Confederates considered themselves as American as you or I.
The Confederate States of America was the official name but I have never ever heard them ever refer to it as 'America' but the 'Confederacy' or the 'Southern Confederacy' when discussing it. Likewise they never would have used the term 'the American Army' to describe their military.
QuoteRemember, some of them called the start of the Civil War the "Second American Revolution".
Sure, they made some parallels. But one of the key points of the Confederacy was rejecting that old nationalism and embracing your home state and a southern nationalism.
QuoteNot sure it is that open & shut
At the time the Regulars would have disagreed :P
Probably right but it is rather amusing isn't it? One of our most famous generals never officially part of the US Army. Though he had regular units under his command. Just weird how they did things back then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:09:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 10:59:33 PM
Not gonna take that troll bait, Mr. 1861 Baltimore Riots. I'm more of a Northern man than you are.
Nigga, please. None of my people landed on these shores prior to 1870. Shit was over by then.
So none of them died to help preserve The Union and free the slaves. Figures :rolleyes:
All mine were here by around 1810. Even the Krauts.
There is nothing so depressing than looking at the 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules and seeing all the anonymous poor bastards your ancestors used to own.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:18:03 PM
There is nothing so depressing than looking at the 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules and seeing all the anonymous poor bastards your ancestors used to own.
Lulz, derfetus gets stuck with the reparations bill, and I don't. :yeah:
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:14:24 PM
Probably right but it is rather amusing isn't it? One of our most famous generals never officially part of the US Army. Though he had regular units under his command. Just weird how they did things back then.
Yeah, kind of a distinction without a difference, though. And you can call the Confederates the bad guys, on the wrong side, whatever-- and you'd be right. They were still Americans, like it or not.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:18:03 PM
There is nothing so depressing than looking at the 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules and seeing all the anonymous poor bastards your ancestors used to own.
Look at the bright side, your appliances probably do most of their tasks that would be useful to you better anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:18:03 PM
There is nothing so depressing than looking at the 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules and seeing all the anonymous poor bastards your ancestors used to own.
I haven't found any evidence of any of my ancestors owning slaves. Not sure I'd lose sleep if they had, though.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:24:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:18:03 PM
There is nothing so depressing than looking at the 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules and seeing all the anonymous poor bastards your ancestors used to own.
I haven't found any evidence of any of my ancestors owning slaves. Not sure I'd lose sleep if they had, though.
It's guaranteed if you go far enough back.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:20:58 PM
Yeah, kind of a distinction without a difference, though.
It just occurred to me when you said Jackson was an American officer that he never technically was and I found that sort of awesome and mindblowing. Obviously it did not interest you at all and I apologize. For fucksake.
QuoteAnd you can call the Confederates the bad guys, on the wrong side, whatever-- and you'd be right. They were still Americans, like it or not.
I have never disputed that. I have never heard Confederate Officers referred to as 'American Officers' before. They certainly did not refer to themselves that way. So it was confusing to me and made me think of the other General Jackson.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 10, 2014, 11:26:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:24:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:18:03 PM
There is nothing so depressing than looking at the 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules and seeing all the anonymous poor bastards your ancestors used to own.
I haven't found any evidence of any of my ancestors owning slaves. Not sure I'd lose sleep if they had, though.
It's guaranteed if you go far enough back.
How far?
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:24:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:18:03 PM
There is nothing so depressing than looking at the 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules and seeing all the anonymous poor bastards your ancestors used to own.
I haven't found any evidence of any of my ancestors owning slaves. Not sure I'd lose sleep if they had, though.
What exactly does it mean to 'lose sleep' over something in this context and why are you telling me this? Being confronted with the reality of slavery, especially on a personal level, is pretty grim. Doesn't mean I was up all night sobbing.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:33:33 PM
What exactly does it mean to 'lose sleep' over something in this context and why are you telling me this? Being confronted with the reality of slavery, especially on a personal level, is pretty grim. Doesn't mean I was up all night sobbing.
Just saying it would not depress me to learn that some of my ancestors may have owned slaves at some point. Slavery was bad enough as it was.
The guarantee is that some of your ancestors owned slaves(and some were slaves). Not that it's possible for you to find evidence.
If you go back 30 generations or so the number of ancestors you have would roughly equal the world's population.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:42:29 PM
Just saying it would not depress me to learn that some of my ancestors may have owned slaves at some point. Slavery was bad enough as it was.
The depressing part was just seeing that list. It just lists their age, gender, owner, and race (black or mulatto). I was able to figure out who a few of them were and what became of them but, you know, still a bummer. And I always suspected the Marylanders owned slaves but it is something different to see them all listed out like that. I never feel personally responsible for anything my ancestors did, but I am fond of them. They are my peeps.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 10, 2014, 11:53:51 PM
The guarantee is that some of your ancestors owned slaves(and some were slaves). Not that it's possible for you to find evidence.
If you go back 30 generations or so the number of ancestors you have would roughly equal the world's population.
2^61 of my ancestors may have known Julius Caesar! Out of the 2,300,000,000,000,000,000 of them I am sure at least one said hi.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:42:29 PM
Just saying it would not depress me to learn that some of my ancestors may have owned slaves at some point. Slavery was bad enough as it was.
The depressing part was just seeing that list. It just lists their age, gender, owner, and race (black or mulatto). I was able to figure out who a few of them were and what became of them but, you know, still a bummer. And I always suspected the Marylanders owned slaves but it is something different to see them all listed out like that. I never feel personally responsible for anything my ancestors did, but I am fond of them. They are my peeps.
You've piqued my interest. Where do you find these lists or whatever? From some recent searches I did, my people came through Virginia, Massachusetts and New York and worked their way through PA and western Virginia, mostly ending up in Ohio (with a few in the extreme western corner of what is now West Virginia). Seems unlikely that any of them would have owned slaves, but it'd be interesting to check.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 10, 2014, 11:41:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:33:02 PM
How far?
When slavery was commonplace in Europe.
Why would his ancestors be the owners?
Because he has millions of ancestors from that era. It would unbelievably unlikely to not be descended from both the slaves and the masters.
But you will never know their names and how you are descended from them so it is rather more theoretical.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 11:03:23 AM
You've piqued my interest. Where do you find these lists or whatever? From some recent searches I did, my people came through Virginia, Massachusetts and New York and worked their way through PA and western Virginia, mostly ending up in Ohio (with a few in the extreme western corner of what is now West Virginia). Seems unlikely that any of them would have owned slaves, but it'd be interesting to check.
Ancestry. I can look for you if you wanna PM me their names and place of residence. I can search any census from 1790 - 1860 without too much trouble. I can then email you the documents if I find anything.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 01:09:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 10, 2014, 11:41:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:33:02 PM
How far?
When slavery was commonplace in Europe.
Why would his ancestors be the owners?
Because he has millions of ancestors from that era. It would unbelievably unlikely to not be descended from both the slaves and the masters.
But you will never know their names and how you are descended from them so it is rather more theoretical.
I see you corrected yourself further on by saying they would be both slaves and owners. Originally I read your posts as being only owners.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
I see you corrected yourself further on by saying they would be both slaves and owners. Originally I read your posts as being only owners.
I think you are confusing me with Peter Wiggins here.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 01:12:06 PM
I see you corrected yourself further on by saying they would be both slaves and owners. Originally I read your posts as being only owners.
I think you are confusing me with Peter Wiggins here.
Yes I am.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:14:24 PM
Probably right but it is rather amusing isn't it? One of our most famous generals never officially part of the US Army. Though he had regular units under his command. Just weird how they did things back then.
Jackson was part of the US Army from 1846-1851.
And confusing my implications with his own unwarranted assumptions. I did not correct myself.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 11, 2014, 01:29:28 PM
And confusing my implications with his own unwarranted assumptions. I did not correct myself.
So you say his ancestors would only be owners and none would be slaves?
Quote from: grumbler on June 11, 2014, 01:28:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:14:24 PM
Probably right but it is rather amusing isn't it? One of our most famous generals never officially part of the US Army. Though he had regular units under his command. Just weird how they did things back then.
Jackson was part of the US Army from 1846-1851.
:blurgh:
:lol: You're just being mean now.
Valmy requires 8 years of service before he recognizes someone as an American officer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2014, 01:31:12 PM
So you say his ancestors would only be owners and none would be slaves?
I don't say that now and have not said that in the past.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 01:56:37 PM
Valmy requires 8 years of service before he recognizes someone as an American officer.
And fighting some Mexicans doesn't count either. I demand real service.
I would like to know how is the President supposed to please the people who bitch that he hasn't done everything possible to bring back Bergdahl and then once the Bergdahl has been brought back bitch again. What do Conservatives want the President to do?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 02:15:20 PM
I would like to know how is the President supposed to please the people who bitch that he hasn't done everything possible to bring back Bergdahl and then once the Bergdahl has been brought back bitch again.
Seriously. Bunch of jerks :angry:
No, Seriously what is the President suppose to do?
When you have things like this
Quote"The mission to bring our missing soldiers home is one that will never end. It's important that we make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family."
From Rep. James Inhofe
It seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 02:10:20 PM
And fighting some Mexicans doesn't count either.
That would be American on American violence. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 02:15:20 PM
I would like to know how is the President supposed to please the people who bitch that he hasn't done everything possible to bring back Bergdahl and then once the Bergdahl has been brought back bitch again. What do Conservatives want the President to do?
Not be the president.
Quote from: Jacob on June 11, 2014, 03:38:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 02:15:20 PM
I would like to know how is the President supposed to please the people who bitch that he hasn't done everything possible to bring back Bergdahl and then once the Bergdahl has been brought back bitch again. What do Conservatives want the President to do?
Not be the president.
:)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 02:35:40 PM
No, Seriously what is the President suppose to do?
When you have things like this Quote"The mission to bring our missing soldiers home is one that will never end. It's important that we make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family."
From Rep. James Inhofe
It seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Ask him.
Again I'm not entirely sure how this man got into the army:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bergdahls-writings-reveal-a-fragile-young-man/2014/06/11/fb9349fe-f165-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
:mellow:
He's not here, so I ask you. Can you give me answer?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 04:15:41 PM
He's not here, so I ask you. Can you give me answer?
No. I can probably dig up his phone number or email address for you, though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2014, 04:13:39 PM
Again I'm not entirely sure how this man got into the army:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bergdahls-writings-reveal-a-fragile-young-man/2014/06/11/fb9349fe-f165-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
:mellow:
The Army needed recruits. Not sure if the psychological evaluation I got in ROTC was representative, but it seems like it would be easy to give them the answers they're looking for. I guess my question is how he ended up in a line unit, an Airborne one at that.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 04:59:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 04:15:41 PM
He's not here, so I ask you. Can you give me answer?
No. I can probably dig up his phone number or email address for you, though.
You don't actually know what Conservatives want from the President? I thought you had pretty good idea, you seem conservative enough. From where I'm sitting everything he does is wrong, even if it was the right thing to do before he did it. In the rare case he does something you can't find fault with he doesn't actually deserve credit. When Osama Bin Laden was killed it wasn't the President who deserved the credit but the solider who executed the mission. Presumably they would have deserved blame for the fuck up had the mission failed, but for some strange reason I suspect that the President would have gotten the blame instead. Or when he does what they want to do, the facts on the ground are ignored. For instance on the about illegal immigration on the border; the number of border guards has increased since Obama has become President and illegal immigration, illegal immigration has slowed and deportations have increased. You would think the opposite by reading what conservatives say.
So I say again, what can Obama do to please conservatives?
I can't speak for all conservatives, Ray. And your immigration claim is pretty funny in light of the recent crisis.
See, I'm not entirely in tune with all the "crises", that Conservative fret about. Especially the ones that exist mostly in their own minds. I get the impression that you don't want to answer the question because it would not reflect well on conservatives. That Jake's answer is essentially the correct one. Garbon seemed to approve of it. Let's assume for a moment that Jake is correct and the primary problem conservative have with Obama is that he's president. This is backed up by statements by high ranking members of the Republican party, that the primary goal for Republicans is to make sure Obama would be a one term president, something they failed at doing. If our conservative friends put attacking the President first then of course other factors such as consistency or truth must be of secondary importance. So if attacking Obama is takes precedence over actual facts why should their attacks be considered at all? I mean, we don't worry about what the North Koreans say about the US. They hate the US even when the US gives them food aid. It's just what they do.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 07:50:59 PM
If our conservative friends put attacking the President first then of course other factors such as consistency or truth must be of secondary importance.
Only if you believe that the ends justify the means.
And believing that the ends justify the means isn't confined to any particular part of the political spectrum.
Nice rambling post, Raz. Seems like you're more worked up over this than the evil GOP.
Actually that was a pretty nice post, and not rambling at all. I think he nailed you to the wall.
As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.
Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.
Quote from: dps on June 11, 2014, 07:59:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 07:50:59 PM
If our conservative friends put attacking the President first then of course other factors such as consistency or truth must be of secondary importance.
Only if you believe that the ends justify the means.
And believing that the ends justify the means isn't confined to any particular part of the political spectrum.
If one thing must be first, then other things must be after first. That's pretty basic math.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.
Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.
I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact. However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic. For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war. And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand. Compare this to the government shutdown last year.
You lost me. I thought we were talking about inconsistency, like outrage over Bush's signing statements and indifference over Obama's.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:48:24 PM
You lost me. I thought we were talking about inconsistency, like outrage over Bush's signing statements and indifference over Obama's.
How many Signing statements have Bush done vs Obama?
:lol: Seriously?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 10:29:02 PM
:lol: Seriously?
Well, I thought you might know what with your "fucking good radar".
:lol: Maybe time for a nap Raz.
Raz, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem more with the idea of making signing statements at all than just a feeling they were overused?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 11, 2014, 10:37:55 PM
Raz, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem more with the idea of making signing statements at all than just a feeling they were overused?
Actually I was under the impression that it was the sheer number of them that and what they encompassed, not that they existed (they have existed for a long time before Bush was even born).
Edit: So consider yourself corrected.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2014, 12:01:04 AM
Actually I was under the impression that it was the sheer number of them that and what they encompassed, not that they existed (they have existed for a long time before Bush was even born).
Edit: So consider yourself corrected.
You can't take a qualitative measure like that, bundle it with a quantitative measure and claim it's all about quantity. So you're left to either argue that Obama is not utilizing them in the same manner as Bush, that both are wrong to do so, or that neither is.
Other Presidents had used signing statements before Bush, but his usage of them to "interpret" the law was considered novel and an usurpation of powers from the other branches. At any rate, why would it be ok if he did it once or twice but not if he did it regularly?
Fortunately I didn't do that, so there's no problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.
That I can certainly agree with - I don't think there is any doubt that if the situation was reversed we would see much the same from the Dems. These are the people who were falling all over each other fighting over who would abandon Iraq the fastest if elected. And engaged in active and aggressive legislative attempts to undermine the military in Iraq.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.
Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.
I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact. However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic. For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war. And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand. Compare this to the government shutdown last year.
It was more than "discussed", they tried to do it over and over and over again. They failed to ever get the votes necessary to succeed, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2014, 08:13:46 PM
Actually that was a pretty nice post, and not rambling at all. I think he nailed you to the wall.
Of course you do.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 09:04:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2014, 08:13:46 PM
Actually that was a pretty nice post, and not rambling at all. I think he nailed you to the wall.
Of course you do.
Indeed - I am well known for my unequivocal support for Raz.
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2014, 09:26:53 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 09:04:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2014, 08:13:46 PM
Actually that was a pretty nice post, and not rambling at all. I think he nailed you to the wall.
Of course you do.
Indeed - I am well known for my unequivocal support for Raz.
Nah. I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one ;)
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 09:32:58 AMNah. I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one ;)
In this case, the shameful part is dodging the substance of the discussion.
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2014, 01:27:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.
Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.
I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact. However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic. For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war. And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand. Compare this to the government shutdown last year.
It was more than "discussed", they tried to do it over and over and over again. They failed to ever get the votes necessary to succeed, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.
Presumably they could have shut it down since they did have the majority. They did not shut down the government to get what they wanted.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2014, 01:06:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2014, 01:27:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2014, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.
Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.
I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact. However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic. For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war. And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand. Compare this to the government shutdown last year.
It was more than "discussed", they tried to do it over and over and over again. They failed to ever get the votes necessary to succeed, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.
Presumably they could have shut it down since they did have the majority.
Because the Dems are really good at maintaining party discipline...
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 09:32:58 AMNah. I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one ;)
In this case, the shameful part is dodging the substance of the discussion.
What is it I'm supposed to address? From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made. I can't speak for them.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 01:12:02 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 09:32:58 AMNah. I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one ;)
In this case, the shameful part is dodging the substance of the discussion.
What is it I'm supposed to address? From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made. I can't speak for them.
Would you say they
might be playing politics?
Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2014, 01:26:57 PM
Would you say they might be playing politics?
Sure. They're politicians. That's what they do.
Just like when Obama had Bergdahl's parents at the White House for the announcement. That was for political gain.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 01:12:02 PM
What is it I'm supposed to address? From what I can gather here (and Raz doesn't make it easy because he words things differently each time) Raz keeps trying to get me to explain why one or more Republican congressmen wanted Obama to bring Bergdahl back home and then criticized the deal Obama made. I can't speak for them.
You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.
Should he have been left in Taliban hands?
Are you opposed to the idea of prisoner exchanges altogether? Or is it just this one particular exchange that is wrong, for some reason?
You've established to your satisfaction that "Bergdahl was probably a deserter" based on what we know so far. How should that have impacted the events around his release? Is this "probably a deserter" - which is not formal evidence or judgment in any form - enough to write Bergdahl off?
There's a strong narrative of "Obama fucked up"... but where's the fuck up? What did his administration actually do wrong?
What would have been the correct way for the administration - for any administration - to have handled this? If what Obama did was wrong, there must have been a better course of action. What is it?
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.
Have you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2014, 08:48:24 PM
You lost me. I thought we were talking about inconsistency, like outrage over Bush's signing statements and indifference over Obama's.
I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements. I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated. The same would hold for any President.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 01:57:10 PM
I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements. I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated. The same would hold for any President.
I can't count the number of opinion pieces I read in the NYT asserting their unconstitutionality.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 01:40:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.
Have you?
Have you?
To do you the courtesy that you and derspiess are dodging, I will answer: I don't really see anything to criticize in how the administration handled it; I think it was perfectly appropriate. Bergdahl was an American soldier, a prisoner of war. Bringing him back was the right thing to do. He may have deserted, or he may not, that is unclear; that should be determined in the time and place appropriate to American military procedures, not in the court of public opinion. There may be some minor quibbles around the edges, but they'd be just that - minor quibbles.
I think it's not unreasonable to have people who proclaim this to be some sort of cock up to set out what they think is a reasonable alternative course of action.
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
Have you?
Yes. I said a deal like the North Korean defector would have been fine.
QuoteTo do you the courtesy that you and derspiess are dodging, I will answer:
Stop smearing me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 01:57:10 PM
I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements. I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated. The same would hold for any President.
I can't count the number of opinion pieces I read in the NYT asserting their unconstitutionality.
How could a signing statement be unconstitutional? Pretty sure the 1st amendment covers that.
Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
You haven't set out what you think is an appropriate way to handle the Bergdahl situation.
Oh, okay. I believe this is the first time I'm being asked.
QuoteShould he have been left in Taliban hands?
No.
QuoteAre you opposed to the idea of prisoner exchanges altogether?
Not really, no.
QuoteOr is it just this one particular exchange that is wrong, for some reason?
I think we gave up too much.
QuoteYou've established to your satisfaction that "Bergdahl was probably a deserter" based on what we know so far. How should that have impacted the events around his release? Is this "probably a deserter" - which is not formal evidence or judgment in any form - enough to write Bergdahl off?
The Administration has access to better info than I do. If it turns out that they had good evidence that he was a deserter, then I disagree with the decision to give up the 5 bad guys for him. In that case, I'd *personally* not even want him back, but would understand from a policy perspective making reasonable efforts to do so.
QuoteThere's a strong narrative of "Obama fucked up"... but where's the fuck up? What did his administration actually do wrong?
I stated my case on page 8 of this thread. Those three factors together (if verifiably true) would make it a fuckup IMO. You'll undoubtedly disagree. And before you try to exaggerate what I'm saying, I'll remind you that I am not worked up about the whole Bergdahl affair. You & Raz seem to be the ones egging things on.
QuoteWhat would have been the correct way for the administration - for any administration - to have handled this? If what Obama did was wrong, there must have been a better course of action. What is it?
He could have notified congress in the appropriate time-frame and therefore stay within the law. He could have held out for a more favorable deal. And he could have avoided the big PR spectacle at the White House-- that one seemed destined to backfire.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 01:57:10 PM
I don't recall outrage over Bush's signing statements. I recall eyebrow raising when the idea of claiming that those signing statements had some legal significance was floated. The same would hold for any President.
I recall more than a raised eyebrow.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 02:04:17 PM
How could a signing statement be unconstitutional? Pretty sure the 1st amendment covers that.
Of course the issue is whether the signing statement allows the president to only follow the part of the law he agrees with. But you knew that.
The President can take whatever legal position he wants to take. If he wants to give a press conference to explain that position he can. If we wants to tell it to a reporter he can. If he wants to tell it to Jimmy Fallon he can. And if he wants to put it into a "signing statement" he can. Either way the effect is the same.
The issue that I recall coming up with Bush was that there was a clique either in or allied with the White House that was promoting the doctrine that Presidential views, if put in the form of a signing statement, had some special legal significance. I don't think Bush or his administration ever took that view. It is true that such a doctrine would be inconsistent with constitutional principles and I do recall some editorialization to that effect.
Here's what a constitutional scholar had to say about it:
QuoteWhile it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.
If only we had elected that scholar president :(
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2014, 03:21:15 PM
If only we had elected that scholar president :(
Yep. We might also have ended up with the most transparent administration in history.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 02:16:58 PM
Oh, okay. I believe this is the first time I'm being asked.
I asked you, in a bit less detail, earlier in the thread.
You ignored me :cry:
But it's all good now :)
QuoteI stated my case on page 8 of this thread. Those three factors together (if verifiably true) would make it a fuckup IMO. You'll undoubtedly disagree. And before you try to exaggerate what I'm saying, I'll remind you that I am not worked up about the whole Bergdahl affair. You & Raz seem to be the ones egging things on.
Alright, so I'll put you down as "kind of a fuckup, but not really a big deal." Gotcha.
QuoteThe Administration has access to better info than I do. If it turns out that they had good evidence that he was a deserter, then I disagree with the decision to give up the 5 bad guys for him. In that case, I'd *personally* not even want him back, but would understand from a policy perspective making reasonable efforts to do so.
Fair enough. Thank you. I retract my allegations of "shameful dodging" :hug:
He could have notified congress in the appropriate time-frame and therefore stay within the law. He could have held out for a more favorable deal. And he could have avoided the big PR spectacle at the White House-- that one seemed destined to backfire.
[/quote]
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2014, 03:28:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2014, 03:21:15 PM
If only we had elected that scholar president :(
Yep. We might also have ended up with the most transparent administration in history.
Oh what might have been.
Yes, makes one pine for the days of Dick Cheney-style transparency.
Freaks shouldn't have kids.
Quote from: The Brain on June 12, 2014, 03:53:21 PM
Freaks shouldn't have kids.
Why do you hate humanity?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 02:04:17 PM
How could a signing statement be unconstitutional? Pretty sure the 1st amendment covers that.
Ask the NYT, not me. I thought they weren't a big deal when Bush did them and don't think they're one now. If disregarding a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, a memo by the president isn't going to change things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 12, 2014, 03:58:37 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2014, 02:04:17 PM
How could a signing statement be unconstitutional? Pretty sure the 1st amendment covers that.
Ask the NYT, not me. I thought they weren't a big deal when Bush did them and don't think they're one now. If disregarding a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, a memo by the president isn't going to change things.
I think the Boston Globe dude even won a Pulitzer for his series of anti-Bush articles.
That's nothing. People have won Nobel Prizes for anti-Bush statements.
^_^
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/us/bergdahl-is-set-to-resume-life-on-active-duty.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2
QuoteBergdahl Is Set to Resume Life on Active Duty
WASHINGTON — Six weeks after being released from five years in Taliban captivity, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is expected to return to life as a regular Army soldier as early as Monday, Defense Department officials said late Sunday.
Sergeant Bergdahl has finished undergoing therapy and counseling at an Army hospital in San Antonio, and will assume a job at the Army North headquarters at the same base, Fort Sam Houston, the officials said.
He is also expected to meet with Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, the officer who is investigating the circumstances of Sergeant Bergdahl's disappearance from his outpost in Afghanistan in 2009.
Sergeant Bergdahl's transfer from the therapy phase to a regular soldier's job is part of his reintegration into Army life, officials said. He will live in barracks and have two other soldiers help him readjust.
The sergeant has been an outpatient at the hospital for about three weeks, during which time he continued to participate in debriefings about his time as a Taliban prisoner. He was released six weeks ago in exchange for five senior Taliban detainees.
Last Thursday, Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, released letters from each of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supporting the repatriation of Sergeant Bergdahl, a rebuttal to critics who said the swap should not have been made.
Lol, Ken Dahl.