Sorrytoeatandrun wrote:
Not sure what your point is, apples and oranges. But now that you brought him up didn't Reagan basically dismantle the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Remember that?.
I thought that was Gorbachev?
Sorrytoeatandrun wrote:
Not sure what your point is, apples and oranges. But now that you brought him up didn't Reagan basically dismantle the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Remember that?.
I thought that was Gorbachev?
Exchanging POWs is fine.
I think there are other issues here.
For one Reagan was dealing with a country. The Taliban is not a country.
Trades of POWs have happened in every war, but the Taliban guys were not POWs, they are enemy combatants.
Obama did not properly inform Congress. If it was truly exigent in that it had to be done in 24 hrs then maybe I could buy it, but negotiations had been going on for months.
Obama claimed executive power that I bet he did not think Bush could use. Also Obama was against signing statements and yet issued one for this law (and many others).
The trade of the equivalent of five 4 star generals for a sarg (really a private) who might well have deserted is a serious problem to me.
During the Civil War here in the US, POWs who were traded were done so with the understanding that they would not return to combat.
Obama and Reagan are both tyrants. How can you defend one and criticize the other.
Bleu wrote:
Were the prisoners AWOL soldiers who left their post and cost others their lives?
Reagan didn't trade weapons for release of capured American prisoners.
Also, regarding trading of Gitmo detainees for Bergdahl:
1. It has always been US army policy/creed to never leave a soldier behind. This is has been without qualification.
2. It has been documented and publicly known since 2010 that there were accusations of Bergdahl leaving his post.
3. Subsequent to the documented allegations in 2010, military leaders and political persons of both parties (including John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and other Republicans) have publicly voiced support for negotiating the return of Bergdahl with the Taliban.
4. Under the Bush administration over 500 Gitmo detainees were released.
5. There has not been evidence or communications from the Pentagon or other credible (i.e., non-ideological or partisan) sources to support the accusation of Bergdahl "costing other men their lives" - though such accusations certainly can be made to elicit amstrong negative emotional,reaction, and suspend rational thinking.
6. Bergdahl has not had the opportunity to represent nor defend himself,against any accusations (I am not trying to do so). The proper forum for that will be within the justice system of the military - not some kangaroo court of public opinion. Especially not the misinformed rabble on LRC.
luv2run wrote:
Exchanging POWs is fine.
I think there are other issues here.
For one Reagan was dealing with a country. The Taliban is not a country.
Trades of POWs have happened in every war, but the Taliban guys were not POWs, they are enemy combatants.
Obama did not properly inform Congress. If it was truly exigent in that it had to be done in 24 hrs then maybe I could buy it, but negotiations had been going on for months.
Obama claimed executive power that I bet he did not think Bush could use. Also Obama was against signing statements and yet issued one for this law (and many others).
The trade of the equivalent of five 4 star generals for a sarg (really a private) who might well have deserted is a serious problem to me.
During the Civil War here in the US, POWs who were traded were done so with the understanding that they would not return to combat.
Whatever happened to "no man left behind"? We should just say, "Sorry bro, your life isn't worth too much to us", I suppose.
It has always been US army policy/creed to never leave a soldier behind.
The Union Army left 200,000 men to rot in rebel POW camps. Kennedy left 2,000 men to be murdered by Castro in Cuba. The US Army left 10,000 POWs to rape and torture in 1975. Reagan left 100's of CIA Agents to be eaten by South African cannibals after they were put down by Cuban secret forces. So you are full of doo doo. There is no such US policy as you state.
Lest we forget, Hillary left one gay ambassador, one gay CIA spy, and two gay former SFs to be raped for days and tortured for days in Benghazi, Libya.
Dangerous like giving Iran missles and telling them to wait until inaguration day to release them? Be honest... It does matter to you how bad republicans have been. You just hate President Obama.
Aardvark1 wrote:
1. Prisoners is different than prisoner
2. Those prisoners did not abandon their position
3. There were not six other US soldiers killed during an attempt to locate the deserter, like those who died during the search for Bergdahl. Bergdahl was selfish and that lead to the deaths of six other Americans.
4. The five prisoners that were released in exchange for Bergdahl have already killed many other people. Money that was exchanged with Iran had not already killed innocent people, nor did weapons.
5. The two incidents have nothing to do with each other.
If you can't look at this decision rationally and see that it was a dangerous mistake then you have no objectivity whatsoever. That's merely if you look at the decision to make the exchange without even considering the fact that the constitution does not grant the White House the legal authority to do so. The only reason to post something about Reagan is to make the inference that someone anyone questioning the decision is doing so for political reasons which is simply not the case. If you think Reagan was wrong for making that exchange then that should have no effect whatsoever on your ability to see that this was a dangerous mistake, and an illegal one at that.
Havent we killed THOUSANDS of Shiite Muslims?
quote]Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:
[quote]genuine random a hole wrote:
[quote]Aardvark1 wrote:
He pulled nothing out of his .... This from the Kevin Sief of the Washington Post:
One of the freed men was the head of the Taliban’s army. Another arranged for al-Qaeda trainers to visit Afghanistan. Another has been implicated by the United Nations for killing THOUSANDS of Shiite Muslims.
Good post and accurate, although i believe Reagan did trade weapons for hostages.
Brody wrote:
Bleu wrote:Were the prisoners AWOL soldiers who left their post and cost others their lives?
Reagan didn't trade weapons for release of capured American prisoners.
Also, regarding trading of Gitmo detainees for Bergdahl:
1. It has always been US army policy/creed to never leave a soldier behind. This is has been without qualification.
2. It has been documented and publicly known since 2010 that there were accusations of Bergdahl leaving his post.
3. Subsequent to the documented allegations in 2010, military leaders and political persons of both parties (including John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and other Republicans) have publicly voiced support for negotiating the return of Bergdahl with the Taliban.
4. Under the Bush administration over 500 Gitmo detainees were released.
5. There has not been evidence or communications from the Pentagon or other credible (i.e., non-ideological or partisan) sources to support the accusation of Bergdahl "costing other men their lives" - though such accusations certainly can be made to elicit amstrong negative emotional,reaction, and suspend rational thinking.
6. Bergdahl has not had the opportunity to represent nor defend himself,against any accusations (I am not trying to do so). The proper forum for that will be within the justice system of the military - not some kangaroo court of public opinion. Especially not the misinformed rabble on LRC.
Didn't the ringleader get his own chat show?
Thought this was a credible/detailed description of what happened immediately after Bergdahl was first noticed missing from base. Gives plenty of insight into how/why soliders were killed because of him.
Not sure of anything wrote:
Thought this was a credible/detailed description of what happened immediately after Bergdahl was first noticed missing from base. Gives plenty of insight into how/why soliders were killed because of him.
http://michellemalkin.com/2014/06/03/exclusive-the-story-you-havent-yet-heard-about-bowe-bergdahls-desertion/
You thought Michelle Malkin was credible? Holy sh\it.
Brody wrote:
3. Subsequent to the documented allegations in 2010, military leaders and political persons of both parties (including John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and other Republicans) have publicly voiced support for negotiating the return of Bergdahl with the Taliban.
4. Under the Bush administration over 500 Gitmo detainees were released.
5. There has not been evidence or communications from the Pentagon or other credible (i.e., non-ideological or partisan) sources to support the accusation of Bergdahl "costing other men their lives" - though such accusations certainly can be made to elicit amstrong negative emotional,reaction, and suspend rational thinking.
6. Bergdahl has not had the opportunity to represent nor defend himself,against any accusations (I am not trying to do so). The proper forum for that will be within the justice system of the military - not some kangaroo court of public opinion. Especially not the misinformed rabble on LRC.
Brody what is your point?
Will you not admit that the US govt which is headed by Obama should have figured out ahead of time before they negotiated the release of 4 high rankers for 1 US man (shouldn't it be 1-1 or 4-1 in our favor if they are high ranking) if in fact that US man was a deserter?
It baffles my mind that any CEO wouldn't do basic research before negotiating the trade and hten having Susan Rice say he serviced admirably on national tv.
That's just awful management.
Distract us with Reagan, Bush, whatever. To me, that's just moronic. I can't believe more people aren't talking about that aspect of it.
Either we don't know if he was a deserter or not - which is unacceptable to not know that before negotiating - or he is one and Susan Rice just doesn't see how that's relevant.
Of course, it's quite hypocritical but that's the signature description for the GOP hypocritical. They can make deals with "terrorists" all they want, but when Obama does the same it's suddenly the end of the world. Hypocrites to no end. Fox News has trained them to be so.
puro pinche BS wrote:
Of course, it's quite hypocritical but that's the signature description for the GOP hypocritical. They can make deals with "terrorists" all they want, but when Obama does the same it's suddenly the end of the world. Hypocrites to no end. Fox News has trained them to be so.
You are an idiot. This has nothing to do with partisanship. How about we just say "Obama pulled a Reagan" and piss off everyone who wants to play party politics.
Combat unit? Dates of service? Deployment location?
I think the point is that Obama did what every President in modern times (Democrat or Republican) would have done. From what I've read the leaders in the Pentagon and intelligence services generally approved of this trade and are defending that. Against that, you really think any President would have done otherwise? Eisenhower was the last President to seriously stand up to that.
Which gets to the politics of this. Obama is not going to get politically hurt by this. The criticism may be valid. But to criticize goes to suggest that he is not a puppet after all. That he takes his own counsel and is now swayed by the career Pentagon people.
But honestly, I don't why this story merits anything more than a back page blurb. It was a very small prisoner swap. When I first saw the bold front page print in the NY Times about this story I thought our financial system was on the brink again.
rojo wrote:
Distract us with Reagan, Bush, whatever. To me, that's just moronic. I can't believe more people aren't talking about that aspect of it.
You're just saying that because your daddy was part of Bush's corrupt administration.
Isnt that the way your dad and his friends do math? Terrorists kill 3000 on 9-11. We invade 2+ counties and kill at least hundreds of thousands.
[quote]rojo wrote:
Brody what is your point?
Will you not admit that the US govt which is headed by Obama should have figured out ahead of time before they negotiated the release of 4 high rankers for 1 US man (shouldn't it be 1-1 or 4-1 in our favor if they are high ranking) if in fact that US man was a deserter?
Distract us with Reagan, Bush, whatever. To me, that's just moronic. I can't believe more people aren't talking about that aspect of it.