Hillary Clinton: How Bergdahl disappeared 'doesn't matter'

[jknowgood]

Sorry bout that,


1. He joined the other side its plain to see, and any fucking idiot should be able to see that.
2. His comrades the muslims traded him for some of their own, and he was useful to them, and if he gets free here in America he will do something.
3. This guys a traitor for sure, and they know it.
4. The government already has evidence he wasn't a captured solider he joined up with them.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Yeah all that stuff is only conjecture at this point, Americans are presumed innocent until convicted. Until he is convicted in a court marshal he is an American soldier in the hands of the enemy. I know you guys hate due process but it really is how things are done.

Tell that to Zimmerman or wilson.

 

[jknowgood]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

This is just RWnut derangement. If Hillary or Obama were Republicans they'd be falling all over themselves defending the way the Bergdahl matter has been handled.

No a republican wouldn't give sweet deals to our enemy, and stick up for a traitor. But a liberal will proudly do it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

 

[regent]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

 

[regent]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

No I don't trust one in uniform any more than anyone else.

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

No I don't trust anyone more just because they have a uniform on, and apparently the army doesn't either. Bergdahl had a uniform.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

No I don't trust one in uniform any more than anyone else.

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

No I don't trust anyone more just because they have a uniform on, and apparently the army doesn't either. Bergdahl had a uniform.

Well he did leave that uniform behind when he deserted...i'd say thats a pretty good indicator he didnt intend to come back.
Even you would agree with that obvious clue.

 

[regent]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

No I don't trust one in uniform any more than anyone else.

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

No I don't trust anyone more just because they have a uniform on, and apparently the army doesn't either. Bergdahl had a uniform.

Well he did leave that uniform behind when he deserted...i'd say thats a pretty good indicator he didnt intend to come back.
Even you would agree with that obvious clue.

A clue is a clue. Leaving his uniform could be for a variety of reasons. That's why the army has a trial.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

No I don't trust one in uniform any more than anyone else.

So all his squad mates were lying?

His squad mates decide for themselves, but do not decide for the army.

Well golly gee...they were right.
I'll take the word of the guys that served with him over anyone thanks.
Or do you not trust in the integrity of our men in uniform?

No I don't trust anyone more just because they have a uniform on, and apparently the army doesn't either. Bergdahl had a uniform.

Well he did leave that uniform behind when he deserted...i'd say thats a pretty good indicator he didnt intend to come back.
Even you would agree with that obvious clue.

A clue is a clue. Leaving his uniform could be for a variety of reasons. That's why the army has a trial.

Every single indicator says he deserted. As did his squad mates.
And on top of that he's a traitor.
Shoot his dumb ass.

 

[bendog]

Hillary's right. We bring our guys home, and it doesn't matter what they did .... until they get home. Then, if they're dirty, we punish them. We don't let our guys help the enemy, and we sure don't let other countries decide what happens to our guys.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hillary's right. We bring our guys home, and it doesn't matter what they did .... until they get home. Then, if they're dirty, we punish them. We don't let our guys help the enemy, and we sure don't let other countries decide what happens to our guys.

I dont mind bringing them home to prosecute them. I do mind giving up five top level taliban for a guy we knew was a traitor.

 

[bendog]

Hillary's right. We bring our guys home, and it doesn't matter what they did .... until they get home. Then, if they're dirty, we punish them. We don't let our guys help the enemy, and we sure don't let other countries decide what happens to our guys.

I dont mind bringing them home to prosecute them. I do mind giving up five top level taliban for a guy we knew was a traitor.

I don't think we could keep the five guys. Legally. And I think eventually liberal lawyers would have forced the issue. We've got the Cole bombers and KSM at gitmo, and we probably will never be able to get convictions on them with military courts, and the criminal courts would have to cut even them loose. So, I think the "we gave up 5 Taliban" is really RW bs that is sold to people for anti-Obama propaganda. Not dissing you at all. I just think its RW media spin.

 

[Care4all]

Hillary's right. We bring our guys home, and it doesn't matter what they did .... until they get home. Then, if they're dirty, we punish them. We don't let our guys help the enemy, and we sure don't let other countries decide what happens to our guys.

I dont mind bringing them home to prosecute them. I do mind giving up five top level taliban for a guy we knew was a traitor.

I don't think we could keep the five guys. Legally. And I think eventually liberal lawyers would have forced the issue. We've got the Cole bombers and KSM at gitmo, and we probably will never be able to get convictions on them with military courts, and the criminal courts would have to cut even them loose. So, I think the "we gave up 5 Taliban" is really RW bs that is sold to people for anti-Obama propaganda. Not dissing you at all. I just think its RW media spin.

there were 500 (to 520 according to military records)prisoner releases and /or transfers out of Gitmo under President Bush...this transfer of these 5 prisoners is no different than previous releases/transfers of higher up officials from Guantanamo under President Bush other than we actually got one of our own American prisoners released for it.

And yes, Guantanamo is shutting down....we had no choice, and got an American soldier in return....it was a win win for the President and the USA, regardless of what the nimrods are saying, imo.

 

[francoHFW]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

Perhaps YOU can explain how dealing with a terror group and giving them 5 people back doesn't endanger more US troops and citizens? Perhaps you can explain why a deserter was worth the trade but none of the Americans captured and murdered by ISIS were?

Certainly, Pub dupe. Taliban is an enemy in a war- he was a POW. ISIS is a terrorist group, grabbing civilians for money, .

The Taliban are terrorists you retard.

Not according to US and Afghan gov'ts or the UN, brainwashed, our way or the highway, functional moron. Unlike Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc etc, they haven't gone after civilians outside Afghanistan, and WERE the Afghan gov't before 2003...

Another Taliban Enabler... go play in traffic or sumfin', wll ya?

So sorry about confronting your blind hate and ignorance...

 

[francoHFW]

Hillary's right. We bring our guys home, and it doesn't matter what they did .... until they get home. Then, if they're dirty, we punish them. We don't let our guys help the enemy, and we sure don't let other countries decide what happens to our guys.

I dont mind bringing them home to prosecute them. I do mind giving up five top level taliban for a guy we knew was a traitor.

The usual RW lynch mob...how bout letting the LAW do its job, and letting the facts come out, rather than knee jerk GOP hate talk..

 

[francoHFW]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

Perhaps YOU can explain how dealing with a terror group and giving them 5 people back doesn't endanger more US troops and citizens? Perhaps you can explain why a deserter was worth the trade but none of the Americans captured and murdered by ISIS were?

Certainly, Pub dupe. Taliban is an enemy in a war- he was a POW. ISIS is a terrorist group, grabbing civilians for money, .

The Taliban are terrorists you retard.

Not according to US and Afghan gov'ts or the UN, brainwashed, our way or the highway, functional moron. Unlike Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc etc, they haven't gone after civilians outside Afghanistan, and WERE the Afghan gov't before 2003...

Taliban went after civilian CHILDREN in a Pakistani school just recently, killed over 100.

So stick that up you ass.

Did they fly there, or take a ship? lol

 

[francoHFW]

...functional morons.

i would prefer that title over a dysfunctional liberscum brainless fool moron..., like your self.., hater liberfool

Clever, just like your heroes, taking out of context, ignoring the facts, to get to the stupid insult. BTW, I don't hate anyone except bought off lying GOP politicians and pundits. Certainly not your misinformed poor soul...see sig last line, and change the channel, hater dupe. Any actual argument?

 

[francoHFW]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter WashingtonExaminer.com

march 25 2015
In a comment that now seems akin to her "what difference does it make" dismissal of the Benghazi, Libya, terror slayings of U.S. officials, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that how U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl ended up in Taliban hands "doesn't matter."

Clinton was interviewed last June after President Obama traded five Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl, who on Wednesday was charged with desertion.

Obama was criticized by many after the trade, with some suspecting that Bergdahl sympathized with the Taliban.

But in the interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton defended Obama in comments that she may have to answer for on the campaign trail.

"If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation," said Clinton.

It doesn't matter?" Sawyer asked.

"It doesn't matter," Clinton said. "We bring our people home."

Bullshit.

State Dept. defends arrest of Marine Veteran being held in Mexico on gun charge The Right Scoop -

US Marine Held in Mexico Prison for Guns The Case of Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi - Latin America news - Boston.com

Ridiculous- totally different. Not a POW DUH.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hillary's right. We bring our guys home, and it doesn't matter what they did .... until they get home. Then, if they're dirty, we punish them. We don't let our guys help the enemy, and we sure don't let other countries decide what happens to our guys.

I dont mind bringing them home to prosecute them. I do mind giving up five top level taliban for a guy we knew was a traitor.

The usual RW lynch mob...how bout letting the LAW do its job, and letting the facts come out, rather than knee jerk GOP hate talk..

Knee jerk? Hahahaha..go suck a bag a dicks frank. Your hero is guilty as hell and you know it.

 

[francoHFW]

Seems the consensus is that we should have abandoned an American prisoner to the enemy on suspicion alone. More proof conservatives despise due process.

Perhaps YOU can explain how dealing with a terror group and giving them 5 people back doesn't endanger more US troops and citizens? Perhaps you can explain why a deserter was worth the trade but none of the Americans captured and murdered by ISIS were?

Certainly, Pub dupe. Taliban is an enemy in a war- he was a POW. ISIS is a terrorist group, grabbing civilians for money, .

POWs are service men who get CAPTURED.

Servicemen who desert and try to enlist with the enemy are TRAITORS.

It's not yet been proven he deserted.

But Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are guilty, amirite, asswipe?

ADD much? BTW, total RW BS.. Let the facts come out. The real world doesn't follow the BS Pub propaganda hate infotainment timeline...