So No One Should've looked for Bergdahl because...

[Slyhunter]

What now?

Republicans keep saying "5 people died looking for him"...."5 PEOPLE DIED!!! LOOKING" and I'm sure there is a point in saying that but no one will come out and say it.

Should the US determine who is savable by reviewing their past first? Or are you saying people shouldn't have died? I'd love to hear it

They died looking for a deserter, a traitor.
Why did you have to start a new thread on this instead of posting in an existing thread?

I've asked this question and everytime I get an answer like the one you provided. But no one says why this is important. The soldiers killed didnt know he left when they were given the orders so they were looking for one of their own and got killed.

Why does Bergdahl have to answer for that? Anyone?

Why does the get away driver have to pay for the crime of the murder his partner committed when all he did was drive the car. That is the way the system worked. He enabled the murder by being his getaway driver.

Those people who died because Bergdahl turned up missing. Blame that on those that killed him. Then blame it on Bergdahl because his being missing was actually desertion. A death happening during the implementation of a felony is the fault of the one who committed the felony, ie desertion.

 

[Oldstyle]

A better question would be...how many people in the Obama Administration have been in combat or even in the military?

 

[Oldstyle]

The Army did what was expected of them. When Sgt. "Buttercup" Bergdahl walked out of his compound to make nice with the Taliban the Army set up checkpoints to stop him from being taken into Pakistan and sent out patrols to try and find him. Soldiers were killed doing that...soldiers that died unnecessarily. Bergdahl needs to now answer for that.

Being a naive idiot HERE gets you ridiculed (Hi, Deanie!!!). Being a naive idiot in a combat zone gets people killed. Bowe Bergdahl IS a naive idiot!

See the bolded. Bergdahl needs to answer for what? Them being killed following orders?

Of course he needs to answer to the deaths of the soldiers that were sent out to try and find him. They wouldn't have been doing what they were doing if he hadn't decided to go talk to the Taliban.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What now?

Republicans keep saying "5 people died looking for him"...."5 PEOPLE DIED!!! LOOKING" and I'm sure there is a point in saying that but no one will come out and say it.

Should the US determine who is savable by reviewing their past first? Or are you saying people shouldn't have died? I'd love to hear it

Actually seeing as how the Pentagon asked several times to launch a rescue mission that tells me they knew where he was and could have gotten him back any time if the President hadn't refused to do it, instead choosing to release 5 terrorists instead.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Army did what was expected of them. When Sgt. "Buttercup" Bergdahl walked out of his compound to make nice with the Taliban the Army set up checkpoints to stop him from being taken into Pakistan and sent out patrols to try and find him. Soldiers were killed doing that...soldiers that died unnecessarily. Bergdahl needs to now answer for that.

Being a naive idiot HERE gets you ridiculed (Hi, Deanie!!!). Being a naive idiot in a combat zone gets people killed. Bowe Bergdahl IS a naive idiot!

See the bolded. Bergdahl needs to answer for what? Them being killed following orders?

Of course he needs to answer to the deaths of the soldiers that were sent out to try and find him. They wouldn't have been doing what they were doing if he hadn't decided to go talk to the Taliban.

Thats not true because they were following orders to find Berg...SOP. And because the enemy is.....well, the enemy

 

[ogibillm]

What now?

Republicans keep saying "5 people died looking for him"...."5 PEOPLE DIED!!! LOOKING" and I'm sure there is a point in saying that but no one will come out and say it.

Should the US determine who is savable by reviewing their past first? Or are you saying people shouldn't have died? I'd love to hear it

Actually seeing as how the Pentagon asked several times to launch a rescue mission that tells me they knew where he was and could have gotten him back any time if the President hadn't refused to do it, instead choosing to release 5 terrorists instead.

source? because here's mine that contradicts that
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ason-the-u-s-didn-t-rescue-bowe-bergdahl.html

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

What now?

Republicans keep saying "5 people died looking for him"...."5 PEOPLE DIED!!! LOOKING" and I'm sure there is a point in saying that but no one will come out and say it.

Should the US determine who is savable by reviewing their past first? Or are you saying people shouldn't have died? I'd love to hear it

Actually seeing as how the Pentagon asked several times to launch a rescue mission that tells me they knew where he was and could have gotten him back any time if the President hadn't refused to do it, instead choosing to release 5 terrorists instead.

source? because here's mine that contradicts that
The Real Reason the U.S. Didn?t Rescue Bowe Bergdahl - The Daily Beast

The Real Reason the U.S. Didn’t Rescue Bowe Bergdahl
After a second escape attempt, the American hostage was being moved so often, American commandos would’ve had to raid a dozen safe houses in Pakistan at once.

The Pentagon rejected the idea of a rescue mission for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because he was being moved so often by his Taliban captors that U.S. special operators would have had to hit up to a dozen possible hideouts inside Pakistan at once in order to have a chance at rescuing him.

That’s according to U.S. officials, who also say the Obama administration did not want to risk the political fallout in Pakistan from another unilateral U.S. raid, like the Navy SEAL raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Bergdahl had also twice tried to escape, so the militants guarding him had stepped up their numbers, further complicating any potential rescue attempt.

“A rescue mission would have been fraught politically as well as tactically,” according to a senior defense official briefed on the Bergdahl case.

The lack of information about Bergdahl’s whereabouts shows how few choices the administration had, and why officials felt negotiations with the Taliban were their best option. His repeated attempts to escape also call into question those who call him a deserter who did not intend to return to the U.S. army’s ranks.

The White House released five high-ranking Taliban members from Guantanamo Bay prison over the weekend in return for Bergdahl’s freedom, sparking outrage from lawmakers who were kept in the dark until the trade was done. Law requires Congress to be given 30 days notice before a prisoner is released from Guantanamo, but White House officials say Bergdahl’s deteriorating health necessitated the rapid action.

Senators shown the Taliban’s proof of life video Wednesday that was pivotal in the White House’s decision making process say he did not look well, but argue that should have been shown to them before the release was negotiated.

At the same time, many soldiers who served with Bergdahl have spoken out against him—blaming Bergdahl for wandering off his post, and for diverting needed intelligence and surveillance resources to hunt for him. Some soldiers even blame Bergdahl for the deaths of a half-dozen troops, although those claims have been disputed.

Bergdahl was turned over to U.S. special operations forces by Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan last Saturday, an event the fighters filmed and turned into a propaganda video released on Jihadi websites Wednesday.

Two more U.S. officials and a former Afghan official said Bergdahl escaped his Taliban captors twice during his five years of captivity, once in the fall of 2011 as then reported The Daily Beast, and a second time, believed to be sometime in 2012. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

In his second bid for freedom, which has not been previously reported, Bergdahl made it to a remote village in the mountainous part of Pakistan. The villagers simply returned him to his captors in the Haqqani Network.

In his first escape, Afghan sources said he avoided capture for three days and two nights before searches finally found him, exhausted and hiding in a shallow trench he had dug with his own hands and covered with leaves.

In his second bid for freedom, which has not been previously reported, Bergdahl made it to a remote village in the mountainous part of Pakistan, the former Afghan official said. The villagers simply returned him to his captors in the Haqqani Network. The U.S. officials were not familiar with details of the second escape attempt, though they knew Bergdahl had briefly slipped away from his captors.

Three special operations officials say rescue missions to bring him back were contemplated multiple times over the years.

When Gen. Stanley McChrystal was in charge in Afghanistan, the U.S. had a better idea of his general location, and a mission was mapped out and briefed to senior officials.

They rejected it, the officials say, because the mission planners warned of a high probability that Bergdahl and at least two to three special operations troops would be killed in the operation, so well-guarded was he by Haqqani fighters in a hard-to-reach mountain hideout on the Pakistani side of the border.

But a former senior U.S. Official said the U.S. government never pinpointed his location in a way that enabled them to plan a Bin-Laden-style raid—and therefore was never able to present to the president with a plan to go get him. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak publicly.

Subsequent commanders decided it was better to keep tabs on him via spies and satellites as best they could until he was moved to an easier-to-reach location, or negotiations with the Taliban freed him.

The situation was even worse for Pentagon planners considering rescue options in 2014. After Bergdahl’s escapes, the Taliban stepped up security around him, and with the rise in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s ungoverned tribal region, constantly moved him among roughly a dozen safe houses; successfully rescuing him would’ve meant launching as many as a dozen raids simultaneously—dramatically increasing the risk.

The Pentagon had put Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations Michael Lumpkin in charge of the negotiations last year, after previous attempts to broker Bergdahl’s release had broken down.

Other special operations officials also maintained back channel communications with his captors through former Taliban officials, to keep tabs on his health and explore options for getting him back.

The Real Reason the U.S. Didn?t Rescue Bowe Bergdahl - The Daily Beast

Hell missed your ink @ the bottom, same story!!

 

[ogibillm]

Hell missed your ink @ the bottom, same story!!

it wasn't originally there. i edited. we probably posted about the same time.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Published June 06, 2014
Associated Press
Facebook6 Twitter4 Gplus0

Bergdahl News Gude-1.jpg

In this image taken from video obtained from Voice Of Jihad Website, which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl sits in a vehicle guarded by the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban have released a video showing the handover of Bergdahl to U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan. The video, emailed to media on Wednesday, shows Bergdahl in traditional Afghan clothing sitting in a pickup truck parked on a hillside. More than a dozen Taliban fighters with machine guns stand around the truck and on the hillside. That feel-good moment in the Rose Garden sure seems like a long time ago. Just a week after the president announced that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had been freed in Afghanistan, details emerging about the soldier, the deal and how the rescue came together are only adding to the list of questions. A look at what's known _ and unknown _ about saving Sgt. Bergdahl. (AP Photo/Voice Of Jihad Website via AP video)The Associated Press

Next

WASHINGTON – That feel-good moment in the Rose Garden seems like a long time ago. Just a week after the president announced that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had been freed in Afghanistan, details emerging about the soldier, the deal and how the rescue came together are only adding to the list of questions.

Why did Bergdahl leave his military post in the first place? Should he be punished as a deserter? Did U.S. troops die looking for him? Was the swap — Bergdahl's freedom for that of five Taliban commanders — a good deal for the United States or the Taliban, or both? Did the U.S. negotiate with terrorists? Why did President Obama OK the prisoner swap? And why now?

A look at what's known — and unknown — about saving Sgt. Bergdahl:

THE SOLDIER

On June 30, 2009, when he disappeared from his infantry unit, Bergdahl was a 23-year-old private first class who had been in Afghanistan just five months. Back home in central Idaho, he'd been known as a free spirit who worked as a barista and loved to dance ballet. After he disappeared, fellow soldiers recalled, he'd made some odd comments about the possibility of getting lost in the mountains and whether he could ship belongings home. Rolling Stone magazine later reported that Bergdahl had sent his parents emails suggesting he'd lost faith in the Army's mission there and was considering deserting. By 2010, the Pentagon had concluded that Bergdahl had voluntarily walked away from his outpost. During the five years he was held by the Taliban, he was automatically bumped up in rank to sergeant. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Bergdahl's next promotion to staff sergeant, which was to happen soon, is no longer automatic now that he has been freed.

THE CAPTORS

Within weeks of Bergdahl's disappearance, video surfaced revealing that he had been taken captive by the Taliban, who were embroiled in a bloody battle to topple the Afghan government and reclaim power. It's believed that Bergdahl was held in eastern Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan under supervision of the Haqqani network, a Taliban ally that the U.S. deems a terrorist organization. Over the next five years, the Taliban trickled out at least a half-dozen videos of Bergdahl in captivity. The most recent one was a proof-of-life video taken in December that seemed to show him in declining health. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said Bergdahl was held under "good conditions," and was given fresh fruit and any other foods he requested. He said the soldier enjoyed playing soccer as well as reading, including English-language books about Islam. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar said the swap of Bergdahl for five of his men was a significant achievement for the organization, which is angling to increase its influence in post-war Afghanistan.

THE SEARCH

The Pentagon initially said it was "sparing no effort" to find Bergdahl, with members of his own unit involved in the hunt for their former comrade. But the search effort waned after it appeared he had been taken to Pakistan — out of bounds for American forces. No high-stakes rescue effort was launched, mostly because of a lack of actionable intelligence and fears that Bergdahl might be killed during a raid. Instead, the U.S. kept tabs on him with spies, drones and satellites as negotiations to get him back played out in fits and starts. Some of Bergdahl's fellow soldiers have said he should bear the blame for any deaths of soldiers killed or harmed while searching for him. The military hasn't confirmed a link to any such deaths.

THE DEAL

Bergdahl's freedom was negotiated in exchange for the release of five high-level Taliban officials from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The five were the most senior Afghans still at the prison, all held since 2002. They are: Mohammad Fazl, whom Human Rights Watch says could be prosecuted for war crimes for presiding over the mass killing of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 as the Taliban sought to consolidate their control over the country; Abdul Haq Wasiq, who served as the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence and was in direct contact with supreme leader Mullah Omar as well as other senior Taliban figures, according to military documents; Mullah Norullah Nori, who was a senior Taliban commander in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif when the Taliban fought U.S. forces in late 2001. Khairullah Khairkhwa, who served in various Taliban positions including interior minister and as a military commander and had direct ties to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, according to U.S. military documents, and Mohammed Nabi, who served as chief of security for the Taliban in Qalat, Afghanistan, according to the military documents.

THE TIMING

Several factors helped seal a deal after all this time. Interest in bringing Bergdahl home increased as Obama worked to complete plans for withdrawing nearly all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which would leave fewer resources to keep tabs on the soldier and get him out. U.S. officials say they were increasingly worried about Bergdahl's health, although the video they used to justify those concerns was six months old. Then, this week, administration officials told senators in a closed-door briefing the Taliban had threatened to kill Bergdahl if the proposed prisoner exchange became public, requiring quick action. The administration decided it couldn't follow a legal requirement to give Congress 30 days' notice of plans to release detainees from Guantanamo.

THE COST

Critics are asking whether one soldier was worth trading for five Taliban figures, especially when that soldier's loyalty to the Army has been questioned. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., complained the U.S. had released the "Taliban dream team." On the other hand, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said the five were likely to be transferred to another country at some point anyway. So the dealmakers reasoned "we should get something for them," she said. Still, Rob Williams, the national intelligence officer for South Asia, told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week that four of the five were expected to resume activities with the Taliban, according to two senior congressional officials who were not authorized to speak publicly because the session was classified. The officials did not say which four.

THE PRESIDENT

It was a celebratory moment when Obama stood in the Rose Garden with Bergdahl's parents last Saturday to announce that their son had been released. But the White House soon was on the defensive both for failing to notify Congress about the arrangement and for the terms of the deal. Obama cast Bergdahl's rescue as an easy call, regardless of how he came to be captured, saying: "Whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American soldier back if he's held in captivity. Period. Full stop."

THE SECRET

Senior legislators had been briefed more than two years ago about the possibility of the prisoner swap, stirring up significant opposition among both Democrats and Republicans to the idea of trading Bergdahl for the five Taliban. More than a year went by without further consultation on the matter, and then suddenly it was a done deal, despite a law requiring 30 days' notice to Congress before Guantanamo detainees are released. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said — before the explanation of the death threat — that the administration couldn't afford to wait a month in a tense, fast-moving situation. "That would have seriously imperiled us ever getting him out," he said of Bergdahl. The White House apologized to senior lawmakers for failing to give them advance notice.

THE RULES

Obama said his determination to bring Bergdahl home was grounded in a "pretty sacred rule" that the U.S. doesn't leave behind men or women in uniform. But his critics say the deal violated another basic U.S. tenet: Don't negotiate with terrorists, making it more likely that other Americans will be snatched as bargaining chips. "Every soldier on the ground should be upset by this," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. The Obama administration insisted the U.S. didn't make concessions to terrorists; it simply negotiated a prisoner swap with enemies, just as has been done in previous wars. While the Haqqanis are listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department, the Taliban are not.

THE BROKERS

The administration made sure that the negotiations that produced Bergdahl's release went through intermediaries to keep the Taliban at arms' length. Enter Qatar, a tiny Gulf state with channels to Islamist groups relationships with the West. The Qataris served as a go-between for months, including the intense final days of negotiations. Qatar has an ongoing role in ensuring the five released prisoners remain there for at least a year, under a memo of understanding with the U.S.

THE REINTEGRATION

The military has a program to ease a former captive back into normal life. In military parlance, it's known as "reintegration," and Bergdahl, is working his way through its early stages at a U.S. military hospital in Germany. Each case is different, and Bergdahl's is especially complicated. That is partly because he was in captivity for so long and partly because he has been — or soon will be — made aware of accusations that he deserted his post and willingly sought out the Taliban. A military psychologist who briefed reporters at the Pentagon said negative publicity can "hugely" complicate the process of preparing a former captive or hostage for his return home. That would seem to suggest that Bergdahl faces a potentially lengthy reintegration.

THE FUTURE

At some point Bergdahl will be transferred to an Army hospital in Texas. Hagel has cautioned against a rush to judgment against the 28-year-old soldier. But Dempsey has said U.S. military leaders have no intention of "looking away from misconduct." There are a variety of possible offenses related to an unapproved absence, and a number of potential actions: Bergdahl could be tried by court-martial for desertion. He could be dishonorably discharged. He could be given a non-judicial punishment for a lesser charge, such as being away without leave. If convicted and sentenced, he could be given prison credit for time already served under the Taliban.

THE POLITICS

The deal may be done but the politics of the matter are just revving up. Congressional hearings begin in the next week, and members of Congress will be eager to criticize the terms of the release and the administration's foreign policy. Despite criticism from both parties, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of playing politics. On Wednesday, he read aloud past statements from Republicans who said no U.S. service member should be left behind.

THE PRISON AT GUANTANAMO: The Bergdahl deal underscores the difficulties that Obama has had in delivering on his 2008 campaign promise to shut down the U.S. prison. Congress has gradually eased its restrictions on releasing Guantanamo detainees, but there is still considerable concern that freed detainees could resume hostilities against the U.S. Of the remaining 149 prisoners at Guantanamo, 78 have been approved for transfers to their homelands or a third country, and 30 have been referred for prosecution. The U.S. says nearly 40 prisoners are too dangerous to release but can't be charged for a number of reasons, often because there isn't enough evidence against them. Officials have been trying to chip away at that number with a Periodic Review Board. The five Taliban released in exchange for Bergdahl came from that last group.

THE TALKING POINTS

National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the day after Bergdahl's release that he had served with "honor and distinction," a phrase that rankled some who consider his actions less than honorable. It was Rice's second problematic TV appearance, the first being her now-debunked comments after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. This time, Rice said she was speaking respectfully of anyone who volunteered for the military in a time of war.

News Guide: Saving Sgt. Bergdahl: Facts and questions about the soldier, the deal, the rescue | Fox News

 

[mamooth]

Nobody knows if Bergdahl was a deserter. Honest people say they don't know. Liars claim absolute knowledge one way or the other on the topic.

Either way, you bring the guy home, and it's morally reprehensible to take any other stance. If our soldier is guilty, we punish him ourselves. We don't toss our own people to the Taliban, no matter how loudly the barbarians of the right here demand it.

 

[g5000]

86!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Pulled It Outta My Ass | Making it up as I go along.

You know, the same source the right uses for all their info on this issue.

Nobody knows if Bergdahl was a deserter. Honest people say they don't know. Liars claim absolute knowledge one way or the other on the topic.

Either way, you bring the guy home, and it's morally reprehensible to take any other stance. If our soldier is guilty, we punish him ourselves. We don't toss our own people to the Taliban, no matter how loudly the barbarians of the right here demand it.

See, this is what they seem to be suggesting but they wont say it directly because stating it directly is pretty fucking disgusting. As if they want someone in charge of who is worthy of saving or not by...IDK interviewing family members first or something

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I don't have a problem with us looking for him, or using other means of getting him back, I just don't think we should have traded five higher-up Taliban militants for him. And I say that whether he is guilty of deserting or not.

 

[Slyhunter]

Pulled It Outta My Ass | Making it up as I go along.

You know, the same source the right uses for all their info on this issue.

Nobody knows if Bergdahl was a deserter. Honest people say they don't know. Liars claim absolute knowledge one way or the other on the topic.

Either way, you bring the guy home, and it's morally reprehensible to take any other stance. If our soldier is guilty, we punish him ourselves. We don't toss our own people to the Taliban, no matter how loudly the barbarians of the right here demand it.

See, this is what they seem to be suggesting but they wont say it directly because stating it directly is pretty fucking disgusting. As if they want someone in charge of who is worthy of saving or not by...IDK interviewing family members first or something

I am one of those on the right and I say you don't fix a problem by causing a bigger problem by releasing known terrorists as a trade. Now they have cause to go kidnap more troops so they can trade them for more Gitmo terrorists. Obama made a bad problem worse.

 

[ogibillm]

Pulled It Outta My Ass | Making it up as I go along.

You know, the same source the right uses for all their info on this issue.

Nobody knows if Bergdahl was a deserter. Honest people say they don't know. Liars claim absolute knowledge one way or the other on the topic.

Either way, you bring the guy home, and it's morally reprehensible to take any other stance. If our soldier is guilty, we punish him ourselves. We don't toss our own people to the Taliban, no matter how loudly the barbarians of the right here demand it.

See, this is what they seem to be suggesting but they wont say it directly because stating it directly is pretty fucking disgusting. As if they want someone in charge of who is worthy of saving or not by...IDK interviewing family members first or something

I am one of those on the right and I say you don't fix a problem by causing a bigger problem by releasing known terrorists as a trade. Now they have cause to go kidnap more troops so they can trade them for more Gitmo terrorists. Obama made a bad problem worse.

i'm curious what you think they would have done to the troops they will now be able to capture if the trade had not been made?

 

[The Rabbi]

What now?

Republicans keep saying "5 people died looking for him"...."5 PEOPLE DIED!!! LOOKING" and I'm sure there is a point in saying that but no one will come out and say it.

Should the US determine who is savable by reviewing their past first? Or are you saying people shouldn't have died? I'd love to hear it

Should there be any consequence for his walking away from his post with people dying who were looking for him?

With this administration?
Congressional Medal of Honor.

 

[CaféAuLait]

The Army did what was expected of them. When Sgt. "Buttercup" Bergdahl walked out of his compound to make nice with the Taliban the Army set up checkpoints to stop him from being taken into Pakistan and sent out patrols to try and find him. Soldiers were killed doing that...soldiers that died unnecessarily. Bergdahl needs to now answer for that.

Being a naive idiot HERE gets you ridiculed (Hi, Deanie!!!). Being a naive idiot in a combat zone gets people killed. Bowe Bergdahl IS a naive idiot!

See the bolded. Bergdahl needs to answer for what? Them being killed following orders?

Those orders took place because he went AWOL, if it were not for his actions, those 6 men would not have been killed.

Bowe said he would go AWOL before he arrived in Afghanistan, he followed through within 5 weeks and 2 weeks in he sent his stuff home. So its nothing more than premeditation on his part which ended the lives of 6.

Bowe Bergdahl: America's Last Prisoner of War by Michael Hastings | Politics News | Rolling Stone


Here are the intercepted radio transmissions from Wikileaks, please note they set up ambushes knowing the soldiers were looking for Bowe:

The next morning, more than 24 hours after Bowe had vanished, U.S. intelligence intercepted a conversation between two Taliban fighters:

"I SWEAR THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING YET. WHAT HAPPENED. IS THAT TRUE THAT THEY CAPTURED AN AMERICAN GUY?"

"YES THEY DID. HE IS ALIVE. THERE IS NO WHERE HE CAN GO (LOL)" "IS HE STILL ALIVE?"

"YES HE IS ALIVE. BUT I DONT HAVE THE WHOLE STORY. DONT KNOW IF THEY WERE FIGHTING. ALL I KNOW IF THEY WERE FIGHTING. ALL I KNOW THAT THEY CAPTURE HIM ALIVE AND THEY ARE WITH HIM RIGHT NOW."

Then another intercept was picked up:

"CUT THE HEAD OFF"

Later that evening, a final intercept confirmed that Bowe had been captured by the Taliban, who were preparing an ambush for the search party.

"WE ARE WAITING FOR THEM."

"LOL THEY KNOW WHERE HE IS BUT THEY KEEP GOING TO WRONG AREA."

"OK SET UP THE WORK FOR THEM."

"YES WE HAVE A LOT OF IED ON THE ROAD."

"GOD WILLING WE WILL DO IT."

"WE WERE ATTACKING THE POST HE WAS SITTING TAKING EXPLETIVE HE HAD NO GUN WITH HIM. HE WAS TAKING EXPLETIVE, HE HAS NOT CLEANED HIS BUTT YET." "WHAT SHAME FOR THEM."

"YES LOOK THEY HAVE ALL AMERICANS, ANA HELICOPTERS THE PLANES ARE LOOKING FOR HIM."

"I THINK HE IS BIG SHOT THAT WHY THEY ARE LOOKING FOR HIM."

A third voice chimed in:

"CAN YOU GUYS MAKE A VIDEO OF HIM AND ANNOUNCE IT ALL OVER AFGHANISTAN THAT WE HAVE ONE OF THE AMERICANS."

"WE ALREADY HAVE A VIDEO OF HIM."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607page=5#ixzz33tPmJANG
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

[OKTexas]

What now?

Republicans keep saying "5 people died looking for him"...."5 PEOPLE DIED!!! LOOKING" and I'm sure there is a point in saying that but no one will come out and say it.

Should the US determine who is savable by reviewing their past first? Or are you saying people shouldn't have died? I'd love to hear it

Weren't you the one bitching about how many threads have been started about this asshole? And if you are going to give numbers of the dead you might want to be accurate, the estimated number of deaths that resulted in looking for him are between 6 and 14. And you might want to mention that the special operators declined to try to develop a rescue plan saying he wasn't worth the risk.

The fine deserter was 2 months in on a 12 month deployment, he sent all his valuable electronics home before he walked off his post. Does that sound like someone who planned to return and complete his tour?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats pretty damning stuff but your second link doesnt work.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What now?

Republicans keep saying "5 people died looking for him"...."5 PEOPLE DIED!!! LOOKING" and I'm sure there is a point in saying that but no one will come out and say it.

Should the US determine who is savable by reviewing their past first? Or are you saying people shouldn't have died? I'd love to hear it

Weren't you the one bitching about how many threads have been started about this asshole?

No that was G5000. Try to keep up