There was no letter on the bed

[jc456]

Its protocol...

It doesnt matter. You can repeat the bolded over and over and it still doesnt change the fact of when we leave, they will be released.

You not understanding doesnt change that. So we traded some guys for an American. Good because we will be releasing for nothing later on

CC, do you know how he was captured?

No, Tell me why that has to do with the topic...I bet you cant

Well sure, why would he just walk off base and not tell anyone? Did his personals go home three days before? So did he walk off of base on his own? Do you even know how he got captured? No you don't, so, why would he be captured if he were on base where he was supposed to be? letter on the bed? how would you know that either?

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama has the authority to break a law that he signed into being just last year, Jake?

(1) He has the Constitutional authority to conduct the war as he sees fit. He is not answerable to you or Congress.

(2) Why are you surprised? He let folks know in his signing statement that he would interpret the law in the manner he wished.

You're a bit naive, Jake.

Just because a President is overseeing an American conflict does not give him authority to disregard law passed by the Congress. That's NOT how our system operates.

 

[rdean]

you are acting like a child again.

You ignore the facts.

Just because we are leaving does not mean the war is over. The front is being vacated, but the war will still be ongoing as long as one side says "the war aint over"

SO tell me why vacating a front should result in returning the detainees?

Try to answer this time.

Its protocol...

It doesnt matter. You can repeat the bolded over and over and it still doesnt change the fact of when we leave, they will be released.

You not understanding doesnt change that. So we traded some guys for an American. Good because we will be releasing for nothing later on

your answer is "its protocol"?

Wrong.

It is protocol when a treaty is signed and the war is declared as over by BOTH parties.

We don't release prisoners to an enemy who still intends to continue waging war against us.

So try again.

And stop with the "it is because it is" answer. That is for children. I am presenting a very viable dilemma.

Not sure you understand. al Qaeda and Bin Laden were guests of the Taliban in Afghanistan. We were attacked by Bin Laden and al Qaeda NOT the Taliban.

Bush ordered the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. They refused, as is the custom in Islam when you welcome a guest under your roof. They basically become part of your family. As far as we know, there was no serious negotiation with the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. If there was, it didn't last very long.

Then Bush invaded Afghanistan and never really went after Bin Laden and after a short time, Bush lost interest in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq who we all know had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. In fact, Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies.

As far as the Taliban is concerned, we are the terrorists. They never attacked this country. We invaded their country but didn't even go after their "guest". We just let Bin Laden go and stopped looking for him. To them, we were only interested in invasion.

We may not like their government, but as long as they don't attack us, or harbour people that attack us, then who cares? This is like voter suppression. You need to win people over on policy, not cheating or brute force. I know Republicans won't have a clue what I'm talking about. Their only answer is "You side with terrorists". But remember, it was the GOP that let Bin Laden go and Obama that didn't.

 

[R.D.]

Impeachment? A little reality check here, Kiddies! If the GOP had the votes for impeachment then they would have the votes to repeal ObamaCare. They don't...they won't...so why even waste time talking about it?

Pretty much admitting the left doesn't care

 

[rdean]

Obama has the authority to break a law that he signed into being just last year, Jake?

(1) He has the Constitutional authority to conduct the war as he sees fit. He is not answerable to you or Congress.

(2) Why are you surprised? He let folks know in his signing statement that he would interpret the law in the manner he wished.

You're a bit naive, Jake.

Just because a President is overseeing an American conflict does not give him authority to disregard law passed by the Congress. That's NOT how our system operates.

And yet, we see quote after quote of Republicans saying they had been contacted over the last two years and thought this was a workable idea. And over the last few days, they have had to scrub their websites and tweets to march to the party beat.
The truth is, Republicans are disappointed that Obama didn't leave this guy there so they can say he left behind a soldier. They would have crucified him.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I find amazing to watch is how this President continually thumbs his nose at Congressional oversight yet then whines when that same Congress won't cooperate with his agenda. I know he has no experience to fall back on but surely SOMEONE in his Administration has enough common sense to point out that what they are doing is self defeating?

 

[tinydancer]

rdean you better get hold of the NYTimes and ask them for a retraction.

The New York Times reported Bergdahl also left behind a note in which he said he did not want to fight for America any more, did not believe in the war - and was leaving to start a new life.

The letter to his comrades was separate from the email he sent to his parents before he sent his goods home to them, wherein he wrote: 'life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong.... I am ashamed to even be (A)merican.'

Bowe Bergdahl left letter at Afghan base saying he'd left 'to start new life' | Mail Online

 

[ClosedCaption]

your answer is "its protocol"?

Wrong.

It is protocol when a treaty is signed and the war is declared as over by BOTH parties.

not in this war because there is no state to sign agreeing the war is over.

It doesnt matter anyway. no matter the answer you are so invested in "not understanding" that nothing will make sense to you.

But that doesnt change reality. Reality says they will be released when this is over. We traded some for an American when we were going to release them anyway.

Still dont understand? Luckily that doesnt matter

and there you go again...

My answer is..."it is because it is"....and its not my fault that you cant understand that.

So, in other words, you don't know why we are going to do it....but we are going to do it anyway.

Let me repeat it for you again: When the war is over we release prisoners.

You dont understand. Fine. Once again understanding doesnt change the facts. 1. I answered your question. 2. We release them when the war is over

I gave you a valid reason why such may not happen...and you say I am wrong but don't explain how I may be wrong...other than saying "this is different"

Let me repeat again: This war is different BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATE TO SIGN THAT THE WAR IS OVER.

When you grow up, Ill debate ideas with you....until then, no interest.

Good...the perpetual dumb act is getting old

 

[Oldstyle]

(1) He has the Constitutional authority to conduct the war as he sees fit. He is not answerable to you or Congress.

(2) Why are you surprised? He let folks know in his signing statement that he would interpret the law in the manner he wished.

You're a bit naive, Jake.

Just because a President is overseeing an American conflict does not give him authority to disregard law passed by the Congress. That's NOT how our system operates.

And yet, we see quote after quote of Republicans saying they had been contacted over the last two years and thought this was a workable idea. And over the last few days, they have had to scrub their websites and tweets to march to the party beat.
The truth is, Republicans are disappointed that Obama didn't leave this guy there so they can say he left behind a soldier. They would have crucified him.

Deanie? Forget the GOP...not even Hilary Clinton or Diane Feinstein thought this was a good idea and vetoed it repeatedly. Obama didn't tell Congress what he was planning because he knew that he faced BIPARTISAN opposition to doing a swap.

 

[ClosedCaption]

CC, do you know how he was captured?

No, Tell me why that has to do with the topic...I bet you cant

Well sure, why would he just walk off base and not tell anyone? Did his personals go home three days before? So did he walk off of base on his own? Do you even know how he got captured? No you don't, so, why would he be captured if he were on base where he was supposed to be? letter on the bed? how would you know that either?

I knew you didnt have a point. just question marks

 

[Oldstyle]

not in this war because there is no state to sign agreeing the war is over.

It doesnt matter anyway. no matter the answer you are so invested in "not understanding" that nothing will make sense to you.

But that doesnt change reality. Reality says they will be released when this is over. We traded some for an American when we were going to release them anyway.

Still dont understand? Luckily that doesnt matter

and there you go again...

My answer is..."it is because it is"....and its not my fault that you cant understand that.

So, in other words, you don't know why we are going to do it....but we are going to do it anyway.

Let me repeat it for you again: When the war is over we release prisoners.

You dont understand. Fine. Once again understanding doesnt change the facts. 1. I answered your question. 2. We release them when the war is over

I gave you a valid reason why such may not happen...and you say I am wrong but don't explain how I may be wrong...other than saying "this is different"

Let me repeat again: This war is different BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATE TO SIGN THAT THE WAR IS OVER.

When you grow up, Ill debate ideas with you....until then, no interest.

Good...the perpetual dumb act is getting old

I'm curious, Closed...do you REALLY think that the war with Al Queda is over?

 

[blastoff]

Just take Barry's dick suckers' bullshit about not leaving a soldier behind. Behind? Behind is at least two years from now, and likely more the way things go in that part of the world. This cocksucker and his cabal lie about everything. It's the Chicago community agitator way.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh. The administration practically concedes that Bergdahl abandoned his post but the radical left thinks he was innocent because he didn't leave a note on his bed.

 

[Jarhead]

Oldstyle is an idiot.

Mainstream Americans believe that people who think like Oldstyle or listen to Fox are idiots.

The president had the constitutional authority as CiC to do what he did.

If any one of you don't like it, who cares?

The CiC has the authority to exchange POW's.

Obama and Holder were the ones who said they were NOT POW's and instead criminals and thus why they should be tried in US Federal Courts.

Now, since they were not POW's he COULD pardon them...

But then he would need congressional approval to use tax payer funds to transport them out of the country.

Seems you are not looking at the entire picture.

Just the bits and pieces that please you.

NO ONE, not one soldier, no matter who they are, if captured by our enemies there and held prisoners, are designated POW's.....

Do you know why?

Does this mean to you that any soldier captured by our enemy in Afghanistan is not a prisoner of war just because the Military has chosen new words labeling them?

Jarhead, you are much much smarter than this.....

OF COURSE any soldier captured in Afghanistan by our enemies and whom they are fighting against, ARE PRISONERS OF WAR whether the military has decided to use those exact words or not in their designation, and the President as CIC would have authority....

so this argument of yours claiming that this soldier and ANY OR ALL SOLDIERS captured in a war zone in Afghnistan are NOT prisoners of war, falls FLAT....

The ONLY REASON the USA is not calling those captured Prisoners of war from Afghanistan, is BECAUSE if Bush did call those Taliban and AlQaeda prisoners of ours Prisoners of war, then we would NOT have been able to hold them in Gitmo, without hearings or trial and would have had to follow the Geneva Convention rules for such....so no torturing....

So, this designation of Missing/Captured by enemy by the Military is in essence, the same as POW, and those captured there when and if released get POW military awards/medals, the same ones those in Viet Nam or world war II would get if warranted....with the POW label on the medal title.

Care4All....read my post. Don't just scan it.

I am not referring to an American Soldier taken by the enemy.

I am referring to the detainees we have in GITMO.

They are NOT POW's. They are criminals that we sought out and captured to be brought to justice. There is a difference. A BIG difference. They were not enemy soldiers that lost a battle and surrendered to our troops and taken as POW's.

We had special operations to find these particular guys and take them into custody so they could face a trial for their crimes against American. Most were not even on the field of battle and I believe some were found in Pakistan. (not sure about that though).

If you recall....Holder wanted to formally charge them and have them tried in US Federal Courts.

We do not try POW's.

So the president freed criminals. Perhaps for a good cause.....but that is NOT his role as a CiC. That is the role of the justice department.

Unless the President pardons them.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What isn't clear is whether Republicans understand that it was al Qaeda that attacked the US.

The only person that's not clear to, is you.

I see the leftists are once again engaging in their favorite pastime: Telling lies about the GOP and obsessing on them so hard that the leftists wind up believing the lies themselves.

Normal people just sit back and smile when they see the leftists doing that. It leads to statements like the one quoted above. It's fun to watch them ensnaring themselves in their own trap, if you've got nothing better to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama has the authority to break a law that he signed into being just last year, Jake?

(1) He has the Constitutional authority to conduct the war as he sees fit. He is not answerable to you or Congress.

(2) Why are you surprised? He let folks know in his signing statement that he would interpret the law in the manner he wished.

You're a bit naive, Jake.

Just because a President is overseeing an American conflict does not give him authority to disregard law passed by the Congress. That's NOT how our system operates.

Then I guess the real dereliction of duty here would be if the Republicans in the House don't file articles of impeachment.

 

[ClosedCaption]

and there you go again...

My answer is..."it is because it is"....and its not my fault that you cant understand that.

So, in other words, you don't know why we are going to do it....but we are going to do it anyway.

Let me repeat it for you again: When the war is over we release prisoners.

You dont understand. Fine. Once again understanding doesnt change the facts. 1. I answered your question. 2. We release them when the war is over



Let me repeat again: This war is different BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATE TO SIGN THAT THE WAR IS OVER.

When you grow up, Ill debate ideas with you....until then, no interest.

Good...the perpetual dumb act is getting old

I'm curious, Closed...do you REALLY think that the war with Al Queda is over?

It doesnt matter what I think...

 

[ClosedCaption]

You almost gotta laugh. The administration practically concedes that Bergdahl abandoned his post but the radical left thinks he was innocent because he didn't leave a note on his bed.

Maybe if you stopped confusing leaving his post with being innocent of leaving a note you'd understand it.

But I guess its easier for you to lie about it and believe that being guilty of leaving your post means you have to be guilty of leaving a note in the name of fairness

 

[Mojo2]

Did bergdahl leave a note ?

I have not heard a credible source confirm that rumor as of yet.

Yeah, it's confirmed here.

Revealed: Bowe Bergdahl left letter telling comrades at Afghan base he was 'leaving to start new life and didn't want to fight for America' as Army announces he DOES face desertion charges

Sgt Bowe Bergdahl left a note for his comrades saying he did not want to fight for America any more and was leaving to start a new life

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today said 'it's premature' to think there will be no charges laid against Bergdahl

Army Secretary confirms there will be a full government investigation into the circumstances surrounding his 2009 disappearance

Will put Obama under more pressure after Susan Rice said he served with 'honor and distinction' and freed five Taliban commanders

Obama said today it's 'absolutely' possible the five prisoners the U.S. released from Guantanamo Bay as a trade for Bergdahl could rejoin terrorist cells

President added the US has an obligation not to leave any soldiers behind

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said she felt the 'tough' decision was justified
But former Vice President Dick Cheney was not convinced, saying the Taliban leaders will 'most likely' launch retaliatory attacks against the US

Cheney said the Obama administration didn't 'get a very good deal'

Former comrade who was there when Bergdahl disappeared five years ago broke a military gagging order to speak to MailOnline

He said: 'As far as I’m concerned Bergdahl deserted his men and should face a court martial'

‘Everyone looked at me like I was crazy but I was right, he had walked off’

Bergdahl was scheduled to be promoted in absentia for a second time this summer before he was found and could receive five years'-worth back pay

By DANIEL BATES

Bowe Bergdahl left letter at Afghan base saying he'd left 'to start new life' | Mail Online

 

[Little-Acorn]

War is violence, but that's not all it is. War is also threat.

War is not over until Al Qaeda stops attacking us... AND stops threatening and plotting to attack us.

We can cut and run from Afghanistan any time. That won't end the war.