US Soldier Freed From Captivity in Afghanistan

[HenryBHough]

Maybe he just took a hike and got lost.
Maybe he actually deserted.
Maybe he was CIA and sent off to infiltrate.
Maybe he was an extraterrestrial hankering for home.
Maybe he was none of the above.

Only thing certain is the regime will tell you what you are to believe but only after the polling results are in and analyzed to determine which story will further the agenda.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Mustang,

Everytime you open your pie hole with that anti-american bullshit you just show how fucking stupid you are.

And really, get your head out of Obamas ass a little longer and take a good look around. You can drop the broad brush and talk to individuals and not to conservatives,

BTW, who are you to judge?

Still haven't answered, Can we assume that the Army's investigation 4 years ago was correct?

 

[Mustang]

Maybe he just took a hike and got lost.
Maybe he actually deserted.
Maybe he was CIA and sent off to infiltrate.
Maybe he was an extraterrestrial hankering for home.
Maybe he was none of the above.

Only thing certain is the regime will tell you what you are to believe but only after the polling results are in and analyzed to determine which story will further the agenda.

I can see it unfolding even now.

Any determination about Bergdahl and what happened to him that does not comport with conservatives previously written script will be deemed to be the result of some kind of nefarious Obama interference in the process. Can't lose that way, can you? If it's determined that Bergdahl was captured and prevented from returning to post, it's because Obama fixed the process in some way. If after deliberations, the determination is made that Bergdahl was in fact a deserter, conservatives will crow that they were right all the time.

Let me tell you something. Even if it's finally determined that Bergdahl deserted, guessing right doesn't mean you knew you were right because an accurate guess isn't the same thing as weighing all the evidence. But it's STILL a sad thing when people who claim to be patriots are so quick to condemn a fellow American, in part, on the basis of what the enemy says about a fellow American. And as I've said before, that makes conservatives anti-American, pure and simple.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Maybe he just took a hike and got lost.
Maybe he actually deserted.
Maybe he was CIA and sent off to infiltrate.
Maybe he was an extraterrestrial hankering for home.
Maybe he was none of the above.

Only thing certain is the regime will tell you what you are to believe but only after the polling results are in and analyzed to determine which story will further the agenda.

I can see it unfolding even now.

Any determination about Bergdahl and what happened to him that does not comport with conservatives previously written script will be deemed to be the result of some kind of nefarious Obama interference in the process. Can't lose that way, can you? If it's determined that Bergdahl was captured and prevented from returning to post, it's because Obama fixed the process in some way. If after deliberations, the determination is made that Bergdahl was in fact a deserter, conservatives will crow that they were right all the time.

Let me tell you something. Even if it's finally determined that Bergdahl deserted, guessing right doesn't mean you knew you were right because an accurate guess isn't the same thing as weighing all the evidence. But it's STILL a sad thing when people who claim to be patriots are so quick to condemn a fellow American, in part, on the basis of what the enemy says about a fellow American. And as I've said before, that makes conservatives anti-American, pure and simple.

Proud Conservative, Proud American, You want to call me anti-American?

 

[Kondor3]

Maybe he just took a hike and got lost.
Maybe he actually deserted.
Maybe he was CIA and sent off to infiltrate.
Maybe he was an extraterrestrial hankering for home.
Maybe he was none of the above.

Only thing certain is the regime will tell you what you are to believe but only after the polling results are in and analyzed to determine which story will further the agenda.

I can see it unfolding even now.

Any determination about Bergdahl and what happened to him that does not comport with conservatives previously written script will be deemed to be the result of some kind of nefarious Obama interference in the process. Can't lose that way, can you? If it's determined that Bergdahl was captured and prevented from returning to post, it's because Obama fixed the process in some way. If after deliberations, the determination is made that Bergdahl was in fact a deserter, conservatives will crow that they were right all the time.

Let me tell you something. Even if it's finally determined that Bergdahl deserted, guessing right doesn't mean you knew you were right because an accurate guess isn't the same thing as weighing all the evidence. But it's STILL a sad thing when people who claim to be patriots are so quick to condemn a fellow American, in part, on the basis of what the enemy says about a fellow American. And as I've said before, that makes conservatives anti-American, pure and simple.

Given that the President has just negotiated with terrorists and put future POWs at greater risk, that's an understandable state of affairs.

 

[Slyhunter]

The self-righteous ones are the ones who look down their noses at Sgt Bergdahl and sit in judgement of him without even knowing his story. That attitude is made even more insulting when it comes from armchair warriors who've never served their country at all, let alone in a war zone.

He's a deserter, plain and simple.

Conservatives are consistently the most judgmental people I've ever met. They're quick to condemn without the kind of evidence they themselves would insist on if they were accused of something. But in THIS country, the accused has a right to a trial BEFORE the verdict is rendered.

As I tried to explain to another one of the members of USMB conservative brain trust, desertion doesn't take place until after someone is AWOL for 30 days. If something or someone prevents a soldier from returning to duty within that time frame, the soldier is NOT guilty of desertion.

What that means for all the simpletons out there is this: A soldier could conceivably willingly go AWOL for a period of time and STILL not be a deserter if he's captured or otherwise prevented from returning to post.

Now, there isn't a person on this board who knows exactly what happened to Bergdahl in the 30 days after he left his post.

THEREFORE, you do NOT know what you are talking about. You're just another anti-American conservative who's willing to take the word of the Taliban in their propaganda video without even giving a fellow American who's a soldier of the United States Army a chance to defend himself before you pass judgment. That probably qualifies you as a fifth columnist if you insist on undermining America which is exactly the kind of thing that the Taliban is hoping you'll do.

He wrote a letter saying he was deserting, what more proof do you need?

 

[Hossfly]

Most smart people learn something when they're relatively young even if it takes more than one event to make a permanent impression in order to get the lesson to stick.

It's this: There's a monumental difference between believing something and knowing something. Too many people can't tell the difference and think that believing something means it somehow must be true. Or why else would they believe it, right? Unfortunately, some people learn the lesson the hard way. It happens when they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement. Bernie Madoff investors come to mind. Or the people who trust someone blindly or others who are too quick to jump to conclusions. But hey, everyone gets burned sooner or later in their personal life or in their business dealings of one kind or another. There's probably no way to avoid that.

But the case of Sgt Bergdahl is different. He was an American POW who was held for five years and has yet to tell his story. Any American who can't or won't withhold judgement in his case and instead chooses to condemn him while trusting the Taliban is NOT a real American in my book. And all their talk about patriotism is little more than empty rhetoric that's as easy to say as the words "I love you" which don't hold much water either if the person who says those words is abusive to the person they say they love.

So, if you and all these other judgmental conservatives want anyone to take you seriously about your claim to love the men who serve the nation, you'll withhold your judgement. Otherwise you're little more than anti-American assholes who care far more about scoring political points against a president you don't like than you ever cared for the country as a whole and/or the men who serve in uniform.

What waste of self-righteousness that no one will appreciate. Good luck.

The self-righteous ones are the ones who look down their noses at Sgt Bergdahl and sit in judgement of him without even knowing his story. That attitude is made even more insulting when it comes from armchair warriors who've never served their country at all, let alone in a war zone.

Up yours, REMF.

 

[Mustang]

Maybe he just took a hike and got lost.
Maybe he actually deserted.
Maybe he was CIA and sent off to infiltrate.
Maybe he was an extraterrestrial hankering for home.
Maybe he was none of the above.

Only thing certain is the regime will tell you what you are to believe but only after the polling results are in and analyzed to determine which story will further the agenda.

I can see it unfolding even now.

Any determination about Bergdahl and what happened to him that does not comport with conservatives previously written script will be deemed to be the result of some kind of nefarious Obama interference in the process. Can't lose that way, can you? If it's determined that Bergdahl was captured and prevented from returning to post, it's because Obama fixed the process in some way. If after deliberations, the determination is made that Bergdahl was in fact a deserter, conservatives will crow that they were right all the time.

Let me tell you something. Even if it's finally determined that Bergdahl deserted, guessing right doesn't mean you knew you were right because an accurate guess isn't the same thing as weighing all the evidence. But it's STILL a sad thing when people who claim to be patriots are so quick to condemn a fellow American, in part, on the basis of what the enemy says about a fellow American. And as I've said before, that makes conservatives anti-American, pure and simple.

Proud Conservative, Proud American, You want to call me anti-American?

Depends on what you say.

Like I said in an earlier post, people can make any claim about themselves they want. How their claim holds up once you take a closer look at what they do or how they act is what determines what is or isn't true. In other words, a person isn't honest merely because he says he is.

For example, take the claim that many conservative politicians (liberals too) make about being moral men and/or moral agents. If later on, it's revealed that they cheated on their wives, and lied to their constituents, and lined their pockets in violation of their oaths of office, how should we view their claims of being moral men and moral agents?

I've taken philosophy in college, and its's always been an interest of mine. The simple fact of the matter is that people lie all the time. They'll claim to be something they're not in order to further their own interests. I understand that all too well. Back in the 18th century the English writer Samuel Johnson was quoted as saying that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. He was right. Demagogues abound. What that means is that I'm not impressed by flag-waving or large grandiose claims to being patriotic because ANYONE can say it, just like anyone can tell someone that they love them. The proof is not in the words. It's in the actions.

So, to bring it all together: If people say they're patriots, and in the next breath they're condemning a fellow American, in part, on the word of the enemy when that fellow American was a soldier held captive as a POW for five years, then I cry BULLSHIT to their claim of being patriots in this particular case because, at the very least, the American soldier deserves the benefit of ANY doubt. And NO patriot should be taking the word of the Taliban when you know damn well that the Taliban has absolutely no qualms about lying to us or killing us if they had the chance.

Did that help to answer your question?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I can see it unfolding even now.

Any determination about Bergdahl and what happened to him that does not comport with conservatives previously written script will be deemed to be the result of some kind of nefarious Obama interference in the process. Can't lose that way, can you? If it's determined that Bergdahl was captured and prevented from returning to post, it's because Obama fixed the process in some way. If after deliberations, the determination is made that Bergdahl was in fact a deserter, conservatives will crow that they were right all the time.

Let me tell you something. Even if it's finally determined that Bergdahl deserted, guessing right doesn't mean you knew you were right because an accurate guess isn't the same thing as weighing all the evidence. But it's STILL a sad thing when people who claim to be patriots are so quick to condemn a fellow American, in part, on the basis of what the enemy says about a fellow American. And as I've said before, that makes conservatives anti-American, pure and simple.

Proud Conservative, Proud American, You want to call me anti-American?

Depends on what you say.

Like I said in an earlier post, people can make any claim about themselves they want. How their claim holds up once you take a closer look at what they do or how they act is what determines what is or isn't true. In other words, a person isn't honest merely because he says he is.

For example, take the claim that many conservative politicians (liberals too) make about being moral men and/or moral agents. If later on, it's revealed that they cheated on their wives, and lied to their constituents, and lined their pockets in violation of their oaths of office, how should we view their claims of being moral men and moral agents?

I've taken philosophy in college, and its's always been an interest of mine. The simple fact of the matter is that people lie all the time. They'll claim to be something they're not in order to further their own interests. I understand that all too well. Back in the 18th century the English writer Samuel Johnson was quoted as saying that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. He was right. Demagogues abound. What that means is that I'm not impressed by flag-waving or large grandiose claims to being patriotic because ANYONE can say it, just like anyone can tell someone that they love them. The proof is not in the words. It's in the actions.

So, to bring it all together: If people say they're patriots, and in the next breath they're condemning a fellow American, in part, on the word of the enemy when that fellow American was a soldier held captive as a POW for five years, then I cry BULLSHIT to their claim of being patriots in this particular case because, at the very least, the American soldier deserves the benefit of ANY doubt. And NO patriot should be taking the word of the Taliban when you know damn well that the Taliban has absolutely no qualms about lying to us or killing us if they had the chance.

Did that help to answer your question?

All that to say nothing......But sure does border on calling me a liar.

 

[SFC Ollie]

One more time Mustang, give us your reading of the Army investigation 4 years ago....

I'll help you out. They concluded that PFC Bergdahl walked away from his post leaving his weapon and other sensitive gear behind.

Why he was not labeled as AWOL or Deserter They did not release.

 

[Mustang]

He's a deserter, plain and simple.

Conservatives are consistently the most judgmental people I've ever met. They're quick to condemn without the kind of evidence they themselves would insist on if they were accused of something. But in THIS country, the accused has a right to a trial BEFORE the verdict is rendered.

As I tried to explain to another one of the members of USMB conservative brain trust, desertion doesn't take place until after someone is AWOL for 30 days. If something or someone prevents a soldier from returning to duty within that time frame, the soldier is NOT guilty of desertion.

What that means for all the simpletons out there is this: A soldier could conceivably willingly go AWOL for a period of time and STILL not be a deserter if he's captured or otherwise prevented from returning to post.

Now, there isn't a person on this board who knows exactly what happened to Bergdahl in the 30 days after he left his post.

THEREFORE, you do NOT know what you are talking about. You're just another anti-American conservative who's willing to take the word of the Taliban in their propaganda video without even giving a fellow American who's a soldier of the United States Army a chance to defend himself before you pass judgment. That probably qualifies you as a fifth columnist if you insist on undermining America which is exactly the kind of thing that the Taliban is hoping you'll do.

He wrote a letter saying he was deserting, what more proof do you need?

First of all, I have VERY serious doubts regarding all the unattributed 'claims' swirling around in this case. It seems like every rumor gets plenty of attention, and then they reverberate around the Internet and in the media as everyone rushes to repeat something they heard. It's what Clarence Thomas referred to as a high tech lynching over twenty years ago, and it's only worse now since bloggers can make ripples in the media pond, and that wasn't possible when Thomas was up for Senate confirmation as a SC Justice.

Be that as it may, a letter can only be classified as a confession if and when it's written after the fact. In other words, a person might very well write a letter about something the're thinking about doing or intend to do, but it's not proof of anything other than their state of mind at the time the letter was written. If they don't follow through with it, or if they change their mind for whatever reason, the letter is not proof in the least about what actually happened.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Another shit house lawyer......

 

[Mustang]

One more time Mustang, give us your reading of the Army investigation 4 years ago....

I'll help you out. They concluded that PFC Bergdahl walked away from his post leaving his weapon and other sensitive gear behind.

Why he was not labeled as AWOL or Deserter They did not release.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Bergdahl 'walked away from his post' in both the literal and the figurative sense of the word. That would make him AWOL as long as he was absent for his next scheduled duty shift. Since I've read reports that he had left AND returned on previous occasions, I couldn't tell you why he didn't return at first. But even if Bergdahl intended on going AWOL, that doesn't necessarily mean that he would intentionally stay away from his post for 30 days which is what it would take to be a deserter. After all, thirty days is a long time to be in a hostile country where nobody speaks your language or knows your culture. Bergdahl also wouldn't know who to trust or whether he would even have any realistic chance of surviving for more than a few short days without adequate food, water, and shelter. Whether he was lost or just wandering around in a mental fog or having some kind of personal crisis, it would not be difficult for someone to capture him and thereby prevent him from returning to his base where he would know he would be welcome. That wouldn't make him a deserter if something like that happened.

 

[Mustang]

Proud Conservative, Proud American, You want to call me anti-American?

Depends on what you say.

Like I said in an earlier post, people can make any claim about themselves they want. How their claim holds up once you take a closer look at what they do or how they act is what determines what is or isn't true. In other words, a person isn't honest merely because he says he is.

For example, take the claim that many conservative politicians (liberals too) make about being moral men and/or moral agents. If later on, it's revealed that they cheated on their wives, and lied to their constituents, and lined their pockets in violation of their oaths of office, how should we view their claims of being moral men and moral agents?

I've taken philosophy in college, and its's always been an interest of mine. The simple fact of the matter is that people lie all the time. They'll claim to be something they're not in order to further their own interests. I understand that all too well. Back in the 18th century the English writer Samuel Johnson was quoted as saying that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. He was right. Demagogues abound. What that means is that I'm not impressed by flag-waving or large grandiose claims to being patriotic because ANYONE can say it, just like anyone can tell someone that they love them. The proof is not in the words. It's in the actions.

So, to bring it all together: If people say they're patriots, and in the next breath they're condemning a fellow American, in part, on the word of the enemy when that fellow American was a soldier held captive as a POW for five years, then I cry BULLSHIT to their claim of being patriots in this particular case because, at the very least, the American soldier deserves the benefit of ANY doubt. And NO patriot should be taking the word of the Taliban when you know damn well that the Taliban has absolutely no qualms about lying to us or killing us if they had the chance.

Did that help to answer your question?

All that to say nothing......But sure does border on calling me a liar.

No it doesn't.

 

[S.J.]

I can see it unfolding even now.

Any determination about Bergdahl and what happened to him that does not comport with conservatives previously written script will be deemed to be the result of some kind of nefarious Obama interference in the process. Can't lose that way, can you? If it's determined that Bergdahl was captured and prevented from returning to post, it's because Obama fixed the process in some way. If after deliberations, the determination is made that Bergdahl was in fact a deserter, conservatives will crow that they were right all the time.

Let me tell you something. Even if it's finally determined that Bergdahl deserted, guessing right doesn't mean you knew you were right because an accurate guess isn't the same thing as weighing all the evidence. But it's STILL a sad thing when people who claim to be patriots are so quick to condemn a fellow American, in part, on the basis of what the enemy says about a fellow American. And as I've said before, that makes conservatives anti-American, pure and simple.

Proud Conservative, Proud American, You want to call me anti-American?

Depends on what you say.

Like I said in an earlier post, people can make any claim about themselves they want. How their claim holds up once you take a closer look at what they do or how they act is what determines what is or isn't true. In other words, a person isn't honest merely because he says he is.

For example, take the claim that many conservative politicians (liberals too) make about being moral men and/or moral agents. If later on, it's revealed that they cheated on their wives, and lied to their constituents, and lined their pockets in violation of their oaths of office, how should we view their claims of being moral men and moral agents?

I've taken philosophy in college, and its's always been an interest of mine. The simple fact of the matter is that people lie all the time. They'll claim to be something they're not in order to further their own interests. I understand that all too well. Back in the 18th century the English writer Samuel Johnson was quoted as saying that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. He was right. Demagogues abound. What that means is that I'm not impressed by flag-waving or large grandiose claims to being patriotic because ANYONE can say it, just like anyone can tell someone that they love them. The proof is not in the words. It's in the actions.

So, to bring it all together: If people say they're patriots, and in the next breath they're condemning a fellow American, in part, on the word of the enemy when that fellow American was a soldier held captive as a POW for five years, then I cry BULLSHIT to their claim of being patriots in this particular case because, at the very least, the American soldier deserves the benefit of ANY doubt. And NO patriot should be taking the word of the Taliban when you know damn well that the Taliban has absolutely no qualms about lying to us or killing us if they had the chance.

Did that help to answer your question?

For example, take the claim "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Does that qualify as dishonesty too? Doesn't exactly inspire trust, does it?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[depotoo]

Wow, watching nbc. They are alllll shocked the Whitehouse did not predict this reaction, said Obama actually thinks of deserting as taking a year off from Yale. And said all the different reasons now given don't pass muster.

I am shoccked.

 

[jon_berzerk]

One more time Mustang, give us your reading of the Army investigation 4 years ago....

I'll help you out. They concluded that PFC Bergdahl walked away from his post leaving his weapon and other sensitive gear behind.

Why he was not labeled as AWOL or Deserter They did not release.

Bowe Berghdal Military Investigation Documents

 

[Kondor3]

Uniform Code of Military Justice

Article 85 - Desertion


(a) Any member of the armed forces who--

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;

is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UJMJ) - ART. 85. DESERTION

 

[AmericanFirst]

Most smart people learn something when they're relatively young even if it takes more than one event to make a permanent impression in order to get the lesson to stick.

It's this: There's a monumental difference between believing something and knowing something. Too many people can't tell the difference and think that believing something means it somehow must be true. Or why else would they believe it, right? Unfortunately, some people learn the lesson the hard way. It happens when they allow their beliefs to affect their judgement. Bernie Madoff investors come to mind. Or the people who trust someone blindly or others who are too quick to jump to conclusions. But hey, everyone gets burned sooner or later in their personal life or in their business dealings of one kind or another. There's probably no way to avoid that.

But the case of Sgt Bergdahl is different. He was an American POW who was held for five years and has yet to tell his story. Any American who can't or won't withhold judgement in his case and instead chooses to condemn him while trusting the Taliban is NOT a real American in my book. And all their talk about patriotism is little more than empty rhetoric that's as easy to say as the words "I love you" which don't hold much water either if the person who says those words is abusive to the person they say they love.

So, if you and all these other judgmental conservatives want anyone to take you seriously about your claim to love the men who serve the nation, you'll withhold your judgement. Otherwise you're little more than anti-American assholes who care far more about scoring political points against a president you don't like than you ever cared for the country as a whole and/or the men who serve in uniform.

What waste of self-righteousness that no one will appreciate. Good luck.

The self-righteous ones are the ones who look down their noses at Sgt Bergdahl and sit in judgement of him without even knowing his story. That attitude is made even more insulting when it comes from armchair warriors who've never served their country at all, let alone in a war zone.

I served my country, not in war time but I know enough about the ucmj that bergdahl deserted, plain and simple.