West had no idea that Obama would trade five 4 star generals for a deserter. What was he thinking, why didn't he anticipate that Obama would do something so stupid. Heaven forbid. I was initially happy to hear that an American was released until I heard about his past history and who he was traded for. No one can get inside Obama's mind, West or anyone. No matter what he does the apologists step up and we know who they are. And then Guesser labels West as a traitor, an officer who actually did serve with honor and distinction. He doesn't get it and he never will. You just can't make this stuff up. Anyone who supports Obama on this loses all credibility.
did the least prepared man in the room give up 5 of the highest ranking Taliban terrorists 6 months ago?
and youse guys call yourselves "smart". A bunch of terrorist loving and treason supporting douches.
Your low information, lack of thinking idiocy has no bottom. You just keep falling and falling and falling and falling
we need a pill people, we need to cure their illness ASAP
and doing such has to become our highest priority.
how many of these fucktards have mocked the soldiers who served honorably and are now talking out against the traitor?
and youse guys call yourselves "smart". A bunch of terrorist loving and treason supporting douches.
Your low information, lack of thinking idiocy has no bottom. You just keep falling and falling and falling and falling
we need a pill people, we need to cure their illness ASAP
and doing such has to become our highest priority.
how many of these fucktards have mocked the soldiers who served honorably and are now talking out against the traitor?
Colonel Allen West served honorably, while the drug dealing lying sack of shit occupying casa blanca was telling the world he was born in Kenyan of Muslim dissent so he could receive as much financial aid and prejudiced admission assistance as possible
PS: telling the world he was born in Kenyan of Muslim dissent so he could receive as much financial aid and prejudiced admission assistance as possible
^ this my theory as to why he won't release college applications and other college records
PS: telling the world he was born in Kenyan of Muslim dissent so he could receive as much financial aid and prejudiced admission assistance as possible
^ this my theory as to why he won't release college applications and other college records
WRONG Yet AGAIN, and a liar to boot, as no one has mocked the soldiers who are talking out against the POW. If you had brains enough to read the Rolling Stone Article from 2 years ago, you'd know that there's little new about Bergdahl. The status of his capture was just as controversial then as it is now. Didn't matter then, and doesn't matter now. He was a POW and he had to be returned, so he can answer for his actions that day in a Military court, not the Media, or the Court of Public Opinion, or Wrong Way's poor excuse for a brain.
The Taliban walked away from this deal 2 years ago, when it was 1st proposed. Thankfully They came back recently and realized it was the best they were gonna get, so we get to have the POW come back alive. Here's another Rolling Stone article, more current. maybe you'll read it and learn.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607
[h=1]Four Myths About the Bowe Bergdahl Swap That Must Be Destroyed[/h] [h=2]Don't believe everything you hear when it comes to the return of the highest profile American POW in a generation[/h]
4
Comment
252
A video still shows the handover of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl (right) to U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan.
AP Photo/Voice Of Jihad Website via AP video
By John Knefel
June 5, 2014 1:55 PM ET
The return of U.S. prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Guantanamo-held Taliban of varying importance has become the most important foreign policy story in the country this week. As a result, there has been a lot of great reporting on what the swap does and doesn't mean, how it happened, and how it could affect the war in the future.
Read Rolling Stone's 2012 feature on Bowe Bergdahl, written by the late Michael Hastings
Unfortunately, there has also been a lot of reporting that is either sensationalistic, simplistic or straight-up inaccurate. In trying to grapple with how the U.S. conducts matters of war, peace, and international law enforcement, it's important to separate fact from fiction. Below are four examples of things everybody seems to know, which just happened to be either incorrect or far from certain.
MYTH: This sets a dangerous precedent that the U.S. will negotiate with terrorists
In the first minutes after Bergdahl was released on May 31st, various media and political elites took up the all-too-predictable rallying cry that the U.S. doesn't negotiate with terrorists. The claim – in this context – is absurd for at least three distinct reasons. Though the White House recently said the Taliban is on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists by executive order, the Taliban is not actually on the U.S. State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The distinction may be somewhat academic, but confusing or conflating the Taliban with Al Qaeda (as John McCain recently did on CNN) is bad analysis and bad policy. The Taliban is primarily a local political and military organization, and has demonstrated little or no interest in attacking U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
Second, the U.S. – and many other countries – in fact do negotiate with terrorists and other unseemly figures and organizations. This prisoner swap is far from unprecedented, and as President Obama said, this is what happens at the end of a war.
Third, as the Kabul-based journalist (and Rolling Stone contributor) Matt Aikins pointed out, "It's a war, not a hostage crisis, dummies." In a war, it's generally better not to give an enemy an incentive to kill your side's captured soldiers – which would be the perverse outcome of taking a strict "don't negotiate" stance.
MYTH: These five Taliban are the hardest of the hardcore
Just as predictable as the first myth, this one will be even more difficult to destroy. Despite the 13-year occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. media and political establishment continues to see the country primarily through the black-and-white lens that George W. Bush so clearly laid out: "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." One needn't defend the Taliban to acknowledge that political and military allegiances in Afghanistan are often tenuous and shifting, and clear distinctions between friend and enemy are even more fraught in that country (especially under U.S. occupation) than in more conventional conflicts.
A post from the Afghan Analysts Network actually describes all five talibs and their relative significance in the Taliban, and casts serious doubts on the U.S. intelligence that was used to justify their detention.
"Fazl is the only one of the five to face accusations of explicit war crimes and they are, indeed, extremely serious. One would also want to say that Wasiq was deputy head of an agency which carried out torture – except that torture has always been carried out by Afghan intelligence whoever has been in charge and, indeed, this has been no bar to close cooperation with it by the U.S. and other countries since 2001. There is no or little evidence of criminal wrong-doing against the other three men."
The same piece from AAN details how four of the five surrendered at the beginning of the U.S. invasion, "in return for promised safe passage home or had reached out to the new administration in Kabul." In fact, virtually the entire Taliban surrendered within months of the invasion, leaving the U.S. military with a war but not an enemy.
Anand Gopal, who lived in Afghanistan for years and traveled to areas of the country few journalists go, details in remarkable clarity how that happened and then how the Taliban reconstituted itself in his new book, No Good Men Among the Living.
MYTH: Six to eight U.S. soldiers died looking for Bergdahl
Again, this talking point has incredible resonance, because it feels like the kind of thing that really could be true. But as The New York Times has noted, the facts are actually far less clear. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has commented that "I do not know of specific circumstances or details of U.S. solders dying as a result of efforts to find and rescue Sergeant Bergdahl." And blaming Bergdahl's disappearance for every death in Patika province during one of the most deadly periods in the war simply doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. (As an aside, part of the reason we know what we know about Bergdahl's disappearance comes from the Wikileaks trove provided by Army leaker Chelsea Manning – further evidence of how valuable that leak was and continues to be.)
MYTH: The swap shows Obama's willful disregard for the law and his embracing of an imperial presidency
This is a tough one, because by virtually all accounts Obama did violate the law by negotiating Bergdahl's release without Congress' express permission. That's a big deal, and a legitimate criticism of the swap – as opposed to the "don't negotiate with terrorists" line, which is opportunistic, disingenuous and terrible policy. Recent reports from the Associated Press that the Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if news of the swap leaked certainly bolster the administration's claims for the need for secrecy (even if they likely wouldn't change the legality of ignoring the law).
But the real problem with seeing the swap as an example of Imperial Obama is that there are so many better examples that highlight his expansive interpretation of executive authority. Take, for instance, the extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki in 2011. Though that killing raised considerable levels of concern from human rights groups – and eventually some politicians – the controversy never rose to the level that the prison swap reached almost immediately this week.
Or take an even more troubling and recent example of Obama's vast theories of presidential power – a Congressional hearing wherein two top lawyers couldn't give clear examples of what powers the president would lose if Congress repealed the AUMF (the law passed immediately after 9/11 upon which virtually all military action since has rested). The administration seems to be claiming that under Article II of the Constitution, and under an incredibly broad and expansive definition of self-defense, they could continue to carry out drone strikes in Yemen and perhaps even continue to hold people in Guantanamo Bay even if the AUMF were repealed.
That's all a way of saying: Obama using his claimed powers to free Guantanamo detainees troubles Congress greatly. Using those same powers to detain or kill people, apparently, isn't nearly as concerning.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...that-must-be-destroyed-20140605#ixzz33peVEnOF
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
I think he is referring to the integrity of the worst president the US has ever had. Did he lie to get financial aid and assistance has nothing to do with being a birther......the spineless coward we have as potus probably did lie to get those benefits.....but I am sure if you lie for the right reasons and advantages it serves is ok.
He didn't mention GWB in his weak diatribe, so you are in error when referring to the worst President the US has ever had. Obama's been a mediocrity, but he didn't have 3000 Civilians killed on US soil under his watch, nor start a war under false pretenses, and get another 3000+ killed. Spineless Coward? Hardly. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/15/gates.cbs.interview/
He "probably" did lie? That makes it a fact, huh? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp
telling the world he was born in Kenyan of Muslim dissent so he could receive as much financial aid and prejudiced admission assistance as possible
So the above quote makes me a birther in the Guesser's eyes, does he grasp the English language at all? Obama as used the very narrative I posted when trying to sell books, why wouldn't he use it when trying to gain admission into colleges? I think his success at using it in his youth encouraged him to retaining that same narrative when selling books. Can anyone speculate as to why he won't authorize release of college applications? what's he hiding? his religion? an essay? the fact that he claimed to have been born in Kenya? all of the above? who knows for certain, we do know who used that lie in the past
So the above quote makes me a birther in the Guesser's eyes, does he grasp the English language at all? Obama as used the very narrative I posted when trying to sell books, why wouldn't he use it when trying to gain admission into colleges? I think his success at using it in his youth encouraged him to retaining that same narrative when selling books. Can anyone speculate as to why he won't authorize release of college applications? what's he hiding? his religion? an essay? the fact that he claimed to have been born in Kenya? all of the above? who knows for certain, we do know who used that lie in the past
and guesser says I'm wrong and nobody is disparaging the servicemen who are speaking out about the deserter
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...-house-accusing-vets-of-swiftboating-bergdahl
On Wednesday's "Today Show," NBC's senior White House correspondent Chuck Todd reported that "a few [White House] aides describe it to me as ‘we didn’t know that they were going to Swift Boat Bergdahl.’"
In a later tweet, Todd didn't dispute that the White House used the derogatory term "swift boat" to "describe Bergdahl's platoon reaction."
With Democrats, the term "swift boat" or "swift boating" is used as a pejorative to attack political opponents as liars. Democrats want the public to believe that John Kerry was "swift boated" unfairly during his 2004 presidential run when a number of the men he served with in Vietnam came forward to claim that Kerry had wildly exaggerated his war exploits.
They called themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," hence the term "swift boating."
Kerry never proved his wartime claims and still refuses to release his full military record.
According to Todd, a frustrated White House that was expecting joyous news-cycles out of the Bergdahl release is apparently attempting to smear veterans who served with Sergeant Bergdahl as liars.
This, despite the fact that all the objective documentation we've seen so far (including a military investigation) backs the claim that Bergdahl abandoned his post and was not "taken in battle" or "served honorably" as National Security Adviser Susan Rice falsely claimed Sunday on ABC's This Week.
What "swift boating" really means to Democrats is the use of facts against their phony narratives.
It seems likely that the White House is hoping to convince media figures like Todd to attack the credibility of these Veterans and make them the story, as opposed to the Administration's imploding narrative.
-------------------------------
he proceeds to call me wrong. can you make this shit up?
low information? eyes closed? hoping to get away with lies? what makes him tick?
again, I can't explain it
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...-house-accusing-vets-of-swiftboating-bergdahl
On Wednesday's "Today Show," NBC's senior White House correspondent Chuck Todd reported that "a few [White House] aides describe it to me as ‘we didn’t know that they were going to Swift Boat Bergdahl.’"
In a later tweet, Todd didn't dispute that the White House used the derogatory term "swift boat" to "describe Bergdahl's platoon reaction."
With Democrats, the term "swift boat" or "swift boating" is used as a pejorative to attack political opponents as liars. Democrats want the public to believe that John Kerry was "swift boated" unfairly during his 2004 presidential run when a number of the men he served with in Vietnam came forward to claim that Kerry had wildly exaggerated his war exploits.
They called themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," hence the term "swift boating."
Kerry never proved his wartime claims and still refuses to release his full military record.
According to Todd, a frustrated White House that was expecting joyous news-cycles out of the Bergdahl release is apparently attempting to smear veterans who served with Sergeant Bergdahl as liars.
This, despite the fact that all the objective documentation we've seen so far (including a military investigation) backs the claim that Bergdahl abandoned his post and was not "taken in battle" or "served honorably" as National Security Adviser Susan Rice falsely claimed Sunday on ABC's This Week.
What "swift boating" really means to Democrats is the use of facts against their phony narratives.
It seems likely that the White House is hoping to convince media figures like Todd to attack the credibility of these Veterans and make them the story, as opposed to the Administration's imploding narrative.
-------------------------------
he proceeds to call me wrong. can you make this shit up?
low information? eyes closed? hoping to get away with lies? what makes him tick?
again, I can't explain it
