Five questions surrounding Bowe Bergdahl

[Dave]

While I am happy that there will be no American POW's left when we do leave Afghanistan, I think its fair to question the release of Bowe Bergdahl for 5 Taliban leaders. Since the announcement of the release, there have been many questions raised about not only the deal that was made but how exactly Bergdahl became a POW. Some of Bergdahl's fellow comrades have said that he had become disillusioned and had left the base he was stationed at and may have even sought out the Taliban. As far as the deal its self goes, I'm not sure in what way this was a fair deal for the US... 5 Taliban leaders for a guy that didn't really want to even be in the military (assuming reports are accurate).... its no wonder the Taliban is heralding the deal as if its something wonderful. The Obama administration has of course handled this exchange horribly... from claiming that they were in a need to move now situation because of Bergdahl's health (although in the video released by the Taliban of the exchange, other then being a bit thin Bergdahl seemed to be in reasonably good health) and that was the reason why congress was not informed of the deal until the deal had already been done to the State Dept spokesperson seeming to claim that the other soldiers in Bergdahl's unit were not trustworthy to Susan Rice again putting her foot in her mouth saying that Bergdahl served "honor and distinction".... something that is becoming more and more of a questionable thought. It's probably fair to say that the administration wasn't expecting for there to be such a backlash but I think its a fair that they get the backlash they are getting when the situation was handled so poorly.

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was released by the Taliban in Afghanistan over the weekend after five years in captivity. Since then, several questions have swirled around why he left his post, how he was captured and how the Obama administration obtained his release:

Is he a deserter?

Various media reports, based on accounts of soldiers who served with Berghdal and e-mails he sent his parents and friends, paint a picture of a young soldier who became disillusioned with the U.S. role in Afghanistan. The reports say Bergdahl sent his laptop and clothes home halfway through his 12-month deployment and left behind a note saying he wanted to start over. He left behind his rifle and body armor and took only a compass, knife, water, camera and a diary, according to soldiers in his platoon. The U.S. Army is investigating why Bergdahl left his post to determine if he deserted or merely wandered off, and whether he put at risk troops who later searched for him. Members of Congress want answers, too. "I certainly want to know more about whether this man was a deserter," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Was Bergdahl captured or did he willingly go over to the enemy?

Former Army Sgt. Evan Buetow, the team leader the night of Bergdahl's disappearance, told CNN that intercepted radio and cellphone conversations from a nearby village described an American soldier who wanted to talk to the Taliban. Insurgents on intercepted Taliban radio transmissions published by WikiLeaks described an unarmed Bergdahl sitting in a makeshift latrine when he was captured.

Did Bergdahl's disappearance cost U.S. lives?

Soldiers involved in the search for Bergdahl have told CNN and The Daily Beast that six to eight of their comrades died as a result of his leaving. Buetow told CNN that IED attacks increased in frequency and accuracy. He said U.S. soldiers worried that Bergdahl, who knew how U.S. vehicles traveled and how his former comrades would react to attacks, was providing information to the enemy, either under torture or willingly. The military has not said whether lives were lost in the search for Bergdahl. An analysis by The New York Times of the deaths attributed to the search for him concludes lives may not have been lost in the search, but troops died because of an increased tempo of fighting, a trend that began before Bergdahl left.

An image provided by IntelCenter on Dec. 8, 2010, shows a man believed to be Bergdahl.(Photo: IntelCenter via AP)

Did the exchange that freed Berghdal violate a policy of not negotiating with terrorists?

Bergdahl was released in exchange for five Taliban commanders who'd been held since 2001 at the U.S. military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the result of indirect negotiations with the Taliban despite a U.S. policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Violating that policy compromised the safety of American civilian diplomatic and military personnel deployed around the world, said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. The White House says the negotiations were conducted through a third party, Qatar, which has provided reassurance that the Guantanamo detainees would be prevented from traveling or harming U.S. interests for a year. The USA has negotiated with terrorists in the past, to gain the release of U.S. hostages seized at the U.S. embassy in Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis, and of hostages held by Iran-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Did the release of detainees from Guantanamo violate a requirement to notify Congress 30 days in advance?

The White House apologized Monday for not notifying members of Congress about the deal in advance. Feinstein told reporters that Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken told her Monday it was an "oversight." The Obama administration says, however, that it warned Congress when the law was passed requiring congressional oversight of the detainee facility holding enemy combatants in Guantanamo that it objected to the notification requirement because it might tie the president's hands in a prisoner exchange where time is of the essence. The deal to free Bergdahl developed quickly, and had to happen fast because Bergdahl's life was in danger, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/04/five-questions-...

[XLFD]

How often does Obama's executive team have to prove that it is completely incompetent in everything it does?  How often does it need to go around the laws to prove it has no regard for them?

[Willy]

The answer to your question X is as many times as they want. There is little opposition to what OBama is doing. I actually feel sorry for Bergdahl. He volunteered to serve and reached the rank of Sgt. so at one time or another he was a competent soldier with good intentions. The 6 months he served in Afghanistan prior to going awol must have messed up his head because anyone who walks of a base in a war zone cannot be thinking logically. He could have been traumatized by combat and took a left turn when he should have turned right. He may just be another victim of war but what is truly disgusting is the way our President has acted. This man is trouble from the get go and he will be causing a huge amount of problems for this Country while he continues to serve and finish out his term. Of course it really doesn't matter how bad Obama is or how bad his intentions are because he couldn't have accomplished all of his disastrous agenda's if he didn't have the backing of Washington's politicians and the Press. The father of Bergdahl probably had a lot of influence over his son and it appears that the father was pro Muslim terrorists.

[XLFD]

On September 14, 2001, the  almost evenly-split party-wise House of Representatives voted 420-1, and the Democrat-controlled Senate voted 98-0, to authorize President Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." This congressional authorization of the "war against terrorism" was signed by President Bush on September 18, 2001.

The next year, nearly 60% of the Democrats in the US Senate voted to go into Iraq.  Sometimes foolishness isn't partisan.  GWB arguably did a respectable job in the commander in chief, but he had congressional backing, which seems to have been a lot like Bergdahl, and had second thoughts after we were committed in Iraq and Afgh.

[Willy]

Jamie

I wasn't even talking about the "war". I don't think Bergdahl was "fed up" with the war, I think he flipped out because of the war and reacted irrationally and because of that he ended up being a guest of the Taliban for several years. I never agreed with the war or Bush and especially not the Patriot Act. Don't forget that Bergdahl volunteer so he was a supporter of the war when he joined the military. As far as Obams is concerned, I was referring to Obama's lying, scheming and deceit which is so blatant, especially regarding this matter of Bergdahl. The fact that he's a liberal, progressive and is supported by liberal, progressives makes all of his negative actions part of the liberal, progressive mindset and agenda. This story of Bergdahl wasn't a story until Obama made it international news. The releasing of terrorists for a deserter is typical liberal Obama policy. What alternative news sites are you talking about? Enlighten me with your list of news sources because I would be interested to see where your opinions come from. By the way I'm a Constitutional conservative and I hope you changed your underwear after your bladder emptying incident.

[Dave]

So you would of rather of had Bush jump up and run out of the room, likely scaring the kids? In reality, it doesn't matter what he ended up doing, had he jumped and ran out of the room everyone that disliked him would be like "well why did he run out of the room and scare all those kids?"... it was a lose lose situation for him.

[XLFD]

I gauge that Willy is not a big fan of modern liberalism and progressivism from his past posts, but he doesn't make bugbears out of the folks who are; he comments on what they do and say, and how he believes its the wrong way of thinking.  I believe he's fair enough to critique the other side when they do stupid, corrupt, and unlawful things, but on the national scale at least, I think the Democrats have the most flaws. 

I believe it's somewhat hypocritical if you do blindly follow a party line without thinking, and I know from his history of comments that Willy has a core set of beliefs that isn't mainstream anything.  With your spelling of "scholl childeren", perhaps you should have stayed and listened to the end of more stories when you were younger.

[XLFD]

Of course, and I usually do not police grammar or spelling errors unless it's made to passively help prove a point.  I don't feel it's appropriate to second guess GWB's reaction at the time; we do not truly know what was whispered to him at the time except by the whisperer and the hearer.  What needs to be second-guessed is what he did once he got out of that school and the years thereafter. 

[Willy]

I'm always ragging on all "Government" corruption, not just local. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Right now the liberals are in charge so yes much of our political problems are caused by liberals, both Democrat and Republican. The U.S. isn't a laughing stock, Obama is a laughing stock. The U.S. doesn't blame everything on Muslims, it blames most of the terrorism on Muslims. It doesn't matter where the "dudes" who flew the planes came from, the point is they were Muslims. You grossly misinterpret Bush's reaction when he found out about the 911 distaster. No I do not blame libs for everything, I blame misguided, insane, fanatical or tyrannical people and the misinformed, ignorant, stupid voters who put them in power.

[Dave]

If you check your history, there were democrats... some even before Bush was elected... that believed that Saddam had WMD's and were recommending Pres Clinton at the least ok air strikes to wipe out suspected facilities. Majority of those same democrats voted for the military action that put the US in Iraq.... so....... if you want to blame Bush, you simply must blame most of congress too.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[XLFD]

Good find, Dave, and let's not forget what our intelligence and other foreign intelligence agencies concluded before the invasion.  Before the Iraqi invasion, it was 'normal' to believe that Iraq had WMDs, and this was not only based on the fact that intelligence agencies believed that, and that Saddam was apparently okay with that belief, but because he had used them during the 1990s vs. the Kurds.

[Dave]

Since the administration likes making deals............... this one sounds like a winner

[AQUAMAN]

The main problem with the Obama administration is not only the incompetence, it's the arrogance of knowing they are always right in their quest for a set agenda of outcomes, and without any congressional authority or voter approval. I suppose that some that think Fox is biased and untrue, are also the ones that watch MSNBC, aka MSLSD. Yeah, that and CNN are real cutsie-pie excuses for news imho. Watching them is like being brainwashed anytime you tune in. Every show repeats the same drum beat of hysterical rhetoric which is the mainstream for progressive liberals. Btw, we know why Bush started the war, but that was long ago. Didn't Mr. O himself say he was going to get the USA out of that quagmire when he ran and also campaigning for reelection? He's had over 5 years to achieve that, so what's his excuse NOW for Afghn.?