You can't even argue anymore. Obama is the worst president of all time.

RPGNinja

RPGNinja

CAGiversary!
Forgetting about all the numerous scandals he has had and the fact that he has racked up more debt than all previous president combined. This latest episode with the swap just proves how out of touch he really is. It actually almost makes me question if he is a real American or not. I used to think the birthers were crazy nuts who had no idea what they were talking about. But time after time Obama keeps proving he cares more about other countries than the one he lives in.

So what is his excuse this time? "He read about this in the papers like everyone else?"

I am sure the creep will try to worm his way out of this scandal too. How anyone voted twice for this guy is beyond me.
 
MasaTFC said:
cite your sources, legitimately or else your argument sucks.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

that's just an example of citing a legit source. you wanna be mad? Blame congress for the fact that this country is going to the toilet.
Click to expand...
You know you could just use google right? It isn't exactly hard to do.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw


Now getting back to the topic at hand.

Obama is a disgrace and a failure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kirin Lemon said:
It's absolutely fascinating how human filth gravitates to the GOP.
Click to expand...
MasaTFC said:
cite your sources, legitimately or else your argument sucks.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

that's just an example of citing a legit source. you wanna be mad? Blame congress for the fact that this country is going to the toilet.
Click to expand...
RPGNinja said:
You know you could just use google right? It isn't exactly hard to do.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw


Now getting back to the topic at hand.

Obama is a disgrace and a failure.
Click to expand...
A conservative based news website has issues with Obama's presidency?

9WEiNOC.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:
MasaTFC said:
cite your sources, legitimately or else your argument sucks.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

that's just an example of citing a legit source. you wanna be mad? Blame congress for the fact that this country is going to the toilet.
Click to expand...
How can you blame congress when the current president does anything he wants without consulting congress?

See new EPA standards and the current broo ha ha over that deserter Bergdhal. Even his own party is upset about his end around on that one.

Not citing sources as any person who cares to learn can use google to find stuff.

Come at me bro.

 
kilik64 said:
How can you blame congress when the current president does anything he wants without consulting congress?

See new EPA standards and the current broo ha ha over that deserter Bergdhal. Even his own party is upset about his end around on that one.

Not citing sources as any person who cares to learn can use google to find stuff.

Come at me bro.
Click to expand...
Well, the EPA is an executive agency, so there's that...

Not entirely sure how the prisoner exchange would involve anyone other than the President given his role in negotiating with foreign powers, as well as his role as commander in chief...

I mean, we're talking basic civics lessons here on division of power within our government. If you want to discuss whether he should do these things that's something else entirely but whether or not he's somehow acting unconstitutionally? Nah, that dog don't hunt.
 
Squarehard said:
A conservative based news website has issues with Obama's presidency?

9WEiNOC.jpg
Click to expand...
I cracked up at that image and I generally agree with you, it's best not to read too much into very conservative or liberal news sources. Be that as it may, if you would have actually read the article, you would have seen they cited the Treasury. If you are still opposed to the linked to article, you can do your own research through public information.

 
RedvsBlue said:
Not entirely sure how the prisoner exchange would involve anyone other than the President given his role in negotiating with foreign powers, as well as his role as commander in chief...
Click to expand...
What foreign power did he negotiate with?

What country was holding PFC Bergdahl hostage?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kilik64 said:
What foreign power did he negotiate with?

What country was holding PFC Bergdahl hostage?
Click to expand...
Negotiations were made with Qatars government, whom serve as a middle man (so to speak) for the Taliban for such negotiations.

but, a simple google search would have found that.

My bad, citing sources for any argument only makes sense in the real world. I forgot for a brief second that this was the internet, and that there is no educational basis for intellectual-centered political discussions, as there is only room for ridiculous blanket statements based on an individual rather than a functional part of the system that is flawed in its own right. "Come at me bro" indeed. As if that statement itself does not reflect the maturity of such discussions on the internet.

TLDR- Moo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MasaTFC said:
Negotiations were made with Qatars government, whom serve as a middle man (so to speak) for the Taliban for such negotiations.

but, a simple google search would have found that.

My bad, citing sources for any argument only makes sense in the real world. I forgot for a brief second that this was the internet, and that there is no educational basis for intellectual-centered political discussions, as there is only room for ridiculous blanket statements based on an individual rather than a functional part of the system that is flawed in its own right. "Come at me bro" indeed. As if that statement itself does not reflect the maturity of such discussions on the internet.

TLDR- Moo.
Click to expand...
So you are saying they negotiated with the Taliban through another government. An intermediary if will. Qatar was not holding him captive.

So again, what government did we negotiate with through the use of an intermediary?

Again, what COUNTRY held him captive???

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Taliban was the government before the war in Afghanistan. They still have a significant presence both there and in Pakistan. You can suggest that the puppet government that "runs" Afghanistan did not hold this gentleman captive, but that's where he was. The Taliban still have a strong, "governmental" if you will presence in much of Afghanistan (mainly in the rural parts).

And it is not so strange as to have an a third party involved in negotiations for prisoner exchanges/releases. Palestine and Israel often have to invoke such tactics, though the result is not always productive (and usually lopsided).

 
MasaTFC said:
The Taliban was the government before the war in Afghanistan. They still have a significant presence both there and in Pakistan. You can suggest that the puppet government that "runs" Afghanistan did not hold this gentleman captive, but that's where he was. The Taliban still have a strong, "governmental" if you will presence in much of Afghanistan (mainly in the rural parts).

And it is not so strange as to have an a third party involved in negotiations for prisoner exchanges/releases. Palestine and Israel often have to invoke such tactics, though the result is not always productive (and usually lopsided).
Click to expand...
You're hanging onto the third party too much, that is moot. If A talks to B and B talks to C then A also talks to C. Either way it was negotiated directly with a terrorist organization who were holding a person hostage.

The us, supposedly, doesn't negotiate with terrorist.

But I guess its ok if you do it through another country that acts as an intermediary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedvsBlue said:
Well, the EPA is an executive agency, so there's that...

Not entirely sure how the prisoner exchange would involve anyone other than the President given his role in negotiating with foreign powers, as well as his role as commander in chief...

I mean, we're talking basic civics lessons here on division of power within our government. If you want to discuss whether he should do these things that's something else entirely but whether or not he's somehow acting unconstitutionally? Nah, that dog don't hunt.
Click to expand...
http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-prisoner-swap-taliban-obama-2014-5

"Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement that Obama is required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any terrorists are transferred from the U.S. facility. They said Obama also is required to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated.

The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited "unique and exigent circumstances" as justification.

In response, the White House said it moved as quickly as possible given the opportunity that arose to secure Bergdahl's release. Citing "these unique and exigent circumstances," the White House said a decision was made to go ahead with the transfer despite the legal requirement of 30 days advance notice to Congress."

Care to review those basic civics lessons, Red? ;) I basically consider Obama Bush V3.0. I am dismayed that Presidents continue to do as they please despite the laws and protocols of our gov't. Obama said it well himself, "I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” Uh yeah.....hypocrisy.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/13/new-video-hammers-obama-on-executive-power/

So I'll work with Congress when they do what I want. :roll:

 
egofed said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-prisoner-swap-taliban-obama-2014-5

"Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement that Obama is required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any terrorists are transferred from the U.S. facility. They said Obama also is required to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated.

The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited "unique and exigent circumstances" as justification.

In response, the White House said it moved as quickly as possible given the opportunity that arose to secure Bergdahl's release. Citing "these unique and exigent circumstances," the White House said a decision was made to go ahead with the transfer despite the legal requirement of 30 days advance notice to Congress."

Care to review those basic civics lessons, Red? ;) I basically consider Obama Bush V3.0. I am dismayed that Presidents continue to do as they please despite the laws and protocols of our gov't. Obama said it well himself, "I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” Uh yeah.....hypocrisy.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/13/new-video-hammers-obama-on-executive-power/

So I'll work with Congress when they do what I want. :roll:
Click to expand...
The requirement of notifying congress is something beyond his Constitutional powers based on them coming from Guantanamo. I was speaking in broad terms because if those "terrorists" weren't being held in Guantanamo these supposed extra laws wouldn't have been implicated. If there's another law requiring him to notify congress, that wouldn't exactly be basic civics lesson, would it? Further, I'm skeptical about what the actual mechanism is for him to notify Congress is and what law they are referring to, because they don't even cite the law (the lawmakers, or the article itself). For instance, what does this law say about exigent circumstances as the White House mentions were present here?

I still maintain he acted Constitutionally, if there are additional laws which Congress passed regarding Guantanamo then that's one thing but that doesn't mean they passed a Constitutional amendment requiring him to notify congress when releasing anyone from Guantanamo.

kilik64 said:
So you are saying they negotiated with the Taliban through another government. An intermediary if will. Qatar was not holding him captive.

So again, what government did we negotiate with through the use of an intermediary?

Again, what COUNTRY held him captive???
Click to expand...
His power has been interpreted to mean that he can negotiate with foreign powers, it doesn't specifically say foreign countries.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. interpreting Article 2, Clause 4 to mean the President is the "sole organ of the nation in its external relations".

 
I love the "I didn't read your article but I can call it trash because of who wrote/published it... (yet the information cited is neutral and I'm too dumb to realize it [or maybe I just can't put together a coherent rebuttal so it's easier to try and use juvenile methods to get out of having to try and do so])" tactics that get used here. 

 
The source matters (as does the date of the article). I could read CNS a hundred times and it would still be trash. Believing something without context because "its on teh iNnernet!!" is asinine. 

 
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/06/02/carney-2013-wh-consult-congress-gitmo-transfer/

CARNEY: With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made — the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen.

As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.

Q    So you haven’t ruled it out?

CARNEY:  I’m simply saying that — first of all, you have to separate the two issues.  We are focused on the return  — the safe and immediate return of Sergeant Bergdahl, and we continue to use the tools at our disposal to help bring that about.

We also expect the Taliban to raise the issue of their detainees in discussions that we have with them if those discussions take place.  And at this time we’ve made no decisions about the transfer of detainees.

And in accordance with law, we would be consulting with Congress should we make any decisions about that.  So we remain committed to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, as you know.  But separate from that on these specific issues about individual detainees, that would be a process that is done in accordance with law.

 
GBAstar said:
I love the "I didn't read your article but I can call it trash because of who wrote/published it... (yet the information cited is neutral and I'm too dumb to realize it [or maybe I just can't put together a coherent rebuttal so it's easier to try and use juvenile methods to get out of having to try and do so])" tactics that get used here.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if this is response to my post but I did read both articles cited, all 3 paragraphs of them. It was highly uninformative and left nothing but speculation about what law Obama allegedly broke in not advising Congress. I nevertheless addressed it at face value, specifically that it leaves more questions than answers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/06/02/carney-2013-wh-consult-congress-gitmo-transfer/

CARNEY: With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made — the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen.
As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.
Q So you haven’t ruled it out?
CARNEY: I’m simply saying that — first of all, you have to separate the two issues. We are focused on the return — the safe and immediate return of Sergeant Bergdahl, and we continue to use the tools at our disposal to help bring that about.
We also expect the Taliban to raise the issue of their detainees in discussions that we have with them if those discussions take place. And at this time we’ve made no decisions about the transfer of detainees.
And in accordance with law, we would be consulting with Congress should we make any decisions about that. So we remain committed to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, as you know. But separate from that on these specific issues about individual detainees, that would be a process that is done in accordance with law.
Click to expand...
Heh, further...
Carney today said Congress should have figured it out and, anyway, the White House had to move fast:

This should not have come as a surprise to members of Congress that this was possible because we had been working to secure Sgt. Bergdahl’s release for a long time . . .

It was the judgement of the team and the president that there was enough urgency here to assure that Sgt. Bergdahl was recovered . . .

Today we are being asked to believe the White House when it says the threat posed to the United States by the former detainees has been “sufficiently mitigated” by the terms of the release.

Hopefully this is true. But we’ll find out. Possibly the hard the way.
Click to expand...
So, we still don't know the mechanism for release aside from "notifying Congress" but they did have at least some notice.

Although, my favorite part of the article is "Today we are being asked to believe the White House when it says the threat posed to the United States by the former detainees has been “sufficiently mitigated” by the terms of the release."

Well, what's the problem there? We're just supposed to trust the White House that they were dangerous in the first place given that they had no trial before they were imprisoned.

I really can't be the only one that feels like the entire Guantanamo debacle is just a monarchy ruling at whatever whims of the King. "He's dangerous, lock him up" "He's not dangerous, let him go". No proof, either direction just the whims of random decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/did-obama-break-law-taliban-015050879.html

2014 Defense Act....Even Feinstein D. says he didn't follow the law. Check out the above video Red. I do agree about trusting anything the gov't says as you stated above.
Click to expand...
So, I tried to find the 2014 Defense Act and I can find the House file (H.R. 1960) I think eventually became that law. Interestingly enough, it implicates that the Secretary of Defense is required to provide a written certification not less than 30 days before the transfer of a prisoner from Guantanamo.

Now, I'm reading the House file's text of the bill so it's possible the Senate amended it to add or substituted the President for Secretary of Defense but if they left it the same then the President didn't follow the law because he didn't have to in the first place. This also might explain why we're only seeing anything about this in the news media... It's also possible he directed the Secretary of Defense to transfer the prisoners, in which case that would be a violation, I'm just not sure though. Frankly, I think if there was a stronger argument to be made here someone in Congress would actually be doing something about it rather than all this media circus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
very clearly, (even those who think there are legal issues) would have to acknowledge that Congress was very aware of the swap. It had been discussed going back several years.  

One could easily argue that the President broke the law even though he included the signing statement " The executive branch must have the flexibility..to act swiftly in conduction negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers". 

One could also argue that the law itself is unconstitutional because it holds the President accountable to Congress for things the Constitution grants him powers w/o needing Congress. 

In either case, it's not a slam dunk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, do you guys at least agree that Jay Carney's statement above was either A) a lie B) misleading or C) the truth at that point but easily changed when it is convenient for the administration. When Feinstein is calling foul on other Democrats, then you gotta think something is stinky in the deal. As far as a slam dunk, who honestly thinks that Dems or Repubs will actually be held accountable for breaking laws and established protocols? That's the part of the Tea Party that I can get behind- Fiscally conservative and strict Constitutional accountability of gov't.

 
I'm not sure how this particular moment is more "convenient for the administration". That's pretty loaded. Care to explain?   What did they have to gain by doing this is quick fashion?? What is the agenda here?  I'm inclined to the Occam's razor that the guy was sick and they needed to get to him quickly. 

And if you've been following politics for any amount of time, you learn quickly that congress gets pretty pissy anytime they aren't consulted when they believe they should be. 

If the tea party actually understood the constitution deeper than fan fict for their cosplay, I might have modicum of respect for them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
usickenme said:
I'm not sure how this particular moment is more "convenient for the administration". That's pretty loaded. Care to explain? What did they have to gain by doing this is quick fashion?? What is the agenda here? I'm inclined to the Occam's razor that the guy was sick and they needed to get to him quickly.
Click to expand...
He wasnt sick. Walked just fine. Reports from docs who saw him just noted some undernourishment and the like. Nothing to indicate he was on deaths door like Obama wants you to think.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/taliban-used-haggard-look-of-pow-bergdahl-in-last-/

Obama got punked by the Tallyban.

"Some tidbits relayed to the U.S. command in Afghanistan came from sources with shaky reliability. Still, when Navy SEALs took possession of him Saturday, Sgt. Bergdahl was walking and talking and did not seem to have serious medical problems."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kilik64 said:
He wasnt sick. Walked just fine. Reports from docs who saw him just noted some undernourishment and the like. Nothing to indicate he was on deaths door like Obama wants you to think.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/taliban-used-haggard-look-of-pow-bergdahl-in-last-/

Obama got punked by the Tallyban.

"Some tidbits relayed to the U.S. command in Afghanistan came from sources with shaky reliability. Still, when Navy SEALs took possession of him Saturday, Sgt. Bergdahl was walking and talking and did not seem to have serious medical problems."
Click to expand...
Are you actually advocating at this point that he wasn't worth saving? It certainly seems like the stance you're taking.

If not, are you simply saying that we could have taken our time in trading to get him back?

Is he for some reason not worthy of being saved as quickly as possible?
 
kilik64 said:
He wasnt sick. Walked just fine. Reports from docs who saw him just noted some undernourishment and the like. Nothing to indicate he was on deaths door like Obama wants you to think.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/taliban-used-haggard-look-of-pow-bergdahl-in-last-/

Obama got punked by the Tallyban.

"Some tidbits relayed to the U.S. command in Afghanistan came from sources with shaky reliability. Still, when Navy SEALs took possession of him Saturday, Sgt. Bergdahl was walking and talking and did not seem to have serious medical problems."
Click to expand...
Yawn... you got punked my an editorial.

 
egofed said:
So Feinstein's full of shit. Gotcha...... :rofl:
Click to expand...
Ah the old stawman...where have you been? Protip- If wanna have a debate with yourself (and you post indicate this) then don't bother posting here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bergdahl was a deserter and should not have been saved. He needs to go on trial and be executed if found guilty in accordance with the uniform military code of justice.

Also done with you lot. Talking to Obama sympathizers and liberals is like wiping before you poop, it just don't make sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kilik64 said:
Bergdahl was a deserter and should not have been saved. He needs to go on trial and be executed if found guilty in accordance with the uniform military code of justice.

Also done with you lot. Talking to Obama sympathizers and liberals is like wiping before you poop, it just don't make sense.
Click to expand...
So you'll just accept the news media's account in condemning him before he's even given any sort of actual trial? Also, AWOL isn't something they ever execute someone for.
 
kilik64 said:
Said he needs to go on trial how is that condemning him?

You don't read and are ignorant.
Click to expand...
Saying he should not have been saved is condemning him, first sentence of your post. Don't play coy with your semantics, you knew exactly what you were saying.

Further, you don't know what he did. The only reports I've read have said he was wandering around outside of the base. Unless of course you want to assert that he intentionally went to the Taliban and never intended to come back. Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous statement. Then again, you seem to be all about ridiculous statements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedvsBlue said:
Saying he should not have been saved is condemning him, first sentence of your post. Don't play coy with your semantics, you knew exactly what you were saying.

Further, you don't know what he did. The only reports I've read have said he was wandering around outside of the base. Unless of course you want to assert that he intentionally went to the Taliban and never intended to come back. Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous statement. Then again, you seem to be all about ridiculous statements.
Click to expand...
He laid down his rifle and walked off. He then went from village to village looking for someone who spoke english that could take him to the tallyban. He was not captured. He hated america and deserted in a time of war. According to law of military he should be tried and if found guilty he should be punished and that can include death, and should include death. He got 6 fucking soldiers killed looking for him. Soldiers who didnt desert their post and go out willingly looking to get in with the Taliban.

He deserted and no amount of your apologizing attitude is going to change that.

I think someone could come into your house, piss in your cereal, and you would come up with some asinine excuse to make it OK that they did that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
usickenme said:
Ah the old stawman...where have you been? Protip- If wanna have a debate with yourself (and you post indicate this) then don't bother posting here.
Click to expand...
Hehheehehh...I love when you guys throw out the word "strawman" and act like it answers all questions. Let me ask you directly, is Feinstein wrong in her assessment of the situation? I'm also not quite sure if you meant to type "your post indicate this" or were using the word post as in "after". IE. postgame. And please tell me what the point of posting here truly is.

 
Squarehard said:
A conservative based news website has issues with Obama's presidency?
9WEiNOC.jpg
Click to expand...
Except you quoted NPR. Your argument holds no weight. I am simply just countering your BS. NPR has long been a far left organization just like most things that are publicly funded and failing.

Also try reading the article instead of going on your liberal rampage. You would see they cited the Treasury.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedvsBlue said:
So you'll just accept the news media's account in condemning him before he's even given any sort of actual trial? Also, AWOL isn't something they ever execute someone for.
Click to expand...
No I'll accept the men who ACTUALLY fought alongside him and they said he was a deserter and multiple people got killed searching for this POS.
 
usickenme said:
I'm not sure how this particular moment is more "[background=#23252b]convenient for the administration". That's pretty loaded. Care to explain? What did they have to gain by doing this is quick fashion?? What is the agenda here? I'm inclined to the Occam's razor that the guy was sick and they needed to get to him quickly. [/background]
Click to expand...
[background=#23252b]A[/background][background=#23252b]nd if you've been following politics for any amount of time, you learn quickly that congress gets pretty pissy anytime they aren't consulted when they believe they should be. [/background]

[background=#23252b]If the tea party actually understood the constitution deeper than fan fict for their cosplay, I might have modicum of respect for them. [/background]

Another liberal who thinks the tea party is an actual party. What is with your lefties always trying to put labels on everything and the class warfare?

Tea party is just basically ANYBODY who believes in responsible government spending and keeping the debt under control among other things. You are buying into the liberal parody of the idea of a Tea Party.
 
RPGNinja said:
No I'll accept the men who ACTUALLY fought alongside him and they said he was a deserter and multiple people got killed searching for this POS.
Click to expand...
Ahh, you mean the 6 men from his entire platoon they trotted out on Fox News this weekend? 6 men out of about 40 is hardly damning testimony, you're talking 15%... Apply that same 15% to jury trials and you've only got 2 people you'd have to convince that someone is guilty. Now, had those 6 men been his squad mates, then we're talking a more significant statement of his potential guilt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja said:
No I'll accept the men who ACTUALLY fought alongside him and they said he was a deserter and multiple people got killed searching for this POS.
Click to expand...
Yeah about that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/world/middleeast/can-gi-be-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html?_r=0

a review of casualty reports and contemporaneous military logs from the Afghanistan war shows that the facts surrounding the eight deaths are far murkier than definitive
Two soldiers died during the most intense period of the search after Sergeant Bergdahl’s June 30 disappearance. Both were inside an outpost that came under attack, not out patrolling and running checkpoints looking for him. The other six soldiers died in late August and early September.

Where those events are identifiable in the logs, they do not mention any link to Bergdahl search operations, although the logs are terse and contain few contextual details.

Mr. Bethea wrote that of the six men killed in August and September, two died in a roadside bombing while on a reconnaissance mission, a third was shot during a search for a Taliban political leader and three others were killed while conducting patrols — two in an ambush and one who stepped on a mine.
Click to expand...
 
RedvsBlue said:
Ahh, you mean the 6 men from his entire platoon they trotted out on Fox News this weekend? 6 men out of about 40 is hardly damning testimony, you're talking 15%... Apply that same 15% to jury trials and you've only got 2 people you'd have to convince that someone is guilty. Now, had those 6 men been his squad mates, then we're talking a more significant statement of his potential guilt.
Click to expand...
Even if we believe that to be true because you are clearly an Obama supporter where are all the people coming to his defense? There aren't any because he is a known traitor. And there was someone who claimed to be his squadmate and it was the medic who is speaking out calling him a deserter.

The 6 people from his platoon is something different you are referencing. So once again where all the people who were his squad mates coming to his defense? Nobody wants to defend a traitor. But Obama will sure give up terrorists for one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top