Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 02, 2014

OTP - June 2014: Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war’s death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.

Bitter Mouse Posted: June 02, 2014 at 07:48 AM | 4613 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics, stupid ideas

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 10 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›
   901. Lassus Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4720342)
The horror that is america is disgusting

Because the ACA has made us a Socialist nightmare.
   902. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4720343)
There are a few more boxes coming to you guys. Feel free to open them, and use them


Boxes of Rules for Radicals & Communist Manifestos, I have no doubt.
   903. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4720352)
Well, let's get very specific, then. Should we rush to exchange dangerous prisoners to get this guy back?


US Soldier being held as a POW? Yup.

And honestly some of his tone sounds a bit SBB-ish. I bet he thinks the US was in decline. And were SBB a POW I would want him brought back too.
   904. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4720356)
Well, let's get very specific, then. Should we rush to exchange dangerous prisoners to get this guy back?


Yes. Absolutely. Most importantly because he is an American soldier held POW by the enemy, and we bring our soldiers home. The fact that he's disillusioned with the Army and the apparent evil deeds done by some of his fellow soldiers (running down children in the streets) doesn't detract from that first point at all.

He seems to be a bit of an oddball, highly idealistic, and somewhat naive. He seems to be prone to going AWOL (which is not desertion.) None of that makes me think twice, not for a second, about exchanging some former commanders, ten years removed from the battle or the Taliban org structure, for his return as we make our exit from the war. Not even a second.
   905. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:55 AM (#4720357)
And I'm still waiting to hear whether Israelis exchange prisoners to get back deserters. (This is not a gotcha; I actually don't know the answer.


I don't know about deserters, but Israeli did once trade prisoners to get back a soldier who was caught by Hezollah BECAUSE the soldier was travelling abroad to acquire [illegal] drugs to sell in Israel. The equivalent would be if we traded prisoners to get back a reserve soldier who had traveled to Afghanistan in order buy and transport heroin to the US and was captured in Afghanistan while doing that.
   906. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4720359)
And were SBB a POW I would want him brought back too.


SBB can be engaging and entertaining at times, but what of it were Joey B??? huh huh???
   907. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4720363)
SBB can be engaging and entertaining at times, but what of it were Joey B??? huh huh???


Heh. But seriously, yup. High value prisoners even. Of course I am a liberal soft touch who is against the Death Penalty and think war is largely counter productive in general, so you don't want to trust my judgement on these matters.
   908. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4720365)
SBB can be engaging and entertaining at times, but what of it were Joey B??? huh huh???

At this point I might offer them Alfonso Soriano.
   909. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4720374)
I think the debate is over. When David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer won't even attempt to defend your position, you've lost.
   910. bobm Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4720379)
going AWOL (which is not desertion.)

The difference being whether he intended to leave permanently. After 30 days AWOL, the rebuttable presumption is that one intended to leave permanently, ie desert.

   911. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4720386)
I don't know about deserters, but Israeli did once trade prisoners to get back a soldier who was caught by Hezollah BECAUSE the soldier was travelling abroad to acquire [illegal] drugs to sell in Israel. The equivalent would be if we traded prisoners to get back a reserve soldier who had traveled to Afghanistan in order buy and transport heroin to the US and was captured in Afghanistan while doing that.


Whatever that solider was, he was not a deserter.
   912. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:24 PM (#4720387)
I think the debate is over. When David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer won't even attempt to defend your position, you've lost.


"Krauthammer is a loon! Except for when he agrees with me! Team Blue! Team Blue!!!"
   913. Mefisto Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:25 PM (#4720388)
After 30 days AWOL, the rebuttable presumption is that one intended to leave permanently, ie desert.


I haven't seen any evidence that Bergdahl was "AWOL" for 30 days. He'd been captured by then AFAICT.
   914. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:28 PM (#4720391)
I haven't seen any evidence that Bergdahl was "AWOL" for 30 days. He'd been captured by then AFAICT.

Is it possible to be merely AWOL in the face of the enemy? I thought AWOL was coming back from leave late, or sneaking off base to see your girlfriend.

Leaving your unit in a combat environment is a bit different.
   915. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4720393)
I haven't seen any evidence that Bergdahl was "AWOL" for 30 days. He'd been captured by then AFAICT.


What do the negative comments from his fellow soldiers mean to you? Just members of his unit swift boating him for no particular reason?
   916. Lassus Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4720395)
"Krauthammer is a loon! Except for when he agrees with me! Team Blue! Team Blue!!!"

This is an embarrassing read of that comment.


What do the negative comments from his fellow soldiers mean to you? Just members of his unit swift boating him for no particular reason?

A crappy reason is not the same as no reason. (If, of course, that is what's occurring. I haven't a clue.)
   917. Mefisto Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4720397)
Is it possible to be merely AWOL in the face of the enemy?


AFAIK, yes.

What do the negative comments from his fellow soldiers mean to you? Just members of his unit swift boating him for no particular reason?


The issue is the 30 days, so the negative comments are irrelevant to that narrow point.

But the negative comments mean nothing to me at this point, anyway. As I said in my very first comment on this topic, I'm waiting until all the evidence is in.
   918. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4720398)
I don't think its a swift boating scenario. I think his unit had poor discipline and took it personally that they had to hunt for him. I think all of the "he's helping the Taliban" stories are urban legends told by upset soldiers to denigrate the guy that got captured.
   919. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4720402)
At its core what appeals to leftists about Bergdahl is that from all indications he trashed the US and the US military, deserted his post, may have been a Taliban sympathizer, and may have even aided the enemy thereby giving the US a taste of its own medicine.

That's what they like about him. And that's what the right dislikes about him.
   920. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4720403)
That's maybe the dumbest thing you've ever said Ray. Long list.
   921. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4720404)
I don't think its a swift boating scenario. I think his unit had poor discipline and took it personally that they had to hunt for him.


Is this how they treat every soldier who has been captured by the enemy?
   922. Lassus Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4720405)
At its core what appeals to leftists about Bergdahl is that from all indications he trashed the US and the US military, deserted his post, may have been a Taliban sympathizer, and may have even aided the enemy thereby giving the US a taste of its own medicine. That's what they like about him. And that's what the right dislikes about him.

Ray, I do think you are smarter than this. The left would not give a rat's ass about Bergdahl if conservatives hadn't swooped in to swing him like a sack of oranges (maybe rightfully, who knows?) at Obama. Look in this thread - the left are in a DEFENSIVE position. I mean, you think everyone is lying to your psychic brain all the time, so it barely matters to you what anyone says; but that is where the left is at the moment.
   923. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4720406)
They only ever captured the one.
   924. bobm Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4720407)
I haven't seen any evidence that Bergdahl was "AWOL" for 30 days.

If he intended to desert permanently, it wouldn't matter whether he was away for 1 day or 30 days.
   925. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4720408)
The DOD report says nothing about him intending to desert permanently.
   926. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4720409)
The DOD report says nothing about him intending to desert permanently.

Didn't he want to walk to India? That sounds pretty permanent.
   927. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4720411)
At its core what appeals to leftists about Bergdahl is that from all indications he trashed the US and the US military, deserted his post, may have been a Taliban sympathizer, and may have even aided the enemy thereby giving the US a taste of its own medicine. That's what they like about him. And that's what the right dislikes about him.


Have I missed all the glowing praise of POW dude? The left is defending the principle of bring home the POWs. Past that there is a bunch of might be a deserter and wait for the facts. But then Ray needs to keep his perfect rating of always being wrong when talking about lefties motivations.

EDIT: I am speaking specifically on this thread, btw. No idea what "the left" is saying out in the world, or why. I am sure silly quotes from Google are coming though.
   928. Mefisto Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4720412)
If he intended to desert permanently, it wouldn't matter whether he was away for 1 day or 30 days.


Agreed, but your previous comment had to do with the presumption of intent after 30 days.
   929. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4720413)
And intent is what would likely be discussed in a court martial. Where both sides would put forth their case.
   930. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4720414)
The DOD report says he has a history of wandering off but always returned. It says nothing about India that we know.
   931. Lassus Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4720415)
Didn't he want to walk to India? That sounds pretty permanent.

And awesome. I mean, if it wasn't for idiot children, war, etc.
   932. bobm Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4720417)
The socialists frown on the VA compromise in Congress!

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/06/06/vete-j06.html

World Socialist Web Site
Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

Bipartisan deal on US veterans’ health care includes step toward privatization
By Kate Randall
6 June 2014

Senators Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont) and John McCain (Republican, Arizona) announced a deal Thursday on legislation to reform the Veterans Affairs (VA) Department’s health care system. The bipartisan compromise was struck in the wake of a scandal over long wait times and subsequent deaths in the VA system, followed by the resignation last Friday of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, retired Gen. Eric Shinseki.

The proposed legislation includes a two-year trial project under which veterans who live 40 miles or more from a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facility would be able to seek alternate care in a private facility. Detailing the legislation before the Senate, Veterans Affairs Committee chair Sanders said that veterans meeting these conditions would “be able to go to the doctor of your choice, under the direct supervision of the VA.”

The bill would also require the VA secretary to prioritize contracts with Federally Qualified Health Centers and Community Health Centers, as well as medical facilities receiving funding from the Department of Defense and the Indian Health Service. According the Associated Press, last year the VA spent about $4.8 billion on medical care at non-VA hospitals and clinics, or about 10 percent of VHA health care costs. [...]

McCain is a strong proponent of privatization of veterans’ health care. As early as 2008, as the Republican presidential candidate, he proposed a two-tier system in which veterans’ “nonmilitary” medical issues would be handled by the private sector. [...]

Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress have seized on the crisis at the VA, not as the occasion for an emergency infusion of funding and trained healthcare workers for the department, but as a pretext for privatizing veterans’ health care.

According to sources speaking to The Hill, the White House has been working closely with Senator Sanders to draft his Restoring Veterans’ Trust Act. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (California) voiced her support last week for privatizing more health care services for veterans, telling reporters, “I don’t have any problem with that.” [...]

While the provision in the new bipartisan Senate deal allowing private treatment is being presented as a two-year trial, it is clear that many lawmakers see it as the first crack in the door toward privatization. In an appearance Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Senator McCain made clear that he would like to see the VA system opened up to full-scale privatization, stating, “Why doesn’t that veteran have a card and go to the caregiver that he or she needs and wants?”
   933. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4720418)
Also, why is nothing being done to get that Marine back who inadvertently drove to Mexico while hunting, and is now in jail?

Seems like one President-to-President phone call should fix that?

   934. Mefisto Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4720419)
I mean, you think everyone is lying to your psychic brain all the time, so it barely matters to you what anyone says; but that is where the left is at the moment.


If you could show that Ray didn't have psychic powers, you'd have done so by now.
   935. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4720420)
We are not at war with Mexico.
   936. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4720422)
Also, why is nothing being done to get that Marine back who inadvertently drove to Mexico while hunting, and is now in jail?


Maybe someone in power thinks there is a difference between a POW and military dude ending up in a foreign jail?
   937. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4720423)
We are not at war with Mexico.


We have always been at war with Mexico.
   938. Morty Causa Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4720424)
We are not at war with Mexico.

Why not?
   939. Shredder Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4720426)
Have I missed all the glowing praise of POW dude?
Yes, you have, but in all fairness, Ray is the only person who can hear the voices in his head, so it's not surprising that you missed it.
   940. Shredder Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4720431)
Glenn Kessler understands what Joek is either too dense to realize, or too obstinant to admit to understanding:
Throughout the discussions, it has always been the same five men, so their identities would have been no surprise to any lawmaker keeping track of the discussions. The five are Khirullah Said Wali Khairkhwa, the former interior minister; Mullah Mohammed Fazi, a senior commander; Mullah Norullah Noori, a provincial governor; Abdul Haq Wasiq, deputy chief of intelligence; and Mohammned Nabi Omari, a member of a joint al Qaeda-Taliban cell in eastern Khost province.
...
While McCain twice offered the caveat of “the details,” he also specifically referenced “five really hard-core Taliban leaders” and said he was “inclined to support” the change in the proposal from a confidence-building measure to an exchange of prisoners. He made these remarks one day after the Post article appeared; that article specifically mentioned protective custody in Qatar.
...
McCain may have thought he left himself an out when he said his support was dependent on the details. But then he can’t object to the most important detail–the identity of the prisoners–that was known at the time he indicated his support. McCain earns an upside-down Pinocchio, constituting a flip-flop.
As they say, read the whole thing.
   941. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4720434)
The horror that is america is disgusting.

Bergdahl should come here to BTF; he'd fit in just perfectly.
   942. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4720436)
Have I missed all the glowing praise of POW dude? The left is defending the principle of bring home the POWs. Past that there is a bunch of might be a deserter and wait for the facts. But then Ray needs to keep his perfect rating of always being wrong when talking about lefties motivations.

Apparently so, since his family was feted at the White House and the National Security Advisor said he served with "honor and distinction."

You keep leaving that part out, for obvious reasons.

Did they just not know about all the chatter about him being a deserter, or did they just not care? If they knew, and still celebrated and applauded as they did, then Ray's suggestion of a cultural split is entirely on-point.
   943. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4720438)
At its core what appeals to leftists about Bergdahl is that from all indications he trashed the US and the US military, deserted his post, may have been a Taliban sympathizer, and may have even aided the enemy thereby giving the US a taste of its own medicine.

That's what they like about him. And that's what the right dislikes about him.


That's maybe the dumbest thing you've ever said Ray. Long list.

It's right up there, but give him another few hours and I'm sure he'll be able to top it.

--------------------------------------------------------

Ray, I do think you are smarter than this.

At some point you might want to ask, "Where's the evidence for that?"

--------------------------------------------------------

The socialists frown on the VA compromise in Congress!

As do the wingnuts in the Republican Party. They make a lovely dance couple.
   944. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4720441)
It's right up there, but give him another few hours and I'm sure he'll be able to top it.

So when he was feted at the White House and averred to have served with "honor and distinction," did Obama/Rice not know of the evidence of his desertion, or did they just not care?

Could he introduce evidence of Rice's statments and the Rose Garden celebration at any court-martial? If so, why would those things have happened? Why, indeed, was Rice commenting on the quality of his service if she thought a court-martial might be in the offing?
   945. bobm Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4720443)
The socialists frown on the VA compromise in Congress!

As do the wingnuts in the Republican Party. They make a lovely dance couple.


All kidding aside, it shows one can increase "capacity" and service levels in ways other than growing the VA.
   946. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:32 PM (#4720447)
That's maybe the dumbest thing you've ever said Ray. Long list.


It's right up there, but give him another few hours and I'm sure he'll be able to top it.

So when he was feted at the White House and averred to have served with "honor and distinction," did Obama/Rice not know of the evidence of his desertion, or did they just not care?


Given that this is what Sam and I were responding to, what does that have to do with the White House reception?

At its core what appeals to leftists about Bergdahl is that from all indications he trashed the US and the US military, deserted his post, may have been a Taliban sympathizer, and may have even aided the enemy thereby giving the US a taste of its own medicine.

That's what they like about him.


Of course maybe you think that Obama had to vet Bergdahl's credentials with the Taliban International before staging the ceremony. You've believed stranger things over your stay around here, so I wouldn't put it past you.
   947. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:32 PM (#4720448)
Apparently so, since his family was feted at the White House and the National Security Advisor said he served with "honor and distinction." ... Did they just not know about all the chatter about him being a deserter, or did they just not care?



Most likely, they were intimately familiar with the DOD's 2010 findings, the most likely being that he was a bit of a head case who routinely wandered off post, but had never deserted in earnest. You keep throwing #### at the wall as if you know more than you do, because, well, that's what you do. Keep clinging to that "BUT ERMAHGAH THE ROOOOSEEE GARRHHHHHDENN!!!!" thing. The wing nut spin is slowly winding down as real journalists begin to dig into the details of what the DOD and POTUS new when they made the exchange. But by all means, keep shouting Benghazi 2 Electric Bugaloo at the skies. It makes you look so terrible good. Honest.
   948. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4720451)
Given that this is what Sam and I were responding to, what does that have to do with the White House reception?

That they were celebrating a deserter, i.e., exactly what Ray said.

And your exclusion of the Rice comments is duly noted.
   949. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4720453)
Most likely, they were intimately familiar with the DOD's 2010 findings, the most likely being that he was a bit of a head case who routinely wandered off post, but had never deserted in earnest. You keep throwing #### at the wall as if you know more than you do, because, well, that's what you do. Keep clinging to that "BUT ERMAHGAH THE ROOOOSEEE GARRHHHHHDENN!!!!" thing. The wing nut spin is slowly winding down as real journalists begin to dig into the details of what the DOD and POTUS new when they made the exchange. But by all means, keep shouting Benghazi 2 Electric Bugaloo at the skies. It makes you look so terrible good. Honest.

Yeah, that's it. The only things they knew were things they read in a formal DOD report because, hey, that's the only source of info they have.

Sure thing.

"Deserted in earnest," huh? Good one. He deserted, just not "in earnest"?

(And you'll note that the Times didn't actually see the report, but was merely briefed on it. Meaning someone with an agenda told them stuff about it.)
   950. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4720459)
That they were celebrating a deserter, i.e., exactly what Ray said.


They were celebrating the return of 100% of the POWs the Taliban had. And shockingly they were talking up the subject. Saying nice things about someone is fairly weak tea, even as GOP "scandals" go.

What is next, "Obama likes Chinese food! Doesn't he realize China is a major rival!"

In any event there is no evidence that the reason he was "feted" at the White House has anything to do with: "he trashed the US and the US military, deserted his post, may have been a Taliban sympathizer, and may have even aided the enemy".

If there were evidence that this is why Obama held the ceremony I am positive Ray would have shown it by now.
   951. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4720461)
The DOD doesn't say he deserted in their official investigation of the matter. Now, of course, the DOD and an official investigation where they question everyone involved thoroughly holds no value against Things SugarBear Read On The Internet And Knows To Be The Case. Obviously. We can't trust the Army to tell us, after months of investigation, if he was likely deserting or not. For that we must look to He Who Knows All And Explains It To Baseball Primer.

########.
   952. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4720462)
did Obama/Rice not know of the evidence of his desertion, or did they just not care?


If only Obama knew everything! Cared about everything! Had the exact same opinions as me!
   953. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4720464)
And you'll note that the Times didn't actually see the report, but was merely briefed on it. Meaning someone with an agenda told them stuff about it.


As opposed to every other source on the matter.
   954. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4720467)
In any event there is no evidence that the reason he was "feted" at the White House has anything to do with: "he trashed the US and the US military, deserted his post, may have been a Taliban sympathizer, and may have even aided the enemy".

Apparently those weren't reasons to not fete him.

The DOD doesn't say he deserted in their official investigation of the matter. Now, of course, the DOD and an official investigation where they question everyone involved thoroughly holds no value against Things SugarBear Read On The Internet And Knows To Be The Case. Obviously. We can't trust the Army to tell us, after months of investigation, if he was likely deserting or not. For that we must look to He Who Knows All And Explains It To Baseball Primer.


It said, in the NYT's words that he "walked away from his outpost in the dark of night." The only question left is whether his intent was permanent. We'll see.

It also cites members of his platoon, and members of his platoon are now saying loudly that he was a deserter and should be court-martialed.

We know he wasn't captured in battle, but as an AWOL. Lots of smoke. Most likely fire.

But keep up the good work.

   955. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4720468)
If only Obama knew everything! Cared about everything! Had the exact same opinions as me!

So Obama thinks a deserter served with "honor and distinction" and deserves celebration at the White House?

Then how was Ray wrong?
   956. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4720469)
It said, in the NYT's words that he "walked away from his outpost in the dark of night." The only question left is whether his intent was permanent. We'll see.


If the Army thought he was deserting they would have said so. They didn't. But you know better than the Army and it's investigation on the ground. Because you read an angry Facebook post from a guy from his platoon who totes doesn't like him any more. Army investigation vs Mean Girl clique comments. How could we take the Army against that evidence.

It also cites members of his platoon, and members of his platoon are now saying loudly that he was a deserter and should be court-martialed.


And those same guys didn't say that in the investigation. It's almost like they've become bitter about him getting stupidly taken and losing friends searching for him, and have created a much darker narrative than even they believed at the time in order to make him evil.

########.
   957. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4720470)
They were celebrating the return of 100% of the POWs the Taliban had. And shockingly they were talking up the subject. Saying nice things about someone is fairly weak tea, even as GOP "scandals" go.


They saw Bergdhal and knew there were serious issues surrounding his service and they chose to have a celebration honoring him.

You just released five dangerous prisoners for him and his "issues" that could well lead to a court martial. Even if the trade was justified -- and I can sort of go along with it -- it should be a very somber time, perhaps even a time for a somber statement about it, not cause for whatever the hell that Rose Garden thing was, where all that was missing were balloons, party horns, and colorful cone hats with the elastic chin straps.

That is part of the disconnect I see.
   958. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4720471)
If the Army thought he was deserting they would have said so. They didn't.

Assuming your premise is accurate, which it isn't -- How do you know? Have you seen the report? All the Times says is that the report stops short of saying there was "solid evidence" to show his intent to leave permanently. Maybe it cites evidence the briefer said wasn't really "solid."

It's unbelievable that you're making these conclusions based on one news story saying what it said.

And those same guys didn't say that in the investigation. It's almost like they've become bitter about him getting stupidly taken and losing friends searching for him, and have created a much darker narrative than even they believed at the time in order to make him evil.


They weren't asked their opinions of what should happen to him, nor do people in their position offer them to investigators. They were asked about facts and they're the likely sources for the earlier wanderings.
   959. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4720472)
So Obama thinks a deserter served with "honor and distinction" and deserves celebration at the White House?


There only official investigation into the matter to date - from 2010 by the DOD - did not find him to be a deserter. AWOL, yes. Deserter, no. Not that facts or reality have any input into matters of SugarBear's moral indignation.
   960. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4720473)
Even if the trade was justified -- and I can sort of go along with it -- it should be a very somber time, perhaps even a time for a somber statement about it, not cause for whatever the hell that Rose Garden thing was, where all that was missing were balloons, party horns, and colorful cone hats with the elastic chin straps.


You're kidding, right? A 15-minute event, one of hundreds each year, that would have been immediately forgotten if not for the right-wing Wurlitzer, is reason to get all in arms?

   961. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4720475)
The DOD doesn't say he deserted in their official investigation of the matter. Now, of course, the DOD and an official investigation where they question everyone involved thoroughly holds no value against Things SugarBear Read On The Internet And Knows To Be The Case.


There are comments on the record from members of his unit, Sam. That is not merely "Things SugarBear Read On The Internet."
   962. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4720476)
It's unbelievable that you're making these conclusions based on one news story saying what it said.


I'm simply applying the same standard you're using to condemn the kid to the NYT report. You keep throwing #### at the wall, because you're a self-righteous prick, not because you have any grounds to do so.
   963. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4720477)
Even if the trade was justified -- and I can sort of go along with it -- it should be a very somber time, perhaps even a time for a somber statement about it, not cause for whatever the hell that Rose Garden thing was, where all that was missing were balloons, party horns, and colorful cone hats with the elastic chin straps.

That is part of the disconnect I see.


Exactly. You have to do the deal. So you do it and you slink away and you bury the story in the agate below the Orioles releasing a 30-year-old from AAA.

Unless, of course, you really don't see anything wrong with what he did. And there's no indication Obama or Rice do. Precisely the opposite.


   964. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4720481)
There are comments on the record from members of his unit, Sam.


The comments form members of his unit are generally about how angry and annoyed they were to have to drop everything and go look for him every time his name popped up on chatter.

Yes, I’m angry," Joshua Cornelison, a former medic in Sergeant Bergdahl’s platoon, told the New York Times. "Everything that we did in those days was to advance the search for Bergdahl. If we were doing some mission and there was a reliable report that Bergdahl was somewhere, our orders were that we were to quit that mission and follow that report."

In a Daily Beast column, Nathan Bradley Bethea, who served in the same battalion in Afghanistan as Bergdahl, flatly called him "a deserter." So did Sgt. Matt Vierkant, who was in Bergdahl’s platoon at the time of his disappearance, in an interview with CNN.


None of those are particularly sound evidence that he did, in fact, desert (rather than go AWOL.)

The assumption they, and you and SBB, etc are making, is that he was deserting rather than once again taking a walk-about from his post. There's no evidence that we've seen in public to suggest that is true. We know he has a history of randomly leaving his post. We know that every time he did that previously, he returned to his post long before he would be considered "desertion." We know that this time he was captured by enemy fighters and never had a chance to return (though he did attempt to escape at least once during his captivity.)
   965. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4720482)
You keep throwing #### at the wall, because you're a self-righteous prick, not because you have any grounds to do so.

The statements of a bunch of people who served most closely with him, and the NYT story on the report saying he left the unit of his own accord deep in the night.

The guy abandoned his unit. The people in the unit have a virtually unanimous understanding of why which they've publicly expressed. You should try reading it objectively, rather than deconstructing it by way of justifying the balloons and squirt guns in the Rose Garden.
   966. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:19 PM (#4720484)
You're kidding, right? A 15-minute event, one of hundreds each year, that would have been immediately forgotten if not for the right-wing Wurlitzer, is reason to get all in arms?


Don't forget, Susan Rice used the phrase "honor and distinction" on a talk show too! This is just the new Benghazi. There's no controversy about bringing him home. The only people who think that's controversial are nutcases. The "controversy" is that SugarBear has his panties in a wad because *gasp* they did a presser with his dad in the Rose Garden. How will the Republic survive?!?
   967. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4720487)
The assumption they, and you and SBB, etc are making, is that he was deserting rather than once again taking a walk-about from his post. There's no evidence that we've seen in public to suggest that is true. We know he has a history of randomly leaving his post. We know that every time he did that previously, he returned to his post long before he would be considered "desertion." We know that this time he was captured by enemy fighters and never had a chance to return (though he did attempt to escape at least once during his captivity.)

He shouldn't have been feted or averred to have served with honor and distinction if all he was was an AWOL.

That almost certainly isn't what he was, but in any event ....

You're overstating the walkaways. One off a vaguely-defined training range in California to get a better view of a sunset -- big whoop, they weren't even in combat or theatre -- the other that he "may" have taken in Afghan. It isn't confirmed that he ever walked off a single time in Afghanistan, until he did for good.
   968. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4720489)
He shouldn't have been feted or averred to have served with honor and distinction if all he was was an AWOL.


You're butthurt over a 15 minute presser at the WH. Pathetic.
   969. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4720491)
You're butthurt over a 15 minute presser at the WH. Pathetic.

Just showing how pathetic it is -- and it is pathetic. Embarrasingly so.
   970. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4720492)
You're kidding, right? A 15-minute event, one of hundreds each year, that would have been immediately forgotten if not for the right-wing Wurlitzer, is reason to get all in arms?


They are not kidding. They care about the PR aspects. Because hey they need something to be critical of.

That is part of the disconnect I see.


Like I said way up thread I don't care about transitory PR nonsense. I have admitted it does not look particularly good long ago (and suggested YC and JoeK enjoy it), but it is the kind of thing I find boring and not very consequential.
   971. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4720493)
He shouldn't have been feted or averred to have served with honor and distinction if all he was was an AWOL.


And what should the punishment be? How terrible a crime is this horrific lapse in judgement? Is it better or worse than when Bush announced he didn't like Broccoli? (I think it was Bush, anyway I remember thinking how dumb that uproar was).
   972. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4720494)
You're overstating the walkaways. One off a vaguely-defined training range in California to get a better view of a sunset -- big whoop, they weren't even in combat or theatre -- the other that he "may" have taken in Afghan. It isn't confirmed that he ever walked off a single time in Afghanistan, until he did for good.


And you're overstating the last walkaway. All we know is that he asked his squad leader if it would be a problem if he took his rifle, was told taking his rifle and night vision goggles off base would be considered bad, and then left those things behind. Not exactly the actions of a guy who never planned to return, that whole "asking your squad leader what would get him in trouble if he took it with him" bit. You are taking the fact that he didn't return as evidence that he "deserted" and then, of course, you throw in the absolutely unfounded allegation that he was in fact treasonously assisting the enemy. None of those things are in evidence. Absolutely none of them. He didn't return because HE WAS CAPTURED BY THE TALIBAN! He stupidly thought he could walkabout freely (as he'd done at least once, and perhaps more than once before) and got captured.

You are making #### up as you go, because you want him to be a deserter, and even more, you want him to be a traitor. You want this so you can be a self-righteous prick about Obama. That is all.
   973. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4720496)
Given that this is what Sam and I were responding to, what does that have to do with the White House reception?

That they were celebrating a deserter, i.e., exactly what Ray said.


I can understand why you wouldn't want to read what Ray actually said, because then you'd have to defend the indefensible. But again, his words:

At its core what appeals to leftists about Bergdahl is that from all indications he trashed the US and the US military, deserted his post, may have been a Taliban sympathizer, and may have even aided the enemy thereby giving the US a taste of its own medicine.

That's what they like about him.


IOW the reason Obama (the assumed "leftist" whom you twice voted for) brought Bergdahl to the White House is because (a) he believes everything that Ray claims about Bergdahl, and (b) he brought him to the White House not in spite of it, but because of it.

At this point any difference between you and a garden variety talk show ranter is getting harder and harder to discern. You and Ray are simply competing in a race to the bottom with no apparent limit.



   974. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4720498)
You're kidding, right? A 15-minute event, one of hundreds each year, that would have been immediately forgotten if not for the right-wing Wurlitzer, is reason to get all in arms?


It shows the cultural divide, as does the reflexive reaction of leftists to pretend all available evidence doesn't point to him as being a deserter -- indeed, is there any evidence in the other direction? -- going so far as to characterize the comments from his platoon mates as "an angry Facebook post from a guy from his platoon who totes doesn't like him" as sAM did above.
   975. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4720500)
And to make perfectly clear how stupid the notion of him helping the Taliban is, we KNOW what a US citizen helping the Taliban looks like. John Walker Lindh. On the battlefield, doing things. Not sitting in captivity having his jailers occasionally release a video of him to the press.
   976. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4720501)
The comments form members of his unit are generally about how angry and annoyed they were to have to drop everything and go look for him every time his name popped up on chatter.


No. They called him a deserter and went so far as to suggest that he was much worse than that.

As you well know.
   977. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4720502)
It shows the cultural divide, as does the reflexive reaction of leftists to pretend all available evidence doesn't point to him as being a deserter -- indeed, is there any evidence in the other direction?


Well, Ray. Again. For the sake of banging my head against a brick wall that's not listening. The DOD investigated the matter in 2010. They did not find him to be deserting. They found that he left his post willingly. That is all. Now, I'm sure we can't take the official investigation by the DOD into the matter seriously, because of reasons and things and stuff, but they did actually do one ya know. But by all means, take the statements of his platoon mates today as gospel, even though they occasionally contradict their own statements to the investigators of the DOD's report. Because reasons and things and stuff.
   978. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4720504)
No. They called him a deserter and went so far as to suggest that he was much worse than that.


And then they sad "Bloody Mary" three times in a mirror? The allegations that he was "much worse than that" are utterly and completely unfounded. Nothing more than post-hoc urban legending by folks pissed off at having to look for the guy.
   979. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4720505)

It shows the cultural divide,


It certainly does, but not in a way that is flattering to your side.
   980. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4720508)
They are not kidding. They care about the PR aspects. Because hey they need something to be critical of.

A culture can be measured by who and what it celebrates. Celebrating the forced ransom of a deserter, whilst the deserter's white father invokes the God and language of the nation's enemies is an abject embarassment.

Look, if you're a leftist you're going to celebrate something like this or "not care" -- because to you there's nothing at all amiss in that scene and backdrop and nothing not to like.

In other words, exactly what Ray said.
   981. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4720511)
It shows the cultural divide, as does the reflexive reaction of leftists to pretend all available evidence doesn't point to him as being a deserter -- indeed, is there any evidence in the other direction? -- going so far as to characterize the comments from his platoon mates as "an angry Facebook post from a guy from his platoon who totes doesn't like him" as sAM did above.

Of course. They reflexively side with the deserter against the men and women who served honorably.
   982. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4720512)
If you just can't trust the "agenda" of the NYTimes article (linked by Mefisto earlier) then perhaps you'd prefer the Military Times article that originally broke most of the details of that NYT piece.

“We have no indication that he intended to leave permanently,” one government official familiar with the probe told Military Times. Several soldiers in Bergdahl’s unit told investigators that Bergdahl had previously talked about a desire to leave the base unaccompanied and may have done so and returned unharmed at least once before the night he disappeared, the official said.

An internal military investigation concluded in 2010 that there was little doubt Bergdahl walked away from his unit before he was captured. That investigation, known as an AR-15-6, remains classified and has not been released publicly, but several officials familiar with it have disclosed its results under condition of anonymity.
   983. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4720513)
A culture can be measured by who and what it celebrates.


He's going to need a new pair of undies now.

Celebrating the forced ransom of a deserter, whilst the deserter's white father invokes the God and language of the nation's enemies is an abject embarassment.


This at least the third time SugarBear has made it known that the family's real crime in his mind is not being faithful to Proper American Gods Like Baby Jesus.
   984. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4720514)
And to make perfectly clear how stupid the notion of him helping the Taliban is, we KNOW what a US citizen helping the Taliban looks like. John Walker Lindh. On the battlefield, doing things. Not sitting in captivity having his jailers occasionally release a video of him to the press.

And you have no way of knowing that he didn't do that. Indeed, the people he deserted thought he was, and were highly suspicious of what they believed to be a far more informed post-desertion enemy, based on incoming fire and the like.

   985. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4720515)
You're confusing Taliban fighters with international terrorists. The men we released have never carried out an attack outside of their home nation of Afghanistan, have they? And the only attacks they carried out there were insurgency campaigns against an invading army (the US.)

Folks here defending trading Bergdahl for the Tab 5 seem be going out of their way to minimize their unsavory past. These were the top-ranking Taliban officials in U.S. custody, part of the Taliban government that collaborated with Al-Qaeda before and after the 9/11 attacks. Even the briefest description of their roles makes that clear:
Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa. He served as interior minister in the Taliban government and was a governor of Herat Province. The US believes he had direct dealings with Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. He had been held at Guantánamo since 2002.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl. As Army chief of staff under the Taliban regime and as a deputy defense minister, he allegedly directed the massacre of thousands of Afghan Shiites. He was a senior commander of Taliban combat operations against the Northern Alliance. He arrived at Guantánamo in late 2001, one of the first detainees there.

Abdul Haq Wasiq. He was deputy chief of the Taliban intelligence service, serving under a cousin who was intelligence director.

Norullah Noori. He was the Taliban's governor of Balkh Province and a coordinator of the fight against the Northern Alliance. Classified military files divulged by WikiLeaks describe him as “one of the most significant former Taliban officials” at Guantánamo and as responsible with Mr. Fazl for the killings of Shiites.

Mohammad Nabi Omari. He was the Taliban’s communications director and a provincial official in Khost. Described in the WikiLeaks files as having strong ties to anti-coalition militias, he helped organize the escape of Al Qaeda officials to Pakistan in late 2001.

These weren't a bunch of Afghan cab drivers, or guerrillas fighting in the mountains. They were the core leadership of a group that kills girls for going to school. Defend it if you like, but don't sugarcoat it.
   986. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4720518)
Indeed, the people he deserted thought he was, and were highly suspicious of what they believed to be a far more informed post-desertion enemy, based on incoming fire and the like.


They thought, without evidence, argument or analysis, that after he was taken IEDs were placed perfectly to damage convoys, and that more attacks occurred. Some Yankees fans believe that Derek Jeter gets to a lot of balls at short.

And you have no way of knowing that he didn't do that.


And you have no way of knowing that he did. But that doesn't stop you from slinging #### about him being a "traitor" in the hopes that some of it might hit Obama.
   987. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4720520)
This at least the third time SugarBear has made it known that the family's real crime in his mind is not being faithful to Proper American Gods Like Baby Jesus.

Not at all. I couldn't give two shits what he thinks of the "Baby Jesus."

But it's pathetic that our culture churns out so many of these people who are so passive and lame and weak of spirit that they adopt the ways of the people who attacked us on 9/11. Pa. The. Tic.

Meaning it therefore stands to reason that it would be pathetic that one does so in the Rose Garden after a bunch of people got killed trying to rescue his deserter son. As a father, I give a lot of leeway -- but that's ####### pathetic. Put the ####### Arabic and Allah and your own lame-ass whims aside for a day, ya ####### loser.

   988. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4720523)
But it's pathetic that our culture churns out so many of these people who are so passive and lame and weak of spirit that they adopt the ways of the people who attacked us on 9/11.


So you don't necessarily love Baby Jesus, you just hate Muslims. Got it.
   989. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4720524)
They thought, without evidence, argument or analysis, that after he was taken IEDs were placed perfectly to damage convoys, and that more attacks occurred.

And the first task of the people they're fighting for -- you, while you sit at your computer and rip them -- is to sophistically challenge and misconstrue every last thing they say with your "evidence, argument, or analysis" -- by way of advocating the case of the guy who deserted them.

That's quite an admirable stance you have there, slugger. You must be so proud.

What possible reason do you think we should accept your internet babblings, given your obvious biases, over the testimony of professional eyewitness soldiers? Are you that clueless?
   990. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4720525)
So you don't necessarily love Baby Jesus, you just hate Muslims. Got it.

Nope, nothing against Muslims either -- at least the ones who come by their Islam honestly.

Nice try, though.

   991. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4720528)
What possible reason do you think we should accept your internet babblings, given your obvious biases, over the testimony of professional eyewitness soldiers?


I haven't asked anyone to take my word on the subject. Merely that of the United States Army's official investigation into the matter from 2010. Which you ignore completely, because it doesn't let you pull off another pants load about how pa. the. tic. all of the "modern liberals" are. You're the ####### joke, here son. I'm quoting the goddamned Military Times, reporting directly from the Army's investigation. You, on the other hand, are making #### up as you go to justify hating the sitting President irrationally.
   992. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4720530)
   993. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4720534)
They thought, without evidence, argument or analysis, that after he was taken IEDs were placed perfectly to damage convoys, and that more attacks occurred. Some Yankees fans believe that Derek Jeter gets to a lot of balls at short.


If you'd been the one dealing with IEDs threatening to blow you into bits, IEDs that seemed to be hitting more accurately, you might just analyze whether your fellow platoon mate who left his post under suspicious circumstances had given intel to the enemy, and come to an informed conclusion.

But what do his highly trained platoon mates know? Clearly they're just rubes, unable to think intelligently to stay alive in a war.
   994. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4720535)
Noted without comment


In which we find the wingnuts going to France for their daily One-Minute-Hate.
   995. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4720536)
Merely that of the United States Army's official investigation into the matter from 2010.

Which has now been improved and expanded upon with additional testimony.

You have no idea how these reports are put together, do you?

Which you ignore completely, because it doesn't let you pull off another pants load about how pa. the. tic. all of the "modern liberals" are.

If you don't want to be pathetic, stop shilling for the pathetic scene in the Rose Garden and stop sophistically criticizing the accounts of the soldiers he deserted when you don't have a ####### clue about what happened. Simple.

If you want to be pathetic, keep doing those things. Up to you.

I'm quoting the goddamned Military Times, reporting directly from the Army's investigation.

You haven't quoted or read a single word of the report.

   996. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4720538)
But what do his highly trained platoon mates know? Clearly they're just rubes, unable to think intelligently to stay alive in a war.

And of course, it isn't just the fact that he's probably wrong about the facts that is so telling and defining -- it's the irresistable impulse he has to challenge their account and impressions with his silly deconstructions and personality "analyses." That's the tell.



   997. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4720539)
If you'd been the one dealing with IEDs threatening to blow you into bits, IEDs that seemed to be hitting more accurately, you might just seriously analyze whether your fellow platoon mate who left his post under suspicious circumstances had given intel to the enemy.


I suspect that if the Taliban's actual tactics had changed notably, and become more effective in fact, the Army would have noticed. But no, Ray, I don't take the obviously emotionally biased word of random grunts as gospel on the subject. There's no evidence at all that the enemy changed tactics or became more effective after Bergdahl's capture. There's no evidence that he assisted them in any way. The post-hoc rationalizations of platoon mates years after the fact are not evidence of worth in the matter.
   998. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4720541)
And of course, it isn't just the fact that he's probably wrong about the facts that is so telling and defining -- it's the irresistable impulse he has to challenge their account and impressions with his silly deconstructions and personality "analyses." That's the tell.


My "tell" is showing the stupidity of your position. That is my only game here. My argument about Bergdahl hasn't changed since this thing became a story. Bring your POWs home. If they need to stand court martial at that point, run it through the system. I'm still 100% on board with that. If the Army has reason to CM him after he is back in the states, have at it. What I refuse to do is sit idly by while you and Ray and your fellow travelers on the batshit right try and convict him on the basis of Facebook hearsay. All because you irrationally hate the sitting POTUS.

I find your obvious political posturing and willingness to use an American POW as fodder in your ongoing hate initiative to be abhorrent. You're a ######## and you need to be shown to be a ######## as often as possible.
   999. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4720542)
I suspect that if the Taliban's actual tactics had changed notably, and become more effective in fact, the Army would have noticed. But no, Ray, I don't take the obviously emotionally biased word of random grunts as gospel on the subject. There's no evidence at all that the enemy changed tactics or became more effective after Bergdahl's capture.

The people who were there said it happened and said they thought so at the time it was happening.

"Emotionally biased word of random grunts" -- pure, pathetic leftism.

Ray was right. You prefer the deserter to the people he deserted. Literally everything you've said supports that conclusion.
   1000. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4720547)
The people who were there said it happened and said they thought so at the time it was happening.


No one in any position of tactical authority seems to have believed as much.

You prefer the deserter to the people he deserted.


I prefer a legitimate process of truth finding - the Army's investigation in 2010; further investigation now that he's released from captivity - to your frothing lynch mob.
Page 10 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(387 - 10:09pm, Oct 21)
Last: Hey - you and Tommy Lasorda...I hate Tommy Lasorda

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2893 - 10:07pm, Oct 21)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(4 - 10:01pm, Oct 21)
Last: rlc

NewsblogAs Focus Faded and Losses Piled Up, Royals Change Their Game
(1 - 9:43pm, Oct 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(39 - 9:32pm, Oct 21)
Last: rlc

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(314 - 8:51pm, Oct 21)
Last: steagles

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(852 - 8:40pm, Oct 21)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(10 - 8:02pm, Oct 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(20 - 7:58pm, Oct 21)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(104 - 7:25pm, Oct 21)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(107 - 7:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(55 - 6:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(10 - 6:00pm, Oct 21)
Last: Perry

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(58 - 5:44pm, Oct 21)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(173 - 4:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: Squash

Page rendered in 1.1196 seconds
53 querie(s) executed