U.S. soldier freed from captivity in Afghanistan

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl exchanged for five Afghans detained at Guantanamo Bay
Associated Press
May 31, 2014


The only American soldier held prisoner in Afghanistan has been freed by the Taliban in exchange for the release of five Afghan detainees from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Obama administration officials said Saturday.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was handed over to U.S. special operations forces by the Taliban Saturday evening, local time, in an area of eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border. Officials said the exchange was not violent and the 28-year-old Bergdahl was in good condition and able to walk.

In a statement, President Barack Obama said Bergdahl's recovery "is a reminder of America's unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield."

The handover followed indirect negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban, with the government of Qatar serving as the go-between. Qatar is taking custody of the five Afghan detainees who were held at Guantanamo.

According to a senior defense official traveling with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in Singapore, once Bergdahl climbed onto the noisy helicopter he took a pen and wrote on a paper plate, the "SF?" — asking the troops if they were special operations forces.

They shouted back at him over the roar of the rotors: "Yes, we've been looking for you for a long time."

Then, according to the official, Bergdahl broke down.

Bergdahl, of Hailey, Idaho, is believed to have been held by the Haqqani network since June 30, 2009. Haqqani operates in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and has been one of the deadliest threats to U.S. troops in the war.

The network, which the State Department designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 2012, claims allegiance to the Afghan Taliban, yet operates with some degree of autonomy.

Officials said Bergdahl was transferred to Bagram Air Field, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, for medical evaluations. A defense official said he would be sent to Germany for additional care before eventually returning to the United States.

The defense official said Bergdhal was tentatively scheduled to go to the San Antonio Military Medical Center where he would be reunited with his family. The military was working Saturday to connect Bergdahl with his family over the telephone or by video conference.

Several dozen U.S. special operations forces, backed by multiple helicopters and surveillance aircraft, flew into Afghanistan by helicopter and made the transfer with the approximately 18 Taliban members. The official said the commandos were on the ground for a short time before lifting off with Bergdahl.

The official added that the U.S. still believes that Bergdahl was being held for the bulk of the time in Pakistan, but it was not clear when he was transported to eastern Afghanistan.

All of the officials insisted on anonymity in order to discuss details of Bergdahl's transfer.

Officials said Obama spoke with Bergdahl's parents Saturday, shortly after their son had been taken into U.S. custody. Bergdahl's family was in Washington on a previously scheduled visit when they received the news.

The parents of the freed soldier, Bob and Jani Bergdahl, said in a statement that they were "joyful and relieved."

"We cannot wait to wrap our arms around our only son," they said.

The U.S. has long been seeking Bergdahl's release, but efforts have intensified as Obama finalized plans to pull nearly all American forces out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016.

"It is our ethos that we never leave a fallen comrade. Today we have back in our ranks the only remaining captured soldier from our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Welcome home Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl," said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Officials said the Taliban signaled to the U.S. in November that they were ready to start new talks on the issue of detainees. After the U.S. received proof that Bergdahl was still alive, indirect talks began, with Qatar sending messages back and forth between the two parties.

The talks intensified about a week ago, officials said, resulting in Bergdahl's release and the transfer of the Afghan detainees.

The five Guantanamo detainees departed the base on a U.S. military aircraft Saturday afternoon. Under the conditions of their release, the detainees will be banned from traveling outside of Qatar for at least one year.

Obama and the emir of Qatar spoke last week about the conditions of the release, which have been codified in a memorandum of understanding between the two countries, officials said.

The administration is legally required to notify Congress in advance about plans to release Guantanamo detainees. An administration official said lawmakers were notified only after U.S. officials knew they had Bergdahl, but before the transfers took place.

The detainees are among the most senior Afghans still held at the prison. They are:

—Abdul Haq Wasiq, who served as the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence

—Mullah Norullah Nori, a senior Taliban commander in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif when the Taliban fought U.S. forces in late 2001

—Khairullah Khairkhwa, who served in various Taliban positions including interior minister and had direct ties to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden

—Mohammed Nabi, who served as chief of security for the Taliban in Qalat, Afghanistan, and later worked as a radio operator for the Taliban's communications office in Kabul

—Mohammad Fazl, whom Human Rights Watch says could be prosecuted for war crimes for presiding over the mass killing of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 as the Taliban sought to consolidate their control over the country.

Taliban and Afghan officials could not be reached for comment. In Pakistan, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said her government was "not aware of" Bergdahl's release or the negotiations leading up to it. She declined to comment further.

The circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture remain something of a mystery. There has been some speculation that he willingly walked away from his unit, raising the question of whether he could be charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) or desertion.




now we should go get our soldier in mexico.

The Big Dog's back

If it were up to Repubs he'd still be there.


If Obama would have gotten us out in 2009 like he promised he would not have been captured. Another lie blamed upon someone else. Get a clue dem drone or as me and Stalin call them "Brain damaged useful idiots"


If Bush and the Repubs never had gotten us in....

S*it flies both ways depending on the party.

Remember, these are the people who beheaded an American journalist.


Re: "Bush and the Repubs (and Dems),"

Pretty simple for even the most brain damaged:

No Sept. 11th, no Afghanistan invasion.


No 9/11/2001, no WMDs, no Iraq 2003, no "Mission Accomplished", no Surge, No Pakistan nukes.

Then I could say No 1980 - no heavy weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq to fight the Russians, thus no heavy weapons to use against us.

There was little or no proof the Afghan Taliban was involved on 9/11 BUT the Taliban was a great target because US voices had spent years talking about Taliban atrocities.

Even the most simple can trace history.

Ronald Reagan built our Taliban enemies. He even invited them to the White House. The plan to assist the Taliban became known as the Reagan Doctrine - designed to defeat Communism in Africa, Asia and South America. It was an explosive expansion of the limited Carter plan to which you point.

He compared the Iran-Contra freedom fighters to our Founding Fathers in 1985..


Nice revisionist history ya got goin' there.

So why did Pres. Clinton shoot cruise missiles into Afghanistan?

Why did "Operation Cyclone" begin under Pres. Carter?


Which Operation Cyclone? 1944? 1954? late 1979? 2008?
The danger when you post a 'supportive reference' is that someone just might refer to it and shoot you down.

Brzenski ( however you spell it) launched the 'cyclone' to which you refer as a limited incursion. By 1986 Reagan had inflated it to $630 billion annually.

Now to WHOM does YOUR Operation Cyclone belong?


"The REAGAN DOCTRINE (Google, etc.) was THE foreign policy in the United States, enacted by Ronald Reagan during his presidency, to help ELIMINAGTE the communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that were supported by the Soviet Union.
"Implementation of this plan provided both open and private support to guerrilla and resistance movements in Soviet-supported communist countries. This doctrine was the foreign policy of the United States from about 1980 to 1991."



What was your point?

You're flailing.



What the h*ll does that mean?


Re: "Which Operation Cyclone?"

Do you not understand context?


Re: "No Pakistan nukes."

"Pakistan began focusing on nuclear weapons development in January 1972,"



That's a change in tune from just the other day pooh. I thought it was all about stabilizing the country?!

Glad you finally woke up.


Re: "stabilizing the country?!"

According to your pal, Pres. Obama, the job's done (mission accomplished).


Your brain is obviously damaged Dummygen. 2009? Really?


Donegan, Obama promised and delivered getting us out of Iraq in 2009. We are ending the Afghanistan War now. Remember Bush declared War twice. Obama has kept his promises. You may not like them, but we will close Guantanamo too.


I am glad we got our soldier back. However, when did we start negotiating with terrorists??


When did we not negotiate with terrorists?

I'm old enough to remember the Viet Cong... too bad we are not still negotiating with someone in Vietnam to get back the rest of our POW/MIA. Does the name John McCain mean anything?

North Korea ... occasionally we get another body through, wait for it, negotiation.

NAZIs... we negotiated prisoner exchanges throughout WW II. Who will say NAZIs are not terrorists?

The major time the US did NOT negotiate with terrorists was in 1794 in Pennsylvania when President George Washington, exercising the rights given to him by the Second Amendment he requested, took the "well-regulated" militias from four states and put down a domestic rebellion by homegrown terrorists.

CIVIL WAR which we are so gloriously celebrating for five years was a rebellion by domestic terrorists. Ultimately both sides negotiated the end to those hostiiities. And they negotiated prisoner exchanges all the time.

Just a few 'since when' examples.


Re: "When (snip)"

By your definition, the Revolutionary War patriots were "domestic terrorists."

Pretty broad brush you're painting with.


Contango. Thank you.. My post stands corrected.

By definition the 30% who rebelled were not/never called themselves "patriots" (loyal to the 'father' of their government - King George III).
Were they 'domestic terrorists'? In the eyes of the British - and many Americans - yes. They destroyed property, tarred and feathered an innocent man, called out the 'Father' (even though the taxes already had been repealed), and engendered rebellion.
Yeah, that qualifies as terrorism by today's definition.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The rebels won, so we got to write the history. Read the accounts in British texts.

BTW.. John Brown (his body lies a'moldrin in his grave) was a domestic terrorist.)

Harriet Tubman was a 'terrorist' in the eyes of Southern plantation slaveowners.

'Terrorism' is in the eyes of the 'terrorized'.


Re: "Yeah, that qualifies as terrorism by today's definition."

Using current morality in order to define and label past events is often called "recency."

That attitude is extremely dangerous from a standpoint of understanding the motivations of the participants.

Recency also leads to the error of historical revisionism, of which you are grossly at fault.


How am I "grossly at fault"?
Thomas Paine said, "We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately." Even the likes of Patrick Henry (the "liberty or death" guy), Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, knew if 'our side' didn't win, they were traitors and terrorists.
Thomas Paine also said (pay tenshun)

“Reputation is what men and women think of us; character is what God and angels know of us.”

I'm confident of my standing with the latter.


Re: "How (snip)"

Now you're merely throwing quotes out of context in a poor attempt to prove a point that "terrorism" is how and where YOU find it - sloppy thinking.

The late 19th Century term was: Anarchists.

Why don't you resurrect that one?


That would be perfect. One of those killed a president, right? Lots of American 'Patriots' are calling for such action.



Re: "Tea Party ANARCHISTS."

And early 20th Century progressives knew themselves to be Fabian Socialists.

Marx and Engels used the terms socialism and communism as synonyms.

Anarchists vs communists - the third civil war should be interesting!


WE DIDN'T, btw. Qatar (that's a country) negotiated the release.

Now, enlighten us, just how would YOU have gotten our soldier back?

As soon as you bless us all with our abundant knowledge, we'll make sure it gets right to the President and Military.

What? Got nothin'?

Licorice Schtick

When beaten, Contango just changes the subject.

Republicans were all about getting POW bergdahl back - until President Obama did it...



Taliban are not terrorist by the historical definition. They are despicable, vile vermin but they are not terrorist. They did harbor terrorist which was our justification to invade "their" country. They were ruling Afghanistan when we removed them installing a more compliant government. At that point they became resistance fighters using asymmetrical warfare to remove an occupying foreign army. This was a POW swap.

Invoking Godwins... If Taliban are terrorist, then the French and polish resistance fighters under Nazi occupation were also terrorist.


Godwin would be correct.


Lol, the statement is actually mine. Godwin's Law means something else. Google it for giggles. I believe you invoked it yourself.


They were not identified in Guantanamo as terrorists. They fought us in the war, but they did not attack our country. We always negotiate with our enemies to release prisoners of war, when have we not?


I assume all terrorist are now dead??? Oh wait BO ain't got the stones.


NO. Terrorists now are walking through restaurants and department stores and public parks with their massive guns open-carried on their backs and across their chests.

You think that is NOT terrorizing to people - especially children - who see them?
You think that is NOT an open threat to the security of THIS country?

Since you obviously 'got the stones' Yop*sy just how would you ended terrorism?

Stop It

I pity the idiot that takes The Daily Show as it's news source.


.....or Faux news...........

Stop It

Five terrorists for one good guy. Give all the terrorists back for the good guys and then bomb the s^!t outta them.

I'm tired of the BS this country puts up with some times.

William Jeffers...



This soldiers father tweeted that he is working for the release of all Gitmo prisoners, he later deleted it. something is shady here. Obama does not have the authority to release prisoners, he has once again broken the law.


WRONG AGAIN Sugarbaby. Read the article. He has the authority but has to notify Congress before releasing... which he did!!!


Wrong again ContryAnn,


Quote from linked article:

Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees’ transfer until after it occurred.

The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.


Wrong Ann the law states 30 days he broke the law again


Pres. Obama has taught America's enemies:

Capture an American and the U.S. will negotiate the release of war criminals.

Interesting foreign policy.

The Big Dog's back

Kinda like Raygun trading arms for hostages. Oh wait. We put weapons in the hands of our enemies?


Re: "Kinda (snip)"

So politicians are ALL alike.

Congratulations, you FINALLY got it!




So now you are equating reagan and obama? Is the DNC and daily crazies (dailykos kooks) know this is how you think? They will kick you out of the party. Then you will be even more clueless. They won't send you their talking points and you won't know what is approved for you to think.


Hitler and Stalin were best buds before and during the early yrs. of the war.

And THEN, FDR made a pact with the mass murderer Stalin to help defeat his estranged buddy Hitler.

As is said: Politics makes strange bedfellows.

If you haven't seen it, watch: "The Soviet Story"


Big Dog thinks that if he's among the first to get to the wall to be shot, that he'll get extra credit.


So FDR negotiated with a terrorist?


Re: "terrorist"

You continually misconstrue the term which leads to a thinking error.


No pooh, you misconstrue the term and it has been misconstrued for.....EVER! A terrorist DOES NOT have to be Muslim or from the Middle East. There's plenty right here in America.

Contrary Ann has it right!


Re: "Contrary Ann has it right!"

So Stalin was a "terrorist"? How does that term even apply?


She's right pooh, just admit it!


"Terrorist" is a modern American CONNOTATION that has been applied indiscriminately to anyone with whom there is disagreement or who strikes terror in the heart of an observer.
A player in a youth league game is rightly terrorized by seeing the father of an opposing player sitting in stands with a large gun strapped to his back yelling at the umpire.


Re: "'Terrorist' is a modern American CONNOTATION"


Regardless, you've overused the term essentially rendering it meaningless.

The Big Dog's back

CIA 'helped Saddam Hussein carry out chemical weapons attack on Iran' in 1988 under Ronald Reagan
U.S. fed intelligence to Iraq about whereabouts of Iranian forces
Iraq deployed mustard gas and sarin in 1988 on the back of the information
U.S. administration supported Iraq during the eight-year conflict
Up to 20,000 Iranian troops were killed by mustard gas and nerve agents from Iraqi forces during the war


Re: "Ronald Reagan"

According to you, Pres. Obama is no different.


How did you draw that conclusion?


1753... before we had a president or a country.
1861-1865 - Americans on both sides negotiated release of 'war criminals'... I would note my ancestor who died in Andersonville Prison was - in the eyes of the South - a war criminal.

And William Tecumseh Sherman? The South definitely considered him a war criminal.

In the very modern era - Bush and Cheney can't leave the country for fear of arrest on CONVICTIONS as war criminals. If that happened, ya think we might negotiate their release?


Re: "war criminal,"

POW would be more apropos.


Re: "William Tecumseh Sherman"

Also: Oversaw the extermination of the buffalo, causing the starvation and resettlement of the Plains Indians into OK and elsewhere.

Modern libs 'might' see him as a mass murderer.

There's that "recency" again.


Just as people in his time and ours consider Andrew Jackson a mass murderer for relocating millions of native Americans to reservations in the West on The Trail of Tears.,

With years come clearer vision. Should we be proud of every action that was thought right in the past?

Considering the grand five-year celebration of the Civil War in which we are drowning now I should be willing to overlook my ancestor who died in Andersonville Prison and the one who was mortally wounded in The Wilderness, and the 700,000 Americans killed by Americans....


Re: "Should we be proud of every action that was thought right in the past?"

Not necessarily.

But as I previously wrote, historical context is needed in order to understand the thinking and motivation of the participants.

Which is most important to you; understanding or judging?

Should we attempt to learn from the past or merely repeat the mistakes?

Probably the latter as most Americans have a poor grasp of History.

For one: Gen. Patton was a great student of History and it showed in his military accomplishments.

The Big Dog's back

"Should we attempt to learn from the past or merely repeat the mistakes?

Probably the latter as most Americans have a poor grasp of History."

Yes, right wingnuts have a poor grasp of history, even as recently as 2008.


War criminals is correct!

AJ Oliver

The U.S. foreign policy elite got just what it want with Haqqani . .
(Dan Froomkin, huffPO) "But Haqqani's rise to power can be traced directly back to the secret, multi-billion-dollar U.S. campaign to create a radicalized and well-equipped army of Islamic jihadists -- known as the mujahideen -- to lead a war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s."


"Operation Cyclone" was conceived during the Carter Admin.


The CIA's job is to front run for the Military Industrial Complex.

The late Sen. Church was about the last Dem with any guts to stand up to the Political Ruling Class.

As was said: Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern.


Contango. Whatever undocumented history gets it up for ya! Oh, you cited Wikipedia. How many times have we seen you deride that source? Wind changed direction?

And, oh powerful historian, who conceived the Domino Theory which sent my generation to war in Viet Nam?


Re: "undocumented history"?

Where was it in error? Prove it.

Wiki: Good synopsis (primer). If you want 'in-depth' look elsewhere.


Re: "Viet Nam"

Let's focus on the passage by a Dem Congress of the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" shall we?


You tossed out your Cyclone as if the idea originated with Carter - which was not the name used for it, in hopes no one would check your reference and note Cyclone originated in 1944 and was used again as late at GWB in 2008.

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in response to Vietnamese attacks on two US boats in the Gulf. It became the 'excuse' to accelerate into the Vietnam War - as justified as the attack on Afghanistan in response to 9/11. Vietnam was Johnson's War.... although Eisenhower laid the groundwork.


Re: " Vietnamese attacks on two US boats in the Gulf."

It was a lie.

Vietnam operations were begun by the OSS, which later became the CIA.



Re: "Cyclone as if the idea originated with Carter - which was not the name used for it,"

Still no proof to the contrary.


Remember Casper pooh? Major wimp. That was Raygun's boy that was too scared to follow the order to hit Hezbollah after all those Marines were killed!


Re: "Major wimp."

"Never drank a beer" and "not even athletic enough to be a cheerleader."

- deertracker, 5/30/14

Funny that someone of your "caliber" can refer to ANYONE as a "wimp."


I don't like beer so I have never drank one. Only a deranged idiot would consider drinking a beer a right of passage. SMDH.

Correction: Only a Kessler's drunk would consider drinking a beer a right of passage!

I'm not athletic, so what! Please don't confuse that with being a wimp.

Grave mistake!

thinkagain's picture

Deertracker demonstrating his idea of a grave mistake.



too bad you never served pdb. Your mouth & attitude would be different.


Re: "Your mouth & attitude would be different."

Nah. My brother served. He hates Pres. Obama's guts and thinks that libs like you are idiots.

Reality: 100, kurtie - 100.


Your brother? Say no more!!!!!!!!!!


I am glad we have our soldier back but he has a long long road ahead. And sadly may never be made whole again. Early reports are that he is even having trouble speaking English.


WTF ever!

The Big Dog's back

To bad these right wingnuts are so bent on deriding Obama. Obama makes the tough decisions and isn't looking for answers in the book My Pet Goat.


Re: "Obama makes the tough decisions"

Let's see, should I golf on Tues. or Weds.? Hmmm...that IS a "tough decision."

looking around

Contango if you were faced with the decisions that President Obama or any president for that matter has faced on an almost daily basis and made the hard calls on while in office I suspect your stool would run thin as water! You are not in a position to call any of them out. Just stick to your blathering on this blog.


Re: "the decisions that President Obama"

Let's see should I go to the fundraiser first and then golf or do it the other way around?

Hmmm..."tough decision."

He asked for the job and is into the sixth yr. of his presidency AND he's STILL blaming Pres. Bush.

looking around

He has made several major decisions as President, how about the strike on Osama Bin laden and several other top secret military actions. I feel certain that the other activity's as you mention are as time permits. He was attending a very light hearted dinner while the events of the final attack on Bin Laden were underway, he did a pretty good job of not letting the cat out of the bag I might add. To think that any president considers these other activities as a priority is ignorant ranting.


Re: "Osama Bin laden,"

He was at that point, largely inconsequential to the operations of Al-Qaeda.

They seem to still be doin' well.


Re: "he did a pretty good job of not letting the cat out of the bag"

One of the few times that he could keep his mouth shut eh?

But, my oh my how he CROWED and strutted like a peacock about it afterwards. :)


He was killed mainly because of 9/11, remember? How do you know he was inconsequential? You don't! He was smart to keep Congress and Pakistan out of the loop.

He did not behave the way you describe. He would not even show the death photos.

Such the liar you are!!!!!!!!!!!


Re: "He did not behave the way you describe."

Per ususal, when it comes to Pres. Obama, you have memory problems, dweeb.

H*ll, on the campaign trail, every chance he got he reminded the Obamabots that he got bin-Laden.

Remember VP Biden at the DNC?

"Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."


Thought spitting on POWs went out with Vietnam War.


This is Ron Reagan's legacy also. He & Charlie Wilson. Obama got this mess.


Re: "This (snip)"

And Pres. Carter was wholly innocent? lol

Poor, poor Pres. Obama ASKED for the job.

You're as delusional as EVER.

Reality: 200, kurtie - 200.


Sgt Bergdahl voluntarily left his post, without a weapon, into enemy territory. What were his intentions, defecting? I hope these answers come out because lives have been lost and many put in danger looking for him. Many more are now in danger with the release of 5 highly dangerous Taliban fighters.


Are you scared?

Coram Deo

We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl, a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night


The truth is coming out.

What an interesting way President O has to deflect from Benghazi (leaving Americans behind to die) and the VA debacle (putting veterans in harms way by an inept bureaucracy) by "rescuing" an AWOL/deserter.


Ronald Reagan’s "Benghazi" left 241 American servicemen dead.


Re: "Ronald Reagan’s 'Benghazi'"

Well armed U.S. Marines and a poorly defended consulate.

Apples and oranges.


You just type anything. It doesn't even have to make sense!


Take your own advice:

“You shouldn't waste your free speech on stupid comments!”

- deertracker, 5/28/14


Why does this sound wrong ? : "Well armed U.S. Marines and a poorly defended consulate. "

No , it isn't apples and oranges.
It's the same but with one key difference.

"Reagan’s White House was split over the deployment of U.S. troops to Lebanon; Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger opposed it.

That was a political opening big enough to drive a 19-ton yellow Mercedes truck through, just like the one that destroyed the barracks.

Yet the Beirut bombing never became the political cudgel that Benghazi has become for Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have been swinging it ever since the fires in Benghazi burned themselves out.

Lesson #4: That is the key difference between the two events. It speaks volumes about how partisan tragedy has become."



Re: "It's the same but with one key difference."

It's the "same," BUT it's 'different'?



That's according to the Time article.

But from what I've read , Reagan's Benghazi was FAR worse.


Re: "That's according to the Time article."

So you believe every bit of political-oriented nonsense you read?

Again: Well-armed Marines and a poorly protected consulate - NO comparison.

So why had the Brits and the Red Cross pulled out of Benghazi earlier?

Also, let's just ignore the other terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies shall we?

"U.S. embassies attacked in Yemen, Egypt after Libya envoy killed"


The Islamic nuts are suckers for symbolism. Why wasn't security beefed up for the anniv. of Sept. 11?


1. Re: "That's according to the Time article."
So you believe every bit of political-oriented nonsense you read?

-What politically-oriented material do you recommend to read ?

2. "Again: Well-armed Marines and a poorly protected consulate - NO comparison."
- Again: Well armed ... I'll repeat ... WELL armed Marines could not protect themselves ?


Re: "What politically-oriented material do you recommend to read?"


Re: "WELL armed Marines could not protect themselves ?"

A tragic error in judgment. Terrorist acts like suicide car bombings were largely unknown to the U.S. at that time.

Here's your 'comparison':

Pres. Reagan took full responsibility, Pres. Obama blamed a video and the Repubs.


"Here's your 'comparison':
"Pres. Reagan took full responsibility, Pres. Obama blamed a video and the Repubs. "

( Since the following is from Time magazine , you won't believe it. -I didn't know that everybody is a liar. )

"A Pentagon investigation into the Beirut bombing blamed military officers for the vulnerabilities that led to the attack, although Reagan took responsibility, too. “’If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this office and with this President,” he said.
Obama said much the same a month after Benghazi. “I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there,” he said, “because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home.” "



The difference:

Pres. Reagan's message was simple and direct.

Pres. Obama (a month later you note) had to add:

"I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home.”

A poor additional statement for a supposed 'leader' to make.

A comparison between the two events? Still no sale.


I asked two questions above:

So why had the Brits and the Red Cross pulled out of Benghazi earlier?

Also, let's just ignore the other terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies shall we?

"U.S. embassies attacked in Yemen, Egypt after Libya envoy killed"


The Islamic nuts are suckers for symbolism. Why wasn't security beefed up for the anniv. of Sept. 11?

What are your answers?


A corollary:

Why was FDR never blamed for the attack on Pearl Harbor?

He ordered the Pacific fleet to move from San Diego to Pearl.


Re: "What politically-oriented material do you recommend to read?"

--Well, how do you form your political opinions ?


Re: "Well, how do you form your political opinions"

As an Independent, I use my brain. And I sure as h*ll don't read "Time" magazine.

BA: Poli Sci major, History, minor.

I used to sit in the Student Union and argue with the head of the local chapter of the Communist Party over coffee.

I've answered your questions, you've yet to answer mine.

The Big Dog's back

Gee, just as I thought pooh. You ignore facts and go with what is in your head. Hmmmmmm. Sounds like a right wingnut to me.


You seem like an unreasonable person incapable of carrying on a rational discussion.,


Re: "rational discussion"

What's "unreasonable" is for anyone to 'rationally' think that the events in Beirut and Benghazi are even remotely comparable.

Still haven't answered the questions.


Why did you direct me to Reuters if all you use is your independent brain ?

What were the questions again ?

Contango- here's a little something for you :

"We want the facts to fit the preconceptions.
When they don't , it is easier to ignore the facts
than to change the preconceptions."

-Jessamyn West


Re: "Why did you direct me to Reuters if all you use is your independent brain ?"

To refresh your limited memory that there were attacks other than that at Benghazi.

Didja ever think that they might have been coordinated?

The Time article was an opinion piece, Reuters is a news service. Big difference.


Re: What were the questions again ?"

You got a short-term memory problem?


"We want the facts (snip)"

Reads like the entire Obama admin. and their cadre of true believing useful idiots.


He gets his political info from the back of a Kessler's bottle.


Re: "He (snip)"

Take your own advice:

“You shouldn't waste your free speech on stupid comments!”

- deertracker, 5/28/14


deertracker---I'm beginning to believe it.


To quote you:

"You seem like an unreasonable person incapable of carrying on a rational discussion."


You're an alcoholic , aren't you ?



You're becoming infected with deertracker's insanity. Aren't you supposedly smarter than that?

Regardless, since you like quotes:

"The tavern was the headquarters of the Revolution"

- Daniel Webster


Research says that alcoholics and other addicts are usually pathological liars.

The Big Dog's back

FDR was blamed.


If he went AWOL and we lost soldiers that went to hunt for him does anyone think that may possibly be a reason for a court-martial.


Fact hater zip. Deertracker & looking around clear winners. pdb.


Re: "Fact hater,"

That would be YOU, Sport. :)

Reality: 300, kurtie: - 300.

Ralph J.

The circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture remain something of a mystery. There has been some speculation that he willingly walked away from his unit, raising the question of whether he could be charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) or desertion. During the Second World War 2,864 soldiers were tried by General Courts Martial, 49 being sentenced to death. They were all reprieved, their sentences being commuted to varying terms of imprisonment, but it was obviously felt that an example had to be made in Slovik’s case, and all appeals for clemency were denied. January 31, 1945 Private Eddie Slovik became the first American soldier since the Civil War to be executed for desertion.



Why did we negotiate with terrorists? Simple. If terrorists hold one of your soldiers captive, that's who you have to talk to, if you want to get the soldier back. If German auto magnates held Bergdahl captive, we'd have to negotiate with German auto magnates. This is another invented "non-scandal" courtesy of Republicans.

McCain and others rail about Obama giving away 5 Gitmo detainees in order to get Bergdahl back. Allow me to provide a bit of perspective - the other half of the story that Fox did not report:

George W. Bush released 520 Gitmo prisoners and in return, America got zero (0) American prisoners in return. One of the prisoners Bush released was Abu Sufian Bin Qumu, one of the suspects in the Benghazi attacks in which 4 Americans were killed.

If you look up the word "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, I'm sure it will show a picture of the Republican Congress circa 2014.


Re: "McCain and others,"

"Others" as in Diane Feinstein?

And if one of these Islamists commits other terrorist act, then what?

Pres. Obama says that we will monitor them. LMAO!!!

You just love the 'bouquet' of his BS don't you?


Pretty weak reply, Tango. You manage to find fault with anything Obama does, even when it's an obvious improvement over anything your party ever accomplished. It's amusing to see conservatives trying defend their indefensible viewpoint. McCain did a complete 180 on this topic from his comments in February. Ten bucks says that neither you nor Fox will mention that...


Re: "Pretty weak reply"

Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee wasn't among the "others"?