New Bergdahl counter-scandal: A Republican put soldiers in his unit in touch with the media, you know

posted at 1:21 pm on June 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

The reason you have allegedly smart liberals like Chris Hayes moronically implying that the U.S. should pay any price to bring a missing soldier home, even if he went missing deliberately, is because they can’t make the argument they really want to make. The argument for defending a deal this palpably terrible is, simply, that they’re stuck with it now thanks to O and can’t afford to let the White House bleed endlessly over it. There’s no reason on the merits why this should be a partisan issue: There’s credible evidence from the men who served with him that Bergdahl deserted and there’s documentary evidence that the Taliban Five are highly dangerous. You shouldn’t have to hand in your liberal card for thinking, “Yeah, that’s a dumb deal.” But with elections five months away and Obama already wounded by a scandal related to veterans, they can’t leave him exposed to more bipartisan criticism. The Bergdahl swap is being “politicized” — by the left, of necessity.

Which is why this lame “story” is suddenly a big deal on Twitter.

A former Bush Administration official hired, then resigned, as Mitt Romney’s foreign policy spokesman played a key role in publicizing critics of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the released prisoner of war…

Reached by phone, [Richard] Grenell’s partner at Capitol Media Partners, Brad Chase, confirmed that the firm had been helping the soldiers get their story out.

“Obviously Ric is a well known Republican and these guys found him on Twitter and reached out asking for help in getting their story out,” Chase said. “Ric obviously saw that this is something that needed to be told and came to me and others in our firm, and I and some of the others determined that this was a story that we wanted to work on.”

Chase said the New York Times’ referring to them as “Republican strategists” was “100% factually inaccurate” because he himself is not a Republican. But a producer for the Michael Berry show, a radio show that one of the soldiers spoke on told BuzzFeed that Grenell was the point of contact for the bookings.

The accusations against Bergdahl have been public for at least two years, thanks to Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone. Cody Full, one of the men from Bergdahl’s unit who suspects him of desertion, tweeted his suspicions for hours on Saturday night, two days before any media found him. No one seriously believes that the allegations against Bergdahl are being fed to his squad mates by the GOP; on the contrary, I can only imagine how insulted Full and his comrades would be to stand accused of making up lies about a POW to serve some political party’s agenda. But all of that is beside the point. The point of a piece like this, treating it as unusual that partisan operatives might liaise for people who share their criticism of the other side (remember when Anita Dunn’s firm began representing Sandra Fluke?), is to imply that there’s some sort of partisan dirty trick being played without ever clearly stating what that trick might be. The “argument,” such as it is, is that there are Republican fingerprints here and therefore you don’t have to pay close attention going forward to these years-old, wholly independent accusations against Bergdahl from fellow veterans. It’s another partisan food fight, “Berghazi,” as Ed Schultz sneeringly called it yesterday.

I eagerly await the interviews with Bergdahl’s supporters from his old unit, assuming the DNC can find any. Exit quotation from this miserable, frightened partisan hack, who now occupies a seat in the U.S. Senate:

Are the military’s many, many Bergdahl skeptics now “Obama haters” by definition?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter · 15h

Number of deserter families in Rose Garden: 1. Number of VA victim families in Rose Garden: 0

lynncgb on June 3, 2014 at 3:40 PM

For arguments sake, let’s say there was a feeling that he wasn’t worth every effort.

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Yes, for argument’s sake…

Special forces found Bergdahl and captors but wouldn’t risk rescue for ‘deserter’

NotCoach on June 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Read up, verbaluce. There are plenty of stories about just how bad these guys are – far worse than the worst accusations against BergdahI – and there are 5 of them.

Chuck Schick on June 3, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Not to mention that the one time the administration brought up the possibility of releasing these guys for kumbaya purposes, the idea was universally rejected by the Congresspersons consulted on the matter?

And who reported this to us? None other than that right-wing Obama-hating white male Koch stooge DIANNE FIENSTEIN.

The Schaef on June 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM

The Obama admin has publicly stated, “we will do anything for the return of an American soldier”.

Also known as open-season on Americans everywhere.

How stupid to say something like this, “We will do anything”? STOOPID.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 3:42 PM

For arguments sake, let’s say there was a feeling that he wasn’t worth every effort. Would you argue he isn’t worth any effort?

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Maybe, after the war.

Maybe, if we didn’t put true heroes’ lives on the line.

Maybe, if we didn’t release 5 top-level, hardened Jihadists, two of whom are wanted by The Hague to face war crimes.

Maybe, if we didn’t negotiate with terrorists.

Maybe, if Bergdahl didn’t voluntary and incontrovertibly abandon his post.

Maybe, if he didn’t ship all of his personal belongings home before his ‘instability’ caught up with him.

Maybe, if he didn’t leave a note indicating that he was deserting and wanted to renounce his citizenship and take up with the Taliban.

Maybe, if he didn’t call his superiors at the base the next day and tell them that he was not returning.

Maybe, if he had been proud to be an American.

Maybe, then, efforts would have been worth it.

He CHOSE to leave. He CHOSE to endanger himself. He CHOSE to put the lives of his brothers and sisters in arms at risk.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 3:42 PM

For arguments sake, let’s say there was a feeling that he wasn’t worth every effort. Would you argue he isn’t worth any effort?

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 3:33 PM

If a good soldier, he was worth some effort. the question becomes how many other soldiers do we sacrifice trying to find him? But I don’t think, even if he was a good soldier, he is worth this deal and new policy announced by Obama that we will give terrorists whatever they want if they manage to grab a service member. Or, when the next service member is grabbed, do we not “turn the ship around” and instead “leave a man behind”?

If he was a deserter – he was worth absolutely zero effort. why should America expend blood, treasure, or security for a deserter?

Monkeytoe on June 3, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Wait! The Democrats don’t need no stinkin’ fake sleeper story that they can spring whenever they get caught with their pants down. Here’s the plan:

1 Bergdahl was a CIA agent who pretended to defect to the Taliban but we had to figure some way to bring him home safely.

2 By releasing 5 extremely dangerous Talibann terrorists and by later supplying their forces with up-to-date weaponry through Holder’s DOJ we entrap them into killing dozens of innocent Americans so that when we eventually re-arrest them, we have far more evidence against them than we currently enjoy.

Clever plan, no?

MaiDee on June 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Isn’t it reassuring to know that numbskulls who define “protection” like verbaluce does are at your back? “14 soldiers’ lives for a deserter like Bergdahl? 5 Taliban commanders? It was all worth it!”

non-nonpartisan on June 3, 2014 at 3:44 PM

The accusations against Bergdahl have been public for at least two years, thanks to Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone.

Gee, that would be the first time a Republican ever talked to Rolling Stone!

Steve Z on June 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM

I think we can –
just not clear on the ‘top commanders’ bit.
Also, can we agree that these guys were not turned back over to the Taliban?

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM

1) See above. That’s the Washington Post, but Fox News or Washington Times of whatever other excuse you need to dismiss it

2) Correct. They were temporarily sent to Qatar – a hotbed of terrorism that Obama’s own state department ranks among the worst ally in our counterterrorism efforts. And even this is only for a year, which Afganistan is already appealing.

Chuck Schick on June 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM

The Obama admin has publicly stated, “we will do anything for the return of an American soldier”.

Really? What did the Obama Administration do to try to save Chris Stevens and the CIA guys trying to defend him? Fly to Vegas and arrest a guy from California who made a video?

Steve Z on June 3, 2014 at 3:49 PM

2) Correct. They were temporarily sent to Qatar – a hotbed of terrorism that Obama’s own state department ranks among the worst ally in our counterterrorism efforts. And even this is only for a year, which Afganistan is already appealing.

Chuck Schick on June 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM

And, in reality, how do we police this? how will we know where they are once in Qatar? In all seriousness, there is nothing real in this deal with Qatar. It is an illusory promise. It sounds like they are giving us something, but they are not. It is just enough of a promise to give Obama some political cover with people like Verbulace who will never find fault with Obama.

Monkeytoe on June 3, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Really? What did the Obama Administration do to try to save Chris Stevens and the CIA guys trying to defend him? Fly to Vegas and arrest a guy from California who made a video?

Steve Z on June 3, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Don’t know if you were quoting me, but I was saying that in defense of this asinine deal, the Obama admin is basically stating to the world that “we leave no man behind” and implying that we will do anything (and the lousy deal reinforces this) for the return of an American service member.

That is bad policy. Much like an amnesty will generate millions of new illegals, announcing that the U.S. is open for business in the hostage negotiation arena is simply really, really, really stupid policy.

Monkeytoe on June 3, 2014 at 3:53 PM

And, in reality, how do we police this? how will we know where they are once in Qatar? In all seriousness, there is nothing real in this deal with Qatar. It is an illusory promise. It sounds like they are giving us something, but they are not. It is just enough of a promise to give Obama some political cover with people like Verbulace who will never find fault with Obama.

Monkeytoe on June 3, 2014 at 3:50 PM

We don’t. Here, according to Reuter they are allowed to move freely in qatar.hiw long till they leave qatar, afghanistan bound, you think?

jimver on June 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

And, in reality, how do we police this? how will we know where they are once in Qatar? In all seriousness, there is nothing real in this deal with Qatar. It is an illusory promise. It sounds like they are giving us something, but they are not. It is just enough of a promise to give Obama some political cover with people like Verbulace who will never find fault with Obama.

Monkeytoe on June 3, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Exactly.

They are free to meet with whomever they choose.

They are free to raise money for the Taliban.

They are free to engage in propaganda.

They are free to seek new recruits.

They are free to train said recruits.

They are free to make bombs in Qatar, which can be delivered elsewhere.

They are free to teach radical, virulent Islam.

They are free, in reality, to pick up where they left off…except for the actual firing of weapons and commanding, in person, people on the battlefield.

They just can’t leave the country of Qatar.

It’s really a shame that they will not have access to telephones, sat phones, television, radio, and the internet. Imagine how much they could do!?!?!?

Oh wait…

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

The accusations against Bergdahl have been public for at least two years, thanks to Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone.

Michael Hastings can’t be reached for comment.

Akzed on June 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

I think we can –
just not clear on the ‘top commanders’ bit.

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 3:29 PM

From the BBC:

Who are the Guantanamo detainees?

• Mohammad Fazl served as the Taliban’s deputy defence minister during America’s military campaign in 2001. Accused of possible war crimes, including the murder of thousands of Shia Muslims and others including Pashtuns and Tajiks.

• Khairullah Khairkhwa was a senior Taliban official serving as interior minister and governor of Herat, Afghanistan’s third largest city.

• Abdul Haq Wasiq was the Taliban’s deputy minister of intelligence. Said to have been central in forming alliances with other Islamist groups.

• Mullah Norullah Noori was a senior Taliban military commander and a governor. Also accused of being involved in the mass killings of Shia Muslims and others.

• Mohammad Nabi Omari is alleged to have been involved in attacks against US and coalition forces, with close links to the Haqqani network.

kcewa on June 3, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Exactly.

They are free to meet with whomever they choose.

They are free to raise money for the Taliban.

They are free to engage in propaganda.

They are free to seek new recruits.

They are free to train said recruits.

They are free to make bombs in Qatar, which can be delivered elsewhere.

They are free to teach radical, virulent Islam.

They are free, in reality, to pick up where they left off…except for the actual firing of weapons and commanding, in person, people on the battlefield.

They just can’t leave the country of Qatar.

It’s really a shame that they will not have access to telephones, sat phones, television, radio, and the internet. Imagine how much they could do!?!?!?

Oh wait…

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Let’s not jump to conclusions. We don’t know the terms of Obama’s pinky swear with them before release.

Chuck Schick on June 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM

This entire “Bergdahl episode” smells of Mayaguez

J_Crater on June 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM

For arguments sake, let’s say there was a feeling that he wasn’t worth every effort. Would you argue he isn’t worth any effort?

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 3:33 PM

He wasn’t worth *this* effort. I suspect the Taliban got such a good deal because Barky was feeling the heat over the VA and needed a squirrel. Which he got, at least for the next few news cycles.

And although we as a nation prefer to “leave no one behind”, Ambassador Stevens could not be reached for comment regarding this particular administration.

Buck Farky on June 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Flash: Bergdahl was no longer an American citizen???

faraway on June 3, 2014 at 4:02 PM

A Matter of Honor: Why So Many Soldiers Are Angry at the Bergdahl Deal

By David French

I’ve spent the last two weeks on vacation — the first real family vacation since shortly after I returned home from Iraq in 2008 — and I tried as much as I could to truly “unplug.” When the Bergdahl deal was announced, however, I failed utterly. The story infuriated me. Other writers at NRO have articulated the various flaws in the deal, including that the manner of the prisoner exchange broke the law and that providing such a steep ransom (high-level Taliban commanders) even further incentivizes American hostage-taking. But I want to focus on something else: a matter of honor.

Let’s begin with the New York Times’ account of his disappearance:

Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life. He slipped off the remote military outpost in Paktika Province on the border with Pakistan and took with him a soft backpack, water, knives, a notebook and writing materials, but left behind his body armor and weapons — startling, given the hostile environment around his outpost.

No, not just startling. Criminal. Desertion is a crime. Even worse it’s a crime that — in the context of a modern deployment — requires rather considerable malice aforethought.

Many civilians don’t realize this, but every sentient deployed soldier — especially those deployed with combat units — knew that the disappearance of an American soldier was a matter of the highest priority. Specific code words would rocket up the chain of command the instant a soldier was unaccounted for, and all available units would immediately initiate a search — a search that the missing soldier would know would be extremely dangerous and would by necessity require a massive American presence on roads and in communities that were “uncleared” or known to be littered with IEDs and full of insurgents.

In other words, Bergdahl knew that men would risk life and limb to find him and knew that men would likely die.

Yet the available evidence indicates he walked off anyway.

And of course, the predictable happened. The military initiated a massive search, and men died. American heroes died. Have their parents had a presidential photo-op like Sergeant Bergdahl’s parents enjoyed? In the moral calculus have we even considered or mentioned the Americans who may have died in the combat operations that led to the capture of the Taliban leadership?

To defend this dishonor, the White House’s quick-reaction blogging allies are demonstrating their ignorance. Here’s Salon:

Less understood is that when a member of the military fails to adhere to the far-right’s rigid formula of what a soldier should be (nationalistic, religious, obedient; conservative) right-wingers like Palin come down on them like a ton of bricks.

This is utter nonsense. The question isn’t whether Bergdahl adhered to a “formula” but instead whether he committed a crime under the Uniform Code of Military justice, a crime so severe that it was punished by death as recently as 1945.

ThinkProgress flails perhaps even worse, demonstrating willful ignorance of the law of armed conflict by claiming that the Taliban prisoners will have to be released soon anyway:

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

Let’s state this as plainly as possible: While we may attempt to end our combat operations against the Taliban, the Taliban have made no claim of ending their hostilities against us. We will be under zero obligation to hand over soldiers to an entity in an ongoing belligerent status against the United States.

Finally, a writer who should know better, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bateman, actually tries to claim that in his prisoner exchange, President Obama stands in the shoes of Presidents Washington, Madison, and Lincoln (and that Washington, Madison, and Lincoln would endorse President Obama’s actions). After all, he notes, Washington and Madison swapped prisoners with the British and Lincoln did with the Confederacy (prisoner exchanges were not unusual in 18th and 19th century warfare). Prisoner exchanges amongst armed forces conducting warfare under the accepted legal rules in force more than 150 years ago are meager precedent for providing ransom to a terrorist entity that has never complied with the laws of war.

But if Lieutenant Colonel Bateman wants to follow Washington and Lincoln’s precedents, is he willing to go all the way? After all Washington sometimes hanged deserters, and dozens of Union soldiers were executed for the same crime during the Civil War.

To be clear, by discussing the possibility of deserting, I am not claiming that Sergeant Bergdahl is a traitor. I have not seen evidence that he is. After all, Union soldiers who deserted didn’t join the Confederate Army any more than American soldiers who deserted in World War II joined the Wermacht. They are separate offenses.

But merely reciting the mantra that we leave no man behind does not justify this deal. There is a difference between a desertion and “Blackhawk Down.” There’s a difference between desertion and a soldier’s confusion and mistake. The military has a long and proud history of enduring great sacrifices to retrieve pilots behind enemy lines and wounded and even dead comrades in the midst of the most intense firefights. In the conduct of those rescue missions, we are doing our best to defeat the enemies who’ve captured, wounded, or killed our comrades. But we — rightly — do not have a tradition of breaking our own laws and empowering the enemy to bring deserters home and then celebrating their return at the White House.

I hope and pray those are not the facts. I hope and pray that we did not choose to strengthen the Taliban so that our president could try to clumsily end a war on his political timetable. But I fear that’s exactly what happened.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Really sad to watch America haters like Bergdahl and Obama and Murphy get paid with American treasure.

talkingpoints on June 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM

A year after Bergdahl deserted, the Taliban claimed he was helping them.

Taliban claim captured U.S. solider has converted to Islam and is teaching its fighters bomb-making skills

novaculus on June 3, 2014 at 4:12 PM

For arguments sake, let’s say there was a feeling that he wasn’t worth every effort. Would you argue he isn’t worth any effort?

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Reports suggest that he and his family are Taliban supporters. He appears to have successfully alligned himself with the Taliban and no longer speaks English. We released 5 terrorists to drag him back from the people he voluntarily chose to join. Why?

talkingpoints on June 3, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Wow, this swap scandal is so hot I expect the White House to force a narrative shift BACK to the VA scandal just to get out from under it!

Rational Thought on June 3, 2014 at 4:15 PM

That was a long fought war, and yet there was only one prisoner of war. Could that be because they kill their captured soldiers?

I have not seen anything in the news about the fate of any of our soldiers that they captured. Would be interesting to know if we were just so good they never captured any, or they never survived captivity, or they just routinely returned the soldiers, in which case, why the trade?

Bergdahl seems to have made it quiet clear that he was disillusioned and leaving, deserting, to help the enemy and apparently was at least partially successful in that endeavor in that they did not kill him. Perhaps his father joining their cause gave him some creed as well.

As for Obama. He had made it clear that he is clueless and as often stated, learns about what is going on the same as us, from the news and reading about it in the paper. Sadly that probably has more truth to it than lie. Keep in mind that he is a narcissist and they never want to be in a position to be held liable for anything that goes wrong. Its a problem as well when nothing is going right. Summer of 2012 almost was melt down for him, the vacation did not help, but they rescued him with a bill that was not written, a joint session of Congress to approve the not written bill, followed by getting him out doing the one thing that he can do, campaigning on a bill that was still being written. That worked, but after that he seems to have stayed out of the loop on bad news.

He has other people to handle all that “stuff” for him. All he probably heard was releasing the five biggest problems to shutting down Guantanamo.
The part about Congress needing to know probably was not even on their to do list since it really did not matter if they did or not. What was Congress going to do about it, impeach him? With the top five gone, the rest is down hill. With no more prisoners, maybe Iran and Sudan, maybe Saudi Arabia will help him/them out.

Franklyn on June 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM

They just can’t leave the country of Qatar.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

I’m sure this prohibition will be as rigorously enforced as Obama and Holder enforce the United States immigration policies on its southern border.

talkingpoints on June 3, 2014 at 4:18 PM

how long till they leave qatar, afghanistan bound, you think?

jimver on June 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

About as long as it takes to dump Texas illegals in Arizona.

talkingpoints on June 3, 2014 at 4:21 PM

“There’s a lot more to this story than a soldier walking away.”

(CNN) – Former Army Sgt. Evan Buetow was the team leader with Bowe Bergdahlthe night Bergdahl disappeared.

“Bergdahl is a deserter, and he’s not a hero,” says Buetow. ”He needs to answer for what he did.”

Within days of his disappearance, says Buetow, teams monitoring radio chatter and cell phone communications intercepted an alarming message: The American is in Yahya Khel (a village two miles away). He’s looking for someone who speaks English so he can talk to the Taliban.

“I heard it straight from the interpreter’s lips as he heard it over the radio,” said Buetow. “There’s a lot more to this story than a soldier walking away.”

The Army will review the case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “in a comprehensive, coordinated effort,” Secretary of the Army John McHugh said Tuesday.

Did the White House do any level of review before deciding to hand over five hardcore Taliban commanders for this guy? Before it broke laws and set a terrible precedent, and freed terrorists, to get him?

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Not sure if I’ve been blocked/merated (2 posts didn’t post)- test.

BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Not sure if I’ve been blocked/merated (2 posts didn’t post)- test.

BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM

I didn’t see this post of yours, you’ve been banned.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

How come, if this is such a winning move, you have NOT heard from the usual D scumhags and scumbags in DC?

Because they have more than eggs on their stupid faces.

Schadenfreude on June 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Must have been the content. Well, I had nothing new to say. Just that I hope we get all the information and that our collective attention span increases a bit.

BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Deserters lose their “won’t be left behind” status.

Deserters have unilaterally renounced their duty to their country and their fellows. They are no longer entitled to the loyalty that requires no man be left behind.

Unless other circumstances make their recovery worth the risk, not one loyal soldier’s safety should be risked to recover a deserter.

The very notion that the return of any deserter justifies releasing five of the bloodiest Islamist terrorist enemies of America is absurd. The fact that Obama and his crew didn’t see this reaction coming is simply stunning. Like MKH I can’t put aside the possibility that these incompetents simply aren’t engaged at the level necessary to be familiar with the questions that were raised years ago about Bergdahl and are wallowing in ignorance. But it is also entirely possible that so little reality penetrates Obama’s White House bubble at this point it if anyone tried to warn them they were tuned out, and it never occurred to anyone inside that bubble that releasing five of the most dangerous terrorists in the world in return for a “blame America” tool who is a deserter a best wouldn’t be seen as a great deal by a large portion of the country.

Either way, the magnitude of the incompetence and near delusional disengagement from reality is just staggering.

novaculus on June 3, 2014 at 4:31 PM

I didn’t see this post of yours, you’ve been banned.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM

So, I guess I’m a sock now.

BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

A year after Bergdahl deserted, the Taliban claimed he was helping them.

Taliban claim captured U.S. solider has converted to Islam and is teaching its fighters bomb-making skills

novaculus on June 3, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Not that I don’t think there’s some hinky going on with Berg, the last people I would trust for anything factual are the dark ages savages living in the world’s crotch.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

So, I guess I’m a sock now.

BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

I didn’t see this comment either, you’re still banned.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 4:33 PM

the last people I would trust for anything factual are the dark ages savages living in the world’s crotch.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Absolutely not to be taken at face value, but interesting nevertheless. Note that they also claim Bergdahl was in the company of an Afghan soldier who was killed. That doesn’t fit what we think we know at this point, either.

novaculus on June 3, 2014 at 4:35 PM

So, I guess I’m a sock now.

BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM
I didn’t see this comment either, you’re still banned.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 4:33 PM

I’ll switch IPs latter and troll you. HA is easy like that.

BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

So, I guess I’m a sock now. BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Yes, we’re debating who uses you first.

Akzed on June 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM

I’ll switch IPs latter and troll you. HA is easy like that.

BoxHead1 on June 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Stop posting comments that no one sees, including this one.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 4:42 PM

This is a lot more to this whole fiasco.

What no one in the media captured was Robert Bowe Bergdahl’s favorites on his Youtube account.

It reveals a dark mind, a collector of a litany of ‘terrorist favorites’, videos from training on how to become Muslim Jihadist to urging American troops to desert and even favorite speeches by confirmed terrorists like Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki, condemning America as a terrorist state:

Bergdahl’s Youtube account’s favorites list has an anti-American Anwar al-Awlaki video. Notice Bergdahl’s name above the list, showing that it is indeed his account

On one of the videos Bergdahl subscribes to a Jihadi message titled, “Duaa (prayer).”

But prayer for what? His son’s release only? Hardly, its for the release of the terrorists in American captivity. The prayer begins in Arabic, as Shoebat.com translates:

O Allah, release our prisoners, the Muslim prisoners, and send them back to our families in peace!

One would think that Bergdahl does not understand what is said in Arabic? Think again, he comments himself stating:

“Al-Hamdu Lillah, Ameen, Ameen May the duas of the ummah be heard and may Allah free my son from captivity!

– Walid Shoebat

kingsjester on June 3, 2014 at 4:43 PM

davidk on June 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Yer killin me – Burge is pounding in the nails, one deadly accurate blow, one at a time, one after another.

LOL

Midas on June 3, 2014 at 4:43 PM

New Bergdahl counter-scandal: A Republican put soldiers in his unit in touch with the media, you know

GOOD!

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 3, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Honestly, if I were those 5 released terrorists, I’d be saying my prayers. With the hell Obama’s catching (rightly) over all of this, about the only way to save face at this point is to eradicate the 5 with extreme prejudice, and claim that was the plan all along.

Midas on June 3, 2014 at 4:46 PM

ThinkProgress flails perhaps even worse, demonstrating willful ignorance of the law of armed conflict by claiming that the Taliban prisoners will have to be released soon anyway

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 4:04 PM

ThinkProgress has O’bot programming to catch up on.
Here’s something interesting.

According to the Daily Beast:

During the five years of Bergdahl’s imprisonment, despite discussing his case in several public briefings, State Department and Defense Department officials made sure not to refer to Bergdahl as a “prisoner of war.” The reason, according to a senior administration official at the time, was that U.S. policy dictated that the rules of treatment for “prisoners of war” under the Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban. There was concern that if the U.S. called Bergdahl a “prisoner of war,” the Taliban would say its soldiers in U.S. custody were “prisoners of war,” as well, and would demand Geneva protections.

Some experts said the Obama administration’s sudden use of the term “prisoner of war” for Bergdahl has greater implications for U.S. policy on the treatment of detainees, especially the Taliban.

“It rips open an issue that we’ve put aside for 10 years, which is that some of the people we have imprisoned could be entitled to some Geneva protections,” said Eugene Fidell, a professor of military law at Yale University. “The Obama campaign was critical of the Bush administration going in, but the actual changes in how the Obama treated these guys as opposed to the Bush administration are few.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/02/white-house-changes-tune-on-bergdahl-says-he-was-a-prisoner-of-war.html

lynncgb on June 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Bergdahl’s Team Leader: ‘He Is A Deserter. He Is Not A Hero. He Was Looking For The Taliban.’

Don’t ever call Bowe Robert Bergdahl. Meet a real hero: Army MSG Mark Allen.

He was one was of the many soldiers that searched for Bowe Robert Bergdahl. What did he get for his efforts? A bullet to the brain.

MSG Allen’s wife would like people to meet her husband:

“Meet my husband, injuries directly brought to you by the actions of this traitor. He can’t give an account of what went down, because he can no longer speak. Now, which guy is a ‘hero’ again?!? Sick.”

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 4:53 PM

#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack
#BuckFarack

Nutstuyu on June 3, 2014 at 4:55 PM

…and that mass-murdering, serially raping, pedophile of a “prophet” too.

Nutstuyu on June 3, 2014 at 4:56 PM

But more to the point, if you reverse the above, it’s 100%.

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Why do you hate your country, you gnatbrain?

We love our country, our Soldiers, like them alive, not like you.

That you are NOT ashamed to show your stupid face today, in the light of all the evidence, makes you a traitor. I hope you get yours, you incredibly filthy latrine-rat. NONE of you stand for anything but thuggish obama-marxist-fascist love.

Now, go take a shower, you filthy rat.

Schadenfreude on June 3, 2014 at 4:56 PM

but we need to here the explanation sooner rather than later. try having an open mind. i am.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on June 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM

This is simply not possible for D-latrine-filth verbaluce. It’s like Jamoooooo on Fox. The cow can NEVER be objective, but gets paid a fortune.

Schadenfreude on June 3, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Punching drywall really is therapeutic, luckily I didn’t hit a stud.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Top level:

The U.S. has released five Taliban prisoners kept at Guantanamo Bay — all of them either senior Taliban figures or Taliban officials with connections to Taliban leaders, and all labeled by the Pentagon as highly dangerous to the security of the U.S. and its allies if released. They are:

Mohammad Fazl, the former Taliban defense minister during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, chief of staff of the Taliban army, and commander of its 22nd Division. According to a U.S. Department of Defense document obtained by Wikileaks, Fazl is believed to be an associate of Supreme Taliban Commander Mullah Omar and was “wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites,” surrendered to the Northern Alliance commander Gen. Dostum in November 2001.

“Detainee is assessed to be a HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies,” his Guantanamo detainee file reads. “If released, detainee would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties with ACM [anti-coalition militia] elements participating in hostilities against US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan.”

Mullah Norullah Noori, a former Taliban military commander and Taliban governor of two Afghan provinces, who led Taliban forces against U.S. and coalition troops and was also “wanted by the United Nations (UN) for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims” as Fazl was, according to Noori’s Guantanamo prisoner file as obtained and posted by Wikileaks. He is also believed to be associated with Supreme Taliban Commander Mullah Omar.

Noori commanded the Taliban in the northern city of Mazar e-Sharif. Like Fazl, he surrendered to Gen. Dostum in 2001.

Rated a “HIGH” threat to U.S. security interests if released, Noori is or was associated with members of al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin.

Mohammed Nabi, another senior Taliban official with ties to al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, and other anti-U.S., Taliban-allied groups, according to his Guantanamo Bay file as posted by Wikileaks.

Also rated as a “HIGH” security threat if released, Nabi fought with the mujahideen against the Soviets. After that, he told the Americans who captured and detained him, he was an off-and-on Taliban member in the early 2000s, worked for the chief of the Taliban’s Border Department, which controlled smuggling. In early spring of 2002, he left the Taliban to sell used cars in a small village near Khowst and became a CIA informant.

According to his Defense Dept. file, Nabi was involved in attacks against U.S. and coalition forces and facilitated smuggling routes for the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Khairullah Khairkhwa, a direct associate of Osama bin Laden according to his Defense Dept. detainee file obtained by Wikileaks, and a senior Taliban military commander who also served as the Taliban’s minister of Interior and the governor of Herat.

He represented the Taliban at meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support actions against U.S. and coalition forces after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the document. He attended a meeting at the direction of bin Laden, reportedly accompanied by members of Hamas, the document says, and is believe to have been one of the major opium lords of western Afghanistan.

In 2002, he sought to negotiate an integration into the new government through Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai who has been accused of corruption and drug smuggling, but was arrested by Pakistani border patrol and released by Pakistan into U.S. custody.

He is also deemed a “HIGH” threat if released.

Abdul Haq Wasiq, the Taliban’s former deputy minister of intelligence, had direct connections to Taliban leadership and was “central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups” to fight against U.S. and coalition forces, according to his Defense Dept. file obtained by Wikileaks.

He also used his position to support al Qaeda, assist Taliban personnel in eluding capture, and arranged for al Qaeda members to train Taliban intelligence staff, according to the file.

He seems to have later turned informant, as his file notes that Wasiq was arrested after a meeting with two Americans and a translator, in which he was supposed to deliver information leading to the capture of Mullah Omar. Shortly after the meeting, U.S. forces arrested him.

“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Berghdal’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” said House Armed Services Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Senate Armed Services Ranking Member James Inhofe, R-Okla., in a joint statement.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/what-the-u-s-gave-up-to-get-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-back/

davidk on June 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

But we couldn’t get to Benghazi in time……….

d1carter on June 3, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Excellent point.

Bitter Clinger on June 3, 2014 at 1:52 PM

But we “never leave US men behind”…obama said it, last Sunday, with the muzzie father Bergdahl next to him. It’s on Youtube, really.

Schadenfreude on June 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM

How can someone who willing joined the Taliban be considered a POW? Or even a “captive?”

I’m worried he’s going to come home and be part of a sleeper cell. I’m sure he and the Taliban talked about that extensively.

Capitalist Infidel on June 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM

On topic, so what if it was Rs who did this?

Go chocke on the obamashit, all you suckers. I so hope to see one of you keel over from it. It ain’t Beluga caviar, you swine of the land.

Schadenfreude on June 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Choke from it.

Schadenfreude on June 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM

How can someone who willing joined the Taliban be considered a POW?

Or even a “captive?”

I’m worried he’s going to come home and be part of a sleeper cell. I’m sure he and the Taliban talked about that extensively.

Capitalist Infidel on June 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Quit this. He was NEVER classified as a POW, by the military. They know.

He was not a captive. He was a willing defector.

You are right – he and his father are enemies of the state, but so is obama.

Schadenfreude on June 3, 2014 at 5:04 PM

What’s the “over/under” on how long it Bergdahl to become a Senator (with a “D” after his name), and then Secretary of State?

Perfesser on June 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Punching drywall really is therapeutic, luckily I didn’t hit a stud.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

This also works when talking about Dave Rywall.

Chuck Schick on June 3, 2014 at 5:07 PM

chris murphy….bite me………..

crosshugger on June 3, 2014 at 5:08 PM

bergdahl and every democrat that supports him should be held for treason for consorting with the enemy…the oath to defend this country means nothing to the left….

crosshugger on June 3, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Not POW, but not because he was a deserter?:

During the five years of Bergdahl’s imprisonment, despite discussing his case in several public briefings, State Department and Defense Department officials made sure not to refer to Bergdahl as a “prisoner of war.” The reason, according to a senior administration official at the time, was that U.S. policy dictated that the rules of treatment for “prisoners of war” under the Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban. There was concern that if the U.S. called Bergdahl a “prisoner of war,” the Taliban would say its soldiers in U.S. custody were “prisoners of war,” as well, and would demand Geneva protections.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/02/white-house-changes-tune-on-bergdahl-says-he-was-a-prisoner-of-war.html

davidk on June 3, 2014 at 5:13 PM

But:

Since the Saturday release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, several senior Obama administration officials have called him a “prisoner of war.” But for the five years of his imprisonment, the policy was never to use that term for the missing soldier, and now experts are worrying that the Taliban will start calling its captured soldiers “prisoners of war,” too.

ibid.

davidk on June 3, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Sad and sadly predictable.

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Nonsense. What is truly sad and sadly predictable is how you would defend Obama in illegally releasing terrorist leaders to free a deserter, and then complain about how normal people would react. Not a single person here would expect anything less from you verbaluce.

dominigan on June 3, 2014 at 5:16 PM

The irony.

Look up what ‘swiftboating’ means.

They weren’t ‘right’.

Kerry, a privileged young man who could easily have avoided service, volunteered and sought to be placed in combat.

verbaloon on June 3, 2014 at 2:48 PM

F-

I personally (for over 50 years in fact) have known one of the leading Swifties, and I can assure you you know not thing one about them; you’re simply bleating the claims of others who also hate the military.

Many of the Swifties, including my friend, live or lived in Massachusetts, and had in the past supported Thurston in his Senate races there, because they knew he could do no harm as a Senator. His 20+ year “record” in the Senate proves that in spades; he managed to get a bunch of Post Offices named for well-connected constituents of his, but that is about all.

But they knew how dangerous he would be as a Commander in Chief, and that is why they formed the group.

And Thurston’s own words show that his primary purpose in volunteering to serve in Vietnam was simply to burnish his credentials for a later entry into politics. That’s why he brought the movie camera with him.

None of the Swifties’ allegations against Thurston have ever been refuted, and Thurston himself never sued them for libel. Why has he never done so? He managed to pay off the members of his own boat, but they amount to a handful of men.

If you can prove that the Swifties “weren’t right” please do so. But remember, I’ll be waiting here for you, and since I have much more knowledge of that group than you can ever hope to have, I’ll be more than happy to shoot you down in flames again and again.

One more time, a hearty

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 2:48 PM

“Swiftboating” was not lying, as much as you want everyone to think. They had a valid beef, with compelling evidence.

Buck Farky on June 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM

I do not agree.

But let’s just leave it at that.

No need to go all 2004 here.

verbaloon on June 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Sorry, Chump, but you’re the one who first took us back to 2004 in this thread. Choke on it, and choke on your own stupidity.

But before going “into conference”, please tell us why you believe the Swifties were lying, and Thurston was not.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM

And the irony of your complaint here is how you’re fully accepting of the worst accusations made against this guy, Obama, etc.

verbaloon on June 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM

And your side was never accepting of the worst accusations made against the previous President?

And you wonder why we laugh at you…

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM

The accusations against Bergdahl have been public for at least two years, thanks to Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone.

Michael Hastings can’t be reached for comment.

Akzed on June 3, 2014 at 3:55 PM

The trouble with Hastings’ report was that he placed blame on the US for these sort of failures, among others. And not on where and whom it rightfully belonged.

May he rest in peace, however.

Lourdes on June 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Good for you, Del Dolemonte, for that.

Lourdes on June 3, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Good for you, Del Dolemonte, for that.

Lourdes on June 3, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Back in the good old days of Usenet political newsgroups, I actually engaged in active debate over a period of several months with one of the members of Thurston’s Swiftboat crew. He came across as having the intelligence of a piece of lawn furniture.

His Commanding Officer wasn’t much brighter.

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Back in the good old days of Usenet political newsgroups, I actually engaged in active debate over a period of several months with one of the members of Thurston’s Swiftboat crew. He came across as having the intelligence of a piece of lawn furniture.

His Commanding Officer wasn’t much brighter.

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 5:49 PM

That is interesting stuff. Verb will never be convinced. Those types of immoral people are unapologetic liars which is why they gravitate to the left. Kerry/Verb…cut from the same phony American cloth.

ClassicCon on June 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Wow!

I’ve read all the Hornblower novels, but never before has the concept of crossing the “T” been better demonstrated than in the last couple pages of comments.

Verbie gets of a pop or two from his bow cannon, and then is raked by devastating broadsides from Schaef, Del, Monkey, etc.

But, scrappy little sailor that he is, he plows full on, only to be met by Roger and Her Majesty, RWM!

Oh wait, he’s not coming head on — that one oar in the water has him going in circles.

questionmark on June 3, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Like 0bamanation, Murphy is a corrupt traitor no civilized country would tolerate; no danger of that here!

russedav on June 3, 2014 at 5:58 PM

I know this is anecdotal, but at the Dr. office, super market, pharmacy it was all the talk, and the anger at Obama was 100%. My anger is also at those who are supposed to over see his actions, do nothing before or after.

jainphx on June 3, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Look up what ‘swiftboating’ means.

They weren’t ‘right’.

Kerry, a privileged young man who could easily have avoided service, volunteered and sought to be placed in combat.

verbaloon on June 3, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Would that be the same ‘privileged, young man,’ who claimed that President Richard Nixon sent him to Cambodia for Christmas in 1968?

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Back in the good old days of Usenet political newsgroups, I actually engaged in active debate over a period of several months with one of the members of Thurston’s Swiftboat crew. He came across as having the intelligence of a piece of lawn furniture.

His Commanding Officer wasn’t much brighter.

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 5:49 PM

That is interesting stuff. Verb will never be convinced. Those types of immoral people are unapologetic liars which is why they gravitate to the left. Kerry/Verb…cut from the same phony American cloth.

ClassicCon on June 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM

What they always ignore are the many holes in Thurston’s “story” that have been exposed by others, as well as many things that Thurston never bothered to bring up himself. The fact that he came within 1 state of becoming pResident still sends chills down my spine.

Some of the holes?

1. Thurston claimed to have been sent on a “secret mission” to Cambodia during Christmas of 1968; he said he went there on orders from “President Nixon”. Only one problem-at that time, Nixon was still the President-elect, and hadn’t even been inaugurated!

2. Thurston found a loophole to avoid serving his mandatory 1-year-long Vietnam tour of duty; he got out after only 4 months. To do so, he managed to get 3 Purple Hearts in 4 months, including one for an apparently self-inflicted wound. He knew how to game the system.

3. When he ran for pResident in 2004, he promised to release “all” of his military records; we’re still waiting for them 10 years later.

In fact, to illustrate the Double Standard employed by the Orwellian Democrat Media, al-Associated Press actually sued the Bush White House to force him to release all of his military records. He did so.

And yet later that same year, a “reporter” from the very same al-Associated Press corruptly entered into an agreement with Thurston to never reveal all of his military records; Thurston showed them to that “reporter” as well as one for the LA-LA Times, and a third from his hometown Boston Globe, owned at the time by the NY Times. They successfully censored the story in order to protect their Party’s candidate.

Del Dolemonte on June 3, 2014 at 6:42 PM

The reason you have allegedly smart liberals like Chris Hayes moronically implying that the U.S. should pay any price to bring a missing soldier home, even if he went missing deliberately, is because they can’t make the argument they really want to make. The argument for defending a deal this palpably terrible is, simply, that they’re stuck with it now thanks to O and can’t afford to let the White House bleed endlessly over it. There’s no reason on the merits why this should be a partisan issue: There’s credible evidence from the men who served with him that Bergdahl deserted and there’s documentary evidence that the Taliban Five are highly dangerous. You shouldn’t have to hand in your liberal card for thinking, “Yeah, that’s a dumb deal.” But with elections five months away and Obama already wounded by a scandal related to veterans, they can’t leave him exposed to more bipartisan criticism. The Bergdahl swap is being “politicized” — by the left, of necessity.

They want to make criticism of Bergdahl the equivalent of “swiftboating.”

Of course, Kerry was not as slimy as Bergdahl. Which is saying something.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 3, 2014 at 7:18 PM

“swiftboating”?

Is that like when you cry and freak out because the people your candidate built his political career on, by calling them butchers and sadists, have a different side of the story and the audacity to want to tell it?

Axeman on June 3, 2014 at 8:34 PM

verbaluce on June 3, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Dang verbaluce, sorry to have missed you. Its movie night here. Care to join me? I’ll supply the popcorn.

Bmore on June 3, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Ugh Chris Murphy…sorry about that folks.

Anyways, yeah I picked this up looking at a NYT reporting of the story when it first broke. They kept repeating “meeting that was put together by republican strategists” when talking about men who served with the guy holding interviews on last Monday. It was strange, I guess this is why.

Starnick on June 3, 2014 at 9:05 PM

Just write “I am going to defend Barack Obama no matter what he does”.

No shame in it.

Chuck Schick on June 3, 2014 at 2:31 PM

That clown could watch Obama cook and eat an infant on live TV, and would praise O’s culinary skills and impeccable table manners.

soundingboard on June 3, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Why did the soldiers approach this particular firm just because they “found” Grenell on Twitter?
Why did he decide to help them?
Why have the reporters talked only to Brad Chase (D) and not to Ric Grenell himself?
Does anyone remember Grenell’s “resignation flap” during the 2012 campaign?

Can anyone even imagine Mitt Romney making a deal like this??

AesopFan on June 4, 2014 at 2:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4