NYT: Bergdahl left a note saying that he was deserting

posted at 12:41 pm on June 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

I assume this has been reported before but if, like me, you’re coming to the story only recently, it’s big news. Apparently, the military had — and, maybe, has — hard evidence from the man himself that he went AWOL deliberately.

Which would be worse: If Obama didn’t know about the note before making the swap, or if he did know and went ahead with it anyway?

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…

Sergeant Bergdahl slipped away from his outpost, the former senior officer said, possibly on foot but more likely hiding in a contractor’s vehicle. “He didn’t walk out the gate through a checkpoint, and there was no evidence he breached the perimeter wire and left that way,” the ex-officer said…

Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said that there was a larger matter at play: The American military does not leave soldiers behind. “When you’re in the Navy, and you go overboard, it doesn’t matter if you were pushed, fell or jumped,” he said. “We’re going to turn the ship around and pick you up.”

Obama made the same point as Kirby at his presser this morning, not because it’s true but because it’s a superb way of defending a terrible prisoner swap. There are vets in Bergdahl’s squad angrily accusing the guy of desertion and, more damningly, the parents of fallen soldiers blaming Bergdahl for their sons’ deaths. When you’ve got people as sympathetic as that hammering you in the media, the only smart play is “I’ll do anything to recover a missing soldier, period.” Message: I care. But as I say, it’s not true: The White House would have had no problem leaving Bergdahl behind if the Taliban’s ask was Khaled Sheikh Mohammed instead of the five lower-profile savages we handed back to them. It’s also not true that it’s irrelevant whether a soldier “pushed, fell or jumped,” in Kirby’s words. This Washington Times piece (linked by Ed in an earlier post but worth promoting again) describes how Special Ops scaled back efforts to find Bergdahl — even when they had solid intelligence on where he was being held — because they were, understandably, unwilling to sacrifice any more of America’s finest in the name of bringing this guy back. Does anyone on either side of this debate fault them for that? Of course the reason a soldier went missing matters.

The fact that hard evidence exists that Bergdahl walked away also helps explain why O had to ram this deal through quickly. Eli Lake:

[C]urrent U.S. intelligence and defense officials who spoke to The Daily Beast on Monday say the process for exchanging Taliban for Bergdahl this time was rushed and closely held, in some instances leaving little room for any push back against a policy clearly favored by the White House.

“This was an example of forcing the consensus,” one U.S. military official said. “The White House knew the answer they wanted and they ended up getting it.”

[T]he process for getting there was rushed, according to U.S. intelligence officials. This time around there was no formal intelligence assessment of, for example, the risks posed by releasing the Taliban commanders. While some intelligence analysts looked at the issue, no community-wide intelligence assessment was produced, according to these officials.

Makes sense. The White House knew this was a bad deal and didn’t want to give opponents, whether in Congress or in the IC, any time to rally opposition in the media. But that brings us back to the key question: Knowing that the deal was bad, knowing that Bergdahl had left a de facto confession to desertion in his tent before he went AWOL, why would they go ahead with it? This isn’t going to help O build political momentum to empty out Gitmo, assuming that’s the secret motive behind all of this. On the contrary.

Exit question: Given that some sort of swap involving Bergdahl and the Taliban Five has been kicking around since 2012 at least, is it really true that Congress was never “notified” about this deal? A Twitter buddy sent me the link to this NYT piece from two years ago noting that Bergdahl’s parents had spilled the beans about a potential exchange. Quote: “Until now, the administration has said publicly only that the negotiations included talks about releasing the five prisoners from Guantánamo to the custody of the government in Qatar — which some Democrats and Republicans in Congress have opposed — and not that the five might be exchanged for Sergeant Bergdahl.” Clearly some Dems and GOPers knew that the five Taliban might be released; Mike Rogers also said this morning that the White House had mentioned the possibility of a prisoner swap for Bergdahl to intel committee members in Congress back in 2011, which the members had resisted, but had said nothing since. All of which is to say that members have had some idea that a deal like this was on the table for several years now, and since there’s nothing they can do under the statute to actually block a deal from going forward, arguably that’s good enough to comply with the law. (Obama himself said this morning that he’s been consulting with Congress about Bergdahl and the Taliban “for quite some time.”) Or is it not good enough because, assuming Rogers’s timeline is correct, the current Congress has never been briefed on this? It was the 112th Congress that was in session in 2011; the current one, the 113th, may have been completely in the dark.

Update: According to Fox News, Bergdahl’s note implied more than just desertion. Stay tuned.


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

I am surprised they have not yanked the father’s Youtube account, yet.

kingsjester on June 3, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Doesn’t matter AP, because ‘Republican strategists’ arranged for soldiers to talk to the media about Bergdahl, so they have no cred. Or something.

changer1701 on June 3, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Meanwhile, the wife if a U.S. citizen is in jail, scheduled to be executed for being a Christian.

Ricard on June 3, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Agree Valerie thought this would be a great squirrel for the va scandal

cmsinaz on June 3, 2014 at 1:27 PM

IMPEACH OBAMA!!!

otlset on June 3, 2014 at 12:54 PM

With every worsening scandal it seems Obama is just daring the GOP to do it.

monalisa on June 3, 2014 at 1:29 PM

trying to come up with a logical explanation for all of this..cant think of one yet. seems the president has some explaining to do about what he new and what his decision making process was.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on June 3, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Chuck Schick on June 3, 2014 at 1:19 PM

…Sockcot that POS…it’s better off with a sock in its mouth.

KOOLAID2 on June 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM

While under anesthesia a GPS chip was implanted in each gitmo detainee. We will follow them back to their nests and drone the lot.
That’s the only scenario that makes sense for such a dumbass trade.

faol on June 3, 2014 at 1:17 PM

I thought the same until I remembered that Oboobie doesn’t do much of anything that makes sense. He’s going to start now?

lynncgb on June 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM

The Plouffe sockpuppet strains to think for itself.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM

BobMbx on June 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Unfortunately, possibility #1 is the correct one.

Let’s not forget, to Obama and his inner circle, this is a racist, unjust, unfair, and fundamentally broken country in massive need of fundamental change in order to get on the ‘right track’. When they look overseas, they see every problem around the world as being the direct cause and effect of past US policies and actions.

In order to ‘fix’ these past wrongs, the ends always justifies the means.

We shouldn’t over-think this or embark down conspiracy theories. It’s not very difficult nor is any of this being done behind the scenes. This regime has power and knows it has power. It has no hesitation to use or abuse that power to achieve their ends. To them, that’s what power is for.

They are evil and support / enable evil….and evil is winning.

Athos on June 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Congress is playing dumb, because it’s a midterm. Obama knows he’s a lame duck and took the heat.

ezspirit on June 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM

trying to come up with a logical explanation for all of this..cant think of one yet. seems the president has some explaining to do about what he new and what his decision making process was.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on June 3, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Did your “talking points” email account break?

Bitter Clinger on June 3, 2014 at 1:33 PM

trying to come up with a logical explanation for all of this..cant think of one yet. seems the president has some explaining to do about what he new and what his decision making process was.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on June 3, 2014 at 1:29 PM

it might surprise you to know that i actually made it to the final round in my state spelling bee several times as a child.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 30, 2014 at 12:44 PM

NotCoach on June 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Saving Private Bergdahl. Quick name a single instance where the US military lost soldiers while searching for a deserter. Ever.

Jaibones on June 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Plus let’s remember that Jennifer Griffin is the National Security Correspondent working out of the Pentagon.

Happy Nomad on June 3, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Except it’s not Jennifer Griffin. It’s a nobody saying Jennifer Griffin is about to report such.

Smells like a setup to me.

MNHawk on June 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM

I still say he’s keeping the smoke industry in the black right now, if for no other reason than his precious ego is taking hit after hit as even some loyalists are starting to look at him funny.

Bishop on June 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM

OK, I take that back. It’s one Fox reporter saying another Fox reporter is about to run with this.

MNHawk on June 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM

It is no coincidence that Bergdahl is coming home now: Obama and his handlers were desperate for a “good news” diversion. Since they are all dishonest, hypocritical, bumbling idiots they never even considered the outrage that would ensue when it was inevitably found out that he was a USA hating deserter for which at least a dozen true heroes died trying to find.

Rod on June 3, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Except it’s not Jennifer Griffin. It’s a nobody saying Jennifer Griffin is about to report such.

Smells like a setup to me.

MNHawk on June 3, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Jenna Lee is hardly a nobody. She’s one of the lead anchors on “Happening Now” on Fox.

Bitter Clinger on June 3, 2014 at 1:39 PM

new report: Berghdal left behind a note renouncing American citizenship…developing…

No problem. We’ll just give him amnesty. He served in the military. He’s a DREAMer.

Mark1971 on June 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Jennifer Griffin:

Sources who had debriefed two former members of Bergdahl’s unit told Fox News Bergdahl left behind a note the night he left base in which he expressed disillusionment with the Army and being an American and suggested that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship and go find the Taliban. U.S. military officials would not confirm the existence of the letter, but if it does exist, it would likely be part of the original file on the investigation into Bergdahl’s disappearance.

And, Jenna Lee is not a ‘nobody.’

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Obama must have known about Bergdahl, which explains why this went down without congressional notification. Obama probably liked the fact that Bergdahl had expressed a desire to go out and help the Afghan people. I know Obama enjoyed that Islamic prayer that Bergdahl’s whackjob father recited in the rose garden. In the new Obama military, desertion in the face of the enemy equals service with “honor and distinction.” Susan Rice made that clear last Sunday. How else can one explain how Bergdahl was advanced while in a deserter status and is pending yet another advancement.

TarheelBen on June 3, 2014 at 1:52 PM

They should have given the parents plane tickets so they could be with their son. Sharia for all!!

KenInIL on June 3, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Uh Oh – Bammy has a mess on his hands.

gophergirl on June 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM

When you’ve got people as sympathetic as that hammering you in the media, the only smart play is “I’ll do anything to recover a missing soldier, period.”

And I’ll hold a Rose Garden party showing this man as a hero because… um…

Because what?

If he’d made the trade and handed the guy over to the Army saying “not sure where this will go, but we don’t want to leave him in enemy hands even if he’s guilty” that’s one thing.

But that’s not what he did; and spinning his way out of the photo op and press release:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/05/31/president-obama-speaks-recovery-sgt-bowe-bergdahl

Yeah, that’s going to take more work. Or simply be impossible.

gekkobear on June 3, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Chuck Todd: White House Expected ‘Euphoria’ Over Bergdahl’s Release

Todd: White House was ‘caught off guard’

MSNBC’S Chuck Todd observed Tuesday that the White House was “caught off guard” by the disastrous public roll out of their prisoner exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.

Todd and Andrea Mitchell agreed that the White House had likely thought there would be “some euphoria around this, the only POW that was remaining in Afghanistan, that there would be a rally around the flag. That didn’t happen.”

“They were expecting criticisms of Gitmo, criticisms of the detainees that were chosen,” Todd said. “They did not expect this criticism of the attempt to go get Bergdahl in the way that it was done.”

Todd noted the White House’s change of tone over the last several days, using as an example a Pentagon spokesperson who defended Bergdahl’s rescue in the New York Times today by citing the Navy’s policy of rescuing sailors who go overboard, regardless of whether they fell out of the ship or jumped themselves. “That wasn’t necessarily what they were saying on Sunday.”

I mean, like, who couldn’t see this coming???

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Griffin reported it. But the language she is using is suggestive rather than conclusive.

NotCoach on June 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I just heard her on the radio and she said that people, who have seen the letter, indicate that he wanted to renounce his citizenship and join the Taliban.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 2:03 PM

wonder if no formal declaration of war means no death under article 85.
think article 104 gives more leeway there.

dmacleo on June 3, 2014 at 2:06 PM

It appears that Obama and his people have changed the definition of honorable service. Now, deserting your unit in the face of the enemy is “honorable” as long as you do it with an “intent” that satisfies the left.

We know the Pentagon had investigated this – so how else do you explain Bergdahl’s advancement while in a deserter status?

TarheelBen on June 3, 2014 at 2:13 PM

We know the Pentagon had investigated this – so how else do you explain Bergdahl’s advancement while in a deserter status?

TarheelBen on June 3, 2014 at 2:13 PM

with no formal charges filed normal promotions by time in rank happen to pow.
w/o formal charges he automatically gets classified as pow.

big question is why no charges were filed when this happened, it smacks of political command influence.

dmacleo on June 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Griffin reported it. But the language she is using is suggestive rather than conclusive.

NotCoach on June 3, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I just heard her on the radio and she said that people, who have seen the letter, indicate that he wanted to renounce his citizenship and join the Taliban.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 2:03 PM

I was trying to figure out the hair-splitting over “suggest”.

If I say I’m considering taking a crap, or that I might take a crap, or it crossed my mind that a crapping might be something that will occur in my life in the near future, and then I go missing it most likely means I’m taking a crap.

– “Where’s Rod?”
– “In the bathroom.”
– “But he only suggested he needed to crap. How do you really know he’s in there?”
– “I always knew you were an idiot but I didn’t know you lacked a sense of smell too.”

Rod on June 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

I have never been one of those to call for Obama’s impeachment for anything (not even Benghazi). But THIS situation??? (1) A deserter who left the military to join the Taliban, (2) who got several fellow military personnel killed in their attempts to save his a**, (3) whom Obama negotiates his release in exchange for five dangerous terrorist detainees from Guantanamo, (4) and those five terrorists are released in an unfriendly country free-and-clear, (5) Obama does this exchange without notifying Congress nor getting their approval, and (6) who’s father “praises allah” while standing beside Obama on the release of his son.

I’m sorry, but this is TREASON! Period.

TrubadorMike on June 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Sources who had debriefed two former members of Bergdahl’s unit told Fox News Bergdahl left behind a note the night he left base in which he expressed disillusionment with the Army and being an American and suggested that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship and go find the Taliban. U.S. military officials would not confirm the existence of the letter, but if it does exist, it would likely be part of the original file on the investigation into Bergdahl’s disappearance.

And, Jenna Lee is not a ‘nobody.’

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Yeah, but she’s not as hot-a-body as Megyn.

And a letter, by itself, even if it explicitly stated that he wanted to renounce his citizenship, wouldn’t be effective. He would have needed to “make a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

dmacleo on June 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM

But how could they classify him as a POW, if he left a note saying he wanted to go off and join the Taliban? It doesn’t make sense. If he intentionally left his unit, his pay would be stopped after he’s gone 24 hours. That would prevent any advancement. It does sound like the Obama regime intervened in this situation for some reason.

TarheelBen on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

section 7 would apply to him.
this (and others) also applies to anwaki yet people still say he was a citizen.

dmacleo on June 3, 2014 at 2:25 PM

section 7 would apply to him.
this (and others) also applies to anwaki yet people still say he was a citizen.

dmacleo on June 3, 2014 at 2:25 PM

The desertion (and other penalties) are in subchapter 10. If he wasn’t a POW, I think they may need to rely on the following provision to court martial him:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who—
(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(3) received military pay or allowances; and
(4) performed military duties;
is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM

And a letter, by itself, even if it explicitly stated that he wanted to renounce his citizenship, wouldn’t be effective. He would have needed to “make a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Oh, good lord. See my post at 1:17 before you start attempting to preach to me. I **am** a lawyer.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM

And a letter, by itself, even if it explicitly stated that he wanted to renounce his citizenship, wouldn’t be effective. He would have needed to “make a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Oh, good lord. See my post at 1:17 before you start attempting to preach to me. I **am** a lawyer.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM

That one just discovered wikipedia and thinks himself an ‘expert’ on desertion and martial court. in otner words he’s trolling big time,

jimver on June 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

What a pathetic move of the goalpost / strawman deflection… right out of the trolling playbook 101.

Seriously, that’s the hill you’re choosing to go to?

GAZE

Athos on June 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM

According to UCMJ:

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-10-punitive-articles/885-article-85-desertion

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Actual UCMJ definition of desertion:

885. ARTICLE 85. DESERTION
10. Punitive Articles

(a) Any member of the armed forces who–

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-10-punitive-articles/885-article-85-desertion

dentarthurdent on June 3, 2014 at 2:51 PM

And a letter, by itself, even if it explicitly stated that he wanted to renounce his citizenship, wouldn’t be effective. He would have needed to “make a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

To be legally effective as a renunciation of citizenship, yes.

To show his intent to desert his post and obligations, it’s credible evidence (admission by a party-opponent).

(and I’m a lawyer, too)

Wethal on June 3, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who—
(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(3) received military pay or allowances; and
(4) performed military duties;
is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM

What in this section would preclude him from being subjected to the chapter? Are you claiming that he was forced into the military under duress? Was crazy at the time of enlistment? Wasn’t being paid? Never performed a single military guy? What?

blink on June 3, 2014 at 2:49 PM

No. I think he is subject to this section. I’m explaining why I think he has to still be in the military (and probably in active service) to be court martialed (sic).

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Stupid analogy. Yes, in times of peace, if someone goes overboard, the ship will turn and try to find you.

If the ship is amid a pitched battle – that is unlikely to happen. the lives of everyone else on board and the ship itself cannot be sacrificed for one person

I was stationed on the USS Russell. At one point in 2001 during demployment a ship-mate of ours fell overboard in the middle of the night. The next morning was actually Wogday. He never made it to muster. During the initiations we’d hear him be called on the 1MC every few minutes. Withing an hour or so from the start of the initiation they halted the whole thing. We were all called up to the weatherdecks to look for him. For the next several days we looked for him out at sea. Unfortunately we never foudn him. Keep in mind this happened two months after 9/11.

DethMetalCookieMonst on June 3, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Graham is on top of this. He will stand up to Obama and fight for the truth.

“The one thing I don’t want to do is judge this young man based on Internet rumors. I want a professional independent investigation by the appropriate military authorities with no interference by the Congress or the White House and find out what labels apply to Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl,” said Graham.

What a fraud!

Wigglesworth on June 3, 2014 at 3:00 PM

This notion that we collect everyone from a war zone even if they desert and join up with the enemy is absolute garbage. By the way, just like Charles Jenkins who deserted for North Korea in 1965 Bergdahl had better be court-martialed when he steps foot on American soil.

Pest on June 3, 2014 at 3:00 PM

To be legally effective as a renunciation of citizenship, yes.

To show his intent to desert his post and obligations, it’s credible evidence (admission by a party-opponent).

(and I’m a lawyer, too)

Wethal on June 3, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Agreed. He may well have left his post voluntarily, which would by itself be good evidence, although I guess it’s not clear if that was intended to be done “permanently”.

Didn’t see your initial post, RWM. I apologize, but am glad we both agree on what provisions apply.

Dentarthur, I’m not sure we are at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Clearly, this is a UN-sanctioned mission, but my understanding is that Bush did not seek a declaration of war and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers. Let me know if I’m wrong, since we have several other lawyers here.

jim56 on June 3, 2014 at 3:04 PM

It just keeps getting more absurd…

sorrowen on June 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM

If you impeach him, you “martyr” him.

Anything accomplished solely via Executive Order can be overturned using the same method.

Once this guy is gone, the truth-tellings books will come out.

The first will start an avalanche. The money will flow like water.

Upon the trash heap of history he goes as long as we don’t “martyr” him.

Carnac on June 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM

That one just discovered wikipedia and thinks himself an ‘expert’ on desertion and martial court. in otner words he’s trolling big time,

jimver on June 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Er, no. I’ve had that handy for years…since Obama droned Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. People on your side claimed that they renounced their citizenship.

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

That one just discovered wikipedia and thinks himself an ‘expert’ on desertion and martial court. in otner words he’s trolling big time,

jimver on June 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Er, no. I’ve had that handy for years…since Obama droned Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. People on your side claimed that they renounced their citizenship.

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

My side?? I didn’t write that post, jim56 did. And I meant he (jim56) just discovered wikipedia, not you, good grief, like I would doubt your sound legal creds.

jimver on June 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM

But how could they classify him as a POW, if he left a note saying he wanted to go off and join the Taliban? It doesn’t make sense. If he intentionally left his unit, his pay would be stopped after he’s gone 24 hours. That would prevent any advancement. It does sound like the Obama regime intervened in this situation for some reason.

TarheelBen on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

because they never charged him with anything.
with no charges being filed no criminality assumed.
then you have him showing up as captured, the chain of command (above the unit level at least) not fighting that term, so he gets a pass.
and that, to me, is a really big issue. there should have been charges filed right from day 1.
but that would be embarrassing to some people I bet.

dmacleo on June 3, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 6/21/2013

“We also expect the Taliban to raise the issue of their detainees in discussions that we have with them if those discussions take place. And at this time we’ve made no decisions about the transfer of detainees. And in accordance with law, we would be consulting with Congress should we make any decisions about that. So we remain committed to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, as you know. But separate from that on these specific issues about individual detainees, that would be a process that is done in accordance with law.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/21/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-6212013

Pelosi Schmelosi on June 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Monkeytoe on June 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM

At this point, no other conclusion seems probable.

anuts on June 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM

jimver on June 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Oops. Sorry, Fred.

Resist We Much on June 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Nice to know we lost lives on looking for the deserter… I’m sure that makes THEIR families REALLY HAPPY right about now…

Khun Joe on June 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Maybe they could review some of Cindy Sheehan’s notes on picketing presidents.
The Media used to really like her.

This guy is casting someone else for the role, though.

Instead of talking with their son by telephone, the Bergdahl’s addressed him through the cameras and microphones of an international press corps gathered in their Iowa hometown.

When they said they loved him and were proud of him, they sounded almost like parents anywhere might sound after being afraid for a son’s life. But there was more — a suggestion Bowe might not remember English, for instance — that just seemed strange.

In fact, they sounded almost as disoriented as Cindy Sheehan used to in her glory days, when her grief for her son’s death in Iraq in 2004 led to an anti-war activism that made her a darling of the liberal left for just long enough to make her a national laughingstock.

AesopFan on June 3, 2014 at 11:35 PM

If Obama had a son…

John the Libertarian on June 3, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Indeed.

AesopFan on June 3, 2014 at 11:38 PM

I’m so glad all the leftards got a chance to run their mouths in this guy’s defense before this particular aspect of the story broke.

It’s about the only good thing to come out of this debacle, the sheer volume of egg on their faces.

CurtZHP on June 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Doing O’Keefe’s work for him.

AesopFan on June 3, 2014 at 11:39 PM

Has Harry Reid blamed the Koch brothers yet?

Where is the little “your brain on Koch” troll, anyway?

Wethal on June 3, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Has he been on any of the Bergdahl threads?
Maybe a couple of really early ones, but not lately.
Wonder why….

AesopFan on June 3, 2014 at 11:40 PM

While under anesthesia a GPS chip was implanted in each gitmo detainee. We will follow them back to their nests and drone the lot.
That’s the only scenario that makes sense for such a dumbass trade.

faol on June 3, 2014 at 1:17 PM

They didn’t bother to actually track the guns they were running to Mexico with the cover story that they were going to track them.
Very few scenarios make sense with this crew, and the ones that do only make sense as a conspiracy theory for a thriller novel or movie.
If then.

AesopFan on June 4, 2014 at 12:43 AM

trying to come up with a logical explanation for all of this..cant think of one yet. seems the president has some explaining to do about what he new and what his decision making process was.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on June 3, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Did your “talking points” email account break?

Bitter Clinger on June 3, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Suggestive of a confession ….
This president has a lot of explaining to do about a lot of things, since the logical explanations for all of his scandals involve some combination of (1) gross incompetence; (2) malicious intent; (3) criminal malfeasance.
Take your pick.

AesopFan on June 4, 2014 at 12:52 AM

But how could they classify him as a POW, if he left a note saying he wanted to go off and join the Taliban? It doesn’t make sense. If he intentionally left his unit, his pay would be stopped after he’s gone 24 hours. That would prevent any advancement. It does sound like the Obama regime intervened in this situation for some reason.

TarheelBen on June 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Plot of novel I’m not writing:
Bergdahl is a deep-cover mole, now returning with the goods on the Taliban and Al-Haqqani network. Obama had to work quickly, without notifying Congress, because his cover was endangered (or they needed his data right now).

Which story someone will leak to the press to up Obama’s cred, thus writing a death sentence for every single soldier and contractor in the Middle East who might possibly be captured or found offering to “join up” with the Jihadis.

AesopFan on June 4, 2014 at 1:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2