As more comes out about Bergdahl, Republicans will have lots to answer for

[Synthaholic]

O is the one that needs to explain. He just freed five terrorists.

^^^ doesn't know his al Qaeda from his Taliban.

 

[Camp]

Repub's can't run away from this story fast enough. Watch how they abandon the Bergdahl platoon members. Today on FOX I saw Geraldo arguing with all those goofy girls. He was attempting to explain the "NO SOLDIER LEFT BEHIND" concept. They weren't getting it. They were stuck on Berdahl is a deserter stuff. I switched to CNN and watched D-Day coverage. Than I switched to MSNBC, more D-Day coverage. Back to FOX, Bergdahl, Bergdahl and Bergdahl.
Take a look at the news. Bergdahl is old news. The stories are going pro BRING THEM ALL HOME and the anti unconditional support side is being rejected. The anti Bergdahl folks are looking dirtier and dirtier by the hour.

 

[Mustang]

I'm just not entrenched like you go-bots who see everything in us vs. them.

Now go ahead, declare you won the internets today! You're awesome with a capital A!

You're a cultist. Only cultists stick with their leader like you douchebags stick with the Lying Cocksucker in Chief.

Think Jim Jones or David Koresh. You're cultists not political adherents.

You intelligent people out there? You wonder how a Hitler or a Stalin or a Pol Pot could have happened?

You say, "It could never happen here because we're so much more enlightened, better educated and humane."

You're delusional. There's at least seven dimocrap scum in here that I've identified that would obey ANY orders given to them by their cult leader -- obama.

I've studied the psychology and I'm telling you -- It's real.

the dimocrap party is led by cultists. It is fast becoming a cult.

THINK about it

shaddup

Only people with serious anti-American attitudes and beliefs would take the word of the Taliban over the word of their duly elected President in matters concerning the repatriation of an American POW captured in a war zone. That's exactly what you and quite a few other conservatives on this forum have revealed yourself to be: You're people who feign patriotism, but in reality you're hyper-partisans with serious Anti-American sentiments who prefer to take the word of a bunch of murdering terrorists over the leadership of your own country just because your choice for president lost in the last election and the candidate you opposed won a majority of the electoral college vote and the popular vote, as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Repub's can't run away from this story fast enough. Watch how they abandon the Bergdahl platoon members. Today on FOX I saw Geraldo arguing with all those goofy girls. He was attempting to explain the "NO SOLDIER LEFT BEHIND" concept. They weren't getting it. They were stuck on Berdahl is a deserter stuff. I switched to CNN and watched D-Day coverage. Than I switched to MSNBC, more D-Day coverage. Back to FOX, Bergdahl, Bergdahl and Bergdahl.
Take a look at the news. Bergdahl is old news. The stories are going pro BRING THEM ALL HOME and the anti unconditional support side is being rejected. The anti Bergdahl folks are looking dirtier and dirtier by the hour.

So you've proven the main stream media is still protecting Obama. Thank you ,Capt Obvious.

Bergdahl is not goiong away as a story. Democrats in Congress are pissed they were bypassed on this. The administration cannot spin this fast enough.

 

[Mustang]

The fact that the liberals keep bringing up Bush shows their hypocrisy.

If bush had done this they would not be defending it.

If Bush had done this ... well .. Bush was not that stupid.

.

LOL!

Bush delivered Iraq into the hands of the Iranian leadership. Considering the fact that Iraq was previously a bulwark that kept Iranian regional power and influence in check, and the fact that we played the two of them off each other as a way of keeping each country preoccupied with dealing with the potential threat of their closest neighbor and most powerful potential adversary, that was a policy that kept the US from having to commit too much military power in order to counter either one. Those days are gone, and now the Iranian leadership and the Iraqi leadership are working together.

How stupid was that?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

O is the one that needs to explain. He just freed five terrorists.

^^^ doesn't know his al Qaeda from his Taliban.

^ actually imagines that the freed Taliban fuckwads were not terrorists?????

 

[Bush92]

Sgt. Bowehammed was a deserter. Why did MSNBC and CNN stop taklkng about the story...because Obama fucked-up.

 

[rdean]

How is this any different than 'Fast and Furious' ?

Instead of running unaccountable guns into Mexico, we are running unaccountable terrorists into Qatar.

.

Just so we are on the same page, explain what Fast and Furious was, the reason behind it and it's intentions.

Congress is still trying to find out the facts and answers to your questions rdean. With no help from the Obama administration.

Is this going to be an exercise in political mythology?

If that is the case, it was either a calculated political maneuver that went bad, or a stupid idea in the first place that everyone went along with because they were also stupid ...the group stupidity scenario.

It looks much like the running of terrorists into Qatar in either case.

.

.

So you seem to be sure Obama is involved in something you know nothing about and and have no idea what it is? Then what is it he supposedly did? Or you don't know that either. You just know he did something because someone told you he did something?

 

[rdean]

Republicans never said they wanted to leave him behind. Just not trade him for five dangerous terrorist in a careless matter.

We've all said we have no problem with sending a special ops team to kill the people holding him hostage and taking him back

^^^ doesn't know his al Qaeda from his Taliban.

Really, I don't get it. It's so easy to understand. Bin Laden was the leader of al Qaeda, the man Republicans let go.

The Taliban were the leaders of the country Republicans invaded to get the guy who brought down the world trade center, but they let that guy go and invaded another country because it had oil. Only they didn't get the oil. So they didn't get the leader of al Qaeda, they didn't get the oil, but they managed to spend 4 to 6 trillion dollars not succeeding in any particular goal.

And the people they call terrorists, they call terrorists because they had to the nerve to fight back after their country was invaded.

Most peculiar.

 

[rdean]

The fact that the liberals keep bringing up Bush shows their hypocrisy.

If bush had done this they would not be defending it.

If Bush had done this ... well .. Bush was not that stupid.

.

LOL!

Bush delivered Iraq into the hands of the Iranian leadership. Considering the fact that Iraq was previously a bulwark that kept Iranian regional power and influence in check, and the fact that we played the two of them off each other as a way of keeping each country preoccupied with dealing with the potential threat of their closest neighbor and most powerful potential adversary, that was a policy that kept the US from having to commit too much military power in order to counter either one. Those days are gone, and now the Iranian leadership and the Iraqi leadership are working together.

How stupid was that?

Very stupid.

Too bad Republicans don't believe in education. They would have known the difference between Shiite and Sunni. Considering the history in Northern Ireland, they would have understood a lot.

 

[Synthaholic]

O is the one that needs to explain. He just freed five terrorists.

^^^ doesn't know his al Qaeda from his Taliban.

^ actually imagines that the freed Taliban fuckwads were not terrorists?????

The Taliban aren't terrorists. That's al Qaeda.

No wonder your posts are so ignorant. It's because you're ignorant.

 

[Synthaholic]

Republicans never said they wanted to leave him behind. Just not trade him for five dangerous terrorist in a careless matter.

We've all said we have no problem with sending a special ops team to kill the people holding him hostage and taking him back

^^^ doesn't know his al Qaeda from his Taliban.

Really, I don't get it. It's so easy to understand. Bin Laden was the leader of al Qaeda, the man Republicans let go.

The Taliban were the leaders of the country Republicans invaded to get the guy who brought down the world trade center, but they let that guy go and invaded another country because it had oil. Only they didn't get the oil. So they didn't get the leader of al Qaeda, they didn't get the oil, but they managed to spend 4 to 6 trillion dollars not succeeding in any particular goal.

And the people they call terrorists, they call terrorists because they had to the nerve to fight back after their country was invaded.

Most peculiar.

Exactly.

If America is ever invaded, militias around the country will be considered 'terrorists'.

 

[Synthaholic]

As more comes out about Bergdahl, Republicans will have lots to answer for


Yup!



The Obama administration had reason to believe that U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's life would have been in serious danger had negotiations for his release become public before the exchange on Saturday, according to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).

"They had intelligence that, had even the fact of these discussions leaked out, there was a reasonable chance Bowe Bergdahl would have been killed," King told CNN's Kate Bolduan on Thursday. "And that was one of the pieces of information that we learned yesterday that gave it some credence in terms of why it had to be kept quiet so long."



King described the difficulty of the decision, which has divided pundits and politicians in Washington, by posing a hypothetical.

"What if this deal hadn't been made and the story today was American POW dies in Taliban camp?" King asked on CNN. "He’s beheaded in Kabul and the president didn't take a deal that was offered?"

"We’d be having all of the same criticism coming from the opposite direction and, you know, that’s why I say, you know, the administration made it a very difficult decision," he said.

 

[Synthaholic]

As more comes out about Bergdahl, Republicans will have lots to answer for


Yup!


Senators Admit Leaving Classified Briefing On Bowe Bergdahl Early

 

[Mustang]

As more comes out about Bergdahl, Republicans will have lots to answer for


Yup!



The Obama administration had reason to believe that U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's life would have been in serious danger had negotiations for his release become public before the exchange on Saturday, according to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).

"They had intelligence that, had even the fact of these discussions leaked out, there was a reasonable chance Bowe Bergdahl would have been killed," King told CNN's Kate Bolduan on Thursday. "And that was one of the pieces of information that we learned yesterday that gave it some credence in terms of why it had to be kept quiet so long."



King described the difficulty of the decision, which has divided pundits and politicians in Washington, by posing a hypothetical.

"What if this deal hadn't been made and the story today was American POW dies in Taliban camp?" King asked on CNN. "He’s beheaded in Kabul and the president didn't take a deal that was offered?"

"We’d be having all of the same criticism coming from the opposite direction and, you know, that’s why I say, you know, the administration made it a very difficult decision," he said.

So, will all those conservatives who engaged in anti-American rhetoric in the last few days when they chose to believe a Taliban propaganda video over the leadership of their own country while also not giving the benefit of the doubt to an American POW who suffered during 5 years of captivity finally apologize for their anti-American statements?

 

[BlindBoo]

Republicans never said they wanted to leave him behind. Just not trade him for five dangerous terrorist in a careless matter.

We've all said we have no problem with sending a special ops team to kill the people holding him hostage and taking him back

^^^ doesn't know his al Qaeda from his Taliban.

Really, I don't get it. It's so easy to understand. Bin Laden was the leader of al Qaeda, the man Republicans let go.

The Taliban were the leaders of the country Republicans invaded to get the guy who brought down the world trade center, but they let that guy go and invaded another country because it had oil. Only they didn't get the oil. So they didn't get the leader of al Qaeda, they didn't get the oil, but they managed to spend 4 to 6 trillion dollars not succeeding in any particular goal.

And the people they call terrorists, they call terrorists because they had to the nerve to fight back after their country was invaded.

Most peculiar.

Correction. The formerly nationalize oil fields of Iraq were liberated and are now in hands of multinational oil companies.

 

[Camp]

Sgt. Bowehammed was a deserter. Why did MSNBC and CNN stop taklkng about the story...because Obama fucked-up.

They haven't stopped talking about the story. The FOX audience is happy to listen to the same old anger and hate hour after hour. That is the FOX base. Normal people want some semblance of actual factual news. For days there has been discussion about the meaning of desertion, awol. capture, kidnapping, etc. Legal experts have explained the meaning of intent in determining desertion. Valid arguments have been made and a general consensus has been reached by people of normal intelligence that a full investigation must be made before reaching a definitive decision.

It is normal to see the zombie robot kind of blind mimicking expected on a political forum. Normal and expected. It is not normal to see that behavior by educated journalist or even political pundits. Only on FOX. On the 70th Anniversary of D-DAY I saw a line of anti troop, leave the boys behind bimbo's arguing with a combat journalist on FOX News about the conditions they wanted placed on unconditional support. Think about what a stupid concept that is. Conditions on unconditional support. Those bimbo's are probably vegetarians, that make exceptions for steak.

 

[Synthaholic]

As more comes out about Bergdahl, Republicans will have lots to answer for


Yup!



The Obama administration had reason to believe that U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's life would have been in serious danger had negotiations for his release become public before the exchange on Saturday, according to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).

"They had intelligence that, had even the fact of these discussions leaked out, there was a reasonable chance Bowe Bergdahl would have been killed," King told CNN's Kate Bolduan on Thursday. "And that was one of the pieces of information that we learned yesterday that gave it some credence in terms of why it had to be kept quiet so long."



King described the difficulty of the decision, which has divided pundits and politicians in Washington, by posing a hypothetical.

"What if this deal hadn't been made and the story today was American POW dies in Taliban camp?" King asked on CNN. "He’s beheaded in Kabul and the president didn't take a deal that was offered?"

"We’d be having all of the same criticism coming from the opposite direction and, you know, that’s why I say, you know, the administration made it a very difficult decision," he said.

So, will all those conservatives who engaged in anti-American rhetoric in the last few days when they chose to believe a Taliban propaganda video over the leadership of their own country while also not giving the benefit of the doubt to American POW who suffered during 5 years of captivity finally apologize for their anti-American statements?

Not a prayer.

 

[Mustang]

As more comes out about Bergdahl, Republicans will have lots to answer for


Yup!



The Obama administration had reason to believe that U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's life would have been in serious danger had negotiations for his release become public before the exchange on Saturday, according to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).

"They had intelligence that, had even the fact of these discussions leaked out, there was a reasonable chance Bowe Bergdahl would have been killed," King told CNN's Kate Bolduan on Thursday. "And that was one of the pieces of information that we learned yesterday that gave it some credence in terms of why it had to be kept quiet so long."



King described the difficulty of the decision, which has divided pundits and politicians in Washington, by posing a hypothetical.

"What if this deal hadn't been made and the story today was American POW dies in Taliban camp?" King asked on CNN. "He’s beheaded in Kabul and the president didn't take a deal that was offered?"

"We’d be having all of the same criticism coming from the opposite direction and, you know, that’s why I say, you know, the administration made it a very difficult decision," he said.

So, will all those conservatives who engaged in anti-American rhetoric in the last few days when they chose to believe a Taliban propaganda video over the leadership of their own country while also not giving the benefit of the doubt to American POW who suffered during 5 years of captivity finally apologize for their anti-American statements?

Not a prayer.

That means only one thing IMHO. It means that their anti-Americanism is not some kind of accident or a fluke that they would regret so much that they would want to make sure they put the record straight with a heartfelt apology. That's what honorable people would do under such circumstances.

So, at BEST, if it was an honest mistake where they jumped to a conclusion, and they won't apologize, then they're not honorable men and women.

But if it wasn't so much a mistake as it was a philosophical view and/or a tactic, then they truly ARE people who hold anti-American sentiments at the core of their value system.

As for me, I don't think they'll apologize either. Their posts don't give me a sense that they have enough class to do it even if they know they should. That's too bad since I think apologizing would actually make them look better than stonewalling everyone would make them look.

Hey, you can lead 'em to water, right?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

^^^ doesn't know his al Qaeda from his Taliban.

^ actually imagines that the freed Taliban fuckwads were not terrorists?????

The Taliban aren't terrorists. That's al Qaeda.

No wonder your posts are so ignorant. It's because you're ignorant.

Apparently your posts are worthless because you are such an assclown laughable liberal hack that you deny reality.

Even President Obumbler's Administration concedes that the Taliban is a terrorist organization: White House: Yes, The Taliban Is a Terrorist Organization - ABC News

Also: Terrorist Organizations Starting with the Letter 'T' - START - National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
and Terrorist Organization Profile - START - National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism

I would like to say you are ignorant, Synthia, but the reality is that you are just a dishonest hack.