Right-Wing Bergdahl Flip Flop is All About Obama

[2aguy]

One, at first we knew little about the circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance and conduct thereafter.

Why didn't you know? It was fairly common knowledge that he deserted his post.

Two, as soon as evidence began to surface that Bergdahl had deserted, which started happening a day or two after the deal was announced,

Except that no 'evidence' began to surface. FOXNEWS/RW Media speculation began to surface. Evidence results from a trial - had Bergdahl received a trial at that point? No.

No...it wasn't...they silenced the guys in his unit, and then they talked when they were out of the service and Obama traded him for the high ranking Taliban killers....

 

[Synthaholic]

My issue is not with getting Bergdahl back bring him back and let him answer for what he did my problem is with what we gave up to get him back. The serious question here is why would the administration swap five senior Taliban commanders for one enlisted man when the circumstances of his disapperance and capture were highly suspect something the administration almost surely knew before making the swap.

Funny how wingnuts could care less when Bush says bin Laden is not a concern, and he doesn't spend time thinking about him or prioritizing his capture/death, but wingnuts go apeshit because some low-lever fighters get traded back - is that because Bush is a Republican, or because Bush is White?

But I guess that's why you are wingnuts.

Funny how you left wing loons always manage to work Bush into the conversation when can't debate the point.

Funny that you see it being about Bush when it's clearly about you and your fellow wingnuts.

Funny how neither you or none of your fellow left wing loons have have been able or willing to dispute my point about the swap.

There is no valid point about the swap except that we do not leave our military on the battlefield.

Or does that just apply when there's a Republican President?

 

[Synthaholic]

My issue is not with getting Bergdahl back bring him back and let him answer for what he did my problem is with what we gave up to get him back. The serious question here is why would the administration swap five senior Taliban commanders for one enlisted man when the circumstances of his disapperance and capture were highly suspect something the administration almost surely knew before making the swap.

Funny how wingnuts could care less when Bush says bin Laden is not a concern, and he doesn't spend time thinking about him or prioritizing his capture/death, but wingnuts go apeshit because some low-lever fighters get traded back - is that because Bush is a Republican, or because Bush is White?

But I guess that's why you are wingnuts.

Low level?..you wish...

Were they as high level as bin Laden, whom Bush said he wasn't concerned about and didn't spend much time thinking about?

There was no Right-Wing outrage at those statements.

 

[Synthaholic]

When things like this happen it is bound to be discussed. Like Zimmerman, the left had him in jail even before he was charged. They went as far as to call him a white Latino. Hell Obama gets most of his information from reading the news, or having it read to him. I guess if that is good enough for him then it should be good enough for the rest of us.

^^^ Admits this is all about Obama, just like I said.

 

[Synthaholic]

One, at first we knew little about the circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance and conduct thereafter.

Why didn't you know? It was fairly common knowledge that he deserted his post.

Two, as soon as evidence began to surface that Bergdahl had deserted, which started happening a day or two after the deal was announced,

Except that no 'evidence' began to surface. FOXNEWS/RW Media speculation began to surface. Evidence results from a trial - had Bergdahl received a trial at that point? No.

No...it wasn't...they silenced the guys in his unit, and then they talked when they were out of the service and Obama traded him for the high ranking Taliban killers....

Try turning on the real news instead of your Right-Wing-confirming FOX.

 

[2aguy]

My issue is not with getting Bergdahl back bring him back and let him answer for what he did my problem is with what we gave up to get him back. The serious question here is why would the administration swap five senior Taliban commanders for one enlisted man when the circumstances of his disapperance and capture were highly suspect something the administration almost surely knew before making the swap.

Funny how wingnuts could care less when Bush says bin Laden is not a concern, and he doesn't spend time thinking about him or prioritizing his capture/death, but wingnuts go apeshit because some low-lever fighters get traded back - is that because Bush is a Republican, or because Bush is White?

But I guess that's why you are wingnuts.

Low level?..you wish...

Were they as high level as bin Laden, whom Bush said he wasn't concerned about and didn't spend much time thinking about?

There was no Right-Wing outrage at those statements.

bin laden was one guy...and Bush rightly knew that as soon as you killed obama then the democrats would say "were done here" and want to end all combat operations against the rest of the killers still out there....and gee...that is just what obama did.........making bin laden the only goal would have been a stupid idea.....killing the entire network and infrastructure is how you prevent future attacks.....

 

[Freewill]

When things like this happen it is bound to be discussed. Like Zimmerman, the left had him in jail even before he was charged. They went as far as to call him a white Latino. Hell Obama gets most of his information from reading the news, or having it read to him. I guess if that is good enough for him then it should be good enough for the rest of us.

^^^ Admits this is all about Obama, just like I said.

I am pretty sure that thinking people will realize that is not what I said so let me explain it to the liberals. The bolded indicates that Obama gets his news from the press, nothing else.

 

[blackhawk]

My issue is not with getting Bergdahl back bring him back and let him answer for what he did my problem is with what we gave up to get him back. The serious question here is why would the administration swap five senior Taliban commanders for one enlisted man when the circumstances of his disapperance and capture were highly suspect something the administration almost surely knew before making the swap.

Funny how wingnuts could care less when Bush says bin Laden is not a concern, and he doesn't spend time thinking about him or prioritizing his capture/death, but wingnuts go apeshit because some low-lever fighters get traded back - is that because Bush is a Republican, or because Bush is White?

But I guess that's why you are wingnuts.

Funny how you left wing loons always manage to work Bush into the conversation when can't debate the point.

Funny that you see it being about Bush when it's clearly about you and your fellow wingnuts.

Funny how neither you or none of your fellow left wing loons have have been able or willing to dispute my point about the swap.

There is no valid point about the swap except that we do not leave our military on the battlefield.

Or does that just apply when there's a Republican President?

Just because your to partisan to acknowledge a valid point does not mean there isn't one. It is always valid to question trading what was essentially five Taliban generals for one enlisted man who left his post under questionable at best circumstances no matter what party the President belongs to. I suspect you would feel very different if this swap had been done by a Republican President.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Actually it is a good study in liberals love hate for the military.

Conservatives make heros out of our men and women in uniform, that is why when someone like Bergdahl comes around it makes the service look bad thus conservatives don't like it.

On the other hand liberals hate those who do what they would not and serve in the military. Thus when someone like Bergdahl comes around they say he severed with honor and distinction.

That is pretty much what Obama has done, which is separate from what Bergdahl did.

Oh, that's such bullshit.

Kerry served; Bush did not.

A President at the time with actual military service would have served us better than what we ended up with, which is America's biggest foreign policy fuck-up in Iraq by chickenhawks who didn't know shit.

Aint it funny..Bush skips out on war....Rush had ass problems and couldnt go....And Ted Nugent literally crapped his pants to avoid service...Oliver North sells weapons to oh so scary Iran and is loved by the right.

And they say that the Left hates the military?

 

[Synthaholic]

...and Bush rightly knew that as soon as you killed obama then the democrats would say "were done here" and want to end all combat operations against the rest of the killers still out there

OK, I'm clearly seeing that you're either a retard, or you just make shit up and think none of us lived through the Iraq War years.

 

[Synthaholic]

Funny how wingnuts could care less when Bush says bin Laden is not a concern, and he doesn't spend time thinking about him or prioritizing his capture/death, but wingnuts go apeshit because some low-lever fighters get traded back - is that because Bush is a Republican, or because Bush is White?

But I guess that's why you are wingnuts.

Funny how you left wing loons always manage to work Bush into the conversation when can't debate the point.

Funny that you see it being about Bush when it's clearly about you and your fellow wingnuts.

Funny how neither you or none of your fellow left wing loons have have been able or willing to dispute my point about the swap.

There is no valid point about the swap except that we do not leave our military on the battlefield.

Or does that just apply when there's a Republican President?

Just because your to partisan to acknowledge a valid point does not mean there isn't one. It is always valid to question trading what was essentially five Taliban generals for one enlisted man who left his post under questionable at best circumstances no matter what party the President belongs to. I suspect you would feel very different if this swap had been done by a Republican President.

Show me in history where we knowingly, purposely left active-duty U.S. soldiers in enemy hands.

You're the big military man with your username and avatar - inform us when we've ever told our military "Tough shit, buddy - you got caught, you're on your own".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Right-Wing Bergdahl Flip Flop is All About Obama"

More straw reasoning... common to the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Show me in history where we knowingly, purposely left active-duty U.S. soldiers in enemy hands. ...

MORE Straw reasoning.

First, the US didn't lose Bergdahl, he walked off to go find the enemy and join with them...

Second, Not Leaving the traitor does not equate to having to trade him for 5 enemy Generals.

I hope that helps...

 

[blackhawk]

Funny how you left wing loons always manage to work Bush into the conversation when can't debate the point.

Funny that you see it being about Bush when it's clearly about you and your fellow wingnuts.

Funny how neither you or none of your fellow left wing loons have have been able or willing to dispute my point about the swap.

There is no valid point about the swap except that we do not leave our military on the battlefield.

Or does that just apply when there's a Republican President?

Just because your to partisan to acknowledge a valid point does not mean there isn't one. It is always valid to question trading what was essentially five Taliban generals for one enlisted man who left his post under questionable at best circumstances no matter what party the President belongs to. I suspect you would feel very different if this swap had been done by a Republican President.

Show me in history where we knowingly, purposely left active-duty U.S. soldiers in enemy hands.

You're the big military man with your username and avatar - inform us when we've ever told our military "Tough shit, buddy - you got caught, you're on your own".

I have never claimed or suggested that my point which you still have not addressed was and still is about how much was given up to get this one man I never suggested leaving him on his on. Your continued deflection does nothing but highlight the fact that you can't make any worthwhile argument for your position.

 

[Synthaholic]

Funny that you see it being about Bush when it's clearly about you and your fellow wingnuts.

Funny how neither you or none of your fellow left wing loons have have been able or willing to dispute my point about the swap.

There is no valid point about the swap except that we do not leave our military on the battlefield.

Or does that just apply when there's a Republican President?

Just because your to partisan to acknowledge a valid point does not mean there isn't one. It is always valid to question trading what was essentially five Taliban generals for one enlisted man who left his post under questionable at best circumstances no matter what party the President belongs to. I suspect you would feel very different if this swap had been done by a Republican President.

Show me in history where we knowingly, purposely left active-duty U.S. soldiers in enemy hands.

You're the big military man with your username and avatar - inform us when we've ever told our military "Tough shit, buddy - you got caught, you're on your own".

I have never claimed or suggested that my point which you still have not addressed was and still is about how much was given up to get this one man I never suggested leaving him on his on. Your continued deflection does nothing but highlight the fact that you can't make any worthwhile argument for your position.

I knew you couldn't come up with any examples.

You prove the OP title absolutely true, once again.

 

[blackhawk]

Funny how neither you or none of your fellow left wing loons have have been able or willing to dispute my point about the swap.

There is no valid point about the swap except that we do not leave our military on the battlefield.

Or does that just apply when there's a Republican President?

Just because your to partisan to acknowledge a valid point does not mean there isn't one. It is always valid to question trading what was essentially five Taliban generals for one enlisted man who left his post under questionable at best circumstances no matter what party the President belongs to. I suspect you would feel very different if this swap had been done by a Republican President.

Show me in history where we knowingly, purposely left active-duty U.S. soldiers in enemy hands.

You're the big military man with your username and avatar - inform us when we've ever told our military "Tough shit, buddy - you got caught, you're on your own".

I have never claimed or suggested that my point which you still have not addressed was and still is about how much was given up to get this one man I never suggested leaving him on his on. Your continued deflection does nothing but highlight the fact that you can't make any worthwhile argument for your position.

I knew you couldn't come up with any examples.

You prove the OP title absolutely true, once again.

Why would I need to come up with examples of something I neither claimed or suggested? The thing being proven here is you can't defend your claim.

 

[FA_Q2]

Funny how you left wing loons always manage to work Bush into the conversation when can't debate the point.

Funny that you see it being about Bush when it's clearly about you and your fellow wingnuts.

Funny how neither you or none of your fellow left wing loons have have been able or willing to dispute my point about the swap.

There is no valid point about the swap except that we do not leave our military on the battlefield.

Or does that just apply when there's a Republican President?

Just because your to partisan to acknowledge a valid point does not mean there isn't one. It is always valid to question trading what was essentially five Taliban generals for one enlisted man who left his post under questionable at best circumstances no matter what party the President belongs to. I suspect you would feel very different if this swap had been done by a Republican President.

Show me in history where we knowingly, purposely left active-duty U.S. soldiers in enemy hands.

You're the big military man with your username and avatar - inform us when we've ever told our military "Tough shit, buddy - you got caught, you're on your own".

Not trading 5 Taliban brass for this soldier does not equate to ‘leaving him behind.’ You know this. It is telling that you still act as though those are the only two options – perhaps because your accusations are rather meaningless if you do not rely on that falsehood.

 

[Synthaholic]

There is no valid point about the swap except that we do not leave our military on the battlefield.

Or does that just apply when there's a Republican President?

Just because your to partisan to acknowledge a valid point does not mean there isn't one. It is always valid to question trading what was essentially five Taliban generals for one enlisted man who left his post under questionable at best circumstances no matter what party the President belongs to. I suspect you would feel very different if this swap had been done by a Republican President.

Show me in history where we knowingly, purposely left active-duty U.S. soldiers in enemy hands.

You're the big military man with your username and avatar - inform us when we've ever told our military "Tough shit, buddy - you got caught, you're on your own".

I have never claimed or suggested that my point which you still have not addressed was and still is about how much was given up to get this one man I never suggested leaving him on his on. Your continued deflection does nothing but highlight the fact that you can't make any worthwhile argument for your position.

I knew you couldn't come up with any examples.

You prove the OP title absolutely true, once again.

Why would I need to come up with examples of something I neither claimed or suggested? The thing being proven here is you can't defend your claim.

What claim do you believe I can't defend?

And how do you know what was really given up? Everything we know about these Taliban fighters is from the dreaded U.S. government. You have no idea what CIA knows about them, or knows about how to find them again in the future, or any myriad things they know that make these guys no longer much of a threat. They could have trackers surgically implanted into their bodies, for all you know.

But the blond woman with the big tits on FOX told you to be afraid, so here you are, quaking dutifully.

 

[blackhawk]

Just because your to partisan to acknowledge a valid point does not mean there isn't one. It is always valid to question trading what was essentially five Taliban generals for one enlisted man who left his post under questionable at best circumstances no matter what party the President belongs to. I suspect you would feel very different if this swap had been done by a Republican President.

Show me in history where we knowingly, purposely left active-duty U.S. soldiers in enemy hands.

You're the big military man with your username and avatar - inform us when we've ever told our military "Tough shit, buddy - you got caught, you're on your own".

I have never claimed or suggested that my point which you still have not addressed was and still is about how much was given up to get this one man I never suggested leaving him on his on. Your continued deflection does nothing but highlight the fact that you can't make any worthwhile argument for your position.

I knew you couldn't come up with any examples.

You prove the OP title absolutely true, once again.

Why would I need to come up with examples of something I neither claimed or suggested? The thing being proven here is you can't defend your claim.

What claim do you believe I can't defend?

And how do you know what was really given up? Everything we know about these Taliban fighters is from the dreaded U.S. government. You have no idea what CIA knows about them, or knows about how to find them again in the future, or any myriad things they know that make these guys no longer much of a threat. They could have trackers surgically implanted into their bodies, for all you know.

But the blond woman with the big tits on FOX told you to be afraid, so here you are, quaking dutifully.

Some of what we know about them came from the U,N yeah they could have trackers in them and they could also have had magic dust from hogwarts school of magic sprinkled on them as well but I highly doubt either one happened. The claim you can't defend is this one.

inform us when we've ever told our military "Tough shit, buddy - you got caught, you're on your own".[/QUOTE]

Your implying or suggesting I claimed this I never have. Since the black man in the White House the same one who told you if you like your current insurance plan and doctor you will be able to keep them period has told you no need to worry about these five high ranking Taliban you just say Ok and blindly follow along.

 

[Synthaholic]

^^^ Believes the U.N. only when it's convenient.