(Groan) Bergdahl an offial 'Obama' Disaster!

[jc456]

Bush disaster. If he'd stuck with getting the job done in Afghanistan instead of being side tracked by Iraq, this never happens.

now that's truly funny stuff there.

There's something funny about getting thousands of Americans killed? You're one sick puppy. How does Benghazi's 4 dead even come close to what Bush did, but BG is all the right wants to talk about?!?!

you obviously think so eh?

 

[easyt65]

How does Benghazi's 4 dead even come close to what Bush did, but BG is all the right wants to talk about?!?!

The men Bush sent to war were given Congressional Authority and approval to go. Congress armed them, trained them, and gave them everything they needed to defend themselves.

Hillary and her State Department hired an AL QAEIDA-associated militia (Al Qaeida, as in 9/11/01) to 'protect' the NOW DEAD US Ambassador, the 1st US Ambassador to die in over 30 years.

When every other nation pulled their people out of Benghazi because of the danger Hillary and Obama refused to pull Stevens out. It was reported that they refused to give him defensive supplied, and he had to go to the other nations' reps who were pulling out to beg for road blocks and other supplies to defend himself with. They refused - DENIED - OVER 600 of his requests for additional security. In the last weeks before they let him needlessly die they TOOK AWAY 16 members of his security team...AFTER 2 terrorist attacks on his compound, the 2nd leaving a 4-foot hole in his compound wall. (I guess these were 'practice protests'?!)

You're right - there is no comparison between Bush and Hillary / Obama! They stripped an American of his defenses and left him to die in Benghazi.

 

[Care4all]

He wasn't cut out to serve, the Coast Guard knew it, but the Army was none the wiser...

 

[Sallow]

 

[Sallow]

 

[Sallow]

 

[Sallow]

 

[Sallow]

 

[Sallow]

And it's Bergdahl you guys want to fry..

Gotta love it.

 

[TooTall]

He wasn't cut out to serve, the Coast Guard knew it, but the Army was none the wiser...

He volunteered.

 

[paulitician]

The Taliban are Hussein's biggest fans. They have nothing but kind words for him. So yeah, it is a disastrous fuster cluck.

 

[regent]

Why can the Coast Guard be more selective than the infantry?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"No man left behind". You haven't walked in his shoes; then again, only real Americans believe innocent until proven guilty.

I HAVE 'walked' in his shoes - I have served for nearly 30 years. In fact, I don't think the deserter has walked in MY shoes.

I believe 'innocent until proven guilty', but I also believe there are times when common sense proves you don't have to wait for a jury decision. Case in point - Bergdahl. He has already ADMITTED he went AWOL, admitted he 'deserted' but now claims he intended to come back (yeah, right after he was captured and found out that the enemy didn't want his ass).

And there is a difference in BEING guilty and being FOUND Guilty. I have seen cases where there was no doubt - no reasonable doubt, even cases where confessions were thrown out on technicalities - and the guy walked after being found 'innocent'. As I stated, the Bergdahl case is not one of those, though. He will be found guilty by a jury of his peers.

In 30 years you must have learned that a jury in a General Court martial has at least 2/3 officers, who are not his peers.

and that would make 1/3 his peers right? Seems the statement is accurate.

No, this would have been accurate:

"He will be found guilty by a jury, 1/3 of whom will be his peers, 2/3 will be officers".

Well, maybe not accurate, he might be found not guilty of desertion, and guilty of going AWOL.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In 30 years you must have learned that a jury in a General Court martial has at least 2/3 officers, who are not his peers.

I was talking about military members, who HAVE served, who HAVE 'walked in his shoes', not a bunch of bleeding-heart, pansy-ass Liberals who feel sorry for this deserter

And how can you tell who served and who didn't? Do you think I didn't?

 

[jc456]

"No man left behind". You haven't walked in his shoes; then again, only real Americans believe innocent until proven guilty.

I HAVE 'walked' in his shoes - I have served for nearly 30 years. In fact, I don't think the deserter has walked in MY shoes.

I believe 'innocent until proven guilty', but I also believe there are times when common sense proves you don't have to wait for a jury decision. Case in point - Bergdahl. He has already ADMITTED he went AWOL, admitted he 'deserted' but now claims he intended to come back (yeah, right after he was captured and found out that the enemy didn't want his ass).

And there is a difference in BEING guilty and being FOUND Guilty. I have seen cases where there was no doubt - no reasonable doubt, even cases where confessions were thrown out on technicalities - and the guy walked after being found 'innocent'. As I stated, the Bergdahl case is not one of those, though. He will be found guilty by a jury of his peers.

In 30 years you must have learned that a jury in a General Court martial has at least 2/3 officers, who are not his peers.

and that would make 1/3 his peers right? Seems the statement is accurate.

No, this would have been accurate:

"He will be found guilty by a jury, 1/3 of whom will be his peers, 2/3 will be officers".

Well, maybe not accurate, he might be found not guilty of desertion, and guilty of going AWOL.

they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"No man left behind". You haven't walked in his shoes; then again, only real Americans believe innocent until proven guilty.

I HAVE 'walked' in his shoes - I have served for nearly 30 years. In fact, I don't think the deserter has walked in MY shoes.

I believe 'innocent until proven guilty', but I also believe there are times when common sense proves you don't have to wait for a jury decision. Case in point - Bergdahl. He has already ADMITTED he went AWOL, admitted he 'deserted' but now claims he intended to come back (yeah, right after he was captured and found out that the enemy didn't want his ass).

And there is a difference in BEING guilty and being FOUND Guilty. I have seen cases where there was no doubt - no reasonable doubt, even cases where confessions were thrown out on technicalities - and the guy walked after being found 'innocent'. As I stated, the Bergdahl case is not one of those, though. He will be found guilty by a jury of his peers.

In 30 years you must have learned that a jury in a General Court martial has at least 2/3 officers, who are not his peers.

and that would make 1/3 his peers right? Seems the statement is accurate.

No, this would have been accurate:

"He will be found guilty by a jury, 1/3 of whom will be his peers, 2/3 will be officers".

Well, maybe not accurate, he might be found not guilty of desertion, and guilty of going AWOL.

they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.

A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.

 

[Rustic]

Bush disaster. If he'd stuck with getting the job done in Afghanistan instead of being side tracked by Iraq, this never happens.

Bergdahl needs to burn...

 

[jc456]

I HAVE 'walked' in his shoes - I have served for nearly 30 years. In fact, I don't think the deserter has walked in MY shoes.

I believe 'innocent until proven guilty', but I also believe there are times when common sense proves you don't have to wait for a jury decision. Case in point - Bergdahl. He has already ADMITTED he went AWOL, admitted he 'deserted' but now claims he intended to come back (yeah, right after he was captured and found out that the enemy didn't want his ass).

And there is a difference in BEING guilty and being FOUND Guilty. I have seen cases where there was no doubt - no reasonable doubt, even cases where confessions were thrown out on technicalities - and the guy walked after being found 'innocent'. As I stated, the Bergdahl case is not one of those, though. He will be found guilty by a jury of his peers.

In 30 years you must have learned that a jury in a General Court martial has at least 2/3 officers, who are not his peers.

and that would make 1/3 his peers right? Seems the statement is accurate.

No, this would have been accurate:

"He will be found guilty by a jury, 1/3 of whom will be his peers, 2/3 will be officers".

Well, maybe not accurate, he might be found not guilty of desertion, and guilty of going AWOL.

they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.

A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.

yeah and?

 

[Wry Catcher]

In 30 years you must have learned that a jury in a General Court martial has at least 2/3 officers, who are not his peers.

and that would make 1/3 his peers right? Seems the statement is accurate.

No, this would have been accurate:

"He will be found guilty by a jury, 1/3 of whom will be his peers, 2/3 will be officers".

Well, maybe not accurate, he might be found not guilty of desertion, and guilty of going AWOL.

they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.

A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.

yeah and?

Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.

 

[jc456]

and that would make 1/3 his peers right? Seems the statement is accurate.

No, this would have been accurate:

"He will be found guilty by a jury, 1/3 of whom will be his peers, 2/3 will be officers".

Well, maybe not accurate, he might be found not guilty of desertion, and guilty of going AWOL.

they're his peers. funny you still don't get that. It didn't say the percent were his peers, a jury of your peers is your peers. and they are accommodating that.

A lie by omission is a lie. A lie is an attempt to mislead. You either lied or you didn't know. An honest person would admit the error.

yeah and?

Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.

what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.