Right-Wing Bergdahl Flip Flop is All About Obama

[FA_Q2]

See? It's all about hating Obama.

True.

Most on the right will spin, distort, contrive, and lie about events in an effort to attack the president for some perceived partisan gain.

And yet here in this case none of that happened. Makes one wonder why you brought it up all all.
Possibly to 'spin, distort, contrive, and lie about events' in order to make this look like a good and correct call.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Kinda sad how the folks who claim to be great patriots are using this guy however they see fit to trash Obama.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Kinda sad how the folks who claim to be great patriots are using this guy however they see fit to trash Obama.

Kinda sad that this is your one and only argument.

How does rightly calling Bergdahl a traitor imply hatred towards Obama? How is ridiculing this stupidity of the five for one deal hating Obama?

Just how many times do you bow on that mat in the direction of Obama's backside?

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Papageorgio]

Kinda sad how the folks who claim to be great patriots are using this guy however they see fit to trash Obama.

Kind of sad when liberals have nothing and try ti come up with a bunch of BS!

 

[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.

 

[Synthaholic]

See? It's all about hating Obama.

You gonna cry when he goes to prison for his actions?

Not if his trial produces a guilty verdict.

But that's the difference - I'm not willing to leave Americans on the battlefield because Sean Hannity decides he's guilty.

 

[Synthaholic]

And now that you've hogged the entire first page of your thread, leaving no room for opposing opinion (hogging the limelight and controlling the message, are we?)...

Do you need your diaper changed?

 

[Synthaholic]

before they found out what a low life POS deserting scumbag he is. When information came out

From all your favorite politically-confirming sources.

 

[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.

 

[Synthaholic]

See? It's all about hating Obama.

OK...

And now that you've hogged the entire first page of your thread, leaving no room for opposing opinion (hogging the limelight and controlling the message, are we?)...

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you're right, for the moment, or, at least, somewhere in the neighborhood of being right...

Meaning that the present widespread support of the military's decision to charge Berghdal with Desertion, and that the present widespread outcry against the Administration for trading five Taliban operatives for an alleged Deserter, are all linked, at least in part, to hatred for Obama.

Conceding all that, for the moment...

So what?

What does it matter?

Is there sufficient evidence against Berghdahl, to warrant him being charged with Desertion?

Yes.

Did a President of the United States trade five (mortal enemy) Taliban operatives for an American soldier already strongly suspected at the time of Desertion?

Yes.

Would any other President be broadly and strongly criticized for doing what Obama did?

Yes.

All of that is sufficient to the day.

This supposed 'hatred of Obama' is merely another factor in the equation, and may have some bearing on the scope or scale (the volume) of the outcry, but is unlikely to have influenced the matter by an order of magnitude.

Hell, you can probably dig deep enough on the Internet and find considerable vicious criticism of Mother Theresa or Francis of Assisi or other much-beloved figures.

Mind you, it's convenient, when you wish to bash someone, and they so conveniently and thoughtfully provide you with such ammunition, but that doesn't invalidate the ammunition nor does it validate the Bad Decision-Making that went into the manufacture of such ammunition.

Don't want to be on the receiving end of such metaphorical rocks?

Don't make Bad Decisions related to Subject Matter (our dealings with the Islamic world) in which you are already 'suspect' or under extraordinarily close scrutiny, and don't make Bad Decisions related to Subject Matter (desertion from the military) in which the vast majority of Americans readily muster such a visceral and unforgiving reaction.

Simple.

Next slide, please.

I am not in any way defending Berghdahl but how do you charge him with desertion? I can see dereliction of duty or disobeying orders but just because he took a stupid ill advised walk in a war zone does that really constitute desertion? Did he go over to the other side and fight? Did he do propaganda for the other side? Did he go to the rear of the action? I say no to all of the above. I think you would have a hard time proving desertion.

Your questions are the clear reason why there should be a trial first, instead of RW media "personalities" who all dodged military service telling you how to think about this.

 

[Kondor3]

And now that you've hogged the entire first page of your thread, leaving no room for opposing opinion (hogging the limelight and controlling the message, are we?)...

Do you need your diaper changed?

Non sequitur...

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Kinda sad how the folks who claim to be great patriots are using this guy however they see fit to trash Obama.

Kinda sad that this is your one and only argument.

How does rightly calling Bergdahl a traitor imply hatred towards Obama? How is ridiculing this stupidity of the five for one deal hating Obama?

Just how many times do you bow on that mat in the direction of Obama's backside?

Traitor?

When did Bergdhal get convicted of treason? I totally missed that one.

 

[Freewill]

See? It's all about hating Obama.

OK...

And now that you've hogged the entire first page of your thread, leaving no room for opposing opinion (hogging the limelight and controlling the message, are we?)...

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you're right, for the moment, or, at least, somewhere in the neighborhood of being right...

Meaning that the present widespread support of the military's decision to charge Berghdal with Desertion, and that the present widespread outcry against the Administration for trading five Taliban operatives for an alleged Deserter, are all linked, at least in part, to hatred for Obama.

Conceding all that, for the moment...

So what?

What does it matter?

Is there sufficient evidence against Berghdahl, to warrant him being charged with Desertion?

Yes.

Did a President of the United States trade five (mortal enemy) Taliban operatives for an American soldier already strongly suspected at the time of Desertion?

Yes.

Would any other President be broadly and strongly criticized for doing what Obama did?

Yes.

All of that is sufficient to the day.

This supposed 'hatred of Obama' is merely another factor in the equation, and may have some bearing on the scope or scale (the volume) of the outcry, but is unlikely to have influenced the matter by an order of magnitude.

Hell, you can probably dig deep enough on the Internet and find considerable vicious criticism of Mother Theresa or Francis of Assisi or other much-beloved figures.

Mind you, it's convenient, when you wish to bash someone, and they so conveniently and thoughtfully provide you with such ammunition, but that doesn't invalidate the ammunition nor does it validate the Bad Decision-Making that went into the manufacture of such ammunition.

Don't want to be on the receiving end of such metaphorical rocks?

Don't make Bad Decisions related to Subject Matter (our dealings with the Islamic world) in which you are already 'suspect' or under extraordinarily close scrutiny, and don't make Bad Decisions related to Subject Matter (desertion from the military) in which the vast majority of Americans readily muster such a visceral and unforgiving reaction.

Simple.

Next slide, please.

I am not in any way defending Berghdahl but how do you charge him with desertion? I can see dereliction of duty or disobeying orders but just because he took a stupid ill advised walk in a war zone does that really constitute desertion? Did he go over to the other side and fight? Did he do propaganda for the other side? Did he go to the rear of the action? I say no to all of the above. I think you would have a hard time proving desertion.

Your questions are the clear reason why there should be a trial first, instead of RW media "personalities" who all dodged military service telling you how to think about this.

 

[2aguy]

Kinda sad how the folks who claim to be great patriots are using this guy however they see fit to trash Obama.

No...obama used this guy as an excuse to release monsters back into the wild...when we had them safely locked away......now when they kill...that blood is on obama....

 

[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...

 

[Freewill]

See? It's all about hating Obama.

OK...

And now that you've hogged the entire first page of your thread, leaving no room for opposing opinion (hogging the limelight and controlling the message, are we?)...

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that you're right, for the moment, or, at least, somewhere in the neighborhood of being right...

Meaning that the present widespread support of the military's decision to charge Berghdal with Desertion, and that the present widespread outcry against the Administration for trading five Taliban operatives for an alleged Deserter, are all linked, at least in part, to hatred for Obama.

Conceding all that, for the moment...

So what?

What does it matter?

Is there sufficient evidence against Berghdahl, to warrant him being charged with Desertion?

Yes.

Did a President of the United States trade five (mortal enemy) Taliban operatives for an American soldier already strongly suspected at the time of Desertion?

Yes.

Would any other President be broadly and strongly criticized for doing what Obama did?

Yes.

All of that is sufficient to the day.

This supposed 'hatred of Obama' is merely another factor in the equation, and may have some bearing on the scope or scale (the volume) of the outcry, but is unlikely to have influenced the matter by an order of magnitude.

Hell, you can probably dig deep enough on the Internet and find considerable vicious criticism of Mother Theresa or Francis of Assisi or other much-beloved figures.

Mind you, it's convenient, when you wish to bash someone, and they so conveniently and thoughtfully provide you with such ammunition, but that doesn't invalidate the ammunition nor does it validate the Bad Decision-Making that went into the manufacture of such ammunition.

Don't want to be on the receiving end of such metaphorical rocks?

Don't make Bad Decisions related to Subject Matter (our dealings with the Islamic world) in which you are already 'suspect' or under extraordinarily close scrutiny, and don't make Bad Decisions related to Subject Matter (desertion from the military) in which the vast majority of Americans readily muster such a visceral and unforgiving reaction.

Simple.

Next slide, please.

I am not in any way defending Berghdahl but how do you charge him with desertion? I can see dereliction of duty or disobeying orders but just because he took a stupid ill advised walk in a war zone does that really constitute desertion? Did he go over to the other side and fight? Did he do propaganda for the other side? Did he go to the rear of the action? I say no to all of the above. I think you would have a hard time proving desertion.

Your questions are the clear reason why there should be a trial first, instead of RW media "personalities" who all dodged military service telling you how to think about this.

You response is a load of crap. 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.