If the guys who served with him are telling the truth (why would they lie?), then the guy was a deserter who gave aid and comfort to the enemy i.e treason.
Obama made a terrible deal------------5 for 1, and set a terrible precedent that puts every american at risk.
thats the real tragedy here.
"Gave aid and comfort to the enemy?" Did you see those pictures? Did Bergdahl look like he was a willing participant?
Let's talk about the issue of desertion for a minute. To my knowledge, the vast majority of deserters are soldiers who went AWOL while in the US, and they haven't returned to their post or been apprehended by MPs within a 30 day window because they have no intention of returning. THAT is when it becomes desertion. Desertion in a war zone is exceedingly rare. There's no indication that the military honestly believed Bergdahl deserted or they wouldn't have continued to give him promotions. The point is that to my knowledge, there were NO witnesses to what happened to Bergdahl, including these 'soldiers' who are telling their 'stories.'
But if Bergdahl deserted his unit in a war zone, he certainly had no reasonable expectation of EVER returning to the US except in chains. And once here, he could expect to spend a decade (if not much longer) in a military stockade. Therefore, why would the Taliban need to keep Bergdahl a prisoner if he was a deserter not only from his unit, but from his country, as well? They wouldn't. Under those circumstances, Bergdahl could very well be a recruiting tool for the Taliban as well as a great source of intelligence into how the military runs and how to understand American culture.
The point is this. The fact that Bergdahl was a prisoner would seem to be a VERY strong indication that he did NOT desert his unit. He simply was captured at some point while away from post and was unable to return within 30 days of his disappearance.
Or does that explanation simply make too much sense for conservatives to understand it?