Bergdahl deal disgraceful

  • Follow Letters

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is being treated as a hero, and I assume most people are glad for his release by the Taliban. This is purely a political move on the part of the Obama administration, and to those who give only a passing nod to things, it probably will make the administration look good and on top of things!

In the first instance, Bergdahl is anything but heroic. There are a lot of questions surrounding his “captivity,” and I sincerely hope Congress will take these questions on in due time. To begin, Bergdahl didn’t appear to be a good soldier or a good citizen, and disparaged the Army he served in and the country he served. He reportedly expressed sympathy for the Taliban!

Those such as myself who have spent considerable time in uniform will know that he is a deserter in every sense of the word. He quit his post in the presence of an armed enemy intent on taking the lives of his comrades in any way possible!

My belief is that he intentionally turned himself over to the Taliban, or at least went where he knew they would find him.

As for the Obama administration, it intentionally broke the law by negotiating with terrorists, and the terrorists won by obtaining the release of five of their most ruthless and capable commanders, who soon will be back in the killing fields doing their work!

By negotiating with terrorists, the Obama administration now has set a price on the head of every American, particularly those who wear the uniform!

If you are a terrorist, capture an American and negotiate his or her release, apparently you surely will get what you want!

This is certainly one way for President Obama to fulfill his promise to close down the Guantanamo facility! Put the inmates back in the field!

Comments (91) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
carcraft
27808
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 07:14 pm
4
0
Pond life that's what really

Pond life that's what really gets me about Obama. He will sign a bill into law purely to grand stand then not adhere to it. Basically no principle just the whim of the moment. Why sign it into law?

RMSHEFF
17743
Points
RMSHEFF 06/10/14 - 07:16 pm
4
0
If Burn will defend Obama he

If Burn will defend Obama he will defend anything. Obama has taken thing to a new level. Burn deserves what he get by defending Obama but we will all suffer.

corgimom
36420
Points
corgimom 06/10/14 - 07:46 pm
1
4
I'm wondering- what do people

I'm wondering- what do people think an American is worth?

Because the same people that are criticizing this are the same ones who have freaked out over 4 Americans that got killed at an embassy.

So it's ok to abandon one POW, but flip out over 4 people at an embassy?

Where are people's values? How can they "care" so much about 4 dead people but not care about one live POW?

We never, ever abandon a POW. Ever.

Where are all the "true Americans' and the "conservatives" that think it's ok to abandon a POW?

How are 5 prisoners "assets"- what, are they slaves? There is no monetary value assigned to people.

corgimom
36420
Points
corgimom 06/10/14 - 07:48 pm
0
4
"NO President has been

"NO President has been allowed to directly violate a law, and had that violation upheld in court."

Pond Life- please refer yourself to the Emancipation Proclamation issued by A. Lincoln.

burninater
9786
Points
burninater 06/10/14 - 07:49 pm
0
3
How is a non-enforcement of a

How is a non-enforcement of a law not a violation of the law, when you are legally obligated to uphold the law?

burninater
9786
Points
burninater 06/10/14 - 07:59 pm
2
4
"Pond life that's what really

"Pond life that's what really gets me about Obama. He will sign a bill into law purely to grand stand then not adhere to it. Basically no principle just the whim of the moment. Why sign it into law?"
------
If you think this is a characteristic unique to the Obama administration, then you have forgotten your recent history.

"The Reagan administration officially announced this policy in 1986 with the publication of a memorandum by Samuel Alito, Jr., then an attorney in the Justice Department. Signing statements emerged as a means to express “the president’s interpretation of the language of the law, announce constitutional limits on the implementation of some of its provisions, or indicate directions to executive branch officials as to how to administer the new law.” George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton continued this practice. In the 1993 Dellinger Memorandum, Solicitor General Walter Dellinger asserted that “there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.” Such assertions emerged as a regular mechanism of executive authority. Through the 1990s, presidential non-enforcement power remained relatively uncontroversial...."

http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Calkins/Gates.pdf

bubba2014
464
Points
bubba2014 06/10/14 - 08:05 pm
5
0
"I think we are getting a
Unpublished

"I think we are getting a taste of what a dangerous person Obama is."
@KSL - you are correct. Obama hates everything this country was founded on. He will do great harm to this country before he is though.

KSL
139571
Points
KSL 06/10/14 - 08:11 pm
4
1
Corgi, there is a difference

Corgi, there is a difference in our minds about pows who were cwptured and Bergdahl, who walked away from his post, leavimg his uniform, weapon, and a note, almost ceremoniously. Huge difference.

RMSHEFF
17743
Points
RMSHEFF 06/10/14 - 08:15 pm
4
0
Burn

Even the Liberal Law Professor and Constitutional Scholar Jonathan Turley is concerned over Obama circumventing congress and the constitution. We are at a tipping point !

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/05/27/the-great-excuse-obama-blames-the-c...

bubba2014
464
Points
bubba2014 06/10/14 - 08:16 pm
4
0
" So it's ok to abandon one
Unpublished

" So it's ok to abandon one POW, but flip out over 4 people at an embassy?"
@corgimom - I find it insulting that you would compared a deserter to the brave folks that died at the embassy.

carcraft
27808
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 08:24 pm
5
0
Why is it ok for Obama and

Why is it ok for Obama and Hilary to abandon 4 people at an Embassy who REPEATEDLY requested further security but not abandon a deserter?

carcraft
27808
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 08:25 pm
4
0
There that's a better

There that's a better question!

carcraft
27808
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 08:45 pm
5
0
OK for Obama to violate and

OK for Obama to violate and refuse to enforced laws? Doesn't matter that hundreds if not thousands of children are being dumped in the US from south America for US citizens to pay to care for feed etc.? Doesn't matter that criminal elements are illegally coming into America and flooding across America? I just hope one of these SOB's doesn't harm you or your family like the Nun killed by the illegal with MULTIPLE DUI's. Doesn't bother you that the law enforcement agencies tag with protecting our boarders can't? Find but there are elements of Obama's behaviors that are illegal, unconstitutional and damaging to America!

KSL
139571
Points
KSL 06/10/14 - 09:17 pm
5
1
Obama is using the office of

Obama is using the office of the potus to thumb his nose at us.

Bizkit
34240
Points
Bizkit 06/10/14 - 10:05 pm
5
0
Regardless of the

Regardless of the legalities-Panetta, Clapper, Intelligence committee, etc. all told him not to release the GITMO detainees. If and when these five commit another terrorist act then Obama will unilaterally held culpable-because he ignored about everyone in the chain. Why bother to have czars or cabinet members if you aren't going to listen?

Bizkit
34240
Points
Bizkit 06/10/14 - 10:08 pm
5
0
I know the Dems are loving it

I know the Dems are loving it Cantor lost his seat. But I think they don't realize that tea party train is chugging along again and might have some surprises. Probably we might see a sweep in the country of more Tea party winning GOP seats and then Dems losing just because no one trusts them anymore or they want to balance Obama's power. Stranger things have happened. Conservatives are speaking-but more importantly independents are not enamored with the Prez nor Dems right now so they could shift power as they did supporting Obama.

Bizkit
34240
Points
Bizkit 06/10/14 - 10:58 pm
4
0
There are real-world examples

There are real-world examples of Presidents, through their Justice Department, refusing to defend existing laws in courts, although it is rare. In fact, a research of the literature uncovers, before DOMA, only eleven cases. I will not recite all the cases, but the first example occurred in 1948 in the case of U.S. v. Lovett which involved salaries for certain federal employees. Then, the Justice Department refused to defend the law in court claiming it was a Bill of Attainder. In 1963, the Kennedy Administration refused to defend a law that codified the doctrine of “separate but equal” in hospital funding. Likewise, there are cases where one Administration decided not to defend a law and the next Administration’s interpretation of its constitutionality is different and they choose to defend the law. For example, the Carter Administration decided not to defend a ban on non-commercial radio stations from editorializing or endorsing candidates on First Amendment grounds, but the Reagan Administration found a way to defend the law. The Bush I Administration decided not to enforce the “must carry” provisions of the FCC, but the Clinton Administration changed course. Lest anyone think that when the government decides not to defend a law in court it somehow means the government’s position will prevail, their record in these 11 cases is 6 victories and 5 defeats. So just because the Obama Administration chooses not to defend Section 3 of DOMA in court does not guarantee Section 3 will be struck down.

Bizkit
34240
Points
Bizkit 06/10/14 - 10:59 pm
3
0
So Burn was spreading some

So Burn was spreading some manure with his exaggerations- there are only 11 cases refusing to obey existing laws.

burninater
9786
Points
burninater 06/11/14 - 12:18 am
1
5
Biz, defending laws in court

Biz, defending laws in court and refusing to uphold them are two different things. I clearly stated I was talking about the latter from the start, and the latter dates back to the turn of the 19th Century, with then-President Jefferson.

Nothing I stated was an exaggeration. If you want to question my supporting documentation, excellent. But I'd hate to see you join the ranks of the ad hominem goalpost-obsessed ...

carcraft
27808
Points
carcraft 06/11/14 - 04:41 am
4
0
I said my piece and people

I said my piece and people who defend this piece trash and these policies are damaging America!

myfather15
55837
Points
myfather15 06/11/14 - 04:43 am
5
0
"The argument that Obama

"The argument that Obama broke the law in this prisoner exchange is not as simple as some seek to make it."

No, it's much to complex for simpleton right-wingers to understand; so we should just sit back, shut up and let Obama continue his hate-America campaign!! Sound about right?

myfather15
55837
Points
myfather15 06/11/14 - 04:52 am
5
0
Corgimom

"I'm wondering- what do people think an American is worth?

Because the same people that are criticizing this are the same ones who have freaked out over 4 Americans that got killed at an embassy."

I'm wondering; do you know the difference in free will and forced?? Or do you just CHOSE to ignore the differences?

Those four American's in Benghazi were innocent!! They were serving their Country with honor and had BEGGED for additional security and THIS COUNTRY let them down!! Their families should be outraged and you should be ashamed to compare them to Bergdahl!!

8 people have now declared that Bergdahl WILLFULLY left his unit and sought out the Taliban!! He CHOSE to leave!! Did the 4 in Benghazi CHOOSE to die???

Bergdahl has also been accused of assisting the enemy in killing American soldiers!! Now, I haven't convicted him of this because I'd have to hear more than "After he left, the bombs were more accurate" to convict him of such accusations. But, with his own letter, and 8 different people saying he left their unit, I have NO ISSUE with saying he is a deserter!!

Trade 5 top ranking Taliban murderers for ONE DESERTER?? Nope!! Not in a million years!! We live by our free will, we die by our free will!!

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/11/14 - 05:03 am
4
0
-
Unpublished

"Biz, defending laws in court and refusing to uphold them are two different things."

Correct....just as refusing to uphold a law, and directly violating a law are two different things....but that didn't stop your sycophantic defense of the President's criminal activity before. You cited precedent where other President's didn't enforce a law in an attempt to defend this President directly violating the law, and stated it was a long held legal precedent. Crafty wordsmithing on your part, but you have been caught once again.

Too bad you won't read this, because as a man of your word, you have me on ignore. I know you wouldn't be lying about that.

Don't worry Biz...you won't be joining the "I'm right even when you show direct quotes that I'm wrong" obsessed.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/11/14 - 05:23 am
3
0
-
Unpublished

Nothing he stated was an exaggeration....it was just incorrect.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Turkeys taste own medicine

I got up and out of my sickbed so I could write this column because it’s time for the annual Turkey of the Year awards, the highlight of the holiday season.
Search Augusta jobs