• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban after five years of captivity

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I admit I haven't followed the story all that closely, quickly tuning out much of it after politically charged rhetoric took hold. I've only read or heard bits and pieces. Anyway, the last bit of this thread seemingly has determined that he was deserter. I am wondering how this jives with the post made by Los216.

When he left post, was it Bergdahl's intention only to be AWOL? Or when he left did he plan never to return, thus deserting? Has irrefutable evidence been found to substantiate the claim it was indeed desertion and not a case of being AWOL?

Well, we know that his platoon mates are all telling a very consistent story about how all his sensitive gear was stacked up very neatly on his rack when he left. I can't fathom a reason why someone intending to go off base for just a little bit would deliberately leave behind his rifle and NVG. All of his platoon mates who have gone public have said they are positive he intended to desert, and those guys would know better than anyone. And, there is all the stuff that has been leaked about the emails and stuff he sent home, including his laptop. Doesn't sound to me like someone who intended on coming back.

Now, none of that stuff has been admitted into evidence in court yet. But, the Administration has been getting absolutely killed in the media, and has every incentive in the world to come out and say which of those "facts" are false. There's no earthly reason not to correct a false perception that is slandering Bergdahl. But nothing, nor is that really surprising. The stuff those troops have been saying is the type of stuff you just can't be wrong about. Either he left his rifle and NVG's, or he didn't.

The thing that's going to really piss me off about this is the book/talk show tour in Bergdahl's future. Unless he gets significant brig time, which I doubt.
 
Does any one think that we exchanged 5 terrorists for 1 soldier is just the story that is coming out but there is a more 'HomeLandy' plot that is actually hidden behind this event?
 
Does any one think that we exchanged 5 terrorists for 1 soldier is just the story that is coming out but there is a more 'HomeLandy' plot that is actually hidden behind this event?

Conspiracy theorists aside, there is nobody saying this. The Senators who came out of that classified briefing didn't even hint that there was some undisclosed "other reason" to do this. Again, if there was something, you'd at least get some vague references to a "larger picture" or something from an Administration that has been getting pounded. But all we keep hearing from all sides is that this is pretty much it. Other than Hagel's hope that they hope it may lead to some peace deal. Leon Panneta, who was not only Sec. Dec but also Director of the CIA, has said he was familiar with the discussions when they were first raised, opposed it then, and opposed it now. Same with Feinstein. And not a hint of some larger issue.

It seems as though they thought nobody would really dare speak out on this. Civilians really couldn't go after him on their own. And according to Time, the attitude towards Pentagon objections was "suck it up and salute". So that took care of public opposition by the brass.

http://98.139.21.31/search/srpcache...A&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=DvWFn0c6cRgIlaCC0uP4_Q--

But it looks like they were caught completely off-guard by the criticism from his fellow troops, which is far harder to dismiss because you'd have to do so by attacking all of them. NBC's Chuck Todd reported that he'd been told by White House aides that "we didn't know Bergdahl's platoon was going to swift boat him.." And I think that's really what set this thing off. These guys have been all over the place, quoted widely, and seem very credible. And like those aides said, they didn't think that was going to happen.

That boggles my mind, because American soldiers (and Marines) follow orders, but they also have opinions that they're quite willing to share.
 
Hey Everybody — Shut Up About Bowe Bergdahl

By Ryan Faith

Amid all the extremely loud controversy surrounding Bowe Bergdahl's release from the Taliban, there’s one thing on which all Americans seem to agree at the top of their lungs: “Every single thing related to this Bowe Bergdahl incident is about me and my politics!”

It’s getting embarrassing.

The political circus surrounding the exchange is reminiscent of soccer (and/or football) hooligans fighting in the streets, in that it has little to do with the facts of the actual match. Instead, the hooligans are out in force for some quasi-organized mob violence, in which they get to beat the crap out of others for the crime of sporting the wrong team colors. Everyone on Team Red and Team Blue seems to be grabbing whatever’s available and swinging with wild abandon, connecting with anything they can hit.

“I’m gonna smash that guy’s face in with this weak-ass Iran-Contra analogy!”

* * *

Bowe Bergdahl may be a deserter. He may be a feckless shitheel. He might even be an utterly worthless fuckwit.

But he’s America’s fuckwit.

Since the Vietnam War, steady political pressure has pushed a consensus understanding in the US that it’s bad form to leave behind prisoners of war. The US should not tweak that standard to be, "…yeah, but only if they're sufficiently heroic." That line of reasoning opens up all kinds of idiotic nonsense — who wants to go through a stack of performance appraisals to determine which guys to swap for and which to let rot and die?

If Bergdahl was a deserter, the US should punish him for it — but the US can’t make him break rocks at Fort Leavenworth for the rest of his days if he’s in Pakistan. And who aside from the Taliban wants to put the Taliban in charge of administering anything, let alone judgment on and punishment of American citizens? Even if the citizen in question is a jackass.

So whether or not he's a deserter, it’s completely idiotic to attempt to justify the prisoner swap by asserting that Bergdahl served "with honor and distinction," as some people seem determined to do. (And yes, it's even dumber if the people doing the asserting know it to be false.)

This has been political spectacle, Washington spouting self-important gibberish to itself like a narcissistic schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Others try to excuse Bergdahl for going on the lam because his unit wasn’t a collection of super soldiers. Or as one US government official so delicately expressed it, “What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?”

Well, now that you mention it, there have been credible reports of soldiers in his platoon wearing bandannas, and of others sporting bare midriffs. If a bare midriff isn’t a sign that Bergdahl's platoon was on the verge of going all Colonel Kurtz and that Bergdahl was only doing the sane thing when he deserted, I don’t know what is.

Actually, never mind. That’s fucking idiotic.

There’s even the contention that the five Taliban guys who got their “Get out of Gitmo” cards are really just big, lovable softies — despite reports to the contrary from many in the national security community. Secretary of State John Kerry has helpfully jumped in by pointing out that the US can still totally killify them to death if they get back to their old shenanigans.

Why Bowe Bergdahl's release means Guantanamo Bay is closing. Read more here.

Ultimately, the argument over whether the trade was worth it may itself be a bit of misdirection. Apparently there had been discussions about releasing Bergdahl, and there had been discussions about releasing five senior Taliban bad guys. The fact that releasing Bergdahl ended up married to releasing Taliban honchos was really the result of a kind of negotiator’s game of Spin the Bottle more than it was some carefully weighed cost-benefit analysis.

The specifics of what was traded for what are relatively incidental. The US was bound and determined to evict these five guys from Gitmo and was looking to see what it could get for them. The Taliban had apparently grown weary of Bergdahl’s company and was looking for a buyer. This was a flea-market swap, not some well-calibrated exchange of value.

* * *

The Administration was apparently shocked that news of his release wasn’t the cause of spontaneous ticker-tape parades and a start of a “Bowe Knows” Nike ad campaign. Which means one of a few things is true. Perhaps in several years of thinking about Bergdahl, nobody at the White House bothered to read the report suggesting he took a powder when he was supposed to be at his post. Or maybe the White House thought nobody would notice that Bergdahl decided to make like a tree and leave. Or it could be that the Administration thought folks in the military would just be super happy about all of everything. Regardless, some people didn't do their homework.

That said, I sympathize deeply with the Administration. It’s always easy to point out what was missed after the fact, especially when everything is moving so quickly. But the Administration not only screwed up, it then doubled down on that screw-up.

Sometimes the wise move is to let an event play out neutrally, neither suppressing it nor highlighting it with a Rose Garden press conference. It's always possible to shine a brighter spotlight on something after public opinion has been gauged without expending a huge amount of political capital on the event.

But in trying to seize the moment, the White House took on political risk. And once a risky political investment turns sour, the temptation is to spin. The spin on this has not only turned out like a lot of spin — absolutely tone deaf — but it has ended up legitimizing a lot of Republican talking points, like the whole hero/deserter debate, and put the White House on its heels, responding to allegations rather than taking the initiative and driving coverage.

Why was the FBI investigating Michael Hastings' reporting on Bowe Bergdahl? Read more here.

Sure, it’s fair to blame opportunists, especially Republican cheap-shot artists, for jumping on this. But for crying out loud, if you’ve been in the White House for this many years, opposition from your political opposition shouldn’t be a surprise. Did anyone smart enough to drool on a keyboard not expect blinding scrutiny surrounding the high-profile repatriation of the only active-duty military prisoner not killed in captivity during the entire 11-year-long Afghanistan War?

* * *

The whole Bowe Bergdahl thing is really just about a guy. He may be a jerk. He's definitely had a rough past several years. And fortunately, he is no longer subject to the Taliban’s tender mercies. There are maybe a couple dozen people, like Bergdahl and his family, whom this whole thing really does affect.

Everything else surrounding the Bergdahl case is external crap that the Political-Media Complex can’t resist stirring up, since apparently the couple dozen vets the VA let die is old news already. This has been political spectacle, Washington spouting self-important gibberish to itself like a narcissistic schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur. It has been a nasty, dirty deal.

If there’s anything here that merits discussion, it's that it wouldn’t kill the American public to figure out whether this "leave nobody behind" thing during wars should apply to the three American civilians currently thought to be held prisoner by the Taliban.

After all, the American public has apparently decided it should always try to get its people in uniform back, even if they’re jerks. But if the US is going to do it, then it should be an ordinary thing. Ordinary enough that talking heads with perfect hair aren't compelled to turn it into a spectacle.
 
Who is "Ryan Faith" to be telling everyone else to shut up about Bergdahl? There's no link, so I couldn't see who he was, or for whom he was writing. I'm curious if he has a pattern of telling people to shut up about screw-ups in general, or if he only tells people to shut up if it is his side of the debate that is getting (justifiably) skewered. Can't help but think this is directed largely at the brass in the Pentagon who opposed this, as well as the public statements of his platoon-mates who've blasted this. Exactly where does Faith get off telling them to "shut up"?

Faith claims there is a "consensus" behind "leave no man behind". But what, exactly, is that consensus? Does it mean that you are compelled to give up whatever the enemy demands in order to recover a prisoner? Does it means you must meet those demands, whatever they are, even if hostilities are still ongoing? Because from the public reaction, it seems that the "consensus" Faith takes as his starting point wasn't a "consensus" at all.

Either what we gave up to obtain a prisoner's release is subject to criticism and debate, or it isn't. Had the deal been to release everyone in Gitmo, withdraw from Afghanistan in 30 days, and pay $100B in "reparations" to the Taliban, would we all have to "shut up" about that deal because of "leave no man behind?" Because unless he's claiming that his supposed "consensus" means giving up anything demanded to recover a prisoner, then advancing that phrase as being the debate-ender, as he does, is ludicrous. It's argument on an infantile level.

The US should not tweak that standard to be, "…yeah, but only if they're sufficiently heroic." That line of reasoning opens up all kinds of idiotic nonsense — who wants to go through a stack of performance appraisals to determine which guys to swap for and which to let rot and die?

This opens up nothing of the sort. Nobody is claiming that you have to be a heroic soldier, or even a good one, for the military to not "leave you behind". You don't leave shitty soldiers behind either. But the definition of "leave behind" becomes a lot more problematic when it is the deserter who "left behind" his comrades. That has nothing to do with how good a soldier someone is, and doesn't require anything like reviewing performance appraisals, which is almost the perfect definition of a strawman in that Ryan Faith is the only person who ever raised that in the first place. Nor is desertion in theater so common that making such a determination is impractical. Here, the Pentagon already compiled the facts back in 2010.

The real issue here is not whether you abandon your POW's at the end of hostilities. It is what enemy demands should you be willing to accept to recover a soldier who deserted his comrades.

The entire point of that "leave no man behind" ethic is that it encourages troops to stand with their comrades. The assurance that they will not be abandoned is to motivate them to do their duty, and a "thanks" for having done it. In the context of a deserter, though, that ethic flips those incentives completely on their head. "Hey, even if you abandon your post and desert your comrades, don't worry. We'll still move heaven and earth to get you back." Why the fuck would we want to make that promise? To encourage troops who are considering desertion?
 
Article was rambling, cynical and all over the place and didn't really come to much of a constructive conclusion.

I felt like I was reading one of my own posts on RCF.
 
Hey Everybody — Shut Up About Bowe Bergdahl

By Ryan Faith

Why was the FBI investigating Michael Hastings' reporting on Bowe Bergdahl? Read more here.

I have to admit, i completely forgot about the Michael Hastings angle.

Here's the FBI redacted report...
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...ated-hastings-fbi-matt-farwell-unredacted.pdf

This Journalist Died After Exposing Bowe Bergdahl’s Anti-Americanism

Was it an inside job?

At the time Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings was killed under suspicious circumstances, he had recently written a huge exposé on Bowe Bergdahl, revealing that he had deserted his unit and actively sought out the Taliban. Hastings had also revealed Bergdahl’s anti-American sentiments, publishing the emails to his father that so shocked America: “I am ashamed to be an American…The horror that is America is disgusting.”

This revelation actually came in July of 2012, when Hastings published a ten-thousand word article on Bergdahl, in which he had traveled to Afghanistan to speak to his former platoon mates, the soldiers violating their gag order to speak to Hastings anonymously. Hastings had also visited Bergdahl’s parents in Idaho, where he presumably obtained the emails. When we saw Obama pawing Bowe Bergdahl’s mother and hugging his father last week in the White House Rose Garden, this wasn’t how he was treating them in 2012. The Obama administration in 2012 had “encouraged” his parents to keep their mouths shut. The father, Robert Bergdahl, had gone on a very public crusade, criticizing the Obama administration for killing Afghanistan civilians, and had even said that one of the Taliban captors of his son had had his child murdered by a CIA drone—mirroring events in the popular Showtime series “Homeland”. This was stated at a very public GOP fundraising event in 2010 hosted by former RNC head Michael Steele. Robert Bergdahl had also just posted a video on YouTube, where he appealed directly to this son’s captors, stating: “…We must also thank those who have cared for our son for almost two years…We have wept that God may show his beneficence, his mercy and that his peace may come upon the people of Pakistan. As-salamu alaykum [peace be upon you].”


After this, the Obama administration actively sought to keep the lid on Robert Bergdahl and Michael Hastings’ reporting of Bowe Bergdahl, as secret FBI documents now reveal.

A 22-page secret FBI report dated June 11, 2012, obtained by investigative reporter Jason Leopold, shows that both Hastings and former Afghanistan war veteran and co-writer Matt Farwell were under an intense FBI investigation in early 2012. The document is highly redacted; but it appears Hastings and Farwell were under direct FBI surveillance, including when they met with Bowe Bergdahl’s parents in 2012.

Keep in mind, at the time of Hastings’ death, the FBI had denied they had ever investigated Hastings, despite Hastings sending out a frantic email hours before his death with the subject line: “FBI Investigation,” stating that he was being investigated. Also included in the body of the email was a reference to a “big story” he was working on. This “big story” turned out not to be about Bergdahl, but an investigation of then-terrorism czar—now CIA head—John Brennan, per Hastings’ widow. After Hastings’ death, all of his notes and documents on Brennan were suppressed—and this “big story” never appeared in Rolling Stone.

The Obama administration had also been successful at suppressing the fact that Bowe Bergdahl was essentially a traitor and that his father was not far behind. Bowe Bergdahl’s father, Robert Bergdahl, has been tweeting out a stream of anti-American propaganda for months. Three days before his son was released,Robert Bergdahl called for all Guantanamo Bay prisoners to be released, not just the five Taliban generals Obama ended up trading for a traitor. When social media grabbed the tail of the Bergdahl beast last week—exposing the Bergdahl father and son treachery—the Bowe Bergdahl beast could not be stopped by the Obama spin machine.

And it may be the Brennan beast may also rear its ugly head.

According to the book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, John Brennan runs the secret black ops army JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command)—that operates with zero oversight—outside the purview of Congress, the Courts and even the Pentagon—essentially giving Brennan more power than the President of the United States! One of JSOC’s major functions is to make sure weapons are flowing unhindered to rebel groups worldwide that are on the side of the United States—including the al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria. At the time of the attack on the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012, JSOC and the CIA were housing a huge cache of weapons at the secret CIA base near the consulate, which also later came under attack. Per the book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, this is the reason why Barack Obama could not send help to Americans under attack in Benghazi and later blamed a “protest turned violent” over an obscure internet video. JSOC’s transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria at the time was illegal, and sending in the cavalry to save Americans would have exposed Brennan’s illegal operation.


But funneling weapons to al-Qaeda-linked rebels is a secondary function of Brennan’s JSOC. Their primary mission is to kill and/or capture anyone—worldwide.

Whether that includes Americans is a guarded secret. And whether Michael Hastings was someone who needed to be killed because of bad press on Bergdahl, or for some other big story he was working on—i.e., exposing Brennan’s illegal activities—is also an unanswered question.

Perhaps when Congress investigates why Obama illegally freed five Taliban generals for a traitor, they can also investigate whether John Brennan had his secret black ops army murder Michael Hastings.


Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/tr...ichael-hastings-murder/2/#qmc56Q6ilgkm4U5F.99


video - And it may be the Brennan beast may also rear its ugly head.

According to the book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, John Brennan runs the secret black ops army JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command)—that operates with zero oversight—outside the purview of Congress, the Courts and even the Pentagon—essentially giving Brennan more power than the President of the United States! One of JSOC’s major functions is to make sure weapons are flowing unhindered to rebel groups worldwide that are on the side of the United States—including the al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria. At the time of the attack on the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012, JSOC and the CIA were housing a huge cache of weapons at the secret CIA base near the consulate, which also later came under attack. Per the book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, this is the reason why Barack Obama could not send help to Americans under attack in Benghazi and later blamed a “protest turned violent” over an obscure internet video. JSOC’s transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria at the time was illegal, and sending in the cavalry to save Americans would have exposed Brennan’s illegal operation.


But funneling weapons to al-Qaeda-linked rebels is a secondary function of Brennan’s JSOC. Their primary mission is to kill and/or capture anyone—worldwide.

Whether that includes Americans is a guarded secret. And whether Michael Hastings was someone who needed to be killed because of bad press on Bergdahl, or for some other big story he was working on—i.e., exposing Brennan’s illegal activities—is also an unanswered question.

Perhaps when Congress investigates why Obama illegally freed five Taliban generals for a traitor, they can also investigate whether John Brennan had his secret black ops army murder Michael Hastings.
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XLROOjzaaMc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
.
 
John Brennan runs the secret black ops army JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command)—that operates with zero oversight—outside the purview of Congress, the Courts and even the Pentagon—essentially giving Brennan more power than the President of the United States!

Even if you didn't know a damn thing about the military, that particular statement is self-evidently wrong. JSOC doesn't fund itself. And if you do know something, it's even more wrong.
 
If only he went crazy and shot himself instead of going crazy and running off and getting captured keyboard warriors wouldn't have to worry about this and could focus on important stuff like what color to dye their pubes before the next spring cotillion.

Oh heavens, after invading two countries for half ass reasons, spending trillions of dollars, directly and indirectly causing hundreds of thousands deaths and lowering the quality of life for tens of millions of people I sure hope these 5 terrorist we are exchanging for an American prisoner isn't a bad value. This might be like Harper for Ferry all over again.
 
side-note: What sort of rules does this corner of RCF have? I see lots of personal attacks and racial slurs being used. Can I post obscene images as well or should I just keep the awfulness to text?

The tag says flame free, serious discussions but that has to be a smokescreen.
 
side-note: What sort of rules does this corner of RCF have? I see lots of personal attacks and racial slurs being used. Can I post obscene images as well or should I just keep the awfulness to text?

The tag says flame free, serious discussions but that has to be a smokescreen.

Well, there is a no douche-nozzle rule, so maybe you should try posting down the street.
 
I think Fuggles is killing it right now, personally.
 
I think Fuggles is killing it right now, personally.

Nah, that is about all I can do so it in total it isn't very impressive. If I tried to respond to specific comments in here I think it would ruin this website for me.

The "never negotiate with terrorist" line alone makes me want to post the many known incidents we have done and then spam photos of Oliver's North face until I get banned or have a seizure.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top