# Obama decision



## AC986 (Jun 3, 2014)

Well that went well. I'm prepared to say that an American may well be worth at least 5, but in this case who can say.


----------



## TGV (Jun 3, 2014)

What are you talking about?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 3, 2014)

What we're reading in the news can't possibly be the whole story, Adrian. My hunch is that there was a lot more to the deal than a simple prisoner exchange.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 3, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> What we're reading in the news can't possible be the whole story, Adrian. My hunch is that there was a lot more to the deal than a simple prisoner exchange.



On the BBC news last night he was reported as saying he had become _separated from his patrol._ The second he said that I knew that was basically impossible. The news here says up to 6 Americans may have died trying to find him. I would be interested to see the outcome of this debacle.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 3, 2014)

It now looks more than possible that he will face a court martial which will make Obama look an even bigger fool, if that's at all possible.

Brilliant. Well done.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 3, 2014)

The only other alternative is to leave him as a POW, which isn't really an alternative.

He should be allowed the opportunity to due processes and to face his accusers rather than every right wing nut job trying to play Monday morning POTUS.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 3, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> The only other alternative is to leave him as a POW, which isn't really an alternative.
> 
> He should be allowed the opportunity to due processes and to face his accusers rather than every right wing nut job trying to play Monday morning POTUS.



That won't matter one iota and you know it. They will shred this poor fucker and Obama with it.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 3, 2014)

It'll just be another thing. In the end, those who hate Obama will never like him anyway and those who like him, this won't matter much.

Just another story to feed the Fox news media.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 3, 2014)

Actually maybe the strongest protest is coming from the Left and hardly Monday morning. Dianne Feinstein (D) who is head of the Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed this swap in 2011 and said there was an almost unanimous decision strongly against it. This came out because she has openly criticized the President for not informing the committee it was going to be done. The White House has since apologized for the _oversight._ Don't you love politics?


----------



## jleckie (Jun 3, 2014)

I don't see it as just another FOX article. I see it as 6 of our military men dying to rescue a traitor to the US. This should never have happened...


----------



## José Herring (Jun 3, 2014)

Firstly a deserter is different than a traitor. Secondly would you condemn him to life in prison in Afghanistan wirhout even a trial? That would be sick.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 3, 2014)

The fact that someone started this topic instead of me makes my heart soar like an eagle.

I think there's equal opportunity upset on this one. Hard line liberals will justify this, and there is precedent, and there are justifications. For me, the exchange seems pretty weighted and not in America's favor. I totally agree we don't know everything that's going on here, but the optics are pretty horrible.I'm thinking I'll wait til more of the story comes in before I judge anybody. THEN I'll start judging :wink: 

Meanwhile, the Quataris are getting very interesting. What's their end game? Endless money for Al-Jazeera America, now they are the Taliban brokers. Maybe they're just really really helpful (except for that indentured worker/slave thingie).


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 3, 2014)

This is what a civilized nation does for those who served.
Maybe the guy lost it after seeing action over there, after all you are killing people which is not like a video game, sometimes people flip after they take someones life, we don't know what happened, but I trust the President and his foreign policy decisions. Anything that pisses off Karzai is a good thing.

If you were serving in that shithole right now, knowing you are going to go home within a year or so, wouldn't you sleep better during the night time mortar attacks knowing your body will make it home, and if you're captured the nation you swore to serve will do everything in it's power to get you back...?

Hell maybe he heard wrong and thought Hillary won and Obama was VP.


----------



## jleckie (Jun 3, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> Firstly a deserter is different than a traitor. Secondly would you condemn him to life in prison in Afghanistan wirhout even a trial? That would be sick.



deserter, traitor, coward...I'm not going to mince words. Just don't try trivializing it. Six lives are not worth your throw-a-way comment.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 3, 2014)

The military always wants to get every last soldier back. There would be an investigation whether he was captured or deserted, so that will come. What lots of people are having a hard time with is releasing the brain-trust of the Taliban. Also the way it was done (without consulting appropriate agencies) has bothered people on both sides of the aisle.

That said, this President has an almost ruthless quality when pursuing major bad guys and if these guys get busy (and they will) you can count on some drone strikes. For all we know that all have tracking devices in their nice new western dental work.

Edit: And yes any families or fellow soldiers who lost loved ones trying to find a deserter are entirely justified in insisting on justice.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 3, 2014)

jleckie @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly a deserter is different than a traitor. Secondly would you condemn him to life in prison in Afghanistan wirhout even a trial? That would be sick.
> ...



You know this for a fact? Will you be his executioner as well, or just judge and jury in absentia?


----------



## AC986 (Jun 4, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> jleckie @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Tue Jun 03 said:
> ...



It's all opinion Larry. C'mon. 

If I was this guy though, I would stay indoors for more than a considerable time.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 4, 2014)

Hey, we traded some guys in an illegal prison who will never be formally charged of a crime for a guy who can stand trial in a US court of law. That's one way to drain the Bush-created swamp.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 4, 2014)

adriancook @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Jun 03 said:
> 
> 
> > jleckie @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> ...



I agree- so what makes a subjective opinion a "throwaway"? I guess when you disagree, other opinions become wallpaper waste.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2014)

To me the story is that our entire news media is STILL fixated on this really boring story. There's no new information, yet it's just about all you hear about.

Normally this would be buried in the middle of the paper somewhere. That's what they do if, say, a helicopter crashes and 15 soldiers get killed in Afghanistan.

I don't get it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 4, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> To me the story is that our entire news media is STILL fixated on this really boring story. There's no new information, yet it's just about all you hear about.
> 
> Normally this would be buried in the middle of the paper somewhere. That's what they do if, say, a helicopter crashes and 15 soldiers get killed in Afghanistan.
> 
> I don't get it.



I'm sure you're not being disingenuous, Nick, but I don't know how you don't see this as a riveting story. The only POW in Afghanistan? Possible deserter? Overweighted POW exchange? Other soldiers possibly killed in either rescue efforts or efforts guided at trying to find him? (depends what you read). Hero, villian, damaged, deluded? The re- sacrifice of Susan Rice on the altar of "the story we want to put out?" The weird partisan divide? The Pashtun-learning dad with the beard? (good for him, I'd do the same) The executive action bypassing Congress? This story is practically endless.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 4, 2014)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Hey, we traded some guys in an illegal prison who will never be formally charged of a crime for a guy who can stand trial in a US court of law. That's one way to drain the Bush-created swamp.


'Some guys'? These are the guys that gave safe haven to Bin Laden and company facilitating 9/11. I'm guessing you're not going to allow foreign nationals in your back yard to plot killing Americans by the bushel. If you aid and abet in that way you are going to end up in prison even if not a soul dies. 3000 souls is going to get you some real time.

These are real bad guys and they are lucky to be going home. There are more than enough military laws to keep them in the slammer. If Gitmo is illegal than go ahead and close it down but keep those guys in the slammer in a military zone or whatever the Geneva Convention calls for. I have not an ounce of sympathy for those guys.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, we traded some guys in an illegal prison who will never be formally charged of a crime for a guy who can stand trial in a US court of law. That's one way to drain the Bush-created swamp.
> ...



Yet every military commander even the ones Obama fired said he did the right thing. Even Bush administration officials said he did the right thing.

But, David Conner, he knows better than them all.

We don't leave soldiers behind even if we don't like them. Period.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 4, 2014)

Jose, read my earlier posts. And re-read the one you commented on. I am simply defining who the guys are we swapped for. I am not commenting on the merits of the swap (in fact I have spoken more for it than against.) So you are not close in your understanding of my position which is obvious from your remarks.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Jose, read my earlier posts. And re-read the one you commented on. I am simply defining who the guys are we swapped for. I am not commenting on the merits of the swap (in fact I have spoken more for it than against.) So you are not close in your understanding of my position which is obvious from your remarks.



Sorry my bad :oops: Got your post confused with the other guy's. Truly sorry and you're making excellent points.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 4, 2014)

Thank you Jose. I thought it might be something like that because it's not in your character to shoot from the hip. I have always found you thoughtful so I appreciate your taking another look here.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2014)

Sorry Larry. I'm ready for the next story.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 4, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Sorry Larry. I'm ready for the next story.



I hate it when you overwhelm me with verbiage.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 5, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Larry. I'm ready for the next story.
> ...



Tell us more about this guys pater.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 5, 2014)

adriancook @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> ...



He did his best to immerse himself in their culture and try to establish an empathetic connection with his son's captors-in other words, he acted with intelligence and determination in a situation where many would have simply felt there was nothing much they could do. I don't know that I would have been as intelligently focussed on that sort of effort to free my son. I'd hope I would be. It certainly made me think.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 5, 2014)

That does make you think.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 5, 2014)

I liked the way the President had his hand on the guys wifes' Ass while "guiding" her to the Podium. 
One of the reasons Obama never jumps head first into anything is fine with me, it shows the President has a sex life, and knowing our guy with his finger on the Nukes is getting some trim, makes me feel a little safer.
These guys who run Governments and never get laid are always in a bad mood.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 5, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> 'Some guys'? These are the guys that gave safe haven to Bin Laden and company facilitating 9/11...



So these particular men invited OBL to their houses for tea and bought X-acto knives for the hijackers? Do you know their names? Do you know what in particular they did? Do you know which laws they broke?

Or maybe you feel that the entire population of people associated with the government in power in Afghanistan before 9/11 should be imprisoned without charges? 

If you can give me the specific crimes, fine. If your post is based on guilt by association, please reflect for a moment. That's the kind of thinking that leads to concentration camps.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 5, 2014)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Dave Connor @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > 'Some guys'? These are the guys that gave safe haven to Bin Laden and company facilitating 9/11...
> ...


'Guilt by association'? These five guys are the leadership; the generals of the Taliban. At least that's what the oversight committee led by Diane Feinstein (that has adamantly refused to see them released for years now) has said. Two of them are responsible for genocide against the Shia's (thousands) prior to 9/11. Their relationship to Bin Laden is well established. Even if it weren't (tortured logic since this has been front page news for over a decade) these are the same guys that behead woman for dress code violations or anyone who attends a mixed gender party. They execute young girls for reading text books. 

Even all that aside, these are the leadership of an army that we are at war with. If you capture Rommel and Goebbels and Goering you might think twice about releasing them before the war is over. As in WW II they should be tried. Not according to the U.S. Constitution but the Geneva Convention. That means they remain captive for the duration of the war. 

I am not in principal against prisoner swaps and even unbalanced ones. Hillary Clinton has always been against this swap as well as the bipartisan Senate oversight committee. These guys are killers at war with the U.S. They think Bin Laden is a saint. They want to kill you and me. So let's be realistic here if there's even the possibility of facilitating the deaths of numerous Americans, here or abroad.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 5, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Wed Jun 04 said:
> ...



Dave, what name would you give to the "army we are at war with?"


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 5, 2014)

The Taliban. That's what they call themselves. They have been waging war with arms, munitions and battlefield tactics against a coalition army for over a decade. Both armies have been killing and wounding each other in an armed conflict.

If the word 'army' bothers you I suppose you could use another word but a semantic argument isn't going to be fruitful I'm sure. The whole planet knows there's been a war going on in Afghanistan for a long time and that there are leaders on both sides.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 5, 2014)

This discussion is way more interesting than the news story.

Obama had his hand on the released prisoner's mom's ass?! What?!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 5, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> The Taliban. That's what they call themselves. They have been waging war with arms, munitions and battlefield tactics against a coalition army for over a decade. Both armies have been killing and wounding each other in an armed conflict.
> 
> If the word 'army' bothers you I suppose you could use another word but a semantic argument isn't going to be fruitful I'm sure. The whole planet knows there's been a war going on in Afghanistan for a long time and that there are leaders on both sides.



I'm not baiting you or playing semantical chess, Dave. It's a legitimate question. Who are we at war with?

G.W. B. declared a "global war on terror.". That means we're at war with all terrorist groups, and there are a fuckload of them. Are we at "war" with Al-Quaeda? Did we actually declare was on "The Taliban"? or did we declare war on "Afghanistan"? Wasn't our stated goal in Afghanistan to get bin Laden and the people who gave him safe haven? Are those people still in power?

To me, these are not semantical questions. They speak to larger problems:

1. Regardless of what we might have thought our mission in Afghanistan or Iraq was in 2001, what is it now?

2. Where are we in the "global war or terror?"

3. What sort of alliances can we form with the global community regarding humanitarian and/or global security concerns that may require military actions?

4. How can we balance our security concerns with our ability to remain a free state? Will we let the attack on our homeland change us forever?

I know I think too much. Sorry.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 5, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> This discussion is way more interesting than the news story.
> 
> Obama had his hand on the released prisoner's mom's ass?! What?!



See "liberal-baiting for sport and pleasure."


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 5, 2014)

Larry, I of course don't have a problem with the larger philosophical issues you raised. Those are legitimate issues that have been widely debated and will continue to be. My comments (which have not been particularly advocating but more stating the different positions out there right now) have been strictly limited to the swap of the five Taliban leaders for an American soldier.

To clarify, I have said:
I understand and agree with the long held tradition of getting every last soldier home.
An unbalanced swap in both numbers and importance of people doesn't on it's face bother me.
People who's job it is to know and who have been intimately involved with this exact potential swap for several years have unanimously been _strongly_ against it from day one. They are so angry at being bypassed that the legality of the swap has been questioned by the chairwoman (Senate Intelligence Committee) Dianne Feinstein, a member of the President's party and normally staunch supporter.

These things have me thinking. People a lot smarter than I who have a lot more information are both for and against it. The most important issue must be the potential disastrous results of restoring the leadership to the people we are fighting. People with a proven track record of lots of killing. It's a national security issue which obviously should be given primacy of consideration.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 5, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Larry, I of course don't have a problem with the larger philosophical issues you raised. Those are legitimate issues that have been widely debated and will continue to be. My comments (which have not been particularly advocating but more stating the different positions out there right now) have been strictly limited to the swap of the five Taliban leaders for an American soldier.
> 
> To clarify, I have said:
> I understand and agree with the long held tradition of getting every last soldier home.
> ...



I understand your point Dave. It's got me thinking too, and I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe they shouldn't matter, but the optics of this certainly look terrible.
Yet I don't think the decision was as unilateral as it seems, as much of the military command seems to agree with it. On the face of it, the inequity of the exchange looks troubling, I agree. I don't know whether these guys could or will go back to being effectual leaders. Part of the problem is that we screwed up so badly in classifying these guys-civilian or military? My view, they should have been declared military and brought to trial if we had evidence to do so, if not, what are we doing with them? If it's, as you say (and I don't disagree) a national security issue, why don't we have more clarity? We apparently screwed the pooch with these guys as far as classifying them-why did we not hand them off to an international tribunal, some of them who were supposedly whole scale slaughterers?

As far as the prisoner exchange, I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. It's a very personal issue for me.


----------



## bbunker (Jun 5, 2014)

Personally, I don't understand this entire story. I mean...the dude didn't run off to the hills and tell them where to drop the mortars around the T-walls, right? He sounds like the kind of guy who never should have been handed a rifle, but instead of getting article-15'ed and counselled back home, he got stupid over the wire and paid for it. Or he couldn't hack it and ran away; it's a shame Behavioral Health didn't get to him first. So, some of the language getting thrown around now (i.e., "He's a Traitor, and we should have let the Taliban deal with him for us) I just can't comprehend.

"Until the Last Man Comes Home" only means something IMHO if you include all the jacked-up, walking counselling statements in that statement too.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 5, 2014)

I don't know that I believe this "leadership of the Taliban" thing. If we truly captured the leaders, then why has the war gone on for over a decade? It sounds a bit too much like propaganda from those who wanted to justify the profitable terror/oil wars.

Believe me, had they captured President This, Prime Minister That, and the Grand Poobah and his top Lieutenants, it would have been all over the press at the time. I just remember hearing that Chemical Ali was captured - on at least three different occasions.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 6, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> This discussion is way more interesting than the news story.
> 
> Obama had his hand on the released prisoner's mom's ass?! What?!



Well I was giving the Prez some creds. His hand was resting atop her cheek at the bottom of her back as Mom definitely is an outdoorswomen judging from her shape and leg muscles. 
Watch the walk to the podium. Just noticing the angle of the arm behind her back is where I first noticed as I wasn't interested in anything he said.
He's slung so much shit from the Rose Garden I am always checking the Secret Service guys w/o sunglasses to see if they're high on weed, or carrying a Mac 10/11 under their arms, etc.

But mom was definitely hot to trot. If I were Sgt. Bergdahl I would have breast fed to at least age 16.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 6, 2014)

chimuelo @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> If I were Sgt. Bergdahl I would have breast fed to at least age 16



Maybe there's still time. Ask her to adopt you, then initiate step two.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 6, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Obama had his hand on the released prisoner's mom's ass?! What?!



He's over in France atm. And so is the Queen. If they meet, hear's hoping he gropes the Queen's ass on international television. I would renew my tv licence to see that.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 6, 2014)

Shame Angela's not there. He could easily grope her ass and lift her cell phone at the same time and cut out the middle men.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 6, 2014)

No such luck, the Prez is a booty man, the Queen and Angela have stealth butts, you can't see them.
So forget about it, the brothas' like big booties, even if you're of mixed cultures and races, the brother/booty thing is Darwinism at it's finest.
Which is why I believe the brothers got to the Italains in my family during the Moors campaign in Sicily.
Cause when I see an Ass, I don't know, I kind of get feverish too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NOgrLiD4Qo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... OgrLiD4Qo8)


----------



## AC986 (Jun 6, 2014)

chimuelo @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> No such luck, the Prez is a booty man, the Queen and Angela have stealth butts, you can't see them.



That let's out the Duchess of Cambridge then. He wouldn't even find it, let alone see it. 

Although if it's windy, she tends to like the skirt over her head look.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 6, 2014)

> hear's hoping he gropes the Queen's ass on international television



I heard from Chim that he only gropes her in private, Adrian.


----------



## snowleopard (Jun 6, 2014)

I love the way this conversation has turned. 

Now, is there a way to mix Bergdahl into Benghazi? The words sound kinda similar. 

:oops:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 6, 2014)

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2014/06/05/obama-what-should-i-have-done-secretly-sold-them-1500-missiles/ (http://www.freewoodpost.com/2014/06/05/ ... -missiles/)

Via Bruce Richardson on Facebook


----------

