US Soldier spends 3rd Christmas as Taliban Prisoner

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
Shall we impeach the little prick then? I think not. Let's ride out the rest of his term, then charge him for all his crimes after he has already left office.

We can then go back to his days at Columbia, which can be unsealed, his selective service card fraud, his BC and all his acts of treason. While we can't impeach him because....um, that would be racist, we can charge him later for all his felony conduct, both before and after he took office. That seems like the right way to go about it to me. ;)

You're a Full Metal Birther? LO-fucking-L!

I really wish the Republicans in the House would try to impeach him, I really do. After all, they have had no problem passing bill after bill after bill after bill to infinity to repeal "Obamacare" knowing that not a single one of their bills would make it through the Senate, which they correctly blame on the Democratic control there. Why aren't they trying the same fruitless thing with impeachment? Then they could also blame that failing on the Democrats! With all of the crimes that conservative politicians have said that Obama has committed, you would think that they would have a slam-dunk case for impeachment. If the Democrats in the Senate 'cover' for Obama then you would think that Republicans would crow about that come election time. Profit!!

It almost seems that some Republican politicians know that impeachment is a bridge too far for most Americans.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,702
17,329
136
The real problem with impeachment is that everything gets investigated. That means none of these faux scandals will actually be enough to get the president impeached. Of course once the trial is over the republicans will have no scandals to talk about and they will have nothing to energize their base with.

And that there folks, is par for the course for the rovian Republican Party...the outrage of the a fake scandal is more valuable than the outcome itself.

And the retarded righties just fall for it every time! It's so laughable how gullible they are to this sort of propaganda.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Any time a lefty says something like that to me I take it as a compliment. This is most dishonest president I have ever experienced in my life time. Stop kissing his ass. He's simply terrible.

You were born in 2009? Congratulations on your typing and language skills.
 

himkhan

Senior member
Jul 13, 2013
665
370
136
I don't have the opportunity to say fuck you to his face. If I could I would followed by spitting in his eye.

So barring that, may great fuck be upon him.

Do you honestly think you can continue to make threats against your president and not been hauled away?
 

himkhan

Senior member
Jul 13, 2013
665
370
136
I'm challenging Spidey to confront the flaws in his argument.

As for Bergdahl being a "Taliban", that would make him a traitor. There needs to be a due process to convict him as such. Until he is formally charged with this crime he remains an American in good standing, worthy of rescue from the hands of our enemy.

Taliban are disposeable, Americans are not. If you feel he is a traitor and wish he were treated as such, then take that up with the Pentagon for not handling this, for not processing Bergdahl before the President acted.

Again, he sees you as being on his team. Spidey will never reply to someone on his team no matter how many of you disagree with him and call him out. This is twice now you have tried to get a real response of of him only to be drowned out by the sound of C R I C K E T S.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
So Boko Haram was not a terrorist group either. Aside from all the terrorizing the taliban subjected the people of Afghanistan to... how do you feel about Mohammad Fazl who was traded for Bergdahl? This guy is wanted by the U.N. for possible war crimes. It is alleged he oversaw the massacre of thousands of Shiites. Nice guy huh. Oh but the state department does not list his as a terrorist. Silly me.


http://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/af/us9af-000007dp.pdf

The taliban in Afghanistan was never designated a terrorist groupby the US government.

That is what I said, and what I presented proof of.

Please link to your evidence that shows the US government officially designated the taliban a terrorist organization. I'll be waiting.

Otherwise, your anger should be directed to the US gov, not me.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
And just to point out the hypocrisy of the government, and showing how "terrorist" is now just a label without any real meaning, the US supported the MeK, and actually paid quite a few lobbyists to get them of the US terrorist list.

Link

I mean, many GOP'ers support MeK's work, Rudy Giuliani had this to say about the group:

Appearing on Fox News on Sunday, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani declared that the MEK should be the Time Magazine “person of the year” if they were behind assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

link

So terrorism is only bad when it's against us, when we use it on others, it's OK.

So where is the outrage from all of you about this? Guess breitbart didn't post about it, so none of you care right?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
The taliban in Afghanistan was never designated a terrorist groupby the US government.

That is what I said, and what I presented proof of.

Please link to your evidence that shows the US government officially designated the taliban a terrorist organization. I'll be waiting.

Otherwise, your anger should be directed to the US gov, not me.

Well the State Department doesn't classify the Afghani Taliban as a terrorist organization (but it does classify the Pakistani Taliban as one). However in 2002 Bush used an Executive Order to add the Afghani Taliban to the list sometimes called the Specially Designated Global Terrorists, but that is officially known as the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. This is often itself considered a list that designates terrorists.

However, if you think about the actions of the Bush admin you realize the reason for this designation was so that when Taliban members were captured his admin didn't have to any longer consider them as prisoners of war and instead as enemy combatants or captured terrorists. Prisoners of war are given many protections by international law and the Geneva Convention. Bush wanted his freedom to torture, which would have been banned if they were prisoners of war. And technically was banned anyway if you want to talk about offenses that should ACTUALLY be grounds for impeachment of a President.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,824
1,583
136
And just to point out the hypocrisy of the government, and showing how "terrorist" is now just a label without any real meaning, the US supported the MeK, and actually paid quite a few lobbyists to get them of the US terrorist list.

Link

I mean, many GOP'ers support MeK's work, Rudy Giuliani had this to say about the group:



link

So terrorism is only bad when it's against us, when we use it on others, it's OK.

So where is the outrage from all of you about this? Guess breitbart didn't post about it, so none of you care right?

Shhhh.. All the contradictions may make some of the GOP'ers heads explode.
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel – not President Obama – executed the administration’s final call to proceed with the prisoner exchange of five ranking Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, administration officials told Congress today in a classified briefing today (sic).
“They indicated [it was] Secretary Hagel [who made the final call],” House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, R-California, told reporters following the briefing Monday evening. “It was the president of the United States that came out [in the Rose Garden] with the Bergdahls and took all the credit and now that there’s been a little pushback he’s moving away from it and it’s Secretary Hagel?”
Everytime something negative happens within the Obama administration; he is unable to follow the words of Truman.

Pat on the back initially and then watch out for the knife when the heat is turned on.

Reagan may have been Teflon; but Obama is sure trying to make him seem like an amateur.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The real problem with impeachment is that everything gets investigated. That means none of these faux scandals will actually be enough to get the president impeached. Of course once the trial is over the republicans will have no scandals to talk about and they will have nothing to energize their base with.

And that there folks, is par for the course for the rovian Republican Party...the outrage of the a fake scandal is more valuable than the outcome itself.

And the retarded righties just fall for it every time! It's so laughable how gullible they are to this sort of propaganda.
The real problem with impeachment is President Biden. Although bringing together the Democrats in D.C. and the Democrats in media would suck too, just not as much.

Do you honestly think you can continue to make threats against your president and not been hauled away?
We don't do that here.

Again, he sees you as being on his team. Spidey will never reply to someone on his team no matter how many of you disagree with him and call him out. This is twice now you have tried to get a real response of of him only to be drowned out by the sound of C R I C K E T S.
I too am a conservative, a libertarian roughly about the same as Jaskalas on this and many other issues, and Spidey has engaged me on several threads where we disagree.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Everytime something negative happens within the Obama administration; he is unable to follow the words of Truman.

Pat on the back initially and then watch out for the knife when the heat is turned on.

Reagan may have been Teflon; but Obama is sure trying to make him seem like an amateur.
Truman is perhaps not a good example as he was an unusually principled President. Limbaugh has a term - spear catcher - for political appointees and flunkies. When there is a spear heading for the President, it's their job to jump out and take it instead - sort of "protect your quarterback". While Obama admittedly is unusually enthusiastic in giving them a helping hand in the back, every Executive Branch employee in every administration knows he's essentially expendable.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I praise Obama making tough choices to bring our boys home that Republicans just soon shit on for points. Obama scored a big +1 from me and I'm not always biggest fan.

Too bad Bergdahl seems way fucked up with all torture he endured over 6 year hope he gets his legs back.


Think about it. What advantage does Obama gain bringing home such a compromised individual? None really. Bergdahl could have disappeared into the ether of war none would have noticed save his papa. But Obama stood for something greater and that is never again a PoW. Props brudda
 
Last edited:

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
I don't have the opportunity to say fuck you to his face. If I could I would followed by spitting in his eye.

So barring that, may great fuck be upon him.

No you wouldn't. You are a coward and wouldn't do shit. Hell, you couldn't even look him in the eye.

Shall we impeach the little prick then? I think not. Let's ride out the rest of his term, then charge him for all his crimes after he has already left office.

We can then go back to his days at Columbia, which can be unsealed, his selective service card fraud, his BC and all his acts of treason. While we can't impeach him because....um, that would be racist, we can charge him later for all his felony conduct, both before and after he took office. That seems like the right way to go about it to me. ;)

Weird how you racists are so keen on the birth certificate thing still. Do you admin on Stormfront too?
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I praise Obama making tough choices to bring our boys home that Republicans just soon shit on for points. Obama scored a big +1 from me and I'm not always biggest fan.

Too bad Bergdahl seems way fucked up with all torture he endured over 6 year hope he gets his legs back.


Think about it. What advantage does Obama gain bringing home such a compromised individual? None really. Bergdahl could have disappeared into the ether of war none would have noticed save his papa. But Obama stood for something greater and that is never again a PoW. Props brudda
I agree with making the swap, but Obama clearly expected to reap big political rewards, as evidenced by the Rose Garden event and subsequent statements by the administration. This fire storm has taken him completely by surprise.

As far as Bergdahl goes, he may be an asshole but he's our asshole. I applaud Obama for getting him back for only five Jihadies and pray we don't come to regret the swap. I suspect though that those who have taken these five's places in leadership will want to keep those places and will strongly try steering these particular bastards towards positions with a rather earlier and more energetic meeting with Allah. Just have to see how it shakes out.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
I praise Obama making tough choices to bring our boys home that Republicans just soon shit on for points. Obama scored a big +1 from me and I'm not always biggest fan... Props brudda
jonstewart0604newer-300x182.jpg


Jon Stewart’s humorous summary of Bergdahl saga; the White House won’t be laughing!

It’s an astonishing fall, as Stewart puts it, from “a magnificent, wonderful story” to “an absolutely terrible, disastrous catastrophe that is the single worst thing we as a country have ever done.”

As a chic liberal, Stewart does try to take a stab at conservatives and Fox News along the way, but that’s his bread and butter. The real message here is just how really rotten this move was – and how stupid the smartest president of all time looks for actually trying to pull it off.

Plus, it’s really pretty funny.

Amazing isn't it that as competent a politician as Obama couldn't bring Bergdahl back without creating a major partisan controversy?

While its nice that the administration brought Bergdahl back, it would also be nice if their incompetence hadn't already lead to over 100,000 veterans waiting for their VA health care...

Uno
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
so Obama breaks the law(a law that he signed) to bring back a piece of shit deserter who abandoned his brothers and left his post in trade for 5 taliban leaders so 5 generals for 1 private... but on the other hand has not done shit to bring back a marine who served with honor in two tours and who made a honest mistake at the US/Mexican border and got sent to a mexican prison to be tortured.

wtf is wrong with this picture??
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Before he became a Taliban prisoner, before he wrote in his journal “I am the lone wolf of deadly nothingness,” before he ever joined the Army, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was discharged from the U.S. Coast Guard for psychological reasons, said close friends who were worried about his emotional health at the time.

The 2006 discharge and a trove of Bergdahl’s writing — the handwritten journal along with other essays, stories and e-mails provided to The Washington Post — paint a portrait of a deeply complicated and fragile young man who was by his own account struggling to maintain his mental stability from the start of basic training until the moment he walked off his post in eastern Afghanistan.
...
According to Coast Guard records, Bergdahl left the service with an “uncharacterized discharge” after 26 days of basic training in early 2006. The term applies to people discharged before completing 180 days of service. No reason is specified in such discharges, and a Coast Guard representative said no further information was available.

A senior Army official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the Army was aware of a prior “administrative discharge” when Bergdahl enlisted. A separate Army official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Bergdahl would have required a waiver to enlist under such circumstances. The official could not immediately confirm that Bergdahl received one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9349fe-f165-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html
He really seemed like a poor fit for the military and now it looks like he should have never even been allowed in. How the hell do you wash out of Coast Guard basic training but make it through Army basic?
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
Switch the story around enough times and they might get it right :(
President Obama was responsible for the decision to swap five Taliban militants for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the White House said Tuesday.
The White House sought to deflect charges from congressional Republicans that the administration was trying to pin blame on Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel for the trade.
“The president’s the commander in chief, and the president’s the one that’s ultimately responsible for making sure that we fulfill this commitment that we don’t leave anybody behind,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.​

 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
so Obama breaks the law(a law that he signed) to bring back a piece of shit deserter who abandoned his brothers and left his post in trade for 5 taliban leaders so 5 generals for 1 private... but on the other hand has not done shit to bring back a marine who served with honor in two tours and who made a honest mistake at the US/Mexican border and got sent to a mexican prison to be tortured.

wtf is wrong with this picture??

1. He was a POW. The President acted to bring the last POW home. You have a problem with leaving our POW's to rot in captivity?

2. The Taliban are not a terrorist organization.

3. When next year the war in Afghanistan ends, we would most likely have to release the 5 enemy combatants (yes, they were not listed as terrorists. And there are not part of Al Qaeda).

4. Remember Iran Contra? Yeah, how do feel about selling arms to Iran, possibly interfering with getting the Embassy POW's freed, and sending money to death squads?

5. Once again, you intentionally lie about the facts, I wonder why?

6. Explain how a Marine that voluntary crossed into another country on his own and that we not at war with, and have normal relations, and has been accused of crimes in a Mexican court, has anything to do with a POW? But you know this too, you are just trolling.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Still waiting on the blatant racist spidey to post proof of treason. Funny how he never responds.

President broke the law and now will be responsible for killing of our citizens and soldiers from releasing the terrorists. Not to mention actually negotiating with terrorists in the first place.

There you go.