News reports from multiple sources are reporting that Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with Desertion in a Court Martial.
Guess he was not the "hero" that Obama claimed when his parents were at the White House.
Read for yourself: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/bowe-bergdahl-desertion-army-114634.html?hp=l6_4
pffft - that's nothing!
http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/11/taliban-bowe-bergdahl-desertion/
Quote from: airboy on January 27, 2015, 01:11:51 PM
News reports from multiple sources are reporting that Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with Desertion in a Court Martial.
Guess he was not the "hero" that Obama claimed when his parents were at the White House.
Read for yourself: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/bowe-bergdahl-desertion-army-114634.html?hp=l6_4
Gee, it's almost like Obama was using Daddy Bergdahl as a photo op or something. Just another day at the circus. Or freak show, if you prefer.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 27, 2015, 01:15:37 PM
pffft - that's nothing!
http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/11/taliban-bowe-bergdahl-desertion/
Ha!
The Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/27/bergdahl-army-update-false-reports/22396367/) claims the Bergdahl reports are untrue and that no decision has been made.
Quote from: Greybriar on January 27, 2015, 07:03:39 PM
The Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/27/bergdahl-army-update-false-reports/22396367/) claims the Bergdahl reports are untrue and that no decision has been made.
Thanks - but multiple news outlets are reporting that Bergdahl will be charged. Like most things, the passage of time will tell its tale.
Quote from: airboy on January 28, 2015, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Greybriar on January 27, 2015, 07:03:39 PM
The Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/27/bergdahl-army-update-false-reports/22396367/) claims the Bergdahl reports are untrue and that no decision has been made.
Thanks - but multiple news outlets are reporting that Bergdahl will be charged. Like most things, the passage of time will tell its tale.
Like most other bad choices during this Administration, it is being glossed over and intentionally swept under the rug after the sour parts started coming to light.
If he is being charged, then the news is being intentionally hushed under orders. If he's not charged, then there is blatant interference to save political face.
Did anyone ever see the extra "transparency" the prez promised? That should easily knock off Bush's "read my lips .. no new taxes" speech as the quintessential presidential lie.
Quote from: Nefaro on January 28, 2015, 10:38:03 PM
Did anyone ever see the extra "transparency" the prez promised?
yes, the idiots hair has turned grey.
Quote from: Nefaro on January 28, 2015, 10:38:03 PM
Did anyone ever see the extra "transparency" the prez promised?
Oh, yes. Absolutely.
Any time a spokesman from the WH goes on TV you'll hear them use the word "clearly" a lot. Typically when they say "clearly" it's a tip off you're about to get a load of (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Fbsmeter.gif&hash=da98e03973afcc405cdc8a1b32b4d43b193e1118)
Foxnews headline: SGT. BOWE BERGDAHL TO BE CHARGED WITH DESERTION
Quote
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered in Afghanistan last spring after five years in captivity, faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, according to his lawyer.
Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl's attorney, told The Washington Post that his client was handed a charge sheet on Tuesday. Army officials announced they will provide an update in his case at 3:30 p.m. at Fort Bragg, N.C., but declined to discuss new developments ahead of the news conference.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/25/bowe-bergdahl-once-missing-u-s-soldier-charged-with-desertion/?hpid=z1
And the WaPo speaks:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/25/bowe-bergdahl-once-missing-u-s-soldier-charged-with-desertion/
Good.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 27, 2015, 01:15:37 PM
pffft - that's nothing!
http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/11/taliban-bowe-bergdahl-desertion/
just to re-quote... the Army is definitely behind the times here
Quote from: airboy on January 28, 2015, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Greybriar on January 27, 2015, 07:03:39 PM
The Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/27/bergdahl-army-update-false-reports/22396367/) claims the Bergdahl reports are untrue and that no decision has been made.
Thanks - but multiple news outlets are reporting that Bergdahl will be charged. Like most things, the passage of time will tell its tale.
And the passage of time eventually spoke the word.
How is Susan Rice still employed in any type of National Security role
You could ask the same about half of Obama's cabinet.....
Susan Rice didn't know jack squat about the case. Someone gave her a talking point and she was dumb enough to parrot it. She's a buffoon, not the wicked witch of the west.
Isn't she the National Security Advisor.
that doesn't mean she is in command of the military, or has a clue how to spell "UCMJ"
at that level, her job is to discuss strategy - ways, means, ends.
I'm not saying she's any good at that, either, mind you. The appalling lack of strategy from our administration makes that painfully apparent. But the details of what's happening in the military aren't her schtick any more than they were for Brent Scowcroft. it's not part of the job.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 26, 2015, 07:48:43 AM
that doesn't mean she is in command of the military, or has a clue how to spell "UCMJ"
at that level, her job is to discuss strategy - ways, means, ends.
I'm not saying she's any good at that, either, mind you. The appalling lack of strategy from our administration makes that painfully apparent. But the details of what's happening in the military aren't her schtick any more than they were for Brent Scowcroft. it's not part of the job.
Nonetheless, as NSA giving a public statement she's speaking for the Administration, which gives weight to her statement. Perhaps if the administration hadn't tried to make political hay from Bergdahl's release, Rice's statement wouldn't matter as much. But as it stands, it's the usual spin, spin, spin.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 25, 2015, 10:23:14 PM
Susan Rice didn't know jack squat about the case. Someone gave her a talking point and she was dumb enough to parrot it. She's a buffoon, not the wicked witch of the west.
Agreed.
Unfortunately the entire administration appears to be composed of buffoons. If we had a wicked witch anywhere in power I suspect that, as worse as things could be related to power abuse, there would be far less of a power vacuum across the globe.
It's embarrassing and frightening that she's the NSA.
The unfortunate thing for the administration is how hamhandedly they handled the entire thing. Anyone who's served I the army in the last half decade could have told them that trying to make a hero out of Bergdahl wasn't going to end well.
I'm glad we brought him home and I'm also glad he's being charged with desertion. If he's convicted, I imagine the punishment will end up being rather light, which also seems appropriate.
Brant, her knowledge or lack there of the UCMJ is not relevant to her statements. Your actually saying that the NSA was never brought into the discussion as to whether this was a trade that should be done or not. Your saying that while a trade was being discussed, that it was never brought up that it was possible that Bergdahl may have deserted.
Quote from: OJsDad on March 26, 2015, 10:02:59 AMYour actually saying that the NSA was never brought into the discussion as to whether this was a trade that should be done or not.
wouldn't surprise me in the least, knowing what we know about how insular the White House is
Quote from: OJsDad on March 26, 2015, 10:02:59 AMYour saying that while a trade was being discussed, that it was never brought up that it was possible that Bergdahl may have deserted.
Again, wouldn't surprise me in the least, given the lack of trust in/out of the administration to seek and listen to alternative points of view
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 26, 2015, 10:23:56 AM
Quote from: OJsDad on March 26, 2015, 10:02:59 AMYour saying that while a trade was being discussed, that it was never brought up that it was possible that Bergdahl may have deserted.
Again, wouldn't surprise me in the least, given the lack of trust in/out of the administration to seek and listen to alternative points of view
This administration has shown remarkable talent in filtering out common sense. It appears to be highly driven by ideology and little seems to get in the way of that. The warning signs of whole nations erupting in chaos didn't seem to be enough to cause a reevaluation of policy. It is only now, when the greater middle east is entirely consumed in chaos that it has occurred to them that what they are doing might not be working.
I'll by that Brant.
I base a great many of my assessments of behavior (especially political behavior) on the axiom
"never assume malice when incompetence is an equally-valid possibility"
that doesn't mean people don't act maliciously, just that I don't assume it at first blush until I've done more digging and can arrive at that conclusion based on other evidence.
First Rule of Bureaucromancy: Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity, laziness, or failed technology. In passing, this could have been the sum of the Warren Report and saved us all the trouble.
Or, borrowing from "Yes, Minister": "Sir, you're confusing lethargy with strategy."
I have to agree with the last two posts. Simple incompetency seems the most likely answer. I DO think the Rose Garden speech with Obama and Bergdahl's father was pure political opportunism, but that's very much in line with Obama as a whole.
I'd vote for Frank Underwood in a heartbeat, now.
Who?
Quote from: OJsDad on March 26, 2015, 12:32:23 PM
Who?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bgr.com%2F2013%2F04%2Fnetflix-house-of-cards.jpg&hash=3ee178fac4090a187a6db70df423463bbd7fd36b)
Kevin Spacey, playing Frank Underwood in this Netflix series.
I was making a facetious commentary about the state of our current leadership. Maybe another actor can help straighten things out.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on March 26, 2015, 09:59:07 AM
The unfortunate thing for the administration is how hamhandedly they handled the entire thing. Anyone who's served I the army in the last half decade could have told them that trying to make a hero out of Bergdahl wasn't going to end well.
^ This. I mean, I don't see how you pick Bergdahl as someone to get behind. Stupid. :idiot2:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html)
So Bergdahl was going to walk to the nearest base (alone, without his kit, mind you) to report that (wait for it) his platoon wasn't wearing their eye pro.
I would imagine it is already obvious there were discipline issues in his platoon because a private walked off and deserted to the enemy, AND HE DIDN'T EVEN TAKE HIS OWN EYEPRO!
I'm sure that will fly at the court martial.
Great investigative reporting there, CNN >:(.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on March 27, 2015, 04:01:29 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html)
So Bergdahl was going to walk to the nearest base (alone, without his kit, mind you) to report that (wait for it) his platoon wasn't wearing their eye pro.
I would imagine it is already obvious there were discipline issues in his platoon because a private walked off and deserted to the enemy, AND HE DIDN'T EVEN TAKE HIS OWN EYEPRO!
I'm sure that will fly at the court martial.
Great investigative reporting there, CNN >:(.
Yes, but more importantly...was he wearing his safety belt?
That's the question the court martial needs to determine. If he was wearing his reflective belt he couldn't possibly have been acting contrary to discipline. In fact, those things make you invulnerable to danger, so maybe his story holds water...
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12809636_1151285051571311_560012863865792865_n.jpg?oh=fa0305f49e034414025c5da386a5f5ca&oe=575CA3E0)
Doesn't make up for Manning, but at least 0bama didn't pardon Bergdahl (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/01/20/report-obama-denied-bergdahl-a-pardon-n2274631) too.
That's good. And he didn't pardon that traitor hiding in Russia either.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 05, 2016, 07:46:03 PM
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12809636_1151285051571311_560012863865792865_n.jpg?oh=fa0305f49e034414025c5da386a5f5ca&oe=575CA3E0)
URL signature expired?