Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: How Fox covered Sergeant Bergdahl's disappearance in 2009

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,914
    Quote Originally Posted by DiabloViejo View Post
    How Fox covered Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl's disappearance in 2009

    Ralph Peters: If soldier held by Taliban is a deserter, "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills"


    http://youtu.be/AL9P6W9vt6E



    So the always wrong, Right, will continue to paint the picture they wish to dream of, for their usual propagandist slant, even though no one knows what happened to this young American soldier. As usual, the Right has drummed up the story they want, and they have RWers who are attacking this soldier. We do not have the full story, yet, and hence, the story is being written by pawns of the Republican Party.

    I'd like to see these Republican panty-waisted, yapping barkers go through what this young man went through.

    Obviously, he was suffering from emotional distress, PTSD, or worse, as he watched the Talliban, armed and trained by Ronald Reagan, and their inhumanity against innocents in their country.

    No one else can speak for this young man, other than to say that if only George Bush had listened to Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton, and other CIA, and Special Alec Unit experts, and given a good damn about the forty plus warnings he recieved during his first seven plus months as President, after he threw the election, of course, none of this disastrous waste in Iraq, or Afghanistan would have ever happened:

    "bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States."


    Most Presidents would, at the least, have called together the heads of all of our defense and counter terrorist agencies, but not George Bush, the LIAR in Chief! Bush didn't do one single thing, not one, to prevent the attack. We knew what we needed to know, but Bush didn't care.

    Bravo President Obama, for bringing our soldier home. Nothing he did could equal the treason commited by BUSH/CHENEY/RICE/RUMSFELD the WAR CRIMINALS!

  2. #12
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,069
    Right-Wing Media Attack On Bergdahl's Rescue Ignore Military's Commitment To Freeing POWs


    Michelle Leung
    June 2, 2014
    Media Matters for America
    http://mediamatters.org/research/201...cue-ign/199536

    Media criticism of the Obama administration for taking steps to secure the release of captured U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl ignores the fact that the military has committed to "use every practical means" to free prisoners of war.


    Sgt. Bergdahl Is Freed By Taliban In Prisoner Exchange


    Bergdahl Handed Over To American Special Operations After Prisoner Exchange. Bergdahl, who was captured by Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan in June 2009, was released on May 31 in exchange for five Taliban detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. [The New York Times, 5/31/14]

    Media Disparage Deal To Release Bergdahl


    Fox Regular Donald Trump: "This Was A Terrible Deal We Made." On the June 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Trump asserted that the U.S. made a "terrible deal to secure Bergdahl's release: "This was a terrible deal we made, by the way. This was a terrible deal. Every soldier and every American is at risk right now." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/2/14]

    Breitbart's Gorka: We Have Sent Message To "Jihadists": "Capture An American And America Will Do Your Bidding." On June 1, Breitbart.com National Security Affairs Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka criticized the Obama administration for securing Bergdahl's release saying, "Now we have sent a message to all jihadists around the world: capture an American and America will do your bidding." [Breitbart, 6/1/14]

    Daily Caller: "Obama Submits to Taliban Demands." The Daily Caller framed the Obama administration trade of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to secure Bergdahl's release by stating in a headline "Obama Submits to Taliban Demands." [The Daily Caller, 6/1/14]

    ABC News Contributor Bill Kristol: We Shouldn't Have Made Trade Because It's Possible Bergdahl Wasn't A "Real POW." On the June 2 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, ABC News contributor and conservative pundit Bill Kristol slammed the deal that secured Bergdahl's release by citing the 'anger' expressed by other soldiers and stating, "it's one thing to trade terrorists for a real P.O.W., for someone who's taken on the battlefield fighting honorably for our country. It's different to trade five high ranking terrorist for someone who walked away":

    KRISTOL: Secondly, what about Bergdahl? Everyone's happy to see him back and all that. The fact is Susan Rice said on TV yesterday that he was taken in battle. Taken on the battlefield and he served the United States with honor and distinction. There's a lot of reporting that he wasn't taken in battle. He seems to have deserted or at least gone AWOL, he may have cooperated with the enemy. Soldiers died trying to find him. His own platoon and his own battalion seem to have come under a lot more attacks after he was taken. The degree of anger among soldiers on e-mail and listservs is unbelievable. And that needs to be taken seriously. That's not just people, those are the people who fought in the same company in some cases. And who feel like they sacrificed a lot to get this guy back who may have behaved vastly irresponsibly or worse. And we need to have honesty about that. There was a big army investigation. What did Susan Rice know what did President Obama know about the investigation about Bergdahl? It's one thing to trade terrorists for a real P.O.W., for someone who's taken on the battlefield fighting honorably for our country. It's different to trade five high ranking terrorist for someone who walked away. [MSNBC, Morning Joe, 6/2/14]

    The U.S. Military Has Committed To Gaining Release Of POWs


    Military Code Of Conduct: U.S. Govt. "Will Use Any Practical Means To Contact, Support And Gain Release" Of POWs. A Department of Defense military code of conduct and ethics dating back to 1954 states that the U.S. government has an explicit obligation and responsibility to "stand by" POWs and that the government "will use every practical means to contact, support and gain release for you and for all other prisoners of war" (emphasis added):

    As a member of the armed forces of the United States, you are protecting your nation. It is your duty to oppose all enemies of the United States in combat or, if a captive, in a prisoner of war compound. Your behavior is guided by the Code of Conduct, which has evolved from the heroic lives, experiences and deeds of Americans from the Revolutionary War to the Southeast Asian Conflict.
    [...]
    Just as you have a responsibility to your country under the Code of Conduct, the United States government has an equal responsibility -- to keep faith with you and stand by you as you fight for your country. If you are unfortunate enough to become a prisoner of war, you may rest assured that your government will care for your dependents and will never forget you. Furthermore, the government will use every practical means to contact, support and gain release for you and for all other prisoners of war. [American Civil Liberties Union, accessed 6/2/14]

    U.S. National Security Advis
    er: "We Have A Sacred Obligation" To Bring Back POWs. On the June 1 edition of ABC's This Week, U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice pointed out that the U. S government has a "sacred obligation that we have upheld since the founding of our republic to do the must to bring back our men and women who are taken in battle." Rice argued that the government has a responsibility to "do our utmost to bring our prisoners-of-war home":

    RICE: Sergeant Bergdahl wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war, captured on the battlefield. We have a sacred obligation that we have upheld since the founding of our republic to do the most to bring back our men and women who are taken in battle, and we did that in this instance. If for some reason we took a position now in the 21st century, when some of our adversaries may not be traditional state actors, that we would not do our utmost to bring our prisoners of war home, that would break faith with the American people and with the men and women in uniform, so regardless of who may be holding an American prisoner of war, we must do our best to bring him or her back.[ABC, This Week, 6/1/14]

    Secretary Of Defense Chuck
    Hagel: Securing Release Was Necessary To Save Bergdahl's Life. On June 1, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel argued that the administration had to act quickly in securing Bergdahl's release once an "opening" with the Taliban was found, citing concerns about Bergdahl's health:

    Believing that his health was deteriorating, the United States acted quickly to save his life after years of work to free him from being a prisoner of war, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Sunday.

    "It was our judgment that if we could find an opening and move very quickly with that opening, that we needed to get him out of there essentially to save his life," Hagel said. "I know President Obama feels very strongly about that, I do as well." [CNN.com, 6/1/14]


  3. #13
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,069
    Fox's Islamophobic Attack On The Facial Hair Of Bob Bergdahl

    Media Matters for America
    06/03/2014
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06...hair-of/199571



    Fox News personalities attacked the father of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for looking "like a Muslim" and addressing his son in Pashto, going so far as to say his appearance is "insulting" and suggesting he might be an "Islamist sympathizer."

    The network has a long and well-documented history of pushing Islamophobic rhetoric and propagating the belief that Islam is a violent religion, and its punditsdidn't hold back in tapping into anti-Islamic sentiment to identify "something wrong" with Bergdahl's release. Fox host Bill O'Reilly said he was "insulted" by the"conduct" of the soldier's father, Bob Bergdahl, during his May 31 Rose Garden appearance with President Obama, because "[h]e has learned to speak the language of the Taliban and looks like a Muslim, actually thanking Allah right in front of the president." Fox contributor Laura Ingraham later hyped and escalated O'Reilly's "revelations," saying on her radio show, "If he wasn't so light-skinned, he actually looks like the terrorists."

    Other Fox hosts have suggested that Bergdahl's beard, reportedly grown out of solidarity with his son, is something to be "skeptical" of and something that he grew out of "sympathy with the Taliban." The current suspicion of Bergdahl's facial hair comes in stark contrast to the network's previous support of the famously bearded stars of A&E's Duck Dynasty.


    Watch: http://youtu.be/f0jpImbkR5c


  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Primary residence is suburban Detroit but have a flat in London and Moscow.
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by DiabloViejo View Post
    Fox's Islamophobic Attack On The Facial Hair Of Bob Bergdahl

    Media Matters for America
    06/03/2014
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06...hair-of/199571



    Fox News personalities attacked the father of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for looking "like a Muslim" and addressing his son in Pashto, going so far as to say his appearance is "insulting" and suggesting he might be an "Islamist sympathizer."

    The network has a long and well-documented history of pushing Islamophobic rhetoric and propagating the belief that Islam is a violent religion, and its punditsdidn't hold back in tapping into anti-Islamic sentiment to identify "something wrong" with Bergdahl's release. Fox host Bill O'Reilly said he was "insulted" by the"conduct" of the soldier's father, Bob Bergdahl, during his May 31 Rose Garden appearance with President Obama, because "[h]e has learned to speak the language of the Taliban and looks like a Muslim, actually thanking Allah right in front of the president." Fox contributor Laura Ingraham later hyped and escalated O'Reilly's "revelations," saying on her radio show, "If he wasn't so light-skinned, he actually looks like the terrorists."

    Other Fox hosts have suggested that Bergdahl's beard, reportedly grown out of solidarity with his son, is something to be "skeptical" of and something that he grew out of "sympathy with the Taliban." The current suspicion of Bergdahl's facial hair comes in stark contrast to the network's previous support of the famously bearded stars of A&E's Duck Dynasty.


    Watch: http://youtu.be/f0jpImbkR5c
    Are you mad?

    Radical Islamists have killed thousands of USA and Russian citizens and you deny this?

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,914
    Quote Originally Posted by DiabloViejo View Post
    Bowe Bergdahl Is the Right’s New Benghazi
    Buckle up: The right is going to try to turn the Taliban prisoner swap for ‘deserter’ Bowe Bergdahl into a Willie Horton moment for the president—and they’ll ride it to January 2017.



    Michael Tomasky
    The Daily Beast
    06/02/14
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-benghazi.html



    So let’s imagine that on Saturday night, the news had emerged not that Bowe Bergdahl was being freed but that he’d been murdered by his Taliban captors. What do you suppose we’d be hearing from Republican legislators? You know exactly what: Barack Obama is the weakest president ever, this is unconscionable. Which, of course, is exactly what we’re hearing from them now that the U.S. Army sergeant, held by the Taliban since 2009, has been freed. And it’s going to get worse. I’m even tempted to say forget Benghazi—Bergdahl may well end up being the flimsy excuse for the impeachment hearings they’ve been dreaming of before all this is over.

    The Republicans’ audacity here is a bit beyond the usual. Let’s face it: There is no question that if President George W. Bush or a President McCain or President Romney had secured Bergdahl’s release in exchange for five Taliban prisoners at Gitmo, Republicans would be defending the move all the way. That business about notifying Congress? They’d have a dozen excuses for it. We got our prisoner of war home, they’d all be saying. That’s what matters.

    But Obama does it, and Bergdahl’s freedom isn’t what matters at all. It’s that we negotiated with terrorists. Well, yes. We’ve been negotiating with the Taliban for a long time now, trying to end the war. See, they’re the people leading the fighting on the other side. When you’re trying to end a war, that’s generally who you negotiate with.

    The five guys we returned to the Taliban are really bad guys, as Eli Lake and Josh Rogin wrote this weekend, and it’s fair to ask whether the price was too high. We can’t know the answer to that question today. But other criticisms are bogus. House intel chairman Mike Rogers said on TV Sunday that in cutting the deal, “you send a message to every al Qaeda group in the world that there is some value in a hostage that it didn’t have before.” That’s ridiculous. So al Qaeda groups didn’t know until this past weekend that taking an American hostage could give them leverage? Guerrilla forces have been taking people hostage since warfare began. We’ve even done lower-level prisoner trades in Afghanistan.
    Looking forward, and looking more broadly at this situation, all the ingredients are here for a classic GOP Obama-conspiracy-mongering soap opera that can be dragged out until January 2017. The late combat journalist Mike Hastings wrote a long profile of Bergdahl in Rolling Stone in 2012, and it gets right to the heart of what may be the coming GOP case against him.

    First of all, Bergdahl wasn’t any Republican’s idea of a patriot. Yes, he volunteered to join the Army, but only after he’d been turned down by the French Foreign Legion. Once on the ground in Afghanistan, he was a deeply disillusioned soldier. Shortly after his battalion took its first casualty, he emailed his parents a scathing indictment of the military and everything he saw around him. From Hastings:

    “I am sorry for everything here,” Bowe told his parents. “These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.” He then referred to what his parents believe may have been a formative, possibly traumatic event: seeing an Afghan child run over by an MRAP. “We don’t even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks … We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them.”

    Bowe concluded his email with what, in another context, might read as a suicide note. “I am sorry for everything,” he wrote. “The horror that is america is disgusting.”

    He wandered away from his unit. A Fox News commentator called him a “deserter.” He is officially in good standing in the Army and has even received the promotions due him during his time in captivity, but some consider him a deserter and traitor. Get ready to start hearing more of that.

    The argument will be made that he wasn’t worth saving, especially given what we had to give up. Hastings cites “White House sources” as telling him that Marc Grossman, Richard Holbrooke’s successor as AfPak coordinator, “was given a direct warning by the president’s opponents in Congress about trading Bowe for five Taliban prisoners during an election year. ‘They keep telling me it’s going to be Obama’s Willie Horton moment,’ Grossman warned the White House.”

    Can Republicans make this resonate outside their base? Hard to say. I think to most Americans, this is a feel-good story. We value a life, one American life. Bibi Netanyahu traded one captive Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, not for five Palestinian prisoners. He traded Shalit for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners. And there was broad agreement across the spectrum of Israeli politics that bringing Shalit to safety, even at that price, was the right thing to do.

    But of course, that doesn’t matter to the right. No one outside their base cares much about Benghazi, but that hasn’t stopped them. They’ll keep pursuing Benghazi mostly to see if they can pin anything on Hillary, but when it comes to wet impeachment dreams, Benghazi may have just been pushed to the back seat. The crazy never stops.

    There is no limit to the depths which Republicans are willing to stoop! They were all on the record, demanding that the president use any and all methods for securing the release of this soldier, and bring him back home. The President had to act when the time was best for success. Those released from GITMO, were not "Terrorists" they were among Afghans who were scooped up, helter skelter, by Bush et al, and no proof that any of them ever killed anny Amerricans.

    Republicans are truly disgusting. They refused to engage in any options for closing GITMO, the rallying cry for al Q., and others used to recruit others to their cause, and here againlk Republicanns were demanding that the President use any and every methods to bring this young man home.

    Where are their answers for solving the colossal, damaging, disastrous legacy of Bush et al? None! It is as if they cannot discuss solving any of Bush's many multi disasters of THE WORST LEGACY EVER LEFT BY ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, OR, SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, because that brings more attention to the disaster of Bush et al, and the Republican Blank Check Congress!!!

    The president did exactly the right thing, and he was right to keep it from those unconscionable Repiglicans who would surely have leaked it, annd ruined everything. Those 1500 missiles Reagan gave away, and his arming and training of the Talliban, is never mentioned by the press, or the Repiglicans. George Bush destroyed our honor, our dignity, AND our economy, but let this president perform an act which is the core of our military honor, and Repiglicans and their minions jump right to their usual propaganda, and stoop again to raise money on their lies. Pathetic!

  6. #16
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,069
    When Fox News Declared War On A Military Family (Part 1)

    Eric Boehlert
    Media Matters for America
    June 4, 2014
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06...-family/199586




    When an emotional Jani and Robert Bergdahl strode into the White House Rose Garden on Saturday to the share the emotional announcement by President Obama that their son, Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl would be returning home after being held captive for five years by the Taliban, it's unlikely they could have foreseen that their family would soon be under attack by the right-wing media, or that Robert Bergdahl would be depicted on Fox News as a possible terrorist sympathizer; mocked on national television as he awaited a reunion with his ailing son.

    They couldn't have foreseen it because I don't think it's ever happened before. I don't think we've ever seen a dedicated media campaign to not only undermine a returning prisoner of war, but to also cast doubt onto the soldier's family; to portray them as un-American even as they prepare for their reunion.

    Instead, Fox News has helped transform the prisoner swap involving Taliban detainees into "an increasingly vicious partisan issue," as Buzzfeed described the Republican decision to go into relentless attack mode, complete with enlisted publicists and strategists, to subvert the return of an American POW.

    It's symptomatic of a conservative media mini-mob that now obsessively politicizing everything, and does it all with the knob turned up to 11.

    So in the name of partisan warfare there can be no trace of empathy or understanding for a family that spent nearly 2,000 days wondering if their soldier son would ever come home. Wondering if he was being tortured or treated humanely by the Taliban as he passed years away in solitary confinement. There can be no waiting to get the facts; to actually hear from Bowe Bergdahl himself and let him explain the 2009 actions that led to his capture. For the attacks against Obama to stick, Bergdahl and his family became the target of a character assassination crusade.

    Note this fact: A lot of the current Bergdahl-related theatrics being played out in the right-wing media appear to have been in the works for quite a while. For years, in fact. In 2012, Michael Hastings reported in Rolling Stonethat when talk first surfaced of a possible prisoner swap between the U.S. and the Taliban, Republicans immediately began playing election year politics [emphasis added]:

    According to White House sources, Marc Grossman, who replaced Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, was given a direct warning by the president's opponents in Congress about trading Bowe for five Taliban prisoners during an election year. "They keep telling me it's going to be Obama's Willie Horton moment," Grossman warned the White House. The threat was as ugly as it was clear: The president's political enemies were prepared to use the release of violent prisoners to paint Obama as a Dukakis-*like appeaser, just as Republicans did to the former Massachusetts governor during the 1988 campaign.

    Fast-forward two years and that's exactly what's unfolding. The only twist is that as part of the political retribution, a military family is being smeared, too.

    Yes, the unique circumstances of Bergdahl's capture (was he a deserter?) and his release are legitimate areas for debate. Once he's back on U.S. soil, the military will be able to fully review how he came into enemy hands and determine whether further punishment is in order. And Robert Bergdahl's unorthodox and aggressively activist campaign to secure his son's release has certainly been newsworthy.


  7. #17
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,069
    When Fox News Declared War On A Military Family (Part 2)

    But with Fox News and the helm of the restless, turbo-fueled outrage machine, thoughtful debate isn't allowed. Instead, this was a typical headline from one right-wing site this week: "Bergdahl: From POW to POS?", while The Drudge Report condemned the soldier as a "rat." As blogger Charles Johnson noted, by Tuesday, conservatives at Hot Air and Breitbart had posted no less than 42 Bergdahl items/rants between them.

    Despite the coordinated media hysteria, many experts in the field downplay the announced wartime exchange as being historic, unusual, or even controversial. "This is a legitimate prisoner swap," Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and professor of military history at Ohio State University told USA Today.

    And John B. Bellinger III, who served as the top lawyer at the National Security Council and then the State Department under President George W. Bush, noted the Taliban prisoners released from Guantanamo were already heading for freedom soon:

    In my view, the U.S. would not be able to hold them forever. Indeed, it is likely that the U.S. would be required, as a matter of international law, to release them shortly after the end of 2014, when U.S. combat operations cease in Afghanistan.

    In other words, the White House was able to secure the release of an American citizen in exchange for five Taliban detainees who were likely to be set free next year anyway. And by the way, when negotiations to free Bergdahl first began, the Taliban insisted the U.S. release 15 prisoners and provide a cash payment. In the end, they received five men and no money in exchange for Bergdahl.

    On Fox, the debate over whether Bergdahl deserted his post had long ago been settled, so they quickly moved onto the next phase of the campaign, which was suggesting, without any proof, that the U.S. soldier was actually a Taliban sympathizer who might have fought against American forces.

    "Can you imagine if it turns out that he was actually collaborating," Brian Kilmeade wondered out loud on Fox.

    Imagine, indeed.

    That mindset begins to explain why Kilmeade talked about Bowe Bergdahl's father this way:

    I mean, he says he was growing his beard because his son was -- because his son was in captivity. Your son's out now. If you really don't, no longer want to look like a member of the Taliban, you don't have to look like a member of the Taliban. Are you out of razors?

    The phrase 'dripping with contempt' barely covers the tasteless attack Kilmeade launched against a father who'd just spent every day of the previous five years trying to secure his son's release. For Fox talkers, that human element is irrelevant.

    Meanwhile, Fox contributor Laura Ingraham stressed "More revelations coming out about the left-wing father of Sergeant Bergdahl I mean, left wing doesn't even begin to describe him." So being "left wing" means you should be mocked while you await your son's return from a Taliban prison?

    For Fox contributor Allen West, Robert Bergdahl's use of Arabic in remarks from the Rose Garden were evidence he had "sanctified" the White House "and claimed it for Islam."
    More from Fox on Robert Bergdahl:

    *Is he an "Islamic sympathizer?"
    *"He grew it out of sympathy wit the Taliban"
    *If he wasn't so light-skinned, he actually looks like a terrorist."
    *"He looks like Muslim"

    All of these attacks were launched in the name of scoring partisan points against Obama for okaying the prisoner swap. Can you imagine though, if months from now word leaked out that Obama had a deal on the table to get the only American prisoner home from the Afghanistan War and the president refused to secure the man's freedom? If Obama supposedly "disdains" the troops by winning Bergdahl's release (so says Fox's Ralph Peters), what would feral Fox pundits have said if Obama left an American to die in solitary confinement knowing the soldier's health was deteriorating?

    Recall that Republican Senators John McCain and Kelly Ayotte were in favor of bringing Bergdahl home -- until President Obama achieved it. In December, Allen West sneered that the Obama wasn't working hard enough to recover Bergdahl because there were "no camera highlights in it for him"; now that Obama has done so, West says he should be impeached.

    So for the Obama obsessed, the Bergdahl's story's a win-win: They attack Obama for securing the soldier's release and they would have mercilessly condemned Obama for failing to secure the soldier's release. For the critics, it's a game.

    For a military family from tiny Hailey Idaho, it's much more.


  8. #18
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,069


  9. #19
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,069
    My stand as regards Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is simply this: until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, he is innocent of all that he has been accused of. "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy whose brother was in the same battallion 3 years later" or "I saw on the internet" is not proof of treason, desertion, or anything else. l await the conclusion of an investigation before I formulate an opinion regarding the character of his service. That's how we do it in America, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which in Berghdahl's case, would be a General Courts Martial (if the evidence warrants the charges). If you don't like that, then it's just too bad for you. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are valid for anyone at any time.



  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Primary residence is suburban Detroit but have a flat in London and Moscow.
    Posts
    506
    History has shown you are far more likely to believe whatever your agitprop party masters tell you to believe. After all that is what Stalinists do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •