Expect it to continue until Bergdahl himself answers up.
That would seem to assume to several things:
Then you don't know what assume means.
Assume means to take something for granted or without proof (as being true or false). I make no such assumption as to the truth of the accounts, I merely draw conclusions based solely on those accounts. I make no assumptions that there exists any contradictory accounts yet to be heard, and then draw conclusions based on the lack of contradictory accounts. To do so would be assuming to be true that which does not exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence that it exists. That's conspiracy theory stuff.
Should be "or" instead of "on." My apologies. I've never claimed to be typo-free. Just the opposite - I'm loaded with 'em.
"The assumption is that having an epiphany of conscience, morals or ethics, would necessarily prevent him from abandoning his platoon nor his terms of duty..."
I'm not claiming that it's your position, I'm confirming that you are correct in that it is my position (that there could not be any circumstances where what he did was valid based on his own conscience, morals or ethics). You claim that the conclusion is logically flawed, but it's not. The only way it could be flawed logic is if I were to make assumptions about things and accounts which we do not yet know.
Look, I've never served in combat, but I pay attention. A combat zone is already pretty dangerous, and when something happens that's not suppose to happen and is out of your control, the danger level increases dramatically. When someone from inside a camp just up and disappears without anyone knowing it, the danger level becomes the highest it can get, because the safety of everyone in camp depends on people being where they are supposed to be and doing what they are supposed to do.
It's not like he disappeared and then someone suddenly came up with the hair-brained idea of "we gotta stop what we're doing and go find him and make sure he's OK, and to make sure that the enemy isn't somehow picking us off one by one." Those are the established rules going in - if someone disappears you go find him, not only for his sake, but for the safety of everyone else. Resources must be diverted to search for the missing soldier, resources which could prevent an attack elsewhere. And in this case, that's precisely what happened, as resources were diverted which led to an insurgent attack on a joint US-Afghan outpost which killed two other Americans.
Thanks for the dismissive marginalizing. I appreciate it. It's not like the movie was the only place and time that phrase was used, or is applicable.
First of all, there is no evidence whatsoever that representations made by others to gain such a commitment was false in any way. The commitment made was voluntary and was not conditional on the representations of others. The commitment made was to his fellow soldiers, his unit, and his country. He took an oath to it, and did so of his own volition. If he wanted to back out of that oath there are ways to do it that don't put others in danger, grave or otherwise.
What's really interesting is I wasn't asserting it as a fact or a certainty ... only a possibility ...
That was covered in the little bit you conveniently left out while wearing your editing hat apparently:
"... he sure might have become ..."
Better luck next time ...
Yup ...
That's certainly what some extreme partisans would want ... anything to get at Obama ... regardless of whether the facts actually support it or not ...
What is that "'something else' going on there" that you are claiming I was referring to ?
LOL ... well ok then ...
Accounts, accounts, accounts ...
I do have them myself on occasion ... as you'll see below.
Should have been "or" ... got me too ... my bad.
Glad we cleared that up.
Precisely (see above)
Yup ... but there is that little matter of the Taliban intercept that Wikileaks published - which indicated that Bergdahl was captured in an attack while taking a dump on the crapper.
Actually there is - and it's contained in Bergdahl's emails to his father.
You have absolutely no way to know whether Bergdahl considered it to be conditional ... without hearing from Bergdahl himself.
The commitment he made is contained in the oath.
Well, I'd say: Tell it to Pat Tillman ... but unfortunately we can't ...
Dear Soldier: We Need Some Information In Case You're CapturedLEAVE SOME COMRADES BEHIND
1:01 PM JUNE 4, 2014
DEAR SOLDIER: WE NEED SOME INFORMATION IN CASE YOU’RE CAPTURED
by DOKTOR ZOOM
Dear Soldier/Airman/Seaman/Marine:
Thank you for your willingness to be sent wherever it is we’re sending our military forces, for whatever reason we’re sending you there. Your willingness to give your all "for your country" — or, let’s be real, for your comrades, or just not to look chicken in front of them — is greatly appreciated.
However, it has come to our attention that, should you fall into enemy hands, new circumstances dictate that your country may not want to actually bring you back. The standard has changed from "Leave no comrade behind" to "Leave no suitably telegenic comrade behind." To help us decide whether you are fit to be rescued, or even searched for, we need to gather certain information to help us determine whether you are worth bothering with.
1) Do you love America enough? Please explain any doubts you may have about the perfection of our way of life, our economic system, and core American values, as you understand them. Please note that a record of your statements on this form will be kept throughout your term of service, and should you be captured, statements on this form will be compared to any subsequent expressions of patriotism you may make in emails or phone calls to your family, remarks you may make to other members of the armed forces, or things that a guy heard another guy say about what they thought you were like; any discrepancies may be deemed reason to leave you behind.
2) Do you believe in The Mission? We actually don’t care whether you believe in the mission you’re assigned to do. You’re a soldier/airman/seaman/Marine, and you do what you’re told. However, to assist in determining your worthiness for rescue, please let us know now if you think you might at any point in the future express doubts about the morality of any cause you may be sent to support, or whether you anticipate any experiences while deployed might cause you to see said deployment in a negative light. Again, your answer in the space provided will be checked against future statements you may make.
3) Do you have any family members who might make you or the United States look bad on TV, particularly Fox News? Please indicate names and relationships of any family members who might fit any of the following descriptions:
Disloyal
Pushy, loud, or obnoxious
Anti-American
Bearded
Muslim-looking
Wimpy
Flamboyant
Eccentric
Ghetto
Please indicate any family members who speak languages other than American English, and identify the language(s):
Please indicate any family members who may worship deities that are not currently popular:
4) Can you guarantee that you will make every effort to seem neither too concerned about nor too dismissive of the welfare of the natives of the lands you are sent to fight in? Actually, We'd prefer you not say anything about them one way or the other, except that you’re proud to be able to help.
5) If comrades die while searching for you, can you guarantee that your life was worth it? Please explain, in detail, the qualities that make your life worth saving, with particular emphasis on how you would justify your own rescue to Sean Hannity, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and/or Rush Limbaugh. You may continue your answer on the back of this sheet if you need to.
6) If a substantial number of people believe you’re a deserter or a traitor, should we bring you back to try you in a court martial, or just take their word for it and leave you behind?
7) Seriously, do you actually want to be rescued or returned home if you are captured? Really, it would be a lot easier if you just answered "No." Then you'd look brave and self-sacrificing, you could be remembered as a hero, and it would save us a lot of trouble. Thanks.
My entire statement was based on those accounts. So it shouldn't be all that shocking that I would be focusing on, you know, the accounts. Why your comments reference something outside of those accounts, and thus outside of my statements, I can only guess.
Well, duh! That's why my comments were based solely on, you know, "from accounts thus far." My conclusions that it "looks like he attempted exactly what he said he would, just walk off up into the mountains" are logical and valid based on, you know, the accounts thus far. It's certainly not a conclusion drawn using either imagined data or by dismissing real data. It's not likely the final conclusion, but it's the best I can come up with, you know, thus far, based on the information I have.
The assumption is there are as-yet unreported contradictory accounts. I'm not making that assumption. You are. I will certainly take into account any additional information that may come out and modify my conclusions accordingly.
Yep. It's not a problem, I simply couldn't make sense of the sentence with the typo.
Absolutely it needs to be evaluated. The statement of, "which indicated that Bergdahl was captured in an attack while taking a dump on the crapper," in an unqualified statement that may or may not be true. "Which possibly indicated..." would at least be more accurate. We're not even sure if the intercepted transmission is talking about Bergdahl. We don't know if he was actually sitting on a physical crapper. He likely wasn't unless he was right in the secured area of the camp.
Yes it does, but now we're back to making assumptions about whether the accounts are true or not, and then attempting to draw conclusions based on something other than the reported accounts of his disappearance. Those are assumptions that I'm not willing to make in drawing my conclusions, because to do so would be flawed logic. At this point, however, the credibility of those on the ground who served with Bergdahl are certainly more credible than is the USG or the military.
The e-mails don't show he was lied to in order to get a commitment out of him when he enlisted. His e-mails show that his romantic vision of what soldiering is, was quickly disillusioned by the reality, and he had second thoughts about his commitment. They show he became bitter and resentful because the reality was different than his naivety led him to believe.
He went to the Army and enlisted, on his own. And he did so after being turned down by the French Foreign Legion. It's clear that he wanted to be a soldier, and he wasn't all that particular about the particulars.
Conditional upon what?
Seriously? That's like saying there's nothing orange about an orange (save the orange color). The Army Field Manuals, FM-1 and FM-3 in particular, which are part of the orders given by the officers above him and of the UCMJ, lay out exactly what is expected of someone in relation to his unit and his fellow soldiers.
Was Pat Tillman a deserter? Or is bringing up his case a red herring that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Bergdahl's actions?
Complete BS ...
Original article (with video):
Figures: Stupidest Man On Internet Disgusted That Obama Would Abandon Bergdahl, Rescue BergdahlTHIS WHOLE BLOG CAN BE SHIPPED TO AFGHANISTAN NO ONE HAS LOST ANY
5:09 PM JUNE 4, 2014
FIGURES: STUPIDEST MAN ON INTERNET DISGUSTED THAT OBAMA WOULD ABANDON BERGDAHL, RESCUE BERGDAHL
by DOKTOR ZOOM
Hats off to Josh Marshall (and his tipster, "TT") at Talking Points Memo for this one: Back in October, Stupidest Man on the Internet Jim Hoft was shocked and horrified at the prospect that Barack Obama might abandon POW Bowe Bergdahl at the end of the Afghanistan War. And now that Bergdahl has been brought home, Stupidest Man on the Internet Jim Hoft is shocked and horrified to learn that Bergdahl was promoted while he was in captivity — or while he was definitely teaching the Taliban how to make bombs.
And Hoft's flying ragemonkeys are fairly predictable, too:
In September 2013:
- The dictator has changed the military motto from 'no man left behind' to 'anyone we don’t want to be bothered with left behind.' Good job—
- Of course he is going to leave him, Obamanation has shown that he has no care at all for the military.
- The fact I can't say what I think is proof of where we are today. We have a muslim dictator. Is there EVER going to be a time we even ATTEMPT to water the tree of liberty?
In June 2014:
- OK, give him the promotion, then promptly hang him, and his parents.
- The person assuming the position of POTUS is, in fact, the enemy.
- You guys have this all wrong. The 5 prisoner swap was a reward for holding Sargent Abdullah for five years. They would have gone for 6, but were advised the midterm elections might "reduce Barry’s flexibility" to cut the deal later. It was the best deal they could get. You have to feel for the Taliban; they had no choice but to deal now.
Our favorite Hoft commenter has to be "Patty," who wrote in October 2013:
He left the FOUR IN BENGAZI to die, so what is one more human life to Obama?
And then today, "Patty" writes about Bergdahl (on another post):
He doesn't look sick. He looks like he belongs there. He is a traitor to his Country and America and our military sit in amazement and those who died because of Bergdahl deserve medals for saving their unites [sic] life.
Patty also calls Bergdahl a "maggot." She (?) seems nice.
Finally, you should know that JIM HOFT IS NO HYPOCRITE: He explains quite clearly that there is absolutely no contradiction between what he was saying in September and what he’s been saying since Bergdahl was returned:
Umm, Josh, I never proposed swapping Bergdahl for FIVE TOP TALIBAN KILLERS!
Not once. No logical thinker would support such a lopsided and dangerous trade.
You need to use better arguments in your next hit piece.
Good luck.
Top killers who should never have been released, eh? Former State Department legal advisor (under G.W. Bush) John B. Bellinger says that while they definitely were not nice guys, they also were likely to be released fairly soon anyway, because international law works that way:
I do not agree, as some Republicans are already arguing, that these individuals should not have been released. 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. The Administration appears to have reached a defensible, hold-your-nose compromise by arranging, in exchange for the release of Sergeant Bergdahl, for the individuals to be held in Qatar for a year before they return to Afghanistan.
But what does a radical leftist liberal communist from the Bush Administration know?
To sum up, the real idiot here is anyone who thinks that there's any logical contradiction between condemning Barack Obama for leaving Bowe Bergdahl to rot and condemning Barack Obama for bringing Bowe Bergdahl home, because prisoners who'd have been released anyway were released, and that's TERRIBLE.
[Gateway Pundit and Gateway Pundit via TPM / Lawfare]
Full disclosure: layout of screenshots from Gateway Pundit has been changed to fit our page; no content has been altered. Click image to embiggen.
This whole exchange deal was supposed to be about nothing but enhancing Obama's political interests - a venue for him to "spike the football" bringing home the last "POW" at the end of the Afghanistan war and compare himself to wartime presidents who concluded their efforts in a victorious manner after the unconditional surrender of their enemies. Of course there has been no cessation of hostilities by our enemy. He and his administration once again make fools of themselves in front of America's allies and prove their weakness to our adversaries; and to top it off, it was done in an illegal and unconstitutional manner without congressional approval. As usual, Barack Hussein Obama comes across looking like the fool he is and the mainstream media doesn't care.
