Obama Violated the Law with Prisoner Exchange

http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2014/06/03/barack-obamas-unfortunate-new-movie

 

If the democrats had their way, all the terrorists would get apologies, a suitcase of money and free airfare to the country of their choice.

 

Bergdahl's Release Spurs Backlash among Soldiers
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s-backlash-among-soldiers.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

 

Living in San Diego a military town... I get to hear things now and then.
I am hearing the military on up the chain is also incredibly pissed at Obama... they spent years giving their blood, their bodies, and their sweat over there and Obama just hands back alot of their work.

 

What democrats call "swiftboating" is what normal people call it when people who were actually there and served with this guy (or John Kerry) call BS on lies.

 

The logical inference from his view is that we should release all of them. Certainly a lot of liberals seem to have a sick need to release these predators. Perhaps it is the same impulse that leads them to instinctively find endless excuses for violent criminals.

Then one is left to ask, if we should release them now, when jihad still rages against us, why should we ever have detained them in the first place? Is that Reid's position?

 

"Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday urged Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s critics not to “judge” him until all the facts are in and sharply defended the extensive and risky search efforts that claimed the lives of some of his fellow soldiers.

“We did a huge number of operations to try to stop the Taliban from being able to move him across the border into Pakistan,” McChrystal told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview. “And we made a great effort and put a lot of people at risk in doing that, but that’s what you should do. That’s what soldiers do for each other.”

"Bergdahl’s release as part of a prisoner swap involving five Taliban commanders has drawn angry scrutiny in Congress. It has also prompted some of his former comrades in arms to paint him as a deserter unworthy of the frantic search efforts on his behalf.

"McChrystal, who commanded the war effort in Afghanistan at the time of Bergdahl’s June 2009 vanishing, declined to shed any more light on the circumstances of his disappearance.

“We’re going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story,” he said. “One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it.”

 

Richter,

Two things:

(1) McChrystal didn't serve with Bergdahl so his opinion's don't carry much weight IMO. Those who served with Bergdahl have identified him as a deserter have more to bring to the table.
(2) McChrystal ended up resigning. So his credibility, or lack thereof, is tied to that. And why the hell Odumbo allowed him to keep his 4 star rank is somewhat bizarre.

The day after the announcement, the White House announced that he would retain his four-star rank in retirement, although law generally requires a four-star officer to hold his rank for three years in order to retain it in retirement.

And let's not forget of McChrystal's involvement in the BS after Pat Tillman was killed.

 

I disagree with those that say we should not put any conditions on who we're going to "save" if they become a POW, and here's why.
Case one - the person is a deserter. He/she willingly abandons their post and intentionally walks into the hands of the enemy.
Case two - the person is taken prisoner while fighting in battle.

Now we have not one, but two prisoners. We're trying to strike a deal for their release. Let us for the sake of this scenario forget about who or what we're willing to give up. Fact is we'll give up something or someone that the enemy wants. We agree to give it up and the enemy says, OK, we'll show up with one of the prisoners. We agree to make the deal for one.
Here is the 64 dollar question for those of you who say we should not put any conditions on this. Do you care which one the enemy gives back? By your standards, frankly the existing standards as they are today, we should not care at all which one is given back, the deserter or the one who was taken prisoner while fighting. We got one of our people back. Period. End of discussion.
Anyone with a shred of honesty wants the guy who went down fighting to be the one they give back.That is why I cannot support this idea that we bring'em back regardless, without any condition whatsoever. It's disgraces those who go down in battle to have a policy that views a coward and those who fight as equals.