I disagree....and I dont understand how there are people on this forum who are unwilling to be unbiased with regard to this situation. There is a possibility the guy deserted, or possibly defected. We will find out if he hopefully stands trial.

I just cannot understand how some people are so dismissive over the concerns I and others have that this trade is dangerous. 5 Taliban guys with grudges against the US...and some who may have ties to Al Queda. To trade them up for someone who may have deserted his post and may have got soldiers killed....why shouldnt people ask questions and be concerned?

Im generally lean left in many of my beliefs...but I definitely think differently from many people here with regard to this issue. Thankfully there are guys like Jake Tapper and others in the news willing to ask tough questions on this issue and interview people who knew Bergdahl personally. Im not willing to just think this is a non-issue when there are many questions to be answered.

Perhaps we should have a committee of some sort to scan through every American soldier captured and decide if their service record is clean and the circumstances of their capture is deemed worthy of bringing home?

Would you feel the same if it was your own child?

People break down sometimes in combat zones...some freeze, some fuck up, some are just unlucky, but we don't leave them behind.

If these Taliban were guilty of something, we had more than enough time to charge them and try them. And remember, we invaded Afghanistan, they didn't invade us.

Do you share this concern for the HUNDREDS that Bush released from Guantanamo?

the ole "bush did it too" line. What bush did does not excuse Obama from criticism. I can be liberal as the next guy when it comes to certain things, and even so, I feel Obama deserves criticism over this and other things. I voted for the guy twice, but it doesnt mean I wont come down on him hard for certain things, just like I did with Bush or any other politician.

The funny thing is that this forum did react a lot different to these sort of things back when Bush was in office.

All I know is that people on our side of the aisle (if you can call it that), need to stop bringing up Bush whenever anyone casts judgment on Obama. People try this tactic when I voice displeasure of whats going on in the VA.. "well the VA has done this for decades. Look what they did under Regan and Bush". Past flops dont excuse future flops, and I cast my judgments out evenly.

Seems a lot of people here arent capable of that.

Do you know how to read with comprehension? I clearly said I criticized Bush for the same thing. I am not happy with releasing people who want to do harm to Americans.

As I said before: POWs get released. That's how it works.

Should we keep these people locked up without a trial forever, just because we made them mad at us? I think not. That's not how civilized people behave.

. . . more than fair to ask why you're just objecting to the practice of releasing detainees under this President?

All of your concern about this trade - what did Bush get in return for those releases?

Again, what does this have to do with Bush? I condemned Bush for releasing individuals many considered a threat to American lives. So did many posters on this forum. I remember seeing people condemn him for it during his presidency.

Yet all of a sudden the forum has seemed to flip in its support of releasing dangerous foreigners who wish Americans harm.

I may have voted Obama twice, and I may be a left leaning guy....but I recognize that a lot of Americans support and oppose many actions based on whos doing them, and not based on the actions themselves.

Im saying right here that the man in charge doesnt matter to me. I was against this kind of stuff when Bush was in office, and am against it with Obama in office. I dont believe in negotiating with terrorists, nor do I believe in releasing those that wish us harm.

My point of view is about limiting the most harm to American citizens.

Or you may not. Which is it?

. . . it's the height of sophistry to pretend those men actually pose any significant threat to the U.S. - no more than the U.S. poses a threat to their homeland.

They're not Al-Qaeda, they're Taliban concerned with the defense of their invaded homeland. They're no more of a threat to the U.S. than the thousands of Communists exchanged for U.S. prisoners at the end of the Korean War.

Problem with your protests about mentioning precedent is that there is a history of exchanging 'dangerous' folks for our own servicemen going back to decades of conflicts. Harping on and on about your concerns without acknowledging that past, and other President's actions makes you're protests purposely obtuse and factually vacant.

on "Regan". I think I have seen that same misspelling before, at that other new place. I think in poker it's called a "tell".

Its called not giving a damn how his name is actually spelt. Dont dwell on it too much buddy

In the Bergdahl situation there has been no charge at all, so your "hopefully" trial may well never happen. You hope for a trial of someone who has been charged with no crime. Accused by people who have no actual knowledge? Sure. That and $1.85 will get you a cup of coffee in some places.

Prisoner exchanges are not uncommon. One just happened. Until we have more information, we're all talking out of our asses if we have some sort of strong opinion on this.

I'm waiting for information. Until there is some available, I'll keep waiting.

Then let him be charged then. If theres evidence of desertion...charge him...trial him...and let it pan out. I dont see the problem in that.

while they look and see if this part is true, if there is evidence enough to charge him with. You sound like you've already tried him and found him guilty. Welcome to du.

That's interesting for someone who claims to be " as liberal as the next guy." I'm not buying it, though.

that not everyone within a political alignment thinks exactly the same on all issues.

Im for affirmative action, equal pay legislation, more oversight on wall st, extension of unemployment benefits, gay marriage rights, the right to choose regarding abortion, legalization of pot, universal healthcare, etc. While all these things tend to go lockstep with what people consider "the left", there are many things I disagree with "the left" on.

Right now, the way many on the left are treating the Bergdahl situation is one of the things I dont go lockstep with.

It's not even a fucking debate.

. . . all of them in jail in Qatar and under U.S. watch and monitor.

It's just politics to worry folks about some risk to Americans from that bunch. I can just hear the conversation around the taliban water cooler . . . "Just pray next time there's a cluster bombing or night raid on our village it wasn't targeted by that Bergdahl guy we let go."

Btw, did you care to speak up and out when Bush released HUNDREDS of folks from Gitmo picked up on the battlefield?

Tapper is just repeating what the soldiers he solicited for info told him. I prefer reporters who are willing to present all sides of a story and take pains to ensure their reporting is truthful and accurate. So far Tapper (and others) are satisfied digging up just one side of the tale. We can already see cracks in many of the claims that were so breathlessly reported as verifiable fact.

Watch FOX "News" play that back to back with Hillary saying the same thing about Benghazi.

Having to differentiate between Bergdahl and Benghazi. Their brains simply aren't wired to process two non-scandals that sound alike!

lets see who the GOPer/Libertarian/Right Wing crazies believe and support. 3...2...1

. . . and their wing-nut supporters.

"We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say." --Bush at VFW


Bush: "All you got to do is listen to what Osama bin Laden says"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2878580


Bush: "I would hope they would listen to the words of Osama bin Laden"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2865921

. . . he answered her.

She needs to STFU.