T1B

KC Scott wrote:to kidnap others

At least we now know he didn't walk away from his post.

Moving Bowel wrote:...this decision has produced zero deaths?

I've not heard it reported how many America lives may have been lost in the process of apprehending the five Taliban members who Barry unilaterally decided to release.

So he is not a traitor. Gotcha.

It was a unanimous decision in my government.


:?

Barry says "his government" has a basic principle -- that they don't leave any man in uniform behind.

I couldn't help but think about "his government" not making any move at all to come to the aid of HIS people when they were under attack in Benghazi.

He left them behind.


POS

What difference does it make?

Maybe somebody needs to write a 600 page book.

Moving Sale wrote:So he is not a traitor. Gotcha.

Yes, I think treason would be quite a reach given what we know.

Treason would be a stretch, but desertion is pretty much a lock, given what we know. Doesn't matter, really as back in the day, when this country was run by people with balls, either would get you stood in front of a wall and shot.

Should he be shot?

No, but weshouldn't have given up a damn thing for him. We should have told the taliban that we would happily take him back for free, to face desertion charges.

The one that needs shooting is the clueless dolt in the WH.

smackaholic wrote:
Should he be shot?

.

Absolutely. It is necessary for the good order and discipline of the force.

smackaholic wrote:Should he be shot?

No, but we shouldn't have given up a damn thing for him. We should have told the taliban that we would happily take him back for free, to face desertion charges.

I don't want to judge the guy without a trial, but if found guilty, he may wish he was back in Afghanistan. That may seem like paradise compared to Fort Leavenworth.

poptart wrote:Barry says "his government" has a basic principle -- that they don't leave any man in uniform behind.

I couldn't help but think about "his government" not making any move at all to come to the aid of HIS people when they were under attack in Benghazi.

He left them behind.


POS

So what could he have said in that video that would have kept you from coming in here and bitching again?

mvscal wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
Should he be shot?

.

Absolutely. It is necessary for the good order and discipline of the force.

Maybe, in a conscript army...

Moving Bowel wrote:So what could he have said in that video that would have kept you from coming in here and bitching again?

His government??


lol

Would it have been ok if he said his administration? Or would that put you in a tizzy too?

It would have been ok -- although I would have suspected it to be a lie.
Even as seriously bonkers most of those surrounding him are, I doubt that it was unanimous within his administration that he ought to bypass Congress, make this deal with the devil, and then have a Rose Garden event -- as if something grand had been done.


If Barry hadn't been going about his business as _resident for 5 years as if the U.S. Government is his government, I wouldn't have said anything about the "slip."

But the truth is, he means that it is his government.

If you are so pissed why didn't you bitch when the plan was first floated in 2011? And why did they need 30 days notice when everybody knew about this before the law was ever written?

lol

A lot of things are "floated."
I don't (and can't) comment whenever something is... floated.

What did "everybody" know about before the law was written?


Btw, you can stop flailing anytime now.

Moving Sale wrote:If you are so pissed why didn't you bitch when the plan was first floated in 2011? And why did they need 30 days notice when everybody knew about this before the law was ever written?

So you're saying that "everybody" knew back in 2011 that he was going to be released on May 31st, 2014? Is that your story?

Actually, "when the plan was first floated in 2011," Congress told Oshitskin to fuck off.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

mvscal wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
Should he be shot?

.

Absolutely. It is necessary for the good order and discipline of the force.

Maybe, in a conscript army...

Nope. The fact is that Bergdahl was a fucked up troop in a totally fucked up unit. It's the same reason Ike had Pvt. Slovik shot in WW2. He, too, came from a totally fucked up unit. Sometimes harsh messages need to be delivered.

In a properly disciplined force, Bergdahl's entire chain of command would have been relieved and/or prosecuted and Blowe would be tied to a stake and shot.

poptart wrote: What did "everybody" know about before the law.

That this exchange was going to take place. Again, why didn't you bitch about it then?

Ofailurecal,
The date of the trade was not reveled but the law doesn't say it needs to be now does it? As far as congress they didn't need to be asked for permission but if you want to link us up with their vote on the matter I will read it and get back to you you vile racist loser.

Moving Sale wrote:The date of the trade was not reveled but the law doesn't say it needs to be now does it? As far as congress they didn't need to be asked for permission but if you want to link us up with their vote on the matter I will read it and get back to you you vile racist loser.

They never had a date in 2011, dumbfuck. They just discussed it and, evidently, the discussion was so disturbing to the various members of Congress present, that they passed the law requiring 30 days notice prior to transferring these shitbags out of Gitmo.

mvscal wrote: They never had a date in 2011, dumbfuck.

The law requires 30 days notice. They got their fucking notice three years in advance.

They just discussed it and, evidently, the discussion was so disturbing to the various members of Congress present, that they passed the law requiring 30 days notice prior to transferring these shitbags out of Gitmo.

Then you can link me up with the congressional record where they discuss hr4310 sec 1027 -1037 and show that those sections are in place to stop BB from being swapped for 4 meatheads and Fazl right? And if it was in response to the 2011 negotiations why did they wait until 2013 to pass the legislation?

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote: They never had a date in 2011, dumbfuck.

The law requires 30 days notice. They got their fucking notice three years in advance.

Not even Bath House Barry is pushing that lie.

Then you can link me up with the congressional record where they discuss hr4310 sec 1027 -1037 and show that those sections are in place to stop BB from being swapped for 4 meatheads and Fazl right? And if it was in response to the 2011 negotiations why did they wait until 2013 to pass the legislation?

Irrelevant.

mvscal wrote: Not even [the POTUS] is pushing that lie.

Is not a lie and I don't care if his legal team care to float it or not.

Irrelevant.

You were the one who said Congress was disturbed. Link me up or shut your failurehole.

Moving Sale wrote:You were the one who said Congress was disturbed. Link me up or shut your failurehole.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, revealed on Tuesday that she received an apology call from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken on Monday night.

She said Blinken apologized for the failure “and said it was an oversight.”

“It's very disappointing that there was not a level of trust sufficient to justify alerting us," she told reporters.

Feinstein said the administration floated the idea of the swap to senior lawmakers in 2011, and drew sharp opposition.

“There were very strong views and they were virtually unanimous against the trade,” she said.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... z34Am58xOx

Ah yes DF your fav senator. What you said was they passed the notice in response to the negotiations so that is what you need to link me up with.

I just did. Or do you suppose it was all just a big coincidence?

The midget lawyer gets dragged around like James Byrd in every freaking thread.






STOP THE FIGHT!!!
STOP THE FIGHT!!

mvscal wrote:I just did. Or do you suppose it was all just a big coincidence?

Unless you can cite the CR were it says it isn't then yes.

Puptent,
You can yell bode or you can tell us why you didn't complain when this first came out. What you didn't have your talking point from the right wing echo chamber yet?

So you have no actual take of your own eh puptent? Drone on asshat drone on.

Papa Willie wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /12616549/

Doesn't matter that he's a traitor - just go ahead and give him an easy job to reward him!

That's pretty much standard procedure. He is still on active duty so he has to be assigned to a unit somewhere. Obviously he will be subject to some sort of administrative action. Given the facts of the case, the very best he can hope for is an administrative separation under the general - other than honorable condition.

The fact that a major general is investigating his case would indicate the worst case scenario would be a prosecution before a general court martial for violations of Article 85 and or 99 of the UCMJ either of which carries a potential death sentence.

He went cuckoo.

Stop making it out like he was teaching the "sandal set" how to brew Semtex...

I'm not. I'm just saying he's is in deep shit. He could possibly face charges under a general court martial for violations of articles 85, 86 and 99.

The 86 would be a lesser included offense of either desertion or MBE and is a slam dunk conviction. He became absent without leave the splintered instant he left his post. He has no possible defense. Under a general CM, that carries a penalty of about 18 months in the stockade and a dishonorable discharge.

The MBE is the most serious charge and one the Army really can't overlook for the good order and discipline of the force. It's very serious and it looks like he meets the elements for 'running away.'

Any time spent will be in the looney bin. Then a discharge.

mvscal wrote:It's very serious and it looks like he meets the elements for 'running away.'

There has to be an enemy and a battle, of which there were neither. He was AWOL for a little while. Get over it Nancy.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:It's very serious and it looks like he meets the elements for 'running away.'

There has to be an enemy and a battle, of which there were neither.

Wrong on both counts. How the fuck do you think he got captured in the first place if there weren't any Taliban in the AO? His unit was conducting active CI operations at the time, dumbfuck.

Yes, you remain a clueless fuckwit.

(1) Running away.

(a) That the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy;

(b) That the accused misbehaved by running away; and

(c) That the accused intended to avoid actual or impending combat with the enemy by running away.

a. Yes.

b. Yes

c. Intent will have to be determined during the investigation.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Any time spent will be in the looney bin.

Nope. He would have received a very thorough psych evaluation in the hospital before he was returned to duty. He would still be there if he was a basket case.

He was a shitbird not a feeb.

mvscal wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Any time spent will be in the looney bin.

Nope. He would have received a very thorough psych evaluation in the hospital before he was returned to duty. He would still be there if he was a basket case.

He was a shitbird not a feeb.

His lawyer will claim "fatigue" or "temporary disorientation due to stress".

He's not going to 'general population'.

No war and no rebellious mob in sight = no enemy

Go fuck a big fat black cock you piece of shit.