One Mystery Explained – POS Bergdahl Update

by Jack

I was curious why the people in the little town of Hailey, Idaho, were calling (POS) Bergdahl a hero? And why they were planning on throwing him a big party on his return? Yellow ribbons were everywhere and people spoke in such high regard of POS Bergdahl. I wrongly thought, it must be because somehow they just haven’t heard the news about POS Bergdahl’s coming from his fellow soldiers. I thought they must not know about the six young men that died in Taliban ambushes while searching for him. They must not have heard about POS Bergdahl’s emails home about how he was ashamed to be an American or that he sent his uniform home right before he walked off his base and into the hands of the enemy.

L.A. Times: “I never knew the guy, but I know a lot of people who did. And they are just so excited. How often does this happen? Someone snatched by the enemy in a foreign land and then they’re let go?

“The conditions he must have endured. There were times I lost faith that he was even alive, that he would ever make it home. But a lot of people here didn’t lose their faith at all.”

Still, the Monday headline in the local Idaho Statesman newspaper hinted at the task ahead for both Bergdahl’s family and the town that supported them: “It’s just beginning,” it read.

Ah, mystery explained: Hailey is a town with a sort of Berkeley mentality. It’s made up of liberals that found their way there by word of mouth and they sort of banded together amid a very conservative state population. They know all about news and they really don’t care. They’re cheering POS Bergdahl for his desertion. There’s no misunderstanding, they like what he did because they didn’t want us in Afghanistan in the first place. POS Bergdahl is their poster boy. They love Obama and they applauded the release of terrorist leaders from Gitmo POS Bergdahl for what he did and they apparently don’t care how many good soldiers died because of him.

The next mystery may be harder to explain. It’s Obama’s behavior in the Rose Garden with POS Bergdahl’s parents. His father, who now looks like a long haired, bearded Taliban, took to the microphone standing next to Obama and spoke in tribal Pashtun as he praised Allah, a gesture that could only be meant for the Taliban. Now there’s a picture, this Taliban wannabe and Obama. Go figure.

How could Obama make such a media spectacle of this prisoner swap? It was a complete blunder and a failure of diplomacy. How could he not anticipate the outpouring of righteous anger over it is, for lack of a better word… stunning. This was obviously illegal and the American people don’t want our president doing illegal things! But, he does and Obama seems to have no fear of consequences. So far he’s gotten away with it too. So maybe he’s right. However, by negotiating with the Taliban and caving in to their demands he has set a horrible precedent! This action places a target on the backs of all American’s within reach of Muslims terrorists.

This is a mystery that deserves honest answers… and we better get them because I think we’ve got a dangerously reckless, unethical man with very poor judgment in the White House.

Note: Effective 3 Jun 2014 actually totally illegally and without authorization (Like my President does) I removed Bergdahl’s former rank of SGT and promoted him to POS. He shall be known as POS Bergdahl from now on until his new rank is no longer warranted.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to One Mystery Explained – POS Bergdahl Update

  1. Crazy Pie Guevara says:

    To repeat: The Obama administration motto — Let no deserter be left behind.

  2. More Common Sense says:

    Hailey was planning a “ticker tape” style parade for Bergdahl. Apparently they have come to their senses because it has been cancelled.

  3. Harriet says:

    Good News! Just heard on the radio that the festivities planned, including the parade has been cancelled.

  4. Peggy says:

    Did you hear Harry Reid is the only one who was told about the release and exchange the day before the transfer? Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, the chair of the Intelligence Committee were not notified when Reid was.

    Hopefully, this illegal action will come back and bite Obama where it hurts.

    Hopefully, people are realizing they are being ruled by a self appointed king instead of governed by an elected representative.

    Obama’s most important duty is to defend our country. When he released the five known terrorist who attacked us killing thousands of Americans and thousands more in other countries he put us all back in harms way again.

    Hopefully, this will be the “one step too far,” and bipartisan corrective action will be taken

    All five terrorist should have never been released. Negotiations is when both sides get something they want. While it’s great Berghdahl was returned the agreement should have been for only one low-level terrorist, not five cabinet level individuals.

    It doesn’t sound like Berghdahl should have ever been in the military. He somehow believe it was like the Peace Corp. If he was home schooled by liberals he may not have known what the real world was like and believed he was going over there to help the people. His commander should have had him removed or discharge long before he got to the point of walking away.

    Those he served with apparently knew there was a problem with him, therefore, his commander should have taken corrective steps.

  5. Peggy says:

    Off topic, but GREAT NEWS!

    Ex-CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Has a New Journalism Job — Should Washington Be Worried?:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/03/ex-cbs-reporter-sharyl-attkisson-has-a-new-journalism-job-should-washington-be-worried/

  6. Post Scripts says:

    #6 Dewey do you have any military background?
    I ask that only because you just said some really dumb things that a soldier/sailor would never say.

    1. There is no facts yet on the case.
    NO FACTS???? OMG…. next question

    2. The man wanted to come home and face the music.
    Says who, you? He wanted to come home, that’s all we know.

    3. If warranted he will face court Marshall.
    First it’s called Courts-Martial. Read Section 85 of the UCMJ and tell me if its warranted.

    4. I disrespect any military past or present who would leave a man behind.
    Too stupid to answer.

    5. Should we have left McCain behind?
    Even more stupid than above – completely non-related.

    6. “McCain himself admitted in a 1973 interview with the magazine US News and World Report that he volunteered to give military information in return for medical treatment, even before being subjected to any torture.”
    So Dewey, you don’t call withholding medical treatment while you are wracked in pain with two badly broken legs torture.? You are one deep thinker.

  7. Libby says:

    Jack, maybe there’s been a change in medication … is your back still bad? Oxycontin is a nasty drug.

    These recent posts just don’t really sound like you.

    We’re getting bits and bots more about the negotiations for his release. It would really seem that our gov is up to something that has little to do with Bergdahl, and he, himself, is in no way worth all this anguish.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, actually my back is doing great at the moment. I did however manage to slip on my staircase. This twisted my left knee and forced my my leg under me as I fell. I was able to grab my railing and this prevented me from snapping my leg in two, but there was some muscle/tissue damage. I’m limping along, no big. And no I do not believe in pain medications. I’m a natural healer type, unless there is no way around it.

      Yes, I agree that Bergdahl is not worth the anguish. But, anguish we must, if only to demonstrate to our dear leader how offended we are by his actions. The nation is angry and it’s a beautiful thing to see Americans from the right and left share this moment of unity against a common enemy.

      As much as I would like to believe Barrack is pulling off some sort of Jack Bauer operation, past practice and reason causes me to think it was just another ill thought out decision to promote his legacy.

      If I seem a bit testy over this, please remember how deeply I respect our military people and that this whole incident hurts them and places them at great risk. 6 people died because we tried to rescue this POS Bergdahl. These are real people who had their lives snuffed out, good people, with families who have suffered greatly. It makes me sick. But, I’ll try to play nice, if only Dewey will stop saying outrageous things…I’ll be fine.

  8. Crazy Pie Guevara says:

    Dewey (=Chris), the ignorant and stupid jackass Obama SUCJUP POS defender.

  9. Crazy Pie Guevara says:

    I have searched and searched for a way to kill Windows shortcut keys to no avail. I still hit them inadvertently.

    Dewey (=Chris), the ignorant and stupid jackass Obama SUCK UP POS defender.

  10. Chris says:

    Man, it’s a good thing Obama didn’t, like, sell arms to Iran to get hostages back. Can you imagine how Republicans would go after any president who did that? Whether the president was a Republican or Democrat, there would surely be hell to pay!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

  11. Tina says:

    Still defending with distractions eh, Chris?

    You really do not see that trading these five terrorists in particular was too heavy a price to pay for a man who deserted and denounced and criticized America?

    Please don’t pretend that you were empathetic and understanding during the Bush years; we know better.

    And as long as you are bent on bringing forth the record of an honorable man in such snarky, irreverent fashion let me do you the same favor.

    Good old Ted Kennedy could always be relied upon to take a strong pro-American position in a nonpartisan fashion when it came to delicate or complex foreign policy issues. His idiocy during the Reagan years was particularly, shall we say, unhelpful. Yep the partisan battle stopped at the shorline for old Ted:

    Though Kennedy has commented volubly on foreign affairs during his 3.2 decades in Congress, his campaign has steered clear of the subject. Understandably: His record would tend to repel more votes than it would attract. But while Kennedy may wish to preserve a dignified silence on the topic, voters need not follow suit.

    What is most striking about Kennedy’s history in this area is how firmly and consistently he supported the wrong side — the losing side, the anti-freedom side — in the Cold War.

    In 1968, the year Soviet tanks crushed prodemocracy demonstrators in the streets of Prague, Kennedy actually wrote: “Today, with the exception of East Germany, Russia has no more satellites.” Blindness to Soviet tyranny is a motif repeated time and again in Kennedy’s record.

    He was among those who voted to cut off aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia in 1975, as they trembled on the brink of communist takeover. Like other liberals, he rejected fears that US abandonment would lead to a bloodbath. “Congress and the American people,” he said, “do not hold the fate of Saigon and Phnom Penh in their hands.” But they did. The fall of South Vietnam and Cambodia precipitated one of the grisliest slaughters of the 20th century.

    When it was still possible to prevent the Sandinistas from taking over Nicaragua, Kennedy worked to bring them to power. As the Somoza regime struggled for its life in the face of the Marxist assault — an assault directed in Moscow with an assist from Havana — Kennedy sponsored legislation to halt all aid to Nicaragua. To those who warned that a Sandinista regime would prove far more cruel and destructive than the status quo, Kennedy sneered: “This is hardly a serious threat.”

    He later fought President Reagan’s policy of backing the freedom fighters trying to overthrow the Sandinistas. With equal force, he opposed efforts to help the democratically elected government of El Salvador when it was under attack by the terror brigades of the Soviet-backed FMLN.

    Soviet dictators always found Kennedy easy to seduce. In 1974, he gushed over Leonid Brezhnev — the most powerful tyrant of his day, a jailer of dissidents, warmonger in Africa, persecutor of Soviet Jews, tormentor of Sakharov, exiler of Solzhenitsyn — in these terms:

    “I found Mr. Brezhnev . . . a warm individual, highly intelligent, highly aware, a sense of humor, completely at ease, very informal. I think he’d be at home as easily in a plant, in a factory in Massachusetts talking with workers, as he is in presiding over the second-most-powerful nation in the world. He talks about war with great feeling and with great passion. He reminds one when you talk about strategic weapons that he slogged all the way through the Second World War. . . . He’s lost his closest friends. And he is completely committed to peace.”

    When Brezhnev’s troops poured into Afghanistan, the scales fell from Jimmy Carter’s eyes. (He said the Soviet assault taught him more about the reality of communism than any other episode of his presidency.) Not so Kennedy. He brushed off the aggression as “not the end of the world,” and hoped the United States would “not foreclose every opening to the Soviet Union.”

    For the Kremlin’s victims, Kennedy rarely had much sympathy. When Yuri Orlov, the founder of the Helsinki Monitor Group and one of the most heroic of the human-rights dissidents, was imprisoned, Kennedy assailed those who spoke of rebuking Moscow. We must do nothing, he insisted. Otherwise, “Soviet advocates of confrontation with the US would have one more argument to use against the advocates of cooperation and detente.”

    Kennedy’s hostility to the US military is unremitting. His voting record is steadfastly antidefense; he has opposed nearly every major strategic weapon of the past 25 years and proposed innumerable defense cuts. Any decision to use American military power — at least any decision by a Republican commander in chief – is sure to call forth a Kennedy denunciation.

    He blasted the 1990 campaign in Panama as an invasion that “violated our fundamental commitments under the United Nations Charter.” Yet when Gen. Manuel Noriega surrendered, Kennedy jumped on the victory bandwagon. “A triumph for diplomacy and a triumph for justice,” he reveled. “A sign of a new day for freedom and democracy.”

    Then there was the Gulf War.

    Kennedy heatedly opposed the US mission to force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, voting against it three times. He was a disciple of the “let sanctions work” school and much given to “body-bag” rhetoric.

    “When the bullets start flying,” Kennedy predicted, “90 percent of the casualties will be American. . . . The 45,000 body bags the Pentagon has sent to the region are all the evidence we need of the high price in lives and blood we will have to pay.”

    His estimate of 2,000 casualties a week was a bit on the high side. US fatalities in the Gulf War totaled fewer than 300.

    Angry condemnations notwithstanding, Kennedy wasn’t above using Desert Storm soldiers for publicity. On Jan. 18, 1991, he scurried to Fort Devens to have his picture taken with departing troops. “I just wanted to come by,” he oozed, “and wish you the very best, and let you know we’re all behind you.”

    My thanks to Jeff Jacoby for disclosing what our newspapers and talking heads on television and radio would not the partisan hacks!

  12. Crazy Pie Guevara says:

    Damn, does Tina own Chris or not?

  13. Crazy Pie Guevara says:

    Hi Libby! Nice to see you are still a horrid idiot!

  14. Libby says:

    “… 6 people died because we tried to rescue this POS Bergdahl ….”

    I still think you’re being over-emotional. Remember where they were and what they were about. As I gather, they all stepped on IEDs, a common hazard in Afghanistan … could have happened on any patrol. To hold Bergdahl personally responsible strikes me as a little too vengeful.

    You know, there’s nothing sacred about military service. Just the opposite, actually, is how many people see it. You gotta deal with this difference of opinion without the high blood pressure, if you possibly can.

    • Post Scripts says:

      “… 6 people died because we tried to rescue this POS Bergdahl ….”

      “I still think you’re being over-emotional. Remember where they were and what they were about. As I gather, they all stepped on IEDs, a common hazard in Afghanistan … could have happened on any patrol. To hold Bergdahl personally responsible strikes me as a little too vengeful.” Libby

      I guess I am being too vengeful. After all, there was only six young soldiers that were ordered to go searching for Bergdahl that were killed. That’s nothing, not in that big cosmic picture of things, is it? Their families will likely hardly even miss them or care. Eh…. it’s a war zone, whattaya expect, right?

      So what if they died in part because of the urgency of their mission wherein certain safeguards were not possible to be put in place, and also because the Taliban lured soldiers into traps with false information, but it really doesn’t matter why.

      Quoting now one of our greatest leaders of all time, Hillary Rodham Clinton, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Yes, you’re absolutely right Libby, six dead in a combat area no matter what the reason is no big deal. Why blame Bergdahl or anyone?

      I’m sorry that I was overreacting. Thank you for setting me straight.

      “You know, there’s nothing sacred about military service. Just the opposite” Libby

      Okayyyyyy….and if that’s the case then the opposite would be, what? Sacrilegious service? Hmmmmmm, I’ll have to think about that one.

  15. RHT447 says:

    “You know, there’s nothing sacred about military service. Just the opposite” Libby

    Well, if the shoe fits…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

    When you find that atheist in a foxhole, you let us know.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/mixed-emotions-adrenaline-and-fear-at-a-remote-outpost-in-afghanistan-112907125.html

  16. Tina says:

    Support for our troops, including air support, due to personnel being redirected to look for Bergdahl is cited as a probable cause for the loss of 6 lives.

    Liberal progressive apologists for this failed administration can’t even acknowledge the obvious difference the removal of this support staff made for those sent into battle?

    Incredible!

  17. Peggy says:

    Libby: “You know, there’s nothing sacred about military service. Just the opposite”

    That is the stupidest thing ever written on PS. If men and women dying for our freedom isn’t sacred please explain what, besides Christ dying for our salvation, do you consider more sacred?

    #15 Pie: “Damn, does Tina own Chris or not?”

    Yes, on every subject.

  18. Crazy Pie Guevara says:

    How predictable! The Chris brings up “Arms For Hostages” to try and provide cover. Have you had enough of these left wing morons yet?

  19. Crazy Pie Guevara says:

    Frankly I cannot understand how people like Libby and Chris can be so stupid and callous. It is a left thing.

  20. Crazy Pie Guevara says:

    There may be a simple explanation. They are simply evil.

  21. Post Scripts says:

    I think so.

  22. Peggy says:

    We should do this to PS’s liberals.

    Brit Hume Shuts Down Twitter Troll on Liberal Narrative That Conservatives Would Have Let Bergdahl Die:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/144015-brit-hume-shuts-twitter-troll-liberal-narrative-conservatives-let-bergdahl-die/

  23. Tina says:

    Correction to my comment at #20; I wrote: “Support for our troops, including air support, due to personnel being redirected to look for Bergdahl is cited as a probable cause for the loss of 6 lives.

    Should read: Lack of support for troops, including air support, due to personnel being redirected to look for Bergdahl is cited as a probable cause for the loss of lives in addition to the loss of six lives among those looking for Burgdahl.

    It is also being reported that after he left there were attacks on positions that are suspected as possibly being a result of what he told the enemy.

  24. Chris says:

    Tina: “You really do not see that trading these five terrorists in particular was too heavy a price to pay for a man who deserted and denounced and criticized America?”

    I don’t think either of us are in a position to make that call. I also don’t think either of us are in a position to know whether Reagan made the right call in the Iran-Contra affair. Like Libby said, it’s a long game.

    The difference is that you lionize Reagan as an idol while caricaturing Obama as the ultimate villain.

    I have no idea what Ted Kennedy has to do with any of this, or how you bringing up him counts as some kind of massive ownage over me. I don’t idolize Ted Kennedy in the way you idolize Reagan.

    My point was that moves like this are hardly unprecedented. There were some FOX News correspondents who actually claimed that this was the first time in American history we’ve negotiated with terrorists. Amazing. Reagan negotiated with terrorists. So did Bush. So did Clinton. This kind of thing happens all the time. Only under Obama do these routine decisions turn into Unprecedented Impeachable Offenses.

  25. Libby says:

    “If men and women dying for our freedom isn’t sacred ….”

    Is that what’s going on in Afghanistan? I don’t think so. I think it’s a failed attempt to secure an oil pipeline route … and there’s nothing sacred about that. Furthermore, people who lend their efforts to it, take their chances. I believe that people take up the profession of “warrior” as a matter of personal gratification, which they often call a “sacred trust”, but they’re not fooling anybody.

    As to any threat to my freedom:
    Vietnam? No.
    Kuwait? Certainly not.
    Iraq? Definitely not.

    Think seriously about this, Peggy. War-makers manipulate people like you. Don’t let them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.