4 ms·

>It's sad how politicized this has become. Totally agree. I think if there's one thing that shows Republicans refuse to let Obama have credit for anything, it'

>It's sad how politicized this has become. Totally agree. I think if there's one thing that shows Republicans refuse to let Obama have credit for anything, it's the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl. The Republicans should've been happy that one of the troops they so fervently idolize was brought home, and they undoubtedly would've been if it was done under the supervision of a Republican administration.

13thLetter 11y ago
You don't really have a good mental picture of how your political opponents think -- you're just running them as stereotype models and arguing with the stereotypes. Just as a for example, if you actually paid attention to what they say and how they'd behave, you'd notice that Republicans, while supporting soldiers generally, don't like deserters (and especially deserters who badmouth the Army and the U.S.) specifically, and especially didn't like the idea of trading five high-ranking Taliban commanders for such a person. Their reaction to Bergdahl is therefore not particularly surprising.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- thieving_magpie 11y ago
  Disliking deserters or freeing Taliban prisoners really isn't a partisan issue. Where I take issue was the immediate media firestorm created not 24 hours after his release was announced. We were bombarded with stories describing soldier deaths (that are now thought to be incorrect) attributed to his desertion and reminders that we "used to shoot" them. We're talking about a man that, either through mental illness or a legitimate desire to try and improve the operations of the army, walked away from the (relative) safety of his comrades and was held for FIVE years by the enemy. Yes he endangered his fellow soldiers lives, yes he may have deserted his post, and yes he may have been disillusioned with the army at the time. Is that worth throwing his life away and spitting on his grave? If I'm a prospective soldier, I'd like to think the military has my back in these situations. Why do you think the rush to destroy this soldiers reputation before the facts were known happened? Why do you think nearly two years after his release today is the first time we've ever heard his voice? It's certainly interesting to consider.
  - Falcon9 11y ago
    This 2012 Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings (linked earlier by BryantD) provides relevant context from nearly two years before Bergdahl was released: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-pris...
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Republicans are not my political opponents. I lean Republican on most issues, including social issues like gun control, abortion, and marriage. I understand that Bergdahl went AWOL, but I don't think that informed the initial skepticism. Was it even known that he was a suspected desereter until a few days after the fact? Conservative outlets were still talking about how bad the trade was because it represented "negotiating with terrorists" (even though the Taliban is not a terrorist organization) and was 5:1, until one of the members of Bergdahl's old unit went to the media with the desertion story, iirc. IMO the reaction was driven exclusively by the political expedience of stoking hostility for Obama. That's how politics works -- you never let your enemy score a point if you can help it. It's sad because there was every reason that Bergdahl's release should've been a major celebratory point for the Republicans, even if he was a deserter.
  - ojgawogaew 11y ago
    You're absolutely correct that they original complaint was just "we won't negotiate." The real problem here is that the Republican Party is now infested with people like you, people who casually frame non-Republicans as "the enemy" and think that it's perfectly reasonable to "never let your enemy score a point". That's disgusting and immoral. Exactly what I'd expect from the sort of person who says the federal government should be small... but that the government should also enforce the laws of your religion and should make life miserable for homosexuals. You're a lousy human being, and you belong to a lousy party. A party that has done everything it can to make the US a lousy country. Congratulations on supporting the downfall of America.
    - cookiecaper 11y ago
      I'm not sure if you read very carefully. I'm criticizing the attitude of never letting an opponent score a point, not supporting it. And I don't belong to the Republican party, I just agree with Republicans more often than I agree with others. Finally, I don't see what religion has to do with most contemporary social issues, other than perhaps undergirding a general respect for human life that informs positions like pro-life.
- ojaewgojge 11y ago
  Yes, I agree with your assessment that the Republican party elite would happily allow an American citizen to be murdered by the Taliban if they believed that citizen might criticize either the Republican party or the military-industrial complex. I agree with your assessment that they are not dumb fools; but are savvy sociopaths who did not delay a single moment before attempting to destroy his credibility once they found out that he had not, as they would've clearly preferred, been killed by the Taliban. They did not wait a single news cycle before trying him in the media; largely with smears that turned out to be complete and total fabrications.
stvswn 11y ago
I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. The argument against Obama is that he was eager to empty Gitmo of the most dangerous prisoners -- the ones that other nations wouldn't take, and who therefore hurt his chances of closing the base -- and he thought that this would be a win-win: get a soldier home, get rid of five top Taliban commanders, who could complain? In order to make it work, he had a press conference in the Rose Garden where he acted like Bergdahl was a hero, and then he sent Susan Rice to Sunday morning talk shows where she said he "served with honor and distinction." This is a lie; he was hoping people would move on. Those of us in the Army had been following the story earlier, and we knew that it was very probable he was a deserter. That story eventually came out as military prosecutors didn't just sweep it all under the rug. Now the argument has become "well, we don't care what he did, we'll move heaven and earth to get a soldier home." Should he be guilty of desertion, I think that's an unprecedented and indefensible decision. Veterans find it infuriating that Susan Rice would use the term "honor and distinction" and then qualify it later along with the idea that all soldiers have honor and are distinguished. Here's why: it's basically saying that you don't really care what soldiers actually do, you only care about the appearance of supporting them. In that sense, it was the Obama administration who propped up a soldier "no matter what," which is what you accuse Republicans of doing with your disgusting "one of the troops they so fervently idolize" remark. Some people aren't so cynical with their support of the troops, but I don't expect you to understand.
- chasing 11y ago
  > I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. I'm not sure how much you remember the Bush administration, but the Democrats were infuriatingly compliant during those years. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution What's happening now with the whole "you can pry the US government from my cold, dead hands" mentality of the Republican party is a completely different thing.
  - stvswn 11y ago

13thLetter 11y ago

You don't really have a good mental picture of how your political opponents think -- you're just running them as stereotype models and arguing with the stereotypes. Just as a for example, if you actually paid attention to what they say and how they'd behave, you'd notice that Republicans, while supporting soldiers generally, don't like deserters (and especially deserters who badmouth the Army and the U.S.) specifically, and especially didn't like the idea of trading five high-ranking Taliban commanders for such a person. Their reaction to Bergdahl is therefore not particularly surprising.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
thieving_magpie 11y ago
Disliking deserters or freeing Taliban prisoners really isn't a partisan issue. Where I take issue was the immediate media firestorm created not 24 hours after his release was announced. We were bombarded with stories describing soldier deaths (that are now thought to be incorrect) attributed to his desertion and reminders that we "used to shoot" them. We're talking about a man that, either through mental illness or a legitimate desire to try and improve the operations of the army, walked away from the (relative) safety of his comrades and was held for FIVE years by the enemy. Yes he endangered his fellow soldiers lives, yes he may have deserted his post, and yes he may have been disillusioned with the army at the time. Is that worth throwing his life away and spitting on his grave? If I'm a prospective soldier, I'd like to think the military has my back in these situations. Why do you think the rush to destroy this soldiers reputation before the facts were known happened? Why do you think nearly two years after his release today is the first time we've ever heard his voice? It's certainly interesting to consider.
- Falcon9 11y ago
  This 2012 Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings (linked earlier by BryantD) provides relevant context from nearly two years before Bergdahl was released: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-pris...
cookiecaper 11y ago
Republicans are not my political opponents. I lean Republican on most issues, including social issues like gun control, abortion, and marriage. I understand that Bergdahl went AWOL, but I don't think that informed the initial skepticism. Was it even known that he was a suspected desereter until a few days after the fact? Conservative outlets were still talking about how bad the trade was because it represented "negotiating with terrorists" (even though the Taliban is not a terrorist organization) and was 5:1, until one of the members of Bergdahl's old unit went to the media with the desertion story, iirc. IMO the reaction was driven exclusively by the political expedience of stoking hostility for Obama. That's how politics works -- you never let your enemy score a point if you can help it. It's sad because there was every reason that Bergdahl's release should've been a major celebratory point for the Republicans, even if he was a deserter.
- ojgawogaew 11y ago
  You're absolutely correct that they original complaint was just "we won't negotiate." The real problem here is that the Republican Party is now infested with people like you, people who casually frame non-Republicans as "the enemy" and think that it's perfectly reasonable to "never let your enemy score a point". That's disgusting and immoral. Exactly what I'd expect from the sort of person who says the federal government should be small... but that the government should also enforce the laws of your religion and should make life miserable for homosexuals. You're a lousy human being, and you belong to a lousy party. A party that has done everything it can to make the US a lousy country. Congratulations on supporting the downfall of America.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    I'm not sure if you read very carefully. I'm criticizing the attitude of never letting an opponent score a point, not supporting it. And I don't belong to the Republican party, I just agree with Republicans more often than I agree with others. Finally, I don't see what religion has to do with most contemporary social issues, other than perhaps undergirding a general respect for human life that informs positions like pro-life.
ojaewgojge 11y ago
Yes, I agree with your assessment that the Republican party elite would happily allow an American citizen to be murdered by the Taliban if they believed that citizen might criticize either the Republican party or the military-industrial complex. I agree with your assessment that they are not dumb fools; but are savvy sociopaths who did not delay a single moment before attempting to destroy his credibility once they found out that he had not, as they would've clearly preferred, been killed by the Taliban. They did not wait a single news cycle before trying him in the media; largely with smears that turned out to be complete and total fabrications.

stvswn 11y ago

I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. The argument against Obama is that he was eager to empty Gitmo of the most dangerous prisoners -- the ones that other nations wouldn't take, and who therefore hurt his chances of closing the base -- and he thought that this would be a win-win: get a soldier home, get rid of five top Taliban commanders, who could complain? In order to make it work, he had a press conference in the Rose Garden where he acted like Bergdahl was a hero, and then he sent Susan Rice to Sunday morning talk shows where she said he "served with honor and distinction." This is a lie; he was hoping people would move on. Those of us in the Army had been following the story earlier, and we knew that it was very probable he was a deserter. That story eventually came out as military prosecutors didn't just sweep it all under the rug. Now the argument has become "well, we don't care what he did, we'll move heaven and earth to get a soldier home." Should he be guilty of desertion, I think that's an unprecedented and indefensible decision. Veterans find it infuriating that Susan Rice would use the term "honor and distinction" and then qualify it later along with the idea that all soldiers have honor and are distinguished. Here's why: it's basically saying that you don't really care what soldiers actually do, you only care about the appearance of supporting them. In that sense, it was the Obama administration who propped up a soldier "no matter what," which is what you accuse Republicans of doing with your disgusting "one of the troops they so fervently idolize" remark. Some people aren't so cynical with their support of the troops, but I don't expect you to understand.

chasing 11y ago
> I don't remember George W. Bush being given credit for anything by Democrats. The "Republicans are obstructionists" argument is just so silly. I'm not sure how much you remember the Bush administration, but the Democrats were infuriatingly compliant during those years. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution What's happening now with the whole "you can pry the US government from my cold, dead hands" mentality of the Republican party is a completely different thing.
- stvswn 11y ago