Radically Changing Narrative of the Bergdahl Exchange

InTheLight · Jun 11, 2014

President Obama promised change, but this is ridiculous. In the past week, the White House has offered up so many different versions of the trade for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl that the narrative would baffle Escher. So far, the administration has deployed at least a dozen different, often discredited, arguments.

President Obama proudly announced on May 31: “This morning, I called Bob and Jani Bergdahl and told them that after nearly five years in captivity, their son, Bowe, is coming home.”

That appeared to be the only clear-cut statement of the week. He told Americans the terrorists wouldn’t harm anyone. “The Qatari government has given us assurances that it will put in place measures to protect our national security.”

Obama also noted in that same address that Afghanistan had been helpful. “I also want to express gratitude to the Afghan government, which has always supported our efforts to secure Bowe’s release.”

But even the Times shot that claim to Hades on the first day. “A Western official in Kabul said the Afghan government was not told ahead of time that the Taliban were going to hand over Sergeant Bergdahl or that the release of prisoners from Guantánamo Bay was proceeding, though the Afghans were broadly aware that the talks had been rekindled,” wrote Eric Schmitt and Charlie Savage.

In that story, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel also admitted the administration hadn’t notified Congress as it is required to do. He added that, “we needed to get him out of there essentially to save his life.”

That day began what you might call The Great Unraveling of almost every single administration statement on the trade.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...e-narrative-changes-radically-in-just-7-days/

thisnumbersdisconnected · Jun 11, 2014

Hagel's testimony before House Armed Services today didn't do anything to bolster confidence in this corrupt Marxist administration over this fiasco, either.

exscentric · Jun 11, 2014

One of the network news programs stated that Kerry promised Karzai that the five would be delivered to him for imprisonment.

Zaac · Jun 11, 2014

InTheLight said: ↑

President Obama promised change, but this is ridiculous. In the past week, the White House has offered up so many different versions of the trade for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl that the narrative would baffle Escher. So far, the administration has deployed at least a dozen different, often discredited, arguments.

President Obama proudly announced on May 31: “This morning, I called Bob and Jani Bergdahl and told them that after nearly five years in captivity, their son, Bowe, is coming home.”

That appeared to be the only clear-cut statement of the week. He told Americans the terrorists wouldn’t harm anyone. “The Qatari government has given us assurances that it will put in place measures to protect our national security.”

Obama also noted in that same address that Afghanistan had been helpful. “I also want to express gratitude to the Afghan government, which has always supported our efforts to secure Bowe’s release.”

But even the Times shot that claim to Hades on the first day. “A Western official in Kabul said the Afghan government was not told ahead of time that the Taliban were going to hand over Sergeant Bergdahl or that the release of prisoners from Guantánamo Bay was proceeding, though the Afghans were broadly aware that the talks had been rekindled,” wrote Eric Schmitt and Charlie Savage.

In that story, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel also admitted the administration hadn’t notified Congress as it is required to do. He added that, “we needed to get him out of there essentially to save his life.”

That day began what you might call The Great Unraveling of almost every single administration statement on the trade.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...e-narrative-changes-radically-in-just-7-days/
Click to expand...

The exchange has potentially put Americans abroad in great danger. That much we know.

Everything else just sounds like a bunch of speculation and folks trying to put together a news story.

We must really be getting ready to go into an election. Every Presidential and midterm election, the Sean Hannity's of the airwaves have to find a "scandal" to sink their teeth into. And then you hear the " we want to know what they knew and when they knew it" question. And then you hear the comment about the "ever changing narrative". And then the talk starts about an "impeachable offense".

Just a bunch of sable rattling for election time seemingly.

InTheLight · Jun 11, 2014

Zaac said: ↑

The exchange has potentially put Americans abroad in great danger. That much we know.

Everything else just sounds like a bunch of speculation and folks trying to put together a news story.

We must really be getting ready to go into an election. Every Presidential and midterm election, the Sean Hannity's of the airwaves have to find a "scandal" to sink their teeth into. And then you hear the " we want to know what they knew and when they knew it" question. And then you hear the comment about the "ever changing narrative". And then the talk starts about an "impeachable offense".

Just a bunch of sable rattling for election time seemingly.
Click to expand...

Nope. Normally I would agree with you. But please click on the link to the story in my OP because the inconsistencies and contradictions are all laid out in the article including clickable links.

Rolfe · Jun 11, 2014

InTheLight said: ↑

“The Qatari government has given us assurances that it will put in place measures to protect our national security.”

In that story, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel also admitted the administration hadn’t notified Congress as it is required to do. He added that, “we needed to get him out of there essentially to save his life.”
Click to expand...

1. I put no trust in Qatar, or any other Islamic country, to hold to their word.

2. I thought Hagel was a horrible pick for Sec. Of Defense and would trust him about as far as I could throw him.

The idea that we would trade one private who appears to be a deserter for five terrorists, then put our trust in another government to ensure their behavior is either unusually naive or treasonous.

Ed to add- This will come back upon us

Zaac · Jun 11, 2014

Rolf said: ↑

1. I put no trust in Qatar, or any other Islamic country, to hold to their word.

2. I thought Hagel was a horrible pick for Sec. Of Defense and would trust him about as far as I could throw him.

The idea that we would trade one private who appears to be a deserter for five terrorists, then put our trust in another government to ensure their behavior is either unusually naive or treasonous.

Ed to add- This will come back upon us
Click to expand...

I think that last part we can all agree upon. I can't conceive of a situation of where THIS could have been put on the table as a good idea.

If I were a terrorist with friends in "captivity", I would actively sit and wait at the airport for American citizens after this.

Rolfe · Jun 11, 2014

Code:
Zaac said: ↑

I think that last part we can all agree upon. I can't conceive of a situation of where THIS could have been put on the table as a good idea.

If I were a terrorist with friends in "captivity", I would actively sit and wait at the airport for American citizens after this.
Click to expand...

I truly hope that I am wrong, but I do not think so.

righteousdude2 · Jun 11, 2014

InTheLight said: ↑

President Obama promised change, but this is ridiculous. In the past week, the White House has offered up so many different versions of the trade for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl that the narrative would baffle Escher. So far, the administration has deployed at least a dozen different, often discredited, arguments.

President Obama proudly announced on May 31: “This morning, I called Bob and Jani Bergdahl and told them that after nearly five years in captivity, their son, Bowe, is coming home.”

That appeared to be the only clear-cut statement of the week. He told Americans the terrorists wouldn’t harm anyone. “The Qatari government has given us assurances that it will put in place measures to protect our national security.”

Obama also noted in that same address that Afghanistan had been helpful. “I also want to express gratitude to the Afghan government, which has always supported our efforts to secure Bowe’s release.”

But even the Times shot that claim to Hades on the first day. “A Western official in Kabul said the Afghan government was not told ahead of time that the Taliban were going to hand over Sergeant Bergdahl or that the release of prisoners from Guantánamo Bay was proceeding, though the Afghans were broadly aware that the talks had been rekindled,” wrote Eric Schmitt and Charlie Savage.

In that story, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel also admitted the administration hadn’t notified Congress as it is required to do. He added that, “we needed to get him out of there essentially to save his life.”

That day began what you might call The Great Unraveling of almost every single administration statement on the trade.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...e-narrative-changes-radically-in-just-7-days/
Click to expand...

"President Obama promised change, but this is ridiculous." Another attempt to slander a good president with over-exaggeration? Well, maybe I'm guilty of over-exaggeration by saying he is a good president .... but admit it ITL, if you can read my OP's and brand them hyperbole, it's only fair to say the same about your view on this Bergdahl thing! His promise for change has nothing to do with what he did in the prisoner swap! IMHO ..... Shalom! :thumbs:

InTheLight · Jun 12, 2014

righteousdude2 said: ↑

"President Obama promised change, but this is ridiculous." Another attempt to slander a good president with over-exaggeration? Well, maybe I'm guilty of over-exaggeration by saying he is a good president .... but admit it ITL, if you can read my OP's and brand them hyperbole, it's only fair to say the same about your view on this Bergdahl thing!
Click to expand...

The quote about 'ridiculousness' is not mine, it is from the article I linked to. Please keep up. Besides, saying Obama's change is ridiculous is a far cry from your contention that marital law will be declared for the purpose of forcibly confiscating firearms.

Rolfe · Jun 12, 2014

InTheLight said: ↑

... that marital law will be declared for the purpose of forcibly confiscating firearms.
Click to expand...

One name: Clive Bundy. And that was over hamburger and steaks, not guns.

Radically Changing Narrative of the Bergdahl Exchange

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

exscentric Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Zaac Well-Known Member

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rolfe Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Zaac Well-Known Member

Rolfe Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rolfe Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Radically Changing Narrative of the Bergdahl Exchange

InTheLight Well-Known Member Site Supporter

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

exscentric Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Zaac Well-Known Member

InTheLight Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rolfe Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Zaac Well-Known Member

Rolfe Well-Known Member Site Supporter

righteousdude2 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

InTheLight Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rolfe Well-Known Member Site Supporter

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

exscentric Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rolfe Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rolfe Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rolfe Well-Known Member
Site Supporter