Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 03, 2014, 07:02:00 AM
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/obama_absolutely_a_possibility_released_taliban_prisoners_will_return_to_terrorism.html
>:(
-
HEHEHEHEEHEH!!
Yet, the libtard clowns on this board will applaud him and hail him as the "greatest".
The mediocrity.
WOW. Can't believe the USA has fallen so far.
-
Think about this: Qatar's ruling sheikh knew about the Taliban 5's release five days before members of the House/Senate intelligence committees.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/obama_absolutely_a_possibility_released_taliban_prisoners_will_return_to_terrorism.html
>:(
Honestly, I don't get what upsets you about this. Isn't honesty what you want from him?
-
Honestly, I don't get what upsets you about this. Isn't honesty what you want from him?
Whiners gonna WHIINNNNEEEEEEE!!!!
(All day long)
-
http://news.yahoo.com/qatar-allowing-freed-taliban-men-move-freely-country-130028784.html
Already played for a damn fool.
-
Obama = Absolute ties to terrorism
-
http://news.yahoo.com/qatar-allowing-freed-taliban-men-move-freely-country-130028784.html
Already played for a damn fool.
the only fool is you for not being able to read or comprehend the articles that you post
DOHA (Reuters) - Qatar has moved five Afghan Taliban prisoners freed in exchange for a U.S. soldier to a residential compound and will let them move freely in the country, a senior Gulf official said on Tuesday, a step likely to be scrutinized by Washington.
U.S. officials have referred to the release of the Islamist militants as a transfer and said they would be subject to certain restrictions in Qatar. One of the officials said that would include a minimum one-year ban on them traveling outside of Qatar as well as monitoring of their activities.
-
Obama = Absolute ties to terrorism
I'm not sure why but I get kick out of it when dullards talk about "ties", "connecting the dots", and the like.
Anyway, please indulge me and describe these "ties". Are they neck ties? Railroad ties?
You funny when you get all conspiritard-y.
-
Coach = absolute ties to stupidity.
-
The Left Is Terrified Right Now About The Bowe Bergdahl Story
June 3, 2014 By Mollie Hemingway
Yesterday morning at 5:45 AM, the Daily Beast published an article by liberal writer Michael Tomasky headlined “Bergdahl Is the Right’s New Benghazi.”
He was referring to the weekend news that the United States traded five members of the Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. soldier held by Taliban affiliates. The release of Bergdahl was triumphantly announced, complete with a Rose Garden press conference featuring President Obama and Bergdahl’s parents. National Security Advisor Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows talking about how Bergdahl had “served the United States with honor and distinction.” No one must have thought the swap would be in any way controversial. The talking points came out suggesting that this was pro-military and pro-family. If the base got a little excited about the anti-Gitmo elements, all the better. If people stopped focusing on the Veterans Affairs scandals, who could blame them?
But soon the social networks were cluttered with comments that suggested the Obama administration had left out some significant and important details. About how Bergdahl — according to his fellow soldiers — abandoned them voluntarily. About how soldiers had died searching for Bergdahl. About anti-American statements made by Bergdahl and his father. About how high-up the Taliban we’d given up were. About how Obama hadn’t complied with a law requiring Congressional approval for release of prisoners.
Tomasky fought back as the tidy message spiraled out of control. He wrote that “to most Americans, this is a feel-good story. We value a life, one American life. … But of course, that doesn’t matter to the right. No one outside their base cares much about Benghazi, but that hasn’t stopped them. … The crazy never stops.”
Unfortunately for Tomasky and his fellow partisans, the attempt to ensure that this would be yet another scandal that the media ignore or downplay took a major blow. People started stating publicly what had been chatted about on social networks throughout the weekend.
In fact, the Daily Beast published an article — also at 5:45 a.m., by one of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers headlined “We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl, a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night.” The subhed explained “For five years, soldiers have been forced to stay silent about the disappearance and search for Bergdahl. Now we can talk about what really happened.”
While the Army had made infantry members sign non-disclosure agreements, some soldiers were going ahead and telling what they knew. And none of it looked good.
For a sample of the coverage, take a look at:
•Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard: ‘We Swore to an Oath and We Upheld Ours. He Did Not.’ The soldiers in Bowe Bergdahl’s platoon speak up.
•Jake Tapper at CNN: Fellow soldiers call Bowe Bergdahl a deserter, not a hero
•CNN video: Soldier Who Served With Bergdahl: “At Best A Deserter And At Worst A Traitor”
•Politico: Criticism of Bergdahl deal mounts
•BBC: Soldiers conflicted on Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange
•Army Times: Gold Star mom: ‘This guy was worth my son’s life?’
You get the general idea. And these links don’t even get into the problems with how President Obama failed to comply with federal law requiring him to notify Congress of Gitmo prisoner releases. So what did liberal writers do? Well, they didn’t do a great job of reacting to this rare instance of not being able to control messaging. Here’s Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo at 6:04 p.m.:
And here’s MSNBC’s Chris Hayes at 6:12 p.m.:
What makes me saddest about these tweets is my suspicion this is an actual messaging strategy on the left. Meanwhile, the deputy editor of Politico magazine aimed to downplay the news:
Anyway, while I’m sure it seemed like a great idea to accuse critics of this deal of hating the troops and wanting to abandon an American soldier in the hands of terrorists, did anyone pause for a minute to think that through just a bit?
I mean, not just one or two people but a ton of people who Bergdahl served with think this was a terrible deal. They’re infuriated that their friends died to save a deserter. A lot of them are convinced he wasn’t just a deserter, but a traitor who helped the Taliban kill Americans. Do those soldiers hate the troops, too?
The tweets from Hayes and Marshall — and those that followed their lead — suggest true desperation about a situation that was horribly handled. Liberals are understandably scared and reacting in an almost panicked way. Whatever else might be said about Hayes, he’s not the ideal messenger to speak on behalf of American soldiers in any case. Around Memorial Day two years ago, he said he was “uncomfortable” calling soldiers who were killed in action “heroes,” on account of conflicted feelings about war — a statement he later apologized for.
In any case, what the White House is probably realizing, in hindsight, is that painting Bergdahl as a hero and the swap as unbridled good news were horrible errors. If President Obama had said that sometimes you need to do awful things — like give up five really bad terrorists in exchange for one deserter — because we never leave even our weakest man behind, he would have probably been fine. If he could have further explained why he needed to break the law requiring him to notify Congress of such deals, even better.
But what Americans instead got was someone micturating in their mouth and telling them it was raining.
Follow Mollie on Twitter.
-
I'm not sure why but I get kick out of it when dullards talk about "ties", "connecting the dots", and the like.
Anyway, please indulge me and describe these "ties". Are they neck ties? Railroad ties?
You funny when you get all conspiritard-y.
You'd have to be half retarded to think he doesn't. He funds them (as proof of giving $2bill to the MBH) despite his promises to find the ones responsible for Bengazi...no one has been caught, convicted or killed as result ( and there are many more cover ups) and now this. How blind do you have to be? seriously?
Forget Lurker, he can't come up with anything but sucking Obama's dick and criticizing people who don't believe what he does.
-
You'd have to be half retarded to think he doesn't. He funds them (as proof of giving $2bill to the MBH) despite his promises to find the ones responsible for Bengazi...no one has been caught, convicted or killed as result ( and there are many more cover ups) and now this. How blind do you have to be? seriously?
Forget Lurker, he can't come up with anything but sucking Obama's dick and criticizing people who don't believe what he does.
They just cant process the fact that the pos they worship and voted for 2x over looks and is 100 x worse than the previous potus they were convinced was the worst of all time.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647397/Revealed-Bowe-Bergdahl-left-note-comrades-telling-leaving-start-new-life-Army-general-says-faces-desertion-charges.html
To think brave soldiers died looking for this scumbag and then ghettofagbama releases 5 top Taliban commanders in his return - kjust leaves one to conclude that we have a terrorist sympathizer in the WH
-
You'd have to be half retarded to think he doesn't. He funds them (as proof of giving $2bill to the MBH) despite his promises to find the ones responsible for Bengazi...no one has been caught, convicted or killed as result ( and there are many more cover ups) and now this. How blind do you have to be? seriously?
Forget Lurker, he can't come up with anything but sucking Obama's dick and criticizing people who don't believe what he does.
You are a complete imbecile. Talk about someone being retarded... well here you are Mr Birther.
Hell, Bush funded terrorists too. How much did he cuddle up with the Saudis? Last time I checked, the 9-11 hijackers came from where again?
There is a reason you are regarded by the overwhelming majority of this board as the dumbest person posting. You continue to prove it one post at a time.
-
You are a complete imbecile. Talk about someone being retarded... well here you are Mr Birther.
Hell, Bush funded terrorists too. How much did he cuddle up with the Saudis? Last time I checked, the 9-11 hijackers came from where again?
There is a reason you are regarded by the overwhelming majority of this board as the dumbest person posting. You continue to prove it one post at a time.
Says the 2 x Obama worshipping putz not even 30 yo taking t shots and doesn't even lift.
-
You'd have to be half retarded to think he doesn't. He funds them (as proof of giving $2bill to the MBH) despite his promises to find the ones responsible for Bengazi...no one has been caught, convicted or killed as result ( and there are many more cover ups) and now this. How blind do you have to be? seriously?
Forget Lurker, he can't come up with anything but sucking Obama's dick and criticizing people who don't believe what he does.
You suggest that the failure to find those responsible for Benghazi, despite Obama's promise to do so, suggests a nexus between him and terrorism. I am curious about your take of G. W. Bush. After all, he promised to find the one responsible for 9/11 - Osama bin Laden but didn't. So does that mean he has ties to terrorism?
The generally shitty response of the administration to Benghazi has been disappointing, and that's putting it mildly. With that said, I see no tangible connection between Obama and terrorists. Perhaps it's because I'm not a blind partisan fool.
-
You are a complete imbecile. Talk about someone being retarded... well here you are Mr Birther.
Hell, Bush funded terrorists too. How much did he cuddle up with the Saudis? Last time I checked, the 9-11 hijackers came from where again?
There is a reason you are regarded by the overwhelming majority of this board as the dumbest person posting. You continue to prove it one post at a time.
Oh, you mean like when you clowns were comparing The embassy attacks on Bush's watch to Obama's?
-
You suggest that the failure to find those responsible for Benghazi, despite Obama's promise to do so, suggests a nexus between him and terrorism. I am curious about your take of G. W. Bush. After all, he promised to find the one responsible for 9/11 - Osama bin Laden but didn't. So does that mean he has ties to terrorism?
The generally shitty response of the administration to Benghazi has been disappointing, and that's putting it mildly. With that said, I see no tangible connection between Obama and terrorists. Perhaps it's because I'm not a blind partisan fool.
Khalid Al Mansour, Rashid Khalidi to name a few off the top of my head.
-
Khalid Al Mansour, Rashid Khalidi to name a few off the top of my head.
I'll ask again: does the failure of W. to capture bin Laden constitute a nexus to terrorism? Conversely, does Obama's success in capturing bin Laden disprove any theories about a possible nexus?
The bottom line is simpl: Joe can't have his cake and eat it too.
-
Oh, you mean like when you clowns were comparing The embassy attacks on Bush's watch to Obama's?
Oh you mean like when you are ranting on about birther or other delusional shit? You start and abandon more threads than anyone after you get your ass kicked on them.
"You just don't get it do you"? ::)
-
Says the 2 x Obama worshipping putz not even 30 yo taking t shots and doesn't even lift.
Says the middle age bald midget living the closet in the ghetto while obsessing over Obama's BBC day in and day out.
June is National Pride month. Do you feel proud of yourself? Or does your self loathing over being a queer bother you too much?
-
I'll ask again: does the failure of W. to capture bin Laden constitute a nexus to terrorism? Conversely, does Obama's success in capturing bin Laden disprove any theories about a possible nexus?
The bottom line is simpl: Joe can't have his cake and eat it too.
Bush.... the same one that claimed he didn't think of Bin Laden anymore years later.
You can't use logic with these retards. It doesn't exist in their fantasy land. Strange thing how midgets seem to be the dumbest people you can ever encounter.
-
Why is the USA negotiating with terrorizers?
-
Why is the USA negotiating with terrorizers?
They always have. You think Iran just let those hostages go years ago? Every President in modern times has done it to some degree or another.
-
I'll ask again: does the failure of W. to capture bin Laden constitute a nexus to terrorism? Conversely, does Obama's success in capturing bin Laden disprove any theories about a possible nexus?
The bottom line is simpl: Joe can't have his cake and eat it too.
Of course not - but then again - W was very close to the Saudis like Obama is and many claim that is why we never went after the sheiks who helped finance Al Queada, etc.
Obama did not get OBL and more than W was responsible for 9/11.
-
They always have. You think Iran just let those hostages go years ago? Every President in modern times has done it to some degree or another.
When? When Reagan won the first time? Please elaborate!
-
Of course not - but then again - W was very close to the Saudis like Obama is and many claim that is why we never went after the sheiks who helped finance Al Queada, etc.
Obama did not get OBL and more than W was responsible for 9/11.
I used "get" in the sense that he was President when bin Laden was killed. But whether we like it or not, Obama was the President who authorized the operation. He deserves credit for that. This doesn't make him a better President or whitewash the other fuckups of his Administration.
-
I used "get" in the sense that he was President when bin Laden was killed. But whether we like it or not, Obama was the President who authorized the operation. He deserves credit for that. This doesn't make him a better President or whitewash the other fuckups of his Administration.
Speaking of fuckups - Susan Rice says this guy served "honorably" - WTF!
http://www.caintv.com/susan-rice-we-didnt-negotiate
-
Coach = absolute ties to stupidity.
Link 1: Started his political career in the home of a terrorist.
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2013/04/10/bill-ayers-confirms-what-obama-has-denied-weatherman-domestic-terrorist-finally-spills-the-beans/
-
Link 1: Started his political career in the home of a terrorist.
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2013/04/10/bill-ayers-confirms-what-obama-has-denied-weatherman-domestic-terrorist-finally-spills-the-beans/
Oh boy... another sock puppet.
-
Oh boy... another sock puppet.
Ayeres bombed the Pentagon and on 9/11/2001 was quoted in the NYT as saying he only wishes his bombs did more damage. Remember?
-
Ayeres bombed the Pentagon and on 9/11/2001 was quoted in the NYT as saying he only wishes his bombs did more damage. Remember?
*shakes head*
Let's get this straight: I'm not defending Bill Ayers, nor am I suggesting he didn't bomb the Pentagon. It's an established fact that he did, that he became a fugitive and, unfortunately, avoided facing justice because of the illegal tactics employed by Federal law-enforcement officials. I don't respect Bill Ayers or give his opinion on any topic much weight.
With all that said, what does that have to do with Barack Obama? Even if Obama's political career 'started' in Ayers' living room what does that matter? Would it make a difference if he decided to enter politics in John Wayne's kitchen? Or Ronald Reagan's favorite bistro? Or his fucking toilet?
You don't say it because it proves anything about Obama, you say it because it allows you to get out there, in a roundabout way, something you cannot possibly support with facts and evidence. I mean, shit, you might as well just add "Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge" after your statement.
By all means, point out specific things that Obama himself said or did that betray his sympathy for and/or allegiance to Ayers, the Weather Underground, Alinksy, Lenin, Marx and whathaveyou. We can and should judge the man on his own words and his own action. But I just don't see the point in judging Obama based on the words and actions of others.
-
Obama = Absolute ties to terrorism
wow.
with all due respect Joe, believing things like this is a clear sign that there is something very wrong with your approach to politics. This is just fucking nuts. You can't be fucking serious.
-
wow.
with all due respect Joe, believing things like this is a clear sign that there is something very wrong with your approach to politics. This is just fucking nuts. You can't be fucking serious.
He's an idiot. You tend to expect things like that from those kinds.
-
They always have. You think Iran just let those hostages go years ago? Every President in modern times has done it to some degree or another.
Lurker, what are you talking about here. Will you please elaborate?
-
Lurker, what are you talking about here. Will you please elaborate?
Reagan traded arms to Iran for the hostages.
-
Reagan traded arms to Iran for the hostages.
This guy was not a hostage - he was a deserter who renounced his citizenship. FAIL on your part - keep sticking w o-fag talking points.
-
Reagan traded arms to Iran for the hostages.
Reagan? Didn't the negotiations take place on Carter's watch? Weren't the hostages released the day Carter's term ended?
-
This guy was not a hostage - he was a deserter who renounced his citizenship. FAIL on your part - keep sticking w o-fag talking points.
I see it as USA negotiating with terrorists for extradition of a deserter, not a rescue of a hostage.
-
I see it as USA negotiating with terrorists for extradition of a deserter, not a rescue of a hostage.
No no no no - Obama and the WH said this guy was in captivity and served honorably remember?
-
This guy was not a hostage - he was a deserter who renounced his citizenship. FAIL on your part - keep sticking w o-fag talking points.
I did not say he was or was not a hostage.
I gave an example of another president negotiating with terrorists. Pretty evident if you had more than two brain cells that worked and that were not devoted to Obama's BBC and Jungle Fever.
Again, how much physical pain is associated with having a life that sucks so badly? Where does the majority of this pain come from? Self loathing? Being a queer? A midget? Living in the ghetto?
-
Why is the USA negotiating with terrorizers?
Terrorizers? lol
-
Reagan traded arms to Iran for the hostages.
More than 500 detainees were released or transferred from Gitmo during the Bush Administration
I've read that these guys we traded would have likely be released or transferred sometime soon anyway so at least we got something for them rather than nothing
-
Why is the USA negotiating with terrorizers?
Good question.
-
Good question.
Always has, you guys are buddy buddy with people until there use is up.
-
Always has, you guys are buddy buddy with people until there use is up.
I don't recall us ever trading terrorists for hostages.
-
I don't recall us ever trading terrorists for hostages.
how about POWs for POWs?
ever heard of that?
-
how about POWs for POWs?
ever heard of that?
:D
-
:D
You should be embarrassed to post stuff like this.
1. These were not five "Afganis." They were terrorists.
2. The military operation is not over, and that is not the reason those five terrorists were released, so citing that as a reason to release terrorists from custody is not only wrong, but stupid.
3. There is no such thing as a "Court Marshall." And the allegations about this kid leaving his post were actually investigated. We did not trade terrorists for this kid so he could be investigated and subject to a court martial.
4. The terrorists are not POWs. They are detainees. They don't belong to any recognized armed forces. I'm unaware of any president in history trading terrorists for anything.
-
1 - Where were they from then? Surely even terrorists have a homeland.
2 - Mission Accomplished. Enough said.
3 - No court martial? Well then people can stop crying about it and we save tax dollars.
4 - McCain was a detainee as well. ::)
Splitting hairs and semantics is a clear sign of someone not having a better argument.
-
Reagan? Didn't the negotiations take place on Carter's watch? Weren't the hostages released the day Carter's term ended?
i'm pretty sure it wasn't carter doing the negotiations lol...
-
1 - Where were they from then? Surely even terrorists have a homeland.
2 - Mission Accomplished. Enough said.
3 - No court martial? Well then people can stop crying about it and we save tax dollars.
4 - McCain was a detainee as well. ::)
Splitting hairs and semantics is a clear sign of someone not having a better argument.
I'm not making an argument. I'm highlighting how ridiculously inaccurate that picture is that you posted.
-
Terrorizers? lol
;D
-
i'm pretty sure it wasn't carter doing the negotiations lol...
Then who was?
-
Daily Mail ^ | 6-5-2014 | David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor
Posted on June 5, 2014 at 8:23:20 PM EDT by sheikdetailfeather
The Obama administration passed up multiple opportunities to rescue Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because the president was dead-set on finding a reason to begin emptying Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a Pentagon official.
'JSOC went to the White House with several specific rescue-op scenarios,' the official with knowledge of interagency negotiations underway since at least November 2013 told MailOnline, referring to the Joint Special Operations Command. 'But no one ever got traction.'
'What we learned along the way was that the president wanted a diplomatic scenario that would establish a precedent for repatriating detainees from Gitmo,' he said.
The official said a State Department liaison described the lay of the land to him in February, shortly after the Taliban sent the U.S. government a month-old video of Bergdahl in January, looking sickly and haggard, in an effort to create a sense of urgency about his health and effect a quick prisoner trade.
'He basically told me that no matter what JSOC put on the table, it was never going to fly because the president isn't going to leave office with Gitmo intact, and this was the best opportunity to see that through.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
Oh you mean like when you are ranting on about birther or other delusional shit? You start and abandon more threads than anyone after you get your ass kicked on them.
"You just don't get it do you"? ::)
lol, that's my friend Joe in a nutshell.
'You just don't get it, do you'
And then he's gone :D
-
Skip to comments.
Uh oh: Feinstein says she’s seen no evidence that Taliban would've killed Bergdahl had deal leaked
Hot Air ^ | June 6, 2014 | Allahpundit
Posted on June 6, 2014 at 9:09:40 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Not sure how else to read this except as Feinstein accusing the White House of lying flat-out about its reasons for keeping Congress in the dark before the swap.
When asked whether there was a “credible threat” on Bergdahl’s life if word had gotten out, the California Democrat responded: “No, I don’t think there was a credible threat, but I don’t know. I have no information that there was.”
Feinstein’s comments, part of an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Political Capital with Al Hunt airing Friday evening, put her at odds with White House officials. At a briefing Wednesday, administration officials told lawmakers that they couldn’t give Congress advance notice on the Bergdahl deal because the Taliban vowed to kill him if any details about the prisoner exchange came out.
Just to make sure we’re all on the same page here, Feinstein’s no random member of Congress. She’s the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, routinely privy to all sorts of tightly held info that the White House shares with her and other committee members in the name of keeping the legislature apprised of threats. Nor is this the first time a member of the Intel Committee has claimed that information about Bergdahl was withheld from them. Saxby Chambliss says it was news to him to read in the New York Times that Bergdahl may (or may not) have left a note before he disappeared. That info wasn’t in his classified file.
Two possibilities here. One: It’s all true — the Taliban was set to kill Bergdahl if anyone blabbed — but the White House couldn’t share that info with Feinstein because she’s got a big mouth and would have spilled the beans. Any evidence to support that theory? Actually, yeah.
[A]t least in Feinstein’s case, the administration may have had a reason to keep her out of the loop. In March 2012 with Josh Rogin—then with Foreign Policy magazine—Feinstein accidentally acknowledged the negotiations, appearing to disclose classified information about a potential Bergdahl deal (Rogin also reported that the White House briefed eight senators, including Feinstein, on a potential deal in Jan. 2012).
They kept Congress in the dark about a potential Bergdahl exchange ever since. Even if it’s true that Feinstein was careless with information previously, though, that’s no defense to the White House breaking the law in refusing to notify Congress. They could have simply huddled with her, impressed upon her how high the stakes were — “you talk, he dies” — and then trusted her to be quiet. She’s known all sorts of things that she hasn’t disclosed. There’s no reason to think she couldn’t have been trusted to keep this a secret too, provided they gave her some reason to believe Bergdahl would be in jeopardy if she said anything. Why didn’t they? Or is this all a big lie and the Taliban never intended to kill him over a leak?
Second possibility: This is all a big lie and the Taliban never intended to kill him over a leak. You already know the arguments on this one if you read Ed’s post yesterday. It simply makes no sense to believe the Taliban would have cared much if anyone leaked. For one thing, the prospect of a Bergdahl/Taliban swap has been reported in papers like the NYT for at least two years. The Taliban themselves chattered about it to the AP last year. Plus, if you think about it, having the deal leak in advance would only enhance the propaganda victory for them. If news of an impending swap had broken a week earlier, American media had erupted over it, and then a battered Obama had bowed to the Taliban and done the deal anyway, it would have been a supreme humiliation. The only reason to think the Taliban was skittish about leaks was because they were afraid that news breaking in advance would cow Obama into scuttling the deal — but in that case, with Obama’s course of action uncertain, why would they have gone ahead and killed Bergdahl before O had made a final decision? It may be that they told the White House that they’d kill BB if Obama backed out at the last minute, but that’s not the same as saying they’d kill him if it leaked. And it’s certainly no justification for O to withhold notice from Congress.
Feinstein’s not the only big-name Democrat causing trouble for the administration about Bergdahl today, either. Remember that the next time Obama dismisses this as a phony scandal cooked up by Republican psycho-partisans. Exit question via Guy Benson: Remember when Jay Carney said that Bergdahl was a “prisoner,” not a “hostage”? How can that be true if the White House’s story is correct, that the Taliban were ready to murder him in captivity if the deal leaked? Legitimate armies don’t threaten to kill POWs; they hold them until the end of hostilities and then release them to the enemy. The word for a group that would slaughter a prisoner over a scuttled exchange is something different. It starts with a “T,” I believe.
-
>:(
-
They always have. You think Iran just let those hostages go years ago? Every President in modern times has done it to some degree or another.
Whereas in Britain in 1980, the SAS under the instruction of Maggie Thatcher went right into the Iranian embassy in London and rescued all hostages while killing as many Iranian terrorist scum as possible.
The good old days when the West had real leader with balls like Maggie and Ronnie.
-
Thatcher would have made Obama eat his own shit if he even thought of crossing her...
-
Whereas in Britain in 1980, the SAS under the instruction of Maggie Thatcher went right into the Iranian embassy in London and rescued all hostages while killing as many Iranian terrorist scum as possible.
The good old days when the West had real leader with balls like Maggie and Ronnie.
the same Ronnie who cut and ran in Lebanon?
-
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/06/obama-friend-domestic-terrorist-bill.html#more
;D