Are you freaking serious ?
I don't understand because I don't have all the details. But I ask again, Are you freaking serious ?
======================================================
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowe_Bergdahl
======================================================
Miami Herald
U.S. swaps 5 Taliban prisoners at Guantánamo for long-held POW
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/31/4150258/us-swaps-5-taliban-prisoners-at.html
======================================================
NPR
Hagel Defends Trade of Guantanamo Prisoners For U.S. Soldier
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/01/317845670/hagel-u-s-had-to-move-quick-on-pow-because-life-was-in-danger
================================================================
CNN
Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/world/asia/afghanistan-bergdahl-release/
================================================================
The Daily Beast
Here are the Taliban Terrorists Obama Released to Free POW Bowe Bergdahl
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/31/us-pays-high-price-for-last-pow-in-afghanistan.html
=================================================================
CNN - Deserter or Hero
Fellow soldiers call Bowe Bergdahl a deserter, not a hero
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/
=================================================================
Fellow Soldiers Call Bowe Bergdahl A Deserter, Not A Hero - CNN.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/fellow-soldiers-call-bowe_n_5430899.html
==================================================================
THE LEGAL SITUATION SURROUNDING THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY DETAINEES
http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=9&level1=13337&level2=13382
==================================================================
RT - Bergdahl blamed for deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan
http://rt.com/usa/163120-army-bergdahl-soldier-deaths/
==================================================================
From Facebook - Photos and comments
https://www.facebook.com/tammybrucemedia/photos/a.10151926855742663.1073741827.97464672662/10152230999432663/?type=1&theater
Originally from: https://www.facebook.com/pocketliberty
=================================================================
A few weeks ago, President Obama spoke of three former Presidents making prisoner swaps at the end of wars that took place on their watch, "much like his swap" he said convincingly. CNS News.com carried this quote, "This is what happens at the end of wars," President Barack Obama boasted Tuesday when he was asked about swapping American Army Sgt. Bergdahl, a Deserter, for five vicious Taliban terrorists. "That was true for George Washington... That was true for Abraham Lincoln and that was true for FDR. That's been true of every combat situation, that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that's the right thing to do." Really? That statement blatantly demonstrates that the most powerful man in the World and 2 term President of the United States lacks even a grade school level of knowledge of American History; specifically, history as it relates to three of his rather critical predecessors. It shows that we have essentially elected a foreigner who has no understanding of the very country that over which he thinks he reigns supreme. To expound on this: The Revolutionary War ended in 1783.George Washington did not become president until six years later in 1789. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in mid April of 1865. The Civil War ended the following month. He was still dead at that time. No deals were made to exchange prisoners after the war. All prisoners were simply freed. FDR died of a stroke before the end of WWII. You'll recall that Harry S.Truman made the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, ending World War II. We made no deals for prisoners. We went in and released them when necessary. If any Conservative President had made such an uninformed statement we'd never hear the end of it. None of the Presidents that Obama noted were in office at the ends of those wars, making it impossible for them to make any sort of prisoner swaps, let alone the 5 for 1; plus unspecified cash; for a deserter and traitor by Mr. President "57 States". It should be pointed out that countless deserters and traitors were shot or hung during all three of the aforementioned wars... What amazes even more than the ignorance of the President is that he has somehow managed to surround himself with a staff that is just as ignorant!
Trouble is, so many Americans today are so ignorant or lethargic they
wouldn’t know the difference, or worse, care!
========================================================
From Chuck Norris:
http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/
I have four colossal disagreements with how President Barack Obama cut the deal for the prisoner swap of five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl; the former, the White House itself admits, could "absolutely" rejoin terrorist cells.
Sure, I have far more than four issues with how it all went down -- for example, the absolute avoidance and disregard of constitutional submission and congressional consent. But this administration seems to have little regard for proper protocol with anything, so I'm going to focus here on a few different angles of argument.
No one is overlooking or minimizing the understandable elation of Bergdahl's family over his homecoming. But was there really no other military or negotiating option than to return five of the most hardened criminals and enemies of the U.S. to the battlefield, where at least six other soldiers gave their lives trying to rescue Bergdahl?
Our whole country -- including those across the political spectrum, from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- is asking: Why, in the midst of war, would Obama release five of the greatest anti-American terrorists in exchange for Bergdahl, who, according to several of his own military colleagues and superiors, abandoned his post and platoon and likely even became sympathetic with the Taliban mission?
Obama's answer?
While in Poland, he said, "This is what happens at the end of wars."
But what about if the war hasn't ended, which is exactly where the U.S. is now? I don't know whether Obama has noticed recently, but military personnel are still fighting on the battlefield. For the president, the war is in the past tense, but the battle continues in the present.
Duke University political science professor Peter Feaver, who served as a National Security Council special adviser under George W. Bush, explained to The Washington Post: "The deal the president struck is a deal you strike when the war's over. The military, they're thinking about, 'We're still fighting this war.' For them the war's very much still on, and the question of will we win or not is up for grabs."
So this is the first of my four vehement objections to Obama's handling of the prisoner of war swap:
1) The war is not over; military personnel are still fighting.
My second objection is found in the president's further justification this past week: "This is what happens at the end of wars. That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that's been true of every combat situation -- that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that's the right thing to do."
But is that true? Did Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt engage in prisoner swapping in the same vein as Obama? (Some have come to the president's aid in saying so.)
Let's just examine George Washington's prisoner of war policy alone.
President Obama justifies his grounds for his prisoner exchange with the fact that Washington engaged in similar prisoner exchange with the British during the Revolutionary War. What Obama doesn't tell you, however, is that both the Brits and the colonists exchanged prisoners of war because both had "few facilities to accommodate large numbers of prisoners," according to the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association.
And as far as specifically buying back colonists from captivity at the price of handing over British soldiers -- as Obama did with Taliban leaders -- the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association explained exactly what Gen. Washington's policy was: He "made sure that no states holding military prisoners should trade a British soldier for an American citizen. Washington believed that this would have legitimized the British capture of more citizens, most of whom were largely defenseless."
Mr. President, did you want to read that policy again?
In regard to Obama's comparison with these stellar commanders in chief, I want to respond just as vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen responded to fellow candidate Dan Quayle during a 1988 debate after Quayle likened his political experience to that of John F. Kennedy: "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
I've studied George Washington, and, Mr. President, you're no George... (Oh, you get the point!)
That's my second objection to the president's justification:
2) Barack Obama is no George Washington.
And this present prisoner swap -- in the midst of a modern-day war on terror, in which our enemies use our planes as missiles and salivate over suitcase nukes -- can by no means find its equal during the Revolutionary War or another war in which (however dangerous) muskets, single-shot rifles and cannonballs were used.
Next week, I will give my third and fourth reasons for disagreeing with how Obama cut the deal for Bergdahl.
Above all else, let's never forget the names of those who gave their lives in attempts to rescue Bergdahl or during closely related missions: 2nd Lt. Darryn Deen Andrews, Staff Sgt. Clayton Patrick Bowen, Pfc. Morris Lewis Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek and Staff Sgt. Michael Chance Murphrey.
===============================================================
Part 2
Last week, I spoke about how President Barack Obama justified his prisoner swap of five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl by saying former military leaders and presidents, including George Washington, have engaged in prisoner of war exchange, too.
Obama's exact words were: "This is what happens at the end of wars. That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that's been true of every combat situation -- that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that's the right thing to do."
From that statement alone, I revealed how Obama's made grievous errors in judgment by concluding that 1) the war is over and 2) he was engaging in a prisoner exchange like George Washington -- to take just a single example among his list of stellar leaders.
What Obama didn't tell you regarding Washington and prisoner exchange during the Revolutionary War is that both countries -- England and the U.S. -- exchanged prisoners of war because both had "few facilities to accommodate large numbers of prisoners," according to the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, whose mission it is "to preserve, restore, and manage the estate of George Washington to the highest standards and to educate visitors and people throughout the world about the life and legacies of George Washington."
As far as buying Americans back from captivity at the price of enemy combatants, Obama needs to follow the example of Gen. Washington, who "made sure that no states holding military prisoners should trade a British soldier for an American citizen. Washington believed that this would have legitimized the British capture of more citizens, most of whom were largely defenseless."
Though no one is minimizing the understandable elation of Bergdahl's family over his release, George Washington would not have traded for him, because he didn't believe in trading prisoners of war until after the war was in fact over, treaties were signed and hostilities ceased, lest he risk the capture of further American people for ransom.
Here are my two additional grievances with Obama's prisoner of war exchange:
3) As the commander in chief, George Washington wouldn't have completely undermined the very heart and soul of the military as Obama did with his prisoner exchange, especially in light of how it is a cardinal sin in military culture to abandon one's post and platoon during war.
=================================================================
Surprise: Obama Administration Not Quite Sure If Cuba Has Released 53 Political Prisoners as Promised
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/01/06/surprise-obama-adminsitration-not-quite-sure-if-cuba-has-released-53-dissidents-as-promised-n1939150
===============================================================
Obama Administration Releases Five GITMO Detainees Originally From Yemen
Katie Pavlich | Jan 15, 2015
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/01/15/obama-administrtaion-releases-five-more-gitmo-detainees-n1943476
=================================================================
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/obama-releases-five-more-gitmo-prisoners-overnight/
=================================================================
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/14/guantanamo-prisoners-released/21789217/
=================================================================
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-frees-guantanamo-prisoners-sends-oman-estonia-28236041
=================================================================
http://blessings.buzz/2015/01/21/shock-obama-releases-another-convicted-muslim-terrorist/
=================================================================
RT - Bergdahl blamed for deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan
http://rt.com/usa/163120-army-bergdahl-soldier-deaths/
==================================================================
From Facebook - Photos and comments
https://www.facebook.com/tammybrucemedia/photos/a.10151926855742663.1073741827.97464672662/10152230999432663/?type=1&theater
Originally from: https://www.facebook.com/pocketliberty
=================================================================
A few weeks ago, President Obama spoke of three former Presidents making prisoner swaps at the end of wars that took place on their watch, "much like his swap" he said convincingly. CNS News.com carried this quote, "This is what happens at the end of wars," President Barack Obama boasted Tuesday when he was asked about swapping American Army Sgt. Bergdahl, a Deserter, for five vicious Taliban terrorists. "That was true for George Washington... That was true for Abraham Lincoln and that was true for FDR. That's been true of every combat situation, that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that's the right thing to do." Really? That statement blatantly demonstrates that the most powerful man in the World and 2 term President of the United States lacks even a grade school level of knowledge of American History; specifically, history as it relates to three of his rather critical predecessors. It shows that we have essentially elected a foreigner who has no understanding of the very country that over which he thinks he reigns supreme. To expound on this: The Revolutionary War ended in 1783.George Washington did not become president until six years later in 1789. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in mid April of 1865. The Civil War ended the following month. He was still dead at that time. No deals were made to exchange prisoners after the war. All prisoners were simply freed. FDR died of a stroke before the end of WWII. You'll recall that Harry S.Truman made the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, ending World War II. We made no deals for prisoners. We went in and released them when necessary. If any Conservative President had made such an uninformed statement we'd never hear the end of it. None of the Presidents that Obama noted were in office at the ends of those wars, making it impossible for them to make any sort of prisoner swaps, let alone the 5 for 1; plus unspecified cash; for a deserter and traitor by Mr. President "57 States". It should be pointed out that countless deserters and traitors were shot or hung during all three of the aforementioned wars... What amazes even more than the ignorance of the President is that he has somehow managed to surround himself with a staff that is just as ignorant!
Trouble is, so many Americans today are so ignorant or lethargic they
wouldn’t know the difference, or worse, care!
========================================================
From Chuck Norris:
http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/
I have four colossal disagreements with how President Barack Obama cut the deal for the prisoner swap of five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl; the former, the White House itself admits, could "absolutely" rejoin terrorist cells.
Sure, I have far more than four issues with how it all went down -- for example, the absolute avoidance and disregard of constitutional submission and congressional consent. But this administration seems to have little regard for proper protocol with anything, so I'm going to focus here on a few different angles of argument.
No one is overlooking or minimizing the understandable elation of Bergdahl's family over his homecoming. But was there really no other military or negotiating option than to return five of the most hardened criminals and enemies of the U.S. to the battlefield, where at least six other soldiers gave their lives trying to rescue Bergdahl?
Our whole country -- including those across the political spectrum, from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- is asking: Why, in the midst of war, would Obama release five of the greatest anti-American terrorists in exchange for Bergdahl, who, according to several of his own military colleagues and superiors, abandoned his post and platoon and likely even became sympathetic with the Taliban mission?
Obama's answer?
While in Poland, he said, "This is what happens at the end of wars."
But what about if the war hasn't ended, which is exactly where the U.S. is now? I don't know whether Obama has noticed recently, but military personnel are still fighting on the battlefield. For the president, the war is in the past tense, but the battle continues in the present.
Duke University political science professor Peter Feaver, who served as a National Security Council special adviser under George W. Bush, explained to The Washington Post: "The deal the president struck is a deal you strike when the war's over. The military, they're thinking about, 'We're still fighting this war.' For them the war's very much still on, and the question of will we win or not is up for grabs."
So this is the first of my four vehement objections to Obama's handling of the prisoner of war swap:
1) The war is not over; military personnel are still fighting.
My second objection is found in the president's further justification this past week: "This is what happens at the end of wars. That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that's been true of every combat situation -- that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that's the right thing to do."
But is that true? Did Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt engage in prisoner swapping in the same vein as Obama? (Some have come to the president's aid in saying so.)
Let's just examine George Washington's prisoner of war policy alone.
President Obama justifies his grounds for his prisoner exchange with the fact that Washington engaged in similar prisoner exchange with the British during the Revolutionary War. What Obama doesn't tell you, however, is that both the Brits and the colonists exchanged prisoners of war because both had "few facilities to accommodate large numbers of prisoners," according to the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association.
And as far as specifically buying back colonists from captivity at the price of handing over British soldiers -- as Obama did with Taliban leaders -- the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association explained exactly what Gen. Washington's policy was: He "made sure that no states holding military prisoners should trade a British soldier for an American citizen. Washington believed that this would have legitimized the British capture of more citizens, most of whom were largely defenseless."
Mr. President, did you want to read that policy again?
In regard to Obama's comparison with these stellar commanders in chief, I want to respond just as vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen responded to fellow candidate Dan Quayle during a 1988 debate after Quayle likened his political experience to that of John F. Kennedy: "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
I've studied George Washington, and, Mr. President, you're no George... (Oh, you get the point!)
That's my second objection to the president's justification:
2) Barack Obama is no George Washington.
And this present prisoner swap -- in the midst of a modern-day war on terror, in which our enemies use our planes as missiles and salivate over suitcase nukes -- can by no means find its equal during the Revolutionary War or another war in which (however dangerous) muskets, single-shot rifles and cannonballs were used.
Next week, I will give my third and fourth reasons for disagreeing with how Obama cut the deal for Bergdahl.
Above all else, let's never forget the names of those who gave their lives in attempts to rescue Bergdahl or during closely related missions: 2nd Lt. Darryn Deen Andrews, Staff Sgt. Clayton Patrick Bowen, Pfc. Morris Lewis Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek and Staff Sgt. Michael Chance Murphrey.
===============================================================
Part 2
Obama's exact words were: "This is what happens at the end of wars. That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that's been true of every combat situation -- that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that's the right thing to do."
From that statement alone, I revealed how Obama's made grievous errors in judgment by concluding that 1) the war is over and 2) he was engaging in a prisoner exchange like George Washington -- to take just a single example among his list of stellar leaders.
What Obama didn't tell you regarding Washington and prisoner exchange during the Revolutionary War is that both countries -- England and the U.S. -- exchanged prisoners of war because both had "few facilities to accommodate large numbers of prisoners," according to the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, whose mission it is "to preserve, restore, and manage the estate of George Washington to the highest standards and to educate visitors and people throughout the world about the life and legacies of George Washington."
As far as buying Americans back from captivity at the price of enemy combatants, Obama needs to follow the example of Gen. Washington, who "made sure that no states holding military prisoners should trade a British soldier for an American citizen. Washington believed that this would have legitimized the British capture of more citizens, most of whom were largely defenseless."
Though no one is minimizing the understandable elation of Bergdahl's family over his release, George Washington would not have traded for him, because he didn't believe in trading prisoners of war until after the war was in fact over, treaties were signed and hostilities ceased, lest he risk the capture of further American people for ransom.
Here are my two additional grievances with Obama's prisoner of war exchange:
3) As the commander in chief, George Washington wouldn't have completely undermined the very heart and soul of the military as Obama did with his prisoner exchange, especially in light of how it is a cardinal sin in military culture to abandon one's post and platoon during war.
=================================================================
Surprise: Obama Administration Not Quite Sure If Cuba Has Released 53 Political Prisoners as Promised
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/01/06/surprise-obama-adminsitration-not-quite-sure-if-cuba-has-released-53-dissidents-as-promised-n1939150
===============================================================
Obama Administration Releases Five GITMO Detainees Originally From Yemen
Katie Pavlich | Jan 15, 2015
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/01/15/obama-administrtaion-releases-five-more-gitmo-detainees-n1943476
=================================================================
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/obama-releases-five-more-gitmo-prisoners-overnight/
=================================================================
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/14/guantanamo-prisoners-released/21789217/
=================================================================
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-frees-guantanamo-prisoners-sends-oman-estonia-28236041
=================================================================
http://blessings.buzz/2015/01/21/shock-obama-releases-another-convicted-muslim-terrorist/
=================================================================
