General Discussion

Blue Meany

(1,947 posts)

8. I think there has to be a back story about this that we don't yet know.

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 08:14 PM

Jun 2014

This offer has been on the table since 2009, and the administration declined to agree to it until now, and they seem to have done so now with some sense of urgency. It could be his health, the winding down of the war, changes in the arrangements for the what was to happen to the five Taliban leaders--who knows? It could also have had something to do with divisions within the Taliban. He was held by the Haqqani group, which some analysts regard a tribal faction rather than a part of the Taliban, so it may be that there was some danger of this offer being withdrawn imminently.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"What People Don�t Understand About the Bergdahl Deal" [View all] applegrove Jun 2014 OP

It has already been decided . . . madashelltoo Jun 2014 #1

I agree. Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #2

I wonder... greytdemocrat Jun 2014 #3

We don't leave him there. Lex Jun 2014 #4

Agreed. greytdemocrat Jun 2014 #6

Did you know that over 20,000 American soldiers were convicted of desertion in WW2? Xithras Jun 2014 #9

Yeah but what about satisfying our blood lust? neverforget Jun 2014 #10

Some Crazy Wingnut AnnieBW Jun 2014 #20

Mine too. neverforget Jun 2014 #21

really firing squad ? at worst he decided to just leave the military JI7 Jun 2014 #13

But you see if the military is a tool of the 1% at any given moment in history malaise Jun 2014 #33

I think a stint in Leavenworth and a dishonorable discharge at the end of his sentence suffices. Chan790 Jun 2014 #23

No one has accused him of cowardice pinboy3niner Jun 2014 #30

I was presuming factual guilt sufficient for grayt seeking a capital sentence... Chan790 Jun 2014 #31

It may be neither malaise Jun 2014 #34

Or he may have just been going for a walk. He'd done that before, without punishment riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #41

+1,000 malaise Jun 2014 #42

I've read..... cynzke Jun 2014 #35

This would be technically incorrect. Chan790 Jun 2014 #44

That is one disgusting post on your part. n/t xocet Jun 2014 #24

Jumping ahead of yourself there. blackspade Jun 2014 #25

With the republicans, demigoddess Jun 2014 #5

He squeeses the toothpaste tube from the wrong end. I don't know which end, but he's wrong. n/t griloco Jun 2014 #18

He should be impeached...... cynzke Jun 2014 #36

I will try to keep it in mind Egnever Jun 2014 #7

I agree the white house should have foreseen the reaction. But I think a death in captivity applegrove Jun 2014 #11

I dont think there was a good option Egnever Jun 2014 #17

we went there because of Al Qaeda which the Taliban allowed JI7 Jun 2014 #12

We went there because the Taliban refused to give up Al Qaeda leaders Egnever Jun 2014 #16

we went there because demigoddess Jun 2014 #45

I think there has to be a back story about this that we don't yet know. Blue Meany Jun 2014 #8

News is leaking now about videos showing declining health, concern over value of keeping him captive pinboy3niner Jun 2014 #14

I always ask myself "who, or what are we no longer talking about?" Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #32

I read in another article...... cynzke Jun 2014 #38

Criticizing Obama and Hagel for expressing happiness with Bergdahl's safe release TwilightGardener Jun 2014 #15

We have to release all of the combatants by next year lexington filly Jun 2014 #19

Not terrorists? Google "Afghan girl who" That's all you need. Just google it. merrily Jun 2014 #22

That doesn't make the Taliban terrorists, merrily... DonViejo Jun 2014 #26

Bullshit. Under US law, the Taliban would be arrested here as terrorists in a heartbeat, if merrily Jun 2014 #28

I'm not interested in a long argument with you merrily... DonViejo Jun 2014 #37

Actually, people who are truly not interested in arguing don't argue. merrily Jun 2014 #39

Adios! It's not worth my time or energy to try and have a discussion with you. eom DonViejo Jun 2014 #40

LOL! merrily Jun 2014 #43

So Gitmo holds POWs and not just detainees? Booz Jun 2014 #27

You can distinguish even Gitmo, though. The USG put people in Gitmo, allegedly merrily Jun 2014 #29

Muzzies in White House??!@#$%^&* max shimba Jun 2014 #46