A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gold!

by **Bucky** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 09:53:15

just so I'm 100% on this: it doesn't matter if they think the guy deserted or not, they still need to get him?

What is your take on the exchange rate? Would they take into consideration the "possibly deserted" status when deciding what we should give up for the guy, or is that still irrelevant?

I have lots of Obama-bashers to contend with here, so I want to make sure I'm not talking out my butt.

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:33:44

Yes, you want to get a deserter or a traitor, he's still an American. Then you get the investigation rolling, see if he deserted or was actively assisting the enemy, and then you bring the hammer down. It also shows that there is an honorable way to not only serve the military, but there is an honorable way to serve when in captivity.

Very lopsided exchange rate for a PFC, but again, you must show you are willing to get your people back. Lose that trust between the serving and the leaders, and it opens a Pandora's Box of problems you really don't want to deal with.

Regardless of his potential crimes, you want to get the guy, because you want to reinforce the "no one left behind" narrative that really is critically important to those who serve in a volunteer force. It also shows, potentially, that we are a nation of laws, and that the law applies to you regardless of your situation.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:00:01

LG, any way to size up how out of the loop the 5 Taliban are likely to be after 5 years on ice? I mean, their organizations have to have moved on some without them; and if there's one universal commonplace among people, it's that if you're in, you don't want to be moved out just because someone who was in before you, but went out for a long time, and all of a sudden is back in, comes back in

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:46:03

jerseyhoya wrote:The big primary nationally today is Mississippi Senate, where Sen. Thad Cochran (R) is running for his seventh term and being challenged from the right by State Sen. Chris McDaniel. By all accounts the race could go either way. While if McDaniel wins it will rightly be talked up as a big W for the tea party win and a blow against an establishment/bipartisan type, Cochran has run a race worthy of losing. He's old and out of touch either due to not caring enough to ramp up or losing a few miles an hour on his fastball.

Fivethirtyeight.com referred to Thomas Carey as a "third party candidate," and boy was I confused there for a minute.

by **Luzinski's Gut** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:26:30

Yeah, that's an interesting question. They are a very heirarchal organization at the top, I suspect this is going to be difficult for them to reintegrate into any position within the organization because of the reasons you've stated. I'd also think these guys have zero understanding of how to face an American military force as they were captured so early that they never experienced any of the troop buildup or the advanced capabilitities were bringing to the war in 2011-2012...completely different game than what was going on in 01/02.

And you don't know how these guys did in captivity at GITMO either. The isolation alone probably messed with their heads...

drsmooth wrote:LG, any way to size up how out of the loop the 5 Taliban are likely to be after 5 years on ice? I mean, their organizations have to have moved on some without them; and if there's one universal commonplace among people, it's that if you're in, you don't want to be moved out just because someone who was in before you, but went out for a long time, and all of a sudden is back in, comes back in

by **drsmooth** » Wed Jun 04, 2014 14:31:35

thanks LG. What sparked my question was the media - of all persuasions - treating these guys as if they were Transformers or something

While I'm tying another onion on my belt, I'll unfurl another thing that's crossed my mind: the early administration remarks puffing Bergdahl & his service record up, and the subsequent "discovery" that the guy seems pretty far from all that - with not much pushback from same administration spokesheads - reminded me of the kinds of things GMs say about players they want to move - BEFORE a trade happens....

Luzinski's Gut wrote:Yeah, that's an interesting question. They are a very heirarchal organization at the top, I suspect this is going to be difficult for them to reintegrate into any position within the organization because of the reasons you've stated. I'd also think these guys have zero understanding of how to face an American military force as they were captured so early that they never experienced any of the troop buildup or the advanced capabilitities were bringing to the war in 2011-2012...completely different game than what was going on in 01/02.

And you don't know how these guys did in captivity at GITMO either. The isolation alone probably messed with their heads...

drsmooth wrote:LG, any way to size up how out of the loop the 5 Taliban are likely to be after 5 years on ice? I mean, their organizations have to have moved on some without them; and if there's one universal commonplace among people, it's that if you're in, you don't want to be moved out just because someone who was in before you, but went out for a long time, and all of a sudden is back in, comes back in

by **pacino** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 09:55:28

Newsmax host and former Republican congressman J.D. Hayworth added his voice today to the growing right-wing outrage over the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in a prisoner exchange with the Taliban, and what better person to discuss the situation with than Oliver North!

North demanded that the media ask the Obama administration if there was “a ransom, a fiscal, financial, money transaction,” with the Taliban as part of the deal. “Was there a ransom paid? Did the government of the United States, either directly or indirectly, finance a terrorist organization?”

What in the flying fuck? Go away,Oliver.

Chuck Todd reported that the Obama administration were caught off-guard by the response from the right-wing because they thought getting the only remaining POW would be greeted by 'euphoria'. How clueless is this administration? This is why they think they can still negotiate with Republicans. They don't realize they aren't negotiating with rational actors. If Obama did it, it's bad. When is the President going to learn this? 2017?

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:08:16

Luzinski's Gut wrote:Yes, you want to get a deserter or a traitor, he's still an American. Then you get the investigation rolling, see if he deserted or was actively assisting the enemy, and then you bring the hammer down. It also shows that there is an honorable way to not only serve the military, but there is an honorable way to serve when in captivity.

Very lopsided exchange rate for a PFC, but again, you must show you are willing to get your people back. Lose that trust between the serving and the leaders, and it opens a Pandora's Box of problems you really don't want to deal with.

Regardless of his potential crimes, you want to get the guy, because you want to reinforce the "no one left behind" narrative that really is critically important to those who serve in a volunteer force. It also shows, potentially, that we are a nation of laws, and that the law applies to you regardless of your situation.

Wholeheartedly agree with this post. Get him back, then conduct an investigation/trial.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:09:26

pacino wrote:
Newsmax host and former Republican congressman J.D. Hayworth added his voice today to the growing right-wing outrage over the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in a prisoner exchange with the Taliban, and what better person to discuss the situation with than Oliver North!

North demanded that the media ask the Obama administration if there was “a ransom, a fiscal, financial, money transaction,” with the Taliban as part of the deal. “Was there a ransom paid? Did the government of the United States, either directly or indirectly, finance a terrorist organization?”

What in the flying #$!&@? Go away,Oliver.

Amazing. Oliver fucking North.

by **dajafi** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:17:29

Whatever the rightness or wrongness of the decision, the tactical stupidity of the administration almost six years in is really startling. They don't need any additional self-inflicted wounds.

I guess this is the effect of "the bubble," but geez--just call Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod or whoever and ask, "Is this a dumb idea? What do you think will happen?"

It's probably no more than a 10-15 percent chance, but I wonder if the Rs will try to impeach the president early next year. Needless to say, any excuse would do...

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:49:52

dajafi wrote:Whatever the rightness or wrongness of the decision, the tactical stupidity of the administration almost six years in is really startling. They don't need any additional self-inflicted wounds.

I guess this is the effect of "the bubble," but geez--just call Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod or whoever and ask, "Is this a dumb idea? What do you think will happen?"

It's probably no more than a 10-15 percent chance, but I wonder if the Rs will try to impeach the president early next year. Needless to say, any excuse would do...

Let's hope they do - might be just what President Obama's approval rating needs, a trumped up and expense impeachment proceeding.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:52:51

Republicans aren't THAT stupid. They know that it's much more productive for them to have their fringe talk about impeachment than it would ever be for them to go that far.

by **SK790** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 13:48:53

dajafi wrote:Whatever the rightness or wrongness of the decision, the tactical stupidity of the administration almost six years in is really startling. They don't need any additional self-inflicted wounds.

I guess this is the effect of "the bubble," but geez--just call Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod or whoever and ask, "Is this a dumb idea? What do you think will happen?"

It's probably no more than a 10-15 percent chance, but I wonder if the Rs will try to impeach the president early next year. Needless to say, any excuse would do...

Why should the administration really care at this point? If they thought this was the right move, they should have done it. If they used this strategy, they'd never get anything done, since the far right seems to spin everything he does into being terrible.

by **pacino** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 14:45:09

PA Rep references Hitler in comparison to unions, then says he didn't:

A prominent anti-union Pennsylvania state lawmaker who said labor unions, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler are about "power and control" during Senate debate Wednesday drew a sharp response from the state's largest teachers' union.

In an interview, Sen. Scott Wagner, R-York, said he was not comparing unions to Hitler or Putin, but was finding examples through history of the use of "power and control," including dictators Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin and Moammar Gadhafi.

"I'm not comparing the unions to Hitler and I'm not comparing them to Putin," Wagner said. "I'm talking about the concept of power and control. ... I didn't say the unions are out killing people."

Wagner made the comments amid Senate floor debate over legislation he supports to bar the state and numerous other government employers from automatically deducting union dues from members' paychecks.

During the floor debate, he said, "The unions are about power and control. And there are two things that I continue to remember about power and control. There was a gentleman by the name of Hitler, he was about power and control. There's a gentleman by the name of Putin, who's across the ocean, that's about power and control."

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 17:05:06

On the Bergdahl swap, the administration was faced with a couple of unappealing options. Exchange potentially dangerous leaders of a group we’re still fighting against for a US service member whose capture took place under weird circumstances, or let him continue to twist to see if a better deal might come along eventually. Kinda damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I don’t know if they could have managed to hammer out a better deal, especially maybe better oversight on the people we’re releasing at least until all US troops are out of Afghanistan. The controversial nature of the swap is not limited to the right. Hillary’s people have been sure to get it out there that she was skeptical of the swap plans when she was Secretary of State. The White House reportedly overruled concerns from the intelligence community and Pentagon in making the swap. A Taliban commander has talked about the increasing appeal of kidnapping US soldiers as a result of the deal. The other side of the coin was also a shit sandwich, but posting like the only complaints about this are coming from partisan GOP attacks is missing the boat.

Leaving aside whether or not the trade should have been made, much of the criticism levied at the administration over the issue has been over the tone deaf handling and not following the law aspects of the whole thing. Obama had had a tough couple of weeks with the VA scandal growing and Shinseki’s resignation on Friday. What better way to shift the narrative and show how much he cares about the troops than a press conference with a captured soldier’s parents at the White House touting his release. The administration knew at this point of the controversial nature of Bergdahl’s capture, and the potential shitstorm from elevating the issue, but rolled ahead with it anyway because they needed to turn the page. Then the administration raises the idiocy to new levels when Susan Rice goes out on the Sunday talk show circuit (never a good idea) and says Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction.”

The people from Bergdahl’s unit who’ve been coming out to call him a deserter have explained that they’re not questioning the wisdom of the swap or attempts to bring him home, but to make sure he’s held accountable for his actions and that he’s not held up as a hero. The administration with the pomp of a Rose Garden ceremony and the National Security Advisor going out there and saying he served with honor stoked this entirely predictable backlash.

There is also the issue of the White House not complying with the law of notifying Congress about the release of the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Noted member of the far right, Dianne Feinstein, talked about how she was dismayed that the White House didn’t follow the law. The White House apologized for this oversight saying they were concerned about Bergdahl’s health and said the timetable didn’t allow it. Obama gave a similar rationale over in Poland for why Congress wasn’t told. Now today anonymous officials are saying the Taliban threatened to kill him if details of the swap leaked ahead of time, which doesn’t make a tremendous amount of sense since the Taliban have been treating this as a great success, but I guess the Taliban don’t always make much sense. Whatever their internal reasoning, we have another example of the administration picking and choosing what laws it wants to follow.

So sure, we don’t want to ever leave someone behind, but there’s a whole lot more going on here than something you can just stick on a bumper sticker, and a lot of the criticisms about how the administration has handled this are more than minor partisan squabbling.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 17:53:10

According to an intercepted Taliban communication, Bergdahl was stoned and taking a crap when the Taliban caputred him off post.

by **SK790** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 18:29:29

pacino wrote:PA Rep references Hitler in comparison to unions, then says he didn't:
A prominent anti-union Pennsylvania state lawmaker who said labor unions, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler are about "power and control" during Senate debate Wednesday drew a sharp response from the state's largest teachers' union.

In an interview, Sen. Scott Wagner, R-York, said he was not comparing unions to Hitler or Putin, but was finding examples through history of the use of "power and control," including dictators Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin and Moammar Gadhafi.

"I'm not comparing the unions to Hitler and I'm not comparing them to Putin," Wagner said. "I'm talking about the concept of power and control. ... I didn't say the unions are out killing people."

Wagner made the comments amid Senate floor debate over legislation he supports to bar the state and numerous other government employers from automatically deducting union dues from members' paychecks.

During the floor debate, he said, "The unions are about power and control. And there are two things that I continue to remember about power and control. There was a gentleman by the name of Hitler, he was about power and control. There's a gentleman by the name of Putin, who's across the ocean, that's about power and control."

corporations, on the other hand, are not about power and control, but about rainbows and democracy.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 19:13:25

jerseyhoya wrote:
{serious-sounding recap noises}

So sure, we don’t want to ever leave someone behind, but there’s a whole lot more going on here than something you can just stick on a bumper sticker, and a lot of the criticisms about how the administration has handled this are more than minor partisan squabbling.

But of course there's not a whole lot more to all the reactionaries/teapartiests (hognutter Joanie Ernst)/genyouine republicans (lookin at you John McCain) who couldn't wait to get Sergeant Bergdahl back, until the brown guy got him back, & now the idea's practically treason

You only write that much when you're trying to squirt mayo on a rightwing shit hoagie

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 19:42:43

a) Really good answer
b) Mayo on subs is fucking gross

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jun 05, 2014 21:50:51

jerseyhoya wrote:a) Really good answer
b) Mayo on subs is fucking gross

a) you expected another kind from me
b) yes, hence the crack, duh

I had not remembered it myself, but it turns out the Bergdahl for bad guys swap proposition was reported on - with names even - YEARS ago. The reactionary "outrage" over being "surprised" by the swap terms and its hasty execution is the kind of thing mouth-breathing low information Bill O'Reilly-fellating nincompoops lap up, not savvy observers like you.

So you rattling on and on and ON like a mini-PtK about this seemed worthy of note.

As is so often the case, Obama foreign policy issues that DO merit closer scrutiny & concern - & there are plenty (no, not Benghazi) - elicit less passion from Obama opponents than events like this.

Archived

A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gold!

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol

Re: A New Politics Thread? That's Gold Gerry(mandering); Gol