Bergdahl’s Father Favorited Al-Qaeda Leader’s Rant “Why the World Hates America”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Obama-Bergdahl

Walid Shoebat has had a look at Bob Bergdahl’s playlist and it’s ugly and uglier. It’s a mix of Islamism videos and moonbat materials.

Bergdahl favorited Anwar Al-Awlaki’s “Why The World Hates America” uploaded by HayaAlalJihad. He also subscribed to more Westernized Islamic propaganda channels like Deen and Journeyman Pictures.

Some of his channels were about learning Arabic. Others were full of technical Islamic material unlikely to be of any interest or relevance to non-Muslims. He appeared to be drawn in particular to Salafist materials which would match his beard.

Then he subscribed to leftist outlets like Brave New Films and to Chomsky videos, making it clear what his domestic politics are.

Like a lot of anti-American types, Bergdahl appeared to be fond of Putin’s RT, Michael Scheuer, Ron Paul and Glenn Greenwald.

Bergdahl favorited an RT propaganda video, “Americans don’t share global domination policies of their leaders”

He favorited a video called, “Drone Survivors Speak at Congressional Briefing Called by Rep. Grayson”.

Other videos he favorited included “Afghanistan veterans commit suicide from a good conscience”, “The real terrorist was me US Soldier” and “KILL EVERYBODY: American soldier exposes US policy in Iraq”.

He subscribed to “TruthaboutTaliban” whose video states “We can see how does Taliban treats the captive US soldier.After you see this video,You must question yourself …Are Taliban the real terrorists ? or the US.”

Commenting on an anti-war video, he posted, “I was the 64th person to view this discussion. J Lo had 34 million hits! Now we know why the American people have allowed the Afg War to continue for over 10 years.”

Much of this goes beyond the need to play up to the Taliban as some have suggested. These things tell us something of Bob Bergdahl’s politics, his mindset and perhaps even his religion.

  • Texas Patriot

    The great rush to judgment and slander of American Bob Bergdahl continues, when in fact he may have just been a father trying to understand what two American presidents have called a “religion of peace” and thereby save his son from being beheaded by Islamic terrorists. The good news is that Sgt.Bowe Bergdahl is free and currently being interrogated and debriefed by American intelligence and counterinsurgency specialists in Germany. We’ll all know a lot more about this case when they have finished their work. In the meantime, the question becomes why are some journalists so anxious to slander and convict Bowe Bergdahl and his father even before all the facts are known?

    • Habbgun

      Why are they rushing to judgement? They are not. He is not the first POW to withstand dangerous conditions and propaganda uses from the enemy. Think Americans under Japan, think Americans in North Vietnam. No one can know what it is like to be a POW but the idea is stay true to America and America stays true to you. If a country or individual harms a POW there will be a price to pay. Think of the price the Germans paid for executing POWs at the Battle of the Bulge. Americans rallied in anger. They became an avenging force.We set the example with Gitmo. We are not executing or torturing terrorists. They have no excuse for threatening uniformed soldiers.

      We will see what we will see. Maybe Bowe and Papa will be “ambassadors” for Islam. Lecturing us you can be American, convert and still be American. Then they will denounce us in private and call for a Caliphate. A worst case scenario but not an unlikely one. The ability of the left to ignore gay rights and feminism when it comes to Islam means there is loyalty to Islam. Islam is now a force in America with adherents.

      • Texas Patriot

        I don’t recall any American President referring to Communism, Shintoism, or Naziism as a “peaceful” ideologies. The fact that not one, but two American Presidents have referred to Islam as a “religion of peace” definitely changes the equation in this case.

        • Habbgun

          Hardly. This is not about college students playing revolutionaries. This is about soldiers and they have rules they abide by. You can reference all the propaganda about RofP that we have to live with that you want but Al Qaeda and Taliban WERE and ARE clear enemies.

          Bush was not endorsing Islam. He was saying (most likely wrong in hindsight) that we weren’t at war with all Moslems. Just those with anti-American hatreds. Clearly Al Qaeda and the Taliban were enemies. We also were reacting to 9/11. He was counseling against vigilantism. Not saying open a Koran and convert. By the way there were active pro-Nazi Bunds in the US. After Pearl Harbor no one was pro-Nazi. No one was an isolationist and that was retroactively. Same as in Britain. Suddenly Chamberlain was a lone wolf. There are always sympathizers. Always. That is why the military has rules. You won’t always agree with military policy but you will take responsibility. Same as citizenship.

          • Texas Patriot

            Habbgun: Bush was not endorsing Islam. He was saying (most likely wrong in hindsight) that we weren’t at war with all Moslems. Just those with anti-American hatreds.

            That is precisely my point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, the Taliban is a fundamentalist and fiercely tribal local Afghan militia that has never had any international ambitions, much less ever attacked the United States of America. If the Bergdahls believed that President Bush was correct in his assessment that islam is a religion of peace, perhaps they thought that the Taliban might be receptive to their friendly overtures.

            Listen, there is no doubt that Bowe Bergdahl was extremely misinformed and misguided and used extremely poor judgement in his attempt to reach out and befriend the Taliban, and at this point in time there is probably no one who knows that better than he does. Why else would he attempt to escape and why else would he break down in tears once he realized he was safely in the hands of U.S. Special Forces. My point is that we should withhold final judgement about both the son and the father until all the facts are known.

            The truth is that reaching an adequate level of clarity and understanding regarding the enemy we face in this conflict has been a slow and difficult process for all Americans, and it would be a tragically unfair mistake to rush to judgment about the Bergdahls without first knowing all the facts and considering their actions in the context of the entirety of the circumstances of this case.

          • Habbgun

            Well the Saudis certainly have world wide aspirations and the Taliban were quite happy to play along. They were responsible for an attack that killed thousands of CIVILIANS in PLAIN SIGHT. There is no reason to think anyone is naive especially a trained soldier. Other soldiers were killed because of him. I have some bad news for you. The kind of deflection you are doing has been done for years against Israel and other nations like India to which Islam has bad intentions. We’ve heard it all before “No, the Palestinians just want peace, its ignorant to believe otherwise, peace of the brave blah blah blah”.

            Something interesting happens though. If Israel goes along with the peace process and we find out the Palestinians are not peaceful no one gets up and says we were wrong. We support you. They just find new Israeli “crimes” and they just adopt a new normal. This is what Islam and its collaborators does and the Bergdahls seem willing playmates. No one asked him to love US policy. They asked him to be loyal to his fellow soldier. He wasn’t. We have a volunteer army now. He can’t even say he was drafted. You can hold him to a standard.

          • Texas Patriot

            I’m not excusing or defending the Taliban, but i am asserting the right of a U.S. soldier and his father to a presumption of innocence unless or until they are charged, tried, and convicted of some crime against the United States of America.

          • Habbgun

            Presumption of innocence in face of military charges yes but they do not get the benefit of a whitewashing either. We are not questioning whether someone can be a loyal American and a Moslem. We are questioning someone who believes in the narrative of the enemy which asserts the guilt of America and THEREFORE the rightness of terrorist actions. There is a price to be paid for what Bergdahl senior does. When you post anti-American rhetoric on Facebook some homicidal Jihadi wannabe says “look even a father of a POW hates America. We are right to kill Americans”. It could also have backfired. The Taliban could have said “You admit your son’s guilt”. Now we have to wonder if the father doesn’t realize his actions or has no problem with Jihad. They could even embrace Islam and say the Taliban is not acting like the RofP. Funny but Islamic converts sound like authentic Islamists. Maybe they know what they are saying and converting to.

          • Habbgun

            You are asserting the Bergdahl has the same right as a soldier that he has as a citizen and he doesn’t. Even paramilitary organizations like police and fire performed above and beyond in 9/11 and took their oaths
            seriously. Police and Fire didn’t say I don’t think financial workers are good for America so I won’t perform my duties. For all we know some could have felt that way. A soldier of course must do the same.Lives are at stake.

            Again….Bush was asserting that he didn’t think Islam was globally against the U.S. He was saying we don’t have to assume AMERICAN Moslems are traitors which actually make Bergdahl’s father WORSE. He went above and beyond what it means to show a sympathy with Islam as a religion. He clearly stated enemy propaganda.

          • Pete

            How is Bush going to say Islam is not a religion of peace and not get hammered by the media?

            - Partly he said it to keep calm in the country.
            - Partly he said it to not get countries riled up from whom we depend on oil.
            - Partly it was wishful thing.
            - Partly it was to escape international condemnation. If he had said Islam was not a religion of peace 57 Muslim nations would condemn him and various communist countries and others would have joined in. the media would have had a field day and the Democrats would have circled like vultures. There are only about 195 countries. If 20% of them (the 57) get riled up and other like Cuba, Russian, china and North Korea follow suit it wouldn’t be too hard for the MSM and the Democrats to make hat of it.

            Maybe Bush was hoping that the Muslim countries will have their age of Reason/Enlightenment. It looks like they will have their 30 Years War. Question is will Shia and Sunni tolerate each other on the other side of it and will they tolerate non-Muslims without imposition of dhimmitude. Certainly Iran will have to move against Al Qaeda in Mosul. The fighting in Iraq and Syria look like the order of magnitude of fighting in 1618 to 1648.

            Certainly I have seen Muslims I like or I felt comfortable around. I however have seen far more that have made me uncomfortable or fearful. Bush was trying to promote the former over the latter. It was tried and it seems like a loser proposition to me.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            “Documents found in the house where Osama bin Laden was killed a year ago show a close working relationship between top al-Qaida leaders and Mullah Omar, the overall commander of the Taliban, including frequent discussions of joint operations against Nato forces in Afghanistan”

            The Taliban would never distance itself from al-Qaida so this a nonsense point to make but what else can you do?

          • Pete

            “Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, the Taliban is a fundamentalist and fiercely tribal local Afghan militia that has never had any international ambitions,”

            Who harbor Muslim groups that do have international designs, is what is the difference?

        • Anukem Jihadi

          The only extenuating circumstance is that Presidents from those periods didn’t have to make these silly statements about religions they know very little about to placate fools like you.
          That has nothing to do with Bergdahl deserting and only a twit like you would try to disingenuously connect the two.

          • Pete

            I don’t think a Pearl Harbor event will wake up Texas Patriot. He seems more trollish or more of an isolationist as time goes on.

    • Just Sayin

      How many more Western converts to the religion of peace will it take to convince you that these people are typically nutjobs that turn against their own people and governments? They usually become radicalized by the ALIEN influence of Islam. Islam belongs where it originated — in the desert of Saudi Arabia amongst the Bedouin nomads.

      • Aurelius

        Islam is the antithesis of Western values. That it has been allowed to establish such a strong foothold in the West is a travesty. Consequences to follow.

      • Drakken

        Islam if allowed to live will always come back to haunt us all, no more islam, no more problem.

    • Paul L

      The father may have influenced the son to desert is also a possibility. In any event, I’d say dad is a fruitloop. But then I say that about anyone from a First World civilization who would convert to a primitive cult.

    • Marsha

      Bush spoke out of his child-like ignorance. Not so with Taliban chieftain Obama.

      • Texas Patriot

        Even if Bush did speak out of “child-like innocence”, he was President of the United States of America when he made that speech, and his words do form the backdrop of everything that has transpired since 9/11. Therefore, it would not be at all surprising if Bob Bergdahl took the President’s words in good faith and made every effort to save his son from Islamic terrorists who did not represent what President Bush described as a “religion of peace.” In any event, it is way too early to rush to judgment either about Bob Bergdahl or George W. Bush. We will all know more about the facts of this case when the intelligence experts now interrogating Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at the American base in Germany have completed their work.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          TP, until 9/11, I was part of the Western world that saw Muslims simply as desert nomads … picturesque people who were fiercely devoted to their religion. All of us have had to reassess, and learn that this innocent faith … which we also believed was related to our own … was not so innocent, after all.

          As for Bergdahl, we won’t learn anything about him until and unless he is brought up on charges. If that happens, his father will never see the White House, again, and Obama may go on a foreign trip until the flap blows over … he hopes.

          • Texas Patriot

            You and me both, brother. You probably saw Lawrence of Arabia in 1962 just like I did. There are still many things about Arab culture that I admire and respect, and there are probably many things about the culture of the desert nomads that predate Islam by thousands of years. My own wake-up call regarding the threat to freedom represented by the so-called “religion of peace” was very slow in coming, and I am very willing to cut others a lot of slack if their awakening has been as slow as mine.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            that’s very nice of you but unfortunately by the time you and others like you arrive it will conveniently all be over, “brother”

          • Texas Patriot

            AJ: that’s very nice of you but unfortunately by the time you and others like you arrive it will conveniently all be over, “brother”

            Take a look at this post, Wolfie, and I would invite you and Daniel Greenfield and Habbgun to look at this and the other posts in this thread by the self-styled “Anukem Jihadi”. There is a price to be paid for unjust and intentionally inflammatory rhetoric, and it will probably not go well for those who encourage or facilitate such rhetoric, either in this life or the next.

          • Habbgun

            I would say read posts by such sweethearts as The Facts, Steve Fair (aka uptownsteve) and 20PizzaPies. This may be a conservative site but they have the most liberal commenting section I have ever seen. A lot worse has been said, some of it truly vicious. I would say to not lecture that there will be consequences. When you are on a public forum you get the public.

            I would also say if you if you post on a Left Wing site as a conservative or crime of crimes (as pro-Israel) you won’t believe the hate that comes out. I’ve actually seen some pretty vicious stuff written about Hindus (apparently Leftists think the ignorant Indians are racist, fascists and Islamophobes who are the aggressor against poor Pakistan.In the 60′s eastern mysticism was the rage but I guess the hippies don’t need ‘em anymore so screw ‘em.)

            You haven’t been really attacked personally. Just against a comment. A cashier hears worse and more personal.

          • Texas Patriot

            Maybe you’re right. I just don’t believe in encouraging any form of “dehumanizing” rhetoric. It never accomplishes anything that could be thought of as facilitating a positive outcome, and a positive outcome, or at least a positive game plan, in response to the growing global threat of Islamic jihad is something the entire civilized world, including Russia and China, desperately needs. Perhaps we will see some positive movement toward a concerted response to the problem of the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. If we don’t act together to prevent that, it’s Katy bar the door.

          • Drakken

            So you have a problem with dehumanizing our enemies? Really? So I guess dialogue and COEXISTANCE is the way to go then? Your going have to excuse me as I take your naïve point of view with a ton of salt. When you have Rome burning while Obummer and company party like its 1999, and anything they touch turns to sh*t, niceties and pleasantries aren’t going to cut it anymore

          • Texas Patriot

            Sorry, Drak. In my book, self-defense against the imminent threat of physical harm is the only legitimate reason to use deadly force against another human being. Otherwise, we should always be as gentle and respectful with them as humanly possible. ;-)

          • truebearing

            What about defending those who can’t defend themselves? What about stopping atrocities that weak countries can’t?

            Your little prescription for “self-defense” sounds a bit too selfish. It sounds like so many people who calculate what they need to do, ornot do, so they can make sure they get to heaven. But how does that square with this unambiguous statement from Jesus?

            “There is no greater love than this: that a person would lay down his life for the sake of his friends.” John 15:13

          • Texas Patriot

            Charity begins at home, and the love of neighbors begins with those in our immediate vicinity and then radiates outward. Unless we can first take care of ourselves and our immediate neighbors, we have no business taking on the role of “global policeman”. That policy has virtually bankrupted America and cannot be sustained. But it does not surprise me in the least that you think it should be continued.

          • truebearing

            The earth is home. Modern technology has shrunken this globe and isolationism is more laughable now than when we tried it Pre-WWII. While we were pretending everything was fine, Germany and Japan were working on controlling much of the world, and killing millions of innocent people to achieve their deranged goals. We could have prevented much of it if we would have pulled our heads out of the sand.

            BTW, is it pleasurable to bury your head in the sand? I haven’t tried it.

            Entitlements and corruption have bankrupted America. Get your facts straight.

          • Texas Patriot

            Two possibilities are present here. Either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you have a serious short term memory problem.

            First, I have never advocated isolationism in any form. Rather I have consistently advocated a continuous development and advancement of our surveillance and interdiction technologies to the point that we are able to monitor, analyze, summarize, and utilize for national security purposes every conversation taking place anywhere on the planet continuously ad infinitum, and we are much closer to being able to do that now than you may realize. Second, what I have advocated and what I do advocate is selectively limiting the conflicts we become engaged in to those that directly threaten the national security of the United States or our allies.

            Unfortunately, the role of “global policeman” that pseudo-conservatives such as yourself advocate has all but bankrupted the United States and left us as a virtual shell of our former selves. We need to turn that around, and the sooner the better. Let our friends and foes alike know that the American Eagle is back, and there is no better friend and no worse enemy on earth than the United States of America. As Teddy Roosevelt said, we need to speak softly and carry a big stick, and Barry Goldwater said, the object of war is victory in the quickest and most expedient method humanly possible.

          • Drakken

            Amen!

          • Drakken

            We pay great tribute to our friends and allies, as for our enemies, always without reservation, never ever let them even look wrong at you without slapping the bloody bejeus out of them to remind them of their place. Humanity is reserved for those who deserve it, the rest can lick your boots. Kindness offered to the muslims only gets you bitten by them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You betray the majority of Russians and Chinese when you say things that help regime apologists.

          • Texas Patriot

            When I speak of Russia and China, I am speaking of the Russian and Chinese people as a whole, and not of any particular regime that may be in power in Russia or China at any particular moment. Otherwise, I am not worried about the natural right and practical means of the Russian and Chinese people to correct any imperfections in whatever regime may be in power at any given time.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I understand and don’t disagree. But some times it is better in my view to distinguish between regime and public.

          • J.B.

            You have nothing to add to any conversation.

            Trolltard.

          • truebearing

            Setting yourself up as God now? Isn’t that a tad arrogant, especially when his only “offense” was disagreeing with you?

          • Texas Patriot

            Still having problems with reading comprehension?

          • truebearing

            Only when trying to decipher your convoluted nonsense. Actually, no, I don’t have a problem with reading comprehension. What you write may be hard to believe at times, but it’s fairly easy to spot self-righteousness, hence my questions.

          • hiernonymous

            “Actually, no, I don’t have a problem with reading comprehension.”

            Well, it’s either that, or an honesty issue.

          • Drakken

            So please by all means, please enlighten the rest of us on the issues of the day instead of having issues with folks. So please , come down from the mountain and educate folks, as to the who, the what and the why and where of things great and small.

          • truebearing

            He just pretends to live high in the mountains. Actually, he dwells in a much lower realm.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, I live on the coast.

            I notice that you’ve retreated into personal attacks and outright dishonesty in this Benghazi conversation. If you should happen to find your spine, it would be interesting to see you deal with the points I raised rather than the points you are trying to pretend I raised. If you don’t like being looked down on, don’t crawl into the gutter.

          • truebearing

            You could make the case that debating with you is being in the gutter.

          • hiernonymous

            If that were the case, you’d still be in the gutter, and the question would still remain: why do you choose to be there?

          • J.B.

            A septic tank.

          • hiernonymous

            Truebearing has resorted to open dishonesty. Do you suggest that one should not “have issues” with that?

            Please don’t tell me that you are opposed to lying only when it’s your opponents who do it.

          • Drakken

            I can certainly understand and respect TB’s absolute frustration and exasperation.
            As for lying, I don’t belief nor do I think TB is lying about anything, just plain, well spoken, unvarnished brutal opinions based on facts and not conjecture.

          • hiernonymous

            I understand his frustration. Which, of course, adds to his frustration.

          • truebearing

            More grandiosity? You don’t understand anyone. Narcissists make terrible psychologists. All you understand is that your need to be superior to everyone is insatiable.

          • hiernonymous

            Case in point.

          • truebearing

            Not in the least. You are the one lying. You chose to defend Americana’s idiotic claim that the Joint Chiefs took responsibility for Benghazi. I insisted that that is ridiculous, since Obama is the CIC and has the last word on military decisions. You tried to defend her untenable stupidity and now you’re whining because I got sick of explaining the obvious to you and haven’t gone back to respond to whatever reply it is that you are so proud of. I don’t need to. You were both wrong, and I proved it, at least as much as is possible when dealing with a leftist who thinks he’s omniscient. Anyone who reads the thread will instantly see that you keep repeating yourself, as I did my rebuttal. There is no point to continuing to waste time on anyone as obtuse as you clearly are.

            i suspected from the start that you knew she was wrong, but wanted to prove your superiority by arguing an untenable position and prevailing. You’ve done it before, or do I give you too much credit? Maybe you really can’t distinguish a tenable argument from one that isn’t. Either way, you were wrong. The end.

          • hiernonymous

            This is easy enough to determine: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/fp-mag/five_jihadis_for_one_deserter#comment-1421763819

            TB: Her argument is that Benghazi was the Joint Chiefs fault for not having adequate rapid response capability, and she’s wrong.

            H: That’s not how I read it. I took from her argument that the decision to establish a reaction force at Signella was tacit acknowledgement that there had been no asset to call on earlier. I don’t think she was making the claim that “Benghazi was the Joint Chief’s fault.” She’ll have to weigh in on that if she so chooses…. I don’t know if your tendency to oversimplify is a rhetorical gambit or a limitation in your attention, but you should be able to understand that I’m not arguing that Benghazi was the Joint Chief’s fault; I’m acknowledging that Americana has a point in noting that the establishment of a reaction capability at Sigonella is one piece of evidence in support of the contention that there was no comparable asset for the COCOM commander or his subordinates to deploy on the night of Benghazi. It’s not really difficult or complicated.

            That was 6 days ago. Baldly put, anything you’ve posted since then that states or implies that I took a position that the Joint Chiefs were responsible for Benghazi can no longer be classified as a misunderstanding, but as a lie. And here you are, today, saying:

            “You chose to defend Americana’s idiotic claim that the Joint Chiefs took responsibility for Benghazi.” Contrast that with the above, from six days past and repeatedly noted since. Still want to argue that you are being honest?

          • truebearing

            Enter the master of hypocritical irony.

            Still working on that Joint Chiefs theory? That was a beauty.

          • hiernonymous

            “Still working on that Joint Chiefs theory? That was a beauty.”

            So it’s the honesty one. No surprise.

          • J.B.

            Trolltard. Your icon is g–

          • Anukem Jihadi

            You’re a concern troll. Much easier to draw attention to supposedly “inflammatory rhetoric” than make a half decent argument against anything I said.
            You’re not very bright but bright enough not to believe your own garbage. Hence I must conclude you’re a self styled “patriot”. Want to swap handles?

          • J.B.

            Trolltard. You fool nobody.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You probably saw Lawrence of Arabia in 1962 just like I did. There are still many things about Arab culture that I like, admire and respect, and there are probably many things about the culture of the desert nomads that predate Islam by thousands of years.”

            That was a fictional drama based on historical events.

          • Drakken

            Well there was one scene that was historically correct, when ole Lawrence was captured by the turks, they raped the bloody bejeus out of him and that was why in battle he never took a Turk prisoner.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s not one of the scenes I was thinking of but my point is that even though it did show the bullets flying and so forth it was still romanticized in many ways.

            The film was really about kind of lionizing him rather than showing what it would have really been like in his shoes. They didn’t invent everything, I’m just saying that it’s not a very good way to “get to know” much.

            Although I guess if it inspires real research it could lead somewhere useful.

          • J.B.

            “Lawrence of Arabia” was a huge BJ to rock apes everywhere. The soundtrack was sublime but that only adds to the movie’s overall degeneracy. Peter O’Toole would crap in his grave if he knew how it’s used as islamopithecine propaganda.

        • Anukem Jihadi

          Sure, Bergdahl was so impressed with Bush’s assessment of the world that he favorited Anwar Al-Awlaki’s “Why The World Hates America”.
          The rush to judgment only bothers you because it contradicts the Obama administration’s assessment of Bergdahl’s son as a hero.
          Without that this wouldn’t be much of an issue.
          That’s not a rush to judgment it’s common sense.
          Obviously you don’t have much yourself.

        • J.B.

          Bush did it! Global warming! Republicans! FOX NEWS!!!!!!!!!

          Trolltard.

        • Pete

          Bergdahl deserted pure and simple.

          I do not think it would be easy to prove traitorous action and I would be surprised if he were convicted. We would need radio traffic intercepts, video or testimony from the Haqqani. We are not likely to get trustworthy testimony.

          SO I think the most we can expect is a court martial, reduction in rank to private and a BCD with possibly some jail time.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Am I to understand that 0′Bama has somehow managed to correct Bush’s naivete (or lack of precision and forthrightness in communicating the threats from Islamic jihad) by hugging the Muslim Brotherhood and the “second string” AQ affiliates? Not to mention Iran…

    • truebearing

      You call unearthing the facts about Bergdahl’s father a “rush to judgement?” How is gathering information and drawing obvious conclusions a rush to judgement? It seems to me that you are the one rushing to judgement of those who are seeking the truth about both of the Bergdahl idiots (that wasn’t a rush to judgement, it was instant recognition).

      What makes you so uncomfortable about learning the facts about the ideologies that motivated both father and son? Was it getting too close to home to find out Bergdahl senior was a Ron Paul fan?

      You don’t think like a conservative, you just pretend to.

      • Texas Patriot

        TB: You don’t think like a conservative, you just pretend to.

        I’ve always been under the impression that you really don’t know what a conservative is, and this post merely reinforces that view. I’ve encountered many other posters who rant and rail against liberals and Democrats, but they are usually turncoat Democrats themselves who want to prove themselves to Republicans. In that regard, exactly when did you become a Republican? How old were you, and what were the circumstances?

        • truebearing

          You sound like Hiernonymous, firing questions and demanding information so that you can qualify someone.

          You’ve always been under the impression that Obama is going to nuke Iran, too. You’re just as wrong about that as you are those of us you desperately want to label, which shows a consistent lack of accuracy in your impressions.

          Now, why don’t you explain how it is that a true-blue conservative, like you pretend to be, can take the side of a deserter, or his Marxist/Muslim father, while insulting the true conservatives who see reality clearly enough to identify traitors?

          Or why is it you still support Obama while every conservative in the universe despises him for violating the constitution at every turn and destroying the US economy, military, international standing, race relations, and the healthcare system?

          Saying you are a conservative isn’t enough. You have to think like one, and you clearly don’t.

          • Texas Patriot

            You obviously have no idea what a conservative is, and you obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. Either that or you have a hopelessly partisan mindset with no regard for the truth, which would be proof positive that you are a turncoat Democrat now trying to prove yourself to Republicans. Here’s a hint. You’re wasting your time. If all you want to do is be a partisan basher, go back where you came from. You will not be missed.

          • truebearing

            That is an opinion, not a remotely effective argument. As usual, you think you are in possession of the secret list that defines conservatism, but the list is so narrow, it only defines you as you want to believe you are. What is scary about you is that you never even consider the possibility that you are wrong, or modify your perspective when evidence slaps you in the face.

            I’ve never been a Democrat. I’ve never voted for a Democrat. And I’ve never defended Democrats, unlike you. I’m also not deluded enough to think Obama is doing a good job and will suddenly nuke Iran and solve the world’s problems. Obama would sooner nuke Texas than Iran. No, your insistence on questioning the purity of everyone else has me thinking that there is a strong possibility of some projection on your part.

          • J.B.

            TP is a stealthtroll. It pretends to be conservative but its words prove otherwise. Ignore it.

          • J.B.

            Scumtroll.

          • Texas Patriot

            Welcome back, Ziggy Zoggy!

        • J.B.

          What is conservative about defending two islamopithecine traitors? Hm?

          • Texas Patriot

            My guess is that you are Ziggy Zoggy in a new disguise. Am I correct?

    • Drakken

      By their actions yee shall be judged. The sons apple sure didn’t fall far from the fathers tree.

      • Texas Patriot

        Well, until we know all the facts, we really won’t know much about the apple or the tree, but what father of any American soldier would not want to do everything possible save the life of a son who had been captured alive by the Taliban.

        • Drakken

          If you had been in the military, you would know that this a clear case of desertion, as to the other things like collaboration and converting to islam, that will come out as well. When the father is clearly a nut job to begin with and takes collaboration with our enemies, sorry, I can’t cut traitors like this any slack.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “…but what father of any American soldier wouldn’t want to do everything possible save the life of a son who had been captured alive by the Taliban.”

          His agenda – even now – is also about getting prisoners released from Gitmo. How do you explain that?

    • truebearing

      Did it ever occur to you that Bush was trying to diplomatically prevent broadening the conflict? He may well have known Islam isn’t a religion of peace, but how does it help the US to blurt that out when there are 1.5 billion Muslims and we are dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia for oil? He knew we needed countries that would allow supply lines, etc. They are all Muslim nations. Even if he intended to declare war on all of Islam, he wouldn’t have done it at the beginning of the conflict with Afghanistan.

      • Texas Patriot

        Only a hopelessly partisan sycophant would make that argument.

        • truebearing

          You think I’m a Bush sycophant? That’s amusing. I liked Bush as a person, but he spent way too much money on domestic initiatives and nation building for my tastes. He also failed to let Iran have it while we were bogging down in the occupation of Iraq. And he didn’t fight the Left in his second term. He went into a shell. That being said, I’d take him back any day of the week over the Scourge of America, Hussein Obama.

          Another one of your theories that has less plausibility than predicting Obama will become the most truthful man in America.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: Another one of your theories that has less plausibility than predicting Obama will become the most truthful man in America.

            I’ve never said anything of the kind, and I challenge you to prove that I did. Otherwise, I might suggest that your posts would be more interesting and intelligible if you laid off the bottle.

          • J.B.

            Is America better off because Obama freed six terrorists? No? Then STFU.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Only a hopelessly partisan sycophant would make that argument.”

          I think it was misguided for Bush to say what he did. What were his motives? I don’t know. It’s not implausible that he was aware or became aware of the possibility that pious Muslims did in fact act out accordance with sincere beliefs based on teachings that are not exactly considered fringe in many Muslim nations.

          What he wanted to say was that all religions should be about peace and that he respects all peaceful Muslims. Making such a value judgment after so much history was just a bad idea.

          After 14 centuries, if you have to come out and defend your religion as peaceful, there’s probably some need to do a little more explaining than just coming up with modern slogans like that one.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “And it would not be at all surprising if Bowe Bergdahl and his family were among the many who were deceived.”

          And the excuse for hating America? Because we pick on “peaceful” religions for no reason?

        • J.B.

          Give it up,tardbot.

      • hiernonymous

        Wait – you’re arguing that Bush was practicing taqiyah? Excellent!

        • Drakken

          Your sniping from the sidelines again.

          • hiernonymous

            Why, no. A persistent theme on these boards is the mischaracterization of taqiyah as a general willingness to deceive when it is to one’s operational advantage to do so. It’s generally portrayed as a general ethical shortcoming of Islam vis-a-vis our own culture. Yet, without irony and apparently without awareness, truebearing has just offered a perfect example of taqiyah as it is mistakenly portrayed – with Bush fils as the perpetrator. The irony was too delicious to ignore.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s generally portrayed as a general ethical shortcoming of Islam vis-a-vis our own culture.”

            I don’t think that’s true. Anyone who’s read Il Principe would consider your statement a bit silly.

            The issue is that Islam is a “religion” that calls for integration of worship and government and so forth. Therefore even if a Muslim is in a “religious” mode we can only trust what they say as much as we’d trust our own politicians.

            If there is an argument to be made about a superior Western culture, it would be centered on the lack of separation between religious law and secular law. Many thoughtful Muslims articulate this exact sentiment.

            And the rest is perhaps just filler to illustrate the very high costs that come from trying to govern people with religious law based on a 7th century “prophet” that is supposedly the perfect example for men to follow.

            Saying that one culture is superior is not saying that that culture is perfect.

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t think that’s true. Anyone who’s read Il Principe would consider your statement a bit silly.”

            I doubt that many of the people making the silly characterizations of taqiyah in these forums have read Machiavelli. I thought I was clear that my “generally” referred to the discourse on these boards. Did you use the title you did because you read it in the original and wanted to draw attention to that fact for some reason?

            “If there is an argument to be made about a superior Western culture, it would be centered on the lack of separation between religious law and secular law. ”

            I would say that the prerequisite for any argument comparing the cultures requires an actual understanding of both cultures in question. Those whose understanding of taqiyah is parroted from blogs don’t fill that bill.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islams claim that it is “the religion of peace” is silly.

            Reading the news any day is enough to disprove the claim.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We’re both speculating to some degree.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Those whose understanding of taqiyah is parroted from blogs don’t fill that bill.”

            I’m not familiar with the blogs that misrepresent taqiyya. Maybe the authors and the audience understand context more than you give them credit for.

            I’m sure there are people that react as you describe but I just don’t think the numbers are very big.

          • Drakken

            The general rule of thumb is when dealing with arab muslims is, if their lips are moving, you know for a fact that they are lying to you. So TB’s thesis is technically feasible.

          • hiernonymous

            “The general rule of thumb is when dealing with arab muslims is, if their lips are moving, you know for a fact that they are lying to you. ”

            I like it when you just come out and say these things instead of trying to dress them up.

        • truebearing

          I suggested a possibility. A plausible hypothesis that takes into account the diplomatic realities of foreign policy and war. You wouldn’t know anything about that, or so it appears.

          Read carefully and you will notice that I used the phrse “he may well have,” not “he did.” Duh. And in the last sentence i made it clear that I was simply suggesting an alternate theory to the one Texas Patriot bought into. The purpose wasn’t to establish myself as the All-Knowing One. I figured you would come along and provide that perspective. It was just a way to suggest there might be other factors at play.

          Sorry to disappoint you and deny you the pleasure of thinking that that was an argument that you could contort into proving that Bush was as dishonest as Obama. That isn’t possible.

          • hiernonymous

            Are you missing the point, or trying to avoid it?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          hiernonymous truebearing • 7 hours ago: “Wait – you’re arguing that Bush was practicing taqiyah? Excellent!”

          You could say that. But we expect politicians to equivocate. We should not extend extra trust to “pious foreigners” in the name of multiculturalism.
          I’m not saying that you shouldn’t trust anyone. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t trust anyone until you’ve verified what they’ve told you.

          • hiernonymous

            “You could say that.”

            I did!

            ” We should not extend extra trust to “pious foreigners” in the name of multiculturalism.”

            Sure. Nor should we misrepresent their doctrines out of an excess of mistrust, ignorance, or fear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We should apply a healthy dose of skepticism to just about everyone.

    • J.B.

      Shut up, you anti-American trolltard. Nobody normal or decent wants to live in lefthell. Baby Bergdahl and Daddy Bergdahl are islamopithecine traitors.

      • hiernonymous

        “Nobody normal or decent wants to…”

        How do you know?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “How do you know?”

          What is the “lefthell” that you’re thinking of? It seems self-evident that if such a place exists that nobody decent would want to live there. At least not decent by our standards.

          • hiernonymous

            I have no idea what “lefthell” even means. That’s part of my question. It should be something implied by Texas Patriot’s post.

  • flyingtiger

    J Lo is prettier than you are.

  • Aurelius

    Ever wonder how Jim Jones was able to so easily convince his followers to drink the Kool-Aid? Some people seem especially prone to cultism. Mr. Bergdahl is obviously such a person. On a side note, I’ve heard that Bergdahl privately asked Obama to release additional Taliban prisoners in Guantanamo.

    One would think that Mr. Bergdahl would immediately qualify for Eric Holder’s new potential-threat watch list, but of course, he isn’t.

    • Just Sayin

      No, that list is reserved for most of the commenters here at FPM, returning military vets, NRA members, and the Tea Party.

  • Ban Liberals

    Like father, like son.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Both SCUM.

  • RadioPatriot

    Military commnd sources say CIA told Obama Bergdahl about to go on global TV, denounce Amer, say military evil & and do it in Arabic. Obama wouldve been humiliated, narrative of victory over al-Qaida- Taliban would’ve been destroyed in front of world, live on global TV

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Bergdahl is a TRAITOR to America.

      But the State Department are also TRAITORS to America. Trading one TRAITOR for 5 top enemy terrorists is WRONG.

      Obama needs to apologize to the American people, he needs to prosecute those who made that awful trade.

  • Abberline

    He sounds like he could be Obama’s BFF.

  • Hard Little Machine

    He’s the straight Glenn Greenwald.

  • ArentIpretty

    Daddy Bergdahl is just another delusional utopian liberal jihadi.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Daddy Bergdahl is clearly drawn, Cindy Sheehan like, to all the anti-American propaganda out there. It’s not a search for the truth (which would require reading broadly) but a need to invoke the mindset of the enemy. It’s as if he got Stockholm Syndrome by his own hand. This suggests a predisposition or susceptibility of some sort. He seemed to have a need to think like his son’s captors. At least that’s what it seems from a distance. More details will clarify.

  • Rainey C

    Bob bergdahl is right in everything he says. I love the comment about J Lo. Americans aren’t too bright unfortunately, especially not the ones in the army. I once read a comment which said ‘ Bowe Bergahl’s problem was that he was intelligent. Intelligent people just don’t join the army. Damn right !!!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Bowe Bergahl’s problem was that he was intelligent. Intelligent people just don’t join the army. Damn right !!!”

      Intelligent people don’t easily forget how to speak their own native language.

      • Rainey C

        He hasn’t forgotten English. I don’t know why his father said that. Apparently he is speaking perfect English to his doctors and psychiatrists in Germany.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          That’s more believable than anything the father has said publicly.

          Nonetheless, I don’t see how anyone can characterize the guy as intelligent for joining the Army and then walking out looking for the enemy to embrace like a lunatic.

          An intelligent person would find much more effective ways to pursue his agenda.

          Unless you’re saying that all of this is feigned and planned from the beginning as a way to release Gitmo prisoners.

          We’ll see. I’m not counting on seeing much evidence of any significant intelligence from anyone in that crowd.

          And if I have to I can show you plenty of intelligent people that served in the Army. I actually have a client that is CEO of a very successful vertically integrated medical device manufacturing company and he was a career Army officer. Nobody that I know has ever come anywhere close to denying the guy’s intelligence. That’s just one guy that I can show.

    • liz

      Yeah, I guess the only “intelligent” people in this country are the ones like you who sit around acting superior while soldiers die protecting your worthless @sses from terrorists.

      • Rainey C

        How are soldiers protecting us from terrorists ?? Hahahaha, Surely the secret services are doing that. Stupid. Yes I do like to think I’m intelligent. Thank you.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Rainey C liz • 4 hours ago: “How are soldiers protecting us from terrorists ??”
          The same way that pest control operators destroy the homes of vermin.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          ” Hahahaha, Surely the secret services are doing that. Stupid. Yes I do like to think I’m intelligent. Thank you.”

          Intelligence is the ability to learn. You must apply your intelligence before you bear any fruit from it.

        • liz

          The fact that you even ask the question, “how are soldiers protecting us from terrorists” proves how brain-dead you actually are.

  • http://www.BR-549.com Junior Samples

    DougRoss:”Well, this is interesting:
    Looks like Bowe Bergdahl’s Father was in contact with Al Qaeda”
    http://directorblue.blogspot.ca/2014/06/well-this-is-interesting-looks-like.html

    Col. David Hunt: US Lost 14 SOLDIERS Searching for Deserter Bowe Bergdahl
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/col-david-hunt-we-lost-14-soldiers-searching-for-deserter-bergdahl-video/