Five Jihadis For One Deserter

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In, is now available.


USA_PFC_BoweBergdahl_ACU_CroppedWhen he announced the exchange of five Guanatamo detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held by Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan since 2009, Barack Obama declared that the swap was “a reminder of America’s unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield.” However, as ever more damning information came to light about both the deal and Bergdahl himself, it became increasingly clear that the prisoner exchange was actually a reminder of Barack Obama’s unwavering commitment to appeasing and aiding jihadis.

Many people have questioned the wisdom of this deal that sends five seasoned, committed, and ruthless jihadis back to Afghanistan, where they will undoubtedly resume their jihad against the American troops there. The freed jihadis include, according to the Associated Press, “Abdul Haq Wasiq, who served as the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence”; “Khairullah Khairkhwa, who served in various Taliban positions including interior minister and had direct ties to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden”; and “Mohammad Fazl, whom Human Rights Watch says could be prosecuted for war crimes for presiding over the mass killing of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.”

Even more disturbing, however, are the questions swirling around Bowe Bergdahl himself. Former infantry officer Nathan Bradley Bethea, who served with Bowe Bergdahl, wrote in the Daily Beast on Monday that “Bergdahl was a deserter, and soldiers from his own unit died trying to track him down.” Refuting reports that Bergdahl got separated from his unit while on patrol, Bethea declared: “Make no mistake: Bergdahl did not ‘lag behind on a patrol,’ as was cited in news reports at the time. There was no patrol that night. Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted. I’ve talked to members of Bergdahl’s platoon—including the last Americans to see him before his capture. I’ve reviewed the relevant documents. That’s what happened.”

Corroborating this was an Associated Press report that was also published on Monday, stating that “a Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.” This official said that the evidence that Bergdahl had deserted was “incontrovertible.”

Why might Bergdahl have deserted? A clue may lie in the fact that the Taliban claimed in 2010 that Bergdahl had converted to Islam and was teaching bomb-making to its jihadists. His father, Robert Bergdahl, appears to be a convert to Islam, as during the ceremony with Obama in the Rose Garden announcing the exchange, he proclaimed: “Bismillah al-rahman al-rahim” – the phrase, “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,” which is the heading of 113 of the Qur’an’s 114 chapters. (Journalist Neil Munro noted in the Daily Caller that “although Bergdahl quoted the Quran verse, the White House transcript did not translate it or even include the Islamic prayer. Instead, the transcript simply said Bergdahl spoke in the Pasho language, which is the language of the Pushtun tribe, which forms the vast majority of the Taliban force. In fact, ‘Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim’ is Arabic.” The lavishly-bearded Robert Bergdahl has also called for the release of the jihadists in Guantanamo and has implied that American troops are killing Afghan children in a tweet he concluded with “ameen,” the Arabic form of “amen.”)

What’s more, it was also revealed Monday that in an email to his father just days before he deserted, Bergdahl wrote: “I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid.” He thundered: “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”

His father thundered back: “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!”

Apparently he did, by walking away from his unit and seeking out the Taliban. Nor was his action entirely unexpected. James Rosen reported at FoxNews.com Monday that Bergdahl — “both in his final stretch of active duty in Afghanistan and then, too, during his time when he lived among the Taliban — has been thoroughly investigated by the U.S. intelligence community and is the subject of ‘a major classified file.’” In conveying as much, the Defense Department source confirmed to Fox News that many within the intelligence community harbor serious outstanding concerns not only that Bergdahl may have been a deserter but that he may have been an active collaborator with the enemy.”

It strains credulity to imagine that Barack Obama was not apprised of the existence of this file and these suspicions about Bergdahl. In any case, high-level officials appear to have been aware of them and embarrassed by them for quite some time, as they have enforced a gag order on the members of Bergdahl’s unit, threatening legal action against them if they revealed what happened on the night Bergdahl disappeared.

Why the cover-up? Were Obama Administration officials afraid that the story of a Muslim soldier (if the Taliban claim is true) deserting his post and joining up with the enemy would have negative repercussions for Obama’s disastrous fantasy-based policies in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Did they think that such news would provide a fresh basis to challenge the “diversity” in the military that military brass value more than life itself – as Army chief of staff George Casey demonstrated when he said right after the Fort Hood jihad massacre that “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse”?

Whatever his reasoning may be, Obama has now traded five battle-hardened jihad warriors for someone he was in a position to know was a deserter and possibly a traitor, who had said that he was ashamed to be an American. If the mainstream media and the Democratic Party covers for the President in this, the latest in his long string of insults to the American people, it will be an outrage. But there is no doubt that they will do so. And quickly this incident will be forgotten, like all of Obama’s earlier insults. But if there are any free people left in America, they will not let this incident be forgotten – and will use it as the linchpin to begin the massive change we so desperately need in the political and media culture.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • liz

    Obama must have felt a kinship with Bergdahl, since he, too, was a traitor who “felt ashamed to be an American”. So he chooses him to show his “unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform on the battlefield.”
    He didn’t feel that commitment to the four who died in Benghazi.

    • Anamah

      Personally I think is time to see how to defend the nation from this constant dangerous attack.
      We are driven by a controversial politician, in the wrong direction.
      A poisonous community organizer, acting in place of the president of the USA… and I ask if is not time to impeach it.
      He is trapped in failed ideology, untruth assertions and is taking even illegal steps.
      So we know what he is able to do and is doing; are we waiting 2017????
      Please everyone,… I would like to know…I feel the time is shortening and fear will never recover from this.
      Have they left already Guantanamo?

      • liz

        You are exactly right. It’s way past time for impeachment, yet the many calls for impeachment have been ignored.
        His offenses are actually worthy of much more than impeachment. Just as Bergdahl’s desertion resulted in the death of at least 6 other soldiers, the release of these terrorists will result in many more.
        If he’s going to free terrorists, he should be marched into the cell they vacated and throw away the key.

      • Americana

        A controversial politician is an entirely different thing than declaring the POTUS is doing anything that is grounds for impeachment. Some things he’s done that aren’t popular would have been grounds for impeachment if he hadn’t done them.

        • Bklyn Farmer

          Aiding and abetting the enemy is an impeachable offense.

          In addition, the Washington Post reports:

          The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.

          Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent.

          http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/yes-president-obama-really-did-break-12415828/

          • Americana

            Aiding and abetting the enemy is not something a prisoner exchange of this nature qualifies as.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Yes it is as it was done with total disregard to the laws that this president actually signed.

          • NJK

            You’re joking, right. Andrew McCarthy was on Mark Levin last night, and this is a very serious crime Obama has committed.

            Andrew McCarthy prosecuted the Blind Sheik for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 93. I suggest you listen to this interview. Andrew McCarthy is a Federal Prosecutor, and he knows the law, and especially when it comes to aiding terrorism, and that’s exactly what Obama did.

            Speed up to 84:00 on 6/2. It’s a compelling interview, and you will know all you need to.

            http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=podcasts&id=191&is_corp=0

          • Americana

            Prosecuting the Blind Sheik for a specific crime — especially that scale of crime — is an entirely different thing than negotiating the release of these Taliban prisoners. The Israeli government frequently indulges in the very same practice and, in fact, has agreed to numbers of Palestinian prisoners for 1 Israeli prisoner that are unheard of.

            I can’t access the whole podcast in one fell swoop and I’m not going to digest it bit by bit. Is there a whole transcript somewhere on that site?

          • truebearing

            We’re not Israel, are we? Stop trying to weasel out of the truth about Obama aiding and abetting an American enemy: The Taliban. That is grounds for impeachment and charges of treason. He also violated the law in not informing Congress. And he violated his presidential oath.

          • Drakken

            Hey Obummer sympathizer, it is official Government policy not to negotiate with Islamic jihadist. Your hero and messiah Obummer violated the law period, end of story. Nice try at misdirection by the way, the funny thing, nobody is buying anymore.

          • Americana

            That’s sooooo strange because look here, it’s been in the works for years:

            On the February 18 edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, McCain explained that he was previously opposed to the idea of releasing the five Guantanamo prisoners in peace talks, but that he was now “inclined to support” a proposal that would release the men in exchange for Bergdahl. When Anderson asked for a second time, “if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?” McCain reiterated his support:

            COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.

            MCCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release — Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence- building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.

            [...]

            COOPER: So if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?

            MCCAIN: I would support. Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.

          • Drakken

            Congress and the select committee on intelligence did not, let me repeat that for your benefit, did not, sign off on it. Please continue to lick those windows on the shortbus you take sunshine.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            I heard Judge Andrew Napolitano (New Jersey Superior Court Judge) stated a simular opinion this morning on FOX.

          • truebearing

            He is an Obama troll who isn’t interested in what McCarthy, or any other conservative has to say. He’d defend Obama if he released Khalid Sheik Mohammed for a pack of chewing gum.

          • Americana

            The following portions of an Andrew McCarthy analysis of the detainee deal is the one I think you directed me toward but I’m not sure. Tell me if it isn’t, because I still can’t access the audio podcast.

            Ah, so now I know that Andrew McCarthy is not taking a realistic view of the Afghan war since he mentions a final peace agreement being the key to an appropriate exchange of detainees. Based on that failure to acknowledge that we will NOT be negotiating a peace agreement, it nullifies virtually everything he says in his editorial. If you don’t see my point, then I’ll write out some additional thoughts but, to me, that point alone is enough for me to void McCarthy’s thinking. No peace deal — no traditional tying in of prisoner transfers at conclusion of hostilities.
            _____________________________________________________

            (McCARTHY) These terrorists were not exchanged in connection with a final peace settlement in which it would be appropriate to exchange detainees—after all, if there is no more war, even unlawful enemy combatant prisoners must be released unless they can be charged with crimes.

            While the president is obviously abandoning the war effort, it has not been fully abandoned yet. The Taliban andHaqqani have not surrendered or settled; they are still working hard to kill our troops. It is thus mind-bogglinglyirresponsible for the commander-in-chief to replenish their upper ranks. The reason the laws of war permit enemy combatants to be detained until the conclusion of hostilities is humane: when enemy forces are depleted, they have a greater incentive to surrender, bringing a swifter, less bloody conclusion to the war. By giving the enemy back its most effective commanders, Obama, by contrast, endangers our forces, potentially extends the war, and otherwise makes it far more likely that the war will end on terms injurious to American interests.

            As I demonstrate in Faithless Execution, high crimes and misdemeanors are not primarily statutory offenses. They are the political wrongs of high public officials—the president, in particular—in whom great public trust is reposed. When the commander-in-chief replenishes the enemy at a time when (a) the enemy is still attacking our forces and (b) the commander-in-chief has hamstrung our forces with unconscionable combat rules-of-engagement that compromise their ability to defend themselves, that is a profound dereliction of duty.

          • Americana

            I did post on this McCarthy piece somewhere on this thread. You’ll have to look for it if you’re interested. My main point was that McCarthy based everything on formal hostilities and a peace deal signifying the conclusion of hostilities and the moment of prisoner exchanges, but since it seems, to me, that no peace deal is going to conclude American military action there then we’re still facing irregular forces and nothing McCarthy said applies.

          • truebearing

            Yes, it is. He swapped a deserter and Muslim collaborator for the five of the most ruthless and important Taliban in custody. They are a great aod to the taliban, which is why they were specifically listed as a requirement to do the deal. Obama ignored military and intelligence experts who warned against it.

            You are an obvious Obama troll and a fool, as you prove with every post.

      • Americana

        Whenever someone is trying to indict the President, their vocabulary becomes ever more outraged and outrageous. LUCUBRATIONS? Really, you’re going throw that word out there to make your perspective seem more educated and more rational and the political situation even more foreboding? Pres. Obama traded 5 Taliban for 1 possible deserter. The fact we will shut down the information source that Sgt. Bergdahl may be providing is just as essential as anything else in this equation.

        The whole issue over this current fury viz Pres. Obama is NOT Sgt. Bergdahl’s release, but rather that Pres. Obama is no longer willing to wait on Congress to act and that aspects of his job that require Congressional approval can be done instead via executive power if he deems it necessary. A poisonous community organizer??? Yes, our society needs a community organizer but fortunately for all of us, there is a huge American government apparatus that really doesn’t allow a “community organizer” to run as wild as you’re suggesting.

        • Bklyn Farmer

          Bowe Robert Bergdahl has been AWOL since June 2009 (5 years) whatever critical information he had has already been transmitted to our enemy. Trading 5 Taliban key strategist is a much greater danger than any lingering outdated information Bergdahl has thus far forgotten to relate “captures”.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            We can properly assess Bergdahl by his fathers speech praising the taliban.

            And Obama embracing the father.

            Add that to the video of Obama BOWING to the Saudi King.

            Obama Bows to Saudi King
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

            Obama is now tied with Dhimmi Carter as WORST US PRESIDENT EVER.

          • Americana

            Please, god, let’s stop this STUPIDITY over protocol conventions.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            What protocol covers bowing to Saudi Kings?

            Sharia protocol?

          • Drakken

            Everything this bloody pres does where foreign policy is concerns turns to a complete clusterf**k, and here you are trying to defend and deflect from it, talk about stupidity. Maybe just maybe, if you go overseas like I am now and see for yourself the folly and utter amateur hour that Obummer has wrought here, it might open your adoring Obummer worshipping eyes as to what the reality is.

          • Americana

            Dreadnought, you must have forgotten that the current cluster*ck was began by Neocons over a decade ago. It was undertaken under the best of intentions, but nonetheless they made assumptions about the United Statest being able to manage the situation post-liberation in Iraq that were not true. The fact that it’s an ONGOING cluster*ck is almost unimportant since the Neocons should have known based on their experiences w/the Palestinian jihad and sundry Middle Eastern governments that “liberating” Iraq wouldn’t necessarily yield the expected stability. You may attempt to blame Pres. Obama and his administration for all the troubles but the amateur hour clock started running a long, long time ago. Amateur hour began w/Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and it hasn’t ended yet. If anyone should have been honest about playing dominoes, it should have been that guy.

            I’m quite willing to admit that Muslim societies haven’t evolved to the functionality we’re accustomed to in our country. That is the pitiful aspect of the sociology of their countries, that tribalism still rules and it is linked to sectarianism. But tribalism is also rampant in Africa whether it has links w/religion or not. Where tribalism does have links to Islam in Africa, we have the worst of all worlds. The sociology of jihad isn’t really being addressed in any of the anti-jihad web sites. They touch it on the surface but then they ignore the sociology of jihad in the hopes of making jihad seem monolithic, insurmountable and irrational. I’m hoping that the Muslims themselves will find the strength to undertake a reformation of Islam that will carry Islam past this terrible period and spare the rest of us from further jihadist trauma. But by pretending that there are no political solutions and that there are no moderate Muslims, we are making an egregious error.

          • J.B.

            “Bush did it! Global warming!! Republicans!!! The Tea Party!!!! FOX NEWS!!!!!

            Trolltard. Lord Obama has had over five years to heal the planet but EVERYTHING is much worse than when he was coronated. Not all the simplistic lies in the world can conceal that basic fact.

            TROLLFAIL.

          • Myrtle

            Obama always is on the side of the Muslims, ahead of this loyalty to the USA, where there is no loyalty.

          • Drakken

            Sorry, but Comrade Obummer has now surpassed peanut Carter as the worst pres ever.

          • CaoMoo

            Well he has been been trying for so long, almost feel bad it took him so long to seal the deal.

          • tagalog

            On his radio show, Dennis Prager said that there’s a question as to whether President Obama or President Buchanan is the worst President ever. Distinguished company.

          • Americana

            The point about being “outdated” also applies to these Taliban. We don’t have a clue how the government is hoping to trace these Taliban from the point of the prisoner exchange I’ll wait and see what transpires before I start screaming about the insanity of doing this.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            When we see something that seems so stupid or counter to how we expect our governmental officials to behave, we take comfort in assuming (even if mistakenly) that they must know something hidden. Yeah just like those deadly videos.

          • truebearing

            Waiting and seeing is always your moronic advice. We’ve seen enough, of Obama and you and your stupidity. We can wait and see until this country has become a dictatorship, which isn’t far from now.

          • Americana

            The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Why did Susan Rice say that the Benghazi attack was due to the “muhammed” video?

            And she was trotted out again to explain the taliban terrorist trade for the deserter.

            What credibility does she have? Zero.

          • Americana

            Then where is the acknowledgment that the Joint Chiefs screwed up in their Rapid Response engagement deployment? They took the initiative to accept the blame and then they redesigned the RRF.

            The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Where did Susan Rice come on TV to announce that she was WRONG to blame the Benghazi attack on the muhammed video????

            Rice LIED why Americans DIED.

          • Americana

            No, sorry, the point is that NO MATTER WHAT Rice said, those Americans would STILL BE DEAD.

          • truebearing

            So says the Queen of Verbal Diarrhea who has no military experience or expertise, but “knows everything” from reading leftist babbling points.

          • hiernonymous

            “…who has no military experience or expertise…”

            What’s the extent of yours?

          • truebearing

            Follow the thread, dumba*s. I’m not the one who is confused about the role of the Joint Chiefs, or how presidents, especially lying scum like Obama, will use them to cover his a*s.

          • hiernonymous

            You ducked the question.

          • truebearing

            So you are condoning lying to the American public to cover up the failures, and possible crimes, of obama and hillary? Apparently.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            That’s what he said. Rice LIED concerning why Americans DIED.

            I add to this, that those Americans did not die because of a video. They died because a coordinated para-military attack, complete with mortars, was executed against the annex, and the US government did nothing to save them.

          • Americana

            I wouldn’t contest that, Wolf. But I happen to think it’s almost immaterial what the specifics were of the rationale for the attack. The salient points, to me, are that the Americans were under equipped to repel that attack and their choice of diplomatic compound was not a good tactical choice and was subsequently then inadequately renovated and was INDEFENSIBLE as a result. The entire event was a horrible military miscalculation — from the reliance on Rapid Response Forces to the choice of the diplomatic compound — and whatever the links between the State Dept. and the military that allowed this to happen, they need to be fixed so it never, ever happens again.

          • truebearing

            The JSOS is under Obama’s control, fool. They are giving him cover.

          • Americana

            The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

          • Americana

            Listen, numbskull, the Joint Chiefs aren’t “under Obama’s control.” God, you have got to be the absolutely DUMBEST TWIT that has ever argued politics. The Joint Chiefs’ jobs requires them to make their tactical decisions and justify their situational readiness w/the Commander in Chief. That presentation is no guarantee that will protect them from MAKING A TACTICAL SCREWUP LIKE BENGHAZI.

          • Drakken

            The Joint Chiefs cannot act without a go order from the Commander in Chief dolt. The President is the Commander in Chief shortbus.

          • truebearing

            Listen, numbestskull, the Joint Chiefs are strategic advisers to the president. Final decisions on policy or the use of military action are made by the president. He is the Commander-In-Chief you dolt. The Joint Chiefs don’t overrule the president on military matters, nor do they make policy independent of his approval.

            You try to sound so learned but you keep proving to be a yammering nitwit. Why don’t you shut your fly trap and stop embarrassing yourself? Too deluded? Too narcissistic to consider the reality that you are a fool?

          • Drakken

            The Joint Chiefs fall on their swords for the Commander in Chief all the time, they are expected to moron. The redesignation is nothing but musical chairs and name changing, but it remains the same. If you knew anything about military affairs, you would know that, but hey, continue to fawn and adore your progressive masters. Keep believing the unbelievable and perhaps the rainbows and unicorns will grace you with their presence.

          • Americana

            The Joint Chiefs don’t totally REDESIGN DEPLOYMENTS without BEING FORCED to do so because it costs MILLIONS of $$$$$ to do such a thing. They added more Rapid Response Forces on every single ship that hosts a Marine Expeditionary Force. If it was just a game of musical chairs, then they wouldn’t have specified that each ship w/a Marine Expeditionary Force would be getting a Rapid Response Force and they also wouldn’t have changed the cruising locations of the ships that carried those RRF forces.

          • Drakken

            The designations and names have been changed but it still remains the same, the same units are still at the same bases doing the same thing, the same ships have the same Marine (FAST) units aboard, still doing the same thing, but hey! Because your hero Obummer said things have changed, you buy it hook, line and sinker. Gullible stupidity at its finest.

          • Americana

            You must be even more moronic than I’ve assumed if you think that’s a salable proposition to the general public on this BB, or ANY political BB for that matter.

          • Drakken

            Sunshine, I would highly recommend that you use some critical thinking skills, because your naivety and gullibility really are becoming tiresome and taxing.

          • truebearing

            She isn’t just stupid. This is malignant stupidity. She doesn’t have a clue, but she keeps blathering. Then she calls those who know better morons, though snivels and whines when someone is rude to her. We’re talking headcase here.

            Judahlevi nailed her the other day on fitting the traits of a narcissist. She was spinning like a top. The truth hurt.

          • Drakken

            I would love nothing better than to feed her to the muslim savages and see what they spit out. Reality has a very nasty way of waking up the naïve and the stupid or Darwin would certainly love her as a winner. Take your pick.

          • truebearing

            What is your factual basis for your continued insistence that the Joint Chiefs are running the military? Come on, produce it, NOW!

          • hiernonymous

            The chiefs of staff actually are involved in organization and resourcing. Where you seem to be confused is that they do not fall into the operational chain of command – they don’t order combat formations into combat. Redesigning response forces would actually be within the scope of their authority.

          • Americana

            Thanx for an ex-military intelligence perspective on the military command structure. I’m not sure how it is these guys think the President is always apprised of situations as if he’s going to be the one making tactical decisions.

            Two questions, do you think it was a COVER-UP for the sake of Hillary Clinton that the Joint Chiefs would REDESIGN the Rapid Response Forces and their deployments in light of Benghazi? (This cover-up concept isn’t mine. Just FYI. As you can tell from my many posts, I believe the Joint Chiefs admitted their lack of emergency preparedness for Benghazi.)

            Also, can you answer the question as to whether the ‘Stand Down’ order would have been broadcast on a clear channel? That would have been of such reach that Drakken would have been “nearby to hear it” as he claimed. Isn’t that beyond weird to you, especially given that it was a crisis situation?

          • hiernonymous

            1. I don’t know how much significance I’d attach to the response forces. It’s a fact that a response team was put in Sigonella in 2013 in order to avoid the capabilities gap that occurred in Benghazi, but that sort of readjustment is done all the time. To the extent that you’re just concluding that the establishment of the capability implies acknowledgement that the capability didn’t exist before, that’s reasonable. To directly address your question, no, relocating or building a response team wouldn’t seem to be part of a coverup.

            2. Can you post a link to Drakken’s comment? I haven’t seen it. He claimed to have heard a ‘stand-down’ order related to Benghazi? To answer your question, it’s highly unlikely that any military telephone or radio comms would have been conducted unencrypted.

          • Americana

            This is the comment I am calling into question. I simply cannot believe that any military order would have been broadcast unencrypted, especially during a crisis. And for Drakken to have claimed to have been in a spot where he heard it himself??? It simply beggars belief.
            _____________________________________________________

            Drakken >>>> Americana • 5 hours ago

            (DRAKKEN) “No, I was not in Benghazi, I was somewhere close enough to hear the chatter on the radio that was being broadcasted in the clear. I don’t flounder sunshine, I just make your little libtarded little world that you live in that much more uncomfortable.”

          • hiernonymous

            Seems silly on too many levels to count. First, a national-level figure isn’t going to be communicating by voice radio. The nets are encrypted. Nothing Drakken has posted suggests that he’d ever be near the sorts of comms involved here, either by echelon or by geography. It’s fair to say that he’s talking wolfcookies.

          • Americana

            Do you mind if I post this at a few other points in this discussion? I want this post of yours to be ABSOLUTELY BROADCAST IN THE CLEAR so EVERYONE in the thread KNOWS the situational determination from the perspective of someone who was in military intelligence their entire career.

          • truebearing

            Heiro didn’t validate your idiotic statements. You’re delusional. He diplomatically told you you were wrong about the Joint Chiefs.

          • truebearing

            You’re assuming that the “chatter” was Americans talking to each other. He could have been listening to Islamists or Libyans. They don’t have the sophistication you are talking about. Also, you are speculating, since you weren’t there.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m pretty sure that no Islamists or Libyans were issuing “stand down” orders to U.S. units. From past conversations with Drakken, I’d be very surprised indeed if he could follow the conversation of a Libyan buying bread at the market, much less excited radio chatter.

            I haven’t speculated about anything. I’ve noted how military comms normally operate. If Drakken wants to provide more specifics, he’s free to.

          • Drakken

            That is why God invented terps my friend, my Arabic is not as good as it should be.
            I never said anything about stand down orders being issued in Benghazi, I said they were issued to the units that were going to go to Benghazi from other bases and places.

          • hiernonymous

            “I said they were issued to the units that were going to go to Benghazi from other bases and places.”

            Yes, you said that. You haven’t said who issued those orders, or to whom.

          • truebearing

            You are assuming the Libyan government wasn’t apprised of the stand down order. Maybe the State Department told them and they were “sharing” it with their friends in Al Queda. Lots of possibilities here, but I wasn’t there, so I don’t know.

          • hiernonymous

            “You are assuming the Libyan government wasn’t apprised of the stand down order.”

            There’s no question of an “assumption.” Neither you nor anyone else here has established the existence of such an order, so spinning conspiracy theories about its dissemination is ludicrously premature. Work on establishing the order first.

          • Drakken

            The folks running around on the ground with tac radios could be heard because of the atmospherics that evening, and our comm guy dialed in to hear what was going on, otherwise no one would have heard anything normally.
            A certain leftist communist with an agenda has certain reading comprehensions problems, I said, the stand order was given to the folks on other bases, not in Benghazi or heard in said place.

          • hiernonymous

            So let’s see – you didn’t hear a stand down order, you can’t understand Arabic, so what was it you actually claim to have heard that you feel you need to share? And you were hearing this on what sort of radios and where, exactly? Sounds like some pretty wild ducting.

          • Americana

            I KNEW I should have phoned Josh yesterday when this claim of yours first came up. This claim is simply too intriguing for words. Hopefully, I’ll hear something from Josh’s brother and from Josh’s former unit members who are still there on the matter of the Benghazi comms which I feel is honest and definitive.

          • truebearing

            Did you read heiro’s reply carefully? He just nuked your oft repeated and idiotic theory about the creation of Rapid Response forces AFTER Benghazi. They were already in existence, and one FAST group in Sigonella was told to prepare for 9/11 contingencies, only to be told later, as I recall, to stand down once the attack began. This from a member of that unit.

          • hiernonymous

            “Did you read heiro’s reply carefully? He just nuked your oft repeated and idiotic theory about the creation of Rapid Response forces AFTER Benghazi. They were already in existence, and one FAST group in Sigonella…”

            You do have reading comprehension issues. Seriously. Do you need it explained to you why the introduction do a team to Sigonella in 2013 does not imply the existence of said team on Sigonella in 2012?

          • truebearing

            I’m not confused at all, and you just buttressed my point to morongirl. The Joint Chiefs have an advisory role and don’t make decisions in times of crises like Benghazi. Obama and Hillary are the ones who had to sign off on decisions related to security and rescue. Some CYA crap about reshuffling the Rapid Response configuration came necessarily AFTER the raid on Benghazi, therefore has nothing to do with the contreversial issues related to what happened before, during, and immediately after the attack.

          • hiernonymous

            Her point, as I understand it, is that the standing up of a response force at Sigonella after Benghazi is an implicit acknowledgement of a gap in previous capabilities. Nothing about that line of reasoning touches on the chain of command during the crisis.

            “…therefore has nothing to do with the controversial issues related to
            what happened before, during, and immediately after the attack.”

            The obvious relevance would be in that portion of the controversy in which individuals claim that there were forces available to intervene but that were instructed not to do so. So far, nobody has been able to produce such a force, and the creation of the Sigonella team rather undermines the idea that there was already a reaction force that might have done some good. It’s by nature supporting evidence, not a ‘smoking gun,’ but worth pointing out.

            “…to morongirl. ”

            Classy.

          • truebearing

            As you understand it? Either you aren’t capable of deciphering the meaning of her disjointed babble, or you are being dishonest. Your interpretation isn’t her point at all, and you know it. Her point is pasted all over the thread, so don’t try to parse and twist it into making sense. She has repeatedly insisted that the Joint Chiefs somehow took responsibility for Benghazi, which necessarily means they are the Commanders-In-Chief. Utter nonsense.

            Here are some of her moronic comments:

            “Listen, numbskull, the Joint Chiefs aren’t “under Obama’s control.” God, you have got to be the absolutely DUMBEST TWIT that has ever argued politics.”

            “The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result.”

            That is just a small sample of her idiotic, fact-free ranting. Now defend that, genius. You tell all of us how the Joint Chiefs can “take responsibility” for decisions that they not only didn’t make, but according to the chain of command, couldn’t make. As a self-avowed expert in military intelligence, you will have to put your credibility as an expert on the line if you continue to defend her drivel and maintain that the chain of command in a crisis ends with the Joint Chiefs instead of the CIC. I can hardly wait.

            Your reading comprehension could use some work. Try it again:

            “Obama and Hillary are the ones who had to sign off on decisions related to security and rescue. Some CYA crap about reshuffling the Rapid Response configuration came necessarily AFTER the raid on Benghazi, therefore has nothing to do with the controversial issues related to what happened before, during, and immediately after the attack.”

            The relevance is that the Joint Chiefs don’t make crisis decisions on security or rescue of State Department personnel being attacked abroad. That is the president and/or Secretary of State’s responsibility, depending on the situation. Hillary failed to provide repeatedly requested security. Obama failed to have existing Rapid Response teams, eg FAST, positioned on 9/11, of all days. He didn’t have carriers, or anything else properly positioned,either, but there was a team that, according to at least one of the members, was told to get ready the day before but then to stand down the day of the attacks. Regardless of whether you believe a team was in close enough proximity to effect a rescue, it wasn’t the Joint Chiefs who had the authority to order them into action… unless you are claiming that Obama abdicated his role as CIC.

            I liked “morongirl.” it captured her monotonous repetition of the same ridiculous theory.

          • hiernonymous

            “The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi.
            They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result.”

            That is just a small sample of her idiotic, fact-free ranting. Now defend that, genius. You tell all of us how the Joint Chiefs can “take responsibility” for decisions that they not only didn’t make, but according to the chain of command, couldn’t make.

            That seemed pretty clear. The chiefs are responsible for the readiness of the military. They don’t issue operational orders, but they’re the guys responsible for seeing that there is an effective force to issue the orders to. Americana’s argument here seems to be that the chiefs have identified the lack of an available force as contributing to the problem at Benghazi, accepted responsibility for their role in its absence, and put a fix in place.

            As a self-avowed expert in military intelligence, you will have to put your credibility as an expert on the line if you continue to defend her drivel and maintain that the chain of command in a crisis ends with the Joint Chiefs instead of the CIC. I can hardly wait.

            One’s credibility is always on the line, whether the topic is the nature of the chain of command or duct tape.

            Obama failed to have existing Rapid Response teams, eg FAST, positioned on 9/11, of all days.

            Positioned where? 9/11 was not a day uniquely special to Libya. There was a whole theater of potential targets.

            He didn’t have carriers, or anything else properly positioned,either…

            You’re suggesting that there should have been CSG’s in the Gulf of Sidra on the off chance that an ambassador might get into trouble? Properly positioned for what? Which military missions do you think should have been scrubbed to provide an Ambassador with a 5000-man naval bodyguard?

            That’s a bit like suggesting that Bush fils should be criticized for maintaining so many fighters in Germany and Korea when they clearly should have been performing orbits over the WTC in case a terrorist hijacked a passenger jet. Americana has highlighted the Pentagon’s much more measured response – to shift a response team to Sigonella, which is much closer than Spain to the central Med missions.

            Regardless of whether you believe a team was in close enough proximity
            to effect a rescue, it wasn’t the Joint Chiefs who had the authority to order them into action…

            Yes, which is why the establishment of the team on Sigonella speaks only to the readiness aspect of the incident, and not to the operational control of forces.

            I liked “morongirl.”

            Yes, I know. That was rather my point.

          • truebearing

            “That seemed pretty clear. The chiefs are responsible for the readiness of the military. They don’t issue operational orders, but they’re the guys responsible for seeing that there is an effective force to issue the orders to. Americana’s argument here seems to be that the chiefs have identified the lack of an available force as contributing to the problem at Benghazi, accepted responsibility for their role in its absence, and put a fix in place.”

            Her argument is that Benghazi was the Joint Chiefs fault for not having adequate rapid response capability, and she’s wrong. We had the readiness, just not on the operational end. The failures are named Obama and Hillary. All the rapid response capability in the world is useless if you don’t allow them to respond, and that isn’t the Joint Chiefs call, as you were forced to finally admit.

            We already had assets, that if put into proper position, could have easily handled the situation in Benghazi. Obama and Hillary failed to make the decision to do so on an anniversary of 9/11, and in Benghazi, an area already seething with Islamists and violence. At that point, the Joint Chiefs have NOTHING to say about whether troops will be deployed. That is Obama’s call. Hillary had already created the crisis by not having American security, sending Stevens to an unsecured consulate, and repeatedly ignoring Steven’s requests for additional security. Again, no role for the Joint Chiefs.

            “Positioned where? 9/11 was not a day uniquely special to Libya. There was a whole theater of potential targets.”

            And you claim to be a military intelligence expert? Let me ask you something real easy so you don’t get confused. Do you remember the civil war in Libya, where Obama helped the Islamists defeat Khaddafi? That war left Libya crawling with Islamists. The British pulled out because things were getting so bad leading up to 9/11. The Red Cross pulled out too. Do you think they left because of the failures of the Joint Chiefs, or because the Muslims were increasingly violent and they knew major trouble was imminent? The Brits have intelligence people too, you know, and they were smart enough to see the danger and leave. We stayed, but didn’t send the requested increased security. Now are you going to tell me that Hillary was so poor at her job that she didn’t know any of this, or was Obama so AWOL that he didn’t attend intelligence briefings? What is your explanation, because there wasn’t a more unstable country on earth at the time of the Benghazi attack, and the administration knew it, yet did nothing. That wasn’t a Joint Chiefs failure, and you know it.

            “That’s a bit like suggesting that Bush fils should be criticized for maintaining so many fighters in Germany and Korea when they clearly should have been performing orbits over the WTC in case a terrorist hijacked a passenger jet. Americana has highlighted the Pentagon’s much more measured response – to shift a response team to Sigonella, which is much closer than Spain to the central Med missions.”

            More dishonest nonsense. Assets are shifted to hot zones, and there were none hotter than Benghazi at that time. Americana doesn’t know diddly, and I’m beginning to doubt you were ever in military intelligence, unless they kept you as a rapid response liar.

            “Yes, which is why the establishment of the team on Sigonella speaks only to the readiness aspect of the incident, and not to the operational control of forces.”

            Earlier in your comment you said:

            “That seemed pretty clear. The chiefs are responsible for the readiness of the military. They don’t issue operational orders

            Indeed. They were ready, but the operational control, ie. Obama, failed. So you just admitted that Americana is wrong, the Joint Chiefs can’t possibly be responsible, and that what I have been saying is right. Thank you for contradicting yourself. It’s an a*sbackwards way to be honest, but I suspect it is the best you can do.

            That will be all. The debate is over now that you committed friendly fire at yourself and Americana. Casualties most deserved.

          • Americana

            I’ll leave this post for hieronymous to eviscerate.

          • hiernonymous

            “Yes, there was a team ready on Sigonella, so the Joint Chiefs were not
            at fault after all, but they can do nothing unless the operational
            control, ie. Obama, orders them into action.”

            I missed this the first read-through, or it’s not in your other version. This indicates that you really haven’t followed the conversation at all. No, there was not a team on Sigonella that night. The team was introduced to Sigonella in 2013. The whole point is that by introducing that team to Sigonella, there’s a tacit admission that a capability was needed there that had not existed the night of Benghazi. If you didn’t understand that, you’ve been posturing about an argument you haven’t even faintly followed.

            This is becoming something of a habit with you.

          • truebearing

            Lies and more lies. The JSOS is under Obama’s control, fool. They are giving him cover.

            You sound like a deranged parrot, mouthing the Media Matters Trolling Points.

          • Americana

            The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Resist Sharia.
            Resist Socialism.
            Resist Regressive Progressivism.

          • Americana

            The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

          • truebearing

            Lies and more lies. The JSOS is under Obama’s control, fool. They are giving him cover. You are regurgitating Obama’s propaganda as fast as you can. Whenever the facts get too much for you to deal with, you start babbling about the Joints Chiefs blah, blah, blah.

          • Americana

            The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

          • truebearing

            Stop posting the same dishonest drivel, time after time. You can’t answer my responses intelligently because 1) you aren’t 2) because there is no credible response.

          • Americana

            Ah, the man who tried to pretend that he knew all ABOUT the American Revolution’s foundational philosophy coming from the Enlightenment (in Europe) only to then claim I wasn’t writing about the European Enlightenment in my post, has the nerve to tell me to be honest! This is the same guy who then tried to coach me to “write more clearly like Daniel Greenfield” so he can pretend that it was just my writing that he misunderstood and not that he was ignorant of the role the (European) Enlightenment played in American foundational philosophy. Hahahahaha, you intellectual strut mutt.

          • truebearing

            Now you’re misrepresenting past debates you lost because you’re losing this one. You are apparently delusional and possibly insane.

            It’s rather stupid of you to bring up that thread, since you wrote several completely incoherent comments, not to mention the one where you lost it entirely and began babbling incoherently at Tricky Blain, who was on your side.

            Would you like me to quote some of those comments now?

          • Americana

            If trickyblain understood what I wrote and he wrote this following to reprimand you, I think I’m on pretty solid ground as far as my ENGLISH and my command of American history go:

            trickyblain truebearing • 5 days ago

            The last sentence is perfectly clear to any who have studied the Enlightenment/colonial America/the founding of our nation.

            The US is exceptional, unique, in that it was founded on the philosophical tenet of natural rights. We were a blank slate upon which the founders created a masterpiece that could be perfected and corrected with time and wisdom.

          • Drakken

            You understand nothing and know nothing, other than to repeat leftist talking points until they come out of your ears. It’s called propaganda, perhaps you might want to read up on what it is.

          • Americana

            Hmmmm, I “understand nothing and know nothing?” Boy, that’s a harsh mischaracterization of me, I think. Especially given how this thread is turning out for both of us. I’ve got a sensitive ear and a sensitive nose and I don’t settle for bullish*t even if it’s presented on a sterling silver platter.

            But now that we’ve identified you’ve got a personal embossed ‘LIAR’ stamp you’re willing to stamp on your most important streams of propaganda to give them that little additional fillip of verisimilitude (Drakken — “I heard the order to ‘Stand Down’ in Benghazi broadcast in clear channel”), it’s pretty clear you’ll do anything and claim anything in order to win an argument. I’m a little different from you. I’m just plain curious about facts and putting them together is a personal interest of mine.

            I don’t repeat leftist talking points. I’m interested in history and facts and I spend my life putting those two together in order to arrive at possible future history story lines. I don’t look at things through the lens of a party platform. I’m interested in keeping the world spinning courtesy of Truth and the American Way.

          • Drakken

            Your a lefty/communist with an agenda, tut tut putting words into my mouth again leftard. I gave you vague references on purpose, and it went completely over your little lefty head, all hail Obummer. You don’t know or understand history to save your life and you and facts in the same sentence is an oxymoron thanks for playing commi.

          • truebearing

            Since you are dumb enough to want your convoluted maunderings quoted, here are just a couple from that debate. This first is your last paragraph from your attempt to write a coherent polemic against American Exceptionalism:

            “Our founding documents were inspired by
            what Europeans obsessed w/their national flaws were obsessing over, we were not
            an immaculate conception. We were the confluence of rivers of thought and blood
            that flowed out of Europe to American thinkers who took those political
            concepts and formed a new nation.”

            No mention of the Enlightenment there, and even if one could understand your poorly written, confused blitherings, you fail to identify which ideas from the Enlightenment you are babbling about. Some of the wonderful ideas of the Enlightenment inspired fascism in the 20th Century, dim wit.

            Then there is this little exercise is insanity:

            “Americana trickyblain • 5 days ago

            Oh, my, what a CAUTIOUS and CYA sorta reply DESIGNED TO LET the web site and truebearing off the hook as far as Americana’s grasp of American history goes!!!! I guess I don’t need to post the following then for truebearing, do I? Or maybe I do just because the man didn’t recognize just how OVER THE TOP RUDE he was and has been!!! Hmmm, my widdle finger is right on the button….. Oooops, I couldn’t help myself because I’m up to here w/the rudeness and the GENERAL SNOTTINESS of the intellectually bereft. I’m not going to fight teeny tiny word battles w/punkass nitwits every day in every other post, I’d rather get the major battle over and DONE and leave it at that. Oh, and if you all ever wondered just how tough I could get w/my wordplay and my wisecracks above and beyond the use of “doodledork,” now you’ve discovered what I’m like when I let myself off the leash. Yes, I’m over 30 and “doodledork” is my go-to lingua franca for someone like you-know-who. I’m sure you all would prefer I stick w/that shorthand from now on, right? Everybody sure they’re following my sarcasm here? Anybody unsure about whether or not I can actually write sarcastically or not? tagalog, are you clear that this is sarcasm?

            (Sorry, Mum! But I’m sure she’ll understand my rudeness given the circumstances.)”

            Your friend Tricky Blain’s response:

            trickyblain Americana • 5 days ago

            “LOL, what?”

            I think I hear the Looney Tune theme playing again….

          • Americana

            Listen, blowhard, another poster understood EXACTLY what I was talking about. The fact you DIDN’T HAVE A CLUE I was talking about the Enlightenment says WORLDS about the level of historical background you have. I did actually make one post that included the word ‘Enlightenment’ so it’s not as if you shouldn’t have been able to follow my reasoning. But slice and dice away, the fact is that trickyblain DID KNOW WHAT I WAS WRITING ABOUT and YOU DIDN’T.

          • truebearing

            Tricky is another leftist supporting his fellow idiots. Your comment was so poorly written that it didn’t even specify which ideas of thinkers from the Enlightenment you were babbling about. Was it Locke? Well, if it was, you might want to actually read Locke on the singular influence Christianity had on his ideas, as is the case with all of the key fihures in that period, one way or another.

          • Americana

            Still trying to play CYA w/that whole episode? Well, it’s water under the bridge for this non-troll and I believe there’s not much doubt about the reality of that exchange.

          • Drakken

            Your a leftist/commi troll with an agenda.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Do I take it that you and Americana aren’t fond of each other?

          • Drakken

            You quote a lot from other sources but have zero knowledge of what you speak. Nothing but drivel, propaganda and stupidity.

          • Americana

            Listen, Dreadnought, you’re supposed to be producing a link that proves there were forces that could have arrived in 3-4 hours that would have saved Ambassador Stevens’ life and the life of IO Sean Smith. Since they were both DEAD within TWO HOURS of the onslaught, you’ve rather screwed the pooch w/your timeline. But that’s what idiots do, they keep pretending and pretending and pretending.

          • Drakken

            It’s called first hand knowledge, which you obviously choose to ignore since it doesn’t fit in your round peg in a square hole progressive little mind of yours. All hail Obummer. Or do I need Comrade Obummers sign language expert from SA to sign it out for you?

          • Americana

            No, I think I’ve already seen the sign language guy is only capable of making one sign and it’s a middle finger raised in the general direction of the TRUTH.

          • Drakken

            You and truth wouldn’t know each other if it kissed you. Your the type of Obummer worshipper that would get down on your knees and look up at him with adoring eyes and blow him, and then swallow and love him for it.

          • Americana

            Oh, yeah, that’s why I’m able to make connections like the following: There weren’t any Rapid Response Forces within expeditious deployment time for Benghazi, so, after months of deliberation the Joint Chiefs ENTIRELY REWORK the Rapids Responses Forces and put a new battle plan into place for them.

            Yup, I’d say that indicates someone who’s not interested in the topic, knows nothing about the topic, can’t put two and two together and isn’t capable of thinking for herself.

          • Drakken

            Sorry shortbus, but there was a RRF within 3-4 hours of getting on the ground, that is first hand knowledge by me, you on the other hand are talking out of your azz because your mouth knows better. Obviously 2 plus 2 to you equal 10, moron.

          • Americana

            Produce the link then. Produce the indisputable link. Who cares if you claim first-hand knowledge? You obviously were not in Benghazi or in one of the military bases that could have sent troops because otherwise you wouldn’t be floundering around trying to avoid producing a link proving your point.

          • Drakken

            No, I was not in Benghazi, I was somewhere close enough to hear the chatter on the radio that was being broadcasted in the clear. I don’t flounder sunshine, I just make your little libtarded little world that you live in that much more uncomfortable.

          • truebearing

            “I’d say that indicates someone who’s not interested in the topic, knows nothing about the topic, can’t put two and two together and isn’t capable of thinking for herself.”

            By Jove, I think you’ve had a breathrough, as opposed to your usual breakdown. That describes you perfectly! Well done.

            Now let me point something out to you about time. The political sideshow of the Joint Chiefs came long after the events of Benghazi, therefore have no bearing on what happened or why. Their little episode of political the theater was to provide a plausible excuse for hillary. Nothing more. It doesn’t prove we didn’t have a Rapid response capability. We did. It doesn’t get Hillary or Obama off the hook. Benghazi was their responsibility and they let four Americans die to cover their political arses. We had a FAST team that was ready to go the day before the raid, but were told to stand down. That is a fact.

          • Americana

            Why on earth are you pretending that the TIME INTERVAL between when Benghazi occurred and when the Joint Chiefs finally revised the Rapid Response Forces doesn’t mean there’s a link between Benghazi and the REDESIGN/REDEPLOYMENT?

            Do I HAVE TO GO DIG UP THAT STORY AGAIN w/the ACTUAL QUOTES from the Joint Chiefs about why they revised those Rapid Response Forces? Jeepers, but you are simply unbelievably inept at this misdirection if you think anyone is going to fail to connect those two dots. It’s only TWO DOTS for cripes sakes. BENGHAZI — RAPID RESPONSE FORCES REDUX. You really think anybody is unable to make that connection????

          • truebearing

            Read my comment again, pea-brain. I’m not going to re-explain everything to you every time you’re too stupid to understand simple english.

          • truebearing

            She’s British lefty. What do you expect?

          • Drakken

            She is typical of all lefty thinking, no critical thinking skills, believes everything that it is told by other leftist as gospel, believes anything the opposition says is wrong and sticks their collective fingers in their ears screaming lalalalalal I can’t hear you. When the great correction comes, they still won’t believe it.

          • Americana

            Listen, Dreadnought, I’m obviously a thinker and a fairly sophisticated one at that if I understand that there were LOGISTICS PROBLEMS underlying the Benghazi debacle. The fact I then watched the foreign policy sites and the army sites to see whether that would pan out to be the case and it DID PAN OUT to be the case, is proof that I’m a thinker. The fact you’re STILL PRETENDING THAT THE RESTRUCTURING AND REDEPLOYMENT means nothing is proof positive that you’re so invested in your party’s version of the event you’re not even willing to look at the reality. That’s OK, others most certainly won’t avoid the truth. The PROOF IN THE PUDDING Is that the Joint Chiefs totally REVAMPED the Rapid Response Forces. End of story. That’s simply fact. There’s no possibility for you to twist the meaning of that by questioning the web site sources, there’s no possibility that I picked the wrong commentator to bring this to your attention. It’s SIMPLE FACT.

          • Drakken

            Sorry little girl, I am not a party hack and I do not under any circumstance toe the party line, I have a serious problems with feckless and rudderless leadership and policies that puts peoples lives in danger for political expediency. As one of those Marines who lead FAST teams and still have contacts there, maybe you should open your eyes and ears more and speak less until you know of what you speak, for it is obvious that you don’t. Time for a refund on the money you spent on the education you didn’t get. You might think your being clever, but let me assure you that your anything but.

          • Americana

            Now you’re a LEADER of one of those Marine FAST Teams??? Crikey, but you certainly do invent your MILITARY RESUME on the fly, don’t you? In that case, you shouldn’t have pretended that the Joint Chiefs didn’t REDESIGN and REDEPLOY those Rapid Response Forces. It’s obvious that you invent and revise and upgrade and do whatever else you have to do to try to maintain the upper hand in a discussion. Your BULLSHOT should be seen for EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, pure, unadulterated BULLSHOT.

          • Drakken

            You certain are entitled to your own opinion, which is immaterial, but your are not entitled to your own obtuse facts. Perhaps you would enjoy a nice sunny visit to the sandbox to explain your worldly point of view to those sand apes who would surely enjoy the enlightenment, you will have to pardon me as I get myself a nice tall bourbon and enjoy what happens next, for reality is always the final arbitrator of all things. For the record little girl, the key word is used to lead not currently lead, but then again subtlety and nuance are completely lost on you. RIF !

          • Americana

            Listen, Dreadnought, perhaps a little lesson in English would be helpful here. In the following sentence, you should have used ‘LED’ rather than ‘lead’ to make the timeframe clearer. Yes, I should have picked up on the phrase “STILL HAVE CONTACTS THERE” but I was so enthralled w/the fact that you HEARD THOSE CALLS ABOUT ‘STANDING DOWN’ ON THE RADIO w/your VERY OWN EARS, that I just assumed you were still ACTIVE DUTY. Now, tell us, how is that someone who’s NOT ON ACTIVE DUTY but only has friends in the region, is ABLE TO ACCESS THE SECURE MILITARY CHANNELS ON A RADIO and is able to hear calls about the standing down of Rapid Response Force troops? Please, we’re all dying to know how that’s possible. As far as I knew, once you were RETIRED, that was it, no more access to MILITARY SECURE CHANNELS.

            (DRAKKEN) “As one of those Marines who (LED) lead FAST teams and still have contacts there,…”

          • Drakken

            Jesus h Christ, yes I made a lead from led mistake, bloody well sue me for pete’s sake. Spelling mistakes happen. It still doesn’t change the what, the where, the who and the why. When you ask your Marine friend questions who is on the Embassy detail, ask him who was relieved in Cairo when that went to sh*t as well when the Egyptians were rioting. As for secure radios? Again you should ask yourself, what do I do in the sandbox?

          • truebearing

            She quibbles over trivia when she knows she is losing an argument.

          • Americana

            I don’t believe you’ve yet answered all the technical questions that hieronymous posed to you about the radio comms that made it possible for you to SUPPOSEDLY listen in to the ‘STAND DOWN’ orders. Answer those questions, please. Those questions are NOT trivia and I’m hardly in the position of losing this argument.

          • truebearing

            You are a narcissist who suffers from delusions of grandeur. You had an idea so you crowned yourself queen, never once stopping to consider that your idea was idiotic and demonstrably false. Even after you have been corrected, you persist in your deranged attachment to a nonsensical theory. That is beyond stupid. That is mental illness.

          • Americana

            Yes, I’m such a British lefty, I had an uncle who died at El Alamein and my mother worked as a nurse throughout the Blitz in Liverpool.

          • Drakken

            If your uncle was alive today, he would slap the stupid right out of you. With your thought process, maybe the Germans should have over run Britain, at least they wouldn’t have let Britain be over run with the 3rd world.

          • Americana

            It’s far more likely my mother would slap you silly stupid for some of your idiotic remarks. Nobody in my family gets away w/nonsensical remarks based on falsehoods or is humored over indefensible positions that rely on falsehoods or is allowed to repeatedly present facts that have been disproven. You get to present facts once or twice and if they’re factually shot down, they’re permanently RETIRED. You don’t get to use them in your next barrage just because you get abusive. You don’t get a reset for the same argument time after time after time. You lose a point, that’s it, that part of the argument is over and done with until you present new information validating what was thought to be wrong.

          • Drakken

            You talk a lot, but know nothing and say even less. Know what your talking about first before you go running your suck expressing your feelings instead of facts. Yes, your uncle would have slapped the stupid right out of you for openly siding with leftist/communist.

          • Americana

            You’d rather pretend that’s the case and continue spouting your jingoistic pronouncements without any challenges from anyone w/a different knowledge base and/or a different perspective. Trouble is, those of us who are deeply invested in and interested in these issues can’t stand to see a simplistic portrayal of world issues. Neither do we like to be chased off by guard dogs who are granted free range abuse w/a range of behaviors from sexual innuendoes and crudity to intellectual harassment. It’s absolutely absurd that this web site had the nerve to post an editorial about bullying while it serves its own purposes by encouraging and aiding and abetting bullying in furtherance of its own causes. The fact they can delete voices diminishes their intellectual voice, whether they acknowledge this fact or not.

          • Americana

            Oh, there’s a little bit more to my insights than that, Drakken. Besides, you ought to take this statement of yours to heart as well and not try uttering drivel, propaganda and stupidity in order to win arguments and influence people. Just because you take for granted that you can utter things here and NO ONE WILL CHECK THEM OUT doesn’t apply to lots of other folks who are listening and evaluating what’s being said and who are willing to check things out to a farethewell. You represent your party and when you persist in lying and repeating disproven “facts” or, worse, PROPAGANDIZING THOSE LIES w/EMBELLISHMENTS (Drakken — “I heard the order to ‘Stand Down’ in Benghazi broadcast in clear channel”) that don’t hold up if someone looks closely at them, you’re doing your own party a huge disservice, never mind doing a disservice to the United States of America.

          • Americana

            http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=joint+chiefs+take+blame+for+benghazi&tags=&tags=&tags=&issues=&from=MM%2FDD%2FYYYY&to=MM%2FDD%2FYYYY

            Hahahaha, you dumb bunny, there isn’t one story on Media Matters that is precisely the content I post.

          • truebearing

            It doesn’t matter, dipsh*t. You’re spouting talking points from one of the Left’s lie mills. And just because you provide a link to some of their lies doesn’t mean it is all of their lies. Talk about stupid.

          • Americana

            On the February 18 edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, McCain explained that he was previously opposed to the idea of releasing the five Guantanamo prisoners in peace talks, but that he was now “inclined to support” a proposal that would release the men in exchange for Bergdahl. When Anderson asked for a second time, “if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?” McCain reiterated his support:

            COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.

            MCCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release — Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence- building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.

            [...]

            COOPER: So if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?

            MCCAIN: I would support. Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.

          • Drakken

            Media matters? Really? You leftards never quit with the Obummer propaganda do you?

          • Americana

            On the February 18 edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, McCain explained that he was previously opposed to the idea of releasing the five Guantanamo prisoners in peace talks, but that he was now “inclined to support” a proposal that would release the men in exchange for Bergdahl. When Anderson asked for a second time, “if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?” McCain reiterated his support:

            COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.

            MCCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release — Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence- building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.

            [...]

            COOPER: So if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?

            MCCAIN: I would support. Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.

          • Drakken

            Blah, blah blah blah, blah repeat said talking points, blah blah, blah, blah, blah have a liberal temper tantrum because those mean conservatives don’t listen you Blah blah, blah, blah!

          • Drakken

            Your an effing liar and I’m calling you on it. The military had rapid reaction teams from the Marine Corps (FAST) and Army SOCOM within a 3-4 hour window to send. They were told to stand down, so nice try at your defending Obummer and company.

          • Americana

            Then, as happened in the other thread where you FAILED to produce a DEFINITIVE LINK attesting to the above fact, you’ve been asked AGAIN to produce a link. Produce the link, or acknowledge you’ve screwed the pooch w/that claim. YOUR CHOICE. Produce the link or fold. If I have to produce the timeline again because you’re an offing liar, I most certainly will.

            There were NO FORCES ready to be deployed. Planes had to be fueled, gear gathered for the appropriate attack, etc. Considering that Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith were DEAD WITHIN TWO HOURS of the commencing of the attack, an arrival four hours later wouldn’t have saved them.

          • Drakken

            And I am bloody well telling you that there were forces to deploy and they were told to stand down, those are first hand facts sunshine, but go ahead and let your little libtarded mind wrap around that for awhile. Ask yourself this little question, how would I know that?

          • Americana

            Then produce the link so we can ALL VERIFY the location of the base, the flight time for the type of plane or helicopter they were supposed to be using, etc. It’s pretty easy to do, so just do it. Don’t give me that typical RW BS about it’s first-hand information.

          • Drakken

            Ever heard of a nondisclosure agreement? I can lead a horse to water, but I can’t make them drink. What else do I have to do for you? Take you by the hand and put your nose into it? Well on second thought, a kool aid drinking, shortbus ridding, window licker does have to have everything done for them. Flights times from bases around the Med are very easy to do, ask your mommy for help if simple math is too tough for you.

          • Americana

            Sorry, no bullshitting like that will get you off the hook. You’ve made the claim, now BACK IT UP w/indisputable facts. Yeah, you sound JUST like the sort of guy I’d have sign a non-disclosure agreement. I wouldn’t have hired you for a job that required a non-disclosure agreement based on your writing here.

          • Drakken

            Your lack of critical thinking skills is now legendary, and make no mistake little girl, my experience and now 3rd decade in the 3rd world far exceeds your, I feel therefore I am as your policy positions. Window lickers like you need to learn how to do your own homework and obviously my subtlety has been completely lost on you. Silly little leftist school girls like you should learn to stay on the porch with the pups because you certainly can’t bark with the big dogs.

          • Americana

            You’re a big dog? I wouldn’t have guessed from the ineptitude you display. Maybe that’s because the big dogs I know aren’t quite so vainglorious and cocky and they don’t lift their leg w/the crudest language possible trying to knock down their opponent. The big dogs I know can do the job w/CLEAR, CLEAN LANGUAGE and no BULLSH*TTING. (“I heard it on the radio chatter.” Yeah, tell us another one.)

          • Drakken

            I am one of those on top of the food chain, you unfortunately, are not, good luck with that sunshine, your going to need it. It is too bad that you have thin skin in a sandpaper world, life must hurt you quite a bit doesn’t it. Remember RIF little girl.

          • Americana

            Oh oh, being on top of the food chain didn’t help you win this food fight, did it? Round One of this particular food fight and you’ve got egg all over your face about your fraudulent claim that you “heard the Benghazi order to ‘Stand Down’ broadcast in clear channel” because you “were in the vicinity” and you’re such a big dog, you’ve got access to all those situation critical radio comms.

            I’ve always wondered to what extent folks on political BBs would take their claims of inside knowledge in order to decimate their opponent’s argument and sell their perspective to the world at large. Well, I guess we all know now, don’t we?

            My skin isn’t thin. It’s RHINO HIDE. But I am rather sensitive about being told I don’t have a sensitive ear and nose for bulls*t and that I don’t have “critical thinking skills.” So, when I’m told I’m hearing things because something doesn’t sound right and I’m told I’m not smelling things when I KNOW they don’t smell right, you’ll discover that, just like Search dogs, I keep my nose to the ground and I keep on following the scent. Eventually, someone’s nose is going to lead them to the truth. Don’t you EVER TELL SUCH A STINKY, FRAUDULENT STORY AGAIN in order to try to win an argument.

          • Americana

            You’re a CONTRACTOR. That’s STREET MEAT as far as I’m aware in most instances. If you were on top of the food chain in the chain of command, you wouldn’t be here w/egg all over your face having lied about being in the position of OVERHEARING those Benghazi radio transmissions.

            hieronymous asked you very specific questions about your claim of hearing the Benghazi radio transmissions, it’s time for you to answer those questions instead of running away and ignoring his legitimate questions. Just as the Joint Chiefs and Hillary Clinton and everyone else has to face their Benghazi demons in front of the Benghazi Hearings Committee, it’s time for you to face public opinion here. You made that claim of being in the position of hearing that ‘Stand Down’ order being broadcast in clear so let’s get to the bottom of that statement in every detail.

          • truebearing

            So, you whine and snivel about people being rude to you but you throw out insults and crude language worse than anyone. You don’t know a dam n thing about the military, spec ops, or intellligence, other than what you read, yet you try to go toe-to-toe with a veteran warrior. Your’s is the prattle of an air-headed fool. A blithering blatherskite, full of naricissistic self-esteem that is based entirely on delusion and meager intellect.

          • Americana

            Ah, yes, Drakken, the real warrior in this crowd, who heard a military call about military business during a CRISIS being BROADCAST IN CLEAR. I never whine and never snivel and I certainly don’t throw out sexual crudities. (I can certainly up my game on that count to match you two though, just FYI.) The fact I can cut you a new one without using sexual crudities is fine w/me for now. I simply point out that those tactics are being used. The fact you want to pretend that I’m whining and sniveling is another of the verbal Catch-22s in which you brainiacs indulge.

            The fact that I continue to THINK is what should be worrisome to you because now I’ll go check on whether these military calls about ‘Standing Down’ were made on a clear channel. I find this absolutely LUDICROUS that Drakken is pretending that military business during a CRISIS would be transmitted on a clear channel.

            (DRAKKEN) “No, I was not in Benghazi, I was somewhere close enough to hear the chatter on the radio that was being broadcasted in the clear.”

          • truebearing

            You don’t have the access to information that would allow you to do what you are babbling about. You are a deluded hysteric with massive problems with grandiosity.

          • Drakken

            Obviously you have a serious reading comprehension problems and it shows, it was the special education I take it? So let me give Comrade Obummers Sign language expert from South Africa a call and see if he can help you out with your little problem, now be a good girl.

          • Americana

            Oooops, the bell rang for Round One and at least one of the referees seems to think Round One doesn’t turn out very well for Drakken.

            Why is the situation so DIRE for Drakken? Because he made claims in order to win the argument about an element of the Benghazi controversy that have been found to be fraudulent. This ONE instance of intellectual fraud calls ALL his posts into question, both for the insider knowledge he claims as well as the common sense any ADULT DEBATER is supposed to bring to the table as the foundational principle for any substantive discussion.

            (To paraphrase Drakken) Because my lack of “critical thinking skills is now vindicated” by figuring out that there’s no way Drakken HEARD the RADIO TRANSMISSIONS in BENGHAZI and, make no mistake, big dog, my experience and now 3rd decade in the 3rd world far exceeds your “I feel a tingle up my leg therefore I invent FACTS” policy positions. Window lickers like yourself need to learn that others WILL DO THEIR HOMEWORK and obviously MY CRAVING FOR DOING MY HOMEWORK has been completely lost on you. Silly old (not sure what to use for a descriptor) folks like you should learn to stay on the porch with the pups because you certainly get into trouble when you try to bark w/the Big Dogs. Some schutzhund bitches simply can’t be trusted off leash when they get a shot at someone who’s playing fast and loose w/the “facts.”

          • Drakken

            For someone who loves to run your suck and talk out of your azz because you mouth knows better, I’ll take it as a compliment. Your a commi/lefty with an agenda. You will defend and deflect Comrade Obummer at all costs, that much is quite clear, so continue cupcake.

          • Americana

            Drakken, no way am I a Communist, you twit. I simply have HAD IT UP TO MY EYEBALLS w/advocacy journalism that promotes alternative history and bullish*t. Advocacy journalism shouldn’t even have to exert itself if it’s on solid ground. It shouldn’t have to re-write history to make it more palatable and seductive to the masses. Reality should suffice to sell your cause. Don’t try to enhance it w/LIES and MORE LIES and DENIGRATING the opposition.

          • Drakken

            You my dear are a lefty/commi with an agenda, it is that plainly simple. No muss, no fuss, a commi who read the playbook. Good luck with that cupcake. Anyone who openly sides with arab muslims from fakestine is an enemy, pure and simple. I do hope that you go there and help your good pal and friendly collaborator Rachel Corrie, who I can hear screaming from here for more company.

          • Americana

            Not sure what can be written from here on out. I DON’T SIDE w/Arab Muslims over any other nationality, nevermind over my fellow Americans. I’m not a Communist. I’m not someone who’s ever thought about labels for herself. I don’t have a political playbook other than being fascinated w/what is and isn’t happening in the Middle East despite OUR best efforts to give those countries a leg up. Every time someone I know goes there, whether it’s a soldier or a photographer or a journalist or my sister going as an educator, I’m terrified for them. I was terrified for my sister when she was in Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers bombed near the university where she was teaching in Colombo the capital. I was terrified when she taught in various universities all over the Middle East. When she became Dean of a women’s university there, I was most terrified of all because there was a lot of activism under her watch. She’s not someone who shrinks from confrontation and I worried that she would get caught up in a sharia situation that would threaten her life. So, I’ll continue w/my POV just as you’ll continue w/yours. The fact that you end by comparing me w/Rachel Corrie is very telling. But you’re barking up the wrong tree on that score.

          • Drakken

            Your a commi muslim collaborator and sh*t stirrer with a very serious leftist propaganda agenda. That much is very clear. The day is going to come where your going to have to be held to account for your openly hostile collaboration with the enemy.

          • Americana

            There’s a reason why I nicknamed you Dreadnought. There’s nought about you to dread. You’re just a big talking Big Mouth who’s willing to LIE and LIE AGAIN and is willing to use all the tricks that are currently being used to overwhelm our national political conversation. You could opt for other tactics but you don’t because they require too much work and too much brains. Well, at some point there is going to be a calling to account. For now, it’s these little calling to accounts when you get caught out in lies.

            I’m not a Commi, not a Muslim, not a Muslim collaborator, not a Muslim sympathizer, I don’t sleep w/Muslims, I don’t suck Pres. Obama’s duck, I don’t play nice w/LIARS and PROPAGANDISTS. That’s about it for what it is I don’t do. My agenda consists of larger issues than you and your narcissistic militaristic self-importance and it certainly doesn’t revolve around the most simplistic jingoism that can be presented by either side.

          • Americana

            Hahahahah, again you two keep reverting to throwing out these labels and sexual putdowns as if they’re powerful tools in the arsenal of the intellectual! You’re not going to put me off my game w/your stupid labels.

            You CAN put me off my game if you up your game and you actually write sensible, provocative posts w/depth of factual content and an analysis of CONTEXT that blows my posts off the BB. However, I haven’t seen any signs that you’re interested in doing that.

            You, Dreadnought, have YET TO RESPOND to hieronymous’ requests for additional details on those radio transmissions. Let’s get the lead out and you answer those questions, pronto.

          • truebearing

            Every stupid theory you have repeated is based on lies or incorrect assumptions. Nothing Hiero wrote changed any of that. In fact, he basically told you you are full of sh*t on your idiotic Joint Chiefs theory. you are too obtuse and too deluded to understand.

          • truebearing

            In your delusional world you always win because you are several cards short of a full deck.

          • Americana

            You, on the other hand, are NEVER SHORT OF DRECK.

          • hiernonymous

            “…because you certainly can’t bark with the big dogs.”

            I thought you were a contractor.

          • Drakken

            I am a contractor.

          • Drakken

            Well chatterbox commi, listen to the folks that were on the ground, there is written testimony for that you know right? From the military folks that were going to be deployed to Libya and the folks in Tripoli who were waiting for permission to go to Benghazi. I would highly recommend to read it. So before you call me a liar, you really should know what your bloody talking about first before you go running that suck of yours.

          • Americana

            That’s right. All that information was common knowledge almost instantly. Why? Because that’s the way disasters and gossip work whether it’s a military disaster or civilian. It doesn’t take any great shakes insight or insider knowledge to recognize that. Where we run into issues w/your claim of overheaing the ACTUAL BENGHAZI STAND DOWN orders and chatter is that you claimed they occurred in clear channel. No encryption, NADA, just blasted off into the stratosphere for anyone to hear including the enemy.

            I think it’s essential for you to explain and answer all the questions hieronymous posed to you so we FULLY understand your comms interaction that night.

          • hiernonymous

            Here’s how a professional handles classified and NDA information: he just doesn’t talk about it.

            If you have information to support your claim, provide it. If you don’t, you don’t have a claim.

            And, by the way, a FAST team actually did deploy to Libya in response to the Benghazi attack. It was on the ground in Tripoli 12 Sep.

            Flight time from Rota to Benghazi is about 3 hours. That’s about 2 and a quarter hours too slow to have helped the Ambassador, and that’s assuming that your FAST team was in a fueled bird warmed up on the strip. The actual rescue force from Tripoli proved up to the task and arrived much more quickly.

          • Drakken

            Too many people standing around waiting for orders to be given and permission granted. In the end a General was temporally relieved by his 2nd, and an Admiral relieved on the spot. It doesn’t take long to get a bird ready to go. In the end, it is was a complete clusterf**k that could have been avoided and a cover up unnecessary. It is a very common theme with this administration.

          • hiernonymous

            “In the end a General was temporally relieved by his 2nd, and an Admiral relieved on the spot.”

            Whom, and whom?

        • Paula

          The Lying King Blames Everything and Everybody for his Failures Did anybody Hear Bush Blame Pelosi and the Democratic Congress or Barney Frank / Chris Dodd / Maxine Waters ( in charge of Fannie & Freddie Mae not trying too stop the the Housing Bubble and financial disaster) ??

          • Americana

            God almighty, but the whack a mole string of falsehoods simply doesn’t quit in here! The Housing Bubble and the Financial Crisis was like trying to stop a juggernaut. It simply wouldn’t have happened because there were soooo many who didn’t want to be left standing without a chair when the round stopped.

          • truebearing

            That isn’t a falsehood, liar. Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie but Barney frank and the Left in Congress blocked it. In fact, curiously enough, leftists like Rahm Emanuel were running — and fleecing — Fannie and Freddie for many years. Leftists developed Mortgage backed securities and they were also responsible to the revised CRA which FORCED banks to give sub-prime loans to minorities who had no money to make their payments. Barack Obama gave legal advice to ACORN — in Chicago — when the concept was first tested on banks there.

            “Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

            As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.”

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/#ixzz33bWkR2nO

            You’re the mole that needs to be whacked.

          • iluvisrael

            maybe you can enlighten us and tell us how our country and the world are safer and better off since obama began occupying the WH

          • truebearing

            She can’t. She is an hysterical troll that specializes in babbling and repeating herself.

          • Americana

            I never claimed the United States and the world are safer and better off since Pres. Obama took the White House so don’t go putting words in my mouth. I’m quite honest about the pros and cons of Pres. Obama’s tenure in the White House. I’ve always maintained that we will not be safer until we’ve solved the Palestinian jihad. That is the jihad that is our main problem. It’s NOT the Indonesian jihad or the Boko Haram or the Tamil Tigers or any of the others. We may be facing specific business and security threats around the world and at oil facilities in various regions round the world and shipping lines are being targeted for piracy, but those are specific threats that aren’t directed at the mainland United States. Those aren’t our biggest national security threat even if they have national security implications. Should I go on?

          • Drakken

            Want to solve the pali problem now do you? Simple, no more pali muslims, no more problems. There you go, all fixed.

          • Texas Patriot

            A: I’ve always maintained that we will not be safer until we’ve solved the Palestinian jihad. That is the jihad that is our main problem. It’s NOT the Indonesian jihad or the Boko Haram or the Tamil Tigers or any of the others. We may be facing specific business and security threats around the world and at oil facilities in various regions round the world and shipping lines are being targeted for piracy, but those are specific threats that aren’t directed at the mainland United States.

            That’s the first thing you’ve said that I really disagree with in a significant way. There are a lot of posters on this board who are trapped in the neoconservative mindset and can’t see that our foreign policy over the last sixty years, particularly our role as self-appointed “global policeman”, has been an absolute disaster for the United States of America. However, one thing that a majority of the posters here do see is that the problem of “Palestinian jihad” is part and parcel of a global Islamic jihad that has been steadily growing in strength and intensity since the jihadist attacks on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. The fundamental error of our foreign policy since the attacks on Washington and New York on September 11, 2001 is the widespread belief that Islam is a “religion of peace”. Unfortunately, not even Muslims think that.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eoHMicqnz8&feature=kp

          • Americana

            Don’t misunderstand me, Texas Patriot. I do believe there are ongoing jihads around the world. But the jihad that the U.S. is facing here on the mainland U.S. is that coming from the Palestinians for the most part. (This is true even if we have Balkan-American Muslims like the Tsarnaev brothers committing the Boston Marathon bombing. Tamerlan Tsarnaev would have gone to wage jihad in Palestine but he wimped out because of the LANGUAGE BARRIER!) There are other regional jihads that will sometimes catch American citizens or American business interests in their claws either by attacking Nigerian oil facilities or piracy of oil tankers or through mass bombings or other types of attacks all around the world, but those are not what the attacks here in the mainland U.S. are meant to achieve. Those are a different thing entirely. Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 manifesto specifically said the 9/11 attacks were being undertaken on behalf of the Palestinians. I would even suggest that the fact the Palestinian jihad has lingered and lingered and lingered and it advertises its horrific accomplishments throughout the world and that it asks all Muslims to contribute to the cause, that it has served to inspire other jihads. To me, it’s very much a chicken or an egg question.

            Is that meant to let Islam and Muslims off the hook for what they have done and are doing in the name of their religion? Certainly not. The cruelty and barbarity and loathsome behaviour that is being exhibited by the worst Muslim atrocities is simply unconscionable. But what about the atrocities waged against the Muslims? Unfortunately, once a nation has begun to split along religious and ethnic lines and atrocities have begun to be used as political tools, there’s rarely any way to stop the vicious internecine fighting. Are these Muslim jihads meant to bring the entire non-Muslim world under the control of Islam? Lots of crackpot imams talk big but in reality they’re the Jim Jones of Islam. Would you believe Jim Jones just because he sported a beard and wore a dashiki?

            I’ve never said Islam as a religion doesn’t have massive flaws that need to be reformed. In fact, I’ve championed an Islamic reformation through Muslims who are secularists but, if this reformation should ever happen, it will, of necessity be something that is initiated by Muslims. I don’t believe it’s a religion of peace in the sense that it gives its practitioners theological reasons for uprisings against political and civic life. But these jihads shouldn’t be seen as simply one vast monolithic sociopolitical jihad event AT THIS POINT IN TIME, nor should they be seen in ISOLATION from their geopolitical situations. Most jihads are regional for the most part and they should be solved regionally. This is true even if there are crackpot imams talking BIG about Islamic Caliphates and bringing the whole world to Islam. Lord help us, but we’ve heard enough from crackpot religious freaks to know religion is as much a problem as it is a potential solution. That’s roughly quintupled when it comes to evaluating what imams and muftis and whatever have to say.

          • truebearing

            What a load of pure PC bullsh!t. You are more confused and mentally scrambled than I had imagined.

            “But what about the atrocities waged against Muslims?” Yeah, what about them? Name three atrocities waged against Muslims that weren’t committed by other Muslims.

            BTW, your writing is poor, as usual. I don’t think one “wages” atrocities. One commits atrocities…like the atrocities you commit against common sense and sanity every time you write one of your convoluted screeds.

          • Texas Patriot

            Don’t worry about Americana. She’s got an enormous amount of common sense, and she’s willing to listen to reason. I think she’ll come around in due course and be a great champion of truth and freedom. But you’re making a big mistake if you think you can browbeat her or intimidate her. She’s a fighter if there ever was one. ;-)

          • Texas Patriot

            A:Those are a different thing entirely. Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 manifesto specifically said the 9/11 attacks were being undertaken on behalf of the Palestinians. I would even suggest that the fact the Palestinian jihad has lingered and lingered and lingered and it advertises its horrific accomplishments throughout the world and that it asks all Muslims to contribute to the cause, that it has served to inspire other jihads. To me, it’s very much a chicken or an egg question.

            The reason there has been no peace between Israel and the so-called Palestinians is that is theologically impossible for devout Muslims to agree to give up to non-Muslims any land ever conquered by Muslim armies, and that includes all of Israel and most of Spain. And the idea that Islamic jihad begins and ends with Osama bin Ladin and a few eccentric imams is sadly mistaken.

            The reason OBL chose September 11, 2001 as the date to attack the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC is that September 11, 1683 was the date Muslim armies were defeated at the gates of Vienna and thereby prevented from overrunning the entirety of Europe. And hopefully you didn’t miss the worldwide Muslim chants on September 11, 2012 as our diplomats were being slaughtered in Benghazi:

            Obama, Obama We’re All Osama

            The truth of the matter is that the global phenomenon of Islamic jihad is rooted in the teachings and the history of Muhammad and his followers dating back to the 7th Century, and what may have started as a local problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians is now a bonfire raging out of control in numerous countries around the world, and no one really knows how to put that genie back in the bottle.

          • Americana

            Well, if you’re going to bring up countries like Spain, why is it there is no active Muslim jihad ongoing there in order to recreate the Caliphate that included Spain within its borders? The attack on Madrid’s trains was NOT in aid of a jihad to re-establish the Caliphate over Spain, that was about the presence of coalition troops in Muslim countries. This is what I’m talking about. The logical understanding and separating into its component parts what jihad is and isn’t and what are the current jihadist aims and what aren’t.

            That’s true that theologically it’s not possible for Muslims to relinquish Muslim lands to infidels. However, it’s been true for a long, long time that many traditionally Muslim lands have been other than Muslim theocracies. The fact there has recently been a resurgence of this political expression of Muslim civic theocracy is thanks to the long-running example of the Palestinian jihad building up the Islamist political forces in all sorts of Muslim populations around the world. What I’m saying is that you have to look at the various jihads and analyze their scope and their intentions. Most often, it’s very clear where they begin and stop. Despite all the chatter about worldwide domination, you won’t find Muslim governments hoping that’s the case.

          • Texas Patriot

            I’m nominating you for Newcomer of the Year, and by the end of this current year, 2014, I hope you prove to be the champion of truth and freedom I think you are. Someone has to be the Western Joan of Arc against the combined forces of Islamic jihad, and it might as well be you. I’ve never seen a stronger presence of righteous fight in anyone, man or woman, and once you grasp the full implications of what we’re up against, I don’t see you backing down under any circumstances.

          • truebearing

            So here we go with your idiotic blanket labeling of everyone smarter than you as “neoconservative.”

            At least you figured out Americana is a closet anti-semite and a leftist fool.

          • Texas Patriot

            I used to think you were a lot like Rush Limbaugh, but you’re really much more like Archie Bunker.

        • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

          No sir, the real beef is that the man is a complete and utter FRAUD. He rose to power via fraudulent documents, he should be pounding rocks in Leavenworth with the jihadist he just rescued.

          • Americana

            No, he DIDN’T. His documents are JUST FINE and DANDY AMERICAN DOCUMENTS. Even the Republican National Committee has finally said to put this lie to rest about his nationality as have NUMEROUS Republicans like Mitt Romney and John McCain.

          • truebearing

            No, they aren’t. His COLA is a fraudulent document.

          • Americana

            Just wondering if you’re going to have the balls to let Drakken know that he’s a complete and utter FRAUD. He rose to BB power via fraudulent claims, he should be pounding the books in Leavenworth with the world’s historians adding to his book pile each and every day alongside the jihadist he just denigrated.

          • Drakken

            I would really love for you to come on out to the sandbox and try my little commi friend. It would be a very short conversation.
            Your a commi/lefty with an agenda that just loves to troll and sh*tstir the pot. The only fraud here is you. Muzzy lover.

        • truebearing

          You, of all people, have no standing in criticizing the vocabulary of others. Most of your posts are an exercize in grandiloquence, non sequiturs, and hysteria.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            HERsteria.

          • Americana

            http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=joint+chiefs+take+blame+for+benghazi&tags=&tags=&tags=&issues=&from=MM%2FDD%2FYYYY&to=MM%2FDD%2FYYYY

            Hahahaha, you dumb bunny, there isn’t one story on Media Matters that is precisely the content I posted about the Benghazi incident. You’d make far better presentations if you tried for something OTHER THAN grandiloquence, sequiturs and non-cogito ergo sum recto. I let my hysteria rip only when you’ve given me adequate reason to laugh uproariously at what you’ve posted.

          • truebearing

            You utter moron. A link to Media Matters proves only the lies they are openly pushing. Anyone who knows anything about them also knows they aren’t what anyone could call transparent. And even if you got your talking points from some other leftist lie mill, the fact is that you keep repeating the exact same lies and can’t counter legitimate arguments that refute your stupidity. That is classic troll behavior.

            Your hysteria begins whenever you are pressed on your lies and can’t come up with anything else. You kick, scream, and wet your pants, hoping a tantrum will somehow save you.

          • Americana

            Well, it certainly won’t help you for me to post links to foreign relations sites that you cannot access as a member of the general public now, would it? Therefore I’ve got the public choices amongst which to choose like regular news sites, journalism moderating sites and statistical sites, etc. Choosing to quote from advocacy “news” sites is a totally inaccurate means of conveying news content since their information is oftentimes so suspect, you’d have to be too selective in your use of their material.

          • Drakken

            When all else fails, rinse and repeat, silly progressive.

        • Jakareh

          A characteristic of liberals is that you’re too stupid to realize how stupid you are. Here’s an example:

          “The whole issue over this current fury viz Pres. Obama is NOT Sgt. Bergdahl’s release, but rather that Pres. Obama is no longer willing to wait on Congress to act and that aspects of his job that require Congressional approval can be done instead via executive power if he deems it necessary.”

          If it requires Congressional approval, by definition, he cannot do it by executive order. The president of the United States has a duty to obey the law, just as any ordinary citizen, and it is your lack of education and rationality that prevents you from seeing that.

          As for the contention that by getting Bergdahl back we are shutting an “information source”, that’s some of the most ridiculous spin I’ve yet to hear. There is no way the sniveling little traitor has been holding out on his Taliban daddies all this time. More than likely, he told everything he knew on the day he deserted to become their bacha bereesh. (Wonder if that was in his Rosetta Stone lessons.)

          • Americana

            If his lawyers can find ways that allow Pres. Obama more latitude around Congress via an interpretation of executive privilege, then he’s going to attempt to use it. I haven’t yet read a story about whether or not he sought to find a legal rationale for his use of executive privilege in the Bergdahl case but I’m assuming they did so because the President and his team would know that its use would be challenged in such a controversial prisoner exchange. That’s my only point, that if he did use EP, he did it under the astute guidance of lawyers. Certainly my lack of education on how they arrived at their plan of attack on this is lacking because I haven’t sought out the answers yet, but I’m sure they’re to be found somewhere.

            You’re welcome to consider it stupid that I believe Sgt. Bergdahl would still have had insights into American military strategy that would be valuable to the Taliban holding him even though he’s been held for so long. The Taliban are not regular forces and because they’re not, they may need frequent discussions on American military strategy. Besides, we don’t have a clue how much English his captors had or if they had a translator available to help pick his brains. Lots of factors could have played a part in how Sgt. Bergdahl parsed out his knowledge of American strategy…. We’ll know some of this soon enough so why sweat over this?

          • Jakareh

            “We’ll know some of this soon enough so why sweat over this?”

            Why sweat over any question of right and wrong? Besides, all right-thinking citizens have absolute confidence the Obama regime and its “astute” lawyers will be entirely forthright, regardless of political consequences.

          • Americana

            Astute lawyers on both sides will argue. The most astute lawyers win. Unless you’re an advocate of the “Kill all the lawyers” trope, you’ll let the legal eagles work their magic.

            You mistake my saying we’ll know more soon enough as if I’ve advocating passivity and that’s simply not true.

        • J.B.

          Trollfail. Bergdahl is a deserter, collabotator and traitor who told the Taliban all about his base camp over five years ago. He is worse than worthless and Obama Bin Laden used him as a pretext to begin liberating ALL the terrorists from Club Gitmo. He doesn’t bypass Congress with illegal decrees to avoid gridlock. He does it to bypass due process and the will of the people. He was a complete failure as a community organizer, and the last thing America needs is a community organizer (socialist demagogue) in charge of its shrinking economy, military and global status.

          Even by trolltarded standards you are an unbelievable twit. Good luck convincing anybody of anything with your idiotic excuses for the Anointed One.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The taliban pigs are back home.

      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        Just admit that “sendtheclunkerbacktochicago” has been right all along, this President is a FRAUD from top to bottom. What is it going to take for all of you to realize just how dangerous it is to have the largest sleeper cell in the country being protected by the Secret Service at 1600 Penn Ave.?

    • Americana

      You don’t see ANY differences between Benghazi and Bergdahl? Really?? Not a single difference?? First difference, Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith were dead within the first two hours. There was NO TIME to rescue them. Second, if the desertion and collaboration charges prove to be true, then it was essential for the government to get Sgt. Bergdahl back for two reasons, to stop the bomb making lessons and remove the intelligence and propaganda potential Bergdahl may have for the Taliban.

      I’ll be interested in what the American military intelligence people discover about Sgt. Bergdahl. If this Sgt. could have felt that our presence was pointless and immoral after a period of time then how many more American soldiers are at risk for feeling the same and doing the same? It’s essential to figure out what Bergdahl did for himself and what he did for the Taliban. Where the U.S. Army goes from there is anybody’s guess.

      • Bklyn Farmer

        Don’t forget this difference Americana:

        At least 6 and very likely 15 US soldiers have been killed in missions with the sole goal of getting back Sgt. Bergdahl.

        • Americana

          Oh, I’m not forgetting how many other Americans died in attempts to rescue Sgt. Bergdahl. Hopefully, during his debriefing interrogations, Sgt. Bergdahl will be given ample evidence to reflect on what he did to his fellow Americans. I hope the guy is shown pictures of the dead Americans he helped cause. it will be interesting if the military intelligence folks see any evidence of remorse on Bergdahl’s part during these interrogations. I hope we’ll discover that the government retained the legal right to prosecute Bergdahl for desertion and collaboration if he committed those offenses.

          • Dr. Johnson

            I don’t think there’s any question Bergdahl and his father are jihadists.

          • Americana

            Not wishing to be part of the American armed forces in a fight like the one in Afghanistan and being a jihadist are two different things. We don’t yet know what role Sgt. Bergdahl played in his time w/the Taliban. Nor do we have the right to say anything about his father’s attempt to secure his son’s freedom by converting to Islam.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            “father’s attempt to secure his son’s freedom by converting to Islam” based on?

          • Americana

            Common sense. If you aren’t a Muslim when your son goes off to war, then your son is captured and, a year later, after many entreaties to the Taliban to release your son have failed you convert to Islam, I’d say there’s a good chance you converted in order to help secure your son’s release, not just that you were interested in the Qu’ran.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            So when the evidence is damning concerning Bergdahl and the foolishness of the release of the 5 Talban you suggest we put away common sense and wait until findings of some committee come out; but the motivating factor of Bob’s father can readily be ascertained with a bit of imagination.

          • Americana

            I’m not going to argue past a certain point w/a fellow farmer. I believe his father only took that step as an attempt to aid in the recovery of his son. What they do from here on out I’m sure will be the purview of the FBI and the Dept. of Homeland Security.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            I believe that a judgment should be based on all available evidence as it exist at the time and that all the evidence both pro and con needs to be held to the SAME standard and not weighted by convenience.

          • Americana

            I would agree, Bklyn Farmer. People tend to write in absolutes though and they don’t ever hold their pronouncements to any standard.

          • Drakken

            Thy doth protest to much.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The father saying an islamist prayer in ARABIC reveals his loyalties.

            His deserter son belongs in Gitmo or Levenworth.

          • Drakken

            Get a rope, that is what a traitor and deserter deserves.

          • truebearing

            The only “farming” you know how to do is cultivate lies. Or do you breed Trolls on your farm?

            What a joke.

          • Americana

            The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

          • truebearing

            Keep posting the same thing. It is as good as admitting you can’t honestly or intelligently answer my replies.

          • Americana

            Intellectual strut mutt. See above. You present about as much infotainment as it’s possible for a political web site to produce.

          • truebearing

            “Intellectual strut mutt?” That is the best you can do? You sound like a 12 year old girl.

            I know. Try repeating your drivel about the Joint Chiefs again. What else can you do? You’re melting down, yet again.

          • Drakken

            Oh look, you repeated yourself in the vain attempt to prove what you say is true, complete utter drivel and stupidity, thanks progressive, you have just proved that you are educated beyond your capability.

          • truebearing

            Moronic theory. He was a Muslim before his son deserted. Any other stupid opinions you want to share?

          • Americana

            Obviously, Robert Bergdahl WASN’T A MUSLIM before hie son deserted. Care to recant your stupidity? Here’s why:

            In a video produced by the Guardian’s Sean Smith, Mr Bergdahl described how he was “trying to learn a little Pashto so I can speak to people, I’m trying to write and read the language”.

            “I probably spend four hours a day reading on the region, on the history,” he said. “I’m working to get Bowe home… I do research and it all comes together somehow, domestic policy, foreign policy, Afghanistan. This has been an education.”

            US President Barack Obama (C), with the parents of US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Jani Bergdahl (L) and Bob BergdahlSpeaking to the Washington Post, Mr Bergdahl’s former pastor Bob Henley said that the father had been “very cognisant of the possibility” that he might be accused of succumbing to some form of captive-bonding Stockholm syndrome.

            But he said Mr Bergdahl had assured friends he just wanted to understand his son’s captors and do everything he could to secure his release, adding: “I guess you really had to be in his shoes.”

          • Drakken

            You and common sense in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Your intellectual and educational experience finds you seriously flawed and beyond ignorant. There is no fixing stupid, not even with duct tape.

          • truebearing

            I’d like to try a few things with that duct tape. I bet I could at least end her obsessive-compulsive commenting.

          • hiernonymous

            I’d like to try a few things with that duct tape. I bet I could at least end her obsessive-compulsive commenting.

            You seriously need to get a grip.

          • Drakken

            Oh come on H, have a little fun with the liberal little darling, she just makes it so easy. Besides, duct tape is the fix all of every broken and shot thing.

          • Americana

            If hieronymous is named after Harry Bosch, the super cop of Michael Connelly’s books, he’s unlikely to sympathize w/you because he sees I’m all about the facts. If he’s named after Hieronymous Bosch, the painter of mankind’s worst nightmares, then he’s unlikely to sympathize w/you because he’s well aware just how absurd I consider the world’s present circumstances viz Islamic jihads.

          • Drakken

            You go ahead and hug a jihadist, I’ll grab a bourbon and watch. ;)

          • Americana

            Mr. hieronymous is likely not interested in any kind of hug, group or otherwise. But I bet he’s laughing at you trying to shame him into not conversing w/me by saying I’m a jihadist. Unreal that the descriptions and labels people choose to slap on people here leave no room for grey.

          • Drakken

            Please by all means tell the rest of us how you would solve the pali jihadist problem, enquiring minds want to know.

          • Americana

            No, thanks, not in this thread. It’s already heated and multi-faceted as it is. Besides, it’s obvious from your post and another post on the same issue that this is a firing squad and I’m not stupid enough to walk into the line of fire.

          • J.B.

            You like to suck the fatties, don’t you?

          • Americana

            Yeah, I’d like to have some fun w/some duct tape. I bet I could make you into a little **mummy’s boy** without hardly lifting a finger. (Like the punny funny?)

          • Americana

            It’s OK, hieronymous, I get it that he’d probably like to bind my feet and hands and set me inside a Chinese courtyard somewhere far, far away from internet BBs and any sources of news and, of course, no foreign service sites. Oh, and he’d probably duct tape my laptop closed as well.;)

          • truebearing

            You need to get a sense of humor. Duct tape is a fine remedy for compulsive lying.

          • Americana

            Please send a few rolls in that case to Drakken. In fact, make that a CASE of duct tape.
            COD, Middle East Sandbox.

          • hiernonymous

            That’s just creepy.

          • Americana

            I bet I could turn you into a decorative little mummy’s boy without even hardly lifting a finger. ;) ;O

          • Americana

            From The Independent, a British newspaper, though if you look more, you’ll find other references to the family’s religious history:

            In a video produced by the Guardian’s Sean Smith, Mr Bergdahl described how he was “trying to learn a little Pashto so I can speak to people, I’m trying to write and read the language”.

            “I probably spend four hours a day reading on the region, on the history,” he said. “I’m working to get Bowe home… I do research and it all comes together somehow, domestic policy, foreign policy, Afghanistan. This has been an education.”

            US President Barack Obama (C), with the parents of US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Jani Bergdahl (L) and Bob BergdahlSpeaking to the Washington Post, Mr Bergdahl’s former pastor Bob Henley said that the father had been “very cognisant of the possibility” that he might be accused of succumbing to some form of captive-bonding Stockholm syndrome.

            But he said Mr Bergdahl had assured friends he just wanted to understand his son’s captors and do everything he could to secure his release, adding: “I guess you really had to be in his shoes.”

          • truebearing

            We have every right to say anything we want, dumba*s. It’s called freedom of speech for a reason.

            His father is a Muslim, and so is Bergdahl. His father ordered him to “follow your conscience” right before he deserted and right after reading his worthless son’s disparagement of the United States, the US military, and his fellow soldiers. His father’s meaning is crystal clear. he was encouraging his nitwit son to desert and aid the enemy.

          • Drakken

            As a former Marine, your GODDAMN right I have every right to question what this family was doing supporting and defending Islamic jihad, effing libtard. If you had been in the military you would know this dumbazz.

          • truebearing

            She couldn’t make it through basic, or any psych evaluation.

          • Drakken

            You were completely right, she is a commi/leftist with a serious agenda, I should have seen it sooner.

          • Americana

            Well, of course, you’ve got the freedom to sound like dumbazzes, but you could sound a lot more informed if you actually kept track of things like when the son converted to Islam (after he’d deserted) father Bergdahl converted to Islam (after his son’s desertion), when and what he tweeted about his son’s release, and so on. The fact is Sgt. Bergdahl didn’t go to Afghanistan w/the intention of deserting and aiding the enemy. These doubts didn’t occur to him until after he’d been there for some time. So, where did the guilt come from? Did he see lots of drone attacks? Did he lose comrades? Did he see any assassinations of Afghan prisoners as has happened w/other American troops? There have GOT to be reasons behind his choice because reading the Qu’ran sure doesn’t do anything for me as far as upsetting my world view.

          • J.B.

            One islamopithecine traitor was freed so that the five top islamopithecine terrorists on Earth could be freed.

            Obama is a traitor and so are you. And you argue like a child, TROLLTARD.

          • Americana

            This man’s family had/has every right to support their son in his captivity however that captivity came about. The fact Robert Bergdahl encouraged his son to follow his conscience when it was obvious from their written communications that his son’s conscience had reached boiling point w/conflicting experiences can’t be ignored. Bergdahl Sr. wasn’t saying go WAGE JIHAD, for cripes sakes. He was basically saying if you don’t agree w/the American military mission, don’t execute it. I’m waiting to see if we’ll hear more about how long it took for their conversation to evolve to the point were the son ran off post.

          • Americana

            From The Independent, a British newspaper:

            In a video produced by the Guardian’s Sean Smith, Mr Bergdahl described how he was “trying to learn a little Pashto so I can speak to people, I’m trying to write and read the language”.

            “I probably spend four hours a day reading on the region, on the history,” he said. “I’m working to get Bowe home… I do research and it all comes together somehow, domestic policy, foreign policy, Afghanistan. This has been an education.”

            US President Barack Obama (C), with the parents of US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Jani Bergdahl (L) and Bob BergdahlSpeaking to the Washington Post, Mr Bergdahl’s former pastor Bob Henley said that the father had been “very cognisant of the possibility” that he might be accused of succumbing to some form of captive-bonding Stockholm syndrome.

            But he said Mr Bergdahl had assured friends he just wanted to understand his son’s captors and do everything he could to secure his release, adding: “I guess you really had to be in his shoes.”

          • Drakken

            No other American in uniform past or present would have ever gotten into that deserters shoes in the first place. Ya might want to read up on what the Brad Thor has to say.

      • J.B.

        Obama has aided terrorists in both the Bengazi and Bergdahl scandals. No difference. Just like there is no difference between you and a steaming pile.

        Ambassador Stevens was not murdered in the first two hours of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack and he could have been rescued within forty five minutes. The attack would have been repelled within minutes if the security he requested had been given.

        TROLLFAIL.

        • Americana

          You’re not correct. In fact, none of your points are correct. Off to get a timeline. There were no reinforcements within reasonable distance. Amb. Stevens was dead by 11 p.m. Benghazi time. The attack started at approximately 8:45 p.m. Benghazi time.

          Amb. Stevens had been told NOT to go to Benghazi twice. He went anyway. If the deployment of the Rapid Response Forces through the Middle East were adequate to meet the Benghazi disaster, the Joint Chiefs would not have admitted their RRF deployment was at fault nor would they have increased the numbers in the RRF and increased their deployment locations and capacity.

          • truebearing

            Bullsh*t. Hillary sent him, but now can claim she didn’t because Stevens is dead. The consulate in Benghazi wasn’t up to security code for embassy buildings, which made surviving in it a short term affair. if Hillary had done her job, that building would never have been used. To compound the problem, hillary hired islamosts to “guard” Stevens, instead of American security forces. They either ran when the raid began, or joined in. All of the evidence showed that inside information aided the attackers. Hillary’s fault, yet again.

            The Rapid Response capabilities were perfectly adequate, but Obama and Hillary made sure they weren’t available, even though it was the anniversary of 9/11 and there had been violent activity from Islamists in other parts of the world and Beghazi leading up to the Whitehouse aided attack on Benghazi.

            The Joint Chiefs are Obama’s minions, you moron. If he, as CIC, tells them what to say, they say it. Their RR excuse is pure toro caca, as are all of your mealy-mouthed apologetics.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            truebearing AKBAR!

          • Americana

            The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

          • J.B.

            Lying doesn’t prove anything but your scumminess, trolltard.

            TROLLFAIL.

          • J.B.

            All lies. Weak lefty lies.

            Stevens didn’t get the security he requested. The jet fighter squads in Tripoli and Sardinia were ordered down, even though they were less than 45 minutrs away.

            Your lies are weak, Trolltard. Let go of your ankles.

          • Americana

            Please, let’s get it straight who’s lying on this thread and the magnitude of those lies. Drakken has lied about hearing the radio comms on the night of the Benghazi debacle. That doesn’t matter to you? That’s a HUGE LIE in the factual scheme of things. That’s a lie that was meant to be the THREAD KILLER END-OF-DAYS comment but instead it’s proven to be the millstone around Drakken’s neck.

            But you troll la la along, troll la la along, as if you and your middle finger have a whole helluva lot to say that makes sense. Weak lefty lies? Hardly. If you had any balls, you’d challenge Drakken on his patently FALSE lies. He’s already gone back and edited some of his posts given the reality that I picked up on the LIE and then hieronymous asked him telltale questions that would confirm that he’d lied. Carry on ignoring that uncomfortable, discrediting truth though because labeling me is the whole point of advocacy web sites where people don’t look any deeper than the floating turds to which you’re told to pay attention.

          • Americana

            Here’s a timeline for you since you seem to be unclear about the time from the first firing until the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith.

            9:40 p.m. FIRING BEGINS/ 10:30 p.m.-11 p.m. DEATHS of Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith

            (CNN) — September 11, 2012, in America was a day of solemn remembrance. In Libya, it was a day of violence that ended with four Americans killed, starting a debate over whether the Obama administration should have better protected them and whether it tried to cover its tracks after the debacle.

            Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi that day to meet with officials over the hunt for ousted dictator Moammar Ghadafi’s weapons stockpiles and to open a cultural center. Here is how events played out that day (all times local):

            9:40 p.m.: Gunfire is heard outside the Benghazi diplomatic mission, then a loud explosion. Dozens of armed militiamen charge the main gate and set fire to a barracks building as they make for the ambassador’s residence.

            10 p.m.: Attackers breach the mission walls and make for the ambassador’s residence. Stevens and information officer Sean Smith run to a safe room with one security agent.

            An alert is sent to the CIA security team at an annex about a mile away, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Stevens calls deputy mission chief Gregory Hicks at the embassy and tells him, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

            10:30 p.m.: Stevens and Smith have taken refuge behind a fortified door with heavy metal bars that keeps the attackers from breaking in, but they set fire to the villa with diesel fuel. Within minutes, Stevens and Smith are overwhelmed by smoke.

            At about the same time, six U.S. security agents leave the CIA annex for the main building. They and 16 Libyan security guards regain control over the compound and start searching for Stevens and Smith.

            Shortly after 11 p.m.: A U.S. surveillance drone arrives over Benghazi. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey meet with President Barack Obama.

            12:07 a.m., September 12: The State Department sends an e-mail to the White House, the Pentagon and the FBI indicating the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the attack.

            Issa demands more State Department documents on Benghazi

            1:15 a.m.: A rescue team from Tripoli arrives in Benghazi. About 30 Americans have been rescued from the consulate building and are holed up with the Stevens at the CIA annex.

            2 a.m.: Hicks informs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that they need to evacuate all Americans from Benghazi. At about the same time, an eyewitness captures on video Stevens being pulled from the smoke-filled building.

            4 a.m.: The attackers launch a full-on assault against the annex, dropping mortars on the roof. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are killed in the attack.

            10 a.m.: The bodies of Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods are put on the last plane out of Benghazi.

            Lawmakers press FBI on Benghazi

        • Americana

          Here’s an official timeline. Please NOTE that the times are actual BENGHAZI TIME. I mention that because I know that some people have looked at timelines w/EST as their stated times and have consequently misunderstand what the actual ELAPSED time was for each event.

          1st GUNFIRE: 9:40 p.m./ DEATHS (Stevens/Smith): 11 p.m.
          _____________________________________________________

          (CNN) — September 11, 2012, in America was a day of solemn remembrance. In Libya, it was a day of violence that ended with four Americans killed, starting a debate over whether the Obama administration should have better protected them and whether it tried to cover its tracks after the debacle.

          Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi that day to meet with officials over the hunt for ousted dictator Moammar Ghadafi’s weapons stockpiles and to open a cultural center. Here is how events played out that day (all times local):

          9:40 p.m.: Gunfire is heard outside the Benghazi diplomatic mission, then a loud explosion. Dozens of armed militiamen charge the main gate and set fire to a barracks building as they make for the ambassador’s residence.

          10 p.m.: Attackers breach the mission walls and make for the ambassador’s residence. Stevens and information officer Sean Smith run to a safe room with one security agent.

          An alert is sent to the CIA security team at an annex about a mile away, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Stevens calls deputy mission chief Gregory Hicks at the embassy and tells him, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

          10:30 p.m.: Stevens and Smith have taken refuge behind a fortified door with heavy metal bars that keeps the attackers from breaking in, but they set fire to the villa with diesel fuel. Within minutes, Stevens and Smith are overwhelmed by smoke.

          At about the same time, six U.S. security agents leave the CIA annex for the main building. They and 16 Libyan security guards regain control over the compound and start searching for Stevens and Smith.

          Shortly after 11 p.m.: A U.S. surveillance drone arrives over Benghazi. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey meet with President Barack Obama.

          12:07 a.m., September 12: The State Department sends an e-mail to the White House, the Pentagon and the FBI indicating the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the attack.

          Issa demands more State Department documents on Benghazi

          1:15 a.m.: A rescue team from Tripoli arrives in Benghazi. About 30 Americans have been rescued from the consulate building and are holed up with the Stevens at the CIA annex.

          2 a.m.: Hicks informs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that they need to evacuate all Americans from Benghazi. At about the same time, an eyewitness captures on video Stevens being pulled from the smoke-filled building.

          4 a.m.: The attackers launch a full-on assault against the annex, dropping mortars on the roof. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are killed in the attack.

          10 a.m.: The bodies of Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods are put on the last plane out of Benghazi.

          Lawmakers press FBI on Benghazi

    • J.B.

      Obama Bin Laden just turned six islamic prisoners into six islamic terrorists. This is his beginning. He plans on freeing every last terrorist in Gitmo.

      Watch and learn.

    • Americana

      Obviously, the Joint Chiefs who made the strategic decisions that LED TO Benghazi as well as made the REVISED STRATEGIC DECISIONS that will supposedly help to prevent any OTHER BENGHAZIS, are given no recognition as being the military think tank responsible for the Benghazi deaths. How strange this foreign policy world is on the internet!$#!$#!$! It’s like watching grade school kids trying to write a foreign policy paper…

      • Drakken

        It is obvious you know nothing about foreign or military policy and it shows your ignorance. Frankly you couldn’t write a foreign policy paper if your bloody life depended upon it. At least a simple grade school kid can understand simple concepts unlike you who believe everything spoon fed to you by this administration, like a good progressive sycophant.

    • Americana

      Exactly what do a good many not understand about Benghazi? That is not the President making those minute by minute tactical decisions, those are the purview of the Joint Chiefs.

      The Joint Chiefs created the opportunity for Benghazi to happen by failing to correctly deploy the Rapid Response Forces in the region. They have since admitted their error and have totally revised the TOTAL NUMBER of RRF troops as well as their deployment locations.

      • truebearing

        Loke a dutiful little troll, you keep regurgitating the Media Matters Jpoint Chiefs excuse. Blame anyone and everyone but Obama and Hillary, where the true fault lies. You’re pathetic.

        • Americana

          Oh, this didn’t come from Media Matters. In fact, I’ll have to go over to Media Matters and see exactly what the MM site has to day about this. This idea about the importance of the LOGISTICS of Benghazi came **from me** the day of the Benghazi attack. It was later confirmed by the Joint Chiefs analyzing the deployments and making their millions of dollars worth of changes to the size of the Rapid Response Forces and their deployment. But, by all means, let yourself go, the little intellectual strut mutt running around in dogged pursuer of self-importance and delusional facts.

          • truebearing

            The only thing I’m pursuing is a lying troll that won’t admit she’s a leftist with an agenda. Get used to it, narcissistic little liar.

    • Americana

      The Joint Chiefs of Staff took responsibility for Benghazi and they admitted their flawed deployments by totally REDESIGNING THE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES. Too bad for everyone who’s saying otherwise, but this is the STRATEGIC REALITY of Benghazi.

      • Drakken

        Do you even understand what the word Strategic means? Oh by the way, your repeating yourself.

    • Americana

      The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

      • truebearing

        More Media Matters regurgitation points. All lies, naturally. The Joint Chiefs are not the Commander-In-Chief, nor are they responsible for embassy security. Obama and Hillary are responsible for ALL of the decisions that led to Benghazi, including their decision to run weapons to Al Queda, use Stevens as a gun dealer, send Stevens to Benghazi — a consulate that didn’t meet security requirements, hire islamists as guards for Stevens, or ignore his pleas for more security leading up the to fairly predictable attack on the anniversary of 9/11.

        Furthermore, the Joint Chiefs are subordinate to Obama, so despite your pathetic repitition of the same deception, they were not responsible for anything other than taking orders from Obama.

    • Americana

      Oh, right. Pres. Obama should have personally flown in in an F-16 and done what all Presidents do — supersede the generals on the ground that represent the real military presence in emergency situations requiring military decisions…. Yeah, that’s the ticket! That’s a REAL CAN-DO PREZ!

      • Drakken

        Psssst moron, the military had forces within 3-4 hours of Benghazi and were told to stand down, but nice try at propaganda sunshine.

        • Americana

          The deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Information Office Sean Smith occurred within the first hour and a half of the attack on the diplomatic compound.

          If you look carefully at your watch, you’ll see that there’s a time gap between when the Rapid Response forces would have arrived and when those first Americans died.

          • Drakken

            That may be or not true, but the 2 formers SEALS could have been saved if action had been taken.

      • truebearing

        Obama couldn’t fly a kite. There were no generals on the ground in Benghazi, stupid, and the ones who wanted to send help were told to back off. General Ham for one.

    • Americana

      On the February 18 edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, McCain explained that he was previously opposed to the idea of releasing the five Guantanamo prisoners in peace talks, but that he was now “inclined to support” a proposal that would release the men in exchange for Bergdahl. When Anderson asked for a second time, “if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?” McCain reiterated his support:

      COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.

      MCCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release — Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence- building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.

      [...]

      COOPER: So if there was some — the possibility of some sort of exchange, that’s something you would support?

      MCCAIN: I would support. Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.

      • Drakken

        Keeping repeating yourself, someone actually might believe your libtarded talking points. Hahahahahahaha dumbazz!

      • liz

        So McCain is also an idiot – we knew that already.

  • Mickey Oberman

    No matter how you look at him Obama is bad medicine for everyone.
    Like any poisonous substance he should be neutralized.

  • Ban Liberals

    Piece of garbage SHOULD be sent to Leavenworth for life. Or, maybe shot as a deserter and for collaborating with the enemy during time of war.

    An even bigger piece of garbage traded five savages for him, who WILL return to the battlefield to kill other Americans.

    Perhaps Obama is an even bigger criminal.

  • Tim N

    Well…..It seemed like a good idea at the time.

  • Anamah

    And Obama liberated five of the worst terrorist for this traitor?
    This is an unconceivable betrayal first and a total idiocy!!!
    Only a malignant could make this deal.

  • darnellecheri

    We didn’t “leave a man behind,” he left us.

  • Texas Patriot

    I’m really amazed that American patriots who normally elevate the Constitutional rights of American citizens above all things aren’t prepared to accord an American soldier and POW the presumption of innocence to which he is entitled as a matter of right under well-settled principles of American jurisprudence.

    • emptorpreempted

      Agreed, his execution should certainly be preceded by a fair trial by an impartial jury of his peers. By all means.

      • Texas Patriot

        So the verdict (i.e. truth) doesn’t matter?

        • J.B.

          The truth according to Bergdahl’s hand written manifesto is thst he is a scum sucking tiaitor just like you.

          • Texas Patriot

            Since when does standing up for truth and justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States of America make someone a traitor?

          • reader

            You’re a fraud. A communist sympathizer deflecting, projecting and pretending to be something you’re not. Obama drone – just like Rice is, only confined to the obscurenenss of discussion threads.

          • Texas Patriot

            You can believe whatever you want, but I’m none of those things. Who is Rice? Condoleeza?

          • Rob Hobart

            Yes, you are.

          • Drakken

            Bergdhal didn’t stand up and honor his oath, he violated it.

          • Texas Patriot

            That’s for a court to determine.

    • Minny-Me

      You didn’t follow the story years ago did you? He walked off his post, he left his fellow soldiers in harms way, the enemy knew so much more after he left, many were killed or wounded because of the secrets he divulged. Soldiers died looking for him, tell the dead soldiers’ families what a straight-up American this deserter and his father are.

      • Texas Patriot

        So he’s not entitled to a presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? As I understand it there are many unresolved questions regarding the circumstances of his disappearance. If sufficient evidence exists, he should be charged with treason and face a court-martial. If he’s guilty, he should be punished in accordance with the law. What’s the point of a war on terrorism if it’s not about protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens?

        • Minny-Me

          Nothing whatsoever will happen to this guy. Are you equally concerned for the Marine being held in Mexico?

          • Texas Patriot

            Has he been charged with treason?

          • J.B.

            Irrelevant comment, trolltard.

        • tryingtopickaname

          “a Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.” This official said that the evidence that Bergdahl had deserted was “incontrovertible.”

          He SHOULD be brought up on charges…but…the latest news is an exercise in absurdity:he is being promoted to sergeant.

        • J.B.

          How do you conduct a war on terrorism and protect the rights of citizens by freeing the five worst islamopithecine terrorists in captivity in exchange for the worst American traitor in captivity?

          Scumsucking trolltard

    • reader

      Oh, yes. Your “patriot’s” list – as we already know – includes Obama’s grandpa, a known communist sympathizer, and a suspected deserter – according to his unit’s servicemen – Bergdahl. What’s the criteria? Ties to Obama? How do you feel about Bill Ayers? Or Lynn Stewart?

      • Texas Patriot

        Obviously you could care less about the United States Constitution, or due process of law, or truth. So why should anyone care what you think? Again, what is your nationality?

        • reader

          My nationality is American, actually. But, of course, people caring about the Constitution the most are
          you, Obama, the Bergdahls, Bill Ayers and Lynn Stewart. I’m sure, everybody here will buy this.

          • Texas Patriot

            Who’s side are you on? If you really are an American citizen, you should care about the Constitution as well. The right to due process of law and justice in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States of America is what this conflict is all about. It’s our enemies who don’t believe in individual freedom, human rights and constitutional democracy.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOAejq0T8Og

          • reader

            First of all, prosoner exchange has nothing to do with the Constitution. Secondly, Taliban are terrorists and not POW. Thirdly, Bergdahl is a suspected deserter and should be handed over to a military Tribunal – to get his due process. Forthly, you are a fraud. Because, if you were not, you’d be very upset that several American patriots were killed in an effort to find Bergdahl upon him abandoning his military post. Fifthly, Obama has violated the Constitution by not notifying Congress about pending exchange.

          • Texas Patriot

            I don’t believe that “getting upset” accomplishes very much. I’m much more interested in justice under the law and winning wars.

          • reader

            I vividly remember you’re being upset about Obama’s grandpa being outed as a commie in Kengor’s book, so I have a pretty good idea about what you’re interested in. You’re fall right into the group of Alinkyites, who, in Horowitz’s words “will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want.”

          • Americana

            I agree w/your perspective, Texas Patriot, about following through on the legalities of Sgt. Bergdahl’s situation. Ignore the hassling and know that this name-calling is the easiest thing for the die-hards to do if someone disagrees w/them. They feel if they throw enough labels at someone, there’s a chance one or more will stick. It’s SOP and it’s SNOT.

            You might luck out like me and have Drakken come out claiming he “heard the ‘Stand Down’ order in Benghazi over a clear radio channel” w/his VERY OWN EARS because he was “in the vicinity” only to then be proven wrong and dishonest by another poster w/a military background who said that’s not how the comms would have worked in that attack.

          • Texas Patriot

            Drakken reminds me a little bit of Sgt. Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes. He’d be much more effective if he drank less Bourbon.

          • Americana

            I wish I could believe that was a Sgt. Schultz moment on Drakken’s part. No, that was more like a classic propaganda move from the early 60s where someone makes a move out of braggadocio and desperation to make himself out to be the final arbiter of the truth of the situation. What else could be more undeniable than an EAR-WITNESS ACCOUNT of the ‘Stand Down’ orders right as they’re being given in real time there in Benghazi?

          • Texas Patriot

            I have a lot of sympathy for a guy like Drak, and I think there are a lot of others on this board more or less in the same boat. Beginning with the Korean War, and continuing with Vietnam, Iraq Wars I and II, and Afghanistan, we’ve had basically four generations of Americans who have been sent off to fight and die on foreign battlefields (a) without a declaration of war; (b) under circumstances where the national security of the United States was not at risk; and (c) without rules of engagement that would allow them to totally vanquish an enemy and win a clear and convincing victory. Instead they’ve been sent into combat as “global policemen” who are supposed to be able to defend the good guys and eliminate the bad guys when, as a practical matter friends and enemies blend together seamlessly in the local population and are virtually indistinguishable.

            As a result, we have 80-year-old veterans of Korea, 60-year-old eterans of Vietnam, 40-year-old veterans of Iraq Wars I and II, and 20-year-old veterans of Afghanistan, and none of them have been allowed to fight and win a war as the 90-year-old veterans of WWII and the 110-year-old of WWI. It’s been the most shameful crime against American fighting men in the entire history of the United States of America. So we get guys like Drakken who are very, very frustrated, and can’t understand it if a guy like Bergdahl goes a little nuts and wants to take a hike and talk with the Taliban.

            Personally, I’m just glad we got the guy back alive, and I hope he lives long enough to write a book, even if he has to do it from the military prison at Fort Leavenworth.

        • Rob Hobart

          Classic troll responses. Move along, cretin.

    • J.B.

      You mean Sgt Tahmooressi, you stinking trolltard?

      • Bklyn Farmer

        Does it seem more than a coincidence that those posters who are pro-Bergdahls are also anti-Tahmooressi, just my observation?

        • Americana

          I don’t feel at all anti-Tahmooressi simply because I pointed out that he crossed into Mexico w/three guns. My statements so far have all been NEUTRAL and meant to indicate simply that the Mexican government has the right to be suspicious in the event of an illegal, armed incursion. It’s also clear to me that no matter what our government does, it’s not necessarily going to expedite his release if we bring more diplomatic pressure to bear. I take it for granted the Mexican police might be doing ballistics tests on his guns and checking in w/cartel sources to figure out if Tahmooressi had any questionable connections. The Mexicans might not wish to release him until they’re satisfied he’s been cleared of all wrongdoing.

    • Rob Hobart

      I’m amazed that you think your silly posts accomplish anything.

  • JVictor

    We are witnessing the core of how Obama views the men and women in our military. He will go to great lengths to bring home a likely deserter like Bergdahl, who arguably aided and abetted the enemy, by freeing 5 of the most terrorism-hardened and American-hating jihadists from Gitmo; but, he will leave a soldier like Tahmooressi, who was looking for help and got lost (in the fog of the military health care as well as on a dusty road in California and Mexico), languishing in the squalor of a Mexican prison. Obama is being true to his stripes.

    • Americana

      If Pres. Obama brought Sgt. Bergdahl home, there are perfectly acceptable reasons for doing so. Those reasons are perfectly in line w/his role of Commander in Chief. He needed to STOP Sgt. Bergdahl from aiding and abetting the enemy if that is the case and he needed to stop the propaganda potential such a prisoner holds for the Taliban.

      Sgt. Tahmooressi was caught in Mexico w/THREE GUNS in his car. Not one, not two, but THREE GUNS in his car. Considering how many Americans are suspected of doing wet work for the cartels, it’s gonna be awhile longer before Sgt. Tahmooressi is released.

      • Bklyn Farmer

        Marine Tahmooressi IMMEDIATELY TOLD MEXICAN AUTHORITIES that he had three guns in his possession, something that thugs working for the cartels are “hesitant” to do.

        • Americana

          An American citizen who’s trying to avoid issues w/the Mexican government would, of course, immediately cop to the fact he’s got the guns in his car.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            May I suggest one modifiaction to you post:
            A law abiding American citizen……………

          • truebearing

            Your attempt to create a false equivalency is stuck down your throat somewhere. I guess you had to crawfish out of that inanity.

      • J.B.

        Bergdahl can aid the enemy (your allies) now that he is free, and guns are legal in Texas, little boy.

        You must have a four inch stiffy knowing that Obama freed the top five islamopithecine terrorists in captivity.

      • truebearing

        Idiotic theory. Bergdahl was in captivity for years. The Taliban has ways of torturing people that would have extracted everything he knew in days, if not hours.

        Obama needed to stop Bergdahl from aiding and abetting by aiding and abetting the enemy himself? Did he also need to violate the law and his presidential oath in the process?

        Stop the propaganda potential? LOL! Obama creates his own. He’s already decided to hand Afghanistan back over to Al Queda’s partners in the 9/11 massacre. How is trading five high level Taliban terrorists for one collaborating deserter going to help anything, other than the terrorists? I can hardly wait for your brilliant reply.

      • Rob Hobart

        So, you’re a pathetic apologist for the indefensible. Got it.

        • Americana

          Nope. I simply won’t stand for the ridiculous lies and misrepresentations that are in evidence in this thread to stand without rebuttals. Look at the post by Drakken about 10 posts up. He claims that relief forces that were 3-4 hours away would have saved the lives of Ambassador Stevens and Informaion Officer Sean Smith, the first two Americans to die in Benghazi and who died within the first hour and a half of the assault on the diplomatic compound. I mean, really, does this guy even own a WATCH??

  • Hard Little Machine

    Obama even lost Chris Matthews on this. When you lose your Ministry of Propaganda you’ve officially crossed into crazy trolling dictatorship territory.

  • RAS

    Obama’s scandals, cover ups, lies, and betrayals read like a dangerous perp’s rap sheet. This man is a national disgrace and does not deserve the title of Commander in Chief. The thing that gets me is why there are still people riding around with Obama bumper stickers on their cars. What does it take to wake them up?

    • Rickster

      So true. How much does it take for the American people to do
      something about this obvious traitor in the White House? From those who died in Benghazi, Tahmooressi languishing in a Mexican prison for a common mistake, Christian Pastor tortured in an Iranian prison, American Vets dying while being ignored by the Administration and the total incompetence of Holder and the Justice Department failing to prosecute obvious criminals, while releasing convicted murderers, thieves and perpetrators of other violent crimes.

      Question:
      Can a President be charged with Treason? Can an Attorney General similarly be charged? I believe many who voted for this Administration were convinced by all the lies, that this was going to be the Administration that was promised, so now that we know the truth, what other steps can the Citizens of this country do to attempt to correct this horrid mistake, and prevent it from ever happening again.

      Good Luck America

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Obama is the “commander in chief” of the Taliban.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    The Kenyan is really painting himself into a corner. If his intent was to cover up
    the VA fiasco with this little “production,” he may find it backfiring like a nuclear device and nothing would be more just and appropriate. Get the rope out fellows. We need to prepare for a hangin’ party. Let him grow his Muslim beard before putting the rope around his neck. He has shown great restraint by shaving every day to keep up the phony front.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      I am disgusted with obama.

      • Bandido

        Why? He’s such an American patriot.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          American? More Taliban patriot.

  • Yadja

    It sickened me no end when Obama said we leave no man behind. Yeh, maybe that should be on the 4 Americans left behind in Benghazi after the others were flown out, grave markers.

    Obama leads from behind and this is our problem, the world’s problem and it is working really well for the terrorists. Or should I say, the “Work Place Violence Bunch.”

    This soldier should have been weeded out long before he left that base. He was a threat to himself and others.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Obama saying “we” leave no man behind – he was referring to his taliban friends in Gitmo.

      • Yadja

        Appears he is always thinking of Muslims. Not a peep from the man when the Copts were being run out of Egypt and their churches burned under the short reign of the terrorist that Obama put into office….Morsi.

        Not a peep when it is Christians anywhere but in Nigeria where child brides are the norm and the practice of kidnapping them is well known, he is all into the fray.

  • The March Hare

    I think we have finally come to a situation that will show who is actually paying attention. Will a significant number of people react? We’ll see.

  • WeroInNM

    Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!
    http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/……
    “Food For Thought”
    Hello: When Are Americans Going To Wake Up?-God Bless America!
    Semper Fi!
    Jake

  • Lanna

    The Andrews family are just one familes who lost a son who was sent to look for Bergdahl, and now we find he is a deserter and may have been conspiring with the Taliban. Even more telling was the meeting the President had with the Bergdahls and how the father praised Allah for his son’s return. The President seemed overjoyed and patted him on the back. Pretty obvious how and why Bergdahl was helped, and yet Sgt. Tahmoressi is left in a Mexican Jail. All about closing down Gitmo…release the bad elements back into the populace.

  • Gamal

    Obama wants to get people out of Guantanamo and this was an opportunity. Notice how he has no compunction about releasing 5 jihadis but won’t release Jonathan Pollard.

    • J.B.

      Yes. And he wont free an active service veteran in a Mexican jail, while he freed thousands of wetback criminals to prey on America.

    • Americana

      Jonathan Pollard conspired to share nuclear secrets, didn’t he?

      • Gamal

        I never heard that one before

      • Gamal

        America faces an incredible nuclear threat from Iran and Pakistan as does Israel. In the unlikely event that Pollard shared nuclear information with Israel that would not threaten the U.S.. It is a sign of a typical nutty anti-semite that they worry about Jews when they are about to be annihilated by Muslims.

        • Americana

          Crikey, it wasn’t me who sentenced Pollard to a life sentence in prison for sharing nuclear secrets w/Israel. I imagine the American government felt they had equipped Israel w/enough nuclear secrets to keep her safe. Not an anti-Semite in any way. I nearly married a South African Jew. I guess for those who don’t know the Jonathan Pollard story, I ought to copy some text about him because I don’t remember all that much about his story.

          • Gamal

            The only nuclear secrets Pollard gave to Israel was information about the Pakistani nuclear project. A nuclear Pakistan is a threat to all of us. The more information Israel has about it the better off the United States is.

          • Americana

            Gamal, I think you misunderstand me. I would have to read the entire transcript to get a feeling for why they chose to prosecute him. That isn’t a case I followed all that closely and I don’t remember all that many details. I feel Israel can be trusted to manage nuclear weapons and nuclear knowledge. I also feel Israel has the right to manage her intelligence related to the world’s nuclear nations and the world’s terrorist groups as she sees fit. But so does our government.

      • Rob Hobart

        Deflection, and one with only one motive: Jew-hatred.

        • Americana

          Oh, yes, I just hate Jews. NOT. (As Sacha Baron Cohen would say.) My closest childhood friends last names were Aronow and Shapiro and Bergen. I lived in a very Jewish town and lots of families had horrific stories about the Holocaust. A neighbor three doors down would rarely come outside and when I visited her one day to give her some flower divisions for her garden (I only ever saw her out back in her back garden), she told me she’d been in a concentration camp. I didn’t lead a sheltered life and I had personal knowledge of what my friends’ families had faced because of the Holocaust.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The only explanation for this insanity is that Obama loves to stick his fingers in the eyes of conservatives. He did it just to rile up conservatives and to energize his base.

    • J.B.

      And because we’re distracted by all his scandals, so he thinks he can get away with this. Distractions work both ways.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Bergdahl obviously converted to Islam and as such he is the sworn enemy of all infidels, as the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam (the only kind) is the eventual subjugation of all infidels and all religions through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

    If the infidel world hopes to continue to thrive, it better reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP because it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. Indeed, Muslims never ever assimilate and integrate into infidel society, as that would mean becoming an infidel, and becoming an infidel is exceedingly blasphemous. Meanwhile, blasphemy in Islam, like apostasy as well, is a capital offense.

    As a matter of fact, under normal circumstances Muslims are forbidden from living in infidel lands unless it is specifically for jihad (holy war).

  • Chiron_Venizelos

    Society will deal with Berghahl, but it is up to Congress to deal with 0bama. In my way of thinking, in exchanging one fellow traitor in order to free the equivalent of five terrorist Generals, 0bama has proven beyond doubt that he, too, is an enemy of my country.

  • Cappy1437

    Did anyone notice how Obama had his arm around Bergdahl’s mother’s waist as they entered the rose garden and how the father walked behind like he wasn’t invited to be included with them? I was embarrassed when I saw how Obama was acting and then when he kissed the mother I was appalled. He obviously likes white women and comes onto them when he has the opportunity. His actions are shameful and embarrassing. Don’t tell me you didn’t notice because it was very obvious.

    • J.B.

      I noticed. He thinks it makes him look powerful and charismatic when he pretends to dominate a man’s female. He is a weak and uncharismatic homosexual beta male. He constantly poses as an Alpha Male.

      Obama is a mincing little queen.

    • Bamaguje

      I also noticed there was too much ‘touching.’
      And I expect Michelle would have given her husband a piece of her mind.

    • Americana

      OMG, you really are going to propagate this early 20th century Negro bashing about black men wanting to get all the white women? This is the kind of bunk and junk that got young men killed in the more racist periods of American history. You don’t remember the 14-year old boy who was killed when he went down South to visit relatives and he may have smiled or joked w/a white woman? His mother had a wake w/an open casket so people could see what those animals had done to her son. Sickening that this kind of bullish*t is still being bandied about.

    • Americana

      How utterly disgusting to harp on something like this as if the President’s social actions have got ANYTHING SEXUAL to them. Isn’t this whole Negro/black craving white women trope supposed to be long since dead and buried w/the rest of the racist claptrap? Or are we returning to the era when we’re going to kill 14-year old boys who go down South to visit relatives and they make the mistake of smiling or making a wisecrack to a white woman? Lordy, but we never take 3,000 steps forward while making sure that we take 12,000 steps backward!

  • Sassy Serf

    Five extremely dangerous Muslim terrorist masterminds were released to resume operations against the US on the flimsy pretext of retrieving a deserter to the Taliban. What’s hard to understand about that? Obama has been emboldened by the utter lack of meaningful resistance to his progressively more criminal actions to destroy America as it was founded. He will not stop, he will escalate.

  • Myrtle

    They should have let them keep the deserter, he really was no prize to covet! Plus the fact that is where he wanted to be, evidently!

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Five extremely dangerous Muslim terrorist masterminds

    Muslims aren’t terrorists perpetrating terrorism for various causes. Indeed, they didn’t attack us on 9/11 because of greedy American imperialism or because of America’s interventionist foreign policies as that is the speculation of the so-called MSM, which is tightly controlled by the Marxist totalitarian left.

    Instead, Muslims are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors) waging jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah against all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

    Moreover, unlike terrorism, which is always and only violent and can be for any number of causes, jihad (holy war) manifests both violently (as in the 9/11 violent jihad attacks) and non-violently, as in mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage to the infidel world, and is always and only in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

    • J.B.

      Repetitive but true.

      How do you propose to counter jihad? Besides angry letters, I mean. I’m talking about real, grass roots solutions. Seriously.

      • Drakken

        The muslims will do something especially egregious and blow something up or rape/kill the wrong mans wife or daughter, and that will finally break the proverbial camels back and then all h*ll will break lose, and cowboys and muslims will be the only game in town.

  • D Brown

    I think the release of Taliban prisoners is due to Obama trying to cooperate with the U.N. who wants the designation of the Taliban as terrorists lifted. Obama is yielding to U.N. orders over and above U.S. law, most like because his political philosophy is more in line with the U.N. than the U.S.

  • NJK

    For six years we’ve been crying out that Obama is not who he claims to be. I think this makes it obvious.

    Do we have an FBI anymore?

    I called my Congressmen’s office today, and I told his office the citizens are relying on the good people in Washington, to do something, because we can’t.

    Obama needs to be removed, questioned, and put on trial if need be, and so do those surrounding him. We have the Muslim Brotherhood and Weather Underground, think Susan Rice, on the inside. They are the enemy.

    To those elected officials out there, taking a job in Congress doesn’t just mean hobnobbing with lobbyists. You have to realize that there may come a time, when you are going to be called to do some very difficult things, like, removing a terrorist from the White House.

    • Americana

      If the FBI didn’t know for a fact that Pres. Obama is an American, they’d be the first through the doors to some court somewhere to begin a legal process to get him out of office. Cut the absolute CRAP of trying to pretend this man is not a LEGITIMATE AMERICAN w/a LEGITIMATE PERSPECTIVE on international events. We got into the mess in the Middle East COURTESY OF NEOCONS like Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. If we’ve learned NOTHING from that and we are continuing to believe we can be the United States of old, we are in greater danger than I ever thought possible.

      • Drakken

        The fact that you just wrote that bloody drivel really shows where your allegiance lies and it sure as H*ll isn’t on the American side. Must be that your a product of our current re-education system that has zero critical thinking skills and heads pumped full of leftist mush. You say with a straight face that Obummer has a legitimate perspective on international events is beyond laughable since it has become beyond the joke that it is, and has now become a bloody nightmare that it is.

        • Americana

          Listen, Drakken, since your whole schtick is that you’re far better equipped to interpret military and world events viz Islam, be my guest, WRITE AN EDUCATED REBUTTAL that defends the NEOCON DOCTRINE on Islam and the Middle East. Write a (short) long-term analysis of how you see this Neocon military hawk business playing out world wide against the Muslim jihad threat. Don’t just spew your nastiness at me and expect I’ll sit there and take it.

          You’ve already been likely proven to be a liar about your statement that you WERE THERE ON THE GROUND in Libya or nearby and that you “HEARD the ‘Stand Down’ orders” w/your VERY OWN EARS. Anyone w/any care for this country at all would cease this type of LYING and drop the DISPROVEN PROPAGANDA LIES from his posts.

          • Drakken

            Islam is islam no matter the flavor or stripe, and where ever islam goes, the blood always flows, without exception, no more islam, no more problem.
            I never said I was in Libya at the time my favorite commi/traitor. I never said I heard stand down orders being issued in Benghazi now did I sunshine. RIF

          • Americana

            Really, now you’re going to change the goal line right in the middle of the game? Because I was sure this was rather definitive on the score of you claiming you heard ‘STAND DOWN’ orders being issued. Let’s see what everyone else thinks of this following post of yours. It certainly makes the claim that you overheard orders being broadcast in the clear. There was no ENCRYPTION??? Are you kidding me??
            _____________________________________________________

            Drakken >>>> Americana • 5 hours ago

            (DRAKKEN) “No, I was not in Benghazi, I was somewhere close enough to hear the chatter on the radio that was being broadcasted in the clear. I don’t flounder sunshine, I just make your little libtarded little world that you live in that much more uncomfortable.”

  • drthomasedavis

    A little thing like Benghazi is of no importance, right numbskull/

    • Americana

      Fundamentally, in terms of the context in which Benghazi is being used on this BB, no, Benghazi is an entirely different sort of question. Besides, the Joint Chiefs decided that THEIR DEPLOYMENT of American Rapid Response Forces was at fault for Benghazi. This is fully vindicated by the fact the Joint Chiefs redesigned and rejiggered the number of Rapid Response troops as well as realigned their deployments within the Middle East.

  • dallas25305

    These night mares will continue as long as Barack Hussein, the first supreme ruler of the U.S.A. and the Peoples Liberal Socialist Democrap party continue to be allowed to continue their rule of destruction on the nation. People must vote these vermin out of office.

  • NJK

    Bergdahl Left Note Behind After Deserting Saying He Was Disillusioned With The Army, Opposed War In Afghanistan – Update: Report Says He Renounced His Citizenship…
    http://weaselzippers.us/188188-bergdahl-left-note-behind-after-deserting-saying-he-was-disillusioned-with-the-army-opposed-war-in-afghanistan/

    Him and his father are traitors.

    Obama, Susan Rice, and others are traitors at the very least, and Obama is a Muslim plant at the worst.

  • NJK

    UPDATED: Afghan Bob Tweets Story By Taliban Praising Death Of U.S Troops

    Here is he retweeting a link from his friend and a man he follows who is a representative of the Taliban.

    http://weaselzippers.us

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    After a couple of days to digest what we have found out about this DESERTER and his father it looks like we traded FIVE Jihadis for ONE jihadis. Great deal!

    • Americana

      We don’t know a damn thing other than that Sgt. Bergdahl didn’t want to be part of what the American army was doing in Afghanistan. We may or may not know a lot more in a few weeks once the Army has debriefed him though I feel that’s likely to remain under wraps for strategic reasons.

      There’s nothing wrong w/this President other than that he isn’t doing what certain partisan groups wish him to do. He’s as American as anyone else.

      • Bklyn Farmer

        Yes, all question and concerns are partisan in origin or racially motivated. Let’s wait maybe by then it will blow over or at least the executive branch can spin their story on the Sunday morning media shows that this is old news that the American people have put behind them. Its worked in the past.

        • Americana

          I don’t believe this will blow over. I think there’ll be a substantial post-mortem over what he did and why he did it and what he did while he was in Taliban custody.

          This is as it should be. He was a soldier and he had a soldier’s oath to uphold. He should have found another way to deal w/these feelings, either by speaking w/his commanding officer and telling him he was becoming disenchanted w/the U.S. mission in Afghanistan to the point where he was thinking of deserting. Anything would have been better than the choice he made and the pain he caused his fellow soldiers.

          • Texas Patriot

            Very true.

      • Gislef

        We also “know” the testimony of various soldiers who were on duty at the time that Bergdahl left, five years ago. We “know” that the U.S. government never formally listed Bergdahl as a POW.

        That knowledge won’t change because of Army debriefings.

      • liz

        There’s nothing wrong with a President who is a radical leftist?
        Only in the eyes of another radical leftist.

        • Americana

          I’m not a radical Leftist. i don’t believe Pres. Obama is a radical Leftist. This whole cranking up of old political labels to create a divisive political environment works to the advantage of particular political groups. Either you’re willing to look at the ENTIRE political environment or you’re effectively not looking AT ANY of the political environment.

          • liz

            Calling Obama a radical leftist is not “cranking up old political labels”, and it works to the advantage of the entire country to identify him for what he is.
            He, along with his cronies in power, is one of the most obviously identifiable leftists ever, and you’d have to be blind to miss it. The Left is alive and well and occupying the White House. If you can’t see that you are truly a useful idiot of the left. But you’re not really that stupid, right?

            Maybe you should try reading the articles on this website with an open mind – you might learn something!

          • Americana

            liz, I read ALL articles w/an open mind. But since I’m fighting w/Marxists on other political BBs, I’m well aware of what some of the political groups are

            I read the entire Andrew McCarthy transcript about the Guantanamo prisoner swap despite truebearing (?) saying I wouldn’t read it. Whoever it was claimed I didn’t CARE to read it because it was TOO SMART on the issue of what was involved w/the prisoner swap. I read it and I digested it and pasted a huge chunk from it that proved my point that even McCarthy fails when he tries to deal w/these irregular wars via the lens of traditional warfare.

            I decided that because we AREN’T going to be concluding the Afghan war w/a peace treaty w/the Taliban, that most of what McCarthy wrote had NO BEARING on how to do this Guantanamo trade. Everything he wrote addressed this exchange in terms of a traditional war w/traditional military protocols and understandings and that prisoner exchanges occurred once a peace treaty was signed. But, like much else about our war on terrorism, we haven’t yet made the decisions about how we’re going to fight this war in terms of the war lexicon that we believe in that doesn’t quite match up w/what the Taliban and assorted other Muslim terrorists are doing.

            We needed to give these jihadists that we’ve captured a TITLE that put them somewhere on the scale of the code of military justice. We needed to decide legally how we’re going to approach them via our legal system or the legal system of our Armed Forces. We need to expand our legal lexicon to include more terrorism-specific laws instead of relying on our present laws to cover all the possible terrorism contingencies simply by the gradual accretion of legal precedent, terrorism case by terrorism case.

          • liz

            Speaking of “expanding our legal lexicon” to deal with terrorists, we could start by restoring the entirety of references to Muslims and Islam in the FBI training manuals that was removed by the Obama admin., on the advice of their Muslim “advisors” as being offensive to Muslims.
            He is allowing Muslim terrorist sympathizers to run our terrorist and foreign policy. Nothing wrong with THAT? Or with releasing terrorists in hostage exchanges? It doesn’t take a complex legal lexicon to describe that – it’s WRONG, PERIOD.
            Here’s a “terrorist specific law” for you – Take no prisoners!

          • Americana

            How many references do you need in a training manual to know that Muslim jihadists are willing to kill you because their faith tells them that’s OK? I certainly don’t need more than 20 identical exhortations all saying basically the same thing for that little factoid to be permanently implanted in my brain. There are gazillions of hadiths that are simply repetitions of that same theme. So, I’ve got no problem w/restoration of some of this material but to have it be this argument over how much better kosher slaughter is than halal slaughter because the Muslims offer the meat to Allah? Sorry, that is just one of those minor tropes that makes NO SENSE on which to build the cultural awareness of our FBI and our Homeland Security folks.

            I don’t believe from the people I know in these various organizations that this administration is allowing Muslims to run foreign policy in ways most injurious to American foreign policy and secrecy. There just aren’t enough of them and there is also an overwhelming need for interpreters of all kinds. It will be years before we have enough American speakers of those languages for our security to function well without Muslims in place.

          • liz

            It shouldn’t be that hard for them to find Muslims with no ties to terrorists to do their translating and advising for them, (considering how many they are allowing to immigrate), but they make a habit of picking exactly the ones that DO have those ties. Huma Abedin is just one example, and there are many others. In fact Obama has his own ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
            His bad decisions in regards to Muslims, support of the MB, etc., would indicate that he’s taking bad advice from them. But I suppose it’s possible he’s coming up with it himself. Either way, it’s a mess.

          • Americana

            Yes, liz, I’d agree that things become extremely messy when you analyze the roles the Muslim Brotherhood plays. Some are above board, some are covert and that duality leaves us guessing on all counts. I believe that is where most of the awkwardness arises, that the duality was inherent in the organization from the beginning and it’s not possible to entirely steer clear of all the members w/questionable connections. I believe we should have the ability to control the funding for the Muslim Brotherhood so that whatever funds are collected in the U.S. goes to a bank where we have total chain of custody. Who knows if all the new surveillance systems have any capabilities to analyze all the questionable aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood?

  • Texas Patriot

    At this point, I think we should let the law take its course. If there is sufficient evidence that he’s guilty of desertion or treason or both, he should be tried, and if he is found guilty, he should be convicted and found guilty and punished in accordance with the law. If he’s not guilty, he should be exonerated. There are responsibilities and duties associated with putting on the uniform of a U.S. soldier, both to the nation you serve and to the men you serve with, and there are many unanswered questions in this case.

    • CapitalistPig

      “At this point”…..being the key operative phrase.

      But “before this point” is what I’m referring to. There may be some extenuating circumstances of which we’re not aware–but as of now this deal stinks to high 72 frolicking virgins Paradise.

      There’s going to have to be some heavy duty extenuating circumstances to make this look like something the US should have done. I just don’t see that happening. We we’re under no obligation beyond any other POW to free this guy. It looks like a total sellout for nothing right now.

  • Walter Sieruk

    Regarding Bergdahl, the words of Theodore Roosevelt may very much apply to this guy. For Roosevelt said “There can be no fifty-fifty Americaniam in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else.”

    • Americana

      I believe those words were in regards to the Spanish-American war, a war that would have fundamentally changed the configuration of our country if we had caved in or lost. (Off to check the source and context of the quote.) We would have possibly lost Texas and Calfornia if we hadn’t remained strong. I doubt very much that Pres. Theodore Roosevelt was saying Americans shouldn’t use their brains in their evaluation of our foreign policy and their roles as citizens.

      • Rob Hobart

        Um… what?
        You seem terribly confused. The Spanish-American War did not involve any threat to Texas or California.

        • Americana

          I was confusing the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American Wa thanx to a big time brain fart. I had been looking up other instances where Americans had been accused of being traitors to the United States during war-time. I came across a site about the Mexican-American War and the rest, as we say, is history.

          Some of the talking points from that site:

          3. Despite early popularity at home, the war was marked by the growth of a loud anti-war movement which included such noted Americans as Ralph Waldo Emerson, former president John Quincy Adams and Henry David Thoreau. The center of anti-war sentiment gravitated around New England, and was directly connected to the movement to abolish slavery. Texas became a slave state upon entry into the Union.

          4. One interesting aspect of the war involves the fate of U.S. Army deserters of Irish origin who joined the Mexican Army as the Batallón San Patricio (Saint Patrick’s Battalion). This group of Catholic Irish immigrants rebelled at the abusive treatment by Protestant, American-born officers and at the treatment of the Catholic Mexican population by the U.S. Army. At this time in American history, Catholics were an ill-treated minority, and the Irish were an unwanted ethnic group in the United States. In September, 1847, the U.S. Army hanged sixteen surviving members of the San Patricios as traitors. To this day, they are considered heroes in Mexico.

          • Drakken

            You seem to have a lot of brain farts and confusion, also a few reading comprehension problems, maybe a touch of emotional instability to boot. Lets not mention your open support and defense of Islamic jihadists in fakestine shall we? Or your open commi/leftist agenda.

          • Americana

            Don’t resort to this crapola, Dreadnought, just because you lost out on the other thread dominator tactic you attempted. I blooped this about 4:30 a.m. this morning after a week of not getting much sleep thanx to the farm animals giving birth.

          • Drakken

            I didn’t lose anything sweetheart, you just have serious reading comprehension problems.

          • American Patriot

            Once again, you are repeating BS left-wing propaganda about American history. First of all, most territory acquired in the Mexican-American War did not turn into slave states. Texas (which became a US state before the war) was the only Southwest state to have been a slave state. California, which became a US state in 1850, entered as a free state. Most of the Southwest didn’t become states until after the Civil War. Also, not every abolitionist opposed expansion, just like not every proponent of slavery supported expansion. Second, what about all of the atrocities committed by the Mexican government against American settlers, as well as Mexican civilians, in Texas during the 1830s and 1840s? Remember the Alamo? Get your facts straight.

          • Americana

            American Patriot, that text is FROM A WEB SITE. I simply copied and pasted it. I thought I made that very clear from my “Here are some talking points from this web site:” I guess that just didn’t hit you between your eyes.

            I was more interested in finding information about people who’d been declared traitors to the U.S. in wartime as a point of comparison for Bergdahl.

      • Drakken

        Know your history do you? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah Oh that is hilariously funny!

      • liz

        Mr. Sieruk didn’t say Americans shouldn’t use their brains in their evaluation of foreign policy. And there’s nothing brainless about requiring those defending America to be pro-American.

      • truebearing

        Listen to the expert on American History!

        Would you like some crow with your humble pie? :)

  • Americana

    The Joint Chiefs took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. They took a long, hard look at the deployment and base locations they had in place and decided they’d FAILED the Americans in Benghazi. They REDESIGNED THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE FORCES in numbers of troops and their deployment as a result. Hopefully, another Benghazi is less likely to happen. However, I’d caution them that not having adequate troops right there is always going to mean that there will be a tactical disadvantage to American defenders.

    • Bklyn Farmer

      The Joint Chiefs have NOT taken responsibility for Benghazi. Modifying a military response is NOT GUILT. When the compound was under attack, the White House did not know how long it would last. If you have a source with a link reporting that the JOINT CHIEFS HAVE STATED THEY HOLD THEMSELVES RESPONSIBLE please be so kind as to share it.

  • Webb Cook

    Obama is a jihadi at war with us and fighting against the United States, pure and simple.

  • Digli

    The question now becomes;
    What will Obama do next?
    He obviously has contempt for the law and he has contempt for the American people.
    Aside from the fact that the president is a waste of air and space he should be impeached and tried as a traitor.
    What will he do now?
    How will he next violate our laws?
    How far is he willing to go to spit in our faces?
    He was elected to do what we the citizens want but he does what he Obama wants.
    There is something very fundamentally wrong with Barrack Obama.
    He should be restrained immediately from being able to act in anyway because his judgment and more than anything his character is flawed to an extreme degree.
    What will he do next that is egregious and wrong?

  • quovadis2014

    My reading of this is Robert Bergdahl told his son to desert so that he could serve as a bargaining chip to release prisoners at Guantanomo. If that is indeed what happened the Robert Bergdahl and his son are traitors and Obama committed treason by working with them to aid the enemy.

    If the Republicans win in 2014 and take back the Senate then I could easily see impeachment proceedings. This is very cut and dry. I pray Obama reaps what he has sown.

    • Gislef

      The Republicans need 66 votes in the Senate to get impeachment. It’s not going to happen.

      • quovadis2014

        Obama is pissing so many people off so quickly that I think the Republicans will take the senate in November. That will be enough, impeachment or no impeachment.

        • Gislef

          They may take the Senate, but they need 67 votes to impeach. They’re not going to get that many seats.

          • quovadis2014

            Don’t forget the Democrats like Diane Feinstein that Obama’s pissed off. This sh*t is getting real.

      • Sassy Serf

        Then who has the authority to arrest him? Some law enforcement agency with a sense of moral and Constitutional authority should arrest him. (Yes, I know I’m delusional.)

    • Americana

      Just where do you get a timeline of Robert Bergdahl (the father) having converted to Islam that you would even conceive of such a plan? The father was a Christian for a long while after his son was deployed and as far as I know only converted to Islam in an attempt to impress his son’s captors about the family’s sincerity. I’ve posted a British news story that addressed his father’s conversion and it even had a statement from his pastor. I’ll repost it if you like. Since the trading of prisoners would have occurred in any case because of the winding down of the Afghan war, it’s rather strange to have this convoluted means of arranging for trading captives. I give you full credit for a really inventive plan for trading prisoners though.

      • quovadis2014

        Where did I get the idea that Robert Bergdahl was working with the Taliban to release the Gitmo detainees? Here you go:

        http://twitchy.com/2014/05/31/working-to-free-all-guantanamo-prisoners-tweet-from-account-of-released-soldiers-father-deleted/

        • Americana

          That tweet you referenced above was dated May 28 so it wasn’t made early in his son’s captivity. Therefore, your claim that the son deserted 5 YEARS AGO in order for his father to negotiate the maximum number of Taliban prisoners to be exchanged for his son’s release makes no sense. Your whole point is also nullified by the fact there are now no other American prisoners that can be exchanged for Taliban prisoners. His father is willing to negotiate in gratitude for having been given his son back, alive and basically in good health. I know this isn’t the politically correct interpretation and I’m no more comfortable w/some aspects of this exchange than anyone else, but it is what it is. Until we hear what the U.S. Army intends to do about it, the speculation is running wild.

          • quovadis2014

            The facts are the father encouraged his son to desert.
            Bowe Bergdahl: “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools,” he concluded. “I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”

            Bob Bergdahl responded: “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!”

            That was 5 years ago. Then you have him converting to Islam whenever it was doesn’t matter to me. He’s got traitor written all over him. Of course you haven’t read the Qu’ran and realize its exhortations to fight the infidel. Did Robert Bergdahl explicitly tell his son to desert so that in 5 years he could get exchanged for Gitmo detainees? No. I don’t think it was that black and white. He did exhort his son to desert which would be a death sentence for any soldier who wasn’t going to switch sides. Can you imagine Robert Bergdahl saying what he said knowing the Taliban would have no problem cutting of his head. That’s a bit rich to me. But then again I don’t know exactly how stupid and gullible you are. Don’t disappoint me now.

          • Americana

            Well, I disagree w/your understanding of how Sgt. Bergdahl and his father arrived at that exchange. That is obviously a culmination of a LOT of letters questioning the American mission in Afghanistan. I hope that we will all eventually see most of these letters in court testimony as evidence. What I can say, is that If Sgt. Bergdahl saw several bombings where American soldiers or airmen had killed Afghan civilians under the guise of taking out Afghan Taliban, I can see where his military training and the reality created a horrible conflict in his soul. I know a Marine who shot and killed an elderly man who approached his checkpoint. The old man failed to stop and obey hand signals and spoken orders in 2 different languages. Josh had no choice under his standing orders of Afghans approaching the checkpoint; they had to stop at a certain location, have a bomb dog approach them and then be frisked by an American soldier/Marine. This elderly guy didn’t obey so Josh shot him dead. That burden is going to be w/Josh for the rest of his life.

            Sgt. Bergdahl did everything he could to make approaching the Taliban feasible for himself. He left his weapon, he left his body armor and his helmet. Considering it was a foregone conclusion that Sgt. Bergdahl was worth more to the Taliban alive than dead and, no, I would have given Bergdahl pretty high odds of being able to convince the Taliban to keep him alive. You consider being able to reason something like this out to be traitorous or stupid? Boy, rough crowd.

  • Donald J DaCosta

    It’s apparent Obama and company remain convinced that their base and most of the American public are ignorant of and have no interest in, the affairs of state. if they are correct in their assessment these folks will see the “concern” for this soldier as evidence that Obama is really concerned about the troops despite the ongoing VA imbroglio. In the minds of Obama and company think of the benefits here. Swap 5 of the most belligerent and dangerous prisoners in Gitmo, thus demonstrating the well kept secret of their sympathy for these Muslim butchers to the violent radicals these leftists tend to support while at the same time partially clearing the toxic cloud surrounding the scandal of the day, the VA debacle.

    Except for those paying attention, if the lame stream media does it’s usual see-hear-speak no evil routine concerning Obama’s numerous outrages, everyone will look at this on the surface and marvel at Obama’s wisdom, intelligence and compassion. What’s his latest approval rating? 46% according to the latest from the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/3/obama-approval-rating-46-percent-poll-shows/
    Go figure!!

  • Americana

    So NICE to keep everything all IN-HOUSE and SHIPSHAPE as far as what opinions are able to be posted and what aren’t allowed. It’s that fickle finger of fate that hits the buttons at the most inopportune times and — pffffffttttt! — there it goes, that nasty little post that upsets the apple cart, the unmanageable little facts of this or that situation are obliterated never to be seen on this thread again.

    • Bklyn Farmer

      Americana,
      I’m not sure if this is the issue but if your addressing your post about the Joint Chiefs of Staff (it is on your profile but not showing here) – if the post has a lot wording that is repeated in a previous post Disqus may not post it.

      • Americana

        Thanx for trying to clue me in, but that’s not true for many of these posts. They simply vanish. It’s not that they’re truncated. They simply vanish. It’s like there’s a black hole somewhere.

  • justme

    Sgt. Bergdahl, Bowe : Congratulation for your promotion, by following your concience five of your brothers died. Now with your return, many more will die by the hands of your other brothers. Does your concience allows you to watch the Taliban kill other muslims like yourself? Does their suffering mean anything to you?. I hope Im wrong, I hope I’m very wrong. But you are a monster, you don’t care about muslim suffering, or anyones suffering at all.
    ,

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    OBAMA’S NEW CHAPTER IN THE STORY OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP: SAME OLD APPEASEMENT RUN AMUCK

    This article at http://www.apollospeaks.com explains the reason for POW swap.

  • meanpeoplesuck

    Typical RepubliNaziTard hypocrisy- under Bush, all US citizens taken prisoner would have been beheaded on videotape. Obama gets someone back, and it’s not good enough for the Rightys. Chimpy W McHitler couldn’t find bin Laden, Obama did, and the RepubliNaziTards whined that Obama didn’t rappel down from the helicopter and shoot bin Laden himself. Well guess what? Either did Chimpy, Cheney, Rove, Romney, Palin or Ted Nugent!

    • Rob Hobart

      I would dismiss this as satire, but the comment stream suggests this moron really does believe all this nonsense.

      • UCSPanther

        Its a vapid troll that has been infesting Breitbart as well, spewing fawning admiration of Obama, calling for state-mandated persecution and violence against those who don’t share its tyrannical views and just being a nuisance in general.

        I also suspect that it uses “Gavin Lopez” as its alternative handle.

        • meanpeoplesuck

          Yes, anyone who dares to speak the truth on the RepubliNaziTard websites must be a troll bought and paid for by the DNC. Couldn’t possibly be that they have any valid points.

          • UCSPanther

            You’re describing yourself, you chimpanzee.

            Name-calling, threatening persecution and making an idiot of yourself is not telling the truth.

          • UCSPanther

            And you are also narcissistic as well.

            Pride goeth before the fall…

      • meanpeoplesuck

        Name one policy or thing the RepubliNaziTards have done that has been good for anyone but the big corporations. The jobs they are “creating” suck and the only ones making any money are CEOs.

  • Neverforgetbenghazi

    This is yet another example of Obama offering material support to terrorists. It is considered a treasonous offense to offer money, weapons or personnel to terrorist organizations, which he just did in this act.

  • Americana

    Yeah, RIGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT. What is it you’re drinking besides intensely flavored Kool-Aid?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      You’re thinking of Mecca Cola – the Camel Urine that Refreshes the dizzy from the heat and the ring-around-the kabba-kaka Hajj.

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

    Obama sees nothing wrong with Bergdahl’s support for the enemy and his hatred of America. Everyone Obama knows feels that way from Rev Wright to Bill Ayers to his childhood mentors.

  • Americana

    Very novel approach to take after having the whole Drakken episode blow up in your faces! Drakken decides to LIE BIG TIME in order to make a DEFINITIVE, KNOCKOUT PUNCH to Americana only to be proven to be lying about Drakken hearing the radio comms DURING the Benghazi incident because he was “close enough to hear the radio calls.” Wow, what a miscalculation that little lie proved to be!!!

    Yes, that’s the safe approach, don’t listen or converse w/Americana. She’s not an American. She’s a British Lefty. She’s glad that the U.K. is being overrun w/Muslims. She doesn’t want her 401k to grow. She doesn’t even own any American currency, she’s all about bit coin. She’s a Trotskyite. She’s a Leninist (John Lennon, music, maybe). She’s a Marxist. (I love the Marx brothers, that’s about as close as I come to Marxism.)

    Trouble is, of course, that there are a whole bunch of other individuals involved in those scandals you’ve cited. So although you’d dearly love to be able to lay all the blame on Pres. Obama, for Benghazi, for Fast and Furious, etc., it’s just not possible. Look at Benghazi, the Joint Chiefs and their regional chain of command underlings were in charge of the regional readiness plan. They are the ones making the decisions about deployments in Libya and the region and that’s where the focus should be. The focus should NOT BE that Ambassador Rice got the talking points wrong. That’s a MINOR PART of no real consequence. What’s more, all Congress knows that’s true.

    • meanpeoplesuck

      Love it! Change your name to AmeriKKKana, all the better to make the point.

  • SoCalMike

    “a reminder of America’s unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield.”-B, Hussein Obama

    Tell it to ex ambassador Christopher Stevens and Tyrone Wood.
    Obama is a complete scum bag. And I thought Clinton was a traitor.
    He was and is for what he gave China and how he did it but compared to Obama, Clinton is a boy scout.
    For the damage Obama has inflicted on the Free World, a public horse whipping would be far too good and kind to him.
    Obama killed 2 birds with one stone by helping the Taliban get 5 of their generals back and helping a fellow traitor come back “home.”

  • Americana

    Listen, I don’t have ANY MORAL UNCERTAINTY about what Sgt. Bergdahl did. I know — for a CERTAINTY — that Sgt. Bergdahl had a long and torturous road that he took that carried him to that point of leaving his American unit. I know — for a CERTAINTY — that rather than take this route of desertion, he should have spoken w/his commanding officer and admitted he’d lost the ability to faithfully execute his Army orders and ask to be relieved of duty.

    Are we clear now?

  • Americana

    The MSM don’t blur lines between right and wrong. Those grey areas and lack of moral absolutes are simply part and parcel of the dialogue surrounding those events. What, you think creating a jingoistic atmosphere is the better route to holding the morality/ethical lines on these events? Josh didn’t reveal those incidents where he felt he’d killed people under questionable circumstances until he came home. He never wrote and asked for my perspective during his tour. He wrote about other stuff. He didn’t write about those things to his wife. He SOLDIERED ON. But when he did come home, I was one of the people to whom he confided that kind of information. It’s not because I soft-soap things and gave him moral expediency lectures. How is it I can read vast amounts of material from enough varied sources that I don’t allow the editorial opinions of any one MSM source to dominate my thinking?

  • hiernonymous

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

    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.

    “All the rapid response capability in the world is useless if you don’t
    allow them to respond, and that isn’t the Joint Chiefs call, as you were
    forced to finally admit.”

    You’re letting your personal resentment color your thinking. I’ve never posted anything that suggests that the Joint Chiefs play an operational role, so I’m not sure what “you were forced to finally admit” even means in this context.

    “Positioned where? 9/11 was not a day uniquely special to Libya. There was a whole theater of potential targets.”And you claim to be a military intelligence expert?

    Actually, on being asked about my background, I noted that I am a retired military intelligence officer. I don’t ask anyone to accept political assessments on the strength of my former career. Again, you seem to be allowing your personal issues spill into your thinking.

    “What is your explanation, because there wasn’t a more unstable country on earth at the time of the Benghazi attack…”

    And yet the Benghazi attack was not the first, or even the most important, of the day. For all of your enthusiasm for Libya, you neglect to mention that it was the Cairo embassy, one of the most significant diplomatic posts in the State Department, that first came under attack that day, and the number of personnel at risk there was far, far higher than at a partially-manned consulate in Benghazi.

    The problem with your selective presentation of facts is that it ignores a wave of protest and violence that was sweeping the Middle East in the wake of Egyptian TV’s decision to screen the trailer of The Innocence of Muslims. Let’s look at some of the incidents and then re-evaluate your contention that Benghazi was the obvious focus of security requirements in the Middle East at that moment:

    Egypt: 11 Sep attack on U.S. embassy, 14 Sep attack on an MNFO compound

    Yemen: 13 Sep attack on U.S. embassy driven off with 5 attackers killed, 24 guards injured

    Sudan: 14 Sep attack on U.S. embassy breaches outer wall

    Tunisia: 14 Sep – 14 attackers breach outer wall of U.S. embassy compound

    India: 14 Sep attack on U.S. consulate in Chennai

    Indonesia: 17 Sep attack on U.S. embassy

    “…and I’m beginning to doubt you were ever in military intelligence…”

    You haven’t shown that your opinion on the matter has any value. You plainly are abjectly unaware of the scope of events in the theater at the time in question and have trouble placing events in any context that hasn’t been pre-digested for you. The theater was awash in threats – heck, even prior to the screening of Innocence, Gama’a al Islamiya had called for a 9/11 demonstration at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo in support of the release of the Blind Sheikh, which intelligence alone suggests that your contention that Benghazi was the obvious sole focus of U.S. security requirements is prima facie ludicrous.

    “More dishonest nonsense. Assets are shifted to hot zones, and there were none hotter than Benghazi at that time.”

    I’ve just shown you that you are wrong about that. Benghazi wasn’t even the hottest zone in North Africa. Keep in mind that there was no embassy in Benghazi to protect, and that the Ambassador traveled there in full knowledge that he was outstripping his security. We still don’t know his mission, so there’s no reason to criticize his risk analysis, but he plainly was doing something that was worth taking a risk for. That doesn’t imply that the appropriate positioning of our assets was to respond to a minor consulate when full-scale diplomatic missions with large numbers of personnel were at risk elsewhere.

    Indeed. They were ready, but the operational control, ie. Obama, failed.
    So you just admitted that Americana is wrong, the Joint Chiefs can’t possibly be responsible, and that what I have been saying is right.

    The whole point of Americana’s argument – again, as I have read it – is that there was no ready force within range of Benghazi to deploy. The decision to stand one up at Sigonella is provided as a tacit admission that the previous positioning of assets was not adequate.
    I’m not sure how you read that as confirmation of anything you’ve been arguing.

    Thank you for contradicting yourself.

    If you think I contradicted myself, you’re still not actually understanding the conversation. 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 will be all. The debate is over now that you committed friendly fire at yourself and Americana. Casualties most deserved.”

    You may choose to post or not as you wish, of course.