Obama administration: Saving a deserter was “absolutely” worth the lives of six good American soldiers

By 55 Comments 3,101 views

obama and bergdahls

Breitbart:

State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki said that the prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was “absolutely” “worth it” and that Bergdahl “served his country as many men and women have” on Wednesday’s “Kelly File” on the Fox News Channel.

“Was it worth it? Absolutely. We have a commitment to our men and women serving in our military defending our national security every day that we’re going to do everything to bring them home if we can and that’s what we did in this case” she stated.

She also expressed confidence that the US would be able to keep an eye on the five Guantanamo detainees released for Bergdahl, saying “we have the ability to track and work with the Qataris. The reason that we know that individuals were reportedly online and engaging with individuals they shouldn’t be is because we track it. It means the system of tracking works.”
decision’s made.”

Six soldiers died looking for Bergdahl. Meet them here.

Susan Rice could not stop slobbering about Bergdahl’s serving with “honor and distinction.” Video here.

Obama traded five high value terrorists and the lives of six American soldiers for one America-hating deserter. That’s eleven to one.

Bergdahl’s fellow platoon members said he deserted but the valley girl Marie Harf said they “weren’t qualified” to judge him. As for Harf, don’t miss this. Another administration official suggested that Bergdahl’s follow soldiers might be “psychopaths.” The Obama regime accused Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers of “swiftboating” him.

If that wasn’t offensive enough, if this administration would do it all over again if they would take the same actions.

Deserters are heroes. Good soldiers are unqualified psychopaths. Obama and his scumqueens sh*t all over good soldiers and those good soldiers were nothing other than right about Bergdahl. Do any of you still wonder why some of us viscerally despise Obama?

We are led by idiots. Dishonest, incompetent idiots.

The next time a soldier deserts his post in a war zone, the search for him should be led by Obama, Psaki and Harf.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

55 Responses to “Obama administration: Saving a deserter was “absolutely” worth the lives of six good American soldiers”

  1. 51

    Redteam

    @Bill:

    The United States could not have a worse team looking out for its interests.

    It’s worse than that Bill, not only are they NOT looking out for our interests. They are actually working against our interests.

  2. 52

    Greg

    @Bill:, #49:

    Explain how the Republicans, making it clear that only a deal equitable to the United States would be acceptable and approved by Congress, are “wrecking” these negotiations? If it is not a good deal, we DON’T WANT IT, so if it is wrecked, who cares? If it IS a good deal, it will be approved.

    It’s not the place of Congressional republicans to make anything clear to the leaders of foreign states by way of direct communications. The Executive Branch has sole Constitutional responsibility in the area of diplomatic negotiations. It was not the intention of the authors of the Constitution to create uncertainty in the minds of foreign leaders concerning who speaks on behalf of our nation in matters of international affairs. Their clear intention was the exact opposite.

    Congress can properly exert influence in foreign affairs legislatively, through Constitutional oversight power, and through its budgetary power. Congressional leaders are expected to advise the President, not the leaders of foreign states.

    Again, all Obama wants is a deal he can claim HE did; he cares not one whit if it is bad for the United States, Israel, the region or the rest of the world. He will, just as he has always done, simply blame someone else if it turns out toxic. Kerry is no better. The United States could not have a worse team looking out for its interests.

    That is a load of pure partisan horse manure. It’s the sort of moronic right wing propaganda that has rendered people who have unquestioningly internalized it totally incapable thinking rationally about anything that involves Obama.

  3. 53

    Bill

    @Greg: It is absolutely their job to make that clear since a bad deal will never go into effect. Obama makes the situation confused and unclear because he likes to present the impression the he runs the country, not just one part of the government.

    And, it is absolutely true that all Obama is trying to do is gain some headlines and grandstand. How can I know this? Because it is all he has done for 6 1/2 years.

  4. 54

    retire05

    @Greg:

    It’s not the place of Congressional republicans to make anything clear to the leaders of foreign states by way of direct communications. The Executive Branch has sole Constitutional responsibility in the area of diplomatic negotiations. It was not the intention of the authors of the Constitution to create uncertainty in the minds of foreign leaders concerning who speaks on behalf of our nation in matters of international affairs. Their clear intention was the exact opposite.

    Congress can properly exert influence in foreign affairs legislatively, through Constitutional oversight power, and through its budgetary power. Congressional leaders are expected to advise the President, not the leaders of foreign states.

    So you are admitting that when Ted Kennedy negotiated with the KGB in order to thwart Reagan’s talks with Russia, Kennedy was out of bounds?

    And what happened to the consent part of Congress is expected to “advise and consent” when it comes to any foreign treaty?

    Damn, you’re still an idiot.

  5. 55

    Smorgasbord

    @Greg: #44

    Republicans have a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate. If they truly have all this evidence of wrongdoing, why don’t they do something about it instead of just holding endless investigations and flapping their lips?

    Two possible reasons:
    (1) One reporter mentioned that most, if not all, of the politicians use their time in front of the camera to campaign. They are not spending much time questioning the individuals. The longer the investigation goes, the more free campaigning the politicians get.
    (2) Since politicians rely on other people’s money to run for office, they probably have to check with their donors to find out how far they can go in the investigation.

    I remember many years ago that if a country was messing with JUST ONE AMERICAN unjustly, THAT WHOLE COUNTRY WAS IN TROUBLE. That doesn’t happen any more. I’m guessing that it is because of political donors again. If a politician would vote for something donors don’t want, because it would hurt the donor’s bottom line, then that politicians won’t get the funding from that company they were getting. Whoever has the money, has the politician, in either party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *