HarveyDent

quote:

---

Bergdahl wasnt a POW. No matter how hard you try to make him one. He was never, EVER a POW. Good to see you still posting rex.

---

You still arguing with thin air on that point, Clark? I agreed with you in the other thread. It's why it makes the prisoner swap even more urgent. The war is ending, we have detainees we will have to get rid of in the next year, why not try get this back, before it is too late?

The Taliban can make a good case for him not even remotely fitting the description of a POW, and hold him indefinitely. And there wouldn't be jack, as you have pointed out, you can do for a deserter.

So yeah, they may have put 'lipstick on a pig' here, by designating him a POW. But, they had no choice. He was being promoted while he was in capture, so wait to see what more comes out.

Hijack ended.

quote:

---

Barack Hussein Milhous Obama could literally shoot a puppy in the face, while it was being held by a 6 year old cancer patient, and laugh, and the GOP couldn't do shite about it.

---

FIFY

Well, I am at the least, a terrible judge of political character, but at the most, I just gave the Senator a little too much benefit of the doubt.

In this thread LINK I predicted RP would probably sympathize with the Berghdahls, or at the least stay very quiet on this issue. A few other posters said no way (on sympathizing), some said he would be one of the smart guys and stay quiet on it (how long can you do that, as a possible GOP contender for 2016), others said Rand would 'follow the money', or votes, as it were.

Boy, were you guys right. On the Neil Cavuto show, or whatever it is called, I tuned in today because he had Rand Paul on @3:30pm. Not only did Rand denounce the entire Bergdahl deal, he said, if he were President, he would not Prisoner swap, under any circumstances. No deals. Ever.

Now here is where the head-scratching began. Neil tried to reel him back in by basically asking, 'Senator, you mean to tell me, you wouldn't swap POW's, and not even try to get American soldiers back home?' Rand thought about it, and basically amended his first response, citing a 'cessation' of war activity, as a possibility for doing so (isn't this what is going on?)

THEN, when asked if he would keep tabs on the 5 Talibans that were released (which Rand said he wouldn't release, under his Administration) Rand said, in a bumpersticker-worthy moment, that each one of them would have "A drone with his name on it".

!!!

Sorry, I think Rand Paul is the leading candidate for the GOP nomination, and one of the most interesting. I find this intriguing.

And as soon as I get a link or transcription to all of this I will update it.

quote:

---

Probably some democrat hung it in order to try and distract from all of Obama's scandals.

---

This is the more likely scenario. Because it is from constant cough. And it is what we have come to expect from a modern-day Paul Revere.
























On meth.

quote:

---

What rules are in play here exactly?

---

Once a War ends, basically all POW's must be set free. Whatever occurs on the battlefield, is left on the battlefield. And believe it or not, even though it's ok to kill each other on the battlefield, there are still 'War crimes', that you can be charged with that contraindicate your release. These guys aren't being tried with any war crimes

Trade for what? Enchiladas?

We'll, it's either that or get shot up/blown up by some Christian dudes

Oh boy.

He said a few things about understanding the war, the afghan people, and why they were over there(the father). He mentioned how the people of Afghan are just as patriotic as us, want to be free, and not treated as subhuman.

The son also made comments to the effect basically expressing his frustration with the mission, and the purpose of being over there.

And it's true. A 10+ year war takes on an ugly life of its own after awhile. Soldiers forget what the cause is...are we freeing people, trying to overthrow a dictator, defending neighboring countries from a great danger etc. most are joining for the money, some excitement, and the few who are still their for noble reasons, and are still thinking and not just blindly following orders, go through this dilemma. It's easy to find yourself in an atmosphere of Meatheads versus Nerds, the military often purports that kind of atmosphere (see 'A Few Good Men')

Anyway, like I said, I have a feeling this story will flip in a few days, and the Paul's will get out in front of it. Why them? I've been keeping up with them a lot lately. I can't link it all, but they should be itching to speak on this.

For political reasons I would imagine they are going to stay really quiet on this one. But I think they approve of this swap, the viewpoints expressed by Bob Bergdahl, and won't have anything but praise for the Administration on this prison swap.

Anyone else got predictions on how possible presidential candidates and Libertarians will view this?