WH: Don’t believe those lying soldiers who served with Bergdahl and didn’t desert

Spread the love

Loading

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf engaged in a heated exchange Tuesday with a reporter over the circumstances surrounding Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl’s capture five years ago, saying she does not think his squad mates have the best idea of what happened when he disappeared.

When Fox News reporter Lucas Tomlinson asked, “Does the State Department consider Sergeant Bergdahl to be a deserter?” Harf replied, “The State Department — no, Lucas. Look, what we’ve said is we are going to learn the facts about what happened here.”

“He’s been in captivity, Lucas. I think he’s probably the person who knows best what happened on that night,” Harf said.

Tomlinson shot back, “Well, I think his squad mates have the best indication what happened that night.”

“I don’t think that that’s the case,” Harf responded.

Harf directed Tomlinson to “Google it on the web, and you’ll find a ton of conflicting reports”—dismissing the multiple accounts of Bergdahl’s desertion that have emerged over the past several days.

Washington Free Beacon

This garbage administration never ceases to amaze.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It is a fact that there is much confliciting information available to ponder. It is also a fact that the original assessment by the Pentagon was that Bergdahl deserted. OK, we get it.

The question is, why does this administration, instead of pondering the discrepancies in the information available and say “we don’t quite know at this time” always accept the facts they want to accept and those that happen to fit their agenda? Benghazi? Hello??

The old illustration of 6 blind men all feeling parts of an elephant then describing a completely different animal is relevant here.
Sure, there might have been men in Bowe’s unit who never spoke much with him.
Men who never saw ”the note.”
Men who were very close to him and aware of things others were not.
Men who saw the clothes folded and the note, read it.
Men who never saw any of it.
But for anyone in Obama’s Administration to say unequivocally that he serves with honor and distinction or that we have to take HIS word for what happened as opposed to eyewitnesses is NUTTY as a fruitcake.
Does the Obama WH also only take the word of murderers and rapists as to what happened?
That ”rule” is idiotic.

Oh, My!
I guess the State Dept needs to bolster their narrative by threatening Bowe’s fellow soldiers!
Look:
In an appearance on Fox & Friends on Wednesday, retired Army Spc. Josh Fuller, a soldier who served with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl since 2008, said that the military informed him and other soldiers that the “narrative” they should maintain is that Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban rather than that he intentionally left his base. When asked if he believed he was told not to “tell the truth” about Bergdahl by military authorities, Fuller said that he did.

“The sentiment that everybody knew was that he walked off the base in the middle of the night, left all his gear there, and went – just walked off the post,” Fuller said. “So, we had all known that it was — that he had deserted his post, and there was never anything about him getting captured or POW until a little while later whenever it came down from the chain of command that we needed to keep quiet and not say anything.”

“We’re going with the narrative that he was captured,” Fuller said of the military’s position on Bergdahl’s alleged desertion.

“So, they basically told you not to tell the truth,” Fox host Brian Kilmeade said.

“Yes, sir,” Fuller replied.
MORE:

Fmr. Soldier: Military Told Unit to ‘Not Tell the Truth’ About Bergdahl

He is a traitor, his alleged medical condition has gotten worse-never lost and weight, did not look emaciated and tortured.
Cour Martial time and IMPEACHMENT TIME, how simple does it get, o therwise, suck it up and shut up.

So, Sgt. Bergdahl—whose current status at this point is still that of an active duty member of the United States Army—should have been abandoned on the battlefield as a presumed deserter and traitor to his country with a nod approval from his Commander in Chief. All without him ever having been questioned or evaluated to determine what actually happened and why. In which case, all on the political right would have readily agreed that Obama had clearly done the proper thing.

Am I understanding this correctly, or am I missing something?

@Greg: You have quite a bit wrong. Again, his release is not the issue. It is indisputable that we should have secured his release. It is just as indisputable that we should not (NOT) have handed over terrorist leaders for him. And, absolutely, this should not (NOT!!) have been done unilaterally and in violation of the law (don’t even bother to retort with that phony “health concern” excuse… they might as well somehow use a video).

But, now that we have him, he should face justice. If he did nothing wrong, let us celebrate his homecoming. If, however, he is guilty of what so many of his accusers say he is, he should face the full penalty for that. What is amazing is how Obama is somehow totally ignorant of this background (or so totally reliant on his partner press to provide cover) and praises this man as a hero and sends Susan Rice out to claim he “served with distinction and honor” when the preponderance of the evidence right now say he was anything but honorable (though his distinction could be he deserted and turned on his fellow Americans). While that cloud hangs over Bergdahl, why not avoid comment and merely remark that we have freed an American prisoner?

Politics, that’s why. Obama needs something to go right, so he cheers himself gaining the release of Audie Murphy, Jr. The administration, we here, have been taken by surprise by the near universal condemnation or, at least, questioning the wisdom of this action. Surely, Obama and his hench-people cannot be that stupid. They had Bergdahl’s fellow troops sign non-disclosures for a reason; they knew this story was out there. How do they think they can present Bergdahl as a war hero (in light of the accusations, at the very least) and expect those whose loved ones and fellow soldiers were killed as a result of whatever Bergdahl did? It’s as if they have complete confidence in the ability of the compliant, corrupt media to make whatever story they want the truth to be… to be. Well, really, why shouldn’t they?

No, Greg, you got it all wrong. Obama is using him as a political prop. Bergdahl, after being a tool of the Taliban, is now being used as a tool of the far left. They just don’t use very good tools.

@DrJohn, #7:

Do you seriously question all those who served with him?

We haven’t heard from all who served with him. We have heard from some who served with him—none of whom are part of a court martial panel empowered by military law to render a verdict, and none of whom are part of a jury. Nor have we heard his own story, or the read the reports of medical or non-medical personnel who have debriefed him. There’s far more that we don’t know than what we can be certain of.

@Bill Burris, #6:

It is just as indisputable that we should not (NOT) have handed over terrorist leaders for him.

It’s not clear to me what all might be going on with the exchange. The political backlash was predictable, and not something most politicians would cheerfully set themselves up for without good reason. I have to think that the calculation is taking something into account that isn’t public knowledge. It might be a simple matter of not wanting to leave an American soldier behind as we ostensibly withdraw from Afghanistan, whatever we might decide about him later. It might also have to do with some effort to alter our relationship with the Taliban. Foreign powers don’t exactly have a brilliant history of success when it comes to imposing their will on Afghan tribal regions. We got sucked in, just like the Soviet Union was sucked in before us. We did at least get most of the people who were directly responsible for 9/11. So how do we get out?

@Greg: You never fully understand the issues do you? Everyone lies but the lefties! An organization like the 82nd is extremely tight. They have to or many die. You talked about honor in previous posts. Follow these guys around for a month or two and you just might begin to understand what honor between soldier really is!

@Randy, #8:

You never fully understand the issues do you?

Maybe you should read post #8 again and consider what I actually said. You’ve already judged the guy. I don’t believe anyone is in a position to do that yet.

Follow these guys around for a month or two and you just might begin to understand what honor between soldier really is!

Spare me the lecture. The unresolved issues at this point have far more to do with not knowing all the facts of the situation than with honor. People are being too quick to pass judgement. They want certain things to be true for reasons that aren’t directly related to the situation itself.

It’s interesting that, from the very start, the Taliban wanted to rid themselves of this guy.
they tried to get 21 Gitmo detainees for him and failed.
They tried to get over a million dollars for him and that, too (presumably) failed.
They tried to get that female chemical weapons expert for him and that also failed.
But they got 5 of their original 21 for him at the end.
Obama is now claiming that a 6 month old video of Bowe where he looked ”weak” was the impetus for 6 months of dithering while keeping Congress out of the loop, then going for it on his own.
Too bad for Obama that Bowe looks absolutely fine now.
I bet they’re starving him while he’s in hiding to make him look the part of a mistreated POW.
But who will they fool with that?

@Greg: we have just as much of a chance of seeing anything related to Bergdahl’s medical reports, the prior investigation from 2009, any access to him personally, or anything else about his situation, as we do to information about Fast and Furious, Boko Haram, Benghazi, the VA Hospital system, the IRS crackdown on Republicans, the EPA carbon regulations, the GM gift to the Unions, any of Zero’s school records, or any other actions of this regime.
In short: we will never know.
These issues are all classified at the highest level, that of National Security. The National Security is, of course the Security of the the legacy of the One. The One cannot be allowed to fail. Such failure is unthinkable. What we will get is endless spin, endless excuses, and endless stonewalling.
Remember: if you don’t lie, you don’t need to remember who got what lie.
All the regime knows how to do is lie, so that is what they do.
“They have made their bed. Now they have to lie their way out of it.”

@Greg: I will spare you the lectures if you spare all of us your silly posts! (You wouldn’t understand the lecture any way!)

@Greg: ” So how do we get out? ”

You do understand why we went into Afghanistan in the first place, right? It was a lawless, directionless land with a band of criminals, the Taliban, at the helm. As such, it was the perfect breeding ground for terror camps such as what al Qaeda based there operations for 9/11 out of. Our mission was to eradicate al Qaeda, the Taliban and create the atmosphere for an authoritative government that could control its own destiny and keep terror training camps out.

If you recall, Bush said this was going to be a long war on terror. McCain made the statement that we would stay in Iraq for a hundred years. Fact is, we should not leave Afghanistan until it has that stable government, friendly to the West, which will take the responsibility to control its sovereignty.

How do we leave? We just walk out, waving bye-bye. We stay (or should) until that is how we CAN leave.

@Bill, #15:

My understanding is that we went to Afghanistan primarily because Osama bin Laden—who aided and abetted the 9/11 attackers—and al Qaeda had taken up residence there, and were busy operating terrorist training camps and providing adult education classes in terrorist bomb construction. The Taliban were a undoubtedly a bunch of medieval s.o.b’s that Afghanistan and the rest of the world would be much better off without, but their primary offense against the United States was to have provided a place of refuge and a base of operations for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

If you recall, Bush said this was going to be a long war on terror. McCain made the statement that we would stay in Iraq for a hundred years. Fact is, we should not leave Afghanistan until it has that stable government, friendly to the West, which will take the responsibility to control its sovereignty.

I don’t believe it’s possible to turn Afghanistan into a model of what we would like it to be through the unrelenting application of military force. There’s an endless supply of people who will always see us as foreign invaders to be forcefully resisted, and an endless supply of outside money to support their terrorist and military campaigns against us.

Our main concern with Afghanistan should probably be the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan. There are conflicting reports about the Taliban’s ongoing relations with al Qaeda. I can see how tribal and Taliban leaders might conclude that al Qaeda has brought them nothing but trouble. I’m guessing we’re probably looking for a cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan that will allow us to quietly maintain a military presence within reach of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons sites. “Walking away” is likely a matter of correcting a decade of mission creep.

I think that’s the pragmatic view.