Patterico's Pontifications

3/26/2015

Some Bergdahl Flashbacks

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:54 pm

I have been collecting some Bergdahl flashbacks and sharing them on Twitter, and I thought I might share a few of them with you here.

Dana already noted the first two of these:

  • A White House official said that soldiers accusing Bergdahl of desertion were “swift-boating” him.

  • A White House official said that the platoon members accusing Bergdahl of desertion might be “psychopaths.”
  • Eric Boehlert said Fox News smeared Bergdahl:

  • A lefty cartoonist portrayed Fox News as executing Bergdahl:

    Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 8.45.03 PM

  • Justin Baragona at PoliticusUSA assured his readers in June 2014 that Bergdahl-as-deserter was a “made-up scandal.”
  • Heather Digby Parton denounced “hysterical screeching over Bowe Bergdahl the traitor” in June 2014.

Also, for some reason I found this interesting. In a June 2014 article, the L.A. Times chose one Eugene Fidell to consult as an independent expert for a quote about Bergdahl:

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 8.27.28 PM

Yeah, so guess who Bergdahl’s lawyer is today? Eugene Fidell. Man, the L.A. Times sure can pick ’em.

27 Responses to “Some Bergdahl Flashbacks”

  1. It’s crazy what you can find out with Google and the tool that allows you to limit your searches by date.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. If, somehow, a Republican wins the 2016 election for President it would be nice to return to a real world where we, as a people, are served by journalists doing their job.

    Sure, I know that all their toil would be to expose the evils of the miscreants on the right. I can accept that as a believer of the truth if they are correct.

    I am exhausted, though, by a media bankrupt of the truth and only interested in regurgitating a fantasy.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  3. Bergdhal deserves a fair trial and a fine hanging.

    alternatively, you could just place him in a combat unit that needs an individual replacement.

    preferably an engineering unit that needs another sapper to go find and render safe IEDs.

    redc1c4 (a6e73d)

  4. Here’s a fun fact: Eugene Fidell’s spouse is none other than — duhn, duhn, DUHNNN — our dear friend Linda Greenhouse!

    JVW (a1146f)

  5. Chuck Todd blocked me on Twitter. I think I pointed out his hypocrisy once too often – which was only twice, if I recall correctly.

    Estragon (ada867)

  6. It sounds like Bergdahl’s case will be tried at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, where Bergdahl was stationed:

    The case will now go to Fort Sam Houston, Tex., for a hearing that is similar to a grand jury in a civilian court. After that, a military tribunal will determine whether Sergeant Bergdahl should be court-martialed.

    Sergeant Bergdahl’s lawyer, Eugene R. Fidell, said Wednesday that the sergeant’s legal team had not decided how it would proceed, including whether it would try to negotiate a discharge for Sergeant Bergdahl in lieu of trial by court-martial. In a March 2 letter to Gen. Mark A. Milley, the commanding general of United States Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, Mr. Fidell wrote that an impartial court-martial would be impossible to form because of the political tension over Sergeant Bergdahl’s captivity and release.

    “While many Americans have taken a broader and more sympathetic view, the depth and breadth of the current hostility to Sergeant Bergdahl are extraordinary and have enveloped the case with a lynch mob atmosphere,” Mr. Fidell wrote.

    That strikes me as a difficult venue for Bergdahl.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  7. The deal only made sense, even if Bergdahl were a hero, if Obama just wanted an excuse to releawse the Gitmo terrorists and the “exchange” gave him cover to get Qatar in on it, to make it look better.

    This is NOT “leave no man behind,” which refers to the battlefield. Prisoners are typically exchanged only at the END of conflicts, which Obama believes he is entitled to declare unilaterally.

    Estragon (ada867)

  8. That strikes me as a difficult venue for Bergdahl.
    DRJ (e80d46) — 3/26/2015 @ 10:09 pm

    Okay, move it to Fort Hood, then.

    Estragon (ada867)

  9. “While many Americans have taken a broader and more sympathetic view, the depth and breadth of the current hostility to Sergeant Bergdahl are extraordinary and have enveloped the case with a lynch mob atmosphere,” Mr. Fidell wrote.

    Shame on us for our silly hang-ups over trading five hardened Taliban leaders for one loopy deserter. It’s distracting the administration from negotiating the deal which will allow Iran to enrich all the uranium they desire in return for the Supreme Leader’s autograph on a really nice piece of parchment paper.

    JVW (a1146f)

  10. A lefty cartoonist portrayed Fox News as executing Bergdahl:

    I wonder how many fools of the left felt any sadness or twinges of regret when the radical cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were murdered in Paris not too long ago? Or how such “progressives” responded towards all the members of the media who’ve been beheaded by the Islamicists of ISIL?

    I don’t trust left-leaning sentiment one iota, and this story about Bergdahl and the way liberals in the White House and their supplicants in the media treated him several months ago and, in turn, how they treated his critics merely illustrates why “progressives” aren’t worth a damn.

    But, worse of all, is that such people on the left perceive themselves as being very humane, beautiful, generous souls.

    Mark (c160ec)

  11. DRJ included in her comment @6:

    …“While many Americans have taken a broader and more sympathetic view, the depth and breadth of the current hostility to Sergeant Bergdahl are extraordinary and have enveloped the case with a lynch mob atmosphere,” Mr. Fidell wrote…

    Yes, and these are those Americans:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nMLR3Feb9RM/TAQe4LjPG4I/AAAAAAAAE5A/fFXTx4UYll0/s400/SHOOTOFFICERS3152003frontpage.gif

    Estragon wrote @5:

    Chuck Todd blocked me on Twitter. I think I pointed out his hypocrisy once too often – which was only twice, if I recall correctly.

    Lots of leftists are blocking people for pointing out their hypocrisy. This is one of the more fun examples:

    http://twitchy.com/2015/03/25/hit-a-nerve-donna-brazile-gets-dismissive-after-being-shown-her-own-words-about-bergdahl/

    …Brazil, who had claimed that criticism of Bergdahl and Obama was just Republican PR, explained the positions she’s taken on the issue of Bowe Bergdahl in great detail. Oh wait, no she didn’t…

    Steve57 (011eda)

  12. I get the feeling America has just about had its fill of Lightbringer.

    When this is all over we need a dollup of summary justice.

    DNF (8028c5)

  13. Actually, the comparison of Bergdahl’s platoon mates telling the truth about his desertion to Kerry’s crewmate’s telling the truth about Kerry’s lies is quite accurate. It is only on the progressive left that they still believe Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia. The truth is that to be “swift boated” is to be exposed as a fraud by those who know. This is an accurate litmus test of political affiliation.

    By the way, Kerry and Obola are giving Iran the Bomb. The “deal” may be signed as soon as Sunday. No need for Senate confirmation on this one. Declarations of war, treaties, etc., are really a thing of the past in this nuclear age. Just give the tyrants a dozen megaton bombs, and there’ll be little need for treaties or any other action that takes more than 10 or 15 minutes. And as token of good faith, the administration has declassified a report about Israel’s nuclear program. Admittedly, the document is dated 1987, but the essential targeting information is probably still accurate.

    bobathome (ef0d3a)

  14. When this is all over we need a dollup of summary justice.

    We need more than a dollop, DNF we need three scoops.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  15. bobathome,

    Someone in Washington, presumably in the Administration, even tipped off Russia and Iran that the 1987 report had been declassified. It seems like it’s not enough for Obama to give Iran the bomb. He may want them to use it.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  16. My understanding of what Bergdahl (very stupidly and naively, and of course in violation of his duty) did, based upon what I read at the time of the exchange, was that he decided he was going to live for awhile in Afghanistan, the way some Americans spend time in India. (He did not intend to defect to the Taliban.)

    He made contact with some local people, or they made contact with him. He must have been ion contact with someone who spoke English, probably an Afghan soldier. And he arranged for a place to stay for a while etc, and when to leave his unit. He even tried not to leave his fellows soldiers in the lurch.

    But what he didn’t know is that the people he was dealing with, or the people he was ultimately dealing with, intended to take him prisoner and turn him over to the Taliban or the Haqqani network. He had no idea that they even had any connections to the Taliban or anybody else
    sinister, or that it was even possible. That’s seems to me to be about what happened.

    It’s very possibble he was targeted by Islamists.

    Sammy Finkelman (033fec)

  17. bobathome,

    It occurs to me that this leak is Obama trying to poison the well between Israel and the US after he leaves office. I think it will take a long time for Israel, especially the military, to decide to trust Americans again. If ever.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  18. Sammy Finkelman,

    I don’t agree that Bergdahl was that stupid but let’s assume he was. Bergdahl was a soldier in Afghanistan. He knew he was in a war zone. He also knew that he had a duty to his country, his unit, and his fellow soldiers that he had sworn to uphold in good times and in bad.

    It would be beyond stupid to think he could take a week off from the war and go live with the natives. Adults are not allowed to be that stupid, and these military charges are the consequence of that act — whether it was because of stupidity or was a knowing and intentional decision.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  19. Now we know Iran is why Senator Menendez was targeted by the Obama Administration, but it didn’t work.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  20. DRJ, I agree that Obola is engaged in petty bullying, but I fear that he will end up doing much more than poisoning a well. I think Israel’s future is very much in the balance. And when the nuclear bombs go off, I rather doubt we’ll be able to watch from a distance. If Obola is still “leading from behind”, which is a polite way of saying aft-end foremost, we can expect some very significant hits to our military assets as they are deployed in hazardous waters, given nuclear armaments. And I doubt that the Iranians will need 10 years before they are ready. They have a 22 month window, and they know it. A phone call to North Korea and a few midnight flights over China, and they’ll have what they need.

    And it is childish to think that our enemies won’t use “unconventional” delivery systems to attack our cities. We’ve already given up that battle. The lawyers will spend decades trying to figure out who we should indict, and the remaining “evidence” will be circumstantial. Not a quality prosecution.

    bobathome (ef0d3a)

  21. He may want them to use it.

    But, of course, he’s a caring, wonderful, beautiful, big-hearted liberal, so even if he does feel that way, it’s for a good cause.

    Adults are not allowed to be that stupid

    How old are Bergdahl’s leftist parents, etc?

    Diagnosis: Arrested development, for sure.

    Mark (c160ec)

  22. bobathome,

    I agree that is jeopardizing Israel’s security (at a minimum) and its existence with this Iran deal. It also occurred to me that he is poisoning the well for future administrations. That may pale in comparison to the nuclear threat but it’s still a serious concern.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  23. DRJ, the Senate and House actions are encouraging, but the threat of reapplying the sanctions are contingent on the Iranians breaking the “deal”. Kerry has rolled over, and there will be no need for the Iranians to offer evidence that they have indeed broken the deal. All they have to do is tell the “inspectors” that they can’t inspect. This is not a “Trust but Verify” kind of agreement. It is “Please, PLEASE, PLEASE make me look like I achieved something” deal meant to burnish Kerry’s tattered reputation. For a few weeks at least.

    bobathome (ef0d3a)

  24. DRJ, I agree with your point. I just don’t think we can look that far in the future. Having strained relations with Israel in 2017 is about the most optimistic outcome I can see at this point.

    bobathome (ef0d3a)

  25. True, bobathome.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  26. DRJ (e80d46) — 3/27/2015 @ 7:24 am

    It would be beyond stupid to think he could take a week off from the war and go live with the natives.

    No, i think he wanted to leave the war altogether. But he knew he couldn’t come back to the United States without facing charges.

    So he probably wanted to stay around six months, by which time maybe his unit would have left Afghanistan, and then figure out what to do next – what country he could go to. He probably knew he had to stay away along time from the United States.

    But I don’t think he intended to defect to the Taliban, or to let himself get taken prisoner. He thought he would be with friends (who would not ask him to do anything against his fellow soldiers, and in fact were mostly on the same side. He was probably inveigled into this by some Afghan soldiers – and maybe the desire not to face up to that, could have caused the denial by the military that it was a desertion. Locakl commanders probably found out leads to the truth a number of ways very soon.

    Sammy Finkelman (302bdd)

  27. 23. DRJ, the Senate and House actions are encouraging, but the threat of reapplying the sanctions are contingent on the Iranians breaking the “deal”. Kerry has rolled over, and there will be no need for the Iranians to offer evidence that they have indeed broken the deal. All they have to do is tell the “inspectors” that they can’t inspect. This is not a “Trust but Verify” kind of agreement. It is “Please, PLEASE, PLEASE make me look like I achieved something” deal meant to burnish Kerry’s tattered reputation. For a few weeks at least.

    bobathome (ef0d3a) — 3/27/2015 @ 8:00 am

    I agree that the administration will lie on behalf of the Mullahs so that they can claim the Iranians are living up to the deal. But Prom Queen’s problem is that there are other ways to learn the truth. His administration doesn’t have a monopoly on the facts.

    I wrote a long comment on another thread about one of Obama’s problems.

    http://patterico.com/2015/03/26/a-round-up-of-tangible-commitments-and-a-pinky-swear-agreement-with-iran/#comment-1751354

    Which is that the Iranians enjoy humiliating President Myley Cyrus. They didn’t let Obama get away with lying about how tough the interim agreement is. It’s not tough, and the Iranians told the world that the language the administration was using to describe the interim Joint Plan Of Action was false.

    One of the best proofs the Iranians were telling the truth was that Obama refused to publish the actual text but only a “fact sheet” which was in reality devoid of facts and instead was intended to mislead the public and Congress. He had to hide the actual agreement and lie about it because it really was a victory for them and a humiliation for the US.

    The Iranians will have the actual text of any permanent agreement. They’ve demonstrated they’re not shy about revealing the actual text of any agreements and as well as Obama’s pleading and begging “secret” letters to the world to call Prom Queen on his lies when he tries to claim he’s being tough on the Iranians. The Iranians want the world to know it’s the other way around. They really don’t care about providing Obama with any domestic political cover because they know they can get what they want on their terms while bragging about that fact.

    So that’s one problem; Obama’s new allies in the M.E. (traditionally America’s enemies, but Obama’s friends) don’t go along with his scheming. Tom Cotton gave a very solid speech exposing that fact on Tuesday. The Ayatollah Khameini have a Nowruz (Iranian New Year) speech on Saturday in which he essentially bragged about how badly they were rolling the Americans. The Americans need this agreement more they the Iranians do, he said, and essentially they can get the US to meet every single one of their demands because of Obama’s desperation to have his Chamberlain Munich moment. They are not going to ever dismantle their nuclear program no matter what words to that effect spew out of Tiger Beat’s mouth.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/tom-cotton-obama-treating-iran-like-legitimate-democracy-as-ayatollah-chants-death-to-america/

    The interesting point Cotton made is that Obama also recorded a Nowruz message to the Iranian people, in which he urged them to press their leaders to make a nuclear deal with Iran. As Cotton pointed out, Iran is not a legitimate democracy and the people have no say whether their leaders make a deal with the US or not. Obama isn’t stupid enough to believe that Iran is anything but a dictatorship. But then anti-American dictators have always been the darlings of the American left so he’s cool with it. And it’s his anti-American leftist ideology that drives him come hell or high water to get the Iranians to sign a deal. And really his message was to the Mullahs. Obama’s goal is to strike some delusional “grand bargain” with Iran, end Iran’s isolation, and bring it back into the fold of “civilized nations.” Except Iran doesn’t deserve to be there as Iran is not a civilized nation. But Obama’s message to the Mullahs was that they don’t have to change their behavior one bit and he’ll still stick to his ideology. He will lie and pretend they are a legitimate democracy, a civilized nation, just as he intends to lie about his nuclear deal.

    So while Khameini was bragging about having his enemy entirely figured out, Obama’s message to him and the other Mullahs was that he’s exactly right. He has Obama’s number.

    Obama’s other problem is that it isn’t just the US negotiating with Iran. It’s the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany. Like Iran they also know the details of any negotiation. And Obama can’t stop them from talking, either. Which is exactly what I believe happened. The French told the Israelis how awful the deal is, knowing that the Israelis would pass that information on to the US Congress. Which of course President Mean Girl is trying to keep entirely in the dark. That’s what Prom Queen was really upset about when he leaked that bogus “Israel spied on the US” story. The Obama administration wasn’t upset that Israel spied on the US, and it’s not clear they did and they certainly didn’t make the case it ever happened, they were livid because Israel then shared the “US secrets it stole” with Congress.

    Those aren’t US secrets. They’re not even secrets. And six other countries have them and Obama can’t stop any of them from talking and torpedoing his strategy of lying to defend the nuclear deal. Obama may think he has a secret strategy that he’s executing behind Congress and the American people’s back, but there’s nothing secret about it. All the evidence is hiding in plain sight.

    I think that was the point of the letter 367 House members signed and sent to Obama. Both Republicans and Democrats told him they no longer believe him. They can see what’s going on and they don’t like it. It’s important to note that as much as Obama likes to brag about how it was his tough sanctions regime that forced Iran to come back to the negotiating table, it wasn’t his. When he signed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act in 2010 he actually opposed it. But he signed it because Congress forced it down his throat. It passed the Senate 99 to 0.

    It’s starting to look like if Obama can’t prove the deal is working Congress will go its own way. It won’t be sufficient for Kerry to testify that they have no evidence Iran is breaking the deal because they want to turn a blind eye to their violations as they have for the past several years. That’s what the letter said. That the CISADA that put the sanctions in place will remain in place unless Congress repeals the law. Obama can’t drop the sanctions on his own. And before Congress acts they’re going to need to be convinced that the deal is working, not just be told by the administration doesn’t have any evidence the Iranians are violating it.

    Steve57 (f61e37)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3393 secs.