The New York Times is at it again. Today, its main front page story is about how the facts are "murky" whether or not any American soldiers died looking for Bowe Bergdahl after he walked away from his post in Afghanistan and ended up with the Taliban. (I did not want to use "deserted" and "New York Times" in the same sentence since I was afraid my computer would explode.) The Times is trying to undermine the story that at least six American soldiers were killed in the search for Bergdahl because it is terrible for the White House.
The Times story is best described as total nonsense. (Okay, the actual word would be a variant on bovine excrement, but I try to stay classy.) There are now a great many direct statements made by soldiers who were there in Afghanistan on missions to look for Bergdahl when their comrades were killed. So the times can look at statements from witnesses with first-hand knowledge who can testify to exactly what happened. No wonder the Times calls the situation "murky". After all, the statements from the witnesses with direct knowledge conflict with the vague disavowals of these facts by a White House spokesman who has not direct knowledge and who does not even claim to have all the facts.
The truth is that the facts now seem pretty clear: Obama swapped 5 high ranking Taliban leaders who killed many Americans for a soldier who left his post and walked off into the night where he met up with the Taliban. We don't know if he not only deserted but also collaborated with the Taliban, something which many seem to believe. At least six and perhaps as many as thirteen American soldiers lost their lives during searches sent to find Bergdahl. Obama held no White House ceremonies for the families of these men who gave their lives for their country during these searches. In fact, those families were just ignored. When Bergdahl was retrieved, however, Obama held a major celebration in the Rose Garden where he stood next to Bergdahl's father while the Koran was recited in Arabic. Then Obama sent his Sunday morning spokesperson, Susan Rice onto national TV to tell America that a deserted had served "with honor and distinction" and "had been captured on the battlefield." Even a moron like Rice had to know that this was totally false, but hey, she got away with telling the big lie on Sunday before, so why not try again?
I don't understand how the commander in chief, the president of the United States of America can dishonor America's fighting men and women to this extent. If he wants to swap terrorists for a deserter, that is one thing, but trying to turn the return of a deserter into a national holiday and to call his service honorable and worthy is a direct slap at all those men and women who risked their lives by actually serving with honor and distinction. They deserve our thanks. They deserve to be honored for what they did. They do not deserve to have their service mocked and denigrated by equating that service with desertion.
The Times story is best described as total nonsense. (Okay, the actual word would be a variant on bovine excrement, but I try to stay classy.) There are now a great many direct statements made by soldiers who were there in Afghanistan on missions to look for Bergdahl when their comrades were killed. So the times can look at statements from witnesses with first-hand knowledge who can testify to exactly what happened. No wonder the Times calls the situation "murky". After all, the statements from the witnesses with direct knowledge conflict with the vague disavowals of these facts by a White House spokesman who has not direct knowledge and who does not even claim to have all the facts.
The truth is that the facts now seem pretty clear: Obama swapped 5 high ranking Taliban leaders who killed many Americans for a soldier who left his post and walked off into the night where he met up with the Taliban. We don't know if he not only deserted but also collaborated with the Taliban, something which many seem to believe. At least six and perhaps as many as thirteen American soldiers lost their lives during searches sent to find Bergdahl. Obama held no White House ceremonies for the families of these men who gave their lives for their country during these searches. In fact, those families were just ignored. When Bergdahl was retrieved, however, Obama held a major celebration in the Rose Garden where he stood next to Bergdahl's father while the Koran was recited in Arabic. Then Obama sent his Sunday morning spokesperson, Susan Rice onto national TV to tell America that a deserted had served "with honor and distinction" and "had been captured on the battlefield." Even a moron like Rice had to know that this was totally false, but hey, she got away with telling the big lie on Sunday before, so why not try again?
I don't understand how the commander in chief, the president of the United States of America can dishonor America's fighting men and women to this extent. If he wants to swap terrorists for a deserter, that is one thing, but trying to turn the return of a deserter into a national holiday and to call his service honorable and worthy is a direct slap at all those men and women who risked their lives by actually serving with honor and distinction. They deserve our thanks. They deserve to be honored for what they did. They do not deserve to have their service mocked and denigrated by equating that service with desertion.
No comments:
Post a Comment