DESERTER BERGDAHL, 6 DEAD AMERICAN MARINES AND 6 TERRORISTS GO FREE....

Obama did not give a damn about Bergdahl. He wanted an excuse to release the Taliban leaders.

So if they went after him and died because of an unwritten policy how would Obama be held accountable for them? Originally Posted by slingblade

Because he is black

The absence of evidence is not evidence of a wrongdoing. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

It is if the evidence was spoliated....

The hiding of evidence is considered wrongdoing.

It is if the evidence was spoliated....


Originally Posted by lustylad

With 60,000+ Hillary emails hidden from Congress how could they get to the evidence?

And we still don't know if others within the Benghazi lie loop used personal email/server accounts, which could be shielding them from FOIA requests and Congressional investigations. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That's your admission that a real investigation never happened, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion. And since a real investigation never happened, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion, it's about time that you STFU and quit giving any credence to the findings of the incomplete investigations conducted to date. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well Hillary admitted she deleted 30,000 emails and you claim she turned over 55,000 ( which I don't think is correct, since she said the number was 30,000), so by your accounting Hillary shield more than 85,000 emails from FOIA and Congressional investigators.

That doesn't include emails between parties that were likely using non-governmental systems (personal email to personal email).

We really are just beginning to understand the Benghazi lies and cover up. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The hiding of evidence is considered wrongdoing. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Wh...il_controversy

Another example of the shoe being on the other foot.

The big sticking point for the Army is why they recruited a person who had psychological problems in the first place. Then deployed him to a combat zone.

The big sticking point for the Army is why they recruited a person who had psychological problems in the first place. Then deployed him to a combat zone. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Cannon fodder perhaps?

A roadside explosive device, or a bullet, does not ask to see a psychological profile.

The Army recruits what/who it can get. Not many red blooded American boys want to fight and waste their lives over not a damn thing. I can't blame them. Bush and Chaney side stepped their obligation to fight in Vietnam yet they were more than willing to send young men to fight their war. I went to Vietnam, twice. I was gung ho and ready to protect America. What an utter dumb ass I was. I have lived a life of regret that I fell for the lies out of my government. As far as this guy, give him some help and send him home.

The Army recruits what/who it can get. Not many red blooded American boys want to fight and waste their lives over not a damn thing. I can't blame them. Bush and Chaney side stepped their obligation to fight in Vietnam yet they were more than willing to send young men to fight their war. I went to Vietnam, twice. I was gung ho and ready to protect America. What an utter dumb ass I was. I have lived a life of regret that I fell for the lies out of my government. As far as this guy, give him some help and send him home. Originally Posted by Jimmiwad

I do not want to sound like a lying, brain-dead jackass Musselman loving, #Grubered",stupid, hypocritical jackass cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion, but I disagree with your last sentence.
Bergdahl has to pay the price for desertion - it is just too serious. If he didn't want to fight, he should have gotten CO status.

I do not want to sound like a Musselman loving, #Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion, but I disagree with only your last sentence.
Bergdahl has to pay the price for desertion - it is just too serious. If he didn't want to fight, he should have gotten CO status.
Originally Posted by DSK

"CO status"??? Bergdahl shouldn't have enlisted if he felt that way, and, based on his service record with the Coast Guard, the Army should have outright rejected him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Wh...il_controversy

Another example of the shoe being on the other foot. Originally Posted by slingblade

Would you be so kind as to highlight that part of the wiki article that you stupidly imagine legitimizes or excuses what Hildabeast did with her e-mails while serving as Secretary of State. On first reading, it seems, the article you so graciously cited underscores the illegality of Hildabeast's actions.

"CO status"??? Bergdahl shouldn't have enlisted if he felt that way, and, based on his service record with the Coast Guard, the Army should have outright rejected him.
. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are right, he shouldn't have enlisted. What was his record in the Coast Guard?

You are right Originally Posted by DSK

IB's reaction:

You are right, he shouldn't have enlisted. What was his record in the Coast Guard? Originally Posted by DSK

Two years before enlisting in the United States Army in 2008, Bergdahl had tried the United States Coast Guard. However, he was discharged after just 26 days of basic training for psychological reasons, receiving an "uncharacterized discharge" in 2006 (wiki).

.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That will hurt the Army's case!

The absence of evidence is not evidence of a wrongdoing. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

It is if you are the one responsible for the "absence," and when you have a duty to retain and disclose and fail to do either one or both, then there is a generally well recognized legal presumption that the information not retained and/or not disclosed would prove your wrongdoing.