Free for All: 06/05/14

What’s on your mind?

24 Responses to “Free for All: 06/05/14”

  1. Joe Scarborough and Chuck Todd got into a spat this morning over whether Bowe Bergdahl’s dad was a good father or not. Chuck held his ground while Joe went on a long rant attacking the father. Those sitting around the table mostly stayed out of the fray, even when Joe asked for support. Mika finally stepped in and calmed Joe down enough for the show to continue.

  2. erich500 Says:

    It’s one thing to say that the father made bad decisions. It’s another to personally attack him and call him a “bad father.”

    That’s reckless and unfair and ugly. As Chuck Todd pointed out, who knows what one would do if their son or daughter was missing? Even IF – if – they were partially or fully at fault?

    “Long rant”: What’s the difference between a “rant” and an “impassioned plea”?

    Answer: Whether one agrees with them or not.

  3. To be fair Joe was “ranting” about the father saying his son should ‘follow his instincts’ before leaving the US compound and Chuck was talking discussing the fathers decision to support his son after he was captured. They are two different subjects.

    It’s fascinating that Republicans and conservatives have attacked the family based solely on speculation. Only Bowe Bergdahl knows why he left the US compound and he hasn’t told us why as yet. If it turns out that he didn’t desert or mental problems were the cause of his actions then it could all backfire on his critics.

  4. erich500 Says:

    “Solely on speculation”?

    Fritz, about a dozen of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers who were with him are making these specific, detailed claims about how he went missing.

    That’s not speculation. Those are firsthand accounts.

  5. “That’s not speculation. Those are firsthand accounts.”

    Firsthand accounts maybe, but we don’t know what the fellow soldiers motivation is or if the stories are true or not. At the moment we have only one version of the story. It’s still speculation until some proof is presented. There are lots of first hand accounts in war that later turned out to be less than true. Think Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman. This story is still in very early days.

  6. Karen Finney’s Disrupt was cancelled today. I saw parts of the show a few times and it was OK but nothing special. the format was standard MSNBC Dayside fare and Finney was competent but unspectacular host. The time slot is pretty much a ratings black hole unless you have a pre-existing loyal following like Ed Schultz.

    I imagine, in the future, this time slot will be used as a audition spot for pundits and others who the network thinks may have the chops to be a host but don’t rate a Dayside or PT tryout.

  7. attacking fellow soldiers “motivation” based on speculation are you Fritz?

    Sounds like a Sixties idea of what soldiers are.

  8. savefarris Says:

    It’s fascinating that Republicans and conservatives have attacked the family based solely on speculation.

    Democrats and Liberals would NEVER do such a thing…

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/19/democrats-leave-committee-hearing-on-benghazi-before-victims-families-testify/

    You can tell which side is trying to politicize the issue by seeing which side is complaining that the issue is politicized.

  9. erich500 Says:

    How do we present proof? His fellow soldiers describe what happened. Those are firsthand accounts of what took place. They were there. They knew him. They saw what happened.

    We have no video or anything else. It’s all we have.

    Of course, they could all be wrong. They all could be, for whatever reason, lying.

    But that’s a heckuva lot more speculation – based on nothing but conjecture – than citing firsthand, direct accounts.

    Direct accounts. First hand knowledge. By no definition is that speculation.

    Your willingness to defend this Administration or your politics at any cost forces you to argue indefensible and unsupported positions.

    Feel free to do so but your arguments are without much basis in fact.

  10. erich500 Says:

    What we don’t know – and this is the speculation aspect that is unfair – is why he left.

    Was he sick? Stressed out? Confused? Tricked? On a “peace mission” of some sort, i.e., thinking he could talk with the Taliban and arrange some sort of cease fire?

    Who knows?

    But it’s certainly not speculation to point out that he left. Because he clearly did.

  11. “They were there.”

    ^^On the base yes. With him when he left no.

    “They knew him.”

    ^^And yet they didn’t say anything at the time.

    “They saw what happened.”

    ^^No they heard about what happened. If they saw it, presumably, they would have stopped him.

    “How do we present proof?”

    ^^You could ask Mr. Bergdahl what happened. Unfortunately no one is willing to wait for that to happen or believe what he says when it does. It’s easier to put forth a scenario that plays into your ideological beliefs than wait for the truth, whatever that may be, to appear.

    For what its worth I think that his mental state at the time of his departure may play a big role, but that’s just idle speculation too.

    My guess as too why the Republicans are so fired up about this story is that they know Benghazi is a loser and they need a new story on which they can base their Obama impeachment strategy. I just don’t think this is that story.

  12. Whether the guy is Sgt. York or Beetle Bailey, the trade for these terrorists will come back to haunt us and was a mistake.

  13. erich500 Says:

    The editorial board of the country’s leading and most influential paper tell us this:

    “[A] classified military report shows that Sergeant Bergdahl had walked away from assigned areas at least twice before and had returned, according to a report in The Times on Thursday. It describes him as a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.

    If anything, the report suggests that the army unit’s lack of security and discipline was as much to blame for the disappearance, given the sergeant’s history.”

    The army’s unit “was as much to blame for the disappearance” as Bergdahl.

    I cannot think of any other word than insane to describe such a view.

  14. erich500 Says:

    The Time says there was “no indication” that he would desert.

    But the unit was to blame for it anyway.

    Again, this is the most influential paper in the country saying this. Not some obscure blogger.

    Amazing.

  15. “If anything, the report suggests that the army unit’s lack of security and discipline was as much to blame for the disappearance, given the sergeant’s history.”

    ^^If Mr. Bergdahl had left the base twice before and returned safely then perhaps he expected to be returning safely on this third excursion too; which would make him AWOL but not necessarily a deserter.

    If he left the base twice before and returned why was he not court marshalled and/or shipped home? I don’t think base security and his fellow soldiers, particularly his superiors, were “as much the blame for his disappearance” but they do have some reasonability for not stopping the practice after the first excursion.

    Rachel Maddow reported last night that the whole trade-off of the five Taliban for Bergdahl was first made public in 2011/2012 and there is video of Republicans ,like John McCain, saying the trade was fine with them.

    As I said earlier this story is just beginning and where the truth lies is far from known.

  16. ^^reasonability.>>> responsibility Sorry.

  17. erich500 Says:

    Fritz: I thought we weren’t supposed to speculate?

    Perhaps they discipline Bergdahl? Or he promised not to leave again?

    In any case, the key point of the Times risible editorial is that Bergdahl’s unit was equally culpable in his disappearance.

    They were in the middle of a dangerous combat zone. They didn’t have the resources to baby-sit a fellow soldier who kept leaving.

    It’s an absurd charge.

    Second: As to the Republicans, who cares? Is everything politics to you?

    If this was a Republican White House I’d be just as stunned over their short-sighted decision.

    And something tells me Maddow didn’t accurately show what McCain said. Given her history, I’m pretty confident that she didn’t.

    That’s speculation based on her dishonest past.

  18. If your speculation is true then you get to speculate.

  19. “I thought we weren’t supposed to speculate?”

    I don’t mind speculation, for the purpose of discussion, as long as it’s not treated as fact. I just offered some alternate theories. I don’t pretend to know if any of them are correct. note I used the word “if’ before my comments.

    “Perhaps they discipline Bergdahl? Or he promised not to leave again?”

    ^^Maybe, but going AWOL if that’s what occurred, should get you sent home or to the brig; not a slap on the wrist if he didn’t do it again.

    “In any case, the key point of the Times risible editorial is that Bergdahl’s unit was equally culpable in his disappearance.”

    ^^ Haven’t read the editorial so I don’t know the context and, as I said before, if the story is true they do have some culpability.

    “They were in the middle of a dangerous combat zone. They didn’t have the resources to baby-sit a fellow soldier who kept leaving.”

    ^^So ship him home or back to HQ.

    “As to the Republicans, who cares? Is everything politics to you?”

    ^^The only reason this is a story at all is that the Republicans have decided to make it one for political reasons. All the details of the deal have been publicly known for years. Republicans were fine with the trade until some tea party blogs took it on as a cause. Then it was how fast can I erase my twitter and Facebook praise of the deal.

    “And something tells me Maddow didn’t accurately show what McCain said. Given her history, I’m pretty confident that she didn’t.”

    ^^She played the clip in context. And it wasn’t just McCain. Few, if any, Republicans were opposed to the swap in 2011/2012. That’s why no one remembered the ‘Times’ story until all this hit the fan again.

  20. WELL… the only reason this is a story is his squad leader and virtually all the rest of his group called him a deserter and revolted at him being treated as some kind of hero. To the Left Loonies, a deserter IS a hero.

  21. savefarris Says:

    Few, if any, Republicans were opposed to the swap in 2011/2012.

    Too bad you only get your news from far left news sites. If you’d occasionally read right wing rags like … Rolling Stone … you’d see that Republicans had been vehemently opposed to the swap even at the time in question and even those who were “reluctantly” supportive (like McCain) had serious reservations.

  22. “Too bad you only get your news from far left news sites. If you’d occasionally read right wing rags like … Rolling Stone … you’d see that Republicans had been vehemently opposed to the swap even at the time in question and even those who were “reluctantly” supportive (like McCain) had serious reservations.”

    ^^If your referring to Michael Hastings excellent story then you’ll see it backs up what I said – that McCain backed up the swap. Saxby Chambliss was mentioned as the only other Republican who was somewhat opposed. “As I said “, “few if any”.

    In fact I doubt most Republicans knew or cared anything about Bowe Bergdahl except how his capture could be used as a partisan issue to attack the POTUS.

  23. Of course only THE LEFT is sincere. Teach your children.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: