Hat tip Weekly Standard
First it was State Department spokeshole Marie Harf. Then it was John "Baloney" Kerry. Now it is the New York Times. In a front page story on Saturday they trashed Bowe Bergdahl's unit calling them "raggedy".
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/us-soldier-bowe-bergdahl-case-highlights-a-unit-known-for-troubles.html
"Then, a few months later, the sergeant found himself in trouble after pictures appeared online showing some in the platoon wearing bandannas and cutoff T-shirts."
Now comes (again) Ms Harf, who gives this interview:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/state-department-refers-taliban-5-gentlemen_794526.html
"Under this administration, we've put in very stringent processes to determine that we can sufficiently mitigate the risk that the terrorists, the possibility that these gentlemen will go back to the battlefield,"
(Emphasis mine)
The reference to "gentlemen" speaks for itself. Pass it off as a misstatement if you will. But when Ms Harf refers to "under this administration", you know that she is a partisan hack (which she is).
And finally, both Obama and Chuck Hagel have told reporters in the past few days that Bergdahl was in a very serious state of health, which made the effort to secure his release immediately imperative.
Yet the doctors examining Bergdahl have said that his physical health is fine.
(Is anybody lying here?)
As for that NY Times hit piece against the soldiers of Bergdahl's unit, I would suggest that the two reporters who wrote that piece try digging some bunkers in 100 degree heat. See if they can do so without taking off their coats and ties.
Well, the facts reported suggest that the outfit WAS rageddy. It happens. It has happened many times in military history, including the USA. Not particularly the fault of the rank and file. There were many factors: location, situation, back-up and supply, definition of the mission, leadership. It seems leadership was deficient, and there was a high rate of turnover in command. Napoleon once said "There are no bad regiments, only bad colonels."
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen anything that could be seriously attributed to "the left" in all this. American wannabe leftists don't know enough about the military to concoct such a story.
But of course, any fact that is inconvenient to the Party Line must be a left-wing pushback, because, how else do you write off documented facts?
This just in: Siarlys confirms NYT report that Bergdahl's unit was, indeed, raggedy.
ReplyDeleteSiarlys--We know about Gary's military experience, and mine. I am just curious about yours. Would you care to enlighten us??
ReplyDeleteNone elwood. I turned 19 the first year nobody was drafted (since 1940 that is, before then there had never been a peace time draft). I hadn't made up my mind whether I would accept induction, claim conscientious objector status (difficult, since I would have given an affirmative answer to the test question "Would you have fought in WW II," accept prosecution for refusal, or flee the country (unappetizing, I must admit).
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, military service might have been good for me, but at the time, it would have meant placing myself under orders I knew to be abhorrent. We had no business being in Vietnam, period.
On the other hand, one benefit of conscription is that it ratchets up political pressure on the feds if they send the boys off on another mission unworthy of their sacrifice. With the all-volunteer army, we just send the same bunch of working class kids over and over and over until it drives them crazy. A lot of people in high places would think twice if there was a good chance THEIR son would be going.
Your point?
No point, just curiosity.
ReplyDelete