Posted on 03/26/2015 4:48:52 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
....“When I think about this desertion charge, the thing that gets me the most frustrated is this administration gave up five Taliban, five Taliban for this guy, and I can’t, I mean, logic tells you all this information that they’re bringing against the sergeant now isn’t something that just happened since then,” Mr. Walker told radio host Hugh Hewitt. “This is stuff they knew about when they put American soldiers’ lives at risk to try and rescue him. And they gave up five Taliban leaders in return for a guy who now is going to be charged.”
Sgt. Bergdahl was taken captive in Afghanistan in June 2009 and returned home last May in a controversial swap for five Guantanamo Bay detainees........
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
"After appearing at a Chamber of Commerce lunch with Hugh, the Wisconsin Governor
dropped by the studios of KKNT 960 in Phoenix to continue the discussion. [Transcript]
Audio 19:00
We must have been listening at the same time this morning. I swear I heard this exchange in the car on my way to work.
Part of the whole sham is that “O” wanted to grandstand and could do that easily by getting this deserter back.
As usual he was thinking strictly about the immediate, personal, temporary and did not consider all the facts or the likely fall out.
It’s the way he has done everything all his life.
He gave up five Taliban “generals” AND $5 billion.
And Obama made a VERY big deal about this by inviting Bergdhal’s parents to a Rose Garden appearance so that a bearded Robert Bergdahl could step to the podium outside of the White House and say, in Arabic: “In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate.”
Absolutely, Cruz wouldn't have made the same decision as Obama. It's one thing to not have executive experience; it's something quite other to not have executive experience AND despise America.
Yes, that’s a little shot at Cruz, and that’s the most disappointing thing about Walker to me. He snipes at Cruz through the side door a lot.
I’m thinking look Scottie, I like you and Cruz - but if you can’t like Cruz, many of us will stop liking you. Cruz ain’t gonna waste a single syllable on you. And besides, Cruz would hold a harder line on this kind of thing than you would in all probability.
Really petty, small, and Rand Paul like frankly. That’s not a good thing.
True dat - and besides, being the executive of a small midwestern mostly lily white homogenous state ain’t got no analogy to being Prez - which is NOT AN EXEC ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT job.
It’s a vision job. Walker, you have vision. But so does Ted. So please STFU on this kind of sniping stuff.
He’s talking about Obama.
You're making stuff up.
Get over it.
Did I hear something to the effect this clown will not be incarcerated awaiting the article 32 hearing?? Ft Sam is pretty close to Medico, comprende??
INDICT OBAMA FOR TREASON!
No, I’m not making it up and I’m not alone - Mark Levin called Walker out on it too.....Walker always gets that little shot in - and it’s a shot at Cruz, Paul, Santorum, etc - but certainly this week it’s more about Cruz. JIndal has done it some. Nikki Haley weighed in yesterday as well.
All the governors are doing it, and Cruz is their feared target now. Next month it may be some other senator. But Walker and Cruz are clearly the momentum leaders at the moment.
Yes, but he's doing it in a way that lets him take a shot at Cruz.
When I first heard about the Bergdahl trade, it never occurred to me to think: "Gee, it's too bad we don't have a president with more leadership experience." My first thought was: "Damn that MF-ing CS-ing traitor in the White House."
I think it's pretty clear that Walker was trying to kill two birds with one stone -- criticizing Obama while taking a shot as Cruz.
Do you really think Obama would have made a different decision if he'd had a prior leadership experience before running for president? I don't.
Besides, by the time Obama made the decision to swap a deserter for five terrorist captives, he'd already had five years of executive experience as President. What good did THAT do him (or us)?
So, Walker can’t talk about his governing because it might look good in contrast to others?
Well it is good that Walker is talking about this, because you sure won’t hear anything from Hillary, Jeb, CNN, etc.
A traitorous bargain is what everyone with common sense is thinking, so if the rest of the campaign goes like this, Walker is a shoo-in.
You’re being overly sensitive.
Why don’t you promote Cruz’s good qualities and actions and not work so hard to attribute negatives to Walker.
Tactics like this make you look desperate.
That can’t help Cruz.
Why are you being so childish? That’s not what I said at all. I stand with Levin on this.....and Rush.....
And it’s still absurd to compare Madison with Washington. Not like he governed Texas, Florida, California, New York......tiny sparsely populated Wisconsin is just not an analogy.
And yes, he should tout his successes in Wisky. Absolutely. But he doesn’t have to be infantile about it.
I like Walker. Cheered his election, his re election, and his recall win. He’s my clear second choice at this point. I’m allowed to be critical of anyone, especially those I support. This is not what Walker should be doing.
We’re dealing with a kool aid drinker here. Last cycle, her flavor was Perry. This time, it’s Walker. She tends to be very mono focused.
Me? I like Walker and Cruz - Cruz a little more. But I’m not going to turn a blind eye if either of them, or anyone else, is making a mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.