Posted on 06/03/2014 12:19:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
Late Monday night, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, posted a note on Facebook regarding the swap of five senior Taliban commanders for SGT Bowe Bergdahl. Dempsey addresses the accusations that Bergdahl may have deserted his post in Afghanistan, but allows that any investigation will depend on what Bergdahl says. If that’s the case, there will be no true investigation. Dempsey also fails to acknowledge the six Americans who were killed during searches for Bergdahl.
In response to those of you interested in my personal judgments about the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergdahl, the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity. This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him. As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we’ll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred. In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family. Finally, I want to thank those who for almost five years worked to find him, prepared to rescue him, and ultimately put themselves at risk to recover him.
Points of emphasis added. Surely Gen. Dempsey could have acknowledged that among the Americans who risked their lives to find Bergdahl are six who paid the ultimate price.
When a US troop faces accusations of criminal wrongdoing, they are subjected to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ does not, contrary to Gen. Dempsey’s note, depend solely on the words of the accused. Is Dempsey indicating that the soldiers who served alongside Bergdahl and now accuse him of desertion will not be heard?
The US military conducted an investigation of Bergdahl’s actions in 2010, and concluded that Bergdahl was a deserter who was no longer worth the effort and risk it would have taken to rescue him by force. Bergdahl’s own writings and actions before he disappeared show pre-meditation based on his anti-American beliefs.
The deal to release the five Taliban commanders to Qatar is looking worse and worse. The Taliban 5 are free to move anywhere they want within Qatar, a country that hosts significant American bases and military personnel, and which is gearing up to host the World Cup in a few years. Qatar is under corruption investigation on the World Cup capture, by the way. It’s a country that, while allied to the US, can be bought.
The Taliban 5′s nation-sized house arrest only lasts for one year, so they will be free to return to Afghanistan at the same time Obama has ordered the drawdown of US forces there to be finished. So the Taliban gets its five commanders back to the battlefield at the same time Obama is abandoning it.
BRANDED! Scorned as the one who RAN!
WHAT do you do when you’re BRANDED....
‘Cause you’re one of the TALIBAN????
He only knows what he sees on TV.
After Obama fired all those generals and admirals who would not shoot American citizens .. how on earth did Dempsey keep his job ..?? By being the president’s stooge.
In other words, we have a new “hero” who is respected by the commander in chief.
Everything he says, posts or farts is “official policy” in my opinion. People at the highest ranks of the military and government are not permitted to publicly state “private opinions.”
This regime is so crazy wrong on so many levels....
These 3 and 4 star officers serving the Emperor should all be fired. They long ago betrayed their country to keep their careers. Kissing his butt is far more important to them than doing what is right and taking retirement in order not to help him destroy the military.
What the hell is the Chairman of the JCS doing posting a command opinion on Facebook(!) anyway???
Exactly my thought also. The last 5 1/2 years have drastically changed the military and NOT for the better.
"The deal to release the five Taliban commanders to Qatar is looking worse and worse"
Anyone else see similarities in this scandalous deal, the Bergdahl/GITMO-5 and Benghazi?
There were suggestions that the reason Steven's repeated requests for increased security were rejected and the reason multiple requests for military assistance during the assault on the embassy property on 9/11 were refused/ignored because of a plan to have the Ambassador kidnapped in order to exchange him for the blind sheik later.
In the Bergdahl case we see this administration broke the law to release the GITMO-5 for Bergdahl.
In both instances, high value Muhammedan warriors were the prize. In both instances American lives were carelessly sacrificed for political gain.
In both instances, the current occupant of the Oval Office was facing an avalanche of negative publicity for multiple policy scandals.
The structure of both incidents resemble enough to suggest there is a common architect, albeit an incompetent team or individual.
Both incidents' goal was to create situations creating heroes worthy of ticker tape parades for this administration. All while both advanced the interests of the resurgent caliphate.
Both failed with enormous consequences in invaluable loss of blood and treasure...and hemmorage of any remaining credibility within this administration.
How many lives have been forever altered/lost at the hands of the blind sheik, GITMO-5, Morsi, Bergdahl, Muslim Brotherhood etc...lost & or forever altered in attempts to redirect negative attention from this administration's persistent lawless malfeasance & for conjured hero parades in favor of our mortal enemy's interests.
Good post.
Don’t forget Benghazi.
Dempsey’s remark is being headlined on Yahoo as some great endorsement of the Clown.
Sounds stooge like to me.
With the turkey residing in the WH you’re scenario is more than a possibility in my view. It’s clear to me he’ll now do anything to promote himself and his anti-American agenda.
Agree, he is 0’s stooge.
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, told Congress last year that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force does not cover the Benghazi attackers.
Gen. Dempsey’s ‘failures in leadership’ cited in Benghazi disaster
By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Congress generally has given the Pentagon a pass on failing to come to the aid of Americans in Benghazi — that is until now.
Six Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, led by Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, have issued a blistering criticism of Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who as Joint Chiefs chairman is the nation’s highest-ranking officer and chief military adviser to President Obama.
Under the heading “Failures in leadership — General Dempsey,” the senators singled out the four-star officer for not having an emergency plan in place in al Qaeda-infiltrated North Africa, including Benghazi, Libya.
No plan meant there were no U.S. forces close enough to arrive in time to help after terrorists invaded the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi at 9:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012, and then attacked a nearby CIA annex holding spies, diplomats and security personnel.
The annex personnel were rescued by a team from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and left Benghazi around 10 a.m. Sept. 12. The first U.S. military reinforcements — a Marine Corps Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team — did not arrive in the country until 9 p.m., 11 hours after the attack.
“The tenure of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has been marked by what we view as significant deficiencies in command,” the six wrote in an addendum to the committee’s Jan. 15 report on Benghazi. “From Syria to Benghazi, there has been either a profound inability or clear unwillingness to identify and prevent problems before they arise. Given the known operating environment in Benghazi, much less North Africa, a strong military leader would have ensured there was a viable plan in place to rescue Americans should the need arise.”
Gen. Dempsey and Leon E. Panetta, defense secretary at the time of the attack, have testified that time and distance prevented troops from arriving during the fighting. The six Republicans dismissed that reasoning.
“General Dempsey’s attempts to excuse inaction by claiming that forces were not deployed because they would not have gotten there in time does not pass the common sense test,” they wrote. “No one knew when the attacks against our facilities in Benghazi would end, or how aggressive the attacks would be. That is the whole point of a pre-established emergency rescue plan — so that the length of the attack alone does not dictate the rescue or survival of Americans.”
Bump
Had this administration succeeded in undermining the second amendment via Fast&Furious gun running scandal they would have been seen as crown royalty the world over, especially by those nefarious characters looking to take advantage of weak points in our Constitutional armor.
Has anyone gave any serious thought to the statement “This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him” or the other official statements to that effect such has his life was imperil, etc.?
It is only correct in the sense that when we pull out this guy’s life would mean squat to the Taliban. So they concoct this Bravo Sierra statement to dupe us into believing that he was on life support!
This is right out of the Clinton sentence parsing playbook.
Translation: "After we have had time to coach him in all the right talking points we'll learn the facts."
Ask those who served with him.
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.