Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Wag the Dog?

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on June 3rd, 2014 (All posts by )

    I know, it was a bitterly ironic movie, and the novel it was based upon was even more bitterly ironic (Trust me, I read the darned thing –eh – moderately funny, but I fear that the only thing that the move took away from it was the premise) but what we may have here *assuming Strother Martin voice* is called a failure to communicate. I mean the imbroglio with returning Bowe Bergdahl, the only recorded POW from the war in Afghanistan to the bosom of his family, after languishing in durance vile for five long years. Wellll … after observing that normally, Western captives of the Taliban and other seriously Islamic semi-organizations usually last as only as long as it takes for a head-chopper with a sharp, sharp blade and the willingness to use it show up, or for the extortionate ransom to be delivered … methinks there is a certain stink about this fortunate weekend diversion from the spectacle of General Shinseki (whom my daughter persistently refers to as General Shitaki – as in mushroom, usually kept in the dark and grown on s**t) taking responsibility for the continuing wretched mess of the VA and taking more time to spend with his family and his hobbies. Granted, the VA has been a particularly wretched exercise in government-provided healthcare since the beginning, but it seems to have been plumbing fresh new depths for mismanagement and sheer incompetence in caring for the military veteran population. And for an administration which promised the earth, sky and stars upon assuming office … well, when the earth, sky, etc., are not delivered, people do tend to notice. Eventually.

    Anyway – the puir-lost-lonely-little-lamb-POW, retrieved from captivity vile in Afghanistan… huzzah, huzzah, huzzah, three cheers more for the noble Administration…but wait a minute – it seems that a case can be made that puir-lost-etc actually deserted, and instead of languishing in durance vile was gamboling happily in the wilds of Afghanistan with his new-found buddies. At least, many of those who served with him at the time say so, and moreover, blame him for the deaths which resulted, both those incurred in the actual search for him and those which occurred because all available resources were turned from their routine purpose. There have been rumblings of this all along, but now it’s become a full-throated roar, in the military community generally. It may even be breaking out in the mainstream news, too – since the President so publically announced it; glossing over many of the pesky details, naturally. But the devil is in the details. The Administration may yet come to wish that they had stuck to being raked over the coals regarding the VA, instead of loosing the Bergdahl family squirrels. Wag the dog, indeed. Discuss.

    (Cross-posted at www.ncobrief.com)

     

    19 Responses to “Wag the Dog?”

    1. dearieme Says:

      Poor old BB: his crime was to be a premature Kerry.

    2. MikeK Says:

      New information keeps this deal every day .

      Those opposing release had the benefit of secret and top secret intelligence showing that the five men were a continuing threat, officials familiar with the debate tell TIME. But in the push from the White House and the State Department to clear the men, opponents to release found themselves under constant pressure to prove that the five were dangerous. “It was a heavy burden to show they were bad,” says the second source familiar with the debate.

      Opponents of release say absent a peace deal with the Taliban, the release makes no sense. “When our military is engaged in combat operations you’re always going to err on the side of caution,” says the first official familiar with the debate. “Just conceptually, how much sense does it make to release your enemy when you’re still at war with him?”

      Simple. Obama is no longer at war with them, if he ever was.

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Obama has surrendered to the Taliban. Now he just needs the rest of the country to catch up to him.

    4. JSD Says:

      As long as we are discussing coincidences, was it just a coincidence that the name of the CIA Station Chief in Kabul was “accidentally” released to the public?

      You know, the same guy who would have HAD to have known about the deal coming up and would have HAD to have objected to it?

    5. Sgt. Mom Says:

      Yes, it is all … mysteriously convenient, isn’t it? There was a time when I would have said this was tinfoil chapeau territory, but now…

    6. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Tinfoil chapeau’s are becoming mandatory. When dealing with our government now; the only thing that you can absolutely rule out as impossible is that their actions will be legal, moral, in the public interest, and help this country and its people. Either singly or in any combination.

    7. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      The Democrats are less a political organization of technocrats than they are an organized crime syndicate. And an inept one at that.

    8. ErisGuy Says:

      Obama used the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi as a model. Instead of a compassionate release, terrorists (who should have been executed) were released as prisoner exchange.

      There is no evil which Obama and his followers will not perpetrate to harm the United States. If only the Democrat/Communist/Fascist party inept. Instead they are very effective. Their only losses are in PR, never at the polls, never at policy.

      They are our elite and will govern us until they die. Only a French- or Russian-style revolution can challenge their dominance.

    9. Will Says:

      As Pamela Geller so aptly put it; “He’s a malicious subversive”

      This charade is yet another in-yer-face demonstration of that. What I wonder, is just how many more there are in the armed forces, FBI, police, etc. etc. The pResident, Bergdahl, Snowden, Hasan, Manning, all on the same team.

    10. Tim Says:

      This exchange was likely done to distract from the VA scandal. It just shows how totally out of touch this administration is. They actually thought they would be lauded for this.

    11. Oliver Suess-Barnkey Says:

      as for the portion of the post that could be addressed by fact or logic: shiitake mushrooms are neither grown in the dark, nor on poop. They typically grow in the shade of oak trees…

    12. Sgt. Mom Says:

      Cut your teeth on similies, Nollie … maybe later you can start working up to the bigger stuff. Like the comparison between the movie and the Bergdahl imbroglio. (Hint: it has not gone over very well with the military and military veteran community. Our Fearless Leader has become a laughing-stock on this account.)

    13. Jason in LA Says:

      I too am skeptical of the cost/benefit of this “trade”. In the interest of fairness, it must be said the right has not always been in universal agreement about saving Bergdahl.

      http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43450_Flashback!_1-2014-_PJ_Media_Encourages_Readers_to_Sign_Petition_to_Free_Bergdahl_By_Any_Means_Necessary

    14. Mrs. Davis Says:

      I suspect we know very little of what is going on here. My guess is someone has told Barry what happened to Elphinstone when he tried to leave Afghanistan. My bet is that he is setting a pattern that will allow our troops to withdraw without a comparable disaster.

    15. Sgt. Mom Says:

      I’d like to think he has the best interests of the troops at heart, Mrs. D … or that someone in this administration has the best interests of the troops at heart, or at the very least a strong desire not to be embarrassed by a repeat of Benghazi-X-100 … but honestly, at the rate our Very Dear Leader is going, I don’t think he gives two pins about the lives or deaths of anyone outside his immediate circle. Except if he is personally inconvenienced or embarrassed by it.
      I honestly wonder if anyone outside his circle is real to him at all. Or are we all just some kind of herd of recalcitrant chess pieces, who will not hop one square on the king or queen’s command.

    16. MikeK Says:

      “This exchange was likely done to distract from the VA scandal.”

      I wish it were that simple. Today on Hugh Hewitt’s program he was talking to a defense guy he often has on, name escapes me at the moment, and they were talking about Obama’s motivation. They brought up something that handn’t occurred to me. Obama may indeed plan to empty Guantanamo but the other guy suggested he might give the base back to Cuba so that the US can never use it again. I could see him doing that and daring the rest of us to try to impeach him.

      He might be that crazy.

    17. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Mrs. Davis Says:
      June 4th, 2014 at 2:28 pm

      I am afraid that I believe that he wants to reenact Elphinstone’s retreat from Kabul but without any inconvenient Doctor Brydon. I suspect that we will find out who was right in fairly short order.

    18. dearieme Says:

      I suppose it sounds all right to pay the Danegeld if you want to leave the Danes’ territory. But what if it proves so remunerative that the Danes decide to pursue you?

    19. Mrs. Davis Says:

      I’d like to think he has the best interests of our troops at heart too, Sgt. Mom, but I’ve been paying attention. He’s going to get all the troops out and release everyone from Gitmo before 2017. He’ll declare victory and ask Francis to canonize him. Within two years there will be an even more horrific attack on CONUS. Our response will not be the moderate PC BS we’ve been putting up with for the last 13 years.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.