Obama Praises Moms, America and Apple Pie; Republicans Furious – “Moms are actually huge c*nts” Counters McCain

Filed in National by on June 6, 2014

This Bowe Bergdahl story is actually the tipping point right? We have finally reached “peak wingnut.”

The ludicrousness of the Republican talking points on this issue reveal the game once and for all. To be a Republican now means that you believe…

- President Obama secretly and treacherously invented the idea of prisoner exchange,
– the Taliban prisoners being exchanged personally blew up the twin towers on 9-11,
– Bergdahl’s Mother and Father are enemies of democracy, and
– (insert crackpot conspiracy theory of the day here).

It is all such transparent nonsense that the American family can finally consign our wingnut uncle to an institution. You will like it in the country Uncle. The good people will take care of you. You need a long rest. It will be good for you.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (77)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. FenceSitter says:

    One could argue that Susan Rice’s talking point are even more ludicrous, unless,of course, one had his head burried deeply up his own arse.

  2. jason330 says:

    One could argue anything, but the GOP only argues one point.

  3. fightingbluehen says:

    What about the soldiers in his unit who said he deserted, and what about the mother who said her son died while searching for Bergdahl after he walked off base.

    What about the other soldiers who said that at least six other soldiers died while looking for Bergdahl after he apparently went AWOL.

    Why does the White House keep changing the story on this?

    Of course none of us know all the facts yet, but something in this story doesn’t pass the smell test, and if you just take the word of the administration on this, your partisanism has blinded you.

  4. pandora says:

    This story stuns me, and the idea of leaving a soldier behind is the most unpatriotic thing I’ve ever heard. We do not leave our soldiers behind. There should be no debate on that issue.

    And this has nothing to do with partisanship (well, it does to you).

  5. Jason330 says:

    Republicans hate Obama with a white hot passion, so they think everyone should. That’s not a compelling argument. It lacks every bit of what you look for in a compelling argument.

    Bringing a United States soldier home is not controversial in the real world. Only in the world of “everyone should hate Obama as much as I do” does it make sense.

  6. fightingbluehen says:

    Lift those blinders a bit, and let some light in.

  7. Jason330 says:

    Okay.

    *Sets blinders aside*

    Oh yes. Now I see. This scandal is this most horrifying scandal ever, until next week’s utterly concocted and totally horrifying grounds for impeachment. I can hardly wait to be angry about that one.

  8. Tom McKenney says:

    It was a no win for Obama politically. If he had left a soldier behind all you Obama haters would be outraged at that.

  9. Geezer says:

    I want Obama to start going to NASCAR races.

  10. Jason330 says:

    I want Obama to tell the wingnut press that chugging a bottle of Clorox is a terrible idea and that everyone should avoid chugging a bottles of Clorox at all costs.

  11. fightingbluehen says:

    I’m just posing questions based on people’s first hand accounts.
    Even Diane Feinstein is questioning this.

  12. Jason330 says:

    Yes Fighting Blue Hen – Obama will be impeached over this one for sure. This one or next week’s. Or July’s…

  13. puck says:

    I want all US prisoners left in enemy torture camps until John McCain certifies they are true patriots deserving of release.

  14. Geezer says:

    Seriously, think about it. Obama could destroy that entire culture by embracing it.

  15. Delaware Dem says:

    So, Fighting Blue Hen, you would leave an American soldier to die in the hands of the enemy depending on whether you like him or not. That is what you are fucking saying.

    If we had done that during the Bush years, you would rightly call us traitors.

  16. fightingbluehen says:

    “So, Fighting Blue Hen, you would leave an American soldier to die in the hands of the enemy depending on whether you like him or not. That is what you are fucking saying.”

    “Yes Fighting Blue Hen – Obama will be impeached over this one for sure. This one or next week’s. Or July’s…”

    Who?…what?….straw…. who?

    But doesn’t it bother you at all that there is a large class/group of people in this country now that are above the law?

    It seems like some progressives long for the old days. You know,.. the ones with kings, queens, dukes and the like.

    My biggest fear is that I will be lying in bed one day at the state run old folks internment camp, and President Chelsea Clinton will come on the TV and force me to throw my bottle of Geritol at the TV set.

  17. Dave says:

    The problem I have with outrage is that if everything is outrageous, then nothing is outrageous. I am weary of outrage in general regardless from which quarter it emanates.

    The President made a decision. I don’t have to like it, but he has the authority to make it. It may be that the decision will provoke discussions of the authority, wisdom, necessity, or morality of such a decision, always worthwhile topics. However, he made a decision to bring an American soldier home. If there is a question regarding whether that soldier violated laws, his oath, or was inflicted with a lack of common sense, we can and should answer those questions once they are back home. Those are questions separate from bringing him home. At this point he is an American soldier who, in our strange society, happens to not be charged with a crime (at least to my knowledge) and if and when charged, is innocent until proven guilty.

    Lastly, the hatred for Obama is just so tiring. I cannot even imagine spending the energy necessary to do that day after day after day. Just for the record, I don’t think this President is particularly good, but he is my President, at least until we get a new one to hate.

  18. pandora says:

    But doesn’t it bother you at all that there is a large class/group of people in this country now that are above the law?

    You are being ridiculous. No one is saying this soldier is above the law. If he is guilty of something then he will, and should, face US law. Why are you condemning him without due process. Do you think he doesn’t deserve that?

  19. Jason330 says:

    It will be President Chelsea Clinton Obama, because Chelsea will be lesbian/interracial married to Malia.

  20. Delaware Dem says:

    Agree completely Dave. Although I do think the President is particularly good and I agree with his decision. ;)

  21. Delaware Dem says:

    Indeed, Pandora. If Bergdahl deserted, then lets open that court martial investigation and find out the truth. If he committed a crime, prosecute him for it. But to condemn him to death in the hands of the enemy without any due process or investigation whatsoever, going only on hearsay evidence, that is just simply unAmerican, on multiple levels. It is a rejection of our legal system and any morals that you may possess.

  22. Delaware Dem says:

    To me, the only thing you can criticize or question the President for in this whole matter is the trade of 5 Taliban prisoners for him. We can have that debate. I think the President made the right decision, given history, given the fact that Bergdahl’s health was failing, given the fact that we were going to have to release all Taliban prisioners in a year anyway since the war is about to end (remember the Geneva Convention, fellas?) But to debate whether you bring Bergdahl home at all, well there is no defense to even questioning that. None whatsoever.

  23. Jason330 says:

    With what he had to trade, he should have held out for Bergdahl, the baby of the crazy “adventure” tourists, and a second round draft pick.

  24. fightingbluehen says:

    “You are being ridiculous. No one is saying this soldier is above the law. If he is guilty of something then he will, and should, face US law. Why are you condemning him without due process. Do you think he doesn’t deserve that?”

    Who’s saying that the soldier is above the law? Who’s condemning the soldier?

    Show me where I did this. Do you misrepresent what I say on purpose, because you seem to do it frequently.

  25. Delaware Dem says:

    David Brooks, whom I often do not agree with, but I do here:

    “Americans don’t have a common ancestry. Therefore, we have to work hard to build national solidarity… So, of course, President Obama had to take all measures necessary to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Of course, he had to do all he could do to not forsake an American citizen.”

    “It doesn’t matter if Bergdahl had deserted his post or not. It doesn’t matter if he is a confused young man who said insulting and shameful things about his country and his Army. The debt we owe to fellow Americans is not based on individual merit. It is based on citizenship, and loyalty to the national community we all share… the president’s instincts were right. His sense of responsibility for a fellow countryman was correct. It’s not about one person; it’s about the principle of all-for-one-and-one-for-all, which is the basis of citizenship.”

  26. rustydils says:

    President Obama’s “War on Women” continues, 60,000 more Women unemployed in may

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/unemployed-women-increased-60000-may

  27. ben says:

    I guess the repubs are so sensitive about this issue, because the LAST high-profile alleged (actual) deserter became the LAST Republican president this country will ever have.

  28. Geezer says:

    @RD: You mean the Republican war on women. The economy sucks because y’all don’t “believe in” the proper solution, which is government hiring.

    You’re only fooling yourself.

  29. Tom McKenney says:

    He was AWOL,most soldiers are at some time(i.e. he was not where he was supposed to be), but never get caught . Desertion means leaving with no intention of coming back. You don’t desert in the middle of a combat zone; you wait until you can find a safe haven. All the chicken hawks, who avoided service in Viet Nam are quick to condemn someone who was actually in combat.

  30. fightingbluehen says:

    “All the chicken hawks, who avoided service in Viet Nam are quick to condemn someone who was actually in combat.”

    ….But it’s the people who served with him who are saying that he was AWOL.

    One platoon mate of Bergdahl said, “He’s, at best, a deserter and at worst, a traitor,”

    Another one said, “I do believe he deserted, without a doubt in my mind,”

  31. pandora says:

    Oh, I’m sorry, FBH. You were saying that he should be brought home? So you agree with the administration? My bad.

  32. Jason330 says:

    Ben FTW!

  33. fightingbluehen says:

    @ pandora – So, I guess you can’t show me where I indicated that Bergdahl was above the law, or that I was “condemning him without due process.”

    That’s OK. I’ll let you have this little petty off because I’m getting hay fever in here with all the straw being thrown around anyway.

    Have a nice day .

  34. pandora says:

    Then why did you say…

    “What about the soldiers in his unit who said he deserted, and what about the mother who said her son died while searching for Bergdahl after he walked off base.

    What about the other soldiers who said that at least six other soldiers died while looking for Bergdahl after he apparently went AWOL.”

    … unless you were questioning us bringing him home. Seriously why did this matter? Why ask those questions?

    So do you agree with bringing all of our soldiers home, or not?

    But I know it’s not unheard of for a born and raised Sussex County boy to get a little worked up at times.

  35. fightingbluehen says:

    I was born in Wilmington, but that is a true statement.

  36. SussexAnon says:

    “….But it’s the people who served with him who are saying that he was AWOL.”

    Its also not uncommon to have soldiers bitch and complain. just sayin’ As in, “he don’t deserve nuthin’ special cuz he wandered off base, I mean, whattabout me? I am here bustin my ass gettin shot at and he is some hero for getting captured doin sumthin he shouldn’t oughtta been doin'”

    Ya know, the full swiftboat. Swiftboaters were veterans too. It doesn’t make them super citizens beyond reproach.

    Was he ever charged or classified as AWOL?

  37. Tom McKenney says:

    FBH I would put more faith in his platoon members if they were not being counseled by a K street lobbing team. If the troops close to him are attacking him , you have to wonder about their attitude to him in the first place. There exists the possibility that they were the reason he left. A good defense is a strong office. Someone mentioned swift boats. The Swift Boats for Truth are admitted liars and a disgrace to all of us Viet Nam veterans.

  38. rustydils says:

    Geezer, republicans are not running the country, democrats (socialist) control the senate, and the executive branch. Are you saying that socialism only works if democrats control both houses and the executive branch?

  39. SussexAnon says:

    Republicans are obstructing the country. Every. Chance. They. Get.

    To think that they do not have a hand in how this country is currently being run defies reality.

  40. Geezer says:

    @Rusty: Republicans are obstructing the Democratic program every chance they get, even to the point of refusing to vote for legislation they themselves have advocated.

    Smart people see this. Dumb ones don’t.

  41. Jason330 says:

    Lol. Everytime a wingnut calls the President a socialist, Karl Marx markes a quarter turn in his grave.

  42. Geezer says:

    And a devil gets his horns.

  43. fightingbluehen says:

    The reason Obama didn’t go to Congress with the information that he was going to set free five leaders of the Taliban is because he knew that they would bipartisanly obstruct the administrations plans.

    It’s the same reason he always bypasses Congress when he wants his way.

    They make a calculated choice to break the law , because they know there will be no consequences. He knows he has the support of a populous that is kept in the dark by the fawning left wing media.

    Beau Bergdahl wasn’t even being held by the typical Taliban. He was being held by the Haqqani, a criminal mafia like organization who basically were keeping Bergdahl for ransom.

    I won’t pretend to know the motivation behind the administration actions on this, but it’s pretty clear that Congress would not have gone along with it.

    BTW, how is Hillary’s new book which apparently includes how Hillary was against trading Taliban for Bergdahl, all of a sudden going to come out just days after this whole deal……You gotta love politics when the Clintons are involved.

  44. cassandra_m says:

    Beau Bergdahl wasn’t even being held by the typical Taliban. He was being held by the Haqqani, a criminal mafia like organization who basically were keeping Bergdahl for ransom.

    So this is OK with you? That an American in uniform is being held by combatants? Whether they wanted ransom or were keeping him as a POW is immaterial to this question. It is OK with you that Americans should be held by combatants with no effort by us to bring them home?

    And Hillary’s book has her arguing for a tougher deal with the Qataris (?) to hold the released prisoners — not that she was against it.

  45. Dave says:

    “They make a calculated choice to break the law”

    So, I’m assuming you are of the opinion that “signing statements” by a president are an illegitimate means by which to exercise executive authority and that all actions emanating from signing statements are a violation of the law?

  46. fightingbluehen says:

    Doesn’t it bother anybody that the administration obviously collaborated with Hillary on the timing of Bergdahl’s release, and the release of her book?

    Oh, wait…. I forgot where I was.

  47. cassandra_m says:

    So it *is* Ok with you for American military to be held hostage by combatants.

    See that folks? American Exceptionalism is being killed by wingnuts just because they can’t stand the President.

  48. fightingbluehen says:

    “So, I’m assuming you are of the opinion that “signing statements” by a president are an illegitimate means by which to exercise executive authority and that all actions emanating from signing statements are a violation of the law?”

    Diane Feinstein didn’t like that Obama was “totally breaking the law” when he bypassed Congress.

  49. pandora says:

    Know what bothers me, FBH? The way you’ve not answered questions.

    I asked you, “So do you agree with bringing all of our soldiers home, or not?”

    Cassandra asked you, “So this is OK with you? That an American in uniform is being held by combatants? Whether they wanted ransom or were keeping him as a POW is immaterial to this question. It is OK with you that Americans should be held by combatants with no effort by us to bring them home?”

    Dave asked you, “So, I’m assuming you are of the opinion that “signing statements” by a president are an illegitimate means by which to exercise executive authority and that all actions emanating from signing statements are a violation of the law?”

    Could you answer these question?

  50. Dave says:

    Or one of them at least?

  51. Geezer says:

    Why bother with questions? These folks don’t know anything about these stories except what the right-wing media has told them.

    Seriously, does anything about this story make a sliver of a scintilla of an iota’s difference in the life of anyone here? Of course not.

    This is why I want Obama to become a NASCAR fan. The cognitive dissonance — assuming cognition, of course — would taste even sweeter than Tea Party tears of rage.

  52. fightingbluehen says:

    “So do you agree with bringing all of our soldiers home, or not?

    Yes I do, but the military has certain criteria to determine if a prisoner was
    actually a soldier at the time, and in this case I believe the verdict is still out.

    I believe the military has yet to determine this case.
    —————————————————————————————————————-

    “So, I’m assuming you are of the opinion that “signing statements” by a president are an illegitimate means by which to exercise executive authority and that all actions emanating from signing statements are a violation of the law?”

    Some of them are and some of them aren’t , and yes I know George Bush did it too.

  53. fightingbluehen says:

    “Seriously, does anything about this story make a sliver of a scintilla of an iota’s difference in the life of anyone here? Of course not.”

    Sure it does. If it is determined that the Bergdahl prisoner exchange wasn’t a prisoner exchange at all, and was in fact a hostage negotiation, than our long standing practice of not negotiating with terrorist is over, and this will embolden other nefarious organizations to seek this type of action.

  54. puck says:

    “Yes I do, but the military has certain criteria to determine if a prisoner was
    actually a soldier at the time, and in this case I believe the verdict is still out.”

    Well that would depend on what the definition of “is” is.

  55. Dave says:

    “but the military has certain criteria to determine if a prisoner was
    actually a soldier at the time”

    I’d like to see a source for this statement. A service member remains a member until they have been discharged from service. Even the prisoners at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks. Fort Leavenworth remain soldiers (service members) including the ones on death row. All service members are subject to the UCMJ, including deserters, which means they are and remain service members.

  56. fightingbluehen says:

    “Well that would depend on what the definition of “is” is.”

    No, it depends on the hearings that the military courts will probably have.

    It’s no wonder that people are starting to compare this whole situation to the movie Wag the Dog.

  57. cassandra_m says:

    Said by someone who hasn’t a clue about the military:

    Yes I do, but the military has certain criteria to determine if a prisoner was
    actually a soldier at the time, and in this case I believe the verdict is still out.

    I believe the military has yet to determine this case.

    There is no gray about whether you are in the service or not. None. And the military won’t disown its soldiers while they are in the hands of enemy combatants.

    Bergdahl may have been in violation of military rules, but since the military isn’t saying yet, I’d bet ALOT of money you don’t know, either. Your cable handlers might be communicating alot of certainty about this kid’s actions, but there isn’t much real information that people outside of the Army have yet.

    It is only “wag the dog” because your cable handlers have told you that.

  58. pandora says:

    “No, it depends on the hearings that the military courts will probably have.”

    And where should these hearings be held? Or should they be held at all? Given what you’ve written it seems you’re okay with judgement before an actual hearing.

  59. fightingbluehen says:

    You may be right, and Im not sure about the wording, but what I am referring to is how the military handles certain situations where it is not clear if the prisoner falls under the category of a POW, seeing that the hostage/prisoner may not have been in uniform, or on any designated battlefield, or if he may have been collaborating with an enemy.

    If the guy is not a POW than it is a hostage negotiation, and not a prisoner exchange.

  60. cassandra_m says:

    And you still don’t know what you are talking about.

    The thing that counts here is that he was wearing an American uniform. The conditions of the battlefield or collaborating with the enemy or whatever else you are listing to dance away from the fact that you’re cable handlers are failing you here. They get him back, and then they deal with whatever the issues may have been.

    John McCain benefited from a prisoner exchange, and while he was in captivity made some anti-American confession or other bit of propaganda. Under your made up rules, he might never have made it home.

  61. fightingbluehen says:

    Do his fellow soldiers know what they are talking about, cassandra?

    Do the mothers of the slain soldiers who went searching for Bergdahl after he left his post, know what they are talking about.?

    Why was the ‘welcome home’ parade in Berdahls’ hometown cancelled?

    It’s not just me cassandra, and I really don’t have a solid opinion on this yet,

  62. cassandra_m says:

    FBH, inciting wingnuts to their worst behavior isn’t new and it doesn’t matter how many of you bought the bullshit. (Rember who it was who were chanting about Death Panels.) The fact is that this kid was wearing an American uniform and he comes home. Once he is home, he faces whatever music he has to.

  63. fightingbluehen says:

    Yeah, and we traded five high-ranking Taliban commanders for one sergeant, and apparently they are “the worst of the worst”.

    It doesn’t seem to add up in my conspiratory minded head.

    If you really want to know what I think, I’ll tell you that I don’t think things are as they seem on the surface of this deal.

    The fact that there were actual platoon-mates speaking out against this deal raises my suspicions of some sort of military conspiracy, because you usually don’t hear from people like that.

    Whether it involves espionage, or some other sort of clandestine activities or deals, I don’t know, but something doesn’t pass the smell test.

  64. cassandra_m says:

    If they were the worst of the worst, they would have been tried and convicted by a military tribunal. But hey, even the military tribunal couldn’t work out a way to convict these worst of the worst. So, this is you being sold a raft of shit again. If these guys were that bad, they should have been able to convict them of something.

    But if you really want to know what I think, you haven’t a clue *what* to think until your buddies at Fox News tell you. And they are just as clueless about this as you are.

  65. fightingbluehen says:

    You always accuse me of watching FOX news.
    If it isn’t sports or cartoons, I don’t even watch TV, cassandra….oh, and Game of Thrones.

    BTW, I haven’t heard anything about a conspiracy theory.
    Since you obviously watch FOX News, did they say something about a government conspiracy?

  66. cassandra_m says:

    When you repeat their propaganda, you get accused of watching Fox News. If you would show any smidgen of thinking for yourself, you wouldn’t be vulnerable to the accusation.

  67. pandora says:

    FBH, is saying that it’s okay to leave US soldiers behind. Seriously, that’s it. That’s what he’s saying. Screw the hearing and trial if other soldiers have a problem with this guy – we don’t need to hear his side of the story. That’s enough, right? GUILTY! without a hearing or a trial on US soil.

    And… cartoons and sports? That explains so much!

  68. puck says:

    The fact that there were actual platoon-mates speaking out against this deal raises my suspicions of some sort of military conspiracy, because you usually don’t hear from people like that.

    No you don’t… unless there is an opportunity to (in their minds) diminish a Democratic president or presidential candidate.

    Whether it involves espionage, or some other sort of clandestine activities or deals, I don’t know, but something doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Yeah. Smells like Swift boat.

  69. SussexAnon says:

    Obama was right, he should have just traded 1,500 missiles for him and been done with it.

    Whether you are in uniform or not, you are still military property until discharged.

  70. Joanne Christian says:

    Geezer cracked me up @ 0927 w/ NASCAR. Could he become a regular shopper @ Walmart too?

    Seriously people, just wait for the book…and the movie….and the Senate hearings.

    However he got home, amen. I have more tolerance for that, than the idiots who knowingly “wander” into enemy territory, or take behometh physical risks on sailboat and mountain exploits, and the US moves those mountains and seas to bring them home–to public acclaim.

    Hostility after a 5 year hold? Now who’s the enemy? Sorry, if the pound of flesh some want isn’t USDA grade. Let the military courts here decide any precipitating factors of his service, or dereliction of duty.

    And I AM a military mom. Welcome home Beau.

  71. SussexAnon says:

    Michelle Obama was booed at a NASCAR race 2011. She was there for an organization supporting military families. Good job ‘Murca.

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/michelle-obama-booed-nascar-15002419

    “Rush Limbaugh defends fans who verbally attacked the “uppity” first lady.”

    Good thing there isn’t a racist element to the GOP attacks. :-P

  72. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    So there is absolutely no other possible explanation for that booing than those NASCAR fans had to be racists – every single one of them. I gotta say, I’ve never witnessed so much clarity from Nascar Fans. They can barely park without getting into an argument with each other over a spot.

    Pull you head out of your ass long enough to appreciate maybe, just maybe, they disagreed with the politics.

  73. SussexAnon says:

    Calm down, I was referring to Rush calling her uppity.

    Hence the comment “good thing there isn’t a racial element to GOP attacks.”

  74. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    Who cares what Rush says

  75. SussexAnon says:

    So NASCAR fans booed Michelle for supporting an organization that supports military families?

    Again, good job, ‘Murca.

  76. SussexAnon says:

    Who cares what Rush says. Really?

    A lot of Republicans care was Rush Limbaugh says, as well as much of right wing America.

  77. Aint's Taking it Any More says:

    I over-reacted. My bad. Got your point.