BILL O'REILLY: On Friday the "New York Times" editorialized against the army prosecuting Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. The "Times" saying quote, "Trying him for desertion and misbehaving before the enemy for allegedly engaging in this conduct that endangered his unit stands to accomplish little at this point. A conviction would most likely deprive a traumatized veteran of benefits including medical care which he will probably need for years. A dishonorable discharge would make it harder to rebuild his life as a civilian. A trial would publicly raise important questions about how Sergeant Bergdahl was allowed into the army and whether there were missed opportunities to avert the crisis his capture created," unquote.
According to the "New York Times", Sergeant Bergdahl should be given a pass, an honorable discharge and a check for more than $300,000 which is the back pay he has accrued. Also the liberal newspaper seems to be placing the blame for Bergdahl's conduct on the army itself. Saying they should have known he was an unstable individual.
Right now there are nearly 500,000 people active in the U.S.A. Army but I guess the military should be aware of all their troubles. Truth is Sergeant Bergdahl's conduct was so dangerous it has to be prosecuted. Members of Bergdahl's platoon in Afghanistan remain outraged.
The reason that some on the left, not all -- not all but some want the Bergdahl situation to disappear is that it is harmful to President Obama. Is there any clear-thinking person who now believes that trading the sergeant for five top Taliban commanders was a good idea? A good deal? Ideological zombies aside, the whole thing makes America look very bad.
And then there is the bigger question. The liberal media knows that President Obama's foreign policy is a catastrophe. Every day we see another out-of-control situation.