Fellow soldier on Bowe Bergdahl: "I just don’t think he cared for America anymore."

June 02, 2014

Writer

The release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from Afghanistan over the weekend has generated a lot of controversy. Many are questioning President Obama's decision to negotiate with terrorists and exchange four prisoners for Bergdahl. Other soldiers are claiming that Bergdahl was a deserter whose selfish actions cost others their lives. In order to help shed some light on the subject, Glenn was joined SPC Josh Fuller, who served with Bergdahl in Alaska and was close with people who knew him during his service in Afghanistan. Fuller tells the story of a man who was a bit of an oddball, a soldier who left his post and whose actions put the lives of others at risk.

Glenn: I want to go now to the soldier that I talked to on the radio this morning. He’s not the only one that is questioning the motives for Sergeant Bergdahl’s release. Joshua Fuller, he met and served with Sergeant Bergdahl while the two trained in Alaska.

So how did you know him at all?

SPC Fuller: We were both in the same brigade back in Alaska. I was stationed in the 509th, and he was stationed in the 501st, and so we were both stationed in Alaska together.

Glenn: Okay, and then you went to Afghanistan together, but you were close but not –

SPC Fuller: Yes, sir. So we were in two sister battalions, two airborne sister battalions, and he was stationed at an outpost a couple clicks away from where I was at. And I was stationed at another one.

Glenn: And one of your best friends was his roommate or bunk mate?

SPC Fuller: Bunk mate, yes, sir.

Glenn: So tell me what you saw and what your friend saw on what he said.

SPC Fuller: When we were back at Rear D back in Garrison, he seemed a little oddballish and would say stuff like, you know, like what you were talking about earlier, about America was a superpower and shouldn’t be, and we’re trying to bully around the world and stuff like that, just oddball comments like that. I didn’t think too much of it until whenever this stuff happened over there, whenever he ended up leaving and deserting the post.

Glenn: So is it normal? I mean, you didn’t think much of that. Is that normal to hear people say things like that?

SPC Fuller: Yes, we’ve got quite a few oddball people. It actually happens quite a bit, but usually like when we’re in war, we’re pretty short staffed, so you can take what you can get. And so a lot of people have, you know, said stuff before. We’ve taken the bolts out of people’s M-4s before because they started to get a little crazy, and then a week or two later we think they’re okay, so we give them their bolt back to put back in their gun.

Glenn: Wow.

SPC Fuller: You get what you can.

Glenn: Okay, so when he left, and he walked out by himself, there are people that say that he asked if he could take his night vision goggles with him, which no, you can’t.

SPC Fuller: Right.

Glenn: The enemy would pay a lot for night vision.

SPC Fuller: Right.

Glenn: Any reason he was out, he left? I mean, can you think of any reason why he left his post?

SPC Fuller: I just don’t think he cared for America anymore. I think his agenda was to help those people, just like what his father was stating about wanting to help the Afghans a little bit more.

Glenn: Okay, help me out on this because I heard his dad. And I want to give his dad the benefit of the doubt. I mean, you went over to protect America, but also you don’t have anything against the Afghanis.

SPC Fuller: Not at all.

Glenn: Right.

SPC Fuller: They were very cool to me.

Glenn: Right, you want to help them too. Why do you interpret what dad said as anti-American?

SPC Fuller: I don’t know, it seemed a little strange. It seemed a little strange to me.

Glenn: Now, he leaves the base, and you guys have to go out and try to find him.

SPC Fuller: Yes, sir.

Glenn: What happened there?

SPC Fuller: When he had left the base, the next day there was already people going out to search for him, different platoons from different companies out of different battalions. They were already going on this thing called dust off, so when somebody either gets captured or goes missing, we start sending out patrols. Helicopters will go out and look for them.

Our platoon was going to be the next one to go out, and that was on July 3. And our bird got scratched to go look for him. Luckily it did, because the next day our outpost was almost overrun by the Taliban on July 4, so luckily we didn’t go. So I didn’t get to go on that mission to go look for him because we were getting overrun.

Glenn: And you say that the Taliban had information that they shouldn’t have had, that you think that he gave them.

SPC Fuller: Yes. To that point, whenever he had left the base, right after he had left, we started getting hit in spots that we didn’t normally get hit in because we’ve got a thing called POO sites, which are point of origin sites, and so we’ll know at some points where we get attacked from so we stay away from those areas. The areas that we trained with to go on certain areas, we started getting attacked on those areas. IEDs were placed strategically on the routes of trucks where we knew we would be going to hit those certain spots, stuff that the Taliban shouldn’t know about. Ambushes, we were getting hit from.

Glenn: Okay, so playing devil’s advocate again, what makes you think that he wasn’t tortured and gave all that information up through torture?

SPC Fuller: He could have, absolutely. He could have went over there with his best intentions, thinking that hey, I’m here to help you, and the Taliban said, you know, yes you will, and they still could have tortured him for that stuff.

Glenn: What’s your gut say? I mean, you drove in. I talked to you this morning. We asked you, “Can you come to the studios?” And you got here right away. And when I first saw you before we went on the air, you said a lot of us are, this has been eating you alive.

SPC Fuller: We got told from a higher up that was in charge of the brigade not to talk about it, but we didn’t –

Glenn: Back then?

SPC Fuller: Yes, sir. In OEF 9 through 10 or Operation Enduring Freedom 9 through 10, we were told to keep it on the quiet, on the DL, and from that point on, they were telling his family that he was a POW, telling the media he was a POW, and that was not the case.

Glenn: How does it make you feel, the president just…I’m not a soldier obviously, but I know enough, and I know people like Marcus Luttrell who have actually been held. And there’s no way Marcus Luttrell would want the president to negotiate for five really bad guys.

SPC Fuller: I wouldn’t allow it, even if it was myself, no way.

Glenn: Thanks a lot, Josh.

SPC Fuller: Yes, sir.

Glenn: Appreciate it. Thank you.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep