Thursday, June 5, 2014

Why? That Is the Only Answer Obama Must Give to America about the Bergdahl Exchange

The White House has 'apologized' to some members of Congress for not giving advance notice of the release of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl last Saturday - but at least one person not on that list is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was notified before the release. Reid said, "It must have been either the day before or the day of. I don’t remember for sure." An aide to the other top Democrat in Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, declined to tell Politico when she was briefed on the release by the administration. Senator Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, received an after-the-fact telephone call Tuesday afternoon from Homeland Security Adviser Lisa Monaco apologizing for not giving a heads-up about the release of five senior Taliban militants from the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, a spokeswoman told Newsmax. The Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, told reporters that she received a call late Monday from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken apologizing for what he called an "oversight" regarding the matter. "I had a call from the White House last night, from Tony Blinken, apologizing for it," the California Democrat told reporters on Tuesday. Feinstein said : "He apologized and said it was an oversight. It’s very disappointing that there was not a level of trust sufficient to justify alerting us," she added, according to Politico. "The White House is pretty unilateral about what they want to do and when they want to do it. But I think the notification to us is important." Bergdahl was released on Saturday in Afghanistan in exchange for five senior Taliban militants in a deal brokered by the government of Qatar. They include Afghanistan’s deputy defense minister under Taliban rule and others who played major roles in the regime that helped shield those behind the September 11, 2001, Trade Center terrorist attacks. Sergeant Bergdahl, who was a private at the time of his disappearance and promoted while in Taliban hands, has since come under fire as a deserter who should be held accountable for his actions. A team member repeated to CNN on Wednesday what the team leader who supervised Bergdahl said on Newsmax TV on Monday - that Bergdahl left his post and so was in a sense responsible for the deaths of six fellow soldiers who searched for him. Other platoon members have also charged that the sergeant's actions cost the lives of soldiers sent to search for him. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that Bergdahl may still be disciplined if the Army finds evidence of misconduct. Meanwhile President Obama defended his decision, saying at a news conference in Poland on Tuesday that his administration had consulted with Congress about that possibility "for some time," a statement that Congress members deny. In addition, the President brushed aside questions about the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture, saying the United States has an obligation to not leave its military personnel behind. Senator Feinstein, a Democrat, and many other members of Congress have accused the White House of violating the National Defense Authorization Act, under which the administration must give Congress 30 days' advance notice of any pending release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. "The notification to us is important and I think that it would have been a much better thing to do because you do try to work together," Feinstein said. House Speaker John Boehner said that the White House kept the release from Congress because legislators would have opposed it based on the concerns raised when the administration last raised the issue in 2011. "There was every expectation that the administration would re-engage with Congress, as it did before, and the only reason it did not is because the administration knew it faced serious and sober bipartisan concern and opposition," Boehner said in a statement, adding : "The administration has invited serious questions into how this exchange went down and the calculations the White House and relevant agencies made in moving forward without consulting Congress despite assurances it would re-engage with members on both sides of the aisle." Boehner said the Obama administration briefed members of Congress about a possible Bergdahl exchange in late 2011 and January 2012. The chairmen at the time and I raised serious questions to the administration. Unfortunately, the questions and concerns we had were never satisfactorily answered and they remain today." He noted that the White House had assured Congress publicly as recently as last June that it would raise the issue with legislators again, addressing their concerns and working to "ensure the safety of Sergeant Bergdahl and to preserve space for diplomatic negotiations." In addition, Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also said that the White House did not notify him of the exchange in advance. He learned of it after Bergdahl was in American hands. And spokesmen for two other top congressional Republicans - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Florida Representative Jeff Miller, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee - told Newsmax on Tuesday that they also learned of Bergdahl's release after it was completed. ~~~~~ Dear readers, the Washington rumor mill, apparently supported by White House leaks, offers the conclusion that President Obama and his senior advisors were expecting the public to object to the release of the five Taliban for a few days and thought that protests would quickly fade. They were blindsided by tbe firestorm over Bergdahl's history of leaving his post and the consequent deaths of six of his comrades in the search for him. This, I suppose, is to be expected from a White House so completely out of touch with America and Americans, who are outraged for several reasons -- *Bergdahl was treated as a returning hero by the President, who had to know of the five-year-old accusations that Bergdahl deserted. *No effort was made by the President to contact or express regret to the families of the six soldiers killed looking for Bergdahl, and one family says they were simply told their son died in enemy action and learned the truth through soldiers present at Bergdahl's outpost. *There has been no acknowledgment by Obama that his initial conduct in announcing the release in the Rose Garden demeaned the valiant service of all American soldiers in Afghanistan. *The President has admitted that the five Taliban exchanged for Bergdahl will surely return to the war against America and the West, and this in the dubious exchange for a soldier of questionable loyalty to America. *America judges desertion as treason against the United States and cannot accept its being glossed over by the President. *The senior Senate and House intelligence leadership warned, as early as 2011, that these five detainees are the core of the hard core Taliban and pose a real security threat to the US if released. As Speaker Boehner put it succinctly, Congress was not consulted because the White House knew the answer would be "no." The liberal media, CNN in particular, is beginning to raise a new mantra to excuse Obama - "Wait until all the facts are in to judge." But it doesn't take a long analysis to understand the facts of the Bergdahl exchange - five Taliban who pose a serious security threat to America were released in exchange for a soldier of questionable loyalty to America. Do not be fooled by people who ask you to wait to judge. There is only one question we all should ask. Why did President Obama and his advisors persist, even to the point of ignoring the law, in order to release five dangerous Taliban for a soldier who left his post? We have no answer to this question - yet.

11 comments:

  1. I don’t think that President Obama can now or later ever answer that “WHY” question that is asked by Casey Pops without possible serious repercussions and consequences to _ _ _ _ _ (you will in the blanks). But here are a couple points to consider:

    1. What was the main objective in this overall exchange/trade of these 5 dangerous influential senior terrorists for 1 low level US Army soldier?
    2. How did the US know of Sgt. Bergdahl “deteriorating” health?
    3. Who ran for the presidency the first time vowing to close Guantanamo (GITMO) military prison?
    4. Gitmo had 625 plus prisoner’s detainees on January 20, 2009 and today has 150 give or take a few – who released those 475 prisoners.
    5. Was this slow steady release of the prisoners from Gitmo the methodology that was all along the plan to close Gitmo?
    6. As announced today was Bergdahl conversion to Islam an act of sympathy for his jailer’s?
    7. Did Sgt. Bergdahl look in poor health on the released terrorist’s video yesterday?

    This whole story is beginning to smell like a week old fish wrapped in the New York Times newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concerened CitizenJune 5, 2014 at 9:51 PM

      Can there be any doubt that he’ll release the Blind Sheik, most likely in his final hour in office? And Khalid Sheik Mohammad?

      Delete
  2. The entire core for the rush to making a trade for Sgt. Bergdahl with the Obama administrations has been Bergdahl serious health conditions!

    Last evening there was a secret showing of a Haqqani shot video for “certain” Senators. This video was made in December 2013, given to the President at the end of January 2014 and the White House made a decision (some 4 months later) this past Thursday of Friday to execute this 5 for 1 trade with the Taliban based on the urgency of Sgt. Bergdahl SERIOUS health that the video showed in December 2013.

    If ANYONE out there buys into this lie then contact me because I have a clear deed for a large park in Upper New York City that I will sell to each one of you believers.

    Who is stupid here? We the people for pretending to believe this lying administration and allowing to go on unpunished, or is it the present administration for simply feeling so comfortable from past lies that this whopper will work unchallenged!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are on a quest Casey pops and I hope you get 'em.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes she is. "Not like Don Quixote’s windmills, but giants real!"

      Delete
  4. De Oppressor LiberJune 5, 2014 at 7:15 PM

    Where there is the slightest bit of doubt concerning quilt or innocence we need to move with caution and be willing to error on the side of the accused for the most part. But where there is NO doubt, No question of quilt, innocence, or involvement why do we keep up this charade of presenting possibilities that suggest there is a viable question of innocence or non-involvement. I’m not talking about the extension of legal rights, but rather this false idea that there is need to seem unconvinced as to quilt.

    TV news, commentators, and most pundits seems to just hang on the possibility of not knowing what most of us already are convinced of or know.

    As much as what President Obama wants to believe the American (or any other people) public is not stupid or living under a rock under some bridge with a family of trolls. We can add 1+1 and get 2 as answer most of the time.

    We, the American public and anyone else following this story – and most other countries should be because your safety and security with these 5 terrorists we just released back at work (and they are as we speak) will be a problem for the world – feel strongly that Sgt. Bergdahl and his farther are now terrorists partisans.

    So let’s see the facts; let’s hear from the Army examining doctors and their findings as to the health and mental condition of Sgt. Bergdahl and move on to either a Court Marshall or pin a Yellow Ribbon on him and move on. Because his outcome is important … but move important if he is a deserter/traitor who knew it before we made the deal – they need punished harshly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The honorable idea of not leaving any soldier behind is admirable and speaks well of American resolve. And I think that most American had a sense of joy for the parents and family of Sgt. Bergdahl. But all the circumstances that have risen about Sgt. Bergdahl capture and escape and the questions about his farther will add to the division partisan politics.

    America has sent a message to its enemies by trading five war criminals for Sergeant Bergdahl: The United States with its reputation as the world’s power may also have a soft, illogical heart.

    Did Sergeant Bergdahl defect, did he desert, and did he collaborate with the enemy? We do not know that with any preponderance of certainty. If they are proven true and Bergdahl evades all punishment, it would be a blow to military morale and widen the gulf between the military and commander in chief that was on display at West Point a week ago.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for any explanation or apology of sort from Obama for his rush to judgement to use Sgt. Bergdahl as a cover for another(s) of his mistakes

    ReplyDelete
  7. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001 President Bush declared that we would treat those who shelter, support, fund, or feed terrorists the same way we treat terrorists. Throughout his presidency, he repeatedly set a clear standard: "If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist; if you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist; if you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends."

    Seems that this is just one more “forgiveness” that Obama is endorsing for those that invaded the United States and murdered nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, by-standers, people just going to work in NYC on a beautiful fall day.

    How can 2 men come away from a situation with such diametrically opposed views? Better yet how can Obama be a participant at D-Day +70?

    The Obama administration has convinced itself — after the Iraq withdrawal, after the Arab Spring, after the collapse of Syria and the 160,000 dead there, after the Benghazi attacks, after Boston — that somehow if we shut down Guantanamo Bay, that will create a discernable reduction in anti-American attitudes around the world and particularly in the Muslim world.

    What's more, the Obama administration seems to think that by releasing the most dangerous members of the Taliban in custody, they will make the Taliban more peaceful, agreeable and cooperative.

    Is this really the type of ”logical thinking” we want from the president of the United States?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Stanch ConservativeJune 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM

      This was good when President Bush said "... accountable by the United States and our friends" We had friends then.

      But Obama has (I think purposely) sent our once friends scattering. Obama wants to not be accountable or information sharing with anyone.

      And I think he has made great strides in that direction.

      A very good argument could be put up for the fact that we may only have 3 or 4 nations that are really friendly towards us.

      Delete
  8. There are many forms that active collaboration can take. Claims are being investigated that Bergdahl collaboration could go as serious as you could imagine. This is a loosely worded quote made by James Rosen of Fox News about his investigation into the level of Sgt. Bergdahl co-operation with his Haqqani friends.

    How could Obama have so badly misjudged the reaction of the American people to what he foresaw a simple prisoner exchange that was meant to 1: cover his existing bad press over the VA scandal and 2: continue his plan to vacate all the prisoners out of GITMO and thereby close the prison fulfilling a campaign promise.

    It’s always about politics and votes with Obama – nothing else matters. We need to accept this and then learn how to counter the ‘real” Obama and not what we perceive the makeup of all presidents is moral and honorable. When we wake up to this fact and approach the problem as it is not as we want it to be … then the playing field will be level again. Obama is what he is – simply the President of the United States. He supersedes nothing because of whom or what he is. He as all presidents before and after him are defined by the Constitution. Any person who sits in the oval office does so with the same “charge”. The Constitution is gender and color blind.

    ReplyDelete