Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    Why are administration allies calling Bergdahl's comrades liars?

    June 10, 2014

    Why are administration allies calling Bergdahl's comrades liars?

    By Rick Moran

    The pushback by administration allies against the contention by members of Bowe Bergdahl's company that 6 of their number died looking for him is not surprising. What is raising a few eyebrows is their insistence that the men who kept looking for him on every mission they undertook are exaggerating when they blame Bergdahl for the deaths.
    Reuters:
    he frantic search for Bowe Bergdahl began the moment his comrades discovered he was no longer inside the fragile outpost in a rock-strewn valley in one of the most hostile corners of Afghanistan.
    Exactly why Bergdahl left is subject to intense scrutiny. But accounts by two Taliban sources as well as several U.S. officials and fellow soldiers raise doubt over media reports that he had sought to join the Taliban, and over suggestions that the deaths later that year of six soldiers in his battalion were related to the search for him.
    His dramatic release on May 31 after five years in captivity in return for five Taliban commanders sparked a national controversy over whether President Barack Obama paid too high a price for his freedom. That was fueled by allegations by some in his battalion that he was a deserter, and that soldiers died because they were looking for him after his disappearance in the early hours of June 30, 2009.
    While many questions remain, a Reuters reconstruction of his disappearance indicates that at the time when Bergdahl’s six comrades in the 1st Battalion of the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment were killed in August and September 2009, his fallen comrades were on other missions like securing the Afghan elections and, according to one U.S. military official, the period of intensive ground searches had already ended.
    But several soldiers in his unit say the quest to locate him never really ended, and that it was an element of every mission they undertook, prompting some to blame the deaths on him.
    The U.S. Army has declined to give an account of those fraught weeks saying a new investigation will be conducted when Bergdahl, now being treated at a U.S. military hospital in Germany, is able to take part.
    Jake Tapper interviewed several members of Bergdahl's unit and, to a man, each soldier said that their comrades died as a result of Bergdahl leaving his post. The soldiers who were killed would not have been where they were when they were killed if Bergdahl had stayed where he was supposed to be.
    "I can't really say I blame Bergdahl to the fullest extent," former Staff Sgt. Justin Gerleve, Bergdahl's squad leader, told CNN last week, "but if he wouldn't have deserted us, these soldiers very well could have been in a different place at a different time, rather than the place at the time of their death."
    Interviews with soldiers familiar with the specific missions in which the six died suggest the charge is complicated -- but not without merit given how much the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment became focused on "<acronym title="Google Page Ranking">PR</acronym>" -- personnel recovery -- after Bergdahl vanished from his guard post on June 30, 2009.
    "The fact of the matter is, when those soldiers were killed, they would not have been where they were at if Bergdahl had not have left," said former Sgt. Evan Buetow, Bergdahl's former team leader. "Bergdahl leaving changed the mission."
    Those charges were repeated by a noncommissioned officer who requested anonymity because he is still in the Army, one who described himself as a two-time voter for President Obama, lest anyone think his comments were political in any way.
    "If Bergdahl hadn't left it's entirely plausible that they wouldn't have had those follow-on missions or been where they were," said the NCO, who served in the 501st.
    Some also argue that the personnel recovery mission angered the local population, and created patterns in troops' movement that made insurgent attacks easier.
    None of that has been enough to quell critics who accuse the soldiers of smearing Bergdahl and exaggerating the role his disappearance played in the deaths of the six men.
    A New York Times story cited by critics of the soldiers from the 501st now calling Bergdahl a deserter doesn't go into much detail about the six men from Bergdahl's battalion, instead focusing on a separate attack that killed two mortarmen.
    Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said he didn't "know of circumstances or details of U.S. soldiers dying as a result of efforts to find and rescue Sgt. Bergdahl."
    A U.S. official told CNN last week that Pentagon and Army officials have looked at the claims, and "right now there is no evidence to back that up."
    Now isn't that just like the New York Times? Obfuscating the issue by reporting on an unrelated incident. Not too transparent, are they?
    I can see where members of Bergdahl's uinit would think that he was at least partially responsible for those 6 deaths. Focusing on when the "official" search ended is viewing the issue with blinders on. If "personnel recovery" was part of their missions months after Bergdahl disappeared, you can certainly make the argument that he is responsible to a certain degree.
    The pushback is pure politics and members of Bergdahl's unit don't deserve to be smeared for telling the truth.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...des_liars.html

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    June 10, 2014

    Americans give thumbs down to Bergdahl deal


    By Rick Moran

    A new USA Today/Pew poll of 1004 adults shows 43% believing the deal that brought Bowe Bergdahl home was the wrong thing to do. 36% think it was the right thing..

    Among vbterans polled on the matter, only 6% said it was the right thing while 68% said it was wrong.
    USA Today:
    Indeed, most Americans say they believe the United States has a responsibility to bring a captive American soldier home, regardless of the circumstances: 56% say Bergdahl was entitled to those efforts even though he left his post in 2009; 29% say he wasn't.
    On one key point in the political controversy, the public backs Congress. By 2-1, Americans say the president should be required to inform Congress before such transfers.
    A law passed by Congress last year requires the secretary of Defense to do exactly that, at least 30 days before transferring detainees out of the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama signed that bill into law despite arguing that the notification provision was unconstitutional because it hindered his ability "to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers."
    The poll showed that 30% agree the president should have that flexibility, and 64% say the president should be required to inform Congress first. There's a significant partisan split: A slight majority of Democrats give deference to the president, while Republicans overwhelmingly side with Congress.
    That's "super-interesting" to Jon Rogowski, a professor at the University of Washington in St. Louis who studies public opinion on presidential power.
    "I think the numbers here probably show what happens when these actions are politicized," he said "In general, the public does like strong presidents. They like presidents to have some flexibility and dexterity in addressing these high-stakes issues that are really sensitive."
    The partisan breakdown is about what you'd expect:
    Reactions to the Bergdahl case are deeply divided along partisan lines. Fully 71% of Republicans think the prisoner exchange was the wrong thing to do, while just 16% say it was the right thing to do. Democrats, by more than two-to-one (55% to 24%), have a positive opinion of the agreement.
    Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans, also are far less likely than Democrats to say that the U.S. was obligated to do all it could to secure Bergdahl’s freedom.
    A majority of Democrats (75%) says the U.S. has a responsibility to return captive soldiers, no matter what the circumstances.
    Republicans are more divided: 48% say that because Bergdahl left his post the U.S. was not obligated to do all it could to secure his return, while 39% say the U.S. was responsible for doing all it could to free him. Among conservative Republicans, 56% say the U.S. was not obligated to do all it could to secure his return because he left his post.
    In general, there is more public support for the U.S. taking all measures to secure the release for captured U.S. soldiers, regardless of the circumstances, than there is for the Bergdahl prisoner exchange. In part, this reflects the fact that some who support making every effort to free a captive U.S. soldier in general have doubts about the specifics of the Bergdahl deal. Among those who say the U.S. has a responsibility to do all it can to return an American captive soldier, roughly a quarter (27%) say the Bergdahl exchange itself was the wrong thing to do.
    A majority of Democrats - 55% support the president. Not an overwhelming majority by any means. Democratic lawmakers are out on a limb with a large slice of their own party. Most have backed the president.
    Interestingly, the same number of people are mad at Bergdahl as those who sympathize with him - 15%. That's not a large number, suggesting that Bergdahl is not so much the issue here, but rather the swap for terrorists is what has Americans upset.
    Another interesting note: 23% is a high number for "no opinion." I guess if the late night talk show comics don't make jokes about it, it's just not news.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...dahl_deal.html

    Last edited by kathyet2; 06-10-2014 at 11:15 AM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Anyway You Cut It, It’s Treason: Obama’s ‘Gitmo Five’

    By Matt Barber / 10 June 2014




    Matt Barber points out below that Barack Obama’s trade of five terrorists for one suspected Army deserter is so egregious … even the Leftist media and fellow Democrats are speaking out against it:


    Anyway You Cut It, It’s Treason: Obama’s ‘Gitmo Five’
    by J. Matt Barber

    You were already thinking it.
    Treason.
    For Richard Nixon, it was a cover-up surrounding illegal wiretapping. For Bill Clinton, it was lying under oath about sex with an intern. Obama thinks he’s untouchable. He believes he’s above the law.
    Evidently, he’s right.
    What will it take for our spineless U.S. Congress to impeach this tyrant? This is way beyond partisan politics. This is about justice. This is about the safety of the American people. Barack Hussein Obama is America’s biggest threat to national security. He is “an enemy within.”
    It’s official. America is no longer a constitutional republic. Under this “progressive” nut, we’ve become a banana republic.
    The president’s latest act of lawlessness is beyond the pale. There is no question whatsoever that by freeing, to kill again, five known, mass-murdering, high-level Muslim terrorists in exchange for accused Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, Obama broke the law.
    Not only did he unilaterally and arbitrarily trash the U.S. government’s long-standing policy never to negotiate with terrorists, he intentionally and overtly violated a 2013 national defense bill that unambiguously requires he give Congress 30-days notice before releasing any Guantanamo Bay prisoners, much less five of its most deadly.

    As ABC News reports:
    “Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Berghdal’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” said House Armed Services Chairman Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon, R-Calif., and Senate Armed Services Ranking Member James Inhofe, R-Okla., in a joint statement.
    Bingo.
    Let the American kidnapping spree begin. The Muslim world is celebrating this as a huge victory in its anti-American jihad.
    The Muslim world is right.
    As McKeon and Inhofe predicted, the Taliban has already announced that Obama’s unilateral surrender has “encouraged” them to kidnap more Americans to trade for terrorists.
    Is anyone surprised?
    Is Obama?
    No way.
    Even many in the liberal media are flummoxed by this one, with, for example, MSNBC producer Steven Bennen reluctantly admitting that Obama was likely “acting outside the confines of the law.”
    Let me help you with that, Steve. By “acting outside the confines of the law,” you mean to say that Obama “broke the law.”
    We have a word for people who break the law: They’re called criminals.
    This one is so over-the-top that, in a rare moment of lucidity, even ultra-liberal Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., has temporarily emerged from her sycophantic shell to publicly condemn Obama, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, saying that she was “very disappointed” he failed to comply with the law. This “White House is pretty unilateral about what they want to do when they want to do it,” she fumed.
    Understatement of the decade.
    Merriam-Webster defines “treason” as, “the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government or of helping your country’s enemies during war.”
    Whether Obama is intentionally trying to overthrow his own government is open for debate. But that he has “helped his country’s enemies during war” is a slam dunk.
    The amazing thing? This arrogant clown admits to it: “Is there a possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us?” Obama asked rhetorically of the five terrorists he just cut loose. “Absolutely,” he answered.
    Possibility? It’s a guarantee. There is no doubt that Americans …
    Keep reading the rest of Matt’s analysis at Treason: Obama’s ‘Gitmo Five’
    Image: Courtesy of: http://opinion-forum.com/index/2012/...esident-obama/




    About the author: Matt Barber



    Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.


    Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/06/anyway...pyKy8TeCmlM.99
    Last edited by kathyet2; 06-10-2014 at 11:15 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    SGT. BOWE BERGDAHL: OBAMA'S WATERLOO


    By Frosty Wooldridge
    June
    10, 2014
    NewsWithViews.com



    In the past week, we discovered that U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Islamic Al-Qaeda’s only prisoner of war, deserted his post while serving with his unit in Afghanistan. Instead of a hero’s welcome, he can expect a court martial with hard time.
    In addition, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, broke the law by not conferring with Congress by giving 30 days notice when he bartered five mastermind Muslim terrorists back into their own ranks. Obama remains in contempt of the U.S. Constitution with a new status: he faces charges of aiding and abetting the enemy.

    Both Bergdahl and Obama face hard questions on what it means to be serving our country. Both clearly think themselves above the law. Both clearly broke the law. Both need to face a court of justice.
    “Yes, we resented Bergdahl,” said Evan Buetow, Bergdahl’s former Army team leader. “And we were upset with the fact that we were looking for this guy who we knew walked away.”
    After Bergdahl deserted, six Army soldiers lost their lives trying to recover a man who walked away from his post. When the dust settles, Bergdahl faces a court martial for desertion. He faces hard time in a military prison.
    Before he deserted, he emailed his parents this final note: “The US Army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools and bullies.”
    His father, a Muslim, wrote back, “Dear Bowe, In matters of life and death, and especially at war, it is never safe to ignore one’s conscience.”
    Three days later, at 5:30 a.m., a fellow soldier tried to awaken Bergdahl for guard duty. His body armor and weapon remained, but Bergdahl vanished.
    A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that the evidence proved incontrovertibly that Bergdahl walked away from his unit. If Army brass fulfills their command duties, Bergdahl faces prison for desertion. He faces the wrath of the families of six other Army soldiers who lost their lives trying to recover the deserter.
    On top of that intrigue on the world stage, Mr. Barack Obama, already shredding the U.S. Constitution with his “Fast and Furious” gun running, Benghazi cover-up, granting amnesty unlawfully, his lack of a valid Social Security number, sealing all his records to conceal his very questionable past, lack of enforcing our immigration laws, suing states to stop them from enforcing their immigration laws—and the list grows—now faces “aiding and abetting” the enemy by turning over, not just five Muslim ground grunts, but five of the biggest masterminds of the Islamic terrorist network. Those guys return to planning the next 9/11. How stupid would that make Barack Obama, himself a Muslim by his own admission? Answer: pretty smart! He captured the White House and now he aids the Islamic enemy by returning their best mastermind killers.
    Additionally, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-CA) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James M. Inhofe (R-OK), wrote in a statement, “Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk.”
    The President broke the law by releasing the five GITMO terrorists. The law requires our sitting president to notify Congress at least 30 days in advance before transferring any prisoner out of GITMO. He gave no notification. He made a unilateral decision. There needs to be a full investigation and consequences – articles of impeachment, for starters.
    What questions does this entire fiasco in our foreign policy bring to mind? Who runs our government if not a mob of madmen? What will history report on this myopic, misguided and dishonest president?
    Why do we remain in Afghanistan for 12 years of killing, social insanity and over $1 trillion wasted on a goat-herder Islamic society? What kinds of minds drive such stupid, insidious and mindless wars like Iraq and Afghanistan? Why do we “educated and freedom-loving” Americans allow such stupidity to continue? Why do we allow our own government to carry on “private wars” with a volunteer army for the profits of corporations and bankers?

    Is Bergdahl guilty of desertion or did he wake up to America’s war-prone insanity? Is Obama a sagacious president or a chronic liar?
    We citizens of this Constitutional Republic need to ask ourselves if we want to continue our apathy that allows such pathetic leadership or engage in electing leaders who truly work for the intelligent future of America. If we elect more Obama’s, Harry Reid’s, Charles Schumer’s, John McCain’s, Mark Udall’s, Orrin Hatch’s, Barbara Boxer’s, Diane Feinstein’s and the like—we shall endure more Afghanistan’s with all the insanity created by endless wars and incompetent decisions by incompetent presidents.



    [Join me, Frosty Wooldridge, with Dave Chaffin, host of the Morning Zone at 650 AM, www.KGAB.com, Cheyenne, Wyoming every Monday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., as we discuss my latest commentaries on www.NewsWithViews.com about issues facing America. You may stream the show on your computer. You may call in at: 1-888-503-6500.]
    © 2014 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved


    Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS"; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.

    His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’
    Website: www.FrostyWooldridge.com

    E:Mail: frostyw@juno.com


    http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty963.htm




  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Pew: Public Skeptical of Bergdahl Deal, Veterans' Opposition Overwhelming

    Guy Benson | Jun 10, 2014






    A new Pew Research/USA Today poll reveals US veterans' strong opposition to the Obama administration's deal that released five Taliban commanders in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, with a closer split among the general public on the issue. A plurality (43 percent) of Americans say the trade was the "wrong thing" to do, with roughly one-third of respondents supporting the move:





    Among veterans and veteran households, results get substantially more hostile toward the administration's position. "Veterans are much more harsh in their assessment of the 28-year-old sergeant. Only 6% of veterans who responded say they sympathized with him, while 33% say they were angry. By 68%-16%, veterans say Obama made the wrong decision," USA Today reports. That's a whopping 52-point margin among veterans themselves; the disparity is a yawning 29 points among veteran households. Non-veteran households are split almost evenly on the basic right/wrong question. Team Obama's "we bring back our people no matter what, full stop" bravado clearly did not impress the men and women who've worn the uniform. A VFW spokesman doesn't mince words:



    "If he was a captured prisoner of war, we wouldn't be having this discussion," says Joe Davis, the director of public affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "He put his teammates in jeopardy, and you absolutely don't do that in a combat zone." Veterans are worried about the precedent set by the transfer, Davis says. "We have a long history in this country of not negotiating with terrorists," he says. "And we just did."


    The Obama administration continues to insist that it didn't negotiate with terrorist, a claim we explained here, and eviscerated here. The new survey shows that a large majority of Americans believe it's the US government's responsibility to do what it can to secure a captured soldier's release, regardless of the circumstances of his capture. Less than one-third said that Bergdahl's alleged desertion rendered him unworthy of the government's efforts. Interestingly, an Economist poll published last week produced markedly different results on this point. One possible explanation for the disconnect could be that last week's survey explicitly referenced desertion, whereas the Pew poll somewhat euphemized the action as "leaving his post." One area of broad agreement was on the president's responsibility to inform Congress on "decisions like these:"





    The vast majority (64/30) of Americans believe Congress should have been consulted, including a (67/3 landslide among independents. Please note that liberal Democrats -- who became great fans of muscular executive power circa January 20, 2009 -- hold the polar opposite view of most Americans, with two-thirds saying the president's shouldn't have been required to tell Congress, as he did not. On that point, Noah Rothman flagged a surprising exchange on MSNBC yesterday in which Andrea Mitchell (yes, this Andrea Mitchell) took apart a State Department spokesman for inventing excuses over why the administration "couldn't" provide an advance briefing to relevant member of Congress on the Bergdahl deal:





    Ms. Harf claimed that members were not briefed ahead of the Bin Laden raid, inducing an annoyed Mitchell to Mitchell call her out with contradictory evidence. Harf tried to draw a distinction between telling Congress about the "architecture" of the plan versus sharing "operational details," stressing that if any information pertaining to the Taliban swap had leaked out, Bergdahl's life would have been in jeopardy. (Which, again, makes no sense, since the outlines of a potential deal had been discussed in private and in the press for years -- a point Harf later concedes. Bergdahl's captors suggested the exact trade they ended up receiving in a phone call with the Associated Press last year). Exhausted by several bouts of refutation from the host, Harf retreated, saying there was no point in "recreating history" -- which is a rather succinct summary of what she was attempting to do in the first place. The administration has offered three separate justifications for why they didn't loop Congress into their decision before executing it, but Mitchell hits on the painfully obvious true reason:


    Mitchell: [The Bergdahl swap] was briefed back in 2011...
    Harf: And 2012, and 2013...
    Mitchell: And the [Congressional] leaders, in a bipartisan way, said don't do it. Don't trade these five. So the administration knew they would be getting objections in advance. Is that why they didn't tell them?



    Harf's response to that question? "Not at all." Sure.




    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...lming-n1849480


    Wrong???? Wrong thing to do????? He committed treason that is more than wrong!!! He clearly does not work to protect and serve our Country and the people within it!!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Obama Could Be Facing 10 Years to Life in Prison




    Western Journalism·512 videos


    Published on Jun 9, 2014
    Shepard Smith asked Judge Andrew Napolitano whether or not the Taliban prisoner exchange was legal under the NDAA H.R. 1960 Statute. The judge explained that the swap was illegal because taxpayer dollars were spent to remove these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without giving Congress 30 days notice. However, Napolitano goes a step further by pointing out that Obama has provided material assistance (human assets) to the Taliban, which has been identified by Congress to be a non-state terrorist organization. This is a crime punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life, which covers all Americans--including the President.














    Can we all say collusion with the enemy!! Aiding and betting??? It is all Symantec's!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Judge Jeanine Pirro: Bowe Bergdahl Fiasco Cries Out for Obama's Impeachment




    WesternFreePress·463 videos





    Published on Jun 7, 2014
    http://www.westernfreepress.com/?p=23... June 7, 2014
    Judge Jeanine Pirro again calls for Obama's impeachment -- this time for the astonishing exchange of one (alleged) US deserter for 5 top Taliban leaders held at Guantanamo Bay. Judge Jeanine warns that the future atrocities these five perpetrate will be attributable to Barack Obama. Obama didn't "release" these murderers, he"unleashed" them says Judge Jeanine.


    • Category

      News & Politics
    • License

      Standard YouTube License


      Stupid is as Stupid does is any one out there awake yet??? BUTTTTTT heck you left some behind in Benghazi what happened there??? Ask Hillary she knows!! What part of traitor doesn't anyone get??? YET!!!!
    Last edited by kathyet2; 06-10-2014 at 12:51 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Gitmo Detainee to Be Released for Taking Up Yoga?









    by Fox News Insider // Jun 09 2014 // 5:31pm

    As seen on The Five


    A Gitmo detainee may walk free … for taking up yoga? That’s according to The New York Post, which reported that President Obama is giving out “get out of jail free” cards in an attempt to empty Guantanamo Bay. Another detainee reportedly may be freed for his positive attitude.


    The Obama administration has faced scrutiny over the release of five Taliban leaders from Gitmo for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s freedom.
    Today on The Five, Greg Gutfeld reacted to the NY Post report in his monologue. “Here’s a man who treats foreign policy like its open mic night at the Funny Bone,” Gutfeld said of President Obama.
    He continued, “The fact is your average mom would make a better leader. She definitely wouldn’t buy this yoga crock, since her job is to warn daughters of smooth talkers who spew such sweet deception. But this is the president who thinks climate change is a bigger threat than releasing terrorists like butterflies.”
    Read more from The New York Post below and watch The Five segment above.
    Ghaleb Nasser al-Bihani, 34
    What he did: Classified as an “indefinite detainee” in 2010 because of the danger he posed to the US. The Yemeni national was captured in 2001 fighting in Afghanistan. The military said he was a troublemaker while in custody, even inciting riots. He was uncooperative in interviews, showing “ill intentions toward the US.” One of his brothers in Yemen is a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terror group’s most lethal branch.
    What they say now: His government-appointed lawyer argued he was merely an assistant cook for an unspecified military group. “He has asked for yoga magazines and self-help books,” lawyer Pardiss Kebriaei told the parole board in April, noting he practices yoga in his cellblock and has read biographies of the Dalai Lama and Martin Luther King Jr.
    In his own plea to the board, Bihani suggested his hostility comes from losing his parents as a boy, saying, “It was hard growing up without a mother or father.” He promised to start a family and live a peaceful life if freed. “I look forward to the day when I can hold my baby in my hands,” he said. Last month, the board said it found his story “credible” and declared Bihani “no longer … a threat to the security of the United States.”
    Read the rest of the story here.

    video at link below

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/09...ed-taking-yoga



  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    NOW It's all Hagel's fault!! Obummer is a traitor from his head to his foot..But Hagel made him do it.



    Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) says that at a classified briefing to House lawmakers, administration officials said it was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel who made the final decision to approve the prisoner exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. 





    Fall Guy? Officials Now Saying Hagel Made Final Call on Bergdahl Swap
    foxnewsinsider.com

    Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) says that at a classified briefing to House lawmakers, administration officials said it was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel who made the final decision to approve the prisoner exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. McKeon will chair a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee tomorrow in which Hagel will testify.







  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Hagel on Bergdahl Swap: 'Admin Could've Done a Better Job Keeping Congress Informed'





    by Fox News Insider // Jun 11 2014 // 10:28am

    Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel testified before Congress on the prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Below is the transcript of his opening statement, as prepared for delivery. Tune in to Fox News Channel for LIVE coverage of today’s testimony.


    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the recovery of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, and the transfer of five detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Qatar. And I appreciate having the Department of Defense General Counsel Stephen Preston, here with me. Mr. Preston was one of our negotiators in Qatar and signed on behalf of the U.S. the Memorandum of Understanding between the Governments of Qatar and the United States. Also here representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff is Brigadier General Pat White, who is the Director of the Joint Staff's Pakistan/Afghanistan Coordination Cell and who helped coordinate the Bergdahl recovery on behalf of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey. The Vice Chairman of the Joints Chiefs, Admiral Winnefeld, will join us for the closed portion of this hearing. As you know, General Dempsey and Admiral Winnefeld played a critical role in the meetings at the National Security Council leading up to Sergeant Bergdahl's release and supported the decision to move forward with this prisoner exchange.
    In my statement today, I will address the issues Chairman McKeon raised when he asked me to testify, and explain why it was urgent to pursue Sergeant Bergdahl's release, why we decided to move forward with the detainee transfer, and why it was fully consistent with U.S. law, our nation's interests, and our military's core values.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear on one fundamental point - I would never sign off on any decision that I did not feel was in the best interests of this country. Nor would the President of the United States, who made the final decision with the full support of his national security team.
    There are legitimate questions about this prisoner exchange, and Congress obviously has an important oversight role to play in all military and intelligence matters. As a former member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I appreciate the vital role Congress plays in our national security. And I will present to this committee - within the limits of an open, unclassified, hearing, and in more detail in the closed, classified, hearing - everything I can to assure you that this prisoner exchange was done legally, with substantial mitigation of risk, and in the national interest of our country.
    Let's start with Sergeant Bergdahl's status as a member of the U.S. Army. He was held captive by the Taliban and the Haqqani network for almost five years. He was officially listed as "missing-captured." No charges were ever brought against him and there are no charges pending now. Our entire national security apparatus - the military, the intelligence community, and the State Department - pursued every avenue to recover Sergeant Bergdahl, just as the American people and the Congress expected us to do. In fact, as this committee knows, there were a number of Congressional Resolutions introduced, and referred to this committee, directing the President to do everything he could to get Sergeant Bergdahl released from captivity. We never stopped trying to get him back, as the Congress knows, because he is a soldier in the United States Army.
    Questions about Sergeant Bergdahl's capture are separate from our effort to recover him - because we do whatever it takes to recover any U.S. service member held in captivity. This pledge is woven into the fabric of our nation and its military. As former Central Command Commander Marine General Jim Mattis recently put it, "bottom line, we don't leave people behind, that is the beginning and that is the end of what we stand for … we keep faith with the guys who sign on, and that is all there is to it."
    As for the circumstances surrounding his captivity, as Secretary of the Army McHugh and Army Chief of Staff General Odierno have said, the Army will review this in a comprehensive, coordinated effort that will include speaking with Sergeant Bergdahl. Like any American, Sergeant Bergdahl has rights, and his conduct will be judged on facts - not political hear-say, posturing, charges, or innuendo. We owe that to any American and especially those who are members of our military and their families. Like most Americans, I've been offended and disappointed in how the Bergdahl family has been treated by some people. No family deserves this. I hope there will be sober reflection on people's conduct regarding this issue and how it relates to the Bergdahl family.
    In 2011, the Obama administration conducted talks with the Taliban on a detainee exchange involving the five Taliban detainees that were ultimately transferred after the release of Sergeant Bergdahl. These talks - which Congress was briefed on in November of 2011 and January of 2012 - were broken off by the Taliban in March 2012. We have not had direct talks with the Taliban since this time. In September of 2013, the Government of Qatar offered to serve as an intermediary, and in November, we requested that the Taliban provide a new proof-of- life video of Sergeant Bergdahl.
    In January of this year, we received that video, and it was disturbing. It showed a deterioration in his physical appearance and mental state compared to previous videos. The intelligence community carefully analyzed it and concluded that Sergeant Bergdahl's health was poor and possibly declining.
    This gave us growing urgency to act. In April, after briefly suspending engagement with us, the Taliban again signaled interest in indirect talks on an exchange. At that point, we intensified our discussions with Qatar about security assurances. On May 12th, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Qatar detailing the specific security measures that would be undertaken and enforced by them if any Taliban detainees were transferred to their custody.
    Included in this MOU were specific risk mitigation measures and commitments from the Government of Qatar like travel restrictions, monitoring, information sharing, and limitations on activities, as well as other measures which we will detail in the closed portion of this hearing. They were described in the classified notification letter I sent to this committee last week.
    Soon after the Memorandum of Understanding was finalized, senior U.S. officials received a warning from the Qatari intermediaries that time was not on our side. This indicated that the risks to Sergeant Bergdahl's safety were growing. We moved forward with indirect negotiations on how to carry out the exchange of five detainees, and agreed to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning of May 27th, following three days of intensive talks. That same day, the President received a personal commitment from the Amir of Qatar to uphold and enforce the security arrangements and the final decision was made to move forward with the exchange.
    As the opportunity to obtain Sergeant Bergdahl's release became clearer, we grew increasingly concerned that any delay, or any leaks, could derail the deal and further endanger Sergeant Bergdahl. We were told by the Qataris that a leak would end the negotiations for Bergdahl's release. We also knew that he would be extremely vulnerable during any movement, and our military personnel conducting the hand-off would be exposed to a possible ambush or other deadly scenarios in very dangerous territory. And we had been given no information on where the hand-off would occur.
    For all these reasons and more, the exchange needed to take place quickly, efficiently, and quietly. We believed this exchange was our last, best opportunity to free him. After the exchange was set in motion, only 96 hours passed before Sergeant Bergdahl was in our hands. Throughout this period, there was great uncertainty about whether the deal would go forward. We did not know the general area of the hand-off until twenty-four hours before. We did not know the precise location until one hour before. And we did not know until the moment Sergeant Bergdahl was handed over safely to U.S. Special Operations Forces that the Taliban would hold up their end of the deal. So it wasn't until we recovered Bergdahl on May 31st that we moved ahead with the transfer of the five Guantanamo detainees.
    The President's decision to move forward with the transfer of these detainees was a tough call, but I support it and stand by it. As Secretary of Defense, I have the authority and responsibility to determine whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay can be transferred to the custody of another country. I take that responsibility as seriously as any responsibility I have. Neither I nor any member of the President's National Security Council was under any illusions about these five detainees. They were members of the Taliban, which controlled much of Afghanistan prior to America's invasion and overthrow of that regime. They were enemy belligerents, detained under the law of war and taken to Guantanamo in late 2001 and 2002. They have been in U.S. custody at Guantanamo since then. But they have not been implicated in any attacks against the United States, and we had no basis to prosecute them in a federal court or military commission. It was appropriate to consider them for an exchange. And if any of these detainees ever try to rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril.
    There is always some risk associated with the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo. The U.S. government has transferred 620 detainees from Guantanamo since May 2002, with 532 transfers occurring during the Bush administration and 88 transfers occurring during the Obama administration.
    In the case of these five detainees, the security measures Qatar put in place led me to determine - consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act - that the risks they posed to the United States, our citizens, and our interests were substantially mitigated. I consulted with the other members of the President's national security team and asked them to review the risks and either concur or object to the transfer. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all supported this transfer. There was complete unanimity on this decision. The President and I would not have moved forward unless we had complete confidence that we were acting lawfully, in the national interest, and in the best traditions of our military. Our operation to save Sergeant Bergdahl's life was fully consistent with U.S. laws and our national security interests in at least five ways:
    First, we complied with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 by determining that the risk the detainees posed to the United States, American citizens, and our interests was substantially mitigated and that the transfer was in the national security interests of the United States.
    Second, we fulfilled our commitment to recover all military personnel held captive.
    Third, we followed the precedent of past wartime prisoner exchanges, a practice in our country that dates back to the Revolutionary War and has occurred in most wars America has fought.
    Fourth, because Sergeant Bergdahl was a detained combatant being held by an enemy force, and not a hostage, it was fully consistent with our long-standing policy not to offer concessions to hostage takers. The Taliban is our enemy, and we are engaged in an armed conflict with them.
    Fifth, what we did was consistent with previous congressional briefings this administration provided in late 2011 and early 2012, reflecting our intent to conduct a transfer of this nature with these particular five individuals.
    I fully understand and appreciate concerns about our decision to transfer the five detainees to Qatar without providing 30 days advance notice to Congress. Under these exceptional circumstances - a fleeting opportunity to protect the life of an American service member held captive and in danger - the national security team and the President agreed that we needed to act swiftly.
    We were mindful that this was not simply a detainee transfer, but a military operation with very high risk and a very short window of opportunity that we didn't want to jeopardize - both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl, and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure his return. In consultation with the Department of Justice, the administration concluded that the transfer of the five could lawfully proceed.
    The options available to us to recover Sergeant Bergdahl were few, and far from perfect. But they often are in wartime, and especially in a complicated war like we have been fighting in Afghanistan for 13 years. Wars are messy and full of imperfect choices. I saw this firsthand during my service in Vietnam in 1968, when we sent home nearly 17,000 of our war dead in one year. And I see it today as Secretary of Defense. A few of you on this committee have experienced war and seen it up close. There is always suffering in war - not glory. War is always about human beings - not machines. War is a dirty business. And we don't like to deal with those realities but realities they are.
    Those of us charged with protecting the national security interests of this country are called upon every day to make hard, imperfect, and sometimes unpleasant choices based on the best information we have and within the limits of our laws - and always based on America's interests. War, every part of war, like prisoner exchanges, is not some abstraction or theoretical exercise. The hard choices and options don't fit neatly into clearly defined instructions in "how to" manuals. All of these decisions are part of the brutal, imperfect realities we deal with in war.
    In the decision to rescue Sergeant Bergdahl, we complied with the law, and we did what we believed was in the best interests of our country, our military, and Sergeant Bergdahl. The President has constitutional responsibilities and authorities to protect American citizens and members of our armed forces. That's what he did. America does not leave its soldiers behind. We made the right decision, and we did it for the right reasons - to bring home one of our people.
    As all of you know, I value the Defense Department's partnership with Congress and the trust we have developed over the years. I have always been completely transparent and straightforward in my dealings with Congress since I've been Secretary of Defense. That's what I always demanded of administration officials when I was in the U.S. Senate. And that's what I've done this morning with my statement on why I made the decision I did, the circumstances surrounding my decision, and the decisions of the President and his national security team. The day after the Bergdahl operation, at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, I met with the team of special operators that recovered him. They are the best of the best … people who didn't hesitate to put themselves at incredible personal risk to recover one of their own.
    I know we all thank them, and all our men and women in Afghanistan who make difficult sacrifices every day for this country. Earlier this week we were reminded of the heavy costs of war when we lost five American service members in Afghanistan. I know our thoughts and prayers are with their families. We are grateful for their service, and the service of all our men and women in uniform around the world. And I again thank this committee for what you do every day to support them.
    Thank you.
    video at link below

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/11...-bergdahl-swap


    I just love it when all these liberals eat their own!! So much for the buck stopping where it belongs!!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Comrades?
    By kathyet in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-27-2010, 03:58 PM
  2. Behold, comrades, the changes on the DOJ website!
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-03-2010, 06:01 PM
  3. U.S. Gov. Deficit Spending Debt, We’re All Comrades Now
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-24-2010, 01:03 AM
  4. Liars, Damned Liars, and President Obama
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 05:57 PM
  5. Comrades Against Arms
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-31-2008, 04:20 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •