Placing his political agenda above the lives of those Americans who are going to be killed in Afghanistan by these freed Gitmo detainees. Placing his political agenda above the lives of those Americans who were killed searching for the traitor and deserter Bergdahl. Placing his political agenda yet again above national security. One might almost get the idea that part of his political agenda is to weaken U.S. national security.
“Obama ignored chances to rescue Bergdahl on the ground because he WANTED a terror trade to help close down Guantanamo Bay, claim Pentagon sources,” by David Martosko, Daily Mail, June 4, 2014:
The Obama administration passed up multiple opportunities to rescue Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because the president was dead-set on finding a reason to begin emptying Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a Pentagon official.
‘JSOC went to the White House with several specific rescue-op scenarios,’ the official with knowledge of interagency negotiations underway since at least November 2013 told MailOnline, referring to the Joint Special Operations Command. ‘But no one ever got traction.’
‘What we learned along the way was that the president wanted a diplomatic scenario that would establish a precedent for repatriating detainees from Gitmo,’ he said.
The official said a State Department liaison described the lay of the land to him in February, shortly after the Taliban sent the U.S. government a month-old video of Bergdahl in January, looking sickly and haggard, in an effort to create a sense of urgency about his health and effect a quick prisoner trade.
‘He basically told me that no matter what JSOC put on the table, it was never going to fly because the president isn’t going to leave office with Gitmo intact, and this was the best opportunity to see that through.’
While military commanders wavered on the value of rescue plans, a second Pentagon source said Wednesday, they were advised by their chain of command that the White House was pushing hard for a prisoner swap, over the objections of the intelligence community.
That official told MailOnline that at least two separate intelligence agencies cautioned against taking the January video at face value.
The Daily Beast reported Monday, however, that the White House moved the process along too fast to permit a formal intelligence assessment of the impact of allowing what some on Capitol Hill are now calling the Taliban’s ‘dream team’ to return to the Middle East.
Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio told Fox News on Wednesday that the Obama administration ‘bypassed the intelligence community’ to make the deal, adding that ‘I believe he bypassed Congress because this was done for political reasons. There was no policy justification for this.’
The result, according to multiple published reports, was an environment in which the White House could insist on moving forward quickly on the basis that a soldier’s health was at immediate risk – using that justification also to explain its failure to keep Congress informed.
The White House has yet to explain why the deterioration of Bergdahl’s health, seen in a video in January, was sufficient reason to steamroll a decision that ended up taking four months to execute.
The Washington Times reported that a congressional aide said JSOC never forwarded specific military rescue plans to the White House, judging independently that President Obama was more interested in a diplomatic solution.
But both the Times’ sources and MailOnline’s also agreed that commanders on the ground were not in favor of sending Special Forces into the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region and risking their lives to rescue a presumed deserter from the terrorist Haqqani network.
‘Military commanders were loath to risk their people to save this guy,’ a former intelligence official told the Times. ‘They were loath to pick him up and because of that hesitancy, we wind up trading five Taliban guys for him.’
Evidence suggests that at least six soldiers were killed in the search for Bergdahl after he walked away from his unit on June 30, 2009, and another eight perished in a bloody eastern Afghanistan battle later that year because their air support and relief infantry units were occupied in the search.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, however, said Wednesday in Brussels that he does ‘not know of specific circumstances or details of U.S. solders dying as a result of efforts to find and rescue Sergeant Bergdahl.’…
nacazo says
I guess that’s one way of closing GITMO, just let the terorist go on their murderous sprees.
mariam rove says
and then killing us upon their return. m
Shane says
Yes, this is the Obama way. Aiding our enemies every chance he gets. Impeach him now.
gravenimage says
Obama passed up chances to rescue Bergdahl because he wanted prisoner trade to empty Gitmo
The official said a State Department liaison described the lay of the land to him in February, shortly after the Taliban sent the U.S. government a month-old video of Bergdahl in January, looking sickly and haggard, in an effort to create a sense of urgency about his health and effect a quick prisoner trade.
…………………………………………
According to a news story I just heard on KCBS, Obama is pushing the existence of this video—there was no indication the White House had received it way back *in January*—as his reason for the ‘sudden’ prisoner exchange—that is was needed to quickly save Bergdahl’s life and that there was no time to share it with Congress. And that, in addition, the Taliban said (implied?) that they would kill Bergdahl if the matter were made public.
But this story, to put it mildly, rather casts doubt on that scenario.
More:
The Obama administration passed up multiple opportunities to rescue Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because the president was dead-set on finding a reason to begin emptying Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a Pentagon official….
‘What we learned along the way was that the president wanted a diplomatic scenario that would establish a precedent for repatriating detainees from Gitmo,’ he said.
‘He basically told me that no matter what JSOC put on the table, it was never going to fly because the president isn’t going to leave office with Gitmo intact, and this was the best opportunity to see that through.’
…………………………………………
If this is accurate—and the sources certainly lend it credence—then this is *shocking*. What *might* be excusable in an emergency is utterly treasonous as *a policy*.
Obama could have closed Guantanamo Bay and brought the Jihadist detainees to US soil—but that would have been unpopular. He certainly could have—and should have—tried these bastards in a military court. He even could have set up civilian trials—although that would have been unwise at best.
But to empty Gitmo *in prisoner swaps*? Think of the precedent *that* sets. It would give Jihaidsts a perfect reason to kidnap American and coalition personnel—something pious Muslims need little urging to do in any case.
It also opens the question—if no one had called him on this, where would Obama have planned to go from here? As appalling as the release of these five Jihadists is, they represent a rather small percentage of the entire Gitmo population.
Does he plan to somehow just release them all?
I am usually cautious about throwing around the word treason—but I can think of nothing else to use here if this is actually policy he intends to set—as these sources imply.
To turn down a rescue—that would have reasserted American competence—in *favor* of a deliberate prisoner swap that weakens us in every way—boggles the mind. Good God…
David says
Another law Obama has broken, failing to notify Congress about the release of the Taliban soldiers.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEYQtwIwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fworld%2Fbowe-bergdahl-fallout-obama-faces-growing-storm-over-returned-soldier-20140605-zry06.html&ei=t2qQU7qYD8iAkQWaqICACg&usg=AFQjCNHR4YFZmkUpa8kiHDarDRqKaZTsxw&sig2=7KikUBOaeI2UCdANyBoiqQ
RG says
Bho to God: Hey God, do you know who I am?
God to bho: Well, please, do tell!
Bho to God: Why, I’m the president of these United States of America!
God to bho: Oh, you mean that magnificent land of milk and honey that is now an obamanation!!!
nacazo says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/sgt-bowe-bergdahl-just-to_b_5444342.html
Why not exchange bergdahl for all terrorists in guantanamo ?
nacazo says
I was against impeachment but this breaking the law rubs me the wrong way. Is the president above the law?
cheekturner says
Obama sin-Laden should, as commander-in-chief, be Court Martialled for dereliction of duty. He is an imposter on American soil and an imposter as CIC.
Kick him into touch now and rescue the U S of A.
ssoldie says
yes, he believes he is.
nacazo says
Biden for president (impeach).
gravenimage says
Joe Biden is also utterly wretched, Nazcazo—but it’s hard to believe he could be as bad as BHO.
Salah says
“Obama used the known deserter/traitor/musloid convert Bergdahl for the release of the top five most valuable Gitmo detainees because the entire former American government, now fronted by the imbecile-puppet Obama, along with the Clinton machine, and a massive contingent of bureaucrat operatives loyal to the megabanks saturating all three branches and the military, has been overthrown and is explicitly allied with islam.”
Read it all here:
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2014/06/03/why-im-considering-quitting/
Davegreybeard says
Behold, an American President at war with his country.
What’s next?
Champ says
Public enemy #1 is our commander in chief: barack HUSSEIN obama!
Ahem! his middle name is a big clue, you guys …
mariam rove says
come on now Champ! His middle name is my dad’s first name!! Please show a little mercy here!!!!!!!!!!!!! M
Champ says
Yes! ..my apologies to you and your Dad 🙂
mariam rove says
No oppologies are needed. I was just having a good time!!! You know champ, when dealing with such a morbid issue as Islam on a daily basis you need to get some laugh going!!!!!!!!!
CogitoErgoSum says
The prison at Guantanamo is a symptom of the problem plaguing the United States in the struggle against Islamic terrorism. Just what is the status of those prisoners being held there? Are they prisoners of war? I don’t think so because there has been no official declaration of war by the United States on any foreign power or entity. Are the men criminals? I don’t know. Are they? If they are criminals, why haven’t particular charges been brought against each prisoner so he can be given a fair trial and either punished or released? Why can’t we in the United States figure out what to do with these men? Maybe because we still haven’t figured out Islam and what we are up against. We need to decide whether we want to fight Islam or whether we want to help Islam….whether those fighting for the spread of Islam are doing something bad….or whether they are doing something good.
I am of the opinion that Islam IS at war with us right now whether we (or most Muslims) want to admit it or not. Islam’s main document, the Quran, is a DECLARATION OF WAR upon the beliefs and principles of the United States and all others who share those beliefs. It’s time we understood and accepted that basic fact. If we don’t, we are going to end up as prisoners and slaves (or dead) ourselves in a war we lost simply because of our own stupidity. Learn all you can about the goals of Islam, you people who claim to love freedom. I think in the end most of you will come to the same conclusion that I have. Compromise with Islam is not possible without losing your freedom (and perhaps your life).
I know I’m going to take a lot of flack for saying this but……..the Quran should be outlawed, those who follow or espouse its teachings should be declared criminals and we should be willing to go to war (with an official declaration of war) against any country that chooses to fight us because of this. We cannot tolerate a religion or a political ideology which has as its goal the ultimate destruction of freedom of religion or the freedom of political thought. The ultimate goal of Islam is to destroy our way of life and our way of government. Our ultimate goal should be to destroy Islam before it destroys us.
I know this sounds extreme and I challenge you to provide me with good reasons to convince me I am wrong. But we as a nation need to make up our minds about this soon because time is on the enemy’s side, not ours. What do you think?
cheekturner says
You are spot on. Islam is the deadliest disease known to mankind and it’s eradication is imperative for the safety not only of the U S A, but the rest of the “free” world, and I include all the “nominal” Muslimes who haven’t got a clue what their so-called “religion” is about.
The Quran should be outlawed as a text book for the propagation of violence, supremacism, racism, inhumanity etc. etc. Furthermore Mudhutmad should be posthumously tried for war crimes and incitement to genocide. etc. etc.
You as a nation (as us Brits. too) need to make minds up, not soon, but right now!
ssoldie says
But Saint Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran, didn’t he?
CogitoErgoSum says
St. Peter denied knowing Christ too…..three times. But he was forgiven. I cringe inside when I see that picture of John Paul II kissing the Quran…. but maybe he didn’t really know what he was doing. Let’s hope this new Pope will take the time to learn about the true meaning of the Quran. It does seem like he has yet to start though.
Champ says
I am of the opinion that Islam IS at war with us right now whether we (or most Muslims) want to admit it or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is true, CogitoErgoSum …in spite of what obama says: that we are not at war with islam. Yeah, well islam is at war with us.
Jax Tolmen says
Regarding the detainees in Gitmo, I believe their legal status is covered by the Geneva Convention by way of omission. As they are Foreign Enemy Combatants with no affiliation with any national military, they are not subject to the same rights and privileges as members of an enemy military. Strictly speaking they are not prisoners of war as described by the Geneva Convention, but more akin to mercenaries which are not covered. As such, they would be subject to the laws of the detaining nation. If it is legal to detain terrorists indefinitely according to American law, then they are being held legally. Not being versed in the peculiarities of the American legal system, I can’t speak as to whether their attention and treatment is legal.
I’d assume it is, if it were not the existence of Gitmo and the presence of the detainees would be dubbed illegal in a Federal Court challenge at the appropriate level. Im also not familiar with the American constitution, so I’m not aware if any of it can be seen as a constitutional matter.
CogitoErgoSum says
Hi, Jax. Take a look at the information Wikipedia has under “War in Afghanistan (2001-Present)….particularly the section concerning Declaration of War. At first the Taliban did offer to try Osama bin Laden in an Afghan court if the U.S. provided solid evidence of his guilt in the 9/11 attacks. President Bush refused and demanded bin Laden’s handover or else the Taliban would be destroyed. The Taliban held firm and Bush made good on the threat to use military force…. with the justification being that the Taliban were supporters of terrorists…. but NOT soldiers and were thus outside the protections of the Geneva Convention and the due process of law. The U.S. Supreme Court has not completely upheld this point of view and a good argument can be made that neither do the provisions of the United Nations Charter. But you can read all this for yourself. My point here is that it all shows what a slippery slope it is when laws are bent and twisted or ignored and broken and a just cause becomes murky and tainted by not adhering to the very principles one is trying to promote and defend. In some ways the Taliban fighters have my admiration for sticking to their core values….evil as I may think them to be. Maybe we need to take a step back to re-examine our core values and decide if we really have been sticking to our beliefs.. and then perhaps we should re-define how we wish to achieve our goals using a more straight-forward and honest approach to the problem.
EYESOPEN says
Cogito, you are absolutely correct. The problem is getting enough people to understand the danger. Robert, Pamela and many others are engaging in a valiant attempt to do just that. But when the domeheads in the government, in academia and in the enemedia frame the public’s opinion in this debate – which is literally one of life and death – the truth is quashed, and most people are unaware of the very real danger.
John C. Barile says
Can there be any doubt that he’ll release the Blind Sheikh, most likely in his final hour in office? And Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?
ssoldie says
I have no doubt.
inMAGICn says
Biden NOW!
Thomas says
islam has declared war on all of us. So we should be very afraid. We need to be prepared with the knowledge of what islam really is and not what the left and the islamists want us to think. We are at war.
Obama knows nothing about the military. I always thought that one of the requirements to be President, would be to have served in one of our armed forces. Then when called Commander and Chief, we would at least know he had SOME experience……would make me feel better. I’ve been in war before and leaders with experience make a big difference.
gravenimage says
Thomas wrote:
Obama knows nothing about the military…
………………………….
I take your point, Thomas—but this goes *way* beyond simple ignorance and ineptitude.
Michael Carpenter says
President Obama has never hid his support of Islam while in office. The release of these five prisoners helps President Obama in a couple of ways. He satisfies the liberal left wing progressive supports by emptying Gitmo, and he feeds to the trust that he has been trying to develop with Islam. Yielding to the Taliban’s demand of receiving the most dangerous Islamic prisoners for a deserter, provides the Taliban with a victory over an infidel nation, America. President Obama does not care what the majority of the American people or the military thinks about this 5 for 1 trade. He has always been anti military. His goal and objective is to weaken America and provide pathways for future Islamic invasions, as evidenced by his open door policy of bringing in more and more Muslims from Africa. Going back to his statement “America is no longer a Christian Nation.”, he has been working to “change” America to an Islamic State. Another example is the Muslim Brotherhood and the CAIR are involved in the forming of our national security forces. Truthful words such as “jihad”, “Islamic terrorist”, etc can’t be used when depicting terrorist events. Anti American actions have been prevalent throughout his reign.