I wrote an article about the ransoming of Sgt. Bergdahl on June 2nd and updated it through June 6th. The thrust of that article is that Sgt. Bergdahl must be tried by general court martial so that legally cognizable evidence (not opinion and not speculation) can be presented and made public. Unfortunately, for the reasons stated, I do not think that will happen. There has been more speculation since June 6th, but little if any significant, adequately verified and legally admissible evidence has become available since then.
Here’s a YouTube video of a June 6th PJTV discussion about why “our” Commander in Chief ransomed Sgt. Bergdahl by returning five high-ranking Taliban commanders to active duty. The discussion includes Tammy Bruce, a conservative talk radio hostess and Ebony K. Williams, an attorney, radio show hostess and Democrat who voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. The consensus seems to be that He screwed up royally and appears to have acted for political reasons, hoping for popular approval. Ms. Williams’ conclusion is that He is not necessarily evil but lives in an echo chamber, where He now receives undiluted support from His underlings regardless of what He wants to do or how incredibly incompetent or worse He will seem if He does it.
There are any number of other reasons why He may have acted as He did, including these:
He hates America and wants to
destroy transform her in His own image;
He hates the U.S. military and approves of Sgt. Bergdahl and others who also hate it;
He approves of and sides with Islamists;
His definitions of honorably and with distinction, as Susan Rice characterized Sgt. Bergdahl’s behavior, are abnormal;
He is stupid and/or incompetent;
He hates reality and favors fantasy;
He is nuts;
He wants to help Vice President Biden seem competent by comparison;
All of the above;
None of the above.
There are doubtless other possibilities. What do you think?
The Iran Scam
Whatever may have been His reasons, they are important if for no reason other than that by ransoming a probable deserter or worse by freeing five extremely dangerous terrorists — likely to result in the killing of honorable U.S. military personnel serving with distinction — and the taking of more hostages, He may well have suggested the outcome of His dealings with Iran.
President Obama’s emissaries are scheduled to meet with Iranian emissaries on Monday and Tuesday in Geneva.
TEHRAN — Iran’s chief negotiator said Sunday that direct talks agreed between Tehran and Washington are essential, as discussions on his country’s disputed nuclear program are entering a “serious phase.”
. . . .
“We have always had bilateral discussions with the United States in the margin of the P5+1 group discussions, but since the talks have entered a serious phase, we want to have separate consultations,” said Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s chief negotiator in comments reported by state news agency IRNA.
. . . .
Araqchi said the talks with the US in Geneva will only address the nuclear issue, referring to Iran’s ballistic missile program that Washington had hoped to include in negotiations. [Emphasis added.]
The US delegation will be led by Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns and Jake Sullivan, a White House adviser, previously part of a tiny team whose months of secret talks in Oman brought Iran back to the P5+1 negotiating table last year.
Having apparently agreed with Iran that its missile delivery systems development is none of the business of the P5 + 1 negotiators, what else will the Obama Administration agree is unworthy of discussion because it might undermine the Iran Scam? What does President Obama seek? The public approval of an amorphous “deal” that prevents Iran from having nukes — or, if she has or gets them, from using them — until after He leaves office in January of 2017? Peace in His time?
Until President Obama leaves office in January of 2017 we are unlikely to learn what happened in Geneva or its consequences for the P5 + 1 negotiations. We can expect Him to tell us only pleasant fairy stories. Reasons not to accept them will be deemed racist and therefore unworthy of serious consideration.
Ron Radosh wrote an article published by PJ Media titled The Questions about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s Desertion, and the American Left’s Answer to Them. He opines,
Kreitner refers “vicious commentary” about Bergdahl, who, he writes, was only guilty of having “served on the front lines of the American imperial machine with the unenviable misfortune of doing so with eyes wide open.” Let us put this another way. What he is saying is that because he thinks Bergdahl rightfully opposed the U.S. mission, he was a hero for deserting. Bergdahl wrote his parents an e-mail before deserting, in which he famously said: “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.” To The Nation, that position makes him a hero. [Emphasis added.]
That e-mail by Bergdahl is most revealing of his disdain for his country. Kreitner , however, sees it as candid and true. As he puts it, Bergdahl only “saw reality too clearly.” He was doing nothing more than “struggling with issues of conscience.” The Army, he writes, was wrong to not inform Bergdahl that he could be let out of duty for issues of conscience, thus forcing him to desert. Got that? It’s the U.S. Army that put him in this position. Of course, Kreitner confuses what this sergeant did — deserting — with an act of conscience. Hatred of the U.S. and disdain for his comrades, which he made clear in his e-mail, is definitely not grounds for leaving the U.S. Army because of conscience. If it were, anyone could leave the armed forces for which he or she volunteered because they changed their mind about their mission.
Kreitner ends by writing that putting “slugs into human flesh” is not the “promotion of democracy.” Only a Nation author could think there is something immoral about fighting America’s sworn enemies on the battlefield.
Is that President Obama’s perception as well? By how many libruls is it shared?
Follow the timeline to understand the impact on Benghazi. It’s provided in the linked article.
…. and now we have the specific tracking of Stinger Missile serial numbers showing they were delivered from the CIA to the government of Qatar; while intended for Libyan “rebels”, but delivered to the Taliban…. and used to kill our guys.
…. AND where do we choose to send the GITMO-5 ?
Although probably more competent, are they President Obama’s kind of guys?
UPDATE, June 9th
In an article at PJ Media titled Fictions as Truth, Victor Davis Hanson lists fantasies President Obama has asked us to accept as reality concerning (along with five other subjects) the ransoming of Sgt. Bergdahl. He lists these:
1. Sgt. Bergdahl was in ill health; thus the need for alacrity. Surely we will expect to see him in an enfeebled state on his return to the U.S.
2. Sgt. Bergdahl was in grave and sudden danger from his captors; thus the need for alacrity. We expect to see proof of that on his return to the U.S.
3. The five Taliban detainees will be under guard in Qatar for a year. We expect in June 2015 to know that they are still there in Qatar.
4. The five Taliban detainees don’t really pose a grave threat to U.S. troops, given that we will be gone from Afghanistan in 2016. We expect not to hear that any of the five are reengaged in the war effort to kill Americans between 2015-16.
5. Sgt. Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” We expect to have confirmation of that fact once his intelligence file is released and more evidence is adduced that all of his platoon-mates were wrong (or perhaps vindictive and partisan) in stating that he voluntarily left their unit — deserted — to meet up with the Taliban.
6. Sgt. Bergdahl was captured on the “field of battle”; we expect to have confirmation that he was taken unwillingly by the enemy amid a clash of arms.
7. Sgt. Bergdahl was not a collaborator. We expect to learn confirmation of the fact that he did not disclose information to his captors.
8. Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers in his platoon are either partisan operatives or sorely misinformed, and we will shortly learn that their accounts of Bergdahl’s disappearance were erroneous.
9. The U.S. has traditionally negotiated to bring home even deserters, and did so frequently, for example, both during and after the Korean War when GIs crossed into North Korea.
10. The timing of the swap amid the VA scandal and the press conference with the Bergdahl family were not predicated on political considerations.
11. There is no law stopping the president from releasing terrorists from Guantanamo, only legal fictions promulgated by right-wing critics of the president.
12. The five Taliban terrorists are now old outliers, rusty, and mostly irrelevant to the war in Afghanistan.
Does President Obama, who prefers fantasy to reality, actually believe them? The pattern continues to become clearer.
UPDATE, June 9th
And, a little bit more: