“To allow a guy like [Bergdahl] to be posed as a hero, like Kerry self-posing as a hero, is really an affront to everybody who died there, and that’s why those guys in his platoon have come forward and that’s why we came forward 40 years ago and ten years ago.” — John O’Neill
If the Bergdahl affair proves anything, it’s that modern Democrats can never be trusted to ensure the national security. But most of us knew that already. You don’t need a degree in rocket science to realize that exchanging the high command of the Taliban for one lowly former PFC is not a deal that promises to turn out well for our side. Which begs the question, is Barack Obama even on our side? Most of us already know the answer to that one.
President Barack Obama was repeatedly advised by several of the nation’s top military and intelligence officials not to engage in the prisoner swap to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl … Intelligence and defense officials told the Beast that the deal that was arranged was hastily done, and in a manner that suggested it was designed to squelch dissent and impose the will of the White House. (Obama Advisers Repeatedly Told President Not to Deal)
A senior intelligence official with intimate knowledge of the years-long effort to locate and rescue Bergdahl told the Washington Free Beacon that the details of that exchange do not add up. The official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, speculated that a cash ransom was paid to the Haqqani Network to get the group to free the prisoner …
“The Haqqanis could give a rat’s ass about prisoners,” the official said, referring to the Haqqani Network, a designated terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who were freed in exchange for Bergdahl’s release. “The people that are holding Bergdahl want[ed] cash and someone paid it to them.” (Washington Free Beacon)
As more revelations emerge about Bergdahl’s disappearance, it becomes clearer that the White House has something really big to hide. Here are three clues:
1. In predictable fashion, those who question the official story must be discredited. The Soldiers who are providing their own on-the-ground recollections must be “psychopaths,” as an Obama administration official at HUD referred to them. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf has attacked their integrity, and now the media has resurrected “swift-boating” — all meant to disparage, demean, and discredit these brave American Soldiers. This is what liberals do — and I speak from experience.
2. The Soldiers who served alongside Bergdahl and were on the ground with him when he disappeared were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Why? Would that be anything like the muzzling of the Benghazi survivors?
3. The classified Pentagon report from 2010 on Sergeant Bergdahl should by now be de-classified, but it’s not. Why? What’s in it?
Oh, and then there’s the case of Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings who wrote about Bergdahl’s disappearance in 2012 and ended up dead in 2013. Maybe it’s just a terrible “coincidence” but why was he being investigated by the FBI? (Allen B. West)
The bottom line? Barack Obama wanted five high ranking Taliban killers freed from custody, but he needed a plausible cover story to get away with it. Bowe Bergdahl would have to be it.
- Obama ignored chances to rescue Bergdahl on the ground because he WANTED a terror trade to help close down Guantanamo Bay, claim Pentagon sources (Mail Online)
- Arrogant Obama: ‘My government’ didn’t need Congress for exchange, and we will do it again (BizPac Review)
- Harry Reid on White House Bergdahl Call: ‘What Difference Does It Make?’ (Breitbart)
- Ethics Complaint Targets Harry Reid for Abuse of Power (The Daily Signal)
- Rep. Hunter Blasts WH ‘Swift Boat’ Suggestion, Says Kerry Turned His Back on Soldiers Just Like Bergdahl (Fox News Insider)