By Kyle Becker
Here are 11 stories that will give you a sense of the controversy and questions swirling around this news:
1. President Obama Almost Certainly Broke the Law
President Obama did not consult Congress when making the transfer of 5 Taliban commanders at Gitmo for Bowe Bergdahl.The Washington Post raises questions about whether the president violated the law regarding terrorism policy:
Congressional Republicans and others focused on a series of concerns that are likely to reverberate in coming days: whether the deal breached U.S. policy forbidding negotiations with terrorists, whether sufficient safeguards were in place to ensure that the released Taliban prisoners do no further harm to the United States and whether Congress was informed about the prisoner trade, as required by law.2. The 5 Taliban Commanders Released Were Among the Most Dangerous at Gitmo
Numerous publications note that these detained terrorists were among the worst at the facility. The Daily Beast gets to the point:
The five Guantanamo detainees released by the Obama administration in exchange for America’s last prisoner of war in Afghanistan, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, are bad guys. They are top Taliban commanders the group has tried to free for more than a decade.
.
According to a 2008 Pentagon dossier on Guantanamo Bay inmates, all five men released were considered to be a high risk to launch attacks against the United States and its allies if they were liberated.
3. Soldiers Who Served with Bergdahl are Making Claims He Was a Deserter
CNN’s Jake Tapper reports that soldiers who served with Bergdahl are calling him a “deserter,” not a “hero”:“I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on,” said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl’s platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. “Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him.”Vierkant said Bergdahl needs to not only acknowledge his actions publicly but face a military trial for desertion under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
4. Soldiers Who Served with Bergdahl Signed Non-Disclosure Agreements Not to Reveal What Happened
Again, from CNN’s Jake Tapper:Many of Bergdahl’s fellow troops — from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad, to the larger group that comprised the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division — told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl’s disappearance and the efforts to recapture him.
.
Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.
5. Bergdahl Reportedly Split Camp with Just a Few Survival Items
Jibing with what was reported earlier on IJReview, Bergdahl seemingly planned leaving his platoon carefully:According to first-hand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera, and a diary.
6. Soldier Who Claims to Have Served with Bergdahl Says He Mailed His Valuables Back Mid-Tour
As reported by IJReview contributor Soopermexican, a soldier claims Bergdahl mailed back his valuables mid-tour:As a soldier going by the moniker of @CodyFNFootball claims about Bergdahl:
“Why would someone pack all of there [sic] belongings and send them home in the middle of a 12 month deployment? Hmmmm.”In addition, the soldier claims that Bergdahl bought an AK-47, a highly unusual choice for a U.S. soldier.
7. Six U.S. Soldiers Killed in Manhunt to Find the AWOL Soldier
As reported via Gateway Pundit:PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl. Many others from various units were wounded or killed while actively looking for Bergdahl.
7. Bergdahl Reportedly Made Anti-American Statements
According to a Rolling Stone article written by the late writer Michael Hastings, Bergdahl complained about fellow soldiers and had anti-American things to say.“I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools,” he concluded. “I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”
8. The Highly Unusual Behavior of Bowe Bergdahl
Also corresponding with the story reported earlier here, Bergdahl dreamt about joing the French foreign legion, had an interest in fighting warloards in Darfur in Sudan, and also said he had desires to become a mercenary.9. Father Praises Allah; Has Pro-Islamic Tweets on Timeline
Regardless of what one thinks about Islam, it is quite a coincidence that Bowe’s father Robert Bergdahl’s Twitter account has pro-Islamic statements, along with tweets critical of Gitmo detainment.At the press conference with President Obama announcing his son’s release, Robert Bergdahl said “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim” —which means “In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.”
10. Robert Bergdahl Deletes Extremely Suspicious Tweet
As reported by IJReview contributor Soopermexican earlier, this is what Robert Bergdahl by all appearances deleted from his timeline:
11. CIA Station Chief in Kabul is “Outed” by the White House One Week Before Transfer
If numerous military members knew something was awry with the story about Bergdahl’s apparent capture by the Taliban, what would the CIA station chief in Kabul know? As the Washington Post reported:The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.It is debatable that this uneven exchange serves the U.S.’ long-term national security interests, since it encourages our enemies around the world to take more American military members hostage.
.
The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.
Such reports also throw into question the claim that Bergdahl was a “hero” who was “captured on the battlefield,” and there are issues surrounding this exchange that are far from settled.
By Allan West
Clare Lopez is a former CIA operations officer, a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, WMD, and counterterrorism issues, and a friend of mine.
She emailed me this morning a very poignant analysis that only someone knowing language and Islam could ascertain. She wrote:
“What none of these media is reporting is that the father’s (SGT Bowe Bergdahl’s father Bob) first words at the WH were in Arabic – those words were “bism allah alrahman alraheem” – which means “in the name of Allah the most gracious and most merciful” – these are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except one (the chapter of the sword – the 9th) – by uttering these words on the grounds of the WH, Bergdahl (the father) sanctified the WH and claimed it for Islam. There is no question but POTUS knows this.”Folks, there is a lot to this whole episode — like Benghazi — that we may never know. And this is not conspiracy theory, it is truth based upon Arabic and Islamic dogma and tradition.
Bergdahl story crowds out VA scandal in news
By Thomas LifsonExactly as intended, the story of the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has dominated news coverage, maing the VA scandal yesterday’s news. It’s the “look, squirrel!” theory of news management, and it works every time. Welcome to short attention span democracy. The Hill reports:
The Taliban’s release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl dominated the Sunday talk shows, pushing Friday’s resignation of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki from the headlines.There are many important issues to discuss with regard to Bergdahl’s release, and we won’t shy away from them. But we won’t forget our veterans, a group which Bergdahl, by the way, will soon be joining, in all likelihood.
The Sunday shows were packed with Republicans launching into political attacks against President Obama and the administration for transferring five Taliban members from Guantanamo Bay to Qatar in exchange for the release of Bergdahl, the 28-year-old whom the Taliban released on Saturday, and administration officials defending the decision.
The Bergdahl deal: A test case for emptying Gitmo?
....Still, though: Why give up so much for Bergdahl, knowing the pain the White House will suffer if the desertion charges prove true and/or the Taliban Five end up back on the battlefield, blowing up American troops? My first hunch when I heard about the deal was that this was part of a new “feelgood” approach to foreign policy over the rest of Obama’s presidency to distract from the fact that he’s accomplished so little internationally. Hashtag activism, the kidnapped Nigerian girls, securing the return of the last American POW in Afghanistan — none of these are major strategic victories but they show the average voter that the White House’s heart is in the right place even if its head is up its ass. My hunch must be wrong, though, just because there’s too much political peril in the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s disappearance and release. You wouldn’t pick this as a slam-dunk “feelgood” gesture with big-time reporters like Tapper wondering if this guy went AWOL. So what’s the White House’s real motive, then? I think it’s all about building goodwill with the Taliban in hopes of restarting peace talks. Obama wants out of Afghanistan but he wants at least some cosmetic promises from the enemy that they’ll respect the new government, let girls go to school, etc, so that withdrawal looks like less of a capitulation. Handing over the Taliban Five might jump-start something. The biggest foreign-policy “achievement” of his second term is the phony nuclear rapprochement with Iran, which he’s touting as a success. Go figure that he might try something similar with the Taliban.In lieu of an exit question, take some time to read three different accounts from veterans who served (or claim to have served) at the same time as Bergdahl and are skeptical that he was taken against his will. Ed already linked this one by Nathan Bradley Bethea, but if you missed them this weekend, make sure you read the ones from “CodyFNfootball” and “Raven-Wolf” too. Think Oprah will be interviewing them?
Update: Let’s add a sixth question for those House hearings to explore.
Bergdahl Swap With Taliban Breaks the Law
By Marilyn Assenheim
....But the pronouncement from the president is truly the bucket of muck after the flood. The Times revealed details:
“When Mr. Obama signed a bill containing the latest version of the transfer restrictions into law, he issued a signing statement claiming that he could lawfully override them under his executive powers.”He could override them? Kim Jong-un, move over. The Imperial President’s statement, released on Saturday, put on paper the law he signed and his reasoning therein:
“Today I have signed into law H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act…Since taking office, I have repeatedly called upon the Congress to work with my Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba…For the past several years, the Congress has enacted unwarranted and burdensome restrictions that have impeded my ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo. Earlier this year I again called upon the Congress to lift these restrictions…Section 1035 of this Act gives the Administration additional flexibility to transfer detainees abroad by easing rigid restrictions that have hindered negotiations with foreign countries and interfered with executive branch determinations about how and where to transfer detainees.”Voila. In other words, “hindering negotiations” means hindering him. He don’t need no stinkin’ separation of powers.
Although liberal mouthpieces like The Washington Post and PBS preface the illegalities committed with such phrases as GOP lawmakers going “so far as to accuse President Obama of having broken the law” and “GOP lawmakers say administration broke law with prisoner swap…” the fact remains that secret negotiations are illegal. The president didn’t even do that. He negotiated the release of Sgt. Bergdahl with the Taliban. You know, terrorists? Those pesky rascals neither the U.S. nor her allies would ever negotiate with?
Senate bills on Veterans Affairs will reignite fight over spending
By Susan FerrechioThe Senate this week will begin considering legislation in committee to both privatize and reform the troubled Veterans Affairs health care system, and some of the legislation is likely to revive an inter-party political fight over the cost and scope of the agency.
....The GOP-led House is out of session this week, after passing a series of bills intended to eliminate systemic mismanagement and malfeasance at the VA that has resulted in delayed care and hidden waiting lists.
Rather than take up the House-passed legislation, the Senate, whose majority is run by Democrats, will begin considering their own provisions, including a massive measure sponsored by Sanders that would spend $21 billion to overhaul and expand the delivery of medical, education and job-training benefits for veterans.
Senate Republicans blocked the measure in February, in part because Democrats wanted to pay for it with savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The GOP believes war spending savings are an accounting trick because the money has not been budgeted.
White House week ahead: Obama heads to Europe, foreign tests await him
By Brian Hughes
President Obama this week will travel to Poland, Belgium and France in an attempt to convince allies that the U.S. is fully committed to deterring Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, a trip that comes as the president tries to better articulate his foreign policy vision to a skeptical audience both at home and abroad.
Obama's cross-Atlantic trek comes in the wake of elections in Ukraine and Russian President Vladimir Putin shifting troops away from the Ukrainian border. Still, U.S. allies are on edge over Putin's intentions in Eastern Europe, and countries bordering Russia will push the White House for a more forceful response now that the Kremlin has annexed Crimea.
....Before departing Washington, Obama will also participate in a conference call with the American Lung Association to champion new Environmental Protection Agency rules being unveiled Monday. The EPA is expected to call for a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions from power plants by the year 2030, a highly controversial regulation that will serve as the centerpiece of the president's environmental agenda.
Supreme Court could deliver crippling blow to Big Labor
By Sean Higgins
In the first year since the Wolverine State adopted a right-to-work law in 2013, SEIU Healthcare Michigan lost a staggering 80 percent of its members.
The case illustrates a dirty secret of the modern labor movement: A lot of its rank and file members don't want to be in a union in the first place and will leave if given the chance.
What right to work did in Michigan, the Supreme Court might soon do nationally: In the case of Harris v. Quinn, the justices must decide if Illinois state government can force its own public sector employees to participate in a union. If the ruling is "no," that could effectively extend right-to-work laws to all public sector employees.
Today is the day President Obama gets serious about making electricity rates 'skyrocket'
By Mark Tapscott
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy will announce today the biggest step yet in President Obama's campaign to combat global warming by making "electricity rates necessarily skyrocket."
The proposal will require electricity-generating power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2030.
As Talking Points Memo describes it, the new rule "will set the first-ever national limits on carbon dioxide, the chief gas linked to global warming from the nation's power plants."
The National Center for Public Policy research released a new paper Monday that explains the top ten reasons to oppose new climate change regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce new regulations Monday morning.
Some of the reasons for opposition include:
The Earth hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration;The author cites five more reasons to oppose climate change regulations.
New global warming laws and regulations harm people, and harm lower-income and minorities disproportionately;
U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions already fell 12.6 percent between 2005 and 2012, while worldwide emissions went up 17.7 percent during the same period;
The climate models upon which President Obama’s belief in human-caused catastrophic global warming is based do not work—since 1979, over 96 percent of climate models predicted more warming by now than has taken place;
Claims that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming theory are propaganda.
“President Obama is going to hurt the American people today,” said Amy Ridenour, author of the paper and chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, in a press release. “Jobs will be lost and electricity prices will rise, and it’s all for nothing. Even if the alarmist position on global warming were to turn out to be true—and it hasn’t been coming true—the most optimistic case is that President Obama’s regulations would have a negligible impact on global warming. So why does he insist on doing this?”
No comments:
Post a Comment