Bergdahl scandal; a Veteran's perspective

Seems our own government is confused:

The White House apologized Tuesday to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, saying that it was an “oversight” not to notify members of Congress about swapping five high-level Taliban prisoners for one U.S. prisoner held in Afghanistan.


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the White House called her to apologize for the “oversight” in not notifying her about the deal for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. (Getty Images/Mark Wilson)
Feinstein told reporters Tuesday that White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken called her on Monday after the weekend deal for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was finalized this weekend.

“I had a call from the White House last night, from Tony Blinken, apologizing for it,” Feinstein said, according to The Hill newspaper. “He apologized and said it was an oversight.”

Under the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama must notify Congress 30 days in advance of releasing a prisoner from Guantanamo Bay.

Obama administration officials contend that Bergdahl’s life was in danger and that the government had to act swiftly. Bergdahl was held by the Taliban for five years.

Speaking at a press conference in Warsaw, Poland, on Tuesday, Obama said Congress had been consulted on the possibility of an exchange.

“We have consulted with Congress for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover Sgt. Bergdahl,” Obama said, according to the White House transcript. “We saw an opportunity. We were concerned about Sgt. Bergdahl’s health. We had the cooperation of the Qataris to execute an exchange, and we seized that opportunity, and the process was truncated because we wanted to make sure that we did not miss that window.”

Feinstein said that in 2011, the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees were unanimous against a prisoner exchange.

“I certainly want to know more about whether this man was a deserter,” Feinstein said of Bergdahl.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he was notified by the administration of the prisoner swap immediately before it happened.

 

Obama is lying.

He did not even inform the dimocrats in congress.

 

It's time for suntan boy to step up and do his job. Nobody begged him to be Speaker much like nobody begged Obama to be POTUS; they wanted the jobs. Let the political fallout occur. The House of Reps is supposed to represent us and hold the POTUS accountable

 

This is true;
John Boehner is a drunk, a politician, and a compromiser.
NOT a leader.
He should be out on his ass by this time next year, hopefully.

Nat,
I beg to differ with you, laddie.
A Veteran's opinion on Bergdahl does matter just a bit more than the average civilian non-combatant.

Just as I would respect the opinion of an experienced blues guitarist on the topic of guitar and amplifier tone a bit more than I would that of the average music listener.

Not to denigrate the average taxpayer who has never served, and never seen combat.
But their feelings about honor, duty, military service, and Desertion are just a tad bit uninformed.
That's all I am saying.

And congrats on your status as a foreign affairs expert.
I am proud of you for achieving that station, and for your bravery at living abroad.
I myself have traveled to many continents, and I know how arduous and precarious it can be, this business of being an American living in a foreign land.
My four years working with more than 20 different nations in the Foreign Military Sales arena have taught me this much;
Nobody knows how to represent the nation abroad better than a well-traveled and well-educated patriot.

My hat is off to you, sir.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. I too was an aviator in Vietnam, I flew a Charlie model gunship, and the admiration and love I held for my fellow soldiers and most of all my country was at the highest level of a human experience. Obama with his ineptness, and the lying politicians that support Obama the liar have taken our nation to a new low.

Hope and change is exactly what we got when electing Obama, and it was change that is definitely not for the better, and the hope has vanished like a fart in the wind

 

Of course they did. Once in 2011 and again in 2012. And both times congress said no deal. That is why Obama acted on his own. And he broke a law he signed in 2013 by doing so.

 

YES BY GOLLY! A VETERAN who thinks his CIC (THIS CIC) is lawless. No problem that we have to look for a MEASURED RESPONSE from one veteran about another in this case! There ISN'T ANY!

 

Oh, I certainly agree w/you about that, but I think there's a much deeper reason for him wanting those 5 dangerous, America-hating terrorists released and he used Bergdahl as the reason for doing this.

No way do I believe Obama did this on the principle that 'no man or woman in uniform will be left behind'...... that's real funny coming from the Commander-in-Chief who has so little respect for the military that he addresses them as "CORPSEmen"......

He has his reason for this very illegal decision of his and caring about the health & welfare of a soldier isn't one of them........

 

I might would modify "desertion" to "defection"...significantly different.

 

Here is what veterans think of Obama

[video=youtube;g0C_FvDymfc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0C_FvDymfc[/video]

Now listen to what veterans think of Bush

[video=youtube;0TgLYLuDjlY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TgLYLuDjlY#t=11[/video]

Kind of pathetic what veterans think of a lying inept commander and chief don't ya think?

 

I agree with all except the impeachment part. Two reasons. 1. I don't want to see the country put through that ordeal. 2d. Do you really want Joe Biden to finish out Obama's second term? I sure don't.

 

I beleive your measure response is more or less reasonable with a couple of exceptions.

First there are no grounds to impeach Obama.
He exercised his judgement as president and commander in chief.
Or are you suggesting that as Commander in Chief he does not possess the discretionary authority to take whatever action is necessary to retrieve an american prisoner of war? It will be interesting when the republicans investigate this and the issue of limitation of both executive and commander in chief powers is debated as is the fact (acknowledged by republicans) that Obama told congress a couple of times that a prisoner swap may be necessary. Regardless, it isn't even remotely an impeachable offence.


Second, the pentagon has categorically stated that NOBODY died trying to find Bergdahl. But of course we know that literally thousands have died in the WAR ZONE.

Third, if a court martial is warranted or not, the evaluation of proceeding will come on the heels of the new investigation, and go thru the same prosecutorial process that every other potential court martial does.

 

He broke the law.
He broke the very legislation he signed into law last year.

And in releasing those particular five prisoners, he (once again) violated the trust of the Congress and of the American people.

Certainly impeachable.
The question is, does the US Congress have the strength and integrity necessary to proceed with it?
Or will they buckle under to political correctness and a weak-kneed squeamishness regarding impeaching such a popular, charismatic rock star politician?

If they do let this go, then it would be analogous to a highway patrolman letting Kim Kardashian off with a warning after catching her driving blind drunk while texting.

 

No, there will be no credible effort to impeach Barack over this 'incident' as -- again -- the Democrats in the House and Senate will not come on board with the idea. Not over this.

Besides which, after the Clinton impeachment fiasco of the 1990s the GOP leadership is not going to take that step for any reason short of absolute 'fish in a barrel' proof of presidential corruption or collaboration with the enemy. This is even without taking into consideration that even at that the MSM would immediately launch a long term 7/24/365 propaganda war against the GOP intimating that were Barack Obama instead a melanin-challenged fellow known as -- say -- Joe Biden, he would never be impeached for similar reasons.

As some wag put it yesterday on PF forums the Fourth Estate has now become a Fifth Column . . . (now I shall add my own addendum to that) . . . working for the radical Left.

 

10char

 

He did not violate the trust of congress and the american people.
He upheld that trust by acting like a commander in chief and getting the sole remaining American POW returned.
He even foretold his actions in his accompanying signing statement of the NDAA.

I do find it interesting that Republicans blocked the closure of Gitmo and then blamed obama for breaking a promise to close it, blocked the transfer of these "prisoners in legal limbo" from entering the US judicial and/or prison system and then turned around and demanded that they have final approval of any prisoner movement.

If this level of outrage for actually returning an american POW I wonder what it would have been with a PUBLIC PARTISAN POLTICAL discussion of whether to release these guys who haven't even be charged after 12 years in prison.

It was the right thing to do DESPITE the republican faux and frankly hypocritical outrage they are wrapping themselves up in.

 

Is there any necessary relationship at all between what this man and his advisors say and the truth?

2008, Obama would issue no signing statements.

[video=youtube_share;oNdxanhbzDQ]http://youtu.be/oNdxanhbzDQ[/video]

 

A veteran's perspective allows for an understanding of the importance of good order and discipline. A soldier disobeying an order by walking away from his post, leaving his rifle behind, leaving his fellow soldiers..is in contrast to good order and discipline. An example needs to be made, that this sort of actionable behavior is not rewarded with promotions in absentia and an honorable discharge. I agree with the OP, an investigation needs be made into a possible Article 85/86.

 

LMAO...You mean like with Bush Jr? Clinton? Bush Sr? Reagan? Nixon?
The only potus in the past 50 years that doesn't fit into your puerile little whine was Carter, and people didn't like being told the truth.
But apparently, there is something magical about Obama that causes certain people to suffer brain farts that render them incapable of dealing honestly and rationally with reality.

 

Amazing how many people defend Obama's lies.

 

Indeed.
If he is accused of some crime, then they can court martial him, but to claim that we should have left him there, and attack Obama for doing the right thing, is the cheapest sort of partisan hackery and hypocrisy imaginable.
I don't think that such people are really even Americans anymore. They are more barbarian than civilized.

 

He did violate the trust of Congress and the American people, and he violates that trust every time he violates the rule of law. Barack Obama is not the law in this country.

When a president mistakenly convinces himself that he can rule by arbitrary fiat he sends the message that government officials are above the law and thus the law is exclusively for peasants, subjects and chumps.

 

Why didn't the Obama administration trade him for the cash that they originally asked for? The reason is because Obama wants to empty out Gitmo.

 

Only if you're looking for integrity from those people.

As Radio Refugee so exquisitely put it, they've moved beyond the useful idiot stage. They're grist for the mill.

 

nice deflection.
I gotta luv this recurring theme about a politician on the campaign trail "lying".

Seems of all the presidents in history, Obama is the only one that apparently lies. I don't deny he has lied.
But it would be extraordinarily dumbfounding if republicans would/could admit that such selectively applied moral outrage is merely in the name of partisan politics. The simple exercise of reviewing the various lies of the past couple of presidential campaigns by republican candidates and the performance of the last republican president, would quickly expose the hypocrisy of this position.

Of course, I suppose one cannot discount the possibilty of a true moral epiphany occuring on the right that conveniently lasts as long as a democrat sits in the white house, in fact, I'd bet the farm on it.