Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Was Bergdahl Worth the Price?

The Obama regime expected to be praised when they secured the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and they have been taken aback by the criticism. I have read some stories that indicated the White House thought Bergdahl would be greeted like the Iranian held hostages were greeted when they returned from 444 days of captivity. I’m sure they expected another ‘Bin Laden’ moment and hoped it would bury the many Obama scandals from the headlines.

There have been whispers over the years that Bergdahl deserted his comrades voluntarily and now those accusations are being openly discussed. At least 6 warriors (maybe 14) lost their lives in search for a soldier that may have turned his back on his country and his brothers in arms. The elder Bergdahl hasn’t helped his son’s image much either. He has tweeted his support for the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and he has kept in constant contact with a Taliban member over the years.

Should we condemn a father for doing all he can to win the release of his son? Of course not, but there were probably better ways of going about it. It is almost as if the father suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, even though he wasn’t the hostage per se. The United States should have attempted to gain the release of Bergdahl, but we shouldn’t have paid the price the Taliban demanded.

Obama exchanged a possible army deserter for 5 high level war criminals. These terrorists have blood on their hands and they will no doubt inflict more deaths in the future. The Obama regime has said they will keep an eye on the five terrorists to make sure they don’t resort to their terrorist ways. Really? The same way they kept an eye on the thousands of weapons they shipped to the narco-terrorists in Mexico? The Fast & Furious results don’t give me much confidence in this White House.

The question also arises about the law Obama apparently broke to secure the release of Bowe. Legal analysts on both sides of the issue have chimed in. Some say Obama clearly broke the law; others say he didn’t break the law. Congressional hearings will no doubt be conducted, however, I’m certain there will be no legal ramifications even if Obama did break the law. 

The Obama White House has defended its decision to violate The National Defense Authorization Act by saying Bowe Hergdahl’s life was in immediate danger and they didn’t have 30 days to notify congress. I take issue with that Bravo Sierra. I dug up multiple stories from April 24, 2014 which reported that Bergdahl's captors were anxious to release him. This was disclosed to the Associated Press by a defense official and a military officer on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

"Elements in all echelons — from the top of the Taliban down to the folks holding Bergdahl — are reaching out to make a deal," the defense told the Associated Press. The military officer said those (Taliban) holding Bergdahl had indicated what they would be willing to do to prove to the U.S. government that they want to deal. It sounds like the US had the upper hand in negotiations and knew a release could be imminent.

So why didn’t the Obama administration notify congress of an impending deal and why did Obama pay such a high price for Bergdahl when it appeared we had the upper hand in negotiations? Everything this president does is half assed…unless of course it’s related to the radical transformation of our country. He’s pretty good at that.

There are also legitimate concerns that Obama has now established the going price for any future American hostage. Terrorists now know that if they can grab an American soldier or citizen, they can get five terrorist brothers in exchange. The Obama hostage exchange puts all Americans at risk of abduction and he has given the Taliban a huge victory.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice justified the prisoner exchange by saying Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction." That “honor and distinction” debate is just beginning and there will be many soldiers (and family members of slain soldiers) that will contest Ms. Rice’s description. The Obama regime would be better served if Ms. Rice refrained from commenting because her credibility leaves a lot to be desired. Benghazi pretty much ruined any credibility she might have had.

Let the debate continue~

Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment