Bowe Bergdahl: Desertion, Misbehavior Before The Enemy Charges – AMEEN!


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

PFC Bowe Bergdahl
Army Deserter Bowe Bergdahl

“Ameen,” in Arabic means ‘Amen.’ See the story of Bowe Bergdahl’s father and his “Ameen” below. U.S. Army spokesman, Col. J. W. King, speaking from Ft. Bragg, has just announced desertion charges filed against Beau Bergdahl. Traded for five of the Taliban’s worst, or their best, depending on who is doing the deciding, Bergdahl received full pay after he ran away from his unit, and when we ‘saved’ him five years later, he learned he had been promoted to Sergeant, “in absentia,” or other reports say the promotion happened after he was retrieved from the enemy camp. So much was known about the night he walked away from his unit, that I see no reason to honor him with a rank he didn’t deserve. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he will now have an Article 32 hearing, often compared to a civilian Grand Jury hearing.

1) Article 85: Desertion with intention to shirk important or hazardous duty

2) Article 99: Misbehavior Before the Enemy, endangering the unit, command, unit or place. I understand this also includes casting aside his weapons and/or ammunition.

If the Article 32 hearing recommends further action, a General Court Martial, a Special Court Martial, Dismeanor Charges or “any other action deemed necessary, may be taken.

The charges can bring a Dishonorable Discharge, loss of rank to E1, forfeiture of all pay, and up to a maximum five years in prison for each charge.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is on Fox this minute saying that there can be far more, “his defense team’s nightmare,” that could bring life in prison. You might remember that some in his unit have claimed that three (some say six) men died while searching for Bergdahl in Afghanistan. More on that at a later time.

Robert & Jani Bergdahl and President Obama
Robert & Jani Bergdahl and President Obama

On Bergdahl’s release, his parents were hosted at the White House, with Barack Obama at their side, in the Rose Garden, I believe, the father, Bob Bergdahl has a Twitter history. Take a look at this from my previous post: 

In June 2014, Bob Bergdahl, Bowe Bergdahl’s father Tweeted that he was working to free all Gitmo prisoners. He said that God will repay for the death of every Afghan child. In another tweet dated May 28, 2014, Bob tweeted in Arabic, and in English, saying “@ABalkhi my son speaks about unjust death of Afghan children;”

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


Bob Bergdahl Tweet (now deleted), courtesy of  The Conservative Hammer on Facebook
Bob Bergdahl Tweet (now deleted), courtesy of The Conservative Hammer on Facebook

The soldier, 28, disappeared from Combat Outpost Mest-Lalak in Paktika province, Afghanistan, on June 30, 2009. He has been accused of leaving his patrol base alone and intentionally before he was captured by Taliban insurgents.

He spent five years as a captive under the Taliban before he was freed in a May 31 prisoner swap that also freed five Taliban leaders from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba…

As the general court-martial convening authority, Milley has several courses of action, from no further action against Bergdahl to court-martial.

The case presents a challenge for the Army’s leadership, which has to decide whether to punish a soldier who spent five years as a prisoner of war or essentially overlook the allegations of misconduct that surrounded his disappearance. Source: Army Times





Witnesses? We Don’t Need No Steenking Witnesses! – Obama State Department Calls Bergdahl’s Platoon Mates Liars


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

State Dept. Spokesperson Marie Harf called Bowe Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers Liars because they said he deserted.

Hat/Tip to

Yep, the same Marie Harf who thinks ISIS won’t attack us if we give them jobs is at it again. But this time she is denigrating the reputations of American soldiers.


Because she doesn’t agree with them.






It’s Official: Obama Traded Taliban Five For A Deserter


bergdahl, taliban five collage


Hat/Tip to Foxnews.

From the beginning, it was rumored that Bowe Bergdahl was a deserter as soon as the trade came to light. Bergdahl left a note practically saying as much, along with the fact that soldiers in his unit blew the whistle by telling the press that they were pressured to be quiet on the subject.

Well, now it is official.

A former military intelligence officer claimed Tuesday that the White House was delaying the announcement of its decision to file desertion charges against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was released by Taliban-aligned militants last year in exchange for five Guantanamo prisoners.

In defending claims he originally made Monday on “The O’Reilly Factor” that Bergdahl would be charged, retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Bill O’Reilly that there was “no doubt” the White House was dragging out its decision.

Of course, the Obama Administration and the Pentagon are denying this.

“They said there’s no time limit on this decision. (Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John) Kirby even said there’s no pressure … Of course, the moment you say that, there’s pressure,” said Shaffer, who works at the London Center for Policy Research. “What they didn’t say was more compelling than their denial.”

Shaffer, who believes the White House’s alleged decision to delay its announcement is politically motivated, added that he stands by “all of those facts,” referring to his report on Monday that Bergdahl’s lawyer has been given a statement of charges.

Maj. Gen. Ronald F. Lewis, the Army’s chief of public affairs, put out a statement Tuesday afternoon calling the reports, including a similar one by NBC News, “patently false.”

“To be clear there have been no actions or decisions on the Sgt. Bergdahl investigation,” he said. “The investigation is still with the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command who will determine appropriate action — which ranges from no further action to convening a court martial.”

Kirby also said Bergdahl “has not been charged,” and no charges have been referred.   

“No decision has been made with respect to the case of Sgt. Bergdahl, none,” he said. “And there is no timeline to make that decision.” He said he would not “speculate” about what might happen in the future.

It looks like a big fight is a-brewing over this.

Shaffer said there’s a “huge battle” going on inside the Obama administration, as some try to “suppress” this development. “This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes,” he said.

Shaffer said the Army “wants to do the right thing,” but the White House “wants this to go away.”

He said: “The White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because of he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban … The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out.”

Read the full story here.





GAO Report: Obama Violated Federal Law in Bergdahl Swap


bergdahl, taliban five collage

Hat/Tip to the Washington Free Beacon.

Are Obama’s ‘pen’ and ‘phone’ getting him into trouble?

The Obama administration violated federal law when it released five senior Taliban leaders from prison without notifying Congress, as is legally mandated, according to an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The GAO concluded in a report issued Thursday that the Obama administration failed to provide proper notification of the Taliban release and illegally used taxpayer funds that were not appropriated to enable the inmate transfer, according to the report.

The Pentagon violated federal law in releasing the GIMO Five, without notifying Congress before hand.

The Obama administration in May secretly struck a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan to free from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba five of its top leaders in exchange for the return of captured U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was later accused by fellow soldiers of having deserted the Army prior to his capture.

The Pentagon was found to have “violated” the 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Act “when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30 days notice to certain congressional committees,” according to the report.

The Defense Department also was legally prohibited from using congressionally appropriated funds to pay for the transfer of detainees from Gitmo without first getting approval from Congress, which the Obama administration failed to do, according to the report.

“As a consequence of using its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, DOD also violated the Antideficiency Act,” which prevents unauthorized government expenditures, the GAO found.

GAO concludes that “when DOD failed to notify specified congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of its transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Qatar, DOD used appropriated funds in violation of section 8111” of the law.

The oversight agency further concluded that the Pentagon and Obama administration clearly failed to “notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the report states. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act.”

Read the full story here.


White House knew Bergdahl was traitor, made swap anyway


Hat/Tip to NewsmaxTV.

Ex-Bergdahl Roommate, retired Army Spc. Cody Full told “The Steve Malzberg Show” that the White House knew he deserted, knew he wasn’t a hero, and knew he Was a traitor before swap.

Bowe Bergdahl’s former roommate, retired Army Spc. Cody Full says the government knew that Bergdahl had deserted his post and was a traitor to his country before they made the swap of five high-level Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay to get him back.

“They have all the documentation on it. The administration knew he deserted, they knew he wasn’t a hero,” retired Army Spc. Cody Full told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

“They knew that he wasn’t captured on a battlefield or lagged behind on a patrol. They knew he went out and deserted on his own.”

Bergdahl was held captive in Afghanistan by the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network from June 2009 until May of this year.

He was traded for five high-ranking Taliban members who were being held at Guantanamo Bay — a secret deal made without the consultation of Congress.

This swap began to stink early on when Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers started telling of his disillusionment with the United States, and eventual desertion.

But the swap quickly came under fire when Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers went public to accuse him of abandoning his post and possibly seeking out the enemy.

Full angrily disagreed with National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s declaration that Bergdahl had served his country with “honor and distinction.”

“Deserting is not serving with honor and distinction and it’s a spit in the face to every U.S. service member who has served with honor and distinction, who has fulfilled his oath. It’s disgusting,” Full said.

Full goes on to say how he felt when he saw Bergdahl’s parents on TV in the Rose Garden with President Obama.

He criticized the fanfare surrounding the Obama administration’s announcement of the deal, which was highlighted by an event in the Rose Garden of the White House in which Bergdahl’s family attended.

“[It] is gross. I mean how many soldiers that have given their lives honorably for this country, how many of their parents had a Rose Garden ceremony?’‘ he asked.

Full said a congressional oversight committee should be formed to further explore how Bergdahl’s actions led to his captivity by terrorists.

“I don’t want to see this get whitewashed,” he said.

Here is his interview on NewsmaxTV on the Steve Malzberg Show.


Daughter of first American killed in Afghanistan learns one of the freed “Taliban Five” was behind her father’s death

Michael Spann and his daughter Alison
Johnny Micheal “Mike” Spann and his daughter Alison

Hat/Tip to Foxnews.

I think that President Obama should have to be locked in a room, broadcast on C-SPAN (REALLY, this time), and have to explain to this young lady why her father’s murderer was released to go and murder more Americans. That little girl hugging her Daddy in the picture above has had to grow up without him and our President just blithely lets his killer go free, and then heads to the friggin’ golf course.

Alison Spann was just 9 when she learned her father, a U.S. Marine turned CIA operative, had become the first American killed in the war in Afghanistan. Thirteen years later, she found out her country had freed the Taliban leader behind his death.

In the time between, Spann has cherished the memory of her father, Johnny Micheal “Mike” Spann, who was killed during a Nov. 25, 2001 prisoner uprising at a northern Afghanistan compound where he was interrogating Taliban fighters. The 32-year-old was buried at Arlington National Cemetery in a ceremony in which he was lauded by then-CIA Director George Tenet for trying to build a “better, safer world.” His daughter has since grown up and recently graduated from Pepperdine University, even as more than 2,300 Americans have died fighting in Afghanistan.

But nothing prepared Alison Spann for news that Mullah Mohammad Fazi, the unquestioned leader of the prisoners at the compound where her father was killed, had been traded along with four cohorts held at Guantanamo Bay for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held by the Taliban for nearly five years..

Mullah Mohammad Fazi proudly displays his beheading collection


This piece of excrement doesn’t deserve to be drawing oxygen, much less enjoying his freedom. What kind of human being takes someone’s life by beheading them? And Fazi evidently uses this method often.

I can only imagine how I would feel about this. It is one thing to know your father died a hero, defending his country, but to learn that the President of the United States releases the man who killed him just to gain possible political points?

“My initial reaction was shock. I was shocked that our president would release five of the most high-risk prisoners being held in Guantanamo in exchange for one American,” she told “As a whole, my family was extremely upset and saddened that our government would do something like this, especially in light of the fact that it seems that people in the intelligence community are fairly united in their belief that these terrorists are likely to seek to further harm Americans in the future.”

She has followed the story closely, but still cannot fathom how the country her father loved and fought for could allow his killer to go free.

“It does become harder and harder to have faith in an administration that is plagued with scandal after scandal,” she said. “I do not believe that it was the right move by the administration.”

Alison’s father died a hero.

Mike Spann died at the Qala-i-Jangi compound near Mazari Sharit in northern Afghanistan, where he was interrogating detainees captured during the early weeks of the war. Fazi, according to his Guantanamo case file, had been deputy defense minister and commander of all Taliban troops in the northern Afghanistan region at the time of the September 11 attacks. Before that, he was accused by Human Rights organizations of personally supervising the murders of thousands of Shiite and Tajik Sunni Muslims.

And judging by her comments, it seems this 22 year old college grad has more common sense and smarts in her little finger than our Commander in Chief has in his entire scrawny, barely able to life weights, body.

Although Secretary of State John Kerry has called concerns that Fazi and the other four freed Taliban leaders will return to the battlefield “baloney,” Alison Spann considers it only a matter of time.

“You cannot release someone of such a high caliber within the Taliban community and expect him to suddenly emerge as a peaceful being. I would think now more than ever after being detained in Gitmo that he would seek revenge on America,” she said. “These prisoners had one goal when they went into Gitmo and I feel certain that they left Gitmo with that same goal, and that is to do harm and spread evil in the world. The implications from this act will reach further than our soil and I am afraid that these prisoners have no plans of standing down from their original fight.”

Read the full story here.


Taliban: We Found Bergdahl Alone, Cursing Americans

PFC Bowe Bergdahl
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Hat/Tip to Newser.

Evidently Bowe Bergdahl got his feelings hurt when the Taliban didn’t altogether trust him and his intentions…

The Taliban were just as confused by Bowe Bergdahl as the Afghan villagers who first encountered him after he allegedly wandered off his base, two former commanders say. Fighters rushed to capture Bergdahl after villagers informed them of his presence, and he was found walking alone, acting strangely, and cursing his fellow Americans, one commander tells NBC. He said “he wasn’t happy with his countrymen, but he didn’t intend to convert to Islam” or become a jihadi, the commander says. Both say that they at first believed it was some kind of trick, and they wondered how and why he had left the base alone—which he may have done more than once. They say he described his departure as a “personal issue.” A commander who left the Taliban in 2010 says that Bergdahl didn’t convert to Islam. “Think he had deserted his army with a mission and wanted to accept Islam, but our people didn’t trust him,” he says. “That shattered his belief.” Taliban sources say Bergdahl was taken to a “safe location” after his capture, and was later moved around sites in Pakistan.

And all Obama’s and Bergdahl’s actions have done is to empower and rejuvenate our terrorist enemies.

A commander still with the Taliban, meanwhile, says the exchange of Bergdahl for five Taliban leaders gives the movement legitimacy and has boosted morale among the hundreds of fighters under his command. The prisoner exchange “shows we are able to deal directly with the Americans and also successfully,” he tells Reuters.

Read the full story here.


On the Bergdahl Swap: Obama informed 90 staffers, but ZERO Congressmen


obama & taliban 5

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

White House: 90 in Administration Knew of Bergdahl Deal, But Not Congress


Um, we didn’t tell Congress because, um, because we were afraid of a leak bringing danger down on Bergdahl. Yeah, that’s it! We did not want to inform a bunch of folks because we feared for Bergdahl’s life.

Yeah! That’s the ticket!

Between 80 and 90 administration staffers  knew about the trade of five Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl even though Congress was kept in the dark, CNN reports, and members of both parties are unhappy about it.

During a classified briefing to the entire House of Representatives late Monday afternoon, White House officials said that up to 90 people had prior knowledge of the trade.

Well, okay we told a few folks, but – Dude, it was only like 80 or 90 people! What harm could that have done?

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon called that news “disturbing,” partly because of the high number who knew and partly because the White House has been saying it didn’t inform Congress until after the swap was made because it feared Bergdahl’s life might be in danger if there had been a leak.

McKeon, a California Republican, told CNN he wants to get an exact number of those who knew and their names.

“My question to them was, if you don’t know who knew, then how could you – if a leak had happened and the sergeant had been killed – how could you go back and find out who leaked?” McKeon said.

This just gets more bizarre by the minute.

Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, declined to offer a defense of the administration when offered the chance by CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield.

“It didn’t sit very well with those of us who were listening at the briefing,” Schiff said of the news that so many administration staffers knew of the decision ahead of time.

Read the full story here, but just be ready to do a lot of head shaking…


John Kerry on the Taliban Five attacking America after their release – It’s “a lot of Baloney.”

Secretary of State, John Kerry
Secretary of State, John Kerry

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

John “I was for it before I was against it” Kerry is at it again. It’s obvious that he’s on damage control after his boss said, “Absolutely” when asked if it were possible that the Taliban Five he released might attack America again. While in France, he taped an interview for CNN.

Secretary of State John Kerry says it’s “a lot of baloney” to suggest the five Taliban prisoners released in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will return to battle and kill Americans.

Still, he tells CNN, if they try they’ll likely be killed themselves.

And despite details to the contrary saying that the released terrorists wouldn’t be watched by US officials, Mr. Kerry is saying otherwise.

In an interview recorded in France and aired on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Kerry said the government of Qatar, which agreed to keep watch on the men for a year, aren’t the only ones with an eye on them.

When asked if that meant the United States would be monitoring them, Kerry wouldn’t be specific, but said that if the former prisoners don’t meet the requirements of their release the United States has “the ability to do things.”

“I’m not telling you that they don’t have some ability at some point to go back and to get involved,” Kerry said. “But they also have an ability to get killed doing that. And I don’t think anybody should doubt the capacity of the United States of America to protect Americans.”

When pressed on statements by one of the released terrorists that he is going to kill more Americans, Kerry downplayed it.

He said that the freed Taliban detainee who already has vowed to return to kill more Americans is simply engaging in propaganda.

“Propaganda is propaganda, and they’ll say whatever they want to stir the waters,” he said.

The question of whether Bowe Bergdahl was a deserter to the US Army came up again.

As far as questions relating to Bergdahl’s disappearance — some of his former platoon members say he walked away willingly — Kerry said there is plenty of time to sort through what happened now that Bergdahl is safe from enemy hands.

It would have been, he said, “offensive and incomprehensible to consciously leave an American behind … in the hands of people who would torture him, cut off his head.”


John Kerry – It would have been, he said, “offensive and incomprehensible to consciously leave an American behind …

It’s too bad that this administration didn’t hold the same view for the four brave Americans who they let die in Benghazi…

Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.



Chewing Up America



Hey, Barry … The “D” In D-Day Doesn’t Stand For “Doublemint.”

Social media users tore into Barack Obama on Friday after the US president was seen chewing gum during solemn ceremonies to mark the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings. People took to Twitter to denounce Obama’s “shameful” and “vulgar” chewing, with one user attacking him as a “lout.” (Newsmax)

855907978 obama chewing at d day ceremony 2014gum

Benedict Arnold: “What do you think would be my fate if my misguided countrymen were to take me prisoner?”

Colonial army Captain: “They would cut off the leg that was wounded at Saratoga and bury it with the honors of war, and the rest of you they would hang on a gibbet.”

If boorish behavior was the only thing we had to fear from Barack Obama, we’d all sleep easier at night.  After all, chewing gum is not an impeachable offense, even if the used cuds are pasted to the underside of the Resolute desk. But, as Matt Barber writes:

Barack Hussein Obama is America’s biggest threat to national security. He is “an enemy within” … Merriam-Webster defines “treason” as, “the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government or of helping your country’s enemies during war.” Whether Obama is intentionally trying to overthrow his own government is open for debate. But that he has “helped his country’s enemies during war” is a slam dunk.

The amazing thing? This arrogant clown admits to it: “Is there a possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us?” Obama asked rhetorically of the five terrorists he just cut loose. “Absolutely,” he answered.

… It wouldn’t matter if Bergdahl were Mother Teresa. This scandal isn’t about Bowe Bergdahl. It’s about a sitting United States president intentionally, overtly and criminally violating the National Defense Act to release five of the world’s most dangerous Muslim terrorists – dubbed the jihadist “Dream Team” – thereby directly placing American lives in jeopardy.

Obama swore an oath to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” not to protect all enemies, foreign and domestic, from America.


And the scandal worsens by the minute. From Weasel Zippers:

Apparently, according to NBC, and as reported here at Conservative Hideout 2.0“the U.S. had provided written assurances that no country would arrest any of the five freed for a year as long as they lived peacefully …”

Keep in mind, at least two of these men are actually wanted war criminals. They have been declared war criminals by the U.N and are accused of the murder of thousands. But we guaranteed they would not be pursued for a year?

As posited here yesterday (The Bergdahl Deception), in David Limbaugh’s Townhall column, It Was Probably Never About Bergdahl, and in Russ Vaughn’s article in the American Thinker, A Dishonorable Discharge…Flowing from the White House:

 It is far likelier that Obama was first motivated to release these killers and then looked around for a plausible cover.

The Gitmo jailbreak was orchestrated by Barack Obama against the advice of his military and intelligence advisers, though Barry will tell you different:

“I make no apologies for it. It was a unanimous decision among my principals in my government … This is something I would do again and will continue to do whenever I have an opportunity.”

Well, he also told you if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor.  How’s that working out for you?


Too Dangerous to release in 2011, Obama turns terrorist over for Bergdahl in 2014


Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Unclassified Document Shows In 2011 Obama Argued In Court Taliban Commander He Freed In Exchange For Bergdahl Should Not Be Released…

Ah, the difference three years makes…in 2011 the Obama regime said this joker was too dangerous to release, but now he’s free so Obama could divert our attention away from the VA Scandal.


As Managing Editor of this site, I’m finding that I need to start a file named “Obama Scandals,” just so I can keep up with this lawless and totally inept administration.

If he was a terror threat in 2011, he’s obviously still a terror threat in 2014.

Via Stephen Hayes:

While some top Obama administration officials are downplaying threats posed the five senior Taliban officials released from Guantanamo in the prisoner exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, not long ago the administration went to court to prevent one of those men from going free. In a decision on May 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled in favor of the government–and “Respondent Barack Obama”–in its effort to keep Khairulla Khairkhwa in detention. That decision, once classified “Secret,” has since been declassified and released.

Today, with these Taliban leaders free in Qatar and already looking likely to rejoin the fight against America, top Obama administration officials are seeking to reassure Americans that the threats are minimal–or, in the words of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, “sufficiently mitigated.” But just three years ago, the same administration argued in court against Khairkhwa’s writ of habeas corpus because of his senior position with the Taliban, his close relationship with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and his support for Taliban forces fighting against the United States.

The case provides a window on the Obama administration’s concerns–concerns that many top intelligence and military officials continue to have. The court summarized the government’s case this way. “The government contends that the petitioner, a former senior Taliban official, is lawfully detained because he was part of Taliban forces and purposefully and materially supported such forces in hostilities against the United States,” the court wrote in the introduction to its opinion. […]

The court found persuasive the Obama administration’s argument that Khairkhwa helped lead Taliban fighters after the beginning of hostilities with the U.S. in the fall of 2001. Khairkhwa “had a “long history of involvement with the Taliban’s military affairs” and was a “prominent and influential leader within the Taliban.”

Before he was released, the Obama administration argued that Khairkhwa’s long experience as a jihadist leader required his continued detention by the U.S. government. Now that Obama has chosen to transfer him to Qatar the administration would have the public believe that he and the other freed Taliban leaders do not constitute a threat to the United States.

Keep reading…


Democratic Leadership Turning on Obama



Hat/Tip to the Capitalism Institute.

You know it’s pretty bad when the leadership in your own party makes public statements against you and your actions. Well that is exactly what happened this week when a Senator from California said that the President is lying about the Bergdahl Scandal.

President Obama blatantly violated federal law and statute when he unilaterally decided to release five highly-dangerous Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo in exchange for captured US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Obama deliberately neglected to inform Congress before the swap took place, which violates a law that he himself signed last year.  He also provided “material support” to a known terrorist organization, the Taliban, which is in violation of federal code and carries a stiff prison term as a penalty.

This has led to many people and organizations speaking out against the prisoner exchange, with some calling for his arrest and impeachment for such obvious disregard for Congress and lawlessness.

So who is this top Democrat that is not towing the party line?

Dianne_Feinstein_Liberal_DemocratNow a highly unlikely voice has joined opposition to the President’s actions.  Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein is upset that she wasn’t notified before the deal was done, and has publicly contradicted the official story coming out of the White House, according to Politico.

When asked whether there was a “credible threat” on Bergdahl’s life if word had gotten out, the California Democrat responded: “No, I don’t think there was a credible threat, but I don’t know. I have no information that there was.”

Feinstein’s comments, part of an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Political Capital with Al Hunt airing Friday evening, put her at odds with White House officials. At a briefing Wednesday, administration officials told lawmakers that they couldn’t give Congress advance notice on the Bergdahl deal because the Taliban vowed to kill him if any details about the prisoner exchange came out.

Feinstein and several other members of Congress are saying that Obama clearly violated the law by not keeping them in the loop on the negotiations to free Bergdahl.  In fact, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers claims he hasn’t received a briefing on Bergdahl since 2011.

Feinstein said White House deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken called her this week to apologize for not keeping her informed about the deal that returned Bergdahl to the U.S. and released five senior Taliban officials from Guantanamo Bay prison.

The senator added that the administration has an “absolute obligation” to fully investigate the nature of Bergdahl’s capture. Some media reports have suggested that the solder was a deserter given that he likely voluntarily walked away from his platoon.

Senator Feinstein is, generally speaking, not an ally of those who oppose the President and his agenda.  However, credit must be given where it is due, and in this instance, as well as when it was discovered that the White House ordered the CIA to spy on Congress, Feinstein is on the right side.

Read the full story here.


Obama says “My government” didn’t need Congressional approval to release Taliban Five

King Obama & his two court jesters
King Obama & his two court jesters

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

In this snippet of an interview, Obama rolls out the Left’s new talking point about the Bergdahl swap. And that is that if someone wears our country’s uniform, we don’t leave them behind.

Well then Mr. President, please allow me to ask:


He believes he is the government. If Congress does not challenge this, he will be.

During an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Barack Obama claims – incredibly – that “my government” acted ‘unanimously” in its decision to trade five Taliban commanders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

It was a “unanimous decision” by “my government.” “I make no apologies for it.”

But surely, he meant to say “my administration,” right? Don’t bet on it.

The deal was overwhelmingly rejected in 2012 by members of Congress, Pentagon officials and the intel community. That doesn’t suggest that the American people’s government was “unanimous” about the deal.



The Bergdahl Swap – More Questions Than Answers


PFC Bowe Bergdahl
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Bergdahl Classification Isn’t What Matters – Don’t Miss the Larger Picture

All over the media there is horror and consternation in regards to the Bergdahl return.  He is being called a traitor and I have seen many calls for the death penalty floating about.  You are missing the bigger picture here.  First and foremost, the military never classified Bergdahl as a deserter.  That makes a huge difference in how the military should behave in trying to find and free him.  The military had an obligation to do so.  Secondly, the bigger picture seems to be getting missed here.  President Obama broke the law in order to get his return.  It doesn’t matter what the standing of the soldier is.  The law would be broken even if there were not serious questions about Bergdahl’s actions.

Now from the media reports I have read the sequence of events in this “trade” is that a video was made in December of 2013.  The White House was made aware of the video the following month.  In this very short video (I believe it is under three minutes) it reportedly shows Bergdahl in bad health.  In the statements made by the administration, as well as the president himself, the narrative that they are using is that they saw that his health was deteriorating and knew something had to be done.  Does that make sense to you?

If his health was so dire why did they wait close to five months to do something about it?  If his health was the reason for the “prisoner swap” wouldn’t they have done it in late January or early February?  This is one among many questions that must be answered.

Another one of the narratives that the White House is laying out there is the need for absolute secrecy.  Everyone knows that there are leaks coming out of Capitol Hill.  That can’t be denied.  But this is also the same institution that knew about the bin Laden raid months in advance.  Nothing of that leaked.  One would like to think that members of congress take national security seriously.  There are many who look at Bergdahl as a traitor, some of those people are members of Capitol Hill.  But that doesn’t mean that they would voluntarily risk the life of that man by leaking the information.  This is just a ginned up excuse that the administration is floating to direct attention away from the fact that he has clearly broken the law.  A law, I might add, that he signed.  It isn’t like he wasn’t aware that the law existed.  It seems like the touted Constitutional law professor has left those ideals behind.

This administration has emboldened the Taliban to take additional Americans hostages.  Not to mention many other rogue nations across the world such as North Korea, Iran, and a whole host of others.  We are now known for negotiating with terrorists.  We have crossed that line and there will be no going back.

Conservatives need to do themselves a favor and let the military justice system do what needs to be done and let them handle Bergdahl, we have much bigger fish to fry.

Impeachment must be discussed in this context.  I have never called for that before during the Obama administration because I don’t think incompetence is grounds for impeachment.  But this is a situation where multiple laws were broken, our national security has been endangered, and our troops all over the world have had a target put on their backs forever more.  That should not be allowed to stand.  This is the fight we should be waging.  Bergdahl is only a small cog in the wheel.  Let the Department of Defense handle him.


The Bergdahl Deception



“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.


Susan Rice: No Evidence Bergdahl was a Deserter

National Security Adviser, Susan Rice

National Security Adviser, Susan Rice is at it again.

This time she says that there is no evidence Bowe Bergdahl was a deserter. I suppose the note he left saying he was, “leaving to start a new life and didn’t want to fight for America” isn’t evidence.

Nor, I suppose is Colonel David Hunt know what he’s talking about when he said,

“Bowe Bergdahl was a deserter. Bergdahl on June 20, 2009 crawled underneath a wire at his fire base with water, food, a change of clothes, a knife and a cell phone. He called his unit the day after he deserted to tell his unit he deserted… Bill, we lost 14 soldiers, killed, searching for a deserter. He left his unit in combat. It’s non-arguable… We don’t know yet if he joined the Taliban or not. But, there’s no question he deserted.”

But the biggest, “Oops!” by Ms. Rice is the fact that Bergdahl DOES face desertion charges. One wonders how she is able to walk with one foot forever in her mouth.

But here she is, in her own words – Bagdad Bob Susan Rice saying Bergdahl served with honor.




Obama guaranteed Taliban Five free from arrest for one year


taliban five hero's welcome 003

Report: Obama Regime Guaranteed 5 Released Taliban Commanders “Would Be Safe From Arrest By Any Country For A Year”

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Does this come as a surprise to anyone? I think the only surprise is that we actually found out about it. Nothing this lawless President does anymore surprises me. My biggest question – When will Congress get off its collective ass and do something about this man?

Hint: I won’t be holding my breath.

According to NBC News, as we noted earlier, one of the five Taliban commanders released in the Bergdahl deal, has promised to return to the fight already. Wonder no longer, it didn’t take a week.

There is also something else in the deal that hasn’t come out until now.

Apparently, according to NBC, “the U.S. had provided written assurances that no country would arrest any of the five freed for a year as long as they lived peacefully”, one of his relatives told NBC News by telephone from Afghanistan.

If this is in fact true, why are we only finding out about this now, and from the Taliban side? How or why would we ever make such an assurance to them, basically offering to cover their back for a year? How could we speak on behalf of other countries? Are we now blatantly supporting the Taliban?

Keep in mind, at least two of these men are actually wanted war criminals. They have been declared war criminals by the U.N and are accused of the murder of thousands.

But we guaranteed they would not be pursued for a year?


President Obama, Which Side Are You On?



The Obama administration gives away FIVE HIGH LEVEL TALIBAN JIHADISTS and we get a soldier who went AWOL, and that in all probability aided the enemy. What the friggin’ hell? Obama has either totally lost his mind, is insane, or he willingly gave aid to the people who are killing our soldiers; the the very people our soldiers are fighting, the enemy.

Yes, Andrew C. McCarthy is correcti n saying that we need to be focusing on the fact that President Obama has freed five high value Jihadist members of the Taliban and Haqqani network while the Taliban and Haqqani netword are still fighting us, trying to maim and kill our men and women serving in the Middle East.

Forget about Obama having violated the NDAA’s 30 day notice to Congress. That’s peanuts compared to him giving away five members of the enemy who want to kill Americans, our soldiers, while we are still at war with them. The GOP needs to get some cajones, get a back bone, and do what is right for this country. They need to stand up to our lawless President to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, as the Oath of Office they all swore to uphold says for them to do.

Andrew C. McCarthy gives details explaining what is horribly wrong with the Obama trade.


The vital point here is that the president has returned five senior commanders to the Taliban and Haqqani networkwhile those violent jihadist organizations are still conducting offensive attacks against American troops, who are still in harm’s way and still conducting combat operations pursuant to a congressional authorization of military force.These terrorists were not exchanged in connection with a final peace settlement in which it would be appropriate to exchange detainees—after all, if there is no more war, even unlawful enemy combatant prisoners must be released unless they can be charged with crimes.While the president is obviously abandoning the war effort, it has not been fully abandoned yet. The Taliban and Haqqani have not surrendered or settled; they are still working hard to kill our troops. It is thus mind-bogglingly irresponsible for the commander-in-chief to replenish their upper ranks. The reason the laws of war permit enemy combatants to be detained until the conclusion of hostilities is humane: when enemy forces are depleted, they have a greater incentive to surrender, bringing a swifter, less bloody conclusion to the war. By giving the enemy back its most effective commanders, Obama, by contrast, endangers our forces, potentially extends the war, and otherwise makes it far more likely that the war will end on terms injurious to American interests.As I demonstrate in Faithless Execution, high crimes and misdemeanors are not primarily statutory offenses. They are the political wrongs of high public officials—the president, in particular—in whom great public trust is reposed. When the commander-in-chief replenishes the enemy at a time when (a) the enemy is still attacking our forces and (b) the commander-in-chief has hamstrung our forces with unconscionable combat rules-of-engagement that compromise their ability to defend themselves, that is a profound dereliction of duty.That’s what we ought to be outraged about. The chitter-chatter about a 30-day notice requirement is a sideshow. Yes, the president has once again violated a statute. And as I said in yesterday’s column, he undoubtedly did so in order to get the swap done before public and congressional protest could mount. But in the greater scheme of things, that’s a footnote to the real travesty.

What President Obama did is unbelievable! This president is twenty times worse than Carter. President Obama is dangerous for the United States.