Get PJ Media on your Apple

VodkaPundit

Why? Why Why Why Why Why Why Why?

June 4th, 2014 - 8:22 am

I just can’t wrap my head around the logic behind the Bowe Bergdahl release, maybe nobody can. Maybe that’s the point. Read:

But officials in the Pentagon and intelligence communities had successfully fought off release of the five men in the past, officials tell TIME. “This was out of the norm,” says one official familiar with the debate over the dangers of releasing the five Taliban officials. “There was never the conversation.” Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.

Obama has broad authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to order the prisoner exchange as commander in chief of America’s armed forces. The lengths to which he went to bring it about show how determined he was to resolve the lingering issue of America’s only prisoner of war in Afghanistan.

We traded five high-value targets for one soldier, who, if the allegations are true, deserted, renounced his citizenship, got six of his fellow soldiers killed trying to kind him, and quite possibly collaborated with the enemy.

Meanwhile, our “friends” in Qatar are already allowing the released Taliban the freedom to wander around the country. It’s safe to assume it won’t be long before they’re back to doing what terrorists do, as even our president himself has admitted.

But what did the White House think would happen? What did they think would be worth overriding all those internal objections? Why did they feel one deserter was worth five top-level Taliban?

Ralph Peters says the White House was “blindsided” by the reaction. Here he is in NRO:

The president, too, appears stunned. He has so little understanding of (or interest in) the values and traditions of our troops that he and his advisers really believed that those in uniform would erupt into public joy at the news of Bergdahl’s release — as D.C. frat kids did when Osama bin Laden’s death was trumpeted.

This is exactly why an executive has people he needs to listen to, to avoid stepping in such giant piles of his own doo. Instead, Obama put his hands over his ears and shouted LALALALALALALA while arranging the release of five of the most dangerous killers in the world in exchange for a deserter. If Obama was blindsided, it’s because he chose to be willfully and inexcusably blind.

Top Rated Comments   
If you contemplate the phrase I read somewhere "America switched sides on the War on Terror" And remember it wasn't AMERICA but Obama, and it wasn't switching so much, only as he declared, he'd always choose Islam's side, you'll see it's all perfectly clear. Depressing but clear. Hey, it's almost eleven. Is it too early to hit the bourbon?
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I’m at a loss. How about you?"

What other significant thing happened over the past weekend?
The EPA finally releasing the new power plant regulations mandating a 30% reduction in emissions by 2030. And it got play for a day or two until this hit.

Now, I think Dear Liar was hoping for euphoria over the swap. But given how long the negotiations went on and the strenuous objections, he had to know there was the potential for blow back. And didn't mind that because we are talking about Bergdahl and not the VA scandal which presages the coming nationalized healthcare system nor the EPA fundamental transformation of our power grid.

He's playing a long game, and I think he's narcissistic enough to not mind a present hit to his reputation. Because (in his mind) the future utopia will regard him as someone willing to sacrifice even his reputation in order to bestow the blessings of progressivism upon the unenlightened masses. He martyred himself. Why, he's a secular saint!
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why did they feel one deserter was worth five top-level Taliban?

If Obama had a son, he'd look like Bergdahl. Once you understand that, everything else makes sense.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (191)
All Comments   (191)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
It's very simple. Obama felt an obligation to Bergdahl because Bergdahl had the same name as the dog that Obama named after himself.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Literally the only way this could possibly make sense is if we have the classified ability to have put undetectable gps beacons or the like in these five peoples' guts, and did that.

Don't think that's not far, far less likely than this just plain not making sense, though.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
I find it far easier to think that acting stunned is all part of Obama’s dumb-like-a-fox routine, and that this is simply more of his psychological warfare against our final bulwarks—that big, solid, stable middle of authentically patriotic Americans who have always been immune to his blandishments.

I think he believes that if he can drive us to the brink of despair, thereby rendering us passive and hopeless about the future of the country we knew, through the unwavering use of a persona and performance designed to have a schizophrenogenic effect on normal people, he can win the day. He wants compliance any way he can get it, and this is one of the less messy ways of securing it.

Obviously it would be suicide to give him what he wants.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Obama’s dumb-like-a-fox routine..."

i think it's more arrogance than cleverness.

Many in his base fell for, and continue to fall for, any old thing he puts out there.

Given that, he hardly has to even try.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
If the Soros Junta, excuse me, the Obama Administration were agents of a hostile Middle Eastern power, what would they do differently?
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
They would not support the homosexual agenda.

ON the other hand, if they were dedicated Marxists and merely using the jihadis to hasten the collapse of America....
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
“We have a basic principle: we do not leave anybody wearing the American uniform behind,” Obama said, repeating the defense he offered earlier in the week.

Leave behind diplomatic & CIA personnel in Benghazi, no problem.

Pure blather from a guy who would betray his own grandmother (and did) if he figured it was to his political advantage.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Obama on Bergdahl Deal: No Apologies"

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/barack-obama-bowe-bergdahl-no-apology-107477.html

(I happen to believe the word on the street that Bergdahl might have been retrieved w/o prisoner swap deal and that the prezzydent insisted that it be tied to release of Guantanamo guys as a way of emptying that place and fulfilling one of his original (2008) campaign obsessions that has been, you know, stymied by those (he thinks) obstructionist republicans.)
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
I was lucky that in my 20's I got a boss who taught me so much about life and career. To say I screwed up and need help fixing this. To prepare board packets so that the pickiest board member would be satisfied. And to always encourage at least one employee to give me the truth. Because this man never worked a real job in his life, he didn't get to learn these things. And now our country is suffering because sycophants in the media, academia and Hollywood wanted him no matter what. Everyone who elected him TWICE should be ashamed of themselves. We all need to eject these career politicians and never trust the media again. Oh yes, unless they are reporting on a republican, because I guarantee you they will find their morals by then.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Oh yes, unless they are reporting on a republican, because I guarantee you they will find their morals by then."

It's not their morals they find when reporting on a republican who screws up or goes astray, it is their self-righteous justification for being in this administration's pocket.

The behavior of the press for the duration of this guy's tenure has been the most shameful aspect of the whole deal, literally, traitorous.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why? It moves us a major step forward in the Alinsky-Cloward-Pliven plan to overwhelm the system and bring about chaos in which the American boob-lic will accept any tyranny just to make it stop.

Get out while you can!
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
The best answer that I have seen: the Obamists are totalitarians who view themselves as kindred spirits with the Taliban, notwithstanding the Obamists' alleged opposition to the Taliban's oppression of women, children, gays, modern civilization, etc. In other words, totalitarianism uber alles.

As for myself, I now fear that the end of this administration is going to turn out eerily similar to the end of the movie No Way Out.

They could not possibly be affirmatively trying to support the Taliban, and other Islamist totalitarian regimes, could they?

Bueller? Anyone?
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama's sympathetic impulse to Islamists hasn't changed from his words in an interview to Hyde Park Herald, 1 week after 911.

Probably his only consistency, sympathy, empathy, whatever for that crowd that thinks it is charged by none other than Allah Himself to slay or enslave infidels wherever they are.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/25/Obama-911-Reaction-Repeated-in-UN-Speech

8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
p.s. If they do not court-martial Bergdahl, how are they going to keep track of him to make sure that he does not carry out some Taliban-ordered act of terrorism here?
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
'If so, why did the White House call him a “war hero”?'

Because to leftists, he is. He rejected the evil Afghanistan war, the evil Army that's fighting it, and the evil country that started it. He followed his conscience, thought for himself, refused to conform.

Remember, war is not the answer. To leftists like Obama, every deserter is a war hero.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
During the '08 election cycle, he repeatedly cited Afghanistan as the good war and bashed his predecessor for diverting resources to Iraq

Of course, he didn't mean any of it as he never means anything he utters as poseur and prétendeur.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All