More than 80 in Executive Branch knew about Bergdahl swap

Just head over to Sweetness & Light and read Steve Gilbert’s post on the subject.

In short…

  • Lots of people at the White House knew what was going on. Nobody in Congress. (Harry Reid is claiming he knew, but we all know where his head has been lately.)
  • Plenty of people knew about the bin Laden raid, nobody squealed.
  • Not only did Obama avoid telling Congress, the leadership on national security committees were excluded.
  • Sgt. Bergdahl’s parents knew.

Everyone knew Obama wanted this exchange to happen. I’m willing to speculate Obama preferred this outcome to going in and having our troops get Bergdahl. From Gilbert…

… we know exactly why Obama didn’t brief Congress. Someone might have leaked the swap to the press and it would have had to be called off again. And Obama couldn’t allow that.

17 replies
  1. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    Even the Taliban knew before Congress did! Too bad the liberal media are enabling an America hating socialist half-brother who was born with a silver spoon up his a $$.

  2. bien-pensant
    bien-pensant says:

    Obama really does rule like a monarch.

    Congress is just superfluous to him — he has a pen and a phone — and the Constitution is just inconvenient and old.

  3. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Yes, I agree Obama could not allow his plan to be thwarted. It was just one more diss to the Military. To satisfy his leftist wing, he is destroying moral. One diss was to not follow military advisors who asked for 13,000 troops to be left in Iraq, instead 9,000 were left. My figures may be a little off but I know it was much smaller than command requested. He left Stevens and four others to die at Benghazi, with not a care. Then he added insult to injury to say the military never leaves a troop behind. But to release Taliban Five, for a sick spoiled brat, was another diss to troops still in Afghanistan and don’t get me started on the tragedy of the VA scandal. I wish I could show the troops how much we care for them. I am shocked at the suicide rate so I know his cynical plan is working. I know I speak for all at RVO, message to our brave troops, stand strong, we are with you.

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      Ok so I read Krauthammer http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/379946/krauthammers-take-white-houses-handling-bergdahl-joke-nro-staff And while he did say that he thought Bergdahl should come home, he did say that the WH handling was a joke. The WH lied as always, they should not have exaggerated his state of health. They should have said it was a bad deal but they should bring him home. He never said anything about trading 5 enemies for one PSTD kid. Ok i’m not a psychiatrist, but Krathammer suggests it. I think we should have bargained better, any smart world traveler knows that you keep bargaining with people in the Middle East, it is their culture to hold out and stupid Wh idiots are to impatient and go for the best deal!

      • Lynn
        Lynn says:

        Should have said first deal instead of best deal. Also I have never been to the Middle East, but I read and I know lots of women shoppers.
        Furthermore sammy you should post a link if you insist people should read it or at least tell them what the heck it says!

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        OK, Monday morning QBacking is the best that can done. Supposedly there was an earlier deal that went sour because the Taliban rejected some of the conditions put forth by the WH. They wanted nine-for-one during the bargaining session. Keep holding out for a “better” deal?? I venture to say that Gitmo is likely responsible for 100’s, 1000’s of additional enemies so what’s another 5??

      • Lynn
        Lynn says:

        Gitmo is not responsible for creating more enemies, than there were before, nor will it ever stop. Radical Islamists are the enemy and this is a jihad. They are raised by their mothers to kill any infidel (which is anyone who is not Muslim). It has been going on for centuries, and never touched the US until Usama bin Laden was trained and armed by the US because they were fighting the Russians. He had millions of dollars from his family and plotted to kill even more infidels here in US. The fact that he succeeded is the reason that increased the numbers of enemies.

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        It’s just a guess on my part, but I’ d say that Gitmo is not the place to spend a vacation. Thanks for the warped history lesson on how Muslims raise their children.

      • Lynn
        Lynn says:

        It’s just a guess on my part, but I bet it’s no picnic for our troops to be in Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter, and they stay there voluntarily. Except the highly valued Berdahl who deserted.

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        Atrocities beget atrocities, that’s not new. And there have been plenty to go around during my lifetime from “civilized” and “uncivilized” nations/sects/tribes etc. I would be quite happy if we all got off the eye-for-an-eye routine, but the chance of that happening is slim to nil. Not much hope on this blog either.

      • Lynn
        Lynn says:

        The subject is the Berdahl swap. This ridiculous administration swapped one deserter for five Radical Isamist Terrorists. One was connected with Usama bin Laden. It was a crappy trade, I don’t care if they first asked to trade 50 for one before. We should never have made the trade to release these horrible people. One low level schmuck for Berdahl would have been fair. Otherwise let him sit in jail a little longer. Sen McCain actually declined to be released from prison in Vietnam, the first time he was offered. This is no time for a kumbaya moment Sammy. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, otherwise propose a comment that appreciates the gravity of this situation. The US has never attacked another nation killing 3,000 citizens unprovoked so don’t give me crap about atrocities or eye for an eye. There are experts saying that we may have another 9/11 because of the critical situation. So, I just feel sorry for anyone so naive that they don’t understand the difference between a jihad and wars we’ve had in the past.

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        Yes Lynn, the subject was Bergdahl not all the crap you loaded on to make what point? That we do not agree on almost anything? No need to feel sorry for me as I do not about you. Your ranting says plenty.

  4. bien-pensant
    bien-pensant says:

    Kudos, Lynn, for holding sammy’s feet to the fire about about cite and source. It is easy to throw bombs and not make a point. It just becomes provocative writing disjointed to original subject matter.
    O.K. kids, back on topic.
    The trade for Bergdahl IMHO was calculated to show, once again, Obama’s love for Muslims and his tolerance for Islamist radicals. Face it, Bergdahl converted. Once again, we are seeing Obama act outside of his legal sphere of duties — where was Congress? — to show his love of people who are anti-American.
    Not to be overlooked is that the Bergdahl swap, bad as it is for us, deflected attention from more crucial issues, such as the invasion of the Mexico-US border by tens of thousands of illegals, loss of Iraq to ISIS and/or Iran ( a lot of veterans are pissed about THAT), foreign policy du jour, the VA scandal, ruinous gas prices and all of Obama’s AWOL actions (golf, fundraisers, vacations, etc).

    • sammy22
      sammy22 says:

      Nice going, b-p. I thought that Krauthammer was required reading for the Conservatives. Sorry I failed to say that I agreed w/ K’s points. To summarize: it was a bad deal, but it was the best deal one could make at the time (even if it had to be Pres. Obama who did it, and therefore a bad deal as all Conservative Monday QB’s chimed in with).

Comments are closed.