Such a deal! That’s Obama’s notion of “’fair trade practices” as applied to national defense.
The Obama administration’s vapid anti-terrorist record gains its weakness from Obama’s deeply-flawed grasp of terrorism. Last weekend epitomizes Obama’s myopia.
Obama negotiated with terrorists for the release of an American held prisoner by the Taliban, using five of America’s most dangerous foes as pawns in his personal chess game. Obama released these war criminals in exchange for a deserter who deserves to be court-martialed.
The Taliban’s “Dream Team”
Dana Perino accurately characterized these five terrorists – which the Taliban desperately sought to free – as the “Dream Team of the Taliban” (Special Report, FNC, 6/2/14). Of course the Taliban wanted its leaders back again – to return to the battlefield. And Obama accommodated them.
Hearken back to the Civil War. Can you imagine the Union Army capturing Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson only to have President Lincoln let them go?
Bowe Bergdahl and His Father, Robert Bergdahl
What did America get in return? A deserter who is disgusted by America.
Yet, despite knowing of Bergdahl’s record and his views, the White House sacrificed America’s safety and security for a deserter who values neither. Whitewashing the truth, National Security Advisor Susan Rice asserted, “He served the United States with honor and distinction.” No, he didn’t. Bergdahl deserted his comrades in arms and he abandoned the country he was ashamed of.
As a direct consequence of his desertion, at least six soldiers were killed searching for him.
His father, Robert Bergdahl, in a meeting with President Obama, actually thanked Allah. Moreover, “the first word’s that … Bergdahl’s father uttered when speaking at the White House were an Arabic prayer which a CIA expert on the Middle East says was meant to “’claim the White House for Islam.’”
This is significant! Robert Bergdahl planted the Islamic flag! The tenets of Islam declare that once territory has come under Islamic control, it will remain so in perpetuity. Jihadists will forever point to that ceremony with Obama as proof of Islam’s subjugation of America’s capitol.
Robert Bergdahl, who converted to Islam, sides with the Taliban.
Many have addressed the far-reaching ramifications of Obama’s blunder which will reverberate around the world far beyond his presidency. Critics assert that this “prisoner exchange” will:
- Set precedent for negotiating with terrorists
- Encourage terrorists to capture Americans for future “prisoner exchanges”
- Legitimize the Taliban
- Return five senior al-Qaeda leaders to the battlefield
- Create a moral equivalence between jihadists and American soldiers
Obama’s extra-constitutional action will ultimately endanger every American – 1) anyone who travels overseas or has a loved one who does so, and 2) American servicemen who become engaged in future extraction operations to liberate those who have been captured/kidnapped.
But why should Obama care? After all, he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. Moral equivalence pervades his worldview and his administration. As a senator in post-9/11 America, Obama notoriously refused to wear a flag on his lapel or place his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides. There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.”
Obama doesn’t “want to be perceived as taking sides?” Then why did he take the oath of office as a senator, and later, president? If he won’t take sides – be on America’s side – then why is he president?
Faulty Rationale by White House
Obama has always failed to grasp the nature of the terrorist threat facing America and the world.
During his predecessor’s presidency, Obama opposed virtually every anti-terrorist measure. Obama’s own presidency began by denying the existence of a “war on terror” (expunging that term from his administration’s lexicon), employing euphemisms (e.g., man-made disasters, workplace violence), intending to dismantle everything Bush accomplished, and treating terrorism as strictly a criminal justice matter.
Obama and his Justice Department are confused about how to combat terrorism because they 1) virtually deny its existence and 2) treat it as criminal activity instead of acts of war.
Was the 2009 Ft. Hood massacre “workplace violence” or an act of terrorism? Most people recognize that this jihadist intended to kill as many people as he could to help destroy the United States, all in the name of Allah.
Obama’s Justice Department thinks otherwise. It quickly Mirandizes terrorists, foregoing interrogations which could otherwise produce useful intelligence information in our war on terror. It insists on jury trials in America instead of military tribunals in Gitmo.
The “prisoner exchange” – and, indeed, Obama’s worldview – offers a moral equivalence between U.S. and its adversaries. Some on the Left actually regard terrorists as “freedom fighters” and “patriots,” while conversely viewing American patriots in low regard.
Where Do We Go From Here?
How the Justice Department proceeds in handling the criminal case against Bowe Bergdahl will demonstrate its commitment (or lack thereof) to the rule of law and the military “code of honor” which has been bandied about by supporters of Bergdahl.
Obama is surely tidying up loose ends for his future legacy, ending two wars and getting our troops out of harm’s way. (Except, his actions have placed even more people in harm’s way!)
Having released the worst of the worst from Gitmo argues for releasing the rest, enabling Obama to fulfill that campaign pledge as well, albeit a few years late.
But does any of this make America safer?
In exchanging war criminals for a deserter, Obama sacrificed America’s security and standing in the world. What will he do next?
Bergdahl made the news again in January 2015, and the Left continued to defend both Bergdahl and the terrorist exchange. Juan Williams provided a typical rationale on The Five:
Williams: “We bring home American soldiers and I think we’ve done that from the day of the founding of this great country. … Yes [even a deserter]. … He’s a crazy kid. … He made a mistake. If it’s my kid and my kid makes a mistake, I want my child back. If he is in the army uniform of the United States military, bring the kid home. … Hey, they were soldiers. They know what they’re in for. Bergdahl made a mistake. … You don’t think mistakes are made — you think mistakes are made in the course of war?”
First, Williams claimed we always bring our soldiers back – even deserters. Wrong. Deserters?
Second, he employed the insanity defense.
Third, he repeatedly claimed Bergdahl made a mistake. Bergdahl’s desertion was not a “mistake” – it was a deliberate, calculated, planned, and surreptitiously executed action. One which cost the lives of his fellow soldiers who sought to find or rescue him.
Fourth, Williams personalized the situation: what if it’s your kid or my kid? No standards are ever enforced in these kinds of arguments. “What if your child _____ ?” Whatever is filled in that blank is justified by the argument that it is your child. Merely an emotional appeal to justify breaking the rules.
The bottom line is that five top-tier terrorists were released back into the battlefield to wreak havoc all over again. For a deserter.
In late March 2015, Bergdahl was charged with desertion. We now know – as we always suspected – that several of the five swapped Taliban war cabinet are preparing to return to the terrorist battlefield. And the mainstream media continue to cover-up for the White House’s hero’s welcome for Bergdahl. Moreover, the Obama administration still champions the exchange.
Under the Obama administration, words have lost their meaning and/or taken on an Orwellian construction. The most “transparent” administration in history is the most deceptive. “Patriotism” no longer means love and defense of country but, rather, supporting the growth of government. And “honor and distinction” are reserved for those who oppose America.