Posted tagged ‘Bergdahl’

Bergdahl Rescue Mission ‘Haunts’ Navy SEAL Team Member Eight Years Later

November 9, 2017

Bergdahl Rescue Mission ‘Haunts’ Navy SEAL Team Member Eight Years Later, Washington Free Beacon, November 9, 2017

Bergdahl’s case became politically fraught after former President Barack Obama traded five high-level Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for his release in 2014. The circumstance further deteriorated when then National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the private had served with “honor and distinction.”

Toussaint, who now serves as an officer with a San Antonio-area police department, said the Obama administration’s characterization of Bergdahl was a “slap in the face” to the men who risked their lives searching for the private and a disgrace to Remco’s sacrifice.

As for Bergdahl’s sentence, he asks, “What kind of a message does that send to the world, the military, and the victims who suffered because of this?”

************************

Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer Mike Toussaint, a burly Navy dog handler, grudgingly wiped away tears as he described the barrage of insurgent gunfire that killed his military service dog, Remco, during the search for Army Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Though he was never called to testify, Toussaint served as a prospective witness in the case against Bergdahl, who last week received a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Army, but avoided prison time for desertion, misbehavior before the enemy, and endangering troops.

The military judge ordered that Bergdahl’s rank be reduced from sergeant to private and required him to surrender $1,000 a month from his pay for 10 months. The sentencing arrived eight years after Bergdahl abandoned his outpost in Afghanistan in 2009 before the Taliban held him captive for five years.

Toussaint called the sentencing “disgusting” and said Bergdahl should have received life in prison for his “reckless” actions.

Nine days after Bergdahl’s desertion, SEAL team members Toussaint and Remco were sent on a hostage rescue operation in southeastern Afghanistan to search for the missing private. He said the team, led by Senior Chief Petty Officer Jimmy Hatch, knew prior to the July 8 mission that Bergdahl voluntarily left his post, despite earlier reports stating he was captured on patrol.

“We all agreed we were going to go get him—he’s an American, that’s our job—but we all wanted to have a talk with him,” Toussaint said.

Hostage rescue missions are inherently dangerous, and Hatch testified last week that the operation to rescue Bergdahl was no different. He recalled expressing concern prior to the operation that someone would be killed or hurt given the hasty planning and grueling conditions.

Toussaint said he had no doubt the enemy knew they were coming. His unit came under heavy fire even before their two helicopters landed, leaving the team surrounded while they disembarked.

As the unit advanced to the position where they believed Bergdahl was being held, Toussaint, Hatch, Remco, and a third shooter peeled off to pursue two men wearing traditional Afghan dresses. Toussaint said they had to operate on the assumption one of the two men could be Bergdahl, limiting their engagement options.

When the two men disappeared into a field, Remco moved ahead to detect their location. Toussaint watched as Remco ran through a spray of bullets before he was shot in the head and killed.

Moments later, Hatch was shot in the right leg, shattering his femur and effectively ending his career. He subsequently endured 18 surgeries over a two-year span.

“It all happened real quick,” Toussaint said. “I remember seeing Remco get within a couple feet of their location and then he got shot in the head and came flying back out, I mean literally flying out. Right about that time … because it all got chaotic real quick … Jimmy who was right to my right, got shot. I remember hearing him, I could tell he was in pain, and then all I remember was kind of like a fireworks show.”

Toussaint said he ran into an onslaught of gunfire and grenades to kill the two militants. He grabbed Remco by his vest and dragged him back to Jimmy, where a couple of U.S. servicemen had arrived to administer first aid.

Toussaint choked back tears as he recalled carrying Remco onto a helicopter that airlifted him and Jimmy to a nearby hospital.

“I hadn’t accepted that he was mortally wounded at that time, I think it was just denial,” he said as he described clipping off Remco’s vest and trying to revive his breathing.

After accompanying Jimmy and Remco to the hospital, Toussaint and the third shooter went back out to the battlefield to search for Bergdahl.

Toussaint later received the Silver Star for pursuing the two men and ending the engagement, “allowing his teammates to provide lifesaving combat casualty care to his wounded team leader,” according to the award citation. Remco also received a Silver Star for sacrificing himself “as he aggressively engaged the enemy, drew effective fire onto himself, and gave his teammates the split seconds needed to change the balance of the fight.”

Toussaint said that night continues to haunt him eight years later.

He remembers Remco, who he described as a “complete live-wire,” sitting uncharacteristically still and looking somberly into his eyes before charging toward the enemy. He said the moment felt like an intuitive goodbye.

“That and the fact that I relive watching him getting him shot—those two—those are the two that tend to stick with me and they probably always will,” he said. “But the reality is he did his job. He did exactly what we told him to do.”

Toussaint said Remco’s death has been harder to accept given the circumstances of the mission.

“We knowingly went out in hazardous situations, it’s just part of the job,” he said. “It’s not like I didn’t accept the reality of any of us not coming home on any given night, that’s just the realistic truth to it … but to have that night take place only because—solely because—we had a selfish American that walked off a base, it just makes it harder to swallow.”

The defense maintained during the sentencing hearing that Bergdahl couldn’t be blamed for the series of consequences stemming from his desertion, given the chain of events included decisions made by others. Bergdahl’s attorneys also argued Trump’s comments on the case impacted their client’s ability to receive a fair sentencing.

Though the defense had told the judge a dishonorable discharge would be acceptable, Bergdahl’s chief defense lawyer told the New York Times last week he would challenge the ruling so his client could receive health care and other “benefits he badly needs” from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Bergdahl’s case became politically fraught after former President Barack Obama traded five high-level Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for his release in 2014. The circumstance further deteriorated when then National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the private had served with “honor and distinction.”

Toussaint, who now serves as an officer with a San Antonio-area police department, said the Obama administration’s characterization of Bergdahl was a “slap in the face” to the men who risked their lives searching for the private and a disgrace to Remco’s sacrifice.

As for Bergdahl’s sentence, he asks, “What kind of a message does that send to the world, the military, and the victims who suffered because of this?”

Analysis: Iran has supported the Taliban’s insurgency since late 2001

May 29, 2016

Analysis: Iran has supported the Taliban’s insurgency since late 2001, Long War Journal, , May 29, 2016

Joint Task Force – Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), which oversees the detention facility, deemed Khairkhwa a “high” risk to the U.S. and its allies, in part, because of his dealings with the Iranians. Despite JTF-GTMO’s assessment, and the DC court’s rejection of his habeas petition, Khairkhwa was transferred to Qatar in 2014. He was one of the five Taliban commanders exchanged for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

**********************

On May 21, an American drone strike ended Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour’s reign as the Taliban’s leader. As The Wall Street Journal first reported, US intelligence officials tracked Mansour to Iran, where he was visiting his family, and then targeted his car as he crossed back over the border into Pakistan. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Hossein Jaber Ansari, quickly denied this version of events, claiming that his country “welcomes any measure in line with bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan.”

However, Zabihullah Mujahid (the Taliban’s chief spokesman) has conceded that Mansour was indeed inside Iran. Dawn quotes Mujahid as saying the Taliban chief crossed the border because of “ongoing battle obligations,” adding that Mansour made multiple “unofficial trips” to Iran.

While many of the details concerning Mansour’s travels remain murky, his presence inside Iranian territory shortly before his death isn’t surprising. Iran has a long history of backing the Taliban’s insurgency against US and allied forces in Afghanistan. Indeed, the relationship between the two former foes is one of the most misunderstood and oft-overlooked aspects of the 9/11 wars.

Iran and the Taliban nearly went to war in 1998 after senior Taliban commanders slaughtered Iranian diplomats and other Shiites in Mazar-i-Sharif. But by late 2001, as the Americans prepared to topple the Taliban’s government, the situation changed dramatically. Outwardly, the Iranians acted as if they just wanted to help rebuild Afghanistan. Western diplomats have praised Iran for its role in the Dec. 2001 meetings in Bonn, Germany, where a post-Taliban government was established. But there is much more to this story. Just before the American-led invasion of Afghanistan two months earlier, the Iranians cut a secret deal with Mullah Omar’s representatives.

One of Omar’s most trusted lieutenants, Khairullah Khairkhwa, helped broker an agreement with the Iranians in Oct. 2001. We know this because Khairkhwa was captured in Pakistan in early 2002, transferred to Guantanamo and then told American officials all about it.

A district court in Washington, DC denied Khairkhwa’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2011. The court found that Khairkhwa “repeatedly admitted” that after the 9/11 attacks “he served as a member of a Taliban envoy that met clandestinely with senior Iranian officials to discuss Iran’s offer to provide the Taliban with weapons and other military support in anticipation of imminent hostilities with U.S. coalition forces.” [SeeLWJ report, DC district court denies former Taliban governor’s habeas petition.]

According to the court, the Iranians told Khairkhwa and his Taliban delegation that they could provide shoulder-fired missiles (SAM-7’s) and “track all movements by the United States.” In addition, the Iranians “offered to open their border to Arabs entering Afghanistan.” Iran did just that, allowing some al Qaeda members and others to escape the American onslaught.

Joint Task Force – Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), which oversees the detention facility, deemed Khairkhwa a “high” risk to the U.S. and its allies, in part, because of his dealings with the Iranians. Despite JTF-GTMO’s assessment, and the DC court’s rejection of his habeas petition, Khairkhwa was transferred to Qatar in 2014. He was one of the five Taliban commanders exchanged for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

During the twelve years Khairkhwa was detained in Cuba, Iran continued to collude with the Taliban. The Defense, State and Treasury Departments have all documented the relationship.

In its “Annual Report on [the] Military Power of Iran,” which was delivered to Congress in 2012, the Department of Defense explained that Iran’s support for the Taliban was part of its “grand strategy” to challenge “US influence.” Although there was “historic enmity” between the two sides, the Pentagon said, support for the Taliban “complements Iran’s strategy of backing many groups to maximize its influence while also undermining US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) objectives by fomenting violence.”

“Since 2006,” the State Department noted in its Country Reports on Terrorism for 2012, “Iran has arranged arms shipments to select Taliban members, including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives.” In 2012, the Iranians “shipped a large number of weapons to Kandahar, Afghanistan, aiming to increase its influence in this key province.”

Foggy Bottom added that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force (IRGC-QF) “trained Taliban elements on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets.”

A series of Treasury Department terror designations illuminate the relationship between the IRGC-QF and the Taliban.

In August 2010, Treasury designated two IRGC-QF commanders as terrorists for providing “financial and material support to the Taliban.” A special unit in the IRGC-QF known as the Ansar Corps is responsible for orchestrating attacks in Afghanistan. Nearly two years later, in Mar. 2012, Treasury identified IRGC-QF General Gholamreza Baghbani as a narcotics trafficker. At the time, Baghbani was based in Zahedan, Iran, which is near the border with Afghanistan and Pakistan. From this strategically situated crossroads, Baghbani allegedly oversaw an operation that “moved weapons to the Taliban,” while smuggling “heroin precursor chemicals through the Iranian border” and facilitating “shipments of opium into Iran.” This guns-for-drugs scheme directly fueled the Taliban’s insurgency, according to Treasury.

Treasury wasn’t finished. In February 2014, three other IRGC-QF officials and one of their associates were designated for plotting terrorist acts in Afghanistan and also using “intelligence operations as tools of influence against” the Afghan government. Iran’s duplicitous scheme meant that the IRGC-QF was “currying favor” with some Afghan politicians while targeting other officials for assassination.

In the weeks immediately following 9/11, the Iranian regime and the Taliban met in the shadows. In the 14-plus years since, their relationship has become overt. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2012 that the Taliban has set up an office in Zahedan, which is also a well-known al Qaeda hub. Taliban officials have repeatedly and openly attended meetings in Tehran. And other sources confirm that Iran has often provided the Taliban with arms and training.

Contrary to what Ansari claims, the Iranians don’t want “peace and stability” in Afghanistan – at least not at the expense of achieving their other objectives. They want to force the US out and expand their influence. Given Iran’s enduring partnership with the Taliban, forged in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mansour’s trips to Iran may have been “unofficial,” but they are definitely unsurprising.

Benghazi, Bergdahl, and the Bomb

April 3, 2015

Benghazi, Bergdahl, and the Bomb, Washington Free Beacon, April 3, 2015

Column: President Obama’s stories haven’t held up before. How is the Iran deal any different?

ObamaAP

What the president and Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled Thursday was another fancy, another fairy-tale, another fable about what might happen in an ideal world where enemies and allies share common interests and objectives, autocratic and theocratic regimes adhere to compacts, and moral sincerity is more important than results. Best be skeptical—these so-called triumphs of Obama’s diplomacy have a way of falling to pieces like ancient parchment. And keep in mind this rule: When the president enters the Rose Garden, run for cover.

******************

President Obama strode to the lectern in the Rose Garden Thursday to announce a “historic” agreement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The preliminary deal made in Lausanne, Switzerland, the president said, “cuts off every pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.” I hope he’s right.

But I’m not counting on it. The president has a terrible record of initial public pronouncements on national security. He has a habit of confidently stating things that turn out not to be true. Three times in the last four years he has appeared in the Rose Garden and made assertions that were later proven to be false. He and his national security team have again and again described a world that does not correspond to reality. No reason to assume these concessions to Iran will be any different.

The U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012. Four Americans were killed, including our ambassador. Obama delivered remarks on the attack in the Rose Garden the following day. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” he said. What he didn’t say was that the killings in Benghazi specifically were a “terrorist attack” or “terrorism.” On 60 Minutes,when asked if he believed Benghazi was a “terrorist attack,” the president replied, “It’s too early to know how this came about.” On September 14, neither the president nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called what had happened a terrorist attack. On September 15, Obama referred to Benghazi as a “tragic attack.” On September 16, Susan Rice, then U.N. ambassador, called it a “spontaneous attack.”

By September 24, when Obama recorded a campaign interview with The View, he again refused to say Benghazi was an attack by terrorists. “We’re still doing an investigation,” he told Joy Behar. It was not until two days later that administration officials began referring to Benghazi as a terrorist attack—something the Libyan government had been saying since September 13.

The story originally put out by the White House, that Benghazi was the result of spontaneous anger at an Internet video offensive to Muslim extremists, fell apart in a matter of days. Yet the White House persisted in its false description of reality, declining to confirm what was widely accepted as a premeditated terrorist assault on a U.S. compound, and chose to ascribe responsibility for the events in question to anti-Islamic bias. The evidence continues to mount that Ansar al-Sharia, the Qaeda affiliate in lawless Libya, was behind the events of September 11, 2012, not the stupid video.

In August 2013 President Obama announced in the Rose Garden that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad had crossed the “red line” by gassing his own people. “Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” the president said. Then he punted the issue to Congress. But no action against Syrian regime targets was ever taken, because the president reversed himself and accepted a Russian proposal to ship Assad’s WMD out of Syria. “This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies,” Obama said in a September 10, 2013, televised address. Almost two years later, Assad is dropping barrel bombs filled with chlorine gas on civilians. Success.

Last May, President Obama again walked purposefully to a lectern in the Rose Garden, and informed the world that he had released five Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held prisoner by the Islamic militia for almost half a decade. “Right now,” the president said, “our top priority is making sure that Bowe gets the care and support that he needs and that he can be reunited with his family as soon as possible.”

Criticism of the prisoner swap was immediate, and intensified when Bergdahl’s platoon-mates said he had deserted his post. The White House, as usual, struck back against the critics and repeated its story. On June 2, Susan Rice, now national security adviser, went onThis Week with George Stephanopoulos and said Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction.”

The Government Accountability Office concluded that the Obama administration’s actions were illegal. Bergdahl himself was kept isolated as the Army reviewed the circumstances of his capture by the enemy. Completed in the fall of 2014, the report by Brigadier General Kenneth Dahl still has not been released to the public.

Last week, however, the Army charged Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Has the White House reevaluated its trade? Of course not. On the contrary: Pentagon officials suggested on background that Bergdahl wasn’t a deserter, he was a whistleblower!

Three stories that collapsed under the weight of the evidence, three instances of the White House doggedly sticking to its policy line despite everything. This president’s resistance to events in the actual world of space and time is more than ideology, however. It’s also good politics: By refusing to concede the facts of the case, Obama is able to hold his base and stay on offense against his true adversaries: Republicans, conservatives, and Bibi Netanyahu.

And now we have the Iran story. Iran, the president says, will reduce its centrifuges, dilute its enriched uranium, open its nuclear sites to inspectors, and turn its fortified underground reactor into a “research” facility in exchange for sanctions relief. The only alternatives, Obama goes on, are bombing Iran or ending negotiations and re-imposing sanctions. “If, in fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking for the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, this is the best option. And I believe our nuclear experts can confirm that.”

Sure they can. Though I believe other nuclear experts, such as Charles Duelfer, can also confirm that this agreement has major holes, such as the spotty effectiveness of inspections and the failure to get Iran to disclose fully the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. And there’s always the tricky issue of sanctions relief: The United States says the process of lifting sanctions will be gradual and contingent on Iranian compliance, but Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif says it will be immediate.

What the president and Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled Thursday was another fancy, another fairy-tale, another fable about what might happen in an ideal world where enemies and allies share common interests and objectives, autocratic and theocratic regimes adhere to compacts, and moral sincerity is more important than results. Best be skeptical—these so-called triumphs of Obama’s diplomacy have a way of falling to pieces like ancient parchment. And keep in mind this rule: When the president enters the Rose Garden, run for cover.

Why did President Obama ransom Sgt. Bergdahl and what about Iran?

June 8, 2014

Why did President Obama ransom Sgt. Bergdahl and what about Iran? Dan Miller’s Blog, June 8, 2014

Is He stupid, out of touch, Preparing to close Gitmo, or did He just do His best to emulate Joe Btfspik? Does it augur well for a good outcome of the continuing Iran Scam?

400px-Joe_Btfsplk_ExcerptI wrote an article about the ransoming of Sgt. Bergdahl on June 2nd and updated it through June 6th. The thrust of that article is that Sgt. Bergdahl must be tried by general court martial so that legally cognizable evidence (not opinion and not speculation) can be presented and made public. Unfortunately, for the reasons stated, I do not think that will happen. There has been more speculation since June 6th, but little if any significant, adequately verified and legally admissible evidence has become available since then.

Here’s a YouTube video of a June 6th PJTV discussion about why “our” Commander in Chief ransomed Sgt. Bergdahl by returning five high-ranking Taliban commanders to active duty. The discussion includes Tammy Bruce, a conservative talk radio hostess and Ebony K. Williams, an attorney, radio show hostess and Democrat who voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. The consensus seems to be that He screwed up royally and appears to have acted for political reasons, hoping for popular approval. Ms. Williams’ conclusion is that He is not necessarily evil but lives in an echo chamber, where He now receives undiluted support from His underlings regardless of what He wants to do or how incredibly incompetent or worse He will seem if He does it.

There are any number of other reasons why He may have acted as He did, including these:

He hates America and wants to destroy transform her in His own image;

He hates the U.S. military and approves of Sgt. Bergdahl and others who also hate it;

He approves of and sides with Islamists;

His definitions of honorably and with distinction, as Susan Rice characterized Sgt. Bergdahl’s behavior, are abnormal;

He is stupid and/or incompetent;

He hates reality and favors fantasy;

He is nuts;

He wants to help Vice President Biden seem competent by comparison;

All of the above;

None of the above.

There are doubtless other possibilities. What do you think?

The Iran Scam 

Whatever may have been His reasons, they are important if for no reason other than that by ransoming a probable deserter or worse by freeing five extremely dangerous terrorists — likely to result in the killing of honorable U.S. military personnel serving with distinction — and the taking of more hostages, He may well have suggested the outcome of His dealings with Iran.

President Obama’s emissaries are scheduled to meet with Iranian emissaries on Monday and Tuesday in Geneva.

TEHRAN — Iran’s chief negotiator said Sunday that direct talks agreed between Tehran and Washington are essential, as discussions on his country’s disputed nuclear program are entering a “serious phase.”

. . . .

“We have always had bilateral discussions with the United States in the margin of the P5+1 group discussions, but since the talks have entered a serious phase, we want to have separate consultations,” said Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s chief negotiator in comments reported by state news agency IRNA.

. . . .

Araqchi said the talks with the US in Geneva will only address the nuclear issue, referring to Iran’s ballistic missile program that Washington had hoped to include in negotiations. [Emphasis added.]

The US delegation will be led by Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns and Jake Sullivan, a White House adviser, previously part of a tiny team whose months of secret talks in Oman brought Iran back to the P5+1 negotiating table last year.

Having apparently agreed with Iran that its missile delivery systems development is none of the business of the P5 + 1 negotiators, what else will the Obama Administration agree is unworthy of discussion because it might undermine the Iran Scam? What does President Obama seek? The public approval of an amorphous “deal” that prevents Iran from having nukes — or, if she has or gets them, from using them — until after He leaves office in January of 2017? Peace in His time?

Nevile Chamberlain

Until President Obama leaves office in January of 2017 we are unlikely to learn what happened in Geneva or its consequences for the P6 + 1 negotiations. We can expect Him to tell us only pleasant fairy stories. Reasons not to accept them will be deemed racist and therefore unworthy of serious consideration.

Obama cartoon book about himself

UPDATE:

Ron Radosh wrote an article published by PJ Media titled The Questions about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s Desertion, and the American Left’s Answer to Them. He opines,

Kreitner refers “vicious commentary” about Bergdahl, who, he writes, was only guilty of having “served on the front lines of the American imperial machine with the unenviable misfortune of doing so with eyes wide open.” Let us put this another way. What he is saying is that because he thinks Bergdahl rightfully opposed the U.S. mission, he was a hero for deserting. Bergdahl wrote his parents an e-mail before deserting, in which he famously said: “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.” To The Nation, that position makes him a hero. [Emphasis added.]

That e-mail by Bergdahl is most revealing of his disdain for his country. Kreitner , however, sees it as candid and true. As he puts it, Bergdahl only “saw reality too clearly.” He was doing nothing more than “struggling with issues of conscience.” The Army, he writes, was wrong to not inform Bergdahl that he could be let out of duty for issues of conscience, thus forcing him to desert. Got that? It’s the U.S. Army that put him in this position. Of course, Kreitner confuses what this sergeant did — deserting — with an act of conscience. Hatred of the U.S. and disdain for his comrades, which he made clear in his e-mail, is definitely not grounds for leaving the U.S. Army because of conscience. If it were, anyone could leave the armed forces for which he or she volunteered because they changed their mind about their mission.

Kreitner ends by writing that putting “slugs into human flesh” is not the “promotion of democracy.” Only a Nation author could think there is something immoral about fighting America’s sworn enemies on the battlefield.

Is that President Obama’s perception as well? By how many libruls is it shared?

UPDATE:

The Qatari Deal To Hold The Taliban – The Qatari’s Have Been Used Before By President Obama – With Horrific Consequences

Follow the timeline to understand the impact on Benghazi. It’s provided in the linked article.

…. and now we have the specific tracking of Stinger Missile serial numbers showing they were delivered from the CIA to the government of Qatar;  while intended for Libyan “rebels”, but delivered to the Taliban…. and used to kill our guys.

…. AND where do we choose to send the GITMO-5 ?

Although probably more competent, are they President Obama’s kind of guys?

UPDATE, June 9th

In an article at PJ Media titled Fictions as Truth, Victor Davis Hanson lists fantasies President Obama has asked us to accept as reality concerning (along with five other subjects) the ransoming of Sgt. Bergdahl. He lists these:

1. Sgt. Bergdahl was in ill health; thus the need for alacrity. Surely we will expect to see him in an enfeebled state on his return to the U.S.

2. Sgt. Bergdahl was in grave and sudden danger from his captors; thus the need for alacrity. We expect to see proof of that on his return to the U.S.

3. The five Taliban detainees will be under guard in Qatar for a year. We expect in June 2015 to know that they are still there in Qatar.

4. The five Taliban detainees don’t really pose a grave threat to U.S. troops, given that we will be gone from Afghanistan in 2016. We expect not to hear that any of the five are reengaged in the war effort to kill Americans between 2015-16.

5. Sgt. Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” We expect to have confirmation of that fact once his intelligence file is released and more evidence is adduced that all of his platoon-mates were wrong (or perhaps vindictive and partisan) in stating that he voluntarily left their unit — deserted — to meet up with the Taliban.

6. Sgt. Bergdahl was captured on the “field of battle”; we expect to have confirmation that he was taken unwillingly by the enemy amid a clash of arms.

7. Sgt. Bergdahl was not a collaborator. We expect to learn confirmation of the fact that he did not disclose information to his captors.

8. Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers in his platoon are either partisan operatives or sorely misinformed, and we will shortly learn that their accounts of Bergdahl’s disappearance were erroneous.

9. The U.S. has traditionally negotiated to bring home even deserters, and did so frequently, for example, both during and after the Korean War when GIs crossed into North Korea.

10. The timing of the swap amid the VA scandal and the press conference with the Bergdahl family were not predicated on political considerations.

11. There is no law stopping the president from releasing terrorists from Guantanamo, only legal fictions promulgated by right-wing critics of the president.

12. The five Taliban terrorists are now old outliers, rusty, and mostly irrelevant to the war in Afghanistan.

Does President Obama, who prefers fantasy to reality, actually believe them? The pattern continues to become clearer.

UPDATE, June 9th

And, a little bit more: