Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An odd coincidence in the Bergdahl release? (Highest level of Treason if proven)
am thinker ^ | 6/4/14 | j kissner

Posted on 06/04/2014 7:47:39 AM PDT by bestintxas

There are a few potentially important details surrounding the timeline leading to Bowe Bergdahl’s release that might deserve some discussion.

Truth Revolt supplies some details on the timeline:

This week’s [the week of Bergdahl’s release] secret diplomacy was not the first time the U.S. government had engaged the Taliban in an effort to negotiate a prisoner swap for the release of Bergdahl. In 2011, State Department officials held a series of meetings with Taliban leaders in Doha.

In Congress, there was bipartisan opposition to any release of Guantanamo prisoners. After the negotiations were made public in early 2012 by Sen. Dianne Feinstein the Taliban announced they were pulling out of the talks.

Truth Revolt continues:

The U.S. official praised this operation [the operation leading to Bergdahl’s release] as a show of interagency cooperation—it was a whole-government effort that he said had been in the works for five years. “We really got traction in the last week but we never lost sight of Bergdahl,” he said.

So, Bergdahl was left in Taliban hands in 2009, meetings were held to get him back in 2011, Feinstein went public about the talks in 2012 and the Taliban left the table. Then, Obama suddenly gained “traction” in the midst of a cresting VA scandal that pierced even the NBC shield.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bergdahl; ciastationchief; gitmo; obama; taliban5
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
This one if found true by itself deserves not just removal but the firing squad.
1 posted on 06/04/2014 7:47:39 AM PDT by bestintxas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
I think it is more likely that the CIA station chief was adamantly opposed to the swap of terrorists for a deserter, and threatened to expose or scuttle it.

The "slip" was simply a way to remove him from the scene of the crime.

2 posted on 06/04/2014 7:51:44 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
And ... was there any connection to the 'accidental' outing of a CIA official in Afghanistan ...?
3 posted on 06/04/2014 7:53:42 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; null and void

The timing of outing a CIA guy is just another “coincidence”?

Or, maybe not.........


4 posted on 06/04/2014 7:54:42 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1Jn4:15;5:4-5,11-13;Mt27:50-54;Mk15:33-34;Jn3:17-18,6:69,11:25,14:6,20:31;Ro10:8-11;1Tm2:5-6;Ti3:4-7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I think you nailed it.


5 posted on 06/04/2014 7:54:43 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost ("Just look at the flowers, Lizzie. Just look at the flowers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
I think it is more likely that the CIA station chief was adamantly opposed to the swap of terrorists for a deserter, and threatened to expose or scuttle it. The "slip" was simply a way to remove him from the scene of the crime.

Boy, do I think you have it ABSOLUTELY NAILED there!


6 posted on 06/04/2014 7:55:47 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

DiFi said Obama broke the law. DiFi must have needed more money in her ‘in box’ and did not receive the payoff money in her ‘in box’ to have said this.


7 posted on 06/04/2014 7:56:15 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

The stink in the White House just keeps getting worse.


8 posted on 06/04/2014 7:56:56 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

One thing I’ve been wondering about w/r/t the “outing” of the CIA station chief:

He, of course, can be whisked out of country on the next flight home.

But what about all those Afghanis who have been seen in his company since his arrival?

Oh well. Maybe no one among the bad guys was paying attention.


9 posted on 06/04/2014 7:57:40 AM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

Beware, I foresee the two major sheiks we have in captivity (WTC 1 AND WTC 2)being released by Obama before he leaves. One does not need a crystal ball to see that coming. Looks like we need some more people captured by them so we can get those two released for them. (Too bad the Ambassador Smith kidnapping went foul.)


10 posted on 06/04/2014 7:58:31 AM PDT by Bringbackthedraft (2016 an election or a coronation of a Queen? I'm sure we'll be told to eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
Guest Blogger, Raven-Wolf: Bergdahl, How pride and arrogance kept us from getting him back

Lots of bhind the scenes intel information in this post may help with background details during that period of time - in relation to Burgdahl.

According to this UKGuardian Jan,2012 account, early negotiations for the GITMO-5 did not mention Bergdahl as part of the bargain:


11 posted on 06/04/2014 8:03:52 AM PDT by wtd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

‘I think it is more likely that the CIA station chief was adamantly opposed to the swap of terrorists for a deserter, and threatened to expose or scuttle it.’
My thought also. Another distraction from the WH, business as usual.
I do not believe in coincidences.


12 posted on 06/04/2014 8:04:15 AM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; hoosiermama; LucyT; null and void; maggief; 2ndDivisionVet

Ping to thread!

Thanks, everyone, for the analysis!

High treason is going on...


13 posted on 06/04/2014 8:05:37 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

TRANSACTIONS:

Al Qaeda - acquired Omar Abdul-Rahman (Blind Sheikh) and Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev (Bomb Maker) from the Obama Administration for future considerations. Assigned Tsarnaev to their AAA farm team in Yemen.


14 posted on 06/04/2014 8:05:38 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

In politics, there are no ‘coincidences’.............................


15 posted on 06/04/2014 8:08:24 AM PDT by Red Badger (Soon there will be another American Civil War. Will make the first one seem like a Tea Party........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; null and void; Velveeta; Rushmore Rocks; Oorang; Myrddin; MamaDearest; autumnraine; ...
.

I think it is more likely that the CIA station chief was adamantly opposed to the swap of terrorists for a deserter, and threatened to expose or scuttle it.

The "slip" was simply a way to remove him from the scene of the crime. .

16 posted on 06/04/2014 8:09:33 AM PDT by LucyT (If you're not paranoid, you don't know what’s going on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
This one if found true by itself deserves not just removal but the firing squad.
17 posted on 06/04/2014 8:10:26 AM PDT by The_Republic_Of_Maine (Be kept informed on Maine's secession, sign up at freemaine@hushmail.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I think it’s exactly the opposite. The threat of exposing the CIA station chief is leverage on the agent. Exposing the agent removes that leverage - what would stop him exposing the swap of terrorists for a deserter?


18 posted on 06/04/2014 8:11:04 AM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
Perhaps the Taliban, in full view of an Obama mired in a disastrous VA scandal, were holding out for still more -- like the identity of a CIA station chief -- and got it?

That's a possible construction. Of course, it is.

Here's another:
The five Talibani leaders are a make good for a failed Blind Sheik exchange. Amb. Stevens' death queered the first deal...so that Obama owed the Muslim Brotherhood one. The Talibanis were the "compensation pick".

Whatever it is, one can be certain that whatever this administration claims was their motivation is a lie.

19 posted on 06/04/2014 8:11:42 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

“This one if found true by itself deserves not just removal but the firing squad. “

I agree. Bergdahl should also be executed.


20 posted on 06/04/2014 8:15:34 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("Heck of a reset there, Hillary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

An all-out push from the WH and msm to paint this guy a hero and his fellow troops as liars. The machine is on full throttle.


21 posted on 06/04/2014 8:20:04 AM PDT by Wavy_Wally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft

Wait, what was that?


22 posted on 06/04/2014 8:25:08 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

Everyone is focusing on Bergdahl. I doubt Obama cared a hoot about the guy. But Obama did want to get the 5 Taliban leaders out ot GITMO. Why? Excuse me while I adjust my tin foil hat..OK How much drug money would be available to the Taliban if they wanted to buy these guys release, not to mention money available to the King of Qatar? Who would you bribe? Would said person just show up unannouced in Afganistan to pick it up. Would a former Sec of State need to be cut in to her mouth shut? Are these questions really that crazy?


23 posted on 06/04/2014 8:26:16 AM PDT by dblshot (I am John Galt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for the ping.


24 posted on 06/04/2014 8:29:19 AM PDT by bronxville (Margaret Sanger - “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bronxville

.

You’re welcome.

.


25 posted on 06/04/2014 8:31:29 AM PDT by LucyT (If you're not paranoid, you don't know what's going on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
I think it is more likely that the CIA station chief was adamantly opposed to the swap of terrorists for a deserter, and threatened to expose or scuttle it. The "slip" was simply a way to remove him from the scene of the crime.

That makes the most sense to me, too.

Obama doesn't care about Bergdahl at all. He just wants to be able to say he ended the Afghanistan war and didn't leave any POWs behind.

Getting Bergdahl out was basically a publicity stunt, but the administration didn't bother to figure out that their hero was a traitor.
26 posted on 06/04/2014 8:32:02 AM PDT by caligatrux (...some animals are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

This CIA agent surely knows our open borders and importation of Muslims leaves him no safe place. He needs Obama to protect him now.


27 posted on 06/04/2014 8:32:06 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

I read the article as meaning that the outing of the CIA station chief was a “show of good faith” on the part of the administration; a way to say, “we’re serious about this trade.” So Obama tells his Muslim buddies that he’ll out the CIA head so they know who’s leading it all, that’ll give the Taliban a little breathing room (maybe the CIA was on to something?), and the “prisoner exchange” was a cherry on the top.


28 posted on 06/04/2014 8:38:13 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

I agree with you. What I disagree with is the idea that he was exposed in order to neutralize any opposition to the swap he may have had.


29 posted on 06/04/2014 8:45:18 AM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

Obama’s action had nothing to do with Bergdahl’s release he needs to empty Getmo before the next two election to hold his base he and party members are in mega panic mode.
Obama has proved once again he’s in need of a keeper.


30 posted on 06/04/2014 8:48:09 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

And any complaints from the afgan cia station chief now, would just be seen as sour grapes. Besides, the sociopaths running the US, sometimes just like to dish out pain and watch their opponent squirm. A common trait amongst the sociopaths. They are not the sharpest tools in the drawer by far.


31 posted on 06/04/2014 8:50:11 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
"what would stop him exposing the swap of terrorists for a deserter?"

I could name 1/2 dozen things, but... the same thing stopping all of the people who were on the ground in Benghazi from telling the truth.

32 posted on 06/04/2014 8:53:53 AM PDT by uncommonsense (Liberals see what they believe; Conservatives believe what they see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

The regime, including all of its enablers, are guilty of treason. Arrest Congress, the Supreme Court, the Pentagon, Heads of alphabet news networks.

“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” - John Harrington

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” - Edmund Burke


33 posted on 06/04/2014 8:55:21 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

The Taliban were not holding the traitor. Another group not associated with the Taliban were. Ollie North claims that group got a few million in the trade.

Also possible IMHO, perhaps the nullification of the US spy network.


34 posted on 06/04/2014 8:55:29 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Bingo! Mr. RR suggested this a couple of days ago.


35 posted on 06/04/2014 8:58:42 AM PDT by Rushmore Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: caligatrux
Getting Bergdahl out was basically a publicity stunt, but the administration didn't bother to figure out that their hero was a traitor.

I believe they knew, but they thought they could keep a lid on it. I think the White House expected the truth to come out: too many people knew about it. But, they didn't expect the knee-pad media to cover it.

With the knee-pad media's cooperation, they could just dismiss it as "right-wing opposition". It would echo around the blogosphere, but not break out to where the LIV's (low information voters) would be aware of it. Since that is Obama's core support, it wouldn't matter as long as it stayed off the nightly news.

Now, it has blown up in their faces and they are scrambling to do damage control. I don't think they expected the opposition from Democrat legislators, although it has been somewhat muted.

36 posted on 06/04/2014 9:06:52 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

Today in WSJ they say the admin HAD to exchange Bergdahl because a VIDEO showed his health was deteriorating. Hmmm.

Same excuse as last time.


37 posted on 06/04/2014 9:16:05 AM PDT by garjog (Obama: making the world safe for Sharia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dblshot

I suspect it was a last minute decision to rescue the “last POW” to look good on veterans/military to detract from the VA scandal.


38 posted on 06/04/2014 9:16:57 AM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dblshot

Pick up a bribe or deliver $5 million in a cash, untraceable, ransom? Ollie North says we paid them millions.


39 posted on 06/04/2014 9:19:55 AM PDT by Wiser now (Socialism does not eliminate poverty, it guarantees it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wtd
Circling the wagons? (Hillary agrees to swap...)

(Administration Mum on Taliban’s Call for Release of Guantanamo Detainees - January 4, 2012)

(negoitiating with the enemy)

(Newsessentials Blog August 29, 2011)

(the Obama defeat in real time...)

40 posted on 06/04/2014 9:32:55 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lonevoice

This would seem to support your very valid theory about the real reason behind the outing of the CIA station chief in Afghanistan.


41 posted on 06/04/2014 9:33:11 AM PDT by Pride in the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; justlurking

“The “slip” was simply a way to remove him from the scene of the crime.”

Yes.

Here’s a possibility for the only way for the regime to stop all questions, investigations, the Pentagon findings, Congressional hearings, etc.:

“Bergdahl was performing a dangerous job, serving his country with honor and distinction. He was a deep-undercover who played the deserter/traitor role for five years. He obtained and transmitted sensitive information about the whereabouts of Taliban and al-Qaeda leaderships for drone targeting and played a crucial role in finding bin Laden.

Bergdahl’s files are sealed by a presidential finding and he and his family will be unavailable.” (Witness protection with new identities or some such.)

The lapdog media would love it and demand a medal for Birdbrain.

I certainly wouldn’t put it past them to do something like this, even with a young man that couldn’t have possibly been trained past toilet training.

We’ll await the regime’s next lie that’s surly coming.


42 posted on 06/04/2014 9:46:03 AM PDT by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Thanks for the additional links. Especially amusing is the third link (InfoWars, meh) but worth the following opening statement [which confirms bouhammer's claims in another post(below)]:
43 posted on 06/04/2014 9:48:50 AM PDT by wtd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Makes perfect sense.


44 posted on 06/04/2014 3:28:08 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE; COUNTrecount; Nowhere Man; FightThePower!; C. Edmund Wright; jacob allen; ...

Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!

To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...

45 posted on 06/04/2014 8:01:02 PM PDT by null and void (Fascists never think they're fascists. They just think everybody should obey them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: null and void

nothing that this administration does any more surprises me....they are treasonous as a lot.


46 posted on 06/04/2014 8:43:02 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: The_Republic_Of_Maine

The classic punishments for treason are either the gallows or the headsman’s axe.


47 posted on 06/05/2014 4:26:02 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
"The classic punishments for treason are either the gallows or the headsman’s axe."

Either is fine.

48 posted on 06/05/2014 6:08:38 AM PDT by The_Republic_Of_Maine (Be kept informed on Maine's secession, sign up at freemaine@hushmail.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
I think it’s exactly the opposite. The threat of exposing the CIA station chief is leverage on the agent. Exposing the agent removes that leverage - what would stop him exposing the swap of terrorists for a deserter?

Do not underestimate Obama's pettiness. For the station chief to even express disapproval, would have been enough for Obama to lash out.

49 posted on 06/05/2014 6:09:24 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
I think it is more likely that the CIA station chief was adamantly opposed to the swap of terrorists for a deserter, and threatened to expose or scuttle it.

Agree. There was something else that sweetened this deal and it's guaranteed to be worse than releasing 5 top bad guys. Of course, when it comes out, Rice/Hillary/hussein will trot out the tired ol' upside down lib thinking meme.

50 posted on 06/05/2014 3:13:32 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson