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; Cuba; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2009; 2011; afghanistan; bergdahl; bowebergdahl; california; cia; ciastationchief; cuba; diannefeinstein; doha; gitmo; kenyanbornmuzzie; leak; meetings; obama; outed; prisonerswap; qatar; spies; spooks; stationchief; swap; taliban; taliban5
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 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]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

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 whatÂ’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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 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