Posted on 06/09/2014 4:39:34 PM PDT by kingattax
President Obama has been trying to close Gitmo for years, which means finding a way – any way – to free the terrorists from that prison. Regrettably for Obama, try as he might, he has been unable to obtain Congressional approval to release Gitmo detainees back onto the battlefield to recommence the murder, mayhem, and destruction.
Thus far, the United States Congress thinks it is in the best interest of the American people to keep highly dangerous Taliban fighters locked up for as long as possible. Barack “I won” Obama thinks otherwise.
That’s why founding member of the Taliban Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa, who had close ties with Osama bin Laden, and Mohammad Nabi Omari, member of a joint al-Qaeda/Taliban cell and called “one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained,” along with deputy chief of Taliban intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq are now roaming free on the streets of Qatar.
Joining that trio are Mohammad Fazi, thought to be the Taliban’s “army chief of staff,” and senior military commander Mullah Norullah Noori, both of whom were present when CIA paramilitary officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed during the 2001 Mazar-e Sharif prison riot.
All five are classified as a "high risk" to the United States. That’s why, based on those credentials, it’s easy to see why Congress had been reluctant to make a deal with the devil that is the Taliban.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good question, no doubt the media loves the narrative. Gay embassator caught by hostile Arabs facing incredible odds. The makings of a movie that loses money, as if that matters given the lofty narrative.
This time many dare call it treason.
Using clintoonian logic it's not, because there is not A cow in Texas, there's about 10.9 million.
Wow! I have never been accused of an original idea and this is no exception. It may seem hard to believe, but I read something earlier about Judicial Watch obtaining some documents about Benghazi and a comment triggered this exact scenario in my mind. I had just logged onto FR to write a vanity post about this very theory. I am not one to believe in conspiracies, but this one has legs.
Maybe his maniacal murdering "buddies" told him "Release the terrorists or we will pull an MH370 with Air Force One, on your perpetual vacation."
Black is his cover but jihad is his game.
What happened to the initial claim of “exigent circumstance”? Will Congress investigate?
so why did Susan Estrich write that it has been proven that 3 of these guys are low level Afghan politicians and one is a low level bad guy. Only one is a terrorist. What a POS she is
Sorry to have to say it, but with such a conniving, deceitful administration, if a Taliban sympathizer/Army deserter was used as the bargaining chip to free five high-level Taliban fighters, is it that farfetched to imagine that the kidnapping of an American ambassador presented the president with the perfect opportunity to swap either the Gitmo Five or some other equally dangerous individual(s)?
Moreover, after observing the president’s dishonesty in the Bergdahl affair, it’s not that much of a stretch to believe that if Obama couldn’t get Congress to agree to swap Bergdahl in early 2012, he might have manipulated the volatile Benghazi situation in hopes that a kidnapped American diplomat would eliminate Congressional objections to a high-level prisoner swap.
The attackers road-blocked the whole Consulate neighborhood area. They were there after the beginning of the Turkish Ambassador/Stevens dinner, yet magically the Turk managed to TRANSIT those roadblocks.
He got out, just fine —how..?
Just lucky..?
:/
When the gun walking thing broke I said that an administration that does THAT is capable of ANYTHING.
Short answer: Yep.
God bless Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Timeline doesn’t fit for it to be a decision Obama made after the attack began.
The video lie started before anything happened in Benghazi.
The attack was planned in advance by Hillary and Obama agreed (he’s an idiot that couldn’t think his way out of a room) and Stevens was supposed to be taken hostage.
This whole nonsense with Bergdahl being the one they always intended to trade for the terrorists is nothing but a ruse.
Can’t hide that there was going to be a hostage swap so just use Bergdahl as the one that was going to be swapped and let people know about it.
If anyone heard and started asking questions about a hostage swap they could simply answer it was Burgdahl.
After all if anyone found out there was a plan to trade an Ambassador for terrorist before the Ambassador was taken hostage it wouldn’t look so good so use a ruse to CYA.
Re Susan Estrich:
I can’t help it, whenever she’s on TV, I can’t help but think of her name as “Susan Estrus.” A reliable Dem, albeit with a grating voice, that one.
Then, Susan Rice lied on tv five times (and not a very good lie at that).
You are talking about secret coordination between two very suspicious parties. Not too likely. Too many things they couldn’t be sure of. Too risky.
I think the enemy came loaded for bear to kick some ass and send a message.
God bless Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
I posted almost the same thing a week ago, here:
"If Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty hadn't run towards the sound of gunfire, the blind sheik would be walking around Afghanistan today as a free man. This Bergdahl "swap" has convinced me it's true."
I remember reading this theory on FR in the early days of the Benghazi assault, and thinking it was pretty "out there." But this Bergdahl swap caused me to think otherwise.
right you are.
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.