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

Skip to comments.

In Bowe Bergdahl hearing, Chuck Hagel hedges the tough questions
Washington Examiner ^ | June 11, 2014 | Byron York

Posted on 06/12/2014 5:37:52 AM PDT by don-o

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is not a lawyer. He's not famous for lawyerly evasions. But when it came to a few of the most critical issues discussed at the House Armed Services Committee's hearing on the Bowe Bergdahl case Wednesday, Hagel was full of wiggle words. Actually, just one wiggle word -- "direct" -- but Hagel used it repeatedly to sow confusion about some key questions.

The first question concerned the background of the five Taliban commanders traded by the Obama administration for the release of Bergdahl. Hagel sought to downplay the threat posed by freeing the five. "They've been in U.S. custody at Guantanamo …12, 13 years, but they have not been implicated in any attacks against the United States," he said.

That caught the attention of Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, the vice chairman of the committee. Citing publicly-available intelligence suggesting some of the released Taliban had in fact planned attacks on Americans and coalition forces in Afghanistan, Thornberry asked, "At least at some point, there was evidence that they were involved in hostilities, military operations against the coalition, weren't they?"

"Yes," Hagel agreed. "They were mid- to high-ranking members of the Taliban. So yes, they were part of planning. But my point was, we have no direct evidence of any direct involvement in direct attacks on the U.S. or any of our troops. They were part of the Taliban — yes, they were combatants."

No direct evidence of any direct involvement in direct attacks. By throwing in so many directs, Hagel was engaging in some serious hedging, and Thornberry clearly caught what was going on.

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bergdahl; hagel

1 posted on 06/12/2014 5:37:52 AM PDT by don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: don-o

He said, and implied, OVER AND OVER, that he did not
trust Congress (except Harry Reid); but that he
does trust hundreds in Qatar.


2 posted on 06/12/2014 5:38:57 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: don-o

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Gitmo 5 were involved in the planning and attack of the WH and stormed and raided it like the assault on Bin Laden and returned the favor? 0 did a very stupid thing and they will be welcomed back like POWs and promoted in rank and reinstalled. I think this is going to come back to bite 0 in the butt...


4 posted on 06/12/2014 6:07:37 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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