Move Over Benghazi; Here Comes Bergdahl

NPR ^ | Frank James

[nickcarraway]

Just when it seemed like the outrage on the political right over Benghazi had subsided to the point where only the announcement of House hearings put it back in the headlines, the exchange of captive U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl for five senior Taliban fighters at Guantanamo Bay came along.

Now President Obama finds himself amid another foreign policy and national security controversy with fresh legs that even features Susan Rice — the White House official who played a prominent early role in the Benghazi controversy — making an encore.

While it's still too soon to know whether the trade for Bergdahl will have the staying power of Benghazi — where four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed during a September 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Libya — there are ominous signs for the administration of what may come.

Some progressives are accusing Republicans of trying to make the Bergdahl controversy into a "new Benghazi." But in some ways, the Bergdahl story has the potential to cast an even longer shadow over the remainder of the Obama presidency.

For one, there's the issue of whether Obama broke the law by not giving Congress 30 days' notice that he was moving detainees out of Guantanamo, something even some progressives say Obama did. That sets up a balance-of-powers clash with Congress unlikely to be quickly resolved. And it fits into the Republican narrative that Obama is willing to run roughshod over the law and Constitution when it suits his purposes.

Then there's the lingering question of the five Taliban fighters released in the Bergdahl exchange and whether they will one day re-emerge to threaten Americans. "These five individuals are not low-level, run-of-the-mill fighter-type terrorists," Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Tuesday. "These are the guys that raise the money, that made the plans to develop the IEDs, and in some cases are accused of inciting riots that wound up killing not hundreds but maybe even thousands of people, including Americans. ..."

"The president needs to look the American people in the eye and explain to the American people why he was justified in releasing the five individuals, and why their background didn't demand and mandate that they be detained at Guantanamo for an indefinite period of time," Chambliss said.

Add to that the controversy over Bergdahl's service record. Was he a soldier who "served his country with honor and distinction," as National Security Adviser Susan Rice said on the Sunday morning news shows? Or was he a deserter who, according to veterans of his unit, was responsible for the deaths and injuries of soldiers on search-and-rescue missions for him?

So far, the controversy mostly breaks down along traditional partisan lines, a point made by the National Journal's Ron Fournier. While some conservatives are going as far as calling for Obama's impeachment, progressives are generally ridiculing such calls and supporting the administration.

To that degree, the Bergdahl controversy is shaping up like Benghazi, which has been a strictly partisan affair through and through. It even began with Rice on Sunday news programs, this time strongly defending Bergdahl's service record. And that was before the military finished its own investigation.

It was her erroneous 2012 talking points, blaming the attacks in Libya on spontaneous protests to a film defaming Islam, that raised suspicions of a White House cover-up among Obama's most ardent opponents. Rice being out front in the White House's Bergdahl messaging was sure to trigger conservative alarms, and she did.

Worth noting is that the president didn't repeat Rice's language when he was asked during his European trip about accusations that Bergdahl was a deserter.

"But let me just make a very simple point here, and that is regardless of the circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American soldier back if he's held in captivity. Period. Full stop. We don't condition that. And that's what every mom and dad who sees a son or daughter sent over into war theater should expect from not just their commander in chief, but the United States of America."

That some military members are among some of the strongest critics of the trade that got Bergdahl released suggests just how difficult this issue could prove to be for the president going forward.

[Political Junkie Too]

And NPR’s point is...?

That was my question. They are stating each side's point, it is not like them to not take a side.

That must mean they agree with the conservative point of view on the impact to Obama.

-PJ

[GotMojo]

someone should chronicle what this Taliban dream team has done to Afghan women, along with the genocide they conducted......

[gaijin]

[adorno]

"It was her erroneous 2012 talking points"

Erroneous talking points?

They were outright lies, not errors.

People make errors all the time. The Obama administration creates lies every moment they continue to be in office.

[Steve_Seattle]

"To that degree, the Bergdahl controversy is shaping up like Benghazi, which has been a strictly partisan affair through and through."

These are "partisan affairs" only because the Dems make them partisan affairs by uniting in lockstep against doing the right and proper thing. And the media go along with it and promote the "partisan" narrative.

[Steve_Seattle]

"And NPR’s point is...?"

That it's all just partisan politics. That is the narrative they are laying down with their bland presentation of the facts. If this were a Republican information, they'd be burrowing into the story with the old "What did the president know and when did he know it?" narrative. We would see timelines and diagrams emphasizing all the contradictory claims of the administration, and we would be hearing words like "impeachable."

[Steve_Seattle]

“Republican information” s/b “Republican administration.”

[lapsus calami]

 

The anger is apparent - saw this yesterday,

 

 

One of several like this I saw around.

 

[what's up]

is shaping up like Benghazi, which has been a strictly partisan affair through and through

Was it "partisan" that the administration lied for weeks about the youtube video?

Was it "partisan" that Carney lied about the WH not being involved in the talking points (and was exposed a few weeks ago by Judicial Watch's FOIA request)?

[TigersEye]

How much treason can one POTUS commit?

[bray]

It is partisan if anyone stands in the way of their Marxist agenda.

Pray America is waking up

[stanne]

This NPR writer might even be trying.

Here’s where he misses:

This is a country we’re trying to maintain. These are not news stories, and not, as in everything they do and say, political.

They are occurrences. With international, intergenerational, national, security, historical, and legal significance with dangerous consequences.

If the Left would ever figure out that without a sovereign, free country, their way of life will be or would be gone.

And forever.

If the new York liberals cannot figure out that they are the first ones to go in this fight between Jihad and us, after all of this, then, they’re hopeless, and it’s why their news outlets cough and sputter while Rush unashamedly succeeds.

[tsomer]

Bergdahl and his desertion and possible collaboration are much less the issues in my mind than is the treasonous release of the Taliban 5.

Actually, when you think about it, obama might have unleashed six terrorists: 5 to the middle east, and one possible sleeper back into our midst. They've had five years to work on this idiot; expect the worst.