A Dishonorable Discharge…Flowing from the White House
Barack Obama’s best case yet for his own ineptitude comes in the form of the White House’s attempt to dig itself out of the deepening hole of the Bergdahl swap. This has become the public relations equivalent of a field latrine.
As most of you know, Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers, with whom he was serving when he deserted, have come out fighting against the White House propaganda campaign to make a hero out of a despicable defector and enemy collaborator. In none of the interviews I’ve watched has a single one of those paratroopers followed the administration’s line that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. Rather, they courageously deny it, to a man, in spite of the fact that many of them were required to sign non-disclosure agreements by their superiors.
According to a usually supportive mainstream media source, Obama’s unicorn cavalry expected to ride their horned steeds in a ticker-tape parade led by their returned hero, the only POW of the Afghan War, himself marching at the head of the Rainbow Ranger Band. It just so fits the liberal image of how war should be – so deliciously Hollywood and Busby Berkeley.
As NBC’s Chuck Todd put it, the Obama administration were “caught off guard” when the Bergdahl swap turned out to be not dazzling fireworks, but more of a rolling live grenade. Perhaps if that bunch of buffoons had bothered to do a simple Google search prior to launch, they could have foreseen that Bergdahl’s release might be problematic; there were investigations in 2010 that showed that their honorable soldier was most likely a deserter in time of war, a violation of Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that carries with it the possibility of capital punishment.
Now, with even some of their most loyal media lapdogs nipping at their heels, the Democrats are resorting to an old tactic that is truly despicable: attacking the honorable warriors who served with the Dems’ dishonorable deserter. John Nolte at Breitbart.com reports that Chuck Todd is saying that the White House staffers are now referring to the brave men who served with Bergdahl and are coming forward to expose the Democrat lies as “swift-boaters.”
Democrats have never accepted that they almost elected a dishonorable traitor to the White House until John Kerry’s fellow sailors came forward and exposed Jean Fraud as just that: a fraud and military poseur who had inflated his résumé and who, to this day, has never released his military records. In the military community, it is widely believed that he cannot release these records because they will show that he received a less than honorable discharge from the Navy for his unauthorized treating with the enemy at the Paris Peace Talks as a still-serving Naval Reserve officer. It’s rumored that that discharge was later changed to honorable during the opening months of the Carter administration, when “Jimma” was busy pardoning every draft-dodger on the planet.
Those who saved the country from electing Kerry were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of warriors I was proud to support with my writings throughout the 2004 campaign. The Democratic Party and their lapdog media attacked these brave veterans mercilessly, with every form of lie and smear, but it did them no good; the public could see who looked into the cameras without guile and spoke honestly of their Vietnam experiences. The records-hiding Kerry looked like the deer in the headlights, and he lost, although not by as much as he should have due to the media’s smearing of the Swiftees.
The Democrats have never forgotten or forgiven. In their political lexicon, swift-boating is a pejorative, but as Nolte points out, “[w]hat ‘swift boating’ really means to Democrats is the use of facts against their phony narratives.” I would add to that “honest warriors exposing Democrat politicians guilty of stolen valor.”
It would be helpful if some Army officers who were in the command structure of the 501st Airborne Infantry at the time Bergdahl deserted came forward and supported their men, as Navy admirals did for the Swiftees. Of that, however, I am not hopeful, considering the lack of courage in today’s senior officer corps. Should the long-ago lieutenant-colonel who was battalion commander at that time read this, this old trooper would plead with him to remember the motto of the Airborne – “All the Way!” – and let his courage match that of his men.
So here we are, ten years later, dealing with an altogether different war, and once again, when American warriors speak truth to Democrat lies, they are viciously attacked. One has to wonder if, should the Gold Star Mothers who lost their sons, men killed while searching for Bergdahl, start speaking up against the administration’s spin, they will be dismissed for swift-boating poor Bowe. They’ll probably have to recall Hillary to active duty to do something that cold.
It remains to be seen if the media will be so easily led this time around. Surely, even some in the liberal media will hold their noses at this dishonorable discharge flowing from the White House and not let Democrats, desperate to defend their darling deserter, get away with scapegoating soldiers who did in fact serve with honor and distinction.
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Politics
Bravo.
Damn. Hats off to you man. You can really write.
There are so many asinine things coming out of the Oval Office now, I’m losing count. This is one of them. Booting Putin out of the current G8 is another.
What I’m starting to see now borders on jealousy along with denial of reality, hence the sniping at people who tell the truth about someone like Bergdahl.
On the other hand, those precious ratings have fallen everywhere, including in Europe. People in Europe think the government in this country is going down the wrong path.
Any other time with any other president, we would say, “Who gives a fuck what they think in Europe?”
Sadly, we have seen that European public opinion is the only one the Anti-American President cares about.
On that note, is it 2016 yet?
Somewhere I had to school the MFMC about their use of the word “ignore” versus “break”.
As we know, the MFMC is well versed in the use of the Thesaurus, and even more so with the elections of the Pied Piper. (think of the many synonyms they used for the words “Lie” or “terrorist”)
It seems the POTUS “ignored” a law. I’m sorry, but to ignore something is misleading to the LIV, is it not? It implies something completely different than using the word break whose synonyms include infract; disobey; infringe. He broke the law, he did not ignore it. He knew it was there and he intentionally broke it. The Shithole, er, field latrine, I stand corrected, can’t be big enough for me.
He signed the law, and tried interpreting it differently than intended. Later, he claimed executive privilege because of the time-sensitive nature.
He signed the law and place a signing declaration that under exigent circumstances as CinC he reserved the right under executive privilege to act without respect to the law. I would have preferred he not sign it at all to force a veto which would have failed, or that he had taken the justice department to task and had them challenge the constitutionality of the law as I believe it’s an over reach of the legislative into the powers of the executive. Congress doesn’t have the authority to pass laws restricting the executive, and there are some pretty long precedents there.
He is not the first to include a signing statement as to the legality of a law or the boundaries of that law.
Um I respectfully disagree here – the legislative branch writes the laws and the executive branch enforces/follows them. By definition that limits the executive branch.
If you are referring to the executive himself as CiNC – he cannot declare war nor commit the nation to a treaty(he can sign it but is not in force until congress ratifies it) – check out the war powers act as just one example
“he cannot declare war nor commit the nation to a treaty(he can sign it but is not in force until congress ratifies it)”
Don’t tell him that.
Well said, Poetrooper. This Straight Leg can’t add anything to it.
I don’t have any problem with the president making the swap without consulting congress. I think congress with that law was trying to over reach into the executive and I think that should be challenged with the judicial.
For me the entire problem lies with getting him back and making a giant political play of it as you point out.
I understand his squad mates have their own views, being that I still live in America Bergdahl should get his day in court before I recommend he be stood against a wall and shot as a traitor.
The administration should have gotten him out, and brought him home quietly while they resolved what was happening.
I know my views won’t be popular because I am advocating a bit of restraint until Bergdahl gets his day in court, but I would be the first to recommend he be shot as a traitor if that is what’s proven. From what I see so far there are no charges yet filed, and no formal investigation yet. It’s inappropriate to speculate until he gets his due.
Those running their mouths in violation of the NDA they signed are no different than anyone else who breaches an NDA and they should also be disciplined accordingly. Running to the press is not the same as running to the IG as countless others here like to point out regarding other “whistleblowers”.
VoV…I agree 100%. My concern is that between Obama and the Pentagon, or rather his control over the Pentagon, there will not be a day in court. The matter will rest and end on, “he’s suffered enough”. But I hope you are right and proper heads prevail in finding and releasing the truth of this man and what he did.
I would agree with you regarding the IG if we had an IG with balls that didnt kowtow to the admin… since we don’t… I don’t…
But please take this as respectful disagreement
VOV those NDA’s aren’t worth the paper they are written on if the soldiers signing them felt they were pressured by their superiors to do so. Ditto if they were fed a line of B.S. as to the true reasons for signing them. An NDA is nothing more than a contract and no contract is binding if entered into under duress or obtained through fraudulent means. That’s basic contract law.
I’ll wager every one of those in Bergdahl’s unit who signed an NDA was either overtly pressured, (or at least felt pressured by superior rank and authority) to do so, or misled as to the real reasons (avoiding adverse publicity)for doing so. Furthermore, I would imagine FOX News’ legal department so advised those young soldiers of that which is why they were so willing to speak openly on national TV.
Even if the NDA’s were used to protect the original investigation, that event is long past and any lawyer worth his salt ought too be able to successfully challenge that issue. After all, Bergdahl’s situation may be a huge embarrassment to the administration but it does not rise to the level of national security.
Thanks Poetrooper, I appreciate your take on all of this. That’s why I am postulating these questions. I want to reconcile all of this in my head before jumping into the fray from an incorrect supposition.
I still believe the “law” that Obama signed (with signing statement) should not have been signed. I think it’s improper. I don’t mind him trading to get this kid back. I object to the kid being used to prop up the administration’s poor image before knowing all of the factual evidence.
Speculation of this nature ruins people’s lives. I’ve garnered a lot of bad karma over the years and I’m not much for calling this kid a traitor or a deserter until it’s proven where it’s supposed to be proven in a court of law. If it’s never proven there then maybe another discussion is warranted but I don’t like it when the dems lynch someone before a trial and I’m a bit uncomfortable signing on for that.
I always appreciate your articles and your view point, you always bring a perspective that deserves careful consideration. Thanks again!
There are reports that, as little as three months ago, the arrangement was for a cash payment. Not to mention, we handed over the Taliban Leadership five days before sending the Special Operations Troops into what looked identical to an ambush to pick up the traitor.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/05/special-forces-members-noticed-something-in-the-bergdahl-release-video-that-you-probably-missed/
“Surely, even some in the liberal media will hold their noses” etc.
Dream on. And don’t call me Shirley.
If any of the men in Bergdahl’s unit are reading this, listen to me. Don’t stop telling the truth, don’t back down, don’t give in to the political pressure. We’re as angry and disgusted as you are with this stinking mess, and we support you in what you’re trying to do. Thank you for coming forward and keep up the good work. You are an inspiration to all of us in your continued courage and sacrifice.
Can I ask a question in seriousness?
It would seem to me that violating an NDA is violating an NDA whether we like the reason or we don’t like the reason for breaking the agreement.
Other “whistleblowers” have received a great deal of criticism for violating their oaths and the documents they signed. Some of the information they revealed shed light on activities that most Americans find distasteful at best and perhaps criminal at worst.
What makes these men different from those whistleblowers? Is it because we agree with their cause? I’m trying to wrap my head around this and I always like what you have to say. I think these guys spoke prematurely, they didn’t pass this up the chain like we wanted those other guys to do first. Why do these guys get a pass for that?
VOV, I understand your point, and you’re correct. I can only speak for myself, but the reason I support what these men have done is because I believe they are pushing back, not just against Bergdahl, but against a multi-pronged creeping tyranny that is attempting to destroy us as a nation. Men died trying to find Bergdahl. Men were ordered to be silent about a deserter. Our President arranged for the release of five of the worst enemies our nation had in captivity, without the consent of Congress. The list goes on. This has gone way past any signature on a dotted line that was probably gotten through coercion to start with. That’s my feeling on the matter.
Thank you for your honest answer, I will take some time and consider where my thoughts are jumbled on this.
I personally don’t believe it’s a true comparison VOV.
Voluntarily entering into a private contract for work in an intelligence sensitive civilian occupation, and voluntarily signing NDA’s related to that work, is NOT the same as signing a NDA at the ‘request’ of your Battalion officers and Army CID.
Additionally, I’m pretty sure Bergdahl’s squad mates didn’t join the military with the specific purpose in mind of ‘outing’ their government. It seems like guys like Snowden on the otherhand, specifically signed their NDAs knowing they weren’t going to honor them in the first place.
That’s part of my take on it anyway.
Agreed it’s not necessarily apples to apples, but the signed document provides for penalties regardless of how it came to be signed.
We’ve all signed something along those lines at some point due to a “request” violating what you signed doesn’t absolve you of potential litigative recourse directed against you.
You know I am in the Snowden is a rat bastard category rather strongly.
But I’m also not a fan of guys signing something and promising to keep it quiet popping off post facto either.
I can’t excuse the one if I don’t excuse the other. I can understand it, but it being wrong in revealing something right doesn’t absolve you of the wrong. Unless you’re a democrat.
VOV, see my answer above.
Having signed multiple NDAs in my recent career, there is quite a difference in this particular. If I don’t sign an NDA, I don’t get access, which means I don’t get the job . I have the right to refuse to sign it, and they the right (and they will) to not grant me that access. Pretty simple. But what of these Soldiers? What if they declined to sign? Could they have been charged under the UCMJ. How can someone be coerced to sign an after the event NDA? I think there has to be a few lawyers, barracks and legitimate types, that could weigh in if the legitimacy of these NDAs.
Hack, barracks lawyer here (although I do have some some formal legal training). As I pointed out above, it is hard to imagine that soldiers caught up in such an incident would not feel some command pressure to execute an NDA. And there is also the legal issue of inequality of the parties that could cause a judge to set aside an NDA obtained under such circumstances.
However, it is the willingness of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers to speak out so openly that convinces me they have been assured they have nothing to worry about.
What did those guys get in return for signing? If it is a contract, there had to be some compensation.
I suppose that someone could classify the whole event as secret and then the boys and girls would be bound to protect classified information.
I suppose that it could have been a lawful order. Does that still apply after all this time and if they left the military?
I have signed a lot of non-disclosure agreements. I did it so that I would have access to information that would not be disclosed to me unless I promised to keep it a secret. These guys already have the information. In fact, they are the original witnesses — the source of the information. Someone is trying to prevent them from disclosing it to third parties.
Unless the event was classified, I don’t understand how they can be bound by the agreement.
I see the liberal site are putting it out that Josh Korder received an OTH and is a disgruntled unreliable source of information.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/06/02/mn-solider-speaks-out-against-freed-pow-bowe-bergdahl/
Richard, they got to keep their stripes. That’s what I meant above about a contract being invalid if entered into by either party while under duress.
B … Bu … But … But I thought Rice said, “he served with honor and distinction”.
I am so confused now …
What should I do?
ANALYSIS:
Definition of distinction: a difference that you can see, hear, smell, feel, etc.; a noticeable difference between things or people; the separation of people or things into different groups; and or importance, excellence, or achievement.
Synonyms: choiceness; excellence; excellency; first-rateness; greatness; perfection; preeminence; primeness; superbness; superiority; and or supremacy.
Based on the above ANALYSIS Rice was either grossly misinformed and or she purposefully lied.
No, no… MCPO… You are just confused. It was because of a video.
I think that even his former comrades urge restraint before his stringing up. What they objected to was the “Welcome a hero home” event that the White House had portrayed his release as.
As Commander In Chief Obama can do whatever he wishes and Congress can place no limitation on that short of a Constitutional amendment. If he had wished, Obama could have closed the prison at Gitmo and swapped everyone in it for Bergdahl.
It seems pretty clear from the testimony of those who served with him that Bergdahl went AWOL but does that mean he was a deserter. To charge desertion, the govt would have to prove that he willingly absented himself with the intention of never returning. That is a very hard test to overcome without some kind of independent evidence. In Vietnam, even Garwood was not charged with desertion although he remained with the enemy for nearly 5 years after our withdrawal, openly carried a weapon in POW camps,etc. The govt just could not prove that he had deserted (left with the intent of never returning), he went AWOL, was captured and rallied to the other side.
I don’t believe that they will charge Bergdahl with desertion, probably just AWOL, and I don’t think that this administration has the cojones to allow the military to include charges related to the deaths of those who were looking for him.
Had this administration just made the swap, acknowledged the potential problems associated with Bergdahl’s absence from his unit and subsequent 5 years, without the big hoopla of a White House ceremony with the parents – there would be none of this outrage.
But this President is totally incapable of admitting error, the good news is that we only have to suffer his incompetence and arrogance for three more years.
I suppose I can live with trade of terrorists for Bergdahl, although I don’t like it.
However, the way our out of touch prez tried to turn Bergdahls return into a feel good story turns my stomach. Obama and crew take military terms like honor and duty use it like a punch line.
According to various news sources Obama and his cabinet were taken by surprise concerning the public reaction to the Bergdahl trade. Talk about being out of touch!
You can’t take a turd like Bergdahl, paint him purple, and call it eggplant.
At the end of the day he’s still a turd.
Lastly, this is vintage Obama. He thinks he’s smart and everyone else is stupid. Got news for you prez, I may be dumb, but like most I’m not stupid.
I wish I could articulate like Jonn, MCPO, EX-PH2′ et al. Unfortunately, this is the best I can do.
I’m just so outraged!
You articulate just fine, 3/17AirCav.
Short, to the point, pulls no punches. Can’t say it better than that.
VOV. First off, whistleblowers is a term of art used to describe those who are entitled to protection from adverse employment action for exposing waste, fraud, or abuse in gov’t. I don’t like to apply the term to the men who have spoken out. They seek no protection. And the differences bewteen them and others who have bent or broken an oath are many. Consider this: Man #1 intentionally and purposefully eats a grenade and is killed. He’s called a suicide. Man #2 intentionally and purposefully eats a grendade. He is called a. Why? Motivation. Man #2 did what he did to save others, without prospect for personal gain or reward and certain death all but assured.
CORRECTION: Man #2 intentionally and purposefully eats a grenade. He is called a suicide.
I’ll change my screen name to Idiot. (Ni need to agree, Hussar.)
CORRECTION: Man #2 intentionally and purposefully eats a grenade. He is called a hero.
You keep your screen name, and ignore Hussar, you old war horse.
I understood you meaning my friend, and I respect your point.
I have no problem with people who understand violating an oath to make things right with their conscience doesn’t absolve them of guilt.
Do the wrong, expect to pay the price, it’s all good.
It doesn’t make the wrong you do right, it just makes the wrong understandable.
Air Cav…..Keep the name. I might be biased, but Air Cav has a nice ring to it!
What was the purpose of having a group of low ranking enlisted men sign an NDA about the conduct of Bergdahl?
There was absolutely no legit purpose other than the military saving face by hiding that we had ONE shitbag. out of thousands deployed decide to walk away from his post.
The military itself made the NDA a moot point after they released the results of their incestigation in 2010.
I’m gonna be my usual asshat self and remind everyone that most here, that are now outraged, not so long ago were in the “bring our boy back, no matter the cost!” camp.
The time to stand the line is before and during. After don’t do much good.
Semper Fi.
It ain’t just a slogan.
Not quite true. Count me among those who believed it was in our best collective interest to not spew too many details out there until he was returned to US control. And I did not hear ANYONE here do the “at any cost” thing.
It is unlikely that I was alone in my outrage then that continues today, now to include even more reasons for outrage. I would still like to know how many detainees were released during the time Bergdahl was wandering around, or whatever he was doing. Why were any released who were not part of a deal for Bergdahl? I was outraged about that as it was occurring, and the circumstances of his departure in theater mad no difference to me.