Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) during an interview with the The Blaze Radio Network, offered an angle on why Obama exchanged five Guantanamo Bay detainees for Sgt. Bergdahl – the terror dream team of enemy leadership during a shooting war – exchanged for one crazy deserter. Further, fellow soldiers in the field at the time are speaking out.
Sen. Inhofe said Tuesday that he believes President Barack Obama’s decision to release five detainees from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who has been in Taliban captivity for nearly five years, is part of his “obsession” to close Guantanamo Bay and thereby ensure his legacy.
“This president has an obsession, has two obsessions I guess I should say, that he wants to turn into his legacy when he leaves office,” Inhofe said, speaking on TheBlaze TV’s Pat and Stu. “One of those happens to be to close Gitmo. We’ve known this for a long time.”
Inhofe, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he and others knew Obama was going to try to transfer dangerous prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay, and that’s why they put certain requirements in place to make it more difficult.
TownHall.com has an excellent compilation of several interviews with fellow soldiers who detail Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s strange behavior and anti-American attitudes. Click here for the TownHall.com story with five video clips including one interview from Sergeant Evan Buetow, Bergdahl’s team leader who strongly declares that Bergdahl is a deserter.
Michelle Malkin also has an exclusive column posted on the topic. She writes details that “you haven’t yet heard about Bowe Bergdahl’s desertion.” Malkin begins:
Five years ago, I publicly raised questions about Bowe Bergdahl’s desertion from Blackfoot Company, 1-501 Infantry (Airborne), 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division.
A few weeks after his so-called “capture” in late June 2009, three conflicting accounts had surfaced: U.S. officials told the Associated Press Bergdahl had “walked off” the base with three Afghans; the Taliban claimed on its website that “a drunken American soldier had come out of his garrison” and into their arms; and Bergdahl claimed in his Taliban “hostage video” that he had “lagged behind a patrol” before being captured.
I asked on my blog: Were the AP’s sources mistaken? Or is the disturbing first account the right one? What about the “three Afghans” who Pfc. Bergdahl reportedly “just walked off” with after his shift? Who are they? What’s going on?
Five years ago, one of the brave soldiers who risked his life to search for Bergdahl answered my questions and I published his statement on July 20, 2009:
“I know the story and the accounts that he was drunk or that he was lagging behind on patrol are not true– this soldier planned this move for a long time. He walked off the post with a day’s supply of water and had written down before that he wanted to live in the mountains…he is an embarrassment to everyone who has worn the uniform.”
To summarize the Bergdahl story: the US Commander and Chief acting on his own authority during a shooting war gave comfort and aid to the enemy by returning their leadership. If that is not treason – what is? Further, is it worse than murdering Veterans by delaying critical medical care the Veterans Administration is obligated by law to provide?
Do we still imagine ourselves a nation of laws, not of men. This is not merely an article of faith but a bedrock principle of the United States Constitution. Our founding compact provides a remedy against rulers supplanting the rule of law, and Andrew C. McCarthy makes a compelling case for using it. Click here to reach Amazon.com for more.
In the summary of his new book, McCarthy notes:
The Framers were clear that “high crimes and misdemeanors” involved misconduct that did not necessarily break penal laws; it might not even be considered criminal if committed by a civilian. It would apply strictly to “the misconduct of public men … or the abuse or violation of public trust,” as Alexander Hamilton put it. “High crimes and misdemeanors” are of a purely political nature as they “relate to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
To be clear, “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not a standard conceived for normal law enforcement. It applies instead to oath, honor, and trust—notions that are more demanding of public officials than the black and white prohibitions of criminal law.
While the standard is high-minded it is not an abstraction. The Framers were very clear: betrayals of the constitutional order, dishonesty in the executive’s dealing with Congress, and concealment of dealings with foreign powers that could be injurious to the American people were among the most grievous, and impeachable, high crimes and misdemeanors.
Above all, the Framers had in view the president’s oath of allegiance to our system of government, a system in which the president’s highest duty is faithful execution of the laws. The mere attempt to subvert the constitution would be a breach of trust that warranted impeachment and removal.
A free country requires the rule of law. But the rule of law is a sham if lawlessness is rampant among those who govern. This was the deep political truth that the Framers of this country recognized in the providing for the impeachment of an errant executive. It is a truth that we ignore at our peril.
Tulsa Today has ordered a copy for review. You may do the same by clicking here.