BREAKING>>>Administration bypassed intel community to pursue Bergdahl trade, shelved ransom plan

[mystery-ak]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/04/intelligence-community-largely-ignored-in-taliban-bergdahl-trade-officials-say/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Administration bypassed intel community to pursue Bergdahl trade, shelved ransom plan
Published June 04, 2014
FoxNews.com

The Obama administration largely bypassed the intelligence community to green-light the risky swap of five Taliban leaders for American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, officials tell Fox News, as new details emerge about concerns with the deal at the highest levels of President Obama's team.

A military intelligence source also confirmed to Fox News that a second option -- involving the payment of a cash ransom for Bergdahl's freedom -- was pursued as late as December 2013.

The source said the goal was to reach out to Pakistan leadership with direct ties to the Taliban, and float the possibility of trading cash, instead of prisoners, for Bergdahl. That option, though, was put "on hold" in December when it was made clear the administration intended to pursue a prisoner swap.

Intelligence officials confirmed to Fox News that the Bergdahl prisoner swap was then on an accelerated track, and no formal assessment of the entire intelligence community was conducted. This made the opportunity to push back against the transfer extremely limited.

Further, top officials including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta were firmly against the proposed transfer in 2012 after it was first floated.

The details add to concerns that the White House and others involved in the decision did not adequately assess the risks before springing five senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo over the weekend.

"I think he bypassed the intelligence community," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told Fox News. "I believe he bypassed Congress because this was done for political reasons. There was no policy justification for this."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, claimed the freed Taliban members are likely more dangerous now than they were when they were captured.

"This is Mullah Omar's board of directors, it's his fab five team," he told Fox News, referring to the Taliban leader. Chambliss has called on the administration to declassify the files on the five men.

The Washington Post reports that Panetta and Clapper weren't the only ones who had misgivings about a prisoner trade after it first came up. According to an article on Wednesday, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also opposed the original terms of the prisoner exchange deal.

It's clear how the terms may have changed since then, and whether different Guantanamo prisoners were considered since the original plan emerged.

Clapper's office and other intelligence agencies have been notably quiet since the prisoner trade was announced over the weekend. In a brief statement, a spokesman for Clapper said he had concerns but the conditions of the transfer limited the risk.

One Gulf official, though, was quoted by Reuters on Tuesday saying the Taliban leaders would be free to move about in Qatar -- where they are staying -- for a year, and then would be allowed to travel outside the country.

In an apparent attempt to turn the transfer into propaganda, the Taliban have also released a video showing the handover of Bergdahl into U.S. custody. It was emailed to media outlets on Wednesday -- a Pentagon spokesman said they have "no reason to doubt [its] authenticity."

According to Time magazine, the decision to proceed with the transfer was ultimately made among top officials on Obama's national security team.

Given past opposition to the plan, though, one unidentified official told Time: "This was out of the norm." The official said the White House and State Department had previously urged the military to "suck it up and salute."

Members of Congress who were first briefed on a possible trade more than two years ago voiced similar concerns.

House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday the administration "never satisfactorily answered" lawmakers' questions and concerns that surfaced from the beginning about the proposed trade. Further, Boehner alleged that the only reason the administration failed to notify Congress is "the administration knew it faced serious and sober bipartisan concern and opposition."

Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

[mystery-ak]

Catherine Herridge just reported this on Fox..there was no urgency in arranging this swap as the admin has claimed...and plenty of time to notify Congress...

This is all about closing GITMO and Bergdahl was their tool...

[SlapLeather]

This is all about High Crimes and Misdemeanors and what we do about it.

Nudge. Push. Shove.

[truth_seeker]

This is all about High Crimes and Misdemeanors and what we do about it.

Nudge. Push. Shove.

Being wildly naïve politically seems to be the persistent state, of many conservative minds.

Getting an American serviceman out of captivity is not convincingly a"high crime or misdemeanor" any more than fellatio or lying about same.

Instead of bringing Obama down, wild impeachment talk strengthen him, in public approval and popularity.

[musiclady]

Being wildly naïve politically seems to be the persistent state, of many conservative minds.

Getting an American serviceman out of captivity is not convincingly a"high crime or misdemeanor" any more than fellatio or lying about same.

Instead of bringing Obama down, wild impeachment talk strengthen him, in public approval and popularity.

While I disagree with your blanket condemnation of 'many conservatives,' I agree fully with your assessment of what impeachment attempts would do. 

Impeachment, no matter how much it is due (for more than this, ts), won't work because it will fail in even a Republican held Senate.  In addition it would rally support around what would be perceived by the left, and most likely the middle, for the poor, bullied president.

It's unfortunate, but true.  Impeachment proceedings would work against Republicans, not in their favor.

[mystery-ak]

Impeachment is something that would have to wait until we had a Repub Senate...and with the Rebub's we have in the Senate now who aren't willing to fight for anything it is a given it will never happen....besides you need 2/3 vote to convict and that will NEVER happen....Obama could kill and eat babies on live tv and people would turn the other way and ignore it...he is above the law.

[SlapLeather]

Being wildly naïve politically seems to be the persistent state, of many conservative minds.

Getting an American serviceman out of captivity is not convincingly a"high crime or misdemeanor" any more than fellatio or lying about same.

Instead of bringing Obama down, wild impeachment talk strengthen him, in public approval and popularity.

We are 7 1/2 years past political naiveté.  No one is home.

The political naiveté of not removing the perjuring Impeached President from office, has made it such that it will take much more than impeachment to save the USA from what is about to occur.

The Constitutional Crisis coming, will fundamentally change America and the World forever.

[sinkspur]

Why on earth would anybody want to impeach Obama?

This scandal is the worst of all and shows no signs of abating.  Let the sonofabitch twist in the wind for the next two years.  Even Democrats are second-guessing his decisions now.

And Hillary is tied to him on Bergdahlgate at the hip.  When these terrorists start their killing sprees again, all that blood will splash back on her.

[truth_seeker]

While I disagree with your blanket condemnation of 'many conservatives,' I agree fully with your assessment of what impeachment attempts would do. 

Impeachment, no matter how much it is due (for more than this, ts), won't work because it will fail in even a Republican held Senate.  In addition it would rally support around what would be perceived by the left, and most likely the middle, for the poor, bullied president.

It's unfortunate, but true.  Impeachment proceedings would work against Republicans, not in their favor.

Then we are mainly in agreement; the only question being the meaning of "many."

And by the way it is not "condemnation," but instead it is an "observation."

Impeachment is a political remedy, for use between elections.  The GOP ruined impeachment, by going after Clinton.

That was bad political judgment. Thinking politics can be bound up in a nice moral wrapper, is naïve. 

A certain faction on the right are in perpetual "hair on fire" world coming to an end fury. But somehow we wander on into history.

[SlapLeather]

Then we are mainly in agreement; the only question being the meaning of "many."

And by the way it is not "condemnation," but instead it is an "observation."

Impeachment is a political remedy, for use between elections.  The GOP ruined impeachment, by going after Clinton.

That was bad political judgment. Thinking politics can be bound up in a nice moral wrapper, is naïve. 

A certain faction on the right are in perpetual "hair on fire" world coming to an end fury. But somehow we wander on into history.

Impeachment was ruined by the Two Party System that did not complete their fiduciary responsibility.

Lying is immoral. If there is no remedy, our wander into history shall be complete. To think that there will be no judgement, is naive.

[truth_seeker]

Impeachment was ruined by the Two Party System that did not complete their fiduciary responsibility.

Lying is immoral. If there is no remedy, our wander into history shall be complete. To think that there will be no judgement, is naive.

To think we will ever be rid of lying politicians is naïve folly. Humankind simply isn't that morally perfect. Not now, or ever in history.

[musiclady]

Impeachment is something that would have to wait until we had a Repub Senate...and with the Rebub's we have in the Senate now who aren't willing to fight for anything it is a given it will never happen....besides you need 2/3 vote to convict and that will NEVER happen....Obama could kill and eat babies on live tv and people would turn the other way and ignore it...he is above the law.

Absolutely agree.

[musiclady]

Then we are mainly in agreement; the only question being the meaning of "many."

And by the way it is not "condemnation," but instead it is an "observation."

Impeachment is a political remedy, for use between elections.  The GOP ruined impeachment, by going after Clinton.

That was bad political judgment. Thinking politics can be bound up in a nice moral wrapper, is naïve. 

A certain faction on the right are in perpetual "hair on fire" world coming to an end fury. But somehow we wander on into history.

Lying to a Grand Jury IS an impeachable offense, ts.  It was never about the sex (something I'm sure you understand).

And this is not about 'freeing' a captive American.  It's about freeing a deserter in trade for releasing 5 of the worst terrorists on earth, breaking the law in the process, all for political gain for the Democrats.

However, I still agree that impeachment is not the answer, and as sinkspur has stated above, letting him twist in the wind as an abject failure and absolutely amoral, lawless 'leader' is the better of the two options.

Especially since we have so many spineless R's in the Senate.  The few who would have the will to do it would never succeed.

[Bigun]

Impeachment is something that would have to wait until we had a Repub Senate...and with the Rebub's we have in the Senate now who aren't willing to fight for anything it is a given it will never happen....besides you need 2/3 vote to convict and that will NEVER happen....Obama could kill and eat babies on live tv and people would turn the other way and ignore it...he is above the law.

I personally do not CARE what the senate might or might not do! The house has a duty to perform and it's high time for them to get about doing it!

For us to even consider the politics of an impeachment when it is glaringly warranted  makes us better than the democrats exactly how?

[katzenjammer]

I personally do not CARE what the senate might or might not do! The house has a duty to perform and it's high time for them to get about doing it!

For us to even consider the politics of an impeachment when it is glaringly warranted  makes us better than the democrats exactly how?

Bingo!  I am constantly dismayed to read all about the politics and optics of the matters, never a word about the principles.   

[musiclady]

I personally do not CARE what the senate might or might not do! The house has a duty to perform and it's high time for them to get about doing it!

For us to even consider the politics of an impeachment when it is glaringly warranted  makes us better than the democrats exactly how?

For me, it's a tough one, Bigun.

The problem is that politics does get itself entwined because that's the realm we are dealing with; the world we live in.

I believe that the impeachment of Clinton was based on principle..............he lied to a Grand Jury............and yet the Senate refused to kick him out of office, and the media were able to make it look like a Republican debacle.

I can't see that this would be any different.  Obama is as guilty as sin.   Yet to impeach him would turn him into a sympathetic figure who is being attacked for purely partisan reasons, even more than the R's have done before.

I don't think it's quite as simple as, if you stand on principle, impeach him, if you buckle to politics you don't.

But maybe that's because I've been beaten down so low by being accused and maligned for so many years by the ugly, lying left.

I'm not sure how much fight I've got left........

[Bigun]

For me, it's a tough one, Bigun.

The problem is that politics does get itself entwined because that's the realm we are dealing with; the world we live in.

I believe that the impeachment of Clinton was based on principle..............he lied to a Grand Jury............and yet the Senate refused to kick him out of office, and the media were able to make it look like a Republican debacle.

I can't see that this would be any different.  Obama is as guilty as sin.   Yet to impeach him would turn him into a sympathetic figure who is being attacked for purely partisan reasons, even more than the R's have done before.

I don't think it's quite as simple as, if you stand on principle, impeach him, if you buckle to politics you don't.

But maybe that's because I've been beaten down so low by being accused and maligned for so many years by the ugly, lying left.

I'm not sure how much fight I've got left........

I'll just reply with some words written by a man FAR more learned than I!

"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40

[Bigun]

And there is also this:

“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to everyone that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”

Federalist #47 [James Madison]

[Oceander]

Why on earth would anybody want to impeach Obama?

This scandal is the worst of all and shows no signs of abating.  Let the sonofabitch twist in the wind for the next two years.  Even Democrats are second-guessing his decisions now.

And Hillary is tied to him on Bergdahlgate at the hip.  When these terrorists start their killing sprees again, all that blood will splash back on her.

very good point.

Another reason for not impeaching him is that he will be gone anyways in Jan. 2017 and won't ever be back, but the democrats who are now hoping and praying that this sh*t doesn't land on them will be around for years and years to come if they aren't gotten rid of now.

The focus should be first and foremost on getting rid of democrats in Congress and only secondarily on getting rid of Obama.

[Oceander]

The bottom line on impeachment is this:  until and unless a significant number of democrats start getting behind the idea it would be the stupidest thing the republicans could do in a long, long line of stupid things they've done recently.

[SlapLeather]

You all seriously think that Obama and his current and ever-growing Totalitarian Regime, coupled with their Axis of Evil world partners, are going to “twist in the wind for the next two years”?

Then they are going to go quietly into the annals of history, because we have a democratic process of elections in our Republic?

I’m serious, is this what you believe?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Am I the only one who first sees "Benghazi" when reading about Bergdahl?   

[Bigun]

You all seriously think that Obama and his current and ever-growing Totalitarian Regime, coupled with their Axis of Evil world partners, are going to “twist in the wind for the next two years”?

Then they are going to go quietly into the annals of history, because we have a democratic process of elections in our Republic?

I’m serious, is this what you believe?

Don't include me in that group please!

[Bigun]

Am I the only one who first sees "Benghazi" when reading about Bergdahl?   

Nope and I also see Fast and Furious, the IRS, the dropping of the Philadelphia black panther case, and a host of others as well!