Tag Archives: Glen Doherty

Could Benghazi have been a Bergdahl Gambit that Went South?

indexOriginally posted at American Thinker

President Obama has been trying to close Gitmo for years, which means finding a way – any way – to free the terrorists from that prison.  Regrettably for Obama, try as he might, he has been unable to obtain Congressional approval to release Gitmo detainees back onto the battlefield to recommence the murder, mayhem, and destruction.

Thus far, the United States Congress thinks it is in the best interest of the American people to keep highly dangerous Taliban fighters locked up for as long as possible.  Barack “I won” Obama thinks otherwise.

That’s why founding member of the Taliban Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa, who had close ties with Osama bin Laden, and Mohammad Nabi Omari, member of a joint al-Qaeda/Taliban cell and called “one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained,” along with deputy chief of Taliban intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq are now roaming free on the streets of Qatar.

Joining that trio are Mohammad Fazi, thought to be the Taliban’s “army chief of staff,” and senior military commander Mullah Norullah Noori, both of whom were present when CIA paramilitary officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed during the 2001 Mazar-e Sharif prison riot.

All five are classified as a “high risk” to the United States. That’s why, based on those credentials, it’s easy to see why Congress had been reluctant to make a deal with the devil that is the Taliban.

But at this juncture none of that matters, because thanks to Barack Obama’s majestic magnanimity, five jihadists are now free to wage war again on Americans worldwide.

In the past, Barack Obama has repeatedly proven that he believes he is above the law, which is why he took the Gitmo matter into his own hands and circumvented the rule requiring him to notify Congress 30 days prior for approval before releasing prisoners.  By ignoring the National Defense Authorization Act that he himself signed into law, the “rogue” president belittled Congress and again showed total disrespect for the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

What’s distressing is that in this case the commander-in-chief found a man who may possibly be a traitor to assist in his clandestine endeavor to accomplish what Congressional obstacles had thus far prevented.  That assistant was Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was allegedly fed up with being identified as an American and defending America’s interests in Afghanistan.

From the looks of things, Bergdahl may have been attracted to the Taliban even before he walked off his base.  Yet Barack Obama was willing to portray a deserter and possible traitor as an honorable POW and use that as cover to spring five mass-murdering Taliban operatives from Gitmo.

This Bergdahl “rescue” is such a tangle of provable lies it must inspire a certain amount of conjecture, such as: Could the president’s desire to free Gitmo prisoners explain what went down 20 months ago in Benghazi?

Sorry to have to say it, but with such a conniving, deceitful administration, if a Taliban sympathizer/Army deserter was used as the bargaining chip to free five high-level Taliban fighters, is it that farfetched to imagine that the kidnapping of an American ambassador presented the president with the perfect opportunity to swap either the Gitmo Five or some other equally dangerous individual(s)?

Moreover, after observing the president’s dishonesty in the Bergdahl affair, it’s not that much of a stretch to believe that if Obama couldn’t get Congress to agree to swap Bergdahl in early 2012, he might have manipulated the volatile Benghazi situation in hopes that a kidnapped American diplomat would eliminate Congressional objections to a high-level prisoner swap.

If the theory is accurate and Obama calculated to delay trying to save Stevens with the goal of a hostage swap, how could things have gone so terribly wrong?

Granted, dealing with terrorists is a risky endeavor to undertake, regardless of the circumstances. However, the president has proven repeatedly that forethought is not one of his strong suits.  Thus, it probably never occurred to Obama that when working with jihadists the effort could backfire with catastrophic results.

Guesswork aside, what is certain is that according to former regional security officer Eric Nordstrom, after repeated requests for additional security were denied, he was so frustrated in his efforts to protect the American ambassador he said that dealing with the State Department felt like “The Taliban [was] on the inside of the building.” If the hesitation to respond was purposeful when the inevitable finally did happen, it certainly could explain why an American ambassador had been left so poorly defended.

It could also shed light on the initial “stand down” order that was given during the attack; the bizarre rationale behind the White House’s decision to concoct the lie about the video; and why the president’s whereabouts on the night of September 11th, 2012 are still among the Obama administration’s best-kept secrets.

A calculated effort to thwart a speedy rescue in order to orchestrate a potential hostage exchange might also explain why Hillary and Obama were still perpetrating the video lie as the flag-covered coffins carrying the remains of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were rolled off the cargo plane at Andrews Air Force Base.

Even for a man anxious to empty out Gitmo, four dead Americans would certainly put the kibosh on trying a prisoner swap a second time; so maybe it was shell shock that caused Obama to wait almost two years to give Bergdahl a go without Congressional approval.

Either way, if any of this speculation is even remotely close to true, it certainly would make more understandable all the obfuscation and mystery in the aftermath of that fateful night.

But more importantly, after a frustrating two-year-long probe that has accomplished nothing but Obama administration stonewalling, if the unscrupulous tactics behind the Bergdahl/Gitmo charade are ever fully disclosed, maybe America will get outraged enough to demand to know what really happened in Benghazi.

Binder Bimbos or Benghazi?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

A newly-formed band of Binder Bimbos is working diligently to convince America that Mitt Romney demeaned women during the second debate when he described how he, as governor of Massachusetts, went about balancing his male-dominated Cabinet with women.  Responding to a question on pay equity, Romney said, “I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

Like salivating wolves waiting to pounce on prey, liberal women have spent lots of time lying in wait for Mitt Romney to utter anything at all that could be misconstrued to prove he’s a woman-hating troglodyte. Thus far, the best they’ve come up with is “binders.”

Erica Payne, progressive public policy expert, commentator, author, and founder of the Agenda Project, appeared on the Bill O’Reilly show where she stretched the Binder Bimbo idiocy so far that she likened Romney’s debate comment to an Arab sheikh flipping the pages of a binder looking for women to stock his harem. After she said it, even Erica looked a bit embarrassed for proposing such a ridiculous analogy.

Meanwhile, the Binder Bimbos are in full attack mode.  Yet oddly enough, they have not condemned the women’s groups who delivered the “binders full of women” to the Massachusetts governor. Worse yet, while out trawling for GOP offensive words and actions, these same women seem to have zero problems with Barack Obama calling the brutal slaughter of four Americans “not optimal.” But then again, these are the same soulless individuals who protest “binders full of women” and applaud bio-hazard bins full of aborted babies.

Barack Obama’s now infamous “not optimal” comment was made recently during a Jon Stewart interview.  Stewart posed a question that began, “I would say and even you would admit it was not the optimal response,” about the Obama administration’s muddled communication after the deadly attack in Benghazi, to which the president coldly retorted with what he no doubt thought was a clever twist on Jon’s use of the word “optimal” by saying, “If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.”

Anyway, to Barack Obama’s detriment, his emotionless response has now married the carelessly thought-out words “not optimal” with dead Americans in much the same way Romney-hating women are now associating themselves with three-ring binders.

Yet, amid all the binder blather is a broken-hearted woman named Pat Smith who lost her son.  Pat is the mother of Sean Smith, one of four diplomats that included former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, all of whom were killed during the raid on the consulate in Benghazi.

Mrs. Smith welcomed her son home in a coffin at Dover Air Force Base and continues to maintain that the truth about what really happened to her child is painfully slow in coming.

Speaking from her home in California, Mrs. Smith, 72, who actually has something more serious than binders to be upset about, described herself as being in “pure hell” since she lost Sean. Expounding upon Obama’s “not optimal” comment, Pat said “It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don’t think it’s right. How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don’t think the President has the right idea of the English language.”

Pat Smith may be too respectful to admit it, but Barack Obama lacks the right idea about a lot more than the English language. However, what Mrs. Smith did do was take the President to task by saying, “It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.” Then the distraught mother admitted that “I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.”

Sean Smith’s mother concluded her comments by offering a candid assessment of Barack Obama’s Comedy Central interview when she said “There’s a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.”

In light of Obama’s callousness, a question needs to be posed to indignant Binder Bimbos everywhere: In the scheme of poorly chosen words, which is worse, “binders full of women,” or the Commander-in-Chief describing the death of four men in service to America as “not optimal?”

The answer to the question is clear. Instead of pointing out the ongoing insensitivity being shown toward a San Diego mother mourning her dead son, on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC “Morning Joe” talk show Binder Bimbo Mika Brzezinski chose to blast Mitt Romney for the “binders full of women” statement. Brzezinski, who is likely planning to vote “like [her] lady parts depend on it,” fumed at Romney about his attempts to recruit female cabinet members in Massachusetts. Mika told a disagreeing Joe that “It just happens to be a little bit insulting that he had to make up a story about trying to help women because he couldn’t find one on his own,” she said. “That’s kind of a problem.”

No – Mika, if you and the rest of the Binder Bimbos are so desperate to find a problem, how about focusing on a dishonest president who, for political expediency, told a made-up story to cover up a terrorist attack in Libya on 9/11?  Now, as a result of that deceitfulness, Barack Obama’s once optimal prospects for reelection have been downgraded to “not optimal.”

%d bloggers like this: