Dianne Feinstein says there was no “credible threat” to Bowe Bergdhal’s life
I have not written anything about the circumstances surrounding the capture of Bowe Bergdahl because at this point we simply do not know what the truth is. Did he desert or was he captured? Did he convert to Islam or did he not convert? I have my opinion on these questions but until we know for sure I am not going to cover that aspect of this story.
However there is one aspect to this story that we know is true: Barack Obama broke the law by releasing five Taliban members to secure the release of Bowe Bergdahl without providing the Congress with a thirty day notice so that is what I am going to write about.
Barack Obama called Dianne Feinstein to apologize for his actions but said he did it because time was short and action needed to be taken immediately because Bowe Bergdahl’s life was in danger.
Last Wednesday Barack Obama held a meeting with members of the Congress to prove he had to act immediately. In this meeting he showed a video as proof but Dianne Feinstein was unimpressed.
Here is what she had to say:
“I don’t think there was a credible threat,” said Feinstein in an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that will air this weekend. “I have no information that there was.”
“There’s no question he was debilitated,” Feinstein said. “There was no question he was under stress – blinking rapidly, probably held in dark surroundings for a long period of time.”
The problem with using this video as proof, as I see it, is the fact that the video was shot in December and Barack Obama saw it in January. If this is what convinced Barack Obama that Bowe Bergdahl’s life was in danger why did he wait five months to act? Why did he not notify the Congress in January and make the move to free him in February? That would have been the proper and lawful procedure. There is much more to his decision than we are being led to believe in my opinion.
None of this makes sense to me unless Barack Obama received more recent information. But if that is the case why did he not present it to the members of Congress last Wednesday?
I believe that Barack Obama knew what he wanted to do, but he also knew if he went to the Congress they would not approve this swap so he did it on his own because he felt it would be easier to justify it after the fact than it would be to get the Congress on-board with what he wanted to do.
He did not expect the public backlash from both sides of the aisle and this backlash has made it too hard for him to justify breaking the law so now he is scrambling to get the Congress on his side. If he can get the Congress on his side he will be able to claim this is nothing but a political witch hunt, a controversy whipped up in Washington DC, but it does not seem to be working…..
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on theThumpHouse.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Even more worrisome is the total lack of insight. Obama and Rice continue their arrogant attitude. Clueless as to the uproar apparently.
LikeLike
It is like they are tone deaf or more likely they just don’t care!
LikeLike
My understanding is that Sgt. Bergdahl’s imprisonment was an issue in every meeting held with the Taliban for at least the last three years, if not longer. According to one story, the eschange was imminent last fall but then the Taliban got cold feet and pulled out.
I think it’s amusing, though , that we libs pretty much freaked out over President Bush’s use of signing statements to explain the circumstances under which he wouldn’t obey certain laws, but it’s our President who issued a signing statement pointing out his reservations about the 30-day notification period (interferes with his ability to do his job as Commander-in-Chief) and then did not follow that particular element of the law. I think anyone who defended Mr. Bush’s use of those signing statements should recuse him- or herself from this particular conversation.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
We have debated the issue of the EO before and when it is a legitimate use of the power or an abuse of power but we have never discussed the signing statements to my knowledge. I know that you know this, but the Constitution says the president can either sign a bill in its entirety or veto it and send his objections to the Congress so they can amend it if they see fit before sending it back to him.
How the president has gained the power over the years to issue signing statements in order to ignore parts of legislation is something that I do not understand. From what i have read signing statements have been used almost from the beginning but it wasn’t until Reagan was president that they gained the power they have today. Bush expanded the use of the signing statement and apparently Obama is continuing the practice. If you have more info on this I would love to read it.
LikeLike