By: Brent Parrish
When I woke up this morning, I couldn’t get the press conference in the Rose Garden with Bowe Bergdhal’s parents and Barack Obama out of my mind. What keeps rattling around my brain is Robert Bergdhal’s decision to invoke the “war cry of Allah,” and the creepy grin that reflexively appeared on the president’s face upon hearing the Koranic verse “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim”—which means, “In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.”
For many Americans, the significance behind this Islamic verse being uttered at the White House is not fully appreciated, or even understood. At least some understanding of Islam is required in order to comprehend the significance of what was said in the Rose Garden that day.
One only needs to peruse a few terrorist videos on YouTube or LiveLeak to become familiarized with the verse “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim.” This particular verse is used over and over again by Islamic terrorists the world over, and appears prominently throughout the Koran. It is a statement of victory over the enemies of Allah.
What was being communicated by Robert Bergdhal was not meant for American consumption, but rather Islamic consumption. Bergdhal’s father, in effect, claimed the White House for Islam, and the president looked on approvingly. If there was ever an American president who understood what was meant by Bismillah, it is Barack Obama, who learned to recite Koranic verses in perfect traditional Arabic (the official dialect of the Koran) during his time at the madrasah in Indonesia.
The Taliban are thrilled.
Via The Daily Mail:
The Taliban was ‘thrilled’ when Bowe Bergdahl’s father ‘claimed the White House for Islam’ by thanking Allah in his press conference with President Obama, it has been claimed.
The father of the freed soldier – who former colleagues claim was a deserter – said he was speaking Arabic and Pashto because his son’s English was poor after five years in captivity.
But commentators accused him of giving the Taliban a priceless propaganda tool, with one saying extremist sources in Pakistan were delighted.
The Taliban now believe the prisoner exchange gives them legitimacy.
“This will give us [Taliban] more courage and determination to carry on this holy task.”
Well, when the terrorists get some “legitimacy,” what’s the next step? Kidnap some more Americans!
A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahl’s release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets.
“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking by telephone on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”
Already one of the released Gitmo terrorists is vowing to fight Americans again.
Former UN mouthpiece and current National Security Advisor Susan Rice claims Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal has served with “honor and distinction.” Now, wait a minute! We’re being told by the powers-that-be we should not prejudge the Bergdhal case, yet the official position is Bergdhal served with “honor and distinction.” Sounds like the administration has already prejudged the case themselves—in Bergdhal’s favor, despite all evidence contrary. Curious. No?
The State Department is trying to assure the American public that the terrorists released from Gitmo are not the “worse of the worst.” Reality begs to differ. The release of the five Gitmo terrorists has Afghan villagers worried as well.
Of course, the White House is trying to reassure America with the flimsy promise the Gitmo terrorists’ movements will be monitored by Qatar. Does any rationally thinking American with even a modicum of historical perspective believe the government of Qatar will monitor and control the movements of these terrorists? They have been welcomed back to the Middle East as heroes. U.S. intelligence is already worried the Taliban leaders exchanged for Bergdhal will be allowed to “disappear” by the government of Qatar.
Of course, when in doubt, just blame Bush.
There were several things that went through my mind when I first heard about the swap of five extremely dangerous terrorists for Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal. I couldn’t help but think that the administration, in light of the VA scandal, may be looking for ways to reduce the VA rolls by winding down the war in Afghanistan. The prisoner swap for Bergdhal certainly did knock the Veterans’ Affairs scandal off the radar, at least for the time being. Additionally, being as obsessed as Barack Obama is with his “legacy,” I have no doubt he is wanting to close Guantanamo Bay and end the war in Afghanistan. It looks, at least to me, the Bergdhal affair was a first step in doing just that—end the war in Afghanistan and close Gitmo.
But consider the optics of the Bergdhal press conference at the White House Rose Garden. For over 10 years, our military has sacrificed and died fighting the Taliban and their affiliates in Afghanistan. Many of the terrorist videos I have seen on YouTube and LiveLeak have recorded attacks against U.S. and coalition forces—as the terrorists shout, “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim” and “Allah U’ Akbar!” How utterly repugnant it is to hear these particular words emanate from our very own White House, with the president looking on adoringly, considering the sacrifice of our troops in their battle against Islamic terrorists like the Taliban, et al.
After all the toil, blood, sacrifice and treasure expended in Afghanistan and Iraq, what has the United States gained in the end? Why is it every nation we have attempted to democratize has ended up becoming an Islamic stronghold? In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Christian populations are hounded and persecuted to near extinction. Is this what our brave warriors have fought and died for? Did we take down the Taliban? No. Who is set to take over once the U.S. and coalition forces leave? The Taliban. Does any of this make sense from a strategical perspective?
What the hell is going on here?
Does the president and his minions really believe the terrorists just released from Gitmo will not continue their bloody rampage against the United States—and against all the infidels of the world? Why did the five Gitmo detainees have to be released? And why now?
The Obama Administration recently claimed Sgt. Bergdhal was in ill health and his life was in jeopardy, thus the need to move posthaste to secure his release. But the White House is now stonewalling congressional inquiries into the nature of the deal the administration worked out with the Haqqani network. The Obama Administration only provided a video from December as “proof” that Bergdhal’s life was at risk.
Obama administration officials continued to stonewall Congress about the Taliban prisoner exchange deal during a classified closed-door briefing Wednesday evening in which senior administration officials attempted to justify the White House’s decision to skirt congressional approval of the controversial deal, according to multiple Senate insiders familiar with the briefing.
Obama administration officials attempted to show that there was an imminent threat to the life of released soldier Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and that this justified President Obama’s decision to release five top Taliban leaders from prison.
Some have said that we can’t just keep the Gitmo detainees locked up for the rest of their lives. Why not? Do we not lock up mass murderers for life all the time? Furthermore, how will the exchange benefit the Afghan people? Even Afghans feel the prisoner exchange was disrespectful.
When the Bergdhal story first broke, I simply wrote an article that asked the question, is the U.S. now negotiating with terrorists? Additionally, I quickly discovered there were a number of veterans who had either claimed to have served with Bergdhal, or alleged to have been on the same outpost in eastern Afghanistan at the very time Sgt. Bergdhal vanished from his post.
I anticipated the White House and the State Department would attempt to spin the whole affair—naturally. But even I, as jaded as I am from covering this god-awful administration and the socialist left, was bowled over by the level of dismissive rhetoric, invective and vitriol deployed by the administration against veterans whose testimony on Bergdhal’s disappearance ran contrary to the official narrative.
HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Brandon Friedman, floated a theory that it might be Bergdhal’s unit that was to blame for his disappearance.
“Here’s the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?” asked Brandon Friedman, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at Department of Housing and Urban Development, in a series of Twitter posts.
“What if he grew disillusioned with what he saw, didn’t trust his leadership, and walked off?,” he continued. “Legal? No. Worthy of sympathy? Maybe. If that were the case, the soldiers in his platoon would have all the more reason to smear him publicly now.”
Huh. Psychopaths to boot! Unbelievable.
Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, Christine Pelosi, wondered when an investigation would begin into Bergdahl’s “dysfunctional unit.”
The George Soros-funded rag Think Progress attempted to cast the U.S. Army as the culprit in the Bergdhal affair.
The lover of all things anti-American, the New York Times, chimed in and posited that Bergdhal’s reported desertion was due to his Army unit’s “lack of discipline.”
Are you kidding me? Even if there was a “lack of discipline” in Bergdhal’s unit (and somehow I’m not convinced there is, considering the source), how does that equate to deserting your unit?
Oh, but the New York Times didn’t stop there. They also accused members of Bergdhal’s unit of being “Republican patsies.” CNN’s resident communist, Van Jones, took a similar tack, accusing soldiers questioning the official Bergdhal narrative of “orchestrating a Republican smear campaign.”
Something tells me none of these “progressive” gasbags would have much to say if they had to say it to the faces of those they are attempting to smear—namely, our veterans and the people who were actually there. But I digress.
You cannot be a serious journalist and simply ignore the very real questions surrounding the circumstances of Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal’s disappearance from his unit in June 2009. Even the Associated Press reported a Pentagon investigation in 2010 concluded Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal abandoned his post:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.
Not only have the questions surrounding Bergdhal not subsided, they have increased—and increased in severity as well.
Fox News’ James Rosen recently reported:
“… [M]y reporting on this is that there are many inside the intelligence community who harbor outstanding concerns not just that Sgt. Bergdahl may have been a deserter, but that he became an active collaborator with the enemy.”
Other soldiers have come forward to corroborate Rosen’s findings, that Bergdhal had left his post in order to seek out the Taliban:
And yet, even these revelations from veterans and the Pentagon have not stopped the White House, State Department and liberal media from instantly launching into smear-mode—smearing veterans, mind you. And all of this, right on the heels of the VA scandal!
There’s really only one question that matters to me now: who benefits from the prisoner swap? (Hint: it’s not America.)
On a sidenote: Renegade is Obama’s Secret Service codename.
From Webb Garrison’s book, What’s in a Word?:
“During the Crusades an occasional Christian deserted and joined the Muslim army. Some of the men were greedy for reward while others were fugitives from European justice. In order to be fully accepted by their one-time opponents, such fellows usually adopted the faith of Islam. From a Latin term meaning ‘to deny,’ Spanish churchmen framed renegado as a label for the man who denied his faith.
The English borrowed the vivid title and modified it to renegade . For three or more centuries the term was commonly used to designate the occasional turncoat who denied his religion for profit. At the same time it was applied to a deserter of any type.
The term of contempt was on the verge of dying out when it was revived by novelists who wanted a suitably vigorous name for a white man who deserted to the Indians during frontier warfare. Made prominent by western stories and movies, the term renegade has entered half the major tongues of the world.”
Obama himself purportedly chose his codename …