5 Things About the Taliban This Democrat Should Know Before Spouting Off That They’re Not Terrorists

By Justen Charters 1 day ago

On Tuesday, California Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier was on MSNBC attempting to counter House Speaker John Boehner’s statement on the White House violating official policy by negotiating with terrorists for Bergdahl’s release. The California lawmaker said:
“The Taliban is part of the fabric of Afghanistan — they were part of the leadership of that country before we engaged there.”
*
“To say that they are terrorists, at this point, is not necessarily accurate.”
The State Department defines terrorism as premeditated politically motivated violence. Speier could not be further from the truth about the Taliban not being terrorists, and here our five reasons why.
In 1998, they killed an estimated 4,000 – 6,000 Hazara Afghans in an ethnic cleansing campaign.
They provided Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden with safe haven after 9/11
They engage in acts of terrorism against government targets.
The Taliban has ties with several organizations that are designated terror groups by the State Dept.
They are not a legitimate government recognized by two or more states.
In a rational world, the word Taliban is synonymous with terrorism. So, what does it say about our lawmakers when they cannot grasp what kind of enemies the United States is up against?

Congress not among top 90 to learn of Bergdahl trade

Congress not among top 90 to learn of Bergdahl trade

‘How many Qatar officials knew about the deal?’

Members of Congress on Monday learned they were not among the top 90 people to be told of the deal President Obama cut with terrorists for the release of five top Taliban commanders at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a U.S. soldier.

And they now have a few questions about that.

Congress held a behind-closed-doors hearing on the deal for Bergdahl. Some of the details presented were classified, others not.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told WND: “Today my colleagues and I were informed that as many as 80 to 90 Obama administration officials were aware of the plan to exchange Sgt. Bergdahl for five dangerous terrorists before a single member of Congress was informed.”

Meadows said it is “wholly unacceptable that President Obama knowingly chose to completely bypass Congress.”

The congressman said his question for the White House now is: “How many Qatar officials knew about the deal before a single member of Congress was made aware?”

WND has reported the strong criticism of Obama’s decision to go ahead with the terrorists-for-soldier swap.

For example, a commentary by WND CEO Joseph Farah on Monday points out that Obama’s decision “to trade five battle-hardened Taliban commanders, directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, for deserter-collaborator Bowe Bergdahl was unanimously rejected by both houses of Congress, including the Democrat-controlled Senate, when the proposal was brought to Congress in 2011 and 2013.”

Farah pointed out that after that rejection, administration officials “publicly and repeatedly vowed to return to Congress before taking any final action.”

“In other words,” he wrote, “not only was this an egregiously bad decision to yield to terrorist demands, thus providing incentives for future kidnappings of Americans, but it was yet another example of Obama deliberately defying the will of Congress and the rule of law – something his administration has been brazenly saying it will do more frequently.”

Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh bluntly said Monday Obama’s move boiled down to “replenishing the enemy.”

“What, at the end of the day, happened here?” Limbaugh asked rhetorically. ” Obama replenished the enemy.”

“The Taliban reaction to this is proof positive,” he added, citing the senior member of the Afghan Taliban who told NBC News that the exchange was a “historic moment for us.”

Obama’s move has prompted a petition that calls for Congress to move to impeach the president, and commentaries describe his actions as “treason.”

Former Republican Rep. Allen West called into question the basic operational ability of the president and his henchmen.

“Obama and his aides have lost their minds,” he said in an email for the Allen West Guardian Fund.

West’s outrage reverberated throughout his comments.

“One of his aides was quoted as saying the administration believed it had won another ‘kill bin Laden moment’ that would earn them praise,” West said, “Praise?!! Even Sen. John McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, called the released terrorists the ‘hardest and toughest of all’ and ‘wanted war criminals.’

“One is suspected of war crimes including the murders of thousands and another was ‘directly associated’ with Osama bin Laden and was an Afghan drug lord,” West said.

“Consider this – this is Obama is his own words: ‘That’s been true of all the prisoners that were released from Guantanamo. There’s a certain recidivism rate that takes place. Is there a possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely,” West said.

Analysts and commentators have pointed out that Obama’s actions in delivering to an enemy five top leaders appear to violate the federal National Defense Authorization Act, which specifically bans any “material help” to terrorists, whether is it equipment, money, advice or personnel.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/congress-not-among-top-90-to-learn-of-bergdahl-trade/#dEj6d2fD3DLDcLfX.99

Bergdahl is a Distractio​n: Obama is Emptying Gitmo, Replenishi​ng the Enemy – The Rush Limbaugh Show

Bergdahl is a Distractio​n: Obama is Emptying Gitmo, Replenishi​ng the Enemy - The Rush Limbaugh Show

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The news media is trying to make this — and has been trying to make this — all about Bergdahl and Bergdahl’s parents and so forth. That’s a distraction. It was never about Bergdahl. He’s the excuse. The thing that is noteworthy here is Obama has always wanted to close Guantanamo Bay.

He’s promised to shut down Gitmo; the left is irritated at him. It’s cost him some money, in fact, in donations, that Gitmo is still open. To do that, to close Gitmo, he’s got to get rid of the remaining terrorists somehow. And he’s been itching to find an excuse to do so, some way to make it seem like it’s something else besides letting these terrorists go free.

So he does it in the form of a prisoner swap, and he thinks he’s gonna get heralded and get credited and thought of as a great guy. “We’re gonna get back an American soldier!” This man has never worn a uniform; he disdains people who do. He doesn’t understand the culture. Susan Rice is as tone deaf now as she was during Benghazi. These people are embarrassing. They literally are embarrassing.

They have no idea about military culture, military tradition. And if indeed they were blindsided by this and if they even care about being blindsided, that was why. But the point here is to empty Guantanamo. When you empty Guantanamo… Everything has consequences. When you empty Guantanamo, you are replenishing the enemy in a war on terror that is still underway.

These people might want you to think they vanquished Al-Qaeda because they got bin Laden. They might want you to think the War on Terror is over and we moved on to other things, but it isn’t. It’s still underway, and the Taliban reaction to this is proof positive. So Obama has wanted an excuse, some way to make it look like something else, something other than letting the terrorists run free from Guantanamo.

Now, nobody in the Drive-Bys seems to remember that Obama tried to pull off this swap back in March of 2012. Back then… This may have been reported. If this is being redundant, I’m sorry. He even briefed some in Congress about it, and that’s the only reason we ever heard about it, because Dianne Feinstein leaked the story to Foreign Policy magazine, and there was outrage, at least from some in the conservative media.

So Obama had to drop the plan. He wanted to do this two years ago. Now you know why he didn’t notify Congress this time around, even though he’s required to do so by law. He didn’t do so because, A, he loves snubbing them and he knows they’re not gonna do anything about it. But he didn’t want to have his plans dashed again this time. He is weaker than he was two years ago.

So he tries to do this, goes through channels, and Congress shuts him down. He can’t have that, so he just does it and knows full well that nothing is going to happen to him.
Now, he has to lie about that, too. First he claims that the Taliban would kill Bergdahl if this whole thing had been leaked. When that was laughed at, they claimed that Bergdahl was at death’s door, and that’s why we had to do that.

We know that that’s not the case. But, again, ladies and gentlemen, this was never about Bowe Bergdahl, never about Bergdahl’s parents. Obama wants to close Club Gitmo. It’s one of his biggest campaign promises. But there’s something else. He also wants to negotiate with the Taliban. And by “negotiate,” he wants to give them power in the Afghan government. This is called appeasement. This is called Citizen of the World kind of stuff.

This is called the new United States, where we bring our enemies in and acknowledge them and respect them. So he wants the Taliban to have power in the Afghan government. The Taliban had refused to negotiate seriously until Obama released their top five lieutenants. So Obama’s been chomping at the bit to let ‘em loose ever since March of 2012, maybe even before that. Bergdahl was the convenient excuse, and that’s why all of this happened. Two things are the take-away: Closing Club Gitmo and, by virtue of that (I cannot emphasize this too much), restocking the enemy with their frontline people.

END TRANSCRIPT