Monday, June 23, 2014

Kissinger:Carter extraordinarily awful. Obama worse

Kissinger:Carter extraordinarily awful.  Obama worse

Steven Hayward)
Two old remarks come back to mind as we survey the fraying foreign policy of Barack Obama.  The first is Henry Kissinger’s description of the achievement of Jimmy Carter, circa 1980: “The Carter administration has managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War.”  Obama has now topped Carter.  (I believe, but can’t find, that Kissinger added that when America becomes weak and uncertain, being an ally of America may actually be dangerous for your country.)
The second is Michael Kinsley’s famous axiom that a “gaffe” in Washington is when someone bluntly speaks the plain truth.  Kinsley’s remark comes to mind in connection with this AP story out of Poland today that Poland’s foreign minister Radek Sikorski was caught surreptitiously on tape saying that Poland’s alliance with the U.S. “isn’t worth anything” and is “even harmful because it creates a false sense of security.”

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Guess she never heard of 9-11

Hillary Clinton said in an interview today that the five Taliban leaders released in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “are not a threat to the United States.”
Clinton was responding to NBC Correspondent Cynthia McFadden’s assertion that many people feel the United States is “less safe today” as a result of the exchange.
“These five guys are not a threat to the United States,” Clinton said this morning on “Today.” “They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them.”

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Clinton Accuses Israel of Being Occupying Force


Clinton Accuses Israel of Being Occupying Force

Author: Adam Kredo

New book takes aim at Israel, angers pro-Israel community.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accuses Israel of being an occupying force in her new memoir Hard Choices and claims that the Jewish state denies “dignity and self determination” to Palestinians in the West Bank.

Clinton recalls being surprised by what she termed “life under occupation for the Palestinians,” according to the book.

Pro-Israel officials and insiders on Capitol Hill have called Clinton’s comments tone deaf and said that her claim that Israel is an occupying force reveals a bias against the Jewish state.

“When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted,” Clinton writes.

Clinton’s comments demonstrate that she supports the Obama administration’s efforts to pressure and marginalize Israel, which current Secretary of State John Kerry recently accused of becoming an “apartheid state,” said one senior GOP Senate aide, who worked with Clinton when she was at the State Department.

“What we see here is the true Hillary Clinton, no longer muzzling herself for fear of reelection in New York or Senate confirmation fights—the woman who embraced Suha Arafat after smiling through anti-Semitic tirades,” said the former senior GOP Senate aide who for years battled Clinton’s State Department.

The source referred to a 1999 incident in which Clinton sat by smiling as the wife of former terrorist leader Yasser Arafat went on an anti-Israel tirade.

“This should put every American on notice that Hillary Clinton plans to continue Barack Obama’s failed Middle East policy that coddles terrorists and castigates democratic allies,” said the former official. “Clinton knows she lost to Obama in 2008 because she was outflanked by the left—she won’t make that mistake twice and she knows how much the left hates Israel.”

Clinton goes on to take aim at the Netanyahu government for not returning land to the Palestinians that she claims has been “occupied by Israel since 1967.”

Clinton is referring to territory seized by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, in which Egypt, Jordan, and Syria attacked Israel from every side in a bid to destroy the Jewish state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Clinton claims, is not serious about the peace process.

This claim has been echoed by senior State Department officials, several of whom have sought to blame Israel for the recent failure of peace talks.

“Netanyahu has been deeply skeptical of the Oslo framework of trading land for peace and a two-state solution that would give the Palestinians a country of their won in territory occupied by Israel since 1967,” Clinton writes.

One senior pro-Israel official who reviewed Clinton’s comments dubbed them as “troubling.”

“The quotes, which gives insight into Clinton’s thinking, are troubling,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon. “Most Americans, when they first experience the tiny distance separating average Israelis from enemies pledged to their destruction, immediately think of the difficult security situation that our allies have to negotiate. Not Clinton though.”

Clinton has come under fire from a pro-Israel group for not publicly condemning Kerry’s apartheid remarks about Israel, which were criticized by many Democrats.

About the Author
Adam Kredo is a senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. His email address is  POSTED BY rABBI JONATHAN Ginsburg

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Jews who know Judaism and live it are far more conservative

Jews who know Judaism and live it are far more conservative

Politically, Orthodox Jews are far more conservative than other Jews. For example, 57% of Orthodox Jews describe themselves as Republicans or say they lean toward the Republican Party, while 36% are Democrats or lean Democratic. Among Jews as a whole, the balance tilts strongly in the other direction: 70% of Jews overall are Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, while just 22% are Republican or lean Republican.

Hillary's real record on Israel

Hillary Clinton's Anti-Israel History

An article appearing in the Jewish Daily Forward announced the formation of "Jewish Americans Ready For Hillary!" A truth those progressive Jews for Hillary ignore, with the possible exception of the time from her first campaign New York’s Senate seat in 2000 to her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009, except for the time she needed New York’s Jewish voting bloc, Hillary Clinton has never been pro-Israel.

On their website, "Jewish Americans Ready For Hillary!" claim, "Throughout her career, Hillary Clinton has fought for the issues that matter most to Jewish Americans."

Of one issue that "matters most to Jewish Americans," Hillary Clinton is most certainly not a supporter that is the health and security of the Jewish State of Israel.

Even before her marriage to Bill, Hillary Clinton was opposing Israel and promoting the forces of terrorism.  In his book American Evita on page 49, Christopher Anderson writes.
At a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was "sympathetic" to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform and his holster on his hip, Bill "was outraged like everybody else," said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince Bill that Arafat was a "freedom fighter" trying to free his people from their Israeli "oppressors."
On page 50 the author relates an experience that Hillary and and her future husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973.
It was during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a politically well-connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.

"My daddy was half Jewish," explained Bill's friend. "One day when he came to visit , my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud that we were part Jewish. And I wasn't about to say no to my daddy."

To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused to get out of the car. "Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot and tired, but later he explained the real reason." According to the friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah."
Hillary's attitude did not change when she became first lady. In May 1998 Ms Clinton became the first member of any presidential administration ever to call for a Palestinian State. She told a youth conference on Middle East peace in Switzerland, that she supports the eventual creation of an independent Palestinian state. Her spokesperson, Marsha Berry told reporters: "These remarks are her own personal view."

In November 1999, while on a purported State visit to the Middle East, she publicly appeared with Yasser Arafat's wife Suha. Mrs. Arafat made a slanderous fa allegation:
"Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children." Suha also accused Israel of contaminating much of the water sources used by Palestinians with "chemical materials" and poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases."
Mrs. Clinton sat by silently listening to a real-time translation, and the terrorist's wife hug and a kiss when she finished speaking.

Later, many hours after the event, and only after a media furor put her on the spot for what many view as a bit more than a mere political "boo boo Mrs. Clinton called on all sides to refrain from "inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations," including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations.

Glossing over this repugnant affair, Hillary Clinton has yet to specifically contradict and denounce the monstrous lies uttered by Yasser Arafat's wife in her presence. Only years later did she make feeble attempt at an excuse, the translator screwed up.

Before her tenure in the State Departing, Bill and Hillary Clinton made mega dollars from their extensive involvement with Dubai. Besides being a leader in the movement to boycott Israel, Dubai is the "Hong Kong" of the Arab world. And a major commerce and shipping point for the "business-side" of terrorism. Bill and Hilary are major friends of Dubai, to the point where the Clinton Foundation have established Dubai Study departments in universities in the US and London. They worked hard at granting legitimacy to this Jew-hating, terrorist supporting nation.

While she was running for President in 2007, San Francisco Examiner columnist P.J. Corkery, wrote that Clinton made $10 million a year from Yucaipa a Dubai firm. Ron Berkle, the owner of Yucaipa companies was a major fund-raiser for Bill and Hillary.

The Clintons also had a connection to the worlds biggest exporter of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Royal Family donated $10,000,000 to the Clinton Library.

According to a 1993 New York Times article, Prince Turki bin Feisal was a college classmate of Bill’s at Georgetown University and (at the time of the article’s writing) was the head of the Saudi Arabian intelligence service. While he was still governor of Arkansas, it looks like Bill Clinton cashed in on that relationship, “work[ing] hard to secure a multimillion-dollar Saudi donation to a Middle Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas.” Due to the intervention of the Gulf War, the first installment of $3.5 million didn’t arrive until 1992, with another $20 million arriving after Bill Clinton’s first inauguration.

During her Senate years Ms. Clinton became a vocal supporter of Israel because she needed the Jewish vote.

One of her first actions after leaving the Senate to become Secretary of State was to ignore a previous deal with Israel and call for the end of the construction of new homes in existing settlement neighborhoods. Five years later her call for the end of building is till is haunting Israeli/Palestinian peace talks.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton first demanded the "settlement" freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What she perceived as a minor concession (a "settlement" freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. For all intents and purposes Clinton was telling Israeli parents their married children could no longer live in their neighborhoods

This was a major error by the Clinton State Department and it was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and the constant public berating of the Jewish State by Clinton and Obama.

Clinton's demand for a building freeze in existing settlement communities broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. Ms Clinton said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. But Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States said Clinton’s contention is simply not true.

Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Hillary-created settlement issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used the administration's demands, to make a "settlement" freeze a precondition to further talks even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Hilary Clinton became Secretary of State.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten-month "settlement" freeze. It was approved by the cabinet and implemented on November 25, 2009 and was to run till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians refused to join any talks the first 9+ months of the freeze; they did not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended.

As the end of the construction halt approached, the US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. Based on their experience with Clinton denying the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing, as any oral deal with Clinton and the Obama administration was worth the paper on which is was printed on.

The written offer never came; the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Instead Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch." As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source finally came forward saying that no such letter is on its way.  The United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

In 2011 speaking at the at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the liberal Brookings Institute, Clinton expressed concern for Israel's social climate in the wake of limitations the regarding female singing in the IDF and gender segregation on public transportation. Both were accommodations made to the Orthodox communities in Israel

She referred to the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing; she said it reminded her of the situation in Iran. It did? Wow! In Iran the women would have been lashed or executed. In Israel they sang, but the people who felt it was against their religious beliefs walked out. Most senior officers in the IDF supported the women's right to sing. 

Clinton also poke of her shock that some Jerusalem buses had assigned separate seating areas for women. "It's reminiscent of Rosa Parks," she said, taking the typical progressive position that faith should not matter outside a place of worship. Clinton's statement was part of the continued attempt by the Obama administration/Clinton State Department to de-legitimize the Israeli democracy and destroy one of the reasons for American support of Israel, the fact it is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Now Hillary Clinton is running for President. She will campaign on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as Barack Obama did in 2008. The truth is as Secretary of State; she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine year period where she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State.

Why Rambam hated dependency and liberal ideas are counterproductive. They hurt the needy

Poverty Up for Those of Working Age Since 'War on Poverty'
The percentage of Americans ages 18 to 64 who live below the poverty line has risen by 30.5 percent since 1966, two years after President Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data.
"We have declared unconditional war on poverty," Johnson declared in 1964. "Our objective is total victory. I believe that 30 years from now Americans will look back on these 1960s as the time of the great American breakthrough toward the victory of prosperity over poverty."
But a report from the House Budget Committee, "The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later," states: "Today, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, we are once again debating the best way to help the least among us.
"On this important anniversary, we should take stock of the federal government's anti-poverty programs — and figure out why we have yet to achieve the 'total victory' Johnson predicted."
According to the Census Bureau, 13.7 percent of those ages 18 to 64 — 26,497,000 people — were living below the poverty line in 2012. In 1966, 10.5 percent of that age group — 11,007,000 people out of 105,241,000 — were living below the poverty line. (The Census did not report data for this demographic in 1965 and 1966.)
From 10.5 percent to 13.7 percent is an increase of 30.5 percent.
An average family of four was considered poor in 2012 if its pre-tax cash income for the year was below $23,492.
That threshold reflects "crude estimates of the amount of money individuals or families, of various size and composition, need per year to purchase a basket of goods and services deemed as 'minimally adequate,'" according to the Congressional Research Service.
The Budget Committee report noted that "during his administration, Lyndon Johnson expanded the size and scope of assistance programs to an unprecedented degree. The Great Society created or made permanent a number of programs that remain with us today" — including Medicaid, food stamps, Head Start, Job Corps, Volunteers in Service to America, and child-nutrition programs.
But today, the federal government's anti-poverty programs are "duplicative and complex," the committee observed.
"There are at least 92 federal programs designed to help lower-income Americans. For instance, there are dozens of education and job-training programs, 17 different food-aid programs, and over 20 housing programs."
The federal government spent nearly $800 billion on these programs in fiscal year 2012 alone, including $300 billion on healthcare, $200 billion on cash aid, $100 billion on food aid, $90 billion on education and job training, and $50 billion on housing.
Despite the massive spending in the last five decades, the overall poverty rate has gone down only a few percentage points, from 17.3 percent in 1965 to 15 percent in 2012.
"Perhaps the single most important determinant of poverty is family structure," the committee reported, adding that "poverty is most concentrated among broken families. For all families, the poverty rate was 13.1 percent. But 34.2 percent of families headed by a single female were considered below poverty, and 22.8 percent of households composed of [unmarried] individuals were considered to be in poverty."
In 1960, 70 percent of black children and 97 percent of white children were born to married couples. Today, just 30 percent of black children and 76 percent of white children are born to a married couple.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Lie Lie lie treachery treachery treachery of Obama etc.

Can Obama say anything truthful? (you can keep your doctor and health plan + I had no knowledge of scandal a, b, c, d, e, f)

Now he, Pelosi., Reid, Debbi Washerman Shultz etc keep lying
1. Say Bergdahl was a POW. LIE. never was. He as at best a deserter and probably a traitor. Just discovered he converted to Islam and considered himself WARRIOR for ISLAM!
2. Says he was imminent health danger LIE  never was in health danger
3. Says he was hero. LIE. He deserted his post, and his fellow soldiers say probably helped taliban
4. Dem leaders suggesting unanimous view of his fellow soldiers that he deserted is a Republican political effort. Come on!
5. Treachery released 5 top terrorist leaders and now idiot Dems saying we are SAFER with them out of Gitmo then in.
6. 8 soldiers lost lives looking for this deserter. How many more Americans will die because of release of these 5?
7. Dem spokespeople say we don't know if he was deserter and traitor. There is loads of evidence coming in every hour about it.
8. notice how this all occurred to push DEM VA scandal, which killed veterans, off the front pages.
9. Happened same week we learned US has been talking with terrorist Hamas group for 6 months and has accepted Hamas-Fatah agreement government.
10. Happened week after Kerry blamed Israel for collapsed talks with Hamas-Fatah terrorist government
11. Obama lets Iran keep moving forward with Iran nuclear weapon development while we just talk and talk
12. Dems trying to stymie Benghazzi investigation, where Obama, hillary, Susan rice lied and lied, blaming death of 4 Americans on video, when they KNEW it was al quida organized attack, which did not fit Obama's politcal narrative that al quida vanquished
13. Obama has lost Egypt to Russians after backing Muslim Brotherhood Morsi as leader, and refuses to help Egypt quash those terrorists.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Obama aiding terrorists again-Bergdahl story

Posted: 03 Jun 2014 04:45 AM PDT
(Scott Johnson)
In his CNN report of soldiers’ reaction to the prisoner exchange that resulted in the release of Bowe Bergdahl from his time with the Taliban, Jake Tapper included Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s nonanswer to the question whether Bergdahl had walked away:
A reporter asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Sunday whether Bergdahl had left his post without permission or deserted — and, if so, whether he would be punished. Hagel didn’t answer directly. “Our first priority is assuring his well-being and his health and getting him reunited with his family,” he said. “Other circumstances that may develop and questions, those will be dealt with later.”
That nonanswer requires translation. I think we can take that gibberish as a definitive “yes.”
Hagel must have a pretty good idea of the underlying facts. James Rosen reports for Fox News that Bergdahl and his disappearance are the subject of “a major classified file.” Rosen adds that “many within the intelligence community harbor serious outstanding concerns not only that Bergdahl may have been a deserter but that he may have been an active collaborator with the enemy.”
Rosen’s source hadn’t seen the 2010 file. Citing unnamed American officials, Ken Dilanian and Deb Riechmann now report for the AP: “The Pentagon concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military curbed any high-risk rescue plans.” Our translation of Secretary Hagel’s nonanswer stands.
The soldiers who have spoken up also assert that Bergdahl walked away. We have the testimony of the soldiers quoted by Tapper. We have the testimony of Nathan Bradley Bethea. We have the testimony of the soldiers quoted by David Martosko in his Daily Mail article.
The New York Times fastens on Bergdahl’s 2009 walk-off in today’s story by Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper and Charlie Savage: “Bowe Bergdahl’s vanishing before capture angers his unit” (bonus video with White House photo op included).
The deal that resulted in Bergdahl’s release opens a Pandora’s box of Obama administration horrors. In the spirit of inquiry, with no intent of providing a comprehensive list, I tentatively offer the following.
Notwithstanding the substantial evidence to the contrary, we have the assertion by President Obama’s national security adviser that Bergdahl served with distinction and honor.
We have the denial by administration officials that the Taliban is a a terrorist organization.
We have lost soldiers as a result of Bergdahl’s conduct. We have the torment of the Bergdahl disgrace added to the grief of the families of those lost as a result of his conduct.
We have the five Taliban leaders released in exchange for Bergdahl. They will return to the battlefield and return to their duties.
We have the weird photo opportunity in the Rose Garden with President Obama celebrating Bergdahl’s return with Bergdahl’s parents.
We have the Taliban celebrating what realistically appears to be a great victory, and we have the disgrace of their enemy thrown in for good measure.
Obama’s Illegal Prisoner Swap
If there is one constant about U.S. policy in the Middle East, it is the law of nasty unintended consequences. That’s something the Obama administration disregarded when it recently chose to ignore the law that requires…
Posted: 03 Jun 2014 02:17 PM PDT
(Scott Johnson)
The ceremony in the Rose Garden celebrating the return of Sergeant Beau Bergdahl must be the most misbegotten photo op of all time. In addition to President Obama, both Bergdgahl mère and père spoke. It seemed to me bizarre beyond belief, a photo op gone wrong.
Was Mr. Bergdahl vetted? Did anyone in the White House notice that Mr. Bergdahl seems to have gone over to the other side? As Paul notes, the scene now has the Washington Post working overtime to cover for Obama.
Obama’s handlers didn’t hold it against Mr. Bergdahl that he was “still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners,” in the words of his now deleted tweet. Okay, in that respect, he’s just like Obama.
But did anyone around Obama think it problematic when the old man predicted God would “repay the death of every Afghan child, Ameen”? Actually, make that “Ameen!” That appears to be a prayer for the death of Sergeant Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers.
Did Team Obama know that Mr. Bergdahl was going to invoke Allah, quoting from the Koran in Arabic (video below)? You have to wonder what exactly that was all about. The White House wasn’t highlighting the five Taliban leaders it was giving up for Sergeant Bergdahl, but did it raise a question in the mind of anyone around Obama that that Mr. Bergdahl seemed to be striving to resemble them?
Posted: 03 Jun 2014 02:17 PM PDT
(Scott Johnson)
The ceremony in the Rose Garden celebrating the return of Sergeant Beau Bergdahl must be the most misbegotten photo op of all time. In addition to President Obama, both Bergdgahl mère and père spoke. It seemed to me bizarre beyond belief, a photo op gone wrong.
Was Mr. Bergdahl vetted? Did anyone in the White House notice that Mr. Bergdahl seems to have gone over to the other side? As Paul notes, the scene now has the Washington Post working overtime to cover for Obama.
Obama’s handlers didn’t hold it against Mr. Bergdahl that he was “still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners,” in the words of his now deleted tweet. Okay, in that respect, he’s just like Obama.
But did anyone around Obama think it problematic when the old man predicted God would “repay the death of every Afghan child, Ameen”? Actually, make that “Ameen!” That appears to be a prayer for the death of Sergeant Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers.
Did Team Obama know that Mr. Bergdahl was going to invoke Allah, quoting from the Koran in Arabic (video below)? You have to wonder what exactly that was all about. The White House wasn’t highlighting the five Taliban leaders it was giving up for Sergeant Bergdahl, but did it raise a question in the mind of anyone around Obama that that Mr. Bergdahl seemed to be striving to resemble them?

Posted: 03 Jun 2014 01:14 PM PDT
(Paul Mirengoff)
Robert Bergdahl is a already a major embarrassment for President Obama. Not only did the senior Bergdahl, with his Taliban-style beard, break into Pashtun and Arabic during Obama’s would-be photo opportunity, he has made a string of anti-American, pro-Taliban statements (see below).
The potential for further embarrassment seems great. Bergdahl either loves to explain himself, loves the sound of his own voice, or both.
It’s not clear to me whether Obama cares about the fall-out at this point. However, his backers do.
Consider this article about the senior Bergdahl by Todd Frankel in today’s Washington Post. It casts the Taliban sympathizer in the best possible light by (1) focusing on his beard and ignoring his substantive remarks and (2) characterizing the beard, and Bergdahl’s immersion in Islam, as an attempt to cope with his son’s capture.
Bergdahl has spewed forth a stream of anti-American, pro-Taliban comments. Among them are:
Working to free all Guantanmo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, ameen!
‘Democracy’ is a cult in in the West.
Release Moazzam [Begg] (note: Great Britain’s most notorious Taliban supporter).
ISAF perceive foreign presence as the main impetus of war inside Afghanistan!
My son speaks about unjust treatment of Afghan children. (Note: Bergdahl included a link to the Taliban’s website).
We understand the rationale of the Islamic Emirate has made through videos [of Bowe Bergdahl]. (Note: Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan is the Taliban’s preferred name)
Frankel mentions none of this in his article.
But what of Frankel’s claim that Bergdahl grew his beard and studied Islam and the Taliban in an effort to cope with his son’s captivity? It’s quite possible that, as Frankel euphemistically says, the father “changed his appearance and altered his interests to align with his son’s experience.”
But Frankel overlooks evidence that Bergdahl’s anti-Americanism predates Bowe’s capture and, indeed, may well have been partly responsible for his son’s plight.
We know that in the period leading up to Bowe Bergdahl’s desertion of the Army he was sending anti-American emails to his father. Some of them signaled that he was preparing to desert.
What was Robert Bergdahl’s response? “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE.”
If, instead, he had advised his son to do his duty as an American soldier, perhaps Bergdahl would not have deserted. Bowe Bergdahl, then in his early 20s, deserved adult counsel from his father. Instead, he got leftist cant — an updated version of “do your own thing.”
If the father had talked the son out of deserting, American soldiers would not have died looking for Bowe Bergdahl, deadly Taliban commanders would still be sidelined, and Bowe would have avoided his five-year ordeal.
In addition, Bob Bergdahl would not have grown his awful beard, and the Washington Post would have one less issue on which to run interference for President Obama.