No Ethnic Studies Indoctrination in California Schools

The L.A. Times had this earlier, "Standardized ethnic-studies curriculum for high schools to be studied."

A monstrously bad idea, obviously.

So, I'm surprised the Times ran this letter today. Indeed, the editors highlighted it at the top of today's op-ed page.

See, "Ethnic studies and racial resentment":

A San Francisco State University professor says ethnic studies classes in high school will help young people "learn about themselves and the world about them and make the world a better place." The California Assembly seems to agree, having passed a bill that will require these courses in our public high schools. ("Standardized ethnic-studies curriculum for high schools to be studied," June 2)

If this follows the pattern we've seen elsewhere, what's almost certain to happen is that students will be taught to view America as a hopelessly racist place where everyone is either an oppressor or a victim, and those who belong to "privileged" groups should be viewed with suspicion and resentment

If our Legislature really wants to make the world a better place, why not start by rejecting divisiveness and indoctrination in our schools? Then lawmakers can make sure that kids are functionally literate and learn the basics of science, math and history before they walk across the graduation stage.

David J. Brackney 
Whittier

Taliban Supreme Council Offers to Send 400 Battle-Hardened Peacekeepers to Chicago

The Los Angeles Times reports that the five freed top Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo aren't so bad after all. Indeed, they're such a jolly old bunch it's amazing U.S. forces ever captured them in the first place.

See, "Most of 5 freed Taliban prisoners have less than hard-core pasts."

No doubt Obama will want to redeploy them to Chicago.

At the People's Cube, "Taliban to Send Peace-Keeping Advisers to Chicago."

'Think Progress' Blames #Berghahl Desertion on Army's Failed Efforts to Treat 'Combat Stress and PTSD'

I guess there's just not enough social justice in the U.S. Army.

Seriously, for the traitor-loving left, it's never about personal responsibility. Never about about consequences. If an American soldier attacks his own deployment, declares he's ashamed to be an American, and disses the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as "revolting" and "self-righteous arrogance," the only explanation is that the Army failed to "understand why a soldier with a history of going AWOL was allowed to stay in the fight without adequate intervention."

Reason number kajillion why I'm not a leftist. At Weasel Zippers, "Soros-Funded Rag Think Progress: Army to Blame for Bergdahl Deserting…":

The left continues to flail wildly trying to make excuses for Bergdahl’s desertion.

'Of all the days in the 20th century, none were more consequential than June 6, 1944...'

It's historian Douglas Brinkley, a good guy.



Earlier, "'These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc...'," and "'I'll see you on the beach...'"

How the #Bergdahl Story Fell Apart

From Stephen Hayes, at the Weekly Standard, "The Unraveling":

For more than a year, the president had been buffeted by events that he could not—or would not—control. The disastrous debut of Obamacare, the continuing fallout from the Benghazi attacks, the consequences of intelligence disclosures by Edward Snowden, the unfolding human tragedy in Syria, the Russian power play in Ukraine, the scandal that has engulfed the Veterans Administration—in one crisis after another, the man who once boldly declared his intent to be a transformative president had shown himself to be a reactive one.

But in the course of three days in late May, Obama sought to wrest control back by demonstrating progress on two of his longest-held goals: ending America’s overseas wars and closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. On May 28, in a commencement speech before cadets graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama declared that all combat troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016. And three days later, in announcing the transfer of five senior Taliban officials, all designated at “high risk” to return to battle, Obama demonstrated his determination to shutter the detainee facility.

The morning after Obama announced the prisoner exchange, top national security officials from his administration fanned out on the Sunday talk shows. The job of explaining the president’s decision fell to defense secretary Chuck Hagel and national security adviser Susan Rice.

The president, recognizing the “acute and urgent situation” of the missing soldier, had an obligation to “prioritize the health of Sgt. Bergdahl,” Rice explained. “His life could have been at risk.” Waiting was not an option.

Bergdahl was a hero, she suggested, “an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield” who had served his country with “honor and distinction.”

In an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union, Rice explained that the five Taliban commanders would be transferred to Qatar, where “they will be carefully watched” and “their ability to move will be constrained.”   Rice brushed off concerns that the United States had engaged in hostage negotiations with terrorists, emphasizing that the United States communicated indirectly with the Taliban through the Qataris. Hagel, for his part, was clear about the U.S. diplomatic partners on the exchange. “We didn’t negotiate with terrorists,” he insisted in an appearance on Meet the Press.

He downplayed the notion that the five Taliban commanders could present a threat to the United States, arguing that he wouldn’t sign off on any detainee transfer unless “our country can be assured that we can sufficiently mitigate any risk to America’s security.”

And then came the unraveling.

It came alright, with a nuclear thunderclap.

More.

Did #Bergdahl Deserve to Be Rescued?

An editorial at the Los Angeles Times, FWIW, "The Bergdahl blowback: Did he deserve to be rescued?"

And ICYMI, at the New York Times, "Critics Are Questioning American Military Credo of Leaving No One Behind."

You think?

I can't believe I'm saying this but: I want to hear the Taliban's side of the story on this. They're more credible, candid, and trustworthy..."

A follow-up from yesterday, "The Obama Administration's Treasonous Lack of Transparency on Bowe #Bergdahl."

See AoSHQ, "The Psychopathic Death-Cult Taliban: More Honest and Forthcoming Than the Current Occupant of the American White House."

The Case for Impeachment

From Jed Babbin, at the American Spectator, "The Case For Obama's Impeachment."

Babbin discusses Andrew McCarthy's new book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

RELATED: At National Review, "McCarthy: Obama ‘Replenished the Enemy in Wartime’ with Bergdahl Swap."

IMAGE CREDIT: iOWNTHEWORLD, "Enemies List, Disregard for the Constitution, Detachment, Oh My!"

'These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc...'

President Ronald Reagan, speaking at Normandy in 1984.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

'I'll see you on the beach...'

Below, the opening scene at Omaha Beach from "Saving Private Ryan," my favorite movie.

And see, "Carlo D'Este, at the Armchair General, "What if D-Day Had Failed [2005]?"

Also, from Brian Williams, at Military History, "The Atlantic Wall [2000]," and David Jennys, at World War II, "D-Day: The Beginning of the End for Nazi Germany [2006]."

At the New York Times, "World Leaders and Veterans to Gather at D-Day Beaches."

And at Telegraph UK, "D-Day: 'History dies if no one knows about it'," and London's Daily Mail, "Even after 70 years, the loss never fades away: The Allies return to Normandy to mark anniversary of D-Day landings."

"‘So funny!’ Michelle Malkin hits back at whiny Chuck Todd ‘like a wrecking ball’ [GIF]"

Too funny, at Twitchy.

@michellemalkin expect a little better from you. Pretty shallow

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) June 5, 2014

@chucktodd http://t.co/laV9MClpLs

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) June 5, 2014

White House Expected #Bergdahl Backlash. Wait. What?

This is a lie that Obama deceivers are spinning right before the American people.

Remember, we had the initial reports of rainbows and unicorns at the news of Bergdahl's release, "Chuck Todd: The White House expected “euphoria” over Bergdahl’s release."

But now, amid the harsh backlash and top-level Democrat defections, we have the new meme that "the White House expected backlash --- but not this much," which is of course a bald-faced lie. No surprise there.

At CNN, "Bergdahl backlash surprises White House."

'Too many academics and diplomats—and it seems organizations like Human Rights Watch—prefer to ignore the ideology which underpins Islamist-inspired terrorism and instead see the world through the prism of grievance...'

That's Michael Rubin, at Commentary, taking Human Rights Watch Director Kenneth Roth to the woodshed: "Human Rights Watch Doesn’t Understand Terrorism."

#Bergdahl Platoon Team Members Speak Out — #KellyFile

From Megyn Kelly's show last night:



Plus, at Pat Dollard's, "OBAMA WAR ON THE TROOPS: Commander-In-Chief’s Spokesmen Now Smearing Combat Vets As ‘Psychopaths’ For Telling Truth About Bergdahl," via Spread Butter:

Commander-In-Chief's Mindfucktool Team Now Smearing Combat #Vets As "Psychopaths" For Telling Truth About #Bergdahl http://t.co/5QyLYUpCSz

— SpreadButter (@SpreadButter) June 6, 2014

Taliban Held Fast to Their Demands in Sgt. Bowe #Bergdahl Swap Talks

At the Wall Street Journal, "Afghan Militants' Top Priority Was Winning the Release of Detainees in Guantanamo Prison":

Ever since talks for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl began in November 2010, Taliban representatives had a consistent message for the Obama administration. Their priority was freeing a group of Taliban leaders at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for the captive U.S. soldier.

The Taliban had a harder time getting a handle on a divided U.S. government's position, as officials in Washington sent mixed messages about the administration's intentions and what it could deliver, according to U.S. officials close to the talks. Different officials and agencies at different times issued demands and threw up roadblocks.

At several points, the Taliban team seemed confused as to why President Barack Obama couldn't just issue an edict to make the exchange happen, say those close to the talks. So U.S. negotiators brought to one meeting a copy of legislation that restricted Mr. Obama's ability to free the detainees on the Taliban's list, and then explained how the provisions limited their room to maneuver.

In the end, Mr. Obama made a decision that wasn't far from what the Taliban had wanted from the start. On his own authority, the president released the group's leaders from Guantanamo in return for Sgt. Bergdahl, without notifying Congress.

That change of heart is one big reason why the prisoner swap has sparked a political backlash that has consumed Washington since the weekend return of Sgt. Bergdahl, who was captured in 2009. Republicans and many Democrats in Congress are furious with the White House for not consulting with lawmakers. Sgt. Bergdahl's hometown in Idaho has been so riven by debate over his release that it has canceled a homecoming celebration.

According to officials, White House aides feared that briefing lawmakers about the talks would increase the chances of leaks, which could scuttle the swap. Worse yet, U.S. officials feared that the captors, who might not have known about the proposed swap, would kill Sgt. Bergdahl if they found out about the negotiations.

Mr. Obama on Thursday defended the exchange and the secrecy surrounding it. "We had a prisoner of war whose health had deteriorated, and we were deeply concerned about. And we saw an opportunity, and we seized it. And I make no apologies for that," he said at a news conference in Brussels.

Even before the first U.S.-Taliban meeting in Munich in November 2010, the proposed talks faced bureaucratic infighting. Top officials in the White House supported the talks, which Mr. Obama authorized. But some officials were reluctant to entrust such a sensitive effort, which they saw as critical to Mr. Obama's legacy, to the late Richard Holbrooke, then the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. Holbrooke was a well-known, long-serving U.S. diplomat, but his high-profile style of personal diplomacy bothered some of his administration and military counterparts, according to current and former officials involved in the discussions. But the White House agreed to tap his deputy, Frank Ruggiero, to represent the U.S. in Munich, as Mr. Holbrook had proposed.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was supportive but skeptical about the prospects, current and former officials say.

Mr. Holbrooke saw the first round of talks in Munich as a critical opening. The Taliban made clear they really cared about obtaining freedom for the detainees and easing U.S. sanctions against the group. Mr. Holbrooke told aides the U.S. would use both issues as leverage to try to advance its priority of getting the Taliban to enter talks to reconcile with the Afghan government to coincide with an eventual U.S. troop withdrawal and end of the war.

Mr. Holbrooke was just starting to put together a negotiating strategy for the next round of meetings when he died unexpectedly, leaving a leadership void.  The U.S. government and the Taliban leadership both knew that talks would be unpopular with their respective fighters on the ground and needed to be closely-held. Then-commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, and other military leaders argued that the time wasn't right. Military leaders preferred to notch further battlefield gains to weaken the Taliban before beginning talks, current and former government officials said. Gen. Petraeus declined to comment...

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Makes 'Absolutely No Apologies' for Disastrous #Bergdahl Treason-Terror Exchange."

Jehane 'Gigi' Paris

According to a dedicated Facebook page, "Her full name is Jehane-Marie Paris and she is often known as GiGi."

Oh là là!

And see Egotastic!, "Jehane 'Gigi' Paris Sultry Photoshoot by Chris Shintani."

Full Rights to Enemy Combatants and Malcontents!

At the People's Cube, "Rights for undocumented enemy combatants and malcontents":

Al Qaeda PR: Equal rights for undocumented enemy combatants and malcontents! http://t.co/2wmDnvFhlH #TCOT pic.twitter.com/0jUIjfLnfU

— The People's Cube (@ThePeoplesCube) June 6, 2014

In an effort to lend more appreciation to the plights of repressed minority groups, the White House has announced a change in public policy that would work to eliminate the usage of such phrases as "traitor," "defector," and "deserter" in speeches, briefings, and official documents.

Saying that such pejoratives unfairly marginalize and belittle groups of people, discriminating based upon their allegiance, White House officials are urging Americans to eliminate such language from their Newspeak dictionaries.

Better alternatives to the unspeakable words include "undocumented foreign citizen," "undocumented enemy combatant," and "undocumented shirker."

The Left Is Terrified Right Now About the Bowe #Bergdahl Story

From Mollie Hemingway, at the Federalist.

Chris Hayes, Josh Marshall, and Michael Tomasky come in for a beating.

And here's Hayes interviewing Tomasky at the clip. These people are in a whole 'nother world, a post-American world of blind partisanship for a failed chief executive. Tomasky even bemoans "rank-and-file" conservatives who simply destroyed him on Twitter. I'm going to eschew modesty for a second and suggest that he's got me in mind.

Time Magazine Cover Story on the Bowe #Bergdahl Treason-Terror Exchange

See, "Bowe Bergdahl: No Soldier Left Behind":

When President Obama stepped into the Rose Garden on May 31 to announce a deal to free the only captive U.S. soldier in the Afghanistan war, he evidently was worried that Americans couldn't handle this truth. Flanked by the parents of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the President struck a victorious tone. He spoke of parental love and a nation’s duty and the loyalty of the freed soldier’s comrades. But he gave no hint that Bergdahl’s capture was the source of enormous anger and resentment among some of those comrades, who feel that he abandoned them when he walked away from his post one summer night in 2009. The anger at Bergdahl–and at the President–only deepened the next day, when National Security Adviser Susan Rice added another coat of whitewash. Bergdahl, Rice declared, “served the United States with honor and distinction.”

Maybe it was inevitable that even this familiar end-of-war set piece, the tearful return of the last prisoner, would sour, given the division and suspicion sown at home by the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the President made matters worse by rushing the final arrangements to trade five Taliban leaders for Bergdahl past a reluctant military and a skeptical Congress. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, complained of being left in the dark, while a U.S. military source told TIME that the decision boiled down to “suck it up and salute.”

Obama further erred by trying to spin a feel-good story from a messy set of facts. After a dismal week of bad news, including the resignation of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, the White House leaped at the chance to show the depth of the President’s commitment to Americans in uniform. Within days, the Rose Garden fairy tale had been shredded by indignant soldiers and Obama’s political foes. Critics demanded to know how many Americans were killed five years ago while searching for Bergdahl and how much havoc the Taliban Five might wreak in the future, should they make their way back into action. The U.S. may vow to leave no soldier behind, but what is a reasonable risk to run or price to pay for that retrieval, and should the calculation change if the soldier is judged to deserve not a parade but a trial?

“This is what happens at the end of wars,” Obama said defensively as the anger and confusion boiled over. Arrangements must be made to tie up each violent drama with a bow, all the dead buried and all the living restored to their homes. “That was true for George Washington, that was true for Abraham Lincoln, that was true for FDR. That’s been true of every combat situation,” the President said. “At some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back.” He might better have said that the Bergdahl story shows why wars continue to gnaw and grind long after the end is officially pronounced. Too much is smashed and bloodied to be wrapped up neatly. People must live, sometimes in turmoil, sometimes for centuries, with loose ends....

With some Republicans calling for hearings on the matter, the Bergdahl swap is likely to become a sore point in the autumn elections. And it puts a floodlight on the unresolved–unresolvable?–issue of the nearly 150 men still detained at Guantánamo.

The Challenge

The loosest end of all was hidden in plain sight among the Administration’s misleading pronouncements: What lies in store for Afghanistan and its neighbors after the U.S. departs? Though Obama recently announced plans to keep nearly 10,000 troops in place for now, gradually drawing the number down through 2016, the Bergdahl deal bore the unmistakable air of a nation washing its hands. After a year in Qatar, the Taliban Five will be free to return to the scene of past outrages–the soccer-stadium executions, the oppression of Afghan schoolgirls, the destruction of ancient artworks–and while the President pledged to defend the U.S. against them, he said nothing of defending the Afghans.

In this, Obama is reflecting the will of the American people, who have made themselves clear in surveys and at the ballot box. The war in Afghanistan must come to an end–for Americans if not for Afghans. The peace of Kabul will rest on the ability of Afghan factions to coexist, which, given the long history of this troubled land, there is little reason to hope for.

But the decision to try to slip these loose ends past an unnoticing public, borne on a smile and a fable, was a blunder in any event. It is said that soldiers never forget. They don’t forget their promise to leave no comrade behind. In the words of former soldier Alex Horton, “There’s not a place in the world I wouldn't go to bring back the men who served with me. That was true for combat, and it will be true for the rest of my life.” At the same time, they don’t forget the difference between those who stand and those who run, and they are very particular about the language of heroism. “This is just so grotesque,” argues retired Army officer and author Ralph Peters. “Americans can’t name a single Medal of Honor recipient, but everybody knows the name of a reputed deserter. The big mistake was for the President and his gang to present Bergdahl as a hero.”

The Obama Administration is not the first to look at the American people and think, in the words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!” But it is the first to govern entirely in the age of nearly limitless communication. After Edward Snowden, after WikiLeaks, it should be clear that anything known inside the White House stands a good chance of becoming known to everyone. A President who promised unprecedented transparency must understand that a window shows the bad weather along with the good.

And the inescapable truth is that the U.S.’s departure from Afghanistan will not bring an end to the storms of that region, nor shield us from their effects. In its ugly complexity, the story of Bowe Bergdahl–the genuine story, not the bowdlerized version–is one symbol of that truth. Can we handle that? There’s really no alternative.

PREVIOUSLY: "#Bergdahl's Taliban Captors Speak Out."

Secret Documents Show #Bergdahl Declared Jihad in Captivity

James Rosen reports, at Fox News, "EXCLUSIVE: Bergdahl declared jihad in captivity, secret documents show":

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at one point during his captivity converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his captors and declared himself a "mujahid," or warrior for Islam, according to secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account and obtained by Fox News.

The reports indicate that Bergdahl's relations with his Haqqani captors morphed over time, from periods of hostility, where he was treated very much like a hostage, to periods where, as one source told Fox News, "he became much more of an accepted fellow" than is popularly understood. He even reportedly was allowed to carry a gun at times.

The documents show that Bergdahl at one point escaped his captors for five days and was kept, upon his re-capture, in a metal cage, like an animal. In addition, the reports detail discussions of prisoner swaps and other attempts at a negotiated resolution to the case that appear to have commenced as early as the fall of 2009.

The reports are rich in on-the-ground detail -- including the names and locations of the Haqqani commanders who ran the 200-man rotation used to guard the Idaho native -- and present the most detailed view yet of what Bergdahl's life over the past five years has been like. These real-time dispatches were generated by the Eclipse Group, a shadowy private firm of former intelligence officers and operatives that has subcontracted with the Defense Department and prominent corporations to deliver granular intelligence on terrorist activities and other security-related topics, often from challenging environments in far-flung corners of the globe...

More.

The authenticity of these documents are going to questioned by administration defenders, especially the ties to the "shadowy" Eclipse Group.

That said, so far the preponderance of the evidence --- from those served with Bergdahl and from earlier statements from the Taliban --- lend tremendous corroboration to the latest revelations.