Taliban releases propaganda video of Bergdahl handover

Published Wednesday, June 04, 2014 / The Five
With Eric Bolling , Kimberly Guilfoyle , Dana Perino , Greg Gutfeld , Juan Williams , Steve Hayes

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," June 4, 2014. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Dana Perino, along with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Juan Williams, Eric Bolling, and Greg Gutfeld.

It's 5: 0 in New York City and this is "The Five"

(MUSIC)

PERINO: America got its first look today at the handover of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The Taliban released the 17-minute propaganda video. It shows Bergdahl looking healthy after spending five years in captivity. Taliban fighters were holding a white flag as they approached the Blackhawk chopper. U.S. forces patted down Bergdahl to make sure he wasn't armed or wearing a suicide vest.

The fighters were heard shouting the Americans, "Don't come back to Afghanistan! Next time, you won't make it out alive."

Soldiers who served with Bergdahl say he ended up with the Taliban after he deserted his post. One says they were told not to tell the truth about his disappearance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH FULLER, ARMY SPC (RETIRED): We had all known that he had deserted his post and there was never anything about him getting captured or a POW until a little while later, whenever it came down from the chain of command that we needed to keep quiet about it, not say anything, we're going with the narrative that he was captured.

BRIAN KILMEADE, HOST, "FOX & FRIENDS": Wow. So they basically told you not to, you know, not to tell the truth?

FULLER: Yes, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: At least six soldiers may have died while searching for Bergdahl.

Here are two of their mothers reacting to the trade with Gitmo detainees.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHERYL BRANDES, MOTHER OF FALLEN SOLDIER: I know with my son, if he was captured and didn't go AWOL, I know for sure that he would not want five extremely dangerous terrorists traded for his life. He would give his life.

SONDRA ANDREWS, MOTHER OF FALLEN SOLDIER: He's getting the royal treatment. And our kids came home, the ones of us who lost our sons, they came home in the baggage part of an airplane and were rolled out in a box.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: Joining us now from Washington is a journalist who's been following this story very closely, Fox News contributor Steve Hayes, senior writer with The Weekly Standard.

Steve, there were some developments today. We actually heard something that the Taliban may have said about Bergdahl when he first went into their hands. Do you want to give us an update?

STEVE HAYES, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Yes, there's been some pretty interested developments. We've heard from Bergdahl's platoon mates, including his platoon leader, that when he left, when he walked off the outpost, he was searching for the Taliban. They heard that in radio communications shortly after he left. And what we had today was a Washington Post article that confirmed with Afghan villagers that when Bergdahl left, he was, in fact, looking for Taliban strongholds. The villagers told The Washington Post that this struck them as very odd.

But you can see why some of Bergdahl's platoon mates thought that he might not be just a deserter, but was potentially a defector or a wannabe collaborator and it made them very nervous. You can see why they had those concerns.

PERINO: One of things you've done, Steve, is talked to the platoon mates, can you tell us how unusual it is for other soldiers not to speak about something? Or is that a standard practice that the military uses when we have somebody go missing?

HAYES: Well, I think if they're told not to say anything, that's one thing. I mean, it would be expected that they won't want to be giving up information about the soldier who is missing, about his potential whereabouts, about their efforts to rescue him. That's all, it seems to me, sort of perfunctory.

The real question, though, is they were given nondisclosure agreements. Why were they given nondisclosure agreements? Who ordered them to sign those nondisclosure agreements if that's in fact what happened?

And the clip that you just played from earlier from "Fox & Friends" with Josh Fuller saying, in effect, not only were they told not to talk about what they had seen or not to talk about their own conclusions about Bergdahl having walked off the outpost, but to actually say that he was in fact a POW who had been captured which is, you know, being instructed in effect to lie.

PERINO: We're going to take it around the table now -- Kimberly.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Hi, Steve. Thanks for joining us on the program.

You know, I'm looking at that video, and he seems to me to be the picture of health, it doesn't look like he was deteriorating rapidly so that this was exigent circumstances that they had to act and violate the 30-day rule for notification, to be able to get him back to the United States. Your thoughts on that.

HAYES: Well, I think that's a good question. We're going to hear a lot more about his health, about his condition when he was turned over. National Security Council briefer, after he was captured, briefed reporters and said that Bergdahl was in good condition. And I think we can see in the video that at the very least, he wasn't in the kind of dire straits that administration officials had led people to believe when they described his condition urgent.

Remember, the video -- the secret video that The Wall Street Journal reported on today that was taken in December of 2013, that's some six months ago and the reason that the White House gave for this urgent rescue was that they had compared that to a video in 2011, and in effect said he's deteriorating rapidly.

Well, it's a hard argument to make when you wait six months to do the prisoner exchange.

PERINO: Eric?

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hey, Steve -- if we can just rolling that video one more time. Right at the beginning of this video, I'm sure you must have combed this thing a bunch of times. So, we have our guys who came over. They greet the Taliban. They actually shake the Taliban's hand. I'm trying to figure out, (a), why they did that.

Then, there's something important happens. We kind of pat him on the back, Bergdahl. We kind of pat down a little bit, a brief pat-down, but certainly not a search. He's also holding a bag, Steve, that no one searches. They don't look inside that bag.

Bergdahl and the other two of our guys get on the helicopter and join the other three people on the helicopter and he's never really been searched.

Now, this is a guy who supposedly was just turned over by the people who want to kill us, right? We've been fighting them for the last 12 years. Wouldn't you think -- does this not -- I don't know -- raise some red flags that something more has been going on, more dealings have been going on than what we're being told right now?

HAYES: Well, it was interesting, you are right. I have looked at this video very carefully and they did this sort of preemptive search right after they took possession of Bergdahl and then they did another one where they boarded the plane, where they did sort of a more in-depth pat-down. But they didn't search the bag. I think that's very interesting that they didn't take the time to search the bag. I would have expected them to have done that.

I don't have any explanation as to why they didn't, but they did at least do the initial pat-down and the pat-down of his body, which would have potentially or presumably demonstrated if he had some kind of suicide bomb attached to his waist.

PERINO: Gutfeld?

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Chris, always great to see you. You look marvelous.

(LAUGHTER)

GUTFELD: I have a comment and I have a question. The comment is about negotiating with the Taliban.

Here's what I think we've learned. You do not bring President Obama when you are buying a car because you are going to come home with a Frisbee with the word "car" painted on it, and he's going to go around and go, look, Michelle, I got a car. I only paid 25 grand for it.

He's a terrible negotiator.

My question is, these guys are essentially mobsters on mules. It wasn't just five traitors or five Taliban that they got. There must have been some money involved. Was there stock in Solyndra?

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

HAYES: I don't know about stock in Solyndra. But it's very clear that the Taliban in this exchange got what they wanted. I mean, remember, I think it goes beyond just these five senior Taliban commanders who I have been told are some of the worst of the worst at Guantanamo, the people that we wanted to keep in Guantanamo as long as there weren't any Americans on the ground in Afghanistan.

But, remember, we've also seen basically a strategic pause, we've been calling it, in combat operations, counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There hasn't been a drone strike in Pakistan since December 25th and counterterrorism operations have wound down considerably across the border in Afghanistan. Was that a confidence building measure?

You've seen from the administration, including in the president's speech just last week where he announced that we were going down to the zero option after 2016. You've seen the administration in effect meet several of the goals, several of the demands that the Taliban had when these negotiations first started in November of 2010. I think the president at the very least hasn't been a very good negotiator.

PERINO: Now, your fellow co-panelists from "Special Report" in a very different role, getting to ask you a question -- Juan Williams.

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Hey, Steve.

HAYES: Hi, Juan.

WILLIAMS: You know what I noticed for all of the soldiers who were in that platoon and have raised questions about Bergdahl's conduct, I don't hear this kind of blowback coming from the Pentagon, the CIA, those folks - - in fact, I saw that General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joints Chiefs, took to social media to say this was our last best chance to rescue him and that his conduct is a separate issue. Then, you had The Washington Post report saying this question about whether or not soldiers were injured or died trying to rescue him is murky at best.

What are you hearing from Pentagon, CIA, high-level sources who might have a different view than soldiers who were on the ground?

HAYES: Well, I mean, remember, the high level folks at the Pentagon and the CIA have to answer to the president of the United States and what we've seen is the president, in this instance, it's been reported by "Time Magazine" and others, skipped the normal process for determining whether it was safe or prudent to release or transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees.

There had been an entire system set up where the president inserted his own people. They made separate evaluations, using the intelligence that was drawn from the inmates down at Guantanamo, over the past several years. They renew these interrogations. They renewed these assessments every single year.

The president's own team had decided against the release or transfer of many of these folks, many of the folks who are still there and the president, in effect, jumped over them and said, I'm taking your advice, setting it to the side and making my own determination on this.

PERINO: Steve, I have a question. So, we know that in the past several years, including as early as last year, the intel community and the Pentagon said they were not comfortable with these five terrorists being released. The White House then is reporting to say that -- they went through the proper process and that everybody was on board at the end.

Do we know what changed or if there was an assurance from Qatar that we now believe? Is there a moment or was it basically like in time magazine, where you have an administration official saying it was time to tell the military to suck it up and salute? That's their quote. Not mine.

HAYES: Yes, we've certainly had some attempts by administration officials to sort of backfill, to explain why they felt the need to do this and a lot of that goes back to the original question which was Sergeant Bergdahl's health. Was he in fact -- you know, in such poor health, really on the verge of potentially not making it out of Afghanistan, if the United States didn't intervene and didn't intervene right away and you heard from director of national intelligence, James Clapper, and others that that was the thing that was the real tipping point along with the supposed security assurances that we had gotten from the government in Qatar.

Now the problem with those -- there are a couple of problems. One we've seen that basically those assurances have already been violated and you have these folks traveling freely throughout the country and in effect free after one year to go back to Afghanistan and reengage in hostilities, but they can do a lot of work on behalf of jihad, this sort of broader jihad from Qatar if they don't have any restrictions on them and it appears that they don't.

PERINO: Eric?

BOLLING: Steve, OK, so one week ago, Susan Rice did an interview where she said -- regarding Obama's legacy, this is before the Bergdahl stuff broke, regarding Obama's legacy, we're looking to put points on the board. I'm using her term, OK?

This Bergdahl stuff breaks Saturday night, into Sunday. On Sunday, Susan Rice says to CNN, the reason why they took Bergdahl when they did because there was acute urgency about his health. That afternoon or that same morning, sometime midday or so, she tells ABC that Bergdahl was in good health condition. The same day she says acute urgency and good health. Are we going to hold this administration to be -- I mean, she is blatantly lying? Either he was in good health and they didn't need to do or he was in acute urgency and he need to be taken now?

HAYES: Yes, I think that's exactly why we're going to see a ton of scrutiny placed on the claims that the administration made about the need for urgency. You've had contradictions all over the place not just with Susan Rice, but as I mentioned, on the day of the extraction, couple of hours after Sergeant Bergdahl was lifted off the ground in that chopper, you had administration telling reporters that he was in good condition.

Well, that contradicts what Susan Rice said the next day. It contradicts what the administration has been saying ever since. It contradicts what they told Congress as an excuse for not giving them this 30-day notification. It contradicts this huge front page story on "The Wall Street Journal" today in which administration official made it sound like Sergeant Bergdahl was not going to survive if we didn't do this and do it right now.

But again, another important detail in that is that the video that they used to make that determination was filmed in December. So, some six months ago, they are just now saying in effect we had to go in today. It's unclear if they had, you know, an update, if they had new information or new video, we certainly haven't been told that they had that.

PERINO: Yes. I was just thinking that maybe the Taliban gave them some sort of indication that they needed make that deal and maybe they lied to us and we felt -- but I guess we can all be glad that his home.

Greg?

GUTFELD: Yes, comment, then question.

PERINO: OK.

GUTFELD: I think, I believe the poor health angle was played to stress urgency to cover-up the politics of this whole thing. This was done in order to help with an election. It raises the question, though, who is being suckered. Did the Taliban sucker the United States or did the White House sucker the United States?

My conclusion is both. My question is, why these specific five Taliban? Are they some kind of boy band called the Gitmos? Was there a reason those guys had to go and nobody else?

HAYES: I don't think it has anything to do with their musical abilities. These were senior Taliban commanders. These were the ones that the Taliban had been asking for, for years. They are the tops. They commanded thousands of people. They were responsible for relations with al Qaeda, attacks on American soldiers, relations with Iran. These guys are big deal.

PERINO: Steve, I have one last question and then they were going to kick us out of here.

Last Monday, when President Obama gave a speech at West Point, he met with the former head of Qatar, the former emir and apparently they met before or around the time that the president gives a speech then to the cadets and lays out his foreign policy. Do you have any information on that?

HAYES: I don't. I just know that they met at a time when obviously we were having very sensitive discussions with the Qatari government with his successor. It certainly suggests that this was in the works, some kind of a deal was in the works, long before this announcement on Saturday.

PERINO: And when they told Congress.

All right. Thank you, Steve, very much.

Ahead, many of Bergdahl's fellow soldiers say that he deserted. But the State Department thinks it knows better about what happened on the front lines. Both sides of that story, next on "The Five."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLLING: Welcome back, everybody.

The Obama administration took a victory lap with Sergeant Bergdahl's parents in the Rose Garden.

Susan Rice spiked the ball on the Sunday shows. So, why is it there are countless soldiers calling out the Obama administration for freeing Sergeant Bergdahl? And we haven't heard from one service member to defend the guy. There's a wide gap between the Obama story line and that of the men who served alongside this guy.

Colonel Ralph Peters sees this divide, and, boy, is he fired up?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT. COL. RALPH PETERS, FOX NEWS STRATEGIC ANALYST: This is an example of a very deep cultural divide between team Obama who knows nothing about the military and cares less, and those who actually serve. And I think when you really listen to Susan Rice and Obama, they think that desertion is kind of like skipping class. You're hangover Monday morning, so you don't want to get up and go to gender 101. It is the second gravest sin in the military catechism right behind turning your weapon to your brother soldier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: OK. Now, take a deep breath, if you're pro-military, because the comments coming from Obama communications department will make your blood boil?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIE HARF, STATE DEPT. SPOKESWOMAN: It happened five years ago. This is a situation --

REPORTER: You've had all this time, five years, to determine whether he's a deserter or not. That's a long time.

HARF: It's been in captivity, Lucas. I think he's probably the person who knows best what happened on that night.

REPORTER: Well, I think his squad mates have the best indication what happened that night.

HARF: I don't think that that's the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: So, Ms. Harf thinks our service members are lying. That alone itself is despicable, and Ralph Peters, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, who may know a thing or two about what happens at war, begs to differ with the young lady.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETERS: What you saw and heard was Benghazi 2.0. A political flunky in the State Department insisting that she knows better what happened on the ground than the soldiers in the front line, or the people in a firefight.

The arrogance is boundless. You know, I wish the Obama administration, if it can't have the grace to be decent about anything else, at least stop insulting our troops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLLING: Go ahead. Take it away, K.G.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, he's right. I mean, I'm disgusted with this administration. The more you have found out, we have found out quite a bit have we not from people who were actually on the ground from special forces that were tasked initially to find him, that happened to be in the area at the time that he disappeared, about Mr. Bergdahl. They were able to read from his diary all that he wrote down about the military, about America, about his intentions, and wanting to leave, and then he did just that.

And instead what we've done is percent promote him to the level of sergeant while he was gone and while he willfully put the lives of other officers in danger by wandering off because he was politically opposed and his ideology was shaken by his experience over there. I think it's disgraceful and I'm looking to this administration to have some transparency that they long promised us and do the right thing here and justice for those soldiers that have died.

BOLLING: Good point. So, Juan, instead of saying that his fellow soldiers were lying, why don't they tell us what they do know, the Obama administration?

WILLIAMS:  Well, I think eventually you are going to have to find out. And I think that's absolutely appropriate and I don't think there's any rush to do it. I think the key thing here is that we got that young man back and they are trying to get him in good health before they bring him home.

I think it's an important point to understand that you have to understand that his conduct is not the basis on which you went after him. It is military procedure to go get one of our guys back in -- a uniform guy that has now being held captive by the enemy. I don't think there's any argument about this.

I mean, you can go on and on about his conduct, your suspicions, your paranoia, your fear.

GUILFOYLE: It's not paranoia.

WILLIAMS: But the reality --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Here's the fact -- the fact is, he's an American and he was being held captive and we got him back. And let me tell you some other facts, the very people who today are going bananas about this, these people in the United States Senate like John McCain just last week were saying we got to get Bergdahl back.

BOLLING: Juan, people died. Let's not forget people died trying to get this guy back.

WILLIAMS: No, let's not forget it. But you just make it and say if you are absolutely sure that's what happened, Eric, and that's not true.

BOLLING: OK, fair enough. I don't know exactly what happened. So, it would be nice if the Obama administration would tell us exactly what they know.

PERINO: I agree with Juan on several things but I think there is another part of this story and it is not one that anyone except for the White House has to own which is their decision from a communications standpoint to do a Rose Garden ceremony, to have Susan Rice go on the Sunday shows and say unequivocally that he served with honor and distinction, not even to say there are some questions surrounding his disappearance, we're going to get to the bottom of that. We should all be glad that he is home.

And I will say this about the communications of administration, I understand that your instinct is to lash back out. But when you have such a weak hand, the better way to handle it is to have some humility and to say to the reporters, I understand why you're asking that question. We're going to get to the bottom of it. We're not going to get as many answers as quickly as you would like. Bear with us.

Instead to embarrass yourself and the administration at the podium around the world, while they are watching, is just immature, poor communications. Anyone that was in pr 101 would have known to answer that better. I'm embarrassed by that.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, they just got schooled by Dana Perino and she gives them an F.

GUTFELD: She reminds of the woman next to you at happy hour that is constantly yelling at the bartender because he got the drink wrong, but he's been listening to her and she's just like yelling nonsense and everybody is like, shut up.

Look, they are out of touch. This is what happens when your entire adult life is taught to scorn American might. The root cause is always to root against us.

So, what do you get? You get the Rose Garden which in terms of Obama gaffes is worse than his bowling. We should be grateful at the end of that presser, he didn't yell, we're going to Disneyland, because it was so manufactured to be, quote, "euphoric".

How could they not see it? Because they're not used to seeing it. It's the biggest blind spot they had.

GUILFOYLE: I think it's worse than that, because they had information. If we know it, and we've heard from people, the Special Forces are actually out there looking for him -- I mean, documented and not something made up. You will see because the truth will come out about this. So, we're not going to take any of this back. Believe me.

Why would they go ahead and put the father up there at the Rose Garden, the whole thing to me is so appalling because it's not like they don't know the truth and we know what the truth is and they still did that. What did they do for the soldiers and people that have served or fought, what about the people in Benghazi that lost their lives? It just bothers me just the juxtaposition.

GUTFELD: I want to disagree with Juan. The issue here is that let's say this guy was looking for adventure. Looking for adventure is indistinguishable from deserting and deserting is often in enemy territory, indistinguishable from defection.

So, you're right. We can't tell. But Obama could have framed this better by saying, instead of getting a hero back, that we need to get this guy back because he's got a wealth of information that we can learn so much from this guy and we're going to trade these five guys for that guy and in four days, those five guys will be dead.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: You know what? That's what I hear. I don't hear -- they don't say we're going to kill them outright. But they got a year, and then they are going to track them.

GUILFOYLE: Well, they better get to it.

WILLIAMS: But you know what? Everything doesn't get settled in the time of our show. That's what's so great about our show. But I must tell you, I think --

GUILFOYLE: Let them go back to Yemen.

WILLIAMS: Let me just tell you something -- I thought that he, the president, made a tremendous mistake by having that press conference. I think Dana is on target. It was bad and I don't think they anticipated the blowback.

But I will say this, it's a sacred trust and I think all people who love the military, know it's a secret trust, to get your folks back, even if they are a drunk, if they are jerk. You know, I read the bible. What does the Bible say? The prodigal son, not the son that you wanted --

(CROSSTALK)

BOLLING: Special Forces had a shot at this guy. Special Forces had a shot at this guy a couple of years ago to get him back and chose not to because they were concerned that he was a traitor.

WILLIAMS: So, what do you say then?

(CROSSTALK)

GUILFOYLE: Juan, why was he on the capture/kill list? That's the truth. See?

PERINO: We could be talking about it.

BOLLING: We have more to talk about. What should happen to Bergdahl now that he's back in American hands? Will the Army try him for leaving his post? K.G. will tell us what charges Bowe Bergdahl could face. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUILFOYLE: Well, one of the bigger mysteries surrounding Bowe Bergdahl's five years of captivity is how he ended up in the hands of the Taliban, while the administration wants us to believe he served with honor and distinction. But the men who served alongside him say he was a deserter and should face justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He needs to go through all the proper channels that any other deserter would go through. So if that's a court martial, then yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this point, I want him to face the consequences for his own actions and possibly face court martial for desertion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I believe he should have a trial for what he did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that he should be tried as a deserter and court-martialed. I would personally like to see him in Leavenworth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUILFOYLE: OK. So what we do know is that he's going to be facing charges if they go ahead and proceed with an investigation and listen to the individuals that actually served. Which so far, this administration has suggested that these people have a loose relationship with the truth. I won't even use the word.

BOLLING: When there are so many things that are pointing in one direction. And look -- look, his fellow soldiers, Bergdahl won't speak English. He wants to speak Pashto. The letters, the emails to his parents, the journal he left behind. The Special Forces won't take -- get the guy because they're worried about being a traitor. Don't they all just add up?

And I know it's a leap to say he's definitely a traitor or that he definitely deserted, but you've got to think, K.G., if this is the case, there is -- there is a courtroom forum. There needs to be a courtroom forum and not just let's download what he knows and take it from there. A legitimate potential for a court martial.

GUILFOYLE: Well, and then he should be stripped from his rank if, in fact, he is tried and convicted. And that's what the procedure should be, because he was promoted to the rank of sergeant while he was in captivity. But that doesn't happen with somebody who is AWOL or a deserter.

Dana, so in terms of the communication aspect of this, right, they're going to be proceeding forward, do you even see this administration going forward before the end of President Obama's time with this kind of investigation?

PERINO: You mean, will they try to hold it?

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

PERINO: Well, if I were Hillary Clinton, I would want them to get this done before then. But also, I think that the military is -- they have -- the clock is going to move faster than they would -- are going to be able to move. But they're going to have to move forward, I think, quickly because their rank and file has to have confidence in the code.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

PERINO: And I think that the way to do that is when he comes back to make sure that they are as transparent as possible about the information that they got from him, about what happened surrounding the complexities of his decision: why he didn't decide to leave the military, rather than deciding to leave his post. I mean, there are a lot of questions and I think that the more open that the military can be the more confidence that the rank and file will have in the system.

GUILFOYLE: OK. And so a couple of options. Desertion, which would be accompanied by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for five years; and then of course, absence without leave, which is a lesser charge. Greg, what do you think should happen?

GUTFELD: He could run off to Russia, live with Snowden.

GUILFOYLE: Travel buddies.

GUTFELD: Try to get the gender reassignment surgery like Chelsea Manning.

I'm more interested in the POW label. Does this mean now that all Gitmo prisoners are POWs, not enemy combatants?

PERINO: No, because that's a legal distinction that comes -- that brings them much -- It gives them different rights than they have as enemy combatants.

GUTFELD: OK. Can we do the same thing, though, with say, if we have five jailed illegal immigrants, can we exchange them to Mexico for the Marine that's currently in prison? Wouldn't that be the same thing? Why can't we do that?

BOLLING: Apples to apples.

GUTFELD: Exactly. One more thing. Can I make a quick...

GUILFOYLE: Take a look at the Taliban Manson family.

GUTFELD: Yes. This is a lesson for -- a bigger lesson. Whatever he's guilty of, you can see at the base that he's a screwed up dude whose misguided idealism became fodder for the enemy. It's a lesson to all peace activists who end being used against their own country. The sad thing is, these peace activists never listen. They will always be -- there'll be more and more of them that believe they're doing well, and all they're doing is helping the people who want to kill us.

GUILFOYLE: Juan, last comment.

WILLIAMS: Well, I just -- I worry about the kind of star chamber proceedings that seem to be taking place. I mean, this is a guy who's never been call a deserter before, right?

GUILFOYLE: That's not true. That's not true in the military...

WILLIAMS: No, no, the military has never called -- they never said that this guy...

GUILFOYLE: There's a determination made.

WILLIAMS: ... was anything but a military soldier who behaved honorably. That's what the military said. He was promoted to sergeant.

GUILFOYLE: OK. Let's not get in a fight about this.

WILLIAMS: Didn't you -- didn't you just say he was promoted to sergeant?

GUILFOYLE: He was. He now has the rank of sergeant.

WILLIAMS: Thank you. Thank you.

GUILFOYLE: They can't take it away.

WILLIAMS: Not take it away -- no. 

GUILFOYLE: The bottom line is the investigation did conclude that he was in fact a deserter. This is all going to come out. You just wait and see.

WILLIAMS: This is not -- you can have any...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: This guy was promoted in absentia. He was never considered any kind of deserter. Right?

BASH: You don't think -- you don't think that any of -- all of platoon mates...

BECKEL: I don't know that they...

WILLIAMS: This is the problem.

BASH: Wait and see.

WILLIAMS: This is the problem: everybody thinks they have the story and I don't think the whole story is out.

PERINO: That's our point.

WILLIAMS: As you say, totally dubious, Greg.

BOLLING: There are a bunch of Senate Democrats -- I've got to go. They're wrapping. All right.

GUILFOYLE: Fine. If you're hungry, stay tuned. Greg is serving up some alphabet soup to help us keep up with all the president's scandals. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: President Obama is spinning so fast he's a human wind turbine. Hook him up, and he could generate electricity for a small country. He wasn't just caught flat-footed, but no-footed, wounded that his Rose Garden glee was met with a retch. If only he knew better.

But for seven years, the media hasn't asked for much from "Captain Precious." The White House is like a fat guy who thinking he's fit just ran up some stairs and is now about the have a heart attack. Criticism is your gym, and debate is the weight that builds muscle. 

So is this Obama's fault? Yes, but add the coddlers who spent years shielding him from a mean thing called the truth, which is why now Obama is the emperor that has no clue.

From a bow to a bow, it's who you know. The prez always had friends in high places, stoned on Obama love, willing to ignore his every mistake.  The ATF, the IRS, the DOJ, the VA, the NSA. Campbell's should rename their alphabet soup "Obama O's."

And remember the VA? Even that's faded from view. Perhaps that's the true genius of Obama: churn out scandals, like a conveyor belt of chocolates, and the rest of us, like Lucy and Ethel, can't keep up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "I LOVE LUCY")

LUCILLE BALL, COMEDIAN: I think we're fighting a losing game!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: A lot of chocolate. At least the bonbons tasted good.

Of course, lefty hacks will call the scandals right-wing crack, as if it's our fault for keeping track of all the chocolate.

No wonder America suffers. With friends like these, who needs the Taliban?

Juan, isn't this cute? I got my little Obama.

WILLIAMS: I can't believe you got that. It is so cute.

GUTFELD: Yes, it's very life like. I'll be selling these on the street. These are $35.

WILLIAMS: You know, I always have trouble with you on the street when you're selling stuff, because I think you know, upper class guy.

GUTFELD: Yes, that's true. But you know, I need to make the rent.

All right. I've had enough of you. Kimberly...

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

GUTFELD: We've had...

GUILFOYLE: Come back here.

GUTFELD: We've had 733 scandals. Which one is the worst?

GUILFOYLE: I got to tell you, I'm feeling this one followed by Benghazi, followed by the IRS. I mean, there's so many, like you have to make them -- you got to write a cheat sheet and it goes all the way down to the floor.

This to me is really going to go somewhere. It should. It should matter, and I don't think they're even going to be able to sweep it under the rug, because the media appears to be reporting.

GUTFELD: That rug is now 100 feet tall.

WILLIAMS: Gregory, how could this be Republican crack when you have all these Republicans, including the minority leader in the Senate, McConnell, calling for the rescue of Bergdahl just a few days ago?

GUTFELD: I think it's the manner in which the rescue took place. I mean, yes, it can be great to get him back but, A, let's not give away five killers. But you know, it's a good point, though.

Hey, Eric, does workmen's comp at Fox cover scandal whiplash?

BOLLING: I'm not sure.

GUTFELD: I'm going like this, back and forth.

BOLLING: Back and forth. But -- and your second part of the monologue is exactly right. That's the true genius: churning them out, and people forget the last one, the VA scandal. Really? That was over the weekend. It was a couple of days ago.  One big arrogant "we're smarter than you" lie after lie: "We don't know. We heard about it on the news. You can keep your doctor," middle finger to America. Let's call it that.

GUTFELD: Yes. So far no scandals involving dogs, Dana. But yes...

PERINO: Yes, there was.

GUTFELD: Oh, when he ate one. I forgot.

PERINO: No. I think there was one involving a cat.

GUTFELD: No, but quickly, Michael Tomasky called this scandal right- wing crack. Doesn't this excuse certain journalists from doing their job if they just say, "Oh, it's a Fox News story"?

PERINO: I think maybe -- yes, of course. It's the Fox News -- remember, you said if Fox covered the story, nobody else will.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: I do think there's something to be said about waiting until you have all the information. The problem is, if you have nine eyewitnesses...

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: ... versus zero, and the Pentagon report in 2010, I mean, I don't know what America is left to expect.

And then also when you start to hear from the families, as we have started to hear. And they're coming forward, and they want to tell their story. And their anguish is on their faces, and they didn't get a Rose Garden ceremony.

GUILFOYLE: No.

PERINO: I think that, yes, there's a lot of scandals and something about a dog. I lost track of my great point, but it was great.

BOLLING: I love the conspiracy theories. You know what the theory is, right? What's Obama's dog's name?

BECKEL: Bo.

BOLLING: What's the sergeant's name?

WILLIAMS: Now, I can't wait. I can't wait.

GUILFOYLE: Thank God you watch Fox News.

BOLLING: They whispered into Obama's ear and said, "We've got to get Bo back." He said, "Get him out right away."

WILLIAMS: I think FOX better get that insurance policy. I think my man's dizzy. He's about dizzy from this.

GUTFELD: There's another joke, about cannibalism, though, but I'm not even going to touch it.

Still ahead, some of the usual suspects aren't defending the president this time around except for Harry Reid. Hear him babble next on "The Five."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have questioned the president's trade of terrorists for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Harry Reid is not one of them. He's targeting the questioners.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV., MAJORITY LEADER: Opponents of President Obama seized upon the release of an American prisoner of war -- that's what he was -- using what should be a moment of unity and celebration for our nation as a the chance to play political games. The safe return of an American soldier should not be used for political points.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Now, Harry is happy about the prisoner swap and here's why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Guantanamo has been there far too long. I'm glad to get rid of these five people. Send them back to Qatar.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: So what you've got here is the top Democrat in the Senate saying the president is right, and in fact, he's calling out the Republicans -- I mentioned McConnell earlier, but Ayotte, McCain, others, saying, "You guys wanted a swap. Now you got it. And now you're complaining and, you know, going on -- what did you say, Republican crack?

GUTFELD: I would say God bless Harry Reid. He speaks the truth. The left wants to drain Gitmo. They want to turn it into a museum that celebrates the gender diversity of our nation's teens.

WILLIAMS: Eric.

BOLLING: Can I ask you the same -- very... Look, we just had enough time.

GUILFOYLE: I'll say this: it's sad when the best you've got is a Harry Reid spot, because as far as I'm concerned, you're playing for the other team, like the anti-American team.

WILLIAMS: But you don't want to play -- Oh, stop.

GUILFOYLE: I'm sorry. I just don't find his comments helpful. I find him to be...

WILLIAMS: Anti-American -- the Senate majority leader, anti-American?

GUILFOYLE: I find him to be ill-informed when he speaks.

WILLIAMS: Oh, gosh.

GUTFELD: He's a hairy reed.

PERINO: He is a continual disappointment.

GUILFOYLE: Thank you.

PERINO: The -- I'm surprised he didn't throw the Koch brothers in there so he could throw something else in.

I also think that the members of Congress -- yes, everybody -- this is the thing where the left is wrong. Yes, people wanted the American soldier back. They wanted him back so they can answer the questions. They wanted him back so that they could make sure that we do what we have always done. Did they want to trade five Taliban? No. Did they want notification from the president as required by law? Yes.

WILLIAMS: All right. Here we go. "One More Thing" up next.

GUILFOYLE: There you go.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PERINO: It's time now for "One More Thing."

There was a stunning story yesterday that we didn't get a chance to talk about. It has to do with Syria, America's policy there or lack thereof. One of our ambassadors, Robert Ford, he's one of the most outstanding ambassadors of a generation. He actually just left, because he said he couldn't take it any more. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT FORD, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SYRIA: We were constantly behind the curve. And our policy was not evolving, and finally, I got to the point where I could no longer defend it publicly. And it's as a professional career member of the U.S. diplomatic service when I could no longer defend the policy in public, it is time for me to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PERINO: I love somebody who has the honor and the dignity to do what he thought was right.

GUTFELD: Nice lamp, too.

PERINO: It was a nice lamp. Greg, you get to go next.

GUTFELD: It's been a while. Let's ban a phrase. "Straight ahead." You hear this at the end of every break. Straight ahead, straight ahead. What are the other options? The opposite? Curve behind. Everything is ahead of you. There's no time travel involved. Everything is in front of you. Everything is straight ahead.

PERINO: What are you supposed to say instead?

GUTFELD: Say "coming up."

GUILFOYLE: No, no, no. I like curved behind.

PERINO: Coming up, Juan Williams' "One More Thing."

WILLIAMS: Well, Jonah Hill over the weekend did something that was -- I think Greg, you'd approve of.

GUTFELD: What?

WILLIAMS: He said he was wrong. Yes, because he hurled a gay slur at someone, asked them to perform a sex act. And now he says, "You know what? I was wrong." And he's begging for forgiveness. This is the 30-year-old star of "22 Jump Street." You know what? You've got to give him credit.

GUTFELD: I don't. I don't. He begged. He acted like he killed somebody. Maybe he made a slur, but he didn't kill somebody.

WILLIAMS: He was wrong.

GUTFELD: He begged.

WILLIAMS: Greg, he was wrong.

GUTFELD: He begged -- he crawled over broken glass.

WILLIAMS: Greg, he was wrong.

GUILFOYLE: He's a light beggar (ph).

PERINO: Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: All right. On to a happy moment. You like those, don't you? All right. Bruce Springsteen, "Born in the USA," turning 30 years old today.

GUTFELD: Boo.

GUILFOYLE: Making you feel old out there, right?

GUTFELD: Boo!

GUILFOYLE: Stop booing. All right. Greg ruined my moment. Anyway, it's a great song. "Born in the USA," an iconic song.

BOLLING: He's strong anti-American. Am I right?

WILLIAMS: You can't appreciate the music?

BOLLING: I can appreciate the music.

GUILFOYLE: That's my point. That's my point.

PERINO: You're last.

BOLLING: That's all I have time for? Is I have 10 seconds?

PERINO: You're out of time.

BOLLING: President Obama. Watch, this is amazing. Watch.

GUILFOYLE: That's his workout.

BOLLING: OK. So we don't have time to explain it, but it can't be any more than five pounds, and he was like, "Oh, I got this."

PERINO: Don't forget to set your DVR so you never miss an episode of "The Five." We'll see you back here tomorrow. "Special Report" is next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2014 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.