Bill O'Reilly: President Obama and war

By Bill O'Reilly

The world marked the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion today. The ceremonies in Normandy, France were moving and important featuring many of the world's most powerful people. President Obama even chatted with Putin during lunch.

On June 6th, 1944 Allied forces landed on the northern coast of France in a final push to defeat Hitler's Germany, which ruled Europe with an iron fist for almost five years. Fighting was fierce. The Allies suffered about 10,000 men killed and wounded.

Because many Americans have no clue about the price of freedom it's worth pointing out that almost all of the 2,500 Americans who died in the D-Day fight were working men, regular guys, who understood the evil they were fighting and who were willing to die rather than let their buddies down.

Fast forward to the current Taliban swap controversy. There is no difference between the mindset of the Taliban killers and the Nazis -- none. They both believe they have the absolute right to murder civilians for their cause. Both group engaged in atrocities, crimes against humanity on a mass scale. Both groups are fascists who deny basic human rights and freedom and impose their sick philosophies on innocent people through ultraviolent acts. Again there is no difference between the acolytes of Hitler and the followers of jihad. None.

So, it is a false narrative to equate the release of five Taliban commanders, war criminals all, with legitimate prisoners of war. Captured in uniform on the battlefield and that is what the Obama administration does not seem to understand that the five Taliban killers who were traded for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, a suspected deserter, are much more than hapless enemy soldiers -- they are men who will commit mass atrocities again.

In 1941, Nazi big shot Rudolf Hess left Germany and flew to England without permission from the Fuhrer. The delusional Hess thought he could negotiate a peace treaty with Winston Churchill. Hess was promptly arrested and imprisoned. He was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to life for war crimes. FDR and Churchill surely could have traded Hess for a bunch of allied POWs but that would have been inappropriate just as the Taliban swap was.

But the defenders of President Obama would have you believe otherwise. A "New York Times" editorial today tries to save the President, saying, quote: "Thousands of soldiers desert during every war, including 50,000 American soldiers during World War 2 they leave for a variety of reasons, including psychological trauma. But whatever their mental state, it is the military's duty to get them back if they are taken prisoner."

So, here we have the new spin that Sergeant Bergdahl deserted his unit in eastern Afghanistan because he was traumatize. See, it's not really his fault. And President Obama did the moral thing in making the swap for him by the way the "Times" editorial never defines the five Taliban war criminals and the ongoing danger they pose to all Americans.

That's completely ignored by the paper. The editorial even says that questioning Bergdahl's conduct is a political attack. Quote: "Republican operatives have arranged for soldiers in his unit to tell reporters that he was a deserter who cost the lives of several soldiers searching for him. That's a gross insult to the men in Bergdahl's platoon who have come forward to describe the man's behavior.

I mean, think about what the "New York Times" is saying; that these soldiers are allowing themselves to be used by a political party, the implication clearly that their testimony is contrived. Wow, that's quite something for a newspaper to say about men who served their country in very dangerous circumstances.

The "Times" ends its editorial this way. Quote: "But the critics seeking political advantage don't care about the life or mental state of a particular soldier or of a principle of loyalty that should provide comfort to any soldier in danger of capture. They live only for the attack."

Summing up according to the "New York Times," the Taliban swap is simply about denigrating President Obama nothing more than that. Sergeant Bergdahl's desertion is not his fault. And Mr. Obama did not have to do anything other than secure his release. That was it by the way, Fox News strategic analyst Colonel Ralph Colonel Ralph Peters believes the "New York Times" piece is no accident. Peters say the paper is acting in concert with the Obama administration in setting Bergdahl up to be declared mentally incompetent so he will not have to stand trial -- speculation but interesting speculation.

"Talking Points" is used to the liberal and also to the conservative media spinning issues to support their ideology. That is a plague upon our land. But when you call into question the honesty of soldiers who come forth to give their opinion, tell their stories, eyewitness stories about a crucial issue. When you impugn those who oppose a trade that is obviously dangerous to America and when you provide comfort to the enemy, the Taliban, by not even mentioning their war crimes in the context of this swap, then something is very wrong.

President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief has an obligation to protect this country from harm. Freeing five notorious war criminals does not protect America. There is no question the whole fiasco is a huge victory for the jihadist and will inspire even more violence in the world.

Finally, I feel very sorry for Sergeant Bergdahl and his family. I do. I don't know what the Sergeant's mental state is. But it's clear that he left his comrades in a war zone, putting them in even more danger. That is on Sergeant Bergdahl's resume. And no amount of spin will change that even as no amount of spin will change that the Taliban swap was a bad thing for America and for the world. Churchill and FDR would not have done it.

And that's "The Memo."