Via Breitbart, this makes two separate accusations today — Ed already blogged the other — involving government attempts to suppress the truth about Bergdahl. Bad enough that they’d ask good soldiers to conspire in it, but withholding it from Congress takes this to another level.
Pay attention at around a minute in, when he says he was taken by surprise by yesterday’s NYT story about the note Bergdahl reportedly left before leaving his post five years ago. (A note which may or may not have hinted at renouncing his citizenship.) Chambliss, who holds a plum intelligence post within Congress, read Bergdahl’s classified file. The note wasn’t in it. In fact, it sounds like the note wasn’t even mentioned in it. Why not? Am I missing something here? Kelly seems to take what he says in stride, but I don’t know how else to read this except as Chambliss accusing someone — the Pentagon, the IC, maybe the White House — of covering up evidence that might, if known, have made it harder to gain congressional acquiescence in a prisoner swap. If he’s not saying that, what is he saying? What would be the “innocent” explanation for overlooking a written confession to desertion from the only American POW in Afghanistan, whose release the president has been trying to secure for years?
Oddly enough, according to Chambliss, there were no accusatory statements from Bergdahl’s squad mates in the file either. Is that because they were pressured to lie to military investigators or because they told the truth and their statements were conveniently left out of the file? And one more question: Did Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Intel Committee, know about the note Bergdahl left or was the evidence kept from her too? Feinstein’s already irritated at the White House for shutting her out of the Bergdahl negotiation process for the past two years. If they also lied to her about the note, this might become a bipartisan fiasco for O.