Dianne Feinstein talked to Al Hunt from Bloomberg about Bergdahl, where she says that she doesn’t believe there was a credible threat on Bergdahl’s life from the Taliban. Of course then she tempers it with ‘but I don’t know’, as if to try and CYA or something.
But there’s got to be a reason she doesn’t believe there was a credible threat:
BLOOMBERG – HUNT: Let’s leave aside the question of legal requirements of the 30 day notice. The president didn’t even call you hours or a day beforehand, or any of the other intelligence committee members. Do you think that was because if there was a credible threat from the Taliban, as they say, that they would kill him if it were leaked? Do you think they just didn’t want to hear your response?
FEINSTEIN: No, I don’t think there was a credible threat, but I don’t know. I have no information that there was.
You see, this was a little different than most things, because there was a history to it. We were brought in in November 2011 —
HUNT: A long history.
FEINSTEIN: Yes. When this was part of a bigger effort. And that bigger effort was a reconciliation with the Taliban. And this was proposed as a confidence building measure. And the five would be kept under house arrest in Qatar, and a reconciliation effort begun.
Well, it was very clear at the time that the Taliban really want these five back. And of course history has verified that. We had some concerns then; it went into to 2012. The effort was apparently dropped because they couldn’t put together what was necessary to do it.
So there was an interest, an interest to the extent that we put in our 2012 authorization bill the 30 days’ consultation.
HUNT: 30 day, right.
FEINSTEIN: Which, that bill was signed in January of 2013 by the president, and to the best of our knowledge has no signing statement with it.
HUNT: Right.
FEINSTEIN: So, we were under the impression that he would consult if it ever came up again. That’s what made this a little different than something else.
HUNT: There are two narratives about Sergeant Bergdahl. One was that he was a deserter, that he just left. The other was that he was a troubled man who occasionally wandered away and then came back, and as Dr. Rice said, served with honor and distinction.
You’ve had a chance to learn a fair amount about him. Which is the closer to the truth?
FEINSTEIN: I think, from what I know, that it’s kind of mixed. But, nonetheless, he’s an American soldier. He was lost, he was taken hostage. Whether he walked away, AWOL, meaning temporary, or permanently, meaning desertion, the army will figure out.
I’m guessing someone from the White House will call her and she’ll do what she’s done in the past and reverse her claim that there wasn’t a credible threat. Just wait.