Megyn Kelly joined the Fox News lynch mob last night when she hosted a group of former soldiers who served with Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan. She dialed up her outrage-o-meter in a hammy show of sympathy for them. But really, her only interest in their plight and experiences seemed to be in using them to pre-judge Bergdahl and convict the Obama administration at the same time.
It’s certainly understandable that the soldiers should feel betrayed and confused by Bergdahl and angry at the Obama administration for portraying him as a hero. But, apparently, attorney Kelly doesn’t believe in our system of justice that ensures Bergdahl remain innocent until convicted. Instead, she spent nearly the entire 10-minute interview below (which was just one part of a multi-part interview) prodding them to portray Bergdahl as a deserter, failing to caution viewers that an official investigation has not yet been conducted and focusing like a laser beam on portraying the Obama administration as somehow complicit.
Kelly also failed to mention that the soldiers’ media appearances are being coordinated by Republican strategist – and Fox News contributor – Richard Grenell.
Kelly was so busy using the soldiers as a political football, she failed to get what could have been a really fascinating story. What was Bergdahl really like? Were there signs he was unhappy? What were they? What did the soldiers think was bothering him? Had he ever expressed sympathy for the Taliban over the U.S.? What was their mission and just how stressful was it? How many suffered from PTSD? That isn’t to say that if Bergdahl deserted his unit he should be excused from the consequences. But having a group of understandably resentful soldiers pronounce Bergdahl as a deserter should not be the end of the story.
But clearly, Kelly’s main goal was to get them to indict President Obama, too.
Instead of Afghanistan, which the soldiers were really experts on, Kelly asked such questions as, “What did you think when you saw the president with (Bergdahl’s) parents in the Rose Garden?”
And, “What do you make (of) Susan Rice saying he served with honor and distinction?” After that question, Kelly looked at the camera with what I’m sure she thought was a charmingly emphatic look – one that “some” would say was as phony as her blonde hair color. She added that “These guys are not big fans” of Rice’s comment. So, naturally Kelly wanted to make a point of highlighting it.
When one of the soldiers announced that Bergdahl “deserted … to go seek out the Taliban,” Kelly did not ask anyone to wait for trial to arrive at such a conclusion. Instead she pushed another anti-Obama line. “You feel that was an affront to you, to say that (Bergdahl’s) service was with honor and distinction.”
Kelly later asked, “What do you make of these reports now that some White House aides are saying you guys are Swift Boaters and even the president and his top aides are now saying that …this is political?” Which is the fake-blonde pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one.
Kelly must have felt she hit pay dirt when one of the soldiers replied that it was a “spit in the face to everyone who joined the army and anyone who died looking for him.” If only he had mentioned Benghazi, Kelly might have gotten a bonus. But we’re supposed to get more of her sit down tonight. So maybe that’s coming.
Fortunately, the soldiers showed more integrity and substance than she did. The team leader said, “All we want to know is why” Bergdahl left the unit. “I don’t think any of us are angry at him.”
The soldiers’ current feelings toward Bergdahl would have been so interesting to probe. But Kelly asked, “Raise your hand if you would like to see him court-martialed.”
They all agreed. But, unlike Kelly, they also all agreed Bergdahl deserves “due process.”
Thank goodness they are made of better stock than she is.
Even those soldiers don’t know the full story. They know what they heard at the time, and what their opinion was of Bergdahl before he was captured.
This is just another right wing attack on Obama disguised as phony concern.
And I note again that nobody asked these soldiers what they thought of Ronald Reagan knowingly sending 1500 TOW missiles to Iran in 1986 so he could say he’d freed a bunch of hostages just in time for the 1986 midterms.
I didn’t have the stomach to listen, but I glanced over and saw some of it on the screen from time to time.
You know, it’s one thing to slime, smear, attack and go after a politician or public figure, but doing this to a private citizen who never asked for publicity, a guy who spent 5 very long years in captivity by a terrorist group, some of that time in an actual cage, is so grotesque, I have no words for it.
I was fascinated to see that while the “studio audience” was shrieking about him, the show kept running clips from the “proof of life” videos from his time in captivity that show a shaken, terrified young man, often eating ravenously, suggesting they only gave him decent or sufficient food when they needed him to be compliant for the taping.
This is such a complete contrast with the accusations they’re so eager to fling about his “collaboration” and “fraternization” with the terrorists, you’d think just one of them would have a few qualms about sliming him that way. But no.