Just look at what we've learned. Obama reportedly expected that the American people would meet his egregiously lopsided deal exchanging five Osama bin Ladens for one Benedict Arnold with a "euphoric" response? That is breathtaking.
Even if Bergdahl had been a heroic figure, I dare say the public would have objected to Obama's giving up five of the most dangerous terrorists in the world in exchange for Bergdahl and, in the process, negotiating with terrorists.
Obama obviously doesn't share the ordinary American's concern about jihadists, as he has bent over backward to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, tried to sanitize the term "terrorism" from our vernacular and often pretended we are not in a war with Islamic jihadi.
Obama has made clear that he believes that radical Muslims have legitimate grievances against the United States -- or, at the very least, that if we sweet-talk them, they will be less inclined to annihilate us.
You don't have to take my word for the fact that his radar for terrorists is defective. Anyone who truly wants to close Gitmo and release the worst of the worst global terrorists to kill Americans in the future either doesn't care about our national security or is so naive about human nature and Islamic extremism that he might as well not care.
The more we are learning about the deal the more it looks as though Obama didn't have Bergdahl in mind at all in this exchange. He wasn't primarily motivated to secure a soldier's release at the "end of a war" as he claimed. The war is not over even in terms of our own involvement in Afghanistan, but it will likely never be over for the Islamists, whose lives are dedicated in perpetuity to killing infidels.
It is far likelier that Obama was first motivated to release these killers and then looked around for a plausible cover. I'm guessing he wanted to release them with or without getting Bergdahl, either because he was eager to further appease jihadi and the world's Muslims or because he is hellbent on closing Gitmo and this release paves the way for that.
Imagine Obama considering it a "win" to release five Osama bin Ladens with the only condition that they'll have to remain under supervision in Islamic Qatar for a measly year. They don't even have to wear ankle bracelets.
I'm not the one who first suggested that Obama's driving motive with the release was to lay the groundwork for closing Gitmo, and more people are suggesting it. If we can release five of the worst, after all, why should we maintain the facility?
More than that, Obama released them in exchange for not a war hero but a man who appears to be the furthest thing from it -- a soldier who is being called a deserter by his fellow troops. No one could possibly be this bad a negotiator.
For Obama to have rushed into this exchange at all reveals his warped mindset, but to do it against the advice of senators, the Pentagon and certain White House aides makes it very likely that he had an ulterior motive that had nothing to do with Bergdahl.
If Obama had been angling for a wise exchange, he wouldn't have had to sidestep Congress, and he wouldn't have had to cover up the truth about Bergdahl — possibly removing evidence of his desertion from the classified files and rewriting his history as a hero and as one who was in desperately ill health.
But once again, Obama has painted himself in a corner with arrogance-colored paint, which has necessitated a massive propaganda campaign to justify his actions. Once again, he sent Susan Rice out to lie for him, and once again, his aides have had to walk back what she said.
The similarity of the pattern is striking. Remember Jay Carney saying that Rice was talking about a video not in relation to the Benghazi, Libya, attacks but concerning the Middle East in general? Now the White House is saying that Rice was referring not specifically to the circumstances of Bergdahl's captivity when she said he had served with honor and distinction but to his service in general.
Obama and the leftist radicals he surrounds himself with have no clue how most patriotic Americans think. If they did, there is no way Obama would have made such a monumental miscalculation -- unless he really just doesn't care what we think, as long as he can proceed with his dangerous obsession to transform America.
How can Obama conceivably not comprehend that by negotiating with terrorists for a hostage — not even a conventional prisoner of war — he is inviting further hostage taking by jihadi and endangering American lives throughout the world? Our policy against negotiating with terrorists is not some macho-oriented stance designed to show how tough we are; it is an approach aimed at protecting American lives and not emboldening terrorists to attack, capture and kill us.
Of all the disgraceful actions Obama has taken in his 5 1/2 years of passing scorched-earth policies against America as founded, he may have outdone himself on this one.DAVID LIMBAUGH, a Washington Examiner columnist, is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.