State Department spokesliar: "We don't know the fact pattern here" re Bergdahl's defection. All going down the memory hole

One of the main premises of Orwells wrenching novel 1984 was how the Party was constantly re-writing history.  Thus when the country of the novel was at war with EastAsia the Party line was "We've always been at war with EastAsia," and Party minions would literally cut stories to the contrary out of old newspapers" and flush them "down the memory hole."  After a few years the average citizen could never be sure if their memory to the contrary was accurate, because nothing in the archives or records could confirm it.

Today you can watch and read as Team Obama and his henchmen try their own version of 1984.  It's both enlightening and horrifying.

Specifically, Team Obama and the Democrats have now had more than enough time to craft "the fable" they'll tell to deflect public outrage at their exchanging five really bad terrorists for a guy who deserted in Afghanistan (that would be Bowe Bergdahl).

The revisionist-history talking points are 1) we really don't know how he came to be "held" by the Taliban; 2) that there are "conflicting reports" about how this happened.  As a State Dept spokeswhore put it in a press conference,

Google it on the web and you’ll find a ton of conflicting reports. The fact is we’re still establishing a fact pattern about what happened, how he ended up in Taliban captivity.

This of course is utter bullshit, exactly like the fable "The unfortunate events at Benghazi were the result of protest about an internet video that insulted Islam."  The fable is designed to give cover to Obama and his lackeys for releasing five of the worst terrorists in exchange for the return of...a deserter.  Moreover, directly contrary to spokesliar Marie Harf (quoted above) the Obama administration knew he was a deserter.  The Army knew way back in 2009, within an hour of his defection.

The next narrative from Team Obama is that we shouldn't believe the first-person accounts by members of his squad about Bergdahl's screwy behavior and outspoken anti-American sentiments.

MS. HARF: So I think people need to be really careful about believing every second or third-hand report out there, and also what the President, what the Secretary, what Chairman Dempsey have said: Regardless of how he went missing, it is our responsibility to him to bring him home, period.

So the first sentence impeaches the testimony of eyewitnesses to Bergdahl's behavior, in accord with the new fable.  And then the second sentence is complete bullshit:  I've never heard of any member of the U.S. armed forces pushing to exchange prisoners or pay cash to repatriate a deserter.  Deserters made their choice, and they can damn well live with the results.  If the enemy wants to let 'em go, fine, but no soldier loses even a moment of sleep worrying about a deserter.  In the military, that's about as bad a crime as one can commit--just below treason.

QUESTION: And when you say second- and third-hand reports, when his squad mates who served with him overseas said he walked off the --
MS. HARF: Lucas, I’m sure some of them – I mean, look, there’s a lot of rumor and telephone game that’s being played here about what happened. Not all --
QUESTION: So you’re saying that the guys on television last night – his squad mates, platoon mates – were not correct?
MS. HARF: I’m saying we don’t know the fact pattern yet here. We don’t. Nobody knows exactly what happened that night. As the facts emerge, as [Bergdahl] is able to discuss them with the Department of Defense, we will see where that takes us.

Now normally you'd think that the Army would be pretty eager to find the truth--and then tell the public.  And if left to their own judgment that's probably what would happen.  But because Team Obama will lean on the brass to support the fable, and because virtually every general who isn't ready to retire is *very* sensitive to what the president wants, the military will play along with Obama.

So...the "real" reports collected from interviews in 2009 will likely be flushed "down the memory hole," replaced with carefully-worded cover stories.  Time magazine and Politico and HuffPo will publish "insider" info about all the terrible abuses suffered by Bergdahl during five years with the Taliban--while carefully avoiding any mention of the fact that the dumb son of a bitch walked over to their side voluntarily. 

Which as far as I'm concerned should make it impossible to feel any sympathy for him.  Period.