Mother of Slain Journalist James Foley Drops Bombshell on TV

Not that red-blooded Americans need any more reason to desire a total shake-up of the entrenched establishment… nevertheless, here’s a bit more fuel to add to the fire.
Diane Foley told Anderson Cooper in a CNN interview that she was both “embarrassed” and “appalled” at how the situation regarding her son’s capture and eventual execution played out. Primarily because the government looked right past the plight of her son and treated her and her family as an “annoyance.”
Diane Foley she wasted no time in indicting the government with serious “mishandling” of her son’s capture and treatment. For example, she told Cooper that many times she and her family knew more about the whereabouts of her son James than authorities ever did.
“Jim was killed in the most horrific way. He was sacrificed because of just a lack of coordination, lack of communication, lack of prioritization,” Foley said. “As a family, we had to find our way through this on our own.”
The Foley’s are like any other family who love their children. They weren’t selfish; they merely wanted to be reunited with their loved one.
At times, when it seemed like the U.S. government wasn’t doing enough to help them, the Foley’s considered raising ransom money to free their son.
Shockingly, they were told by the state department that, if they were to do that, they would be charged with a criminal offense.
The Foley’s were left with very little recourse, and were forced to depend on a government that didn’t really seem all that interested in helping free their son.
“I think our efforts to get Jim freed were an annoyance [to the U.S. government],” she said in the interview. “It didn’t seem to be in (U.S.) strategic interest, if you will.”
As outrageous as it is, perhaps it isn’t all that shocking.
The Obama administration has been very calculating and very secretive in its handling of affairs internationally, often using situations like this as mere political props.
For instance, Foley revealed to Cooper that more than once they were told by U.S. government officials they were “not go to the media,” and that the “government would not exchange prisoners” or carry out “military action” to help free her son.
Why wasn’t the government interested in helping the Foley’s? The answer to that question might have something to do with America’s desire for military engagement with ISIS.
Keep in mind, much of the establishment is always looking out for their best interest. If you’ll recall, just a few short months prior, right as the VA scandal broke, Obama hastily arranged a hostage negotiation for Bowe Bergdahl, despite lacking the constitutional authority to do so.
His release served Obama and his administration as much as it did Bergdahl.
So, if you look at it in a certain light, James Foley might have served the U.S. government’s interests better dead than he ever would have alive.
As his mother said, “Jim would have been saddened… Jim believed, till the end, that his country would come to (his) aid.”