Time Magazine: Obama Didn´t ´Negotiate with Terrorists´ But Other Presidents Did

Breitbart´s Big Journalism ^ | 6/3/14 | Warner Todd Huston

[Nachum]

Time magazine is rushing to President Obama´s side to defend him against the charge that he negotiated with terrorists to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. The magazine tells readers that the maxim that America doesn´t negotiate with terrorists is more of a general ideal than a hard-bound policy and cites several other presidents who, the magazine claims, did negotiate with terrorists. Time notes that during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis Jimmy Carter negotiated with the Iranian Mullahs who took over Iran after deposing the Shah. Reagan also negotiated with the Mullahs, Time notes. Of course, in both cases

[moviefan8]

I guess Time Warner was smart in spinning off their publishing business.

[garjog]

[justa-hairyape]

Obama has already admitted he has negotiated with terrorist. He admits using Qatar as a surrogate for the NEGOTIATIONS. Does not matter who represented Obama in those negotiations. He admits the negotiations occurred.

[kcvl]

Michael Crowley - Time magazine

[kcvl]

Michael Crowley (@CrowleyTIME) tweeted at 4:29pm - 2 Jun 14:

The Bergdahl story went fast from victory to controversy for Obama. Has changed the subject from VA, though. (https://twitter.com/CrowleyTIME/status/473577204597936128)

[kcvl]

White House Overrode Internal Objections to Taliban Prisoner Release

To pull off the prisoner swap of five Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the White House overrode an existing interagency process charged with debating the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners and dismissed long-standing Pentagon and intelligence community concerns based on Top Secret intelligence about the dangers of releasing the five men, sources familiar with the debate tell TIME.

http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/

[kcvl]

But officials in the Pentagon and intelligence communities had successfully fought off release of the five men in the past, officials tell TIME. “This was out of the norm,” says one official familiar with the debate over the dangers of releasing the five Taliban officials. “There was never the conversation.” Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.

Those opposing release had the benefit of secret and top secret intelligence showing that the five men were a continuing threat, officials familiar with the debate tell TIME. But in the push from the White House and the State Department to clear the men, opponents to release found themselves under constant pressure to prove that the five were dangerous. “It was a heavy burden to show they were bad,” says the second source familiar with the debate.

Opponents of release say absent a peace deal with the Taliban, the release makes no sense. “When our military is engaged in combat operations you’re always going to err on the side of caution,” says the first official familiar with the debate. “Just conceptually, how much sense does it make to release your enemy when you’re still at war with him?”