Posted on 06/04/2014 6:12:20 AM PDT by Resettozero
Clearly distancing herself from Barack Obama as regards exchanging Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five high-level Taliban terrorists, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is making it known she "was personally and intensely involved in the debate over swapping five Taliban commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2011 and 2012. But she had severe reservations about the potential deal, and was demanding stricter conditions for the release of the prisoners than what President Obama settled for last week".
It's also now being reported that "Clinton had a framework deal drawn up that was much tougher on the Taliban than what ultimately got done two years later". Given what seems to be an increasingly negative view of the deal that was done and the very real possibility of a run for the presidency in 2016 by Hillary, it's likely Team Hillary has decided to make sure her fingerprints are nowhere near the exchange.
Three former administration officials who were involved in the process told The Daily Beast that Clinton was worried about the ability to enforce the deal and disinclined to trust the Taliban or the Haqqani network in Pakistan, which held Bergdahl until this weekend. Clinton was so concerned, the former officials added, that she may not have even signed off if the negotiations had succeeded.
She was heavily involved from the beginning, she was very skeptical of the arrangement, she was very wary of it, one former administration official said. If we had come to some agreement she perhaps would have backed it, but we never got to that point.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
She was hoping to release 10 terrorists, not just 5.
You might have something there...interesting point of view.
Obama wants to close GTMO, and getting away with this one (which he shall) will pave the way for more releases. The left will come to see this as an "honorable" thing he's doing.
Of course he will... this is no different than any of his other crimes. The very worst possible scenario is that it gets referred to Holder for consideration... and we all know where that will lead.
Like I said...
Not sure he will get away Scot-free this time.
Hope you’re wrong this time.
The dems had a reason for praising Peanuts Carter and getting people to talking about the Iranian hostage crisis and the “October Surprise” during their convention right before the attack in Benghazi.
That is a FACT that can’t be ignored.
Did the dems orchestrate the praise of Carter for the attack with the intent to blame the attack on republicans collaboration with terrorist trying to make Obama look like Carter?
Did the terrorist simply pick up on the dems praising Carter and “spontaneously” plan an attack to mirror what the dems were doing?
Did the republicans collaborate with terrorist to make Obama look like Carter?
Was it all just a big coincidence the dems were praising Carter right before an attack very similar to the Iranian hostage crisis with Carter and the terrorist didn’t have the slightest clue the dems praised Carter at their convention?
Me too
Still thinking he was supposed to lose?
“Still thinking he was supposed to lose?”
More ever day.
No one expecting to be president for a second term would set out to destroy the economy and create complete havoc overseas the way he did leaving themselves a complete mess to clean up in their second term.
The MSM could carry this clown’s water for 4 years but not for 8.
He would be much more valuable to the left if he was a 1 termer. That would make him a “martyr”, a victim of republican racism and dirty tricks.
All his failures, foreign and domestic, would be laid right at the feet of the republicans.
No one would be able to clean up his mess in 4 years because we had 4 years of lies about just how bad it really is.
Fact is I think Zippo had a Freudian slip when he said with his “Red Line” with Syria it wasn’t his credibility on the line it was the credibility of the US.
That statement would have been true if he wasn’t president at the time.
It would also be a lot easier for Hillary to get elected in 2016 after a 4 year failed “republican” presidency than after an 8 year a failed “democrat” presidency.
So now, she must move more quickly, or what?
More than likely Hillary’s going with her “Third Way” campaign which was started as far back as 1998-1999.
She would need someone running on Obamas coattails with a promise to continue the Obama legacy, and someone from the right that can be painted as a right wing extremist.
Hillary will run 3rd party.
Hillary will call both sides extremist and both have been shown to be failures and a “Third Way” is needed.
The “youth vote” would find “Third Way” as something new and exciting and something that hasn’t been tried before, they’re idiots after all they will fall for the latest fad.
Republicans win big in November and the economy crashes more than just a few from both left and right will be willing to give “Third Way” a chance.
Hillary wins with a bigger margin it would divide the right side vote as both would actually be trying to win..
The objective of the left is to get Hillary elected.
The extreme leftist candidate would be nothing more than for show, someone only the fringe kooks would follow and Hillary could use to show a difference between her “moderate” position and the position of the extreme left.
Got it. But, no third-party ever for Constitutional conservatives? Just don’t want to believe that, unless...confiscation of the GOP is possible yet.
That last part also was sort of a question.
Hillary actually "remembered" that she was personally and intensely involved in the debate over swapping five Taliban commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2011 and 2012." Even though she naturally had severe reservations about the potential deal, and was demanding stricter conditions for the release of the prisoners than what President Obama settled for last week.
I love the part where Hillary valiantly asserts she "had a framework deal drawn up that was much tougher on the Taliban than what ultimately got done two years later."
It's such a relief that Hillary remembers the Gitmo/Bergdahl details b/c she had a nasty fall and was subject to blackouts.
Hillary has had problems "remembering" details about Benghazi (sob). So its pretty amazing that hillary "remembers" excruciating details about her part in the Bergdahl/terrorist swap.
=================================================
Hold on a sec, people. This means Hillary must keep a diary....the same diary Wash/Post's Bob Woodward has been looking for.
====================================================
BACKSTORY---News hound Bob Woodward Definitely Doesnt Buy Hillarys Benghazi Denial. Woodward doesnt believe Hillary's whine that it's all about politics. The reporter known for making news claims there are still serious, unanswered questions about this.
Hillary's book stoutly declares that everything there is to know about Benghazi has already been revealed....she is hoping to silence Republicans by charging politics is behind the continuing probe.
Woodward will not be dissuaded. ".....one of the questions I have -- did she keep a diary? Obama confirmed to Woodward that he keeps a diary. Woodward noted. Ronald Reagan kept a very detailed diary of Iran Contra, and he finally turned it over.
The veteran Post reporter also knocked Clinton and Obama....... noting Benghazi is not about partisan politics, as they stoutly aver.
There are facts, Woodward asserted. There is neutral inquiry. And there is a way to look at this and get that information and see if there is new information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.