Skip to comments.Hillary Rodham Clinton defends prisoner swap
Posted on 06/03/2014 2:26:40 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
BROOMFIELD, Colo. (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a measured defense Monday of the Obama administration's controversial decision to swap five Guantanamo Bay detainees for a U.S. soldier held hostage in Afghanistan, noting that many of America's allies make similar deals.
The former secretary of state was asked about the exchange by the moderator at an event in a Denver suburb. Clinton said she did not second-guess people who make such tough decisions, but said the American tradition of caring for its citizens and soldiers was a "noble" one....
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.com ...
Now our soldiers will have a bigger target on their backs, since they know they can get what they want if they kidnap one (or get one to defect like this guy apparently did).
I’d have made the deal but poisoned the terrorists beforehand, so they’d die. Then I’d execute 5 more and mail their heads back to the Taliban.
But hey I’m not a diplomatic genius like Mr. Nobel Peace Prize and his poodle, John Kerry.
At some point, Hillary will have to jettison her cover for the current administration and it will be ugly. OTOH, watch and see who cozies up to her for positions in her new administration.
I’m shocked she commented before her polling information was in.
This deal is going to blow up on Obama. She will ultimately disavow it, once she is forced to acknowledge the facts and has her polling information.
It is such a bad deal. Does anyone do homework in this Administration? Does anyone actually work? Giving up 5 top Taliban leaders is bad enough; but did they think no one would investigate whether Bowe was on our side? Right now, doesn’t look like he is the hero they are portraying.
Oh, I forgot. First the obligatory “of course, we are happy to have him back and are happy for his family. Always good to get an American home”......
You dhimmi crackers must learn to serve the Moslem Brotherhood,
al Qaeda, and us. We won on 911 and deem your Constitution
as null and void. Now, by allah, bow down, submit and serve."
You can see the TREASON from your front porch.
Good. The RNC needs to already start making 2016 campaign ads. This one will fill in nicely.
“American tradition of caring for its citizens and soldiers was a “noble” one.”
I am so glad she took care of our Ambassador and embassy staff and CIA personnel in Benghazi! What would we have done without her?
if we “cared for our citizens” we would not be returning 5 psychopathic fanatic american-murdering terrorists back to their jubilant ululating comrades to plot more maiming and killing of Americans in the name of allah.
of course she is not as smart “as advertised”. She is far too vain angry and arrogant and carries more baggage than United Airlines
Did we at least plant microchips in them so we could track them with GPS?
5 to 1? 5 of there most harden murders to one deserter? And even if Bergdahl didn't desert how does this swap jive?
Not only did this Administration break the law they truly are some of the dumbest DS ever! But hey, at least the VA scandal is off the front page now...
“Not only did this Administration break the law they truly are some of the dumbest DS ever!”
I would feel better if I could believe that this fiasco was due to Obama and his cronies being “dumb”. They knew exactly what they were doing, and if we had any investigative reporters left it wouldn’t take long to locate massive amounts of cash coming into Democratic hands from allies of the Muslim brotherhood as a quid pro quo.
If we assume that Obama is an American president looking out for the best interests of his country many of his actions seem foolish. Not so much if we consider him as the leading edge of a United Nations global government seeking to make America a client-state in an Islam- dominated world technocracy.
Who is surprised ?
Does The Obama Administration Know the Difference Between The Taliban and Haqqani Networks?
by DEBRA HEINE 2 Jun 2014
From CNN’s transcript of the interview:
CROWLEY: Point-blank, did the U.S. negotiate with terrorists in his release?
RICE: Candy, what we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or a woman on the battlefield.
RICE: And in order to do this, it’s very important for folks to understand, if we got into a situation where we said, because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield, we will leave that person behind, we would be in a whole new era for the safety of our personnel and for the nature of our commitment to our men and women in uniform.
RICE: So, because it was the Taliban that had him did not mean that we had any less of an obligation to bring him back.
CROWLEY: Right. In fact, it was the Haqqani Network, which is really listed as a terrorist. And this is not a judgment question. It’s just a question. You had to negotiate with terrorists to secure the release of the sergeant.
RICE: We actually negotiated with the government of Qatar, to whom we owe a great debt.
CROWLEY: Well, right.
RICE: But the point is, he was being held by the Taliban. We had the opportunity to bring him back. He’s back safely in the hands of the United States. And that’s a great thing.
CROWLEY: Yes, and I don’t think anyone argues.
I think the question now is — and you point to the kinds of warfare we’re having now — that no longer can it be said that the U.S. doesn’t negotiate with terrorists?
RICE: I wouldn’t put it that way, Candy. I wouldn’t say that at all.
CROWLEY: How would you put it?
RICE: Well, when we are in battles with terrorists and terrorists take an American prisoner, that prisoner still is a U.S. service man or woman. We still have a sacred obligation to bring that person back. We did so, and that’s what’s to be celebrated.
July 20, 2009
Calling the Taliban’s capture of Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl “a real sign of desperation,” Secretary of State Clinton said Monday the U.S. is working non-stop to find the Idaho soldier.
“We are attempting to do everything we can to locate him and free him,” Clinton said in New Dehli.
“I mean, it’s just outrageous. It’s a real sign of desperation and inappropriate criminal behavior on the parts of these terrorist groups, so we are going to do everything we can to get him.”
Clinton: U.S. would negotiate with Taliban leader
October 27, 2011
Clinton last week disclosed a meeting this past summer between the United States and a representative of the Pakistan-based Haqqani insurgent network at the request of Pakistan’s intelligence service. She said such meetings are part of a strategy in which “we want to fight, talk and build all at the same time.”
“Part of the reason for that is to test whether these organizations have any willingness to negotiate in good faith,” she said. “There’s evidence going both ways, to be clear. Sometimes we hear that they will, that there are elements within each that wish to pursue that. And then other times that it’s off the table. So I think that with respect to the Haqqani network, it illustrates this point.”
June 29, 2012
WASHINGTON The Obama administration is considering a new gambit to restart peace talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan that would send several Taliban detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a prison in Afghanistan, U.S. and Afghan officials told The Associated Press.
Under the proposal, some Taliban fighters or affiliates captured in the early days of the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and later sent to Guantanamo under the label of enemy combatants would be transferred out of full U.S. control but not released. It’s a leap of faith on the U.S. side that the men will not become threats to U.S. forces once back on Afghan soil. But it is meant to show more moderate elements of the Taliban insurgency that the U.S. is still interested in cutting a deal for peace.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and others have said that while negotiations with the Taliban are distasteful, they are the best way to settle the prolonged war.
Haqqani network is a terrorist body, announces Hillary Clinton
Afghan rebels allied to Taliban branded biggest threat to US-Nato forces and put under sanctions
7 September 2012
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.