Posted on 06/04/2014 4:16:21 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
President Barack Obama’s Rose Garden appearance Saturday afternoon with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s parents was an attempt to humanize the prisoner swap to deflect potential criticism of letting five Taliban leaders out of Guantanamo Bay, White House aides say.
It didn’t work.
White House aides were aware Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had been tagged a deserter, and that they would be grilled over not keeping Congress in the loop. But they figured people would be most outraged over the national security implications.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama officials head to Hill to talk Bergdahl)
The White House has been surprised by how much attention has remained on the questions about Bergdahl, from the circumstances of his disappearance to the wild beard his father grew while he was being held that’s even led to Bergdahl’s hometown canceling a celebration. All this, Obama aides say, is in their minds a proxy for the hatred toward the president.
The new PR plan: Frame the criticism as another example of Republicans complaining about something just because Obama was the one to do it.
White House aides and other liberal outlets are highlighting what they see as Republican hypocrisy, citing past quotes from GOP lawmakers calling for Bergdahl’s freedom.
Republicans had been saying for years that the United States should do “everything possible” to get Bergdahl back—and now many are leading the outrage over the deal Obama made. Reps. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) and new Iowa GOP Senate nominee Joni Ernst are among those who started out tweeting out praise about Bergdahl’s release—then, after the political tide turned, deleted those tweets. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in February even endorsed the idea of a five-prisoner swap “depending on the details”—now he says what he knows of the terms of the deal present a “grave risk.”
(Sign up for POLITICO’s Morning Defense tip sheet)
“I’m for prisoner exchanges but only if the deal is right,” which means releasing only those who aren’t going to reenter the battlefield, McCain said Wednesday. “These are hard core [prisoners] that were judged to be a risk to national security.”
Obama aides say they’re not worried about the prospect of weeks of segments on Fox News or hearings by a Republican House that has spent four years investigating and rebuffing the White House on issues like Solyndra and Fast and Furious.
That’s not to say aides were surprised by the questions about Bergdahl as a possible deserter, most of which had been in the public and under White House review for a very long time. This was always going to be complicated, but they didn’t think not getting Bergdahl back, no matter the circumstances, was an option.
The United States has a “pretty sacred rule and that is we don’t leave our men or women in uniform behind and that dates back to the earliest days,” Obama said Tuesday at a news conference in Warsaw, Poland. “Regardless of the circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American soldier back if he’s held in captivity. Period. Full stop. We don’t condition that.”
(Also on POLITICO: Full defense policy coverage)
Aides believe that’s how most people outside of the Republicans in Congress and their base will see the situation.
“I think the principle of leaving no man behind will ultimately prevail,” said White House spokesperson Eric Schultz.
Bergdahl’s release came at the end of a week in which Obama was trying to, as he and his aides repeatedly put it, “turn the page” on Afghanistan — first with a surprise trip there last Sunday, then with the announcement of his phased troop withdrawal plan and then with a speech at West Point meant to present his vision of foreign policy going forward.
White House aides argue that was a coincidence, though Obama did thank the emir of Qatar for his help finalizing the deal on Tuesday, the same day he announced the plan to get out of Afghanistan and the day before the West Point speech.
To Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), that’s a little too convenient for a deal he already thinks was disproportionate.
Graham said the White House has a habit of manipulating foreign events for presidential gain, citing the leaks of classified information after the bin Laden raid, the faulty talking points on Benghazi and now this.
“Is it an accident that in the same week the president announces the end of hostilities, the withdrawal of all forces by 2016 and also retrieves the one captive?” Graham said. “They were looking at the end of hostilities as being a political shot in the arm for them and regaining a lost solder would be seen as positive.”
From what Graham has seen, he says he believes the White House simply wasn’t up to speed with all the questions about Bergdahl.
“All the information coming out from his unit is pretty bad. We’re not going to try this young man on the Internet,” Graham said, “but they completely blew this.”
National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s turn on the Sunday talk shows had long been planned for the weekend after the West Point foreign policy vision speech, White House aides say. But even though they were aware of the deserter questions, the lines she and other aides have been using to defend Bergdahl’s record were no mistake.
Bergdahl, “served with the United States with honor and distinction,” Rice said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
“Sergeant Bergdahl put on the uniform of the United States voluntarily and went to war,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday, explaining the line. “That takes honor and it is a mark of distinction.”
Graham used that as a way to draw a direct line, through Rice, between Bergdahl and Benghazi. She had to step out of the running for Secretary of State after delivering faulty talking points on the deadly Benghazi attack in September 2012 as the U.N. ambassador.
“Who told Susan Rice that he served with honor and distinction? Where does she get all this stuff? Who told her that that the consulate in Benghazi was strongly and significantly secured when it was a death trap?” Graham said. “They are trying to pump up the deal.”
The White House has also scrambled to get Congress on its side, after it failed to give notice to lawmakers that prisoners would be released from Guantanamo Bay.
All 100 senators are being briefed Wednesday evening by James Dobbins, a State Department specialist on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, Admiral James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Robert Cardillo, the deputy director of national intelligence.
As for chief of staff’s Denis McDonough’s meeting with Democratic Tuesday to discuss the release, White House aides chalk that up to his regular outreach on the Hill, not a response to the backlash.
The administration line has been that it has previously consulted lawmakers about the possibility of a deal, but two senior Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein of California and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said such conversations were a long time ago.
“When they say, ‘Oh yes, they were briefed,’ what they are referring to is 2011-2012 when I was still in grade school,” Rockefeller said.
But some Democrats are backing up the White House.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) that over any of the other concerns about Bergdahl or informing Congress, soldiers and their families need to know the United States will bring every last captive home, no matter what.
“That is fundamental thing that our country needs to stand for,” Brown said.
Asked whether the White House miscalculated, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he trusted the top military commanders, including Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Winnefeld.
Levin would not say whether he viewed the deal as a good one or a bad one.
“I can’t make that judgment but I put a lot of stock into what the military leaders say,” Levin said. “This isn’t something Obama decided without the advice and support of his military. They’re the ones who are in command of the people who would be at risk if these guys returned to the battlefield. They also have a sworn obligation to bring their people home.”
I thought that at first - something really bad must be at stake to bring us to our knees/ make us do this - but then I realized no- and came to terms with the fact that the something huge was Obama’s desire to set the terrorists free, since America is the real problem here. We need to get all these poor guys who were simply reacting to the evil subjugation by America out of Gitmo. In short - Obama is on their side :).
Why were those particular detainees released? Who decided who was to be released? What happened to the $6 billion the State Dept. can’t account for?
BULLSHIT!*
That mindless assertion would suggest that if the North Vietnamese had "captured" and held Jane Fonda, we would have risked lives to "save her" from herself.
In an alternate universe, perhaps.
I remember, quite clearly that there was almost unanimous agreement to pay a huge sum to the To the N. Vietnamese, conditional on their keeping her for the rest of her miserable life!
* Moderator, before removing this post due to "language," please do yourself a favor and check the scholarly validation of the concept...
Weapons. Syria.
White House seem to treat the words “honor and distinction” as meaningless phrase you say to every serving military officer. They have to have done something during their service to deserve that honor. Simply joining the military isn’t enough
For those that haven't seen the film, suffice it to say that the powers that be invent a hero POW to distract the public, and he turns out to be, well, less than a hero...
WTH
Hey, Obamorons, YOO HOO!
That only applies to Americans in uniform not providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
As for deserters and traitors,
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung.
Except when it comes to patients af VA hospitals.
Agreed, this article is BS.
But was he a captive or a turncoat like so many in Korea?
God Bless All Swiftboaters, young and old!
...And why did Obama trade 5 for 1? Why is Bergdahl alive, when everyone other captive gets murdered? It makes no sense, unless you are a terrorist sympathizer.
Obama and his admin. has alot to answer for, and this f'wad gov't better MAKE him answer and hold these illegitimate ass prix accountable!
Why did the White House OUT the covert CIA station chief in Afghanistan?????
I thought about that film while reading about this latest mess. Going to have to watch it again.
“There is something huge under this.”
As “Sherlock Holmes” noted ‘eliminate the impossible and what you have left, however improbable, is the answer.
For me that means that obozo wanted to let these 5 killers out and he found a way to do it. Period. Full stop.
I think you are correct! Is it possible that there is something so big that, if known, 95% of America would storm the WH. Is it possible that the Muzzies have knowledge so significant that they are threatening to release it to America and Obummer is being blackmailed???
Politico is America’s version of Nazis waving flags for Der Fuhrer and goosestepping in torch-light parades.
Politico should be banned from FR for the same reason that Stormfront is banned.
F’ Politico, you dirty, slimey Nazi SOBs.
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.