COMMENTARY | On the Bergdahl scandal, Hot Air is raising the question of what did Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it. It may be a bit of a stretch, considering that she has been out of the government for over a year.
On the other hand, what exactly did they talk about during that “informal” lunch at the White House? Did the subject of the terrorist negotiations come up? If so, what did Clinton have to say about it?
Thus far Clinton is hewing to the administration line that we leave no man behind, that we had to bend every effort to liberate Bergdahl from his captors. On the other hand, one would not be surprised if she were to change her tune if, as many expect, the thing blows up in Obama’s face.
With Benghazi hanging over her head and her presidential aspirations like that sword of Damocles, the last thing that Clinton needs is involvement in another foreign policy disaster. The fortunate thing for her is that Bergdahl did not happen on her watch. She can always claim that she raised questions to the president about the suitability of swapping terrorists for an alleged deserter. Indeed she could claim that such a thing would not have taken place had she still been secretary of state.
Edward Klein is about to publish a new book, “Blood Feud,” which depict the Clintons and the Obamas as being at war against one another, much like two mafia families. The purpose of the lunch may have been for Obama to sound out Clinton to see how much trouble she was prepared to make over the Bergdahl affair. If that was the case, Clinton likely pretended to be supportive, at least for now.
But the deserter for terrorists swap may have given Clinton an opportunity to distance herself from an increasingly unpopular administration. She has to know that 2016 will not be fought over who best to continue the work of Barack Obama, but who best to fix his mess. The Republicans have a decidedly great advantage in that regard, but Clinton is not likely to concede that position either.