Within months of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s capture in Afghanistan, the Obama administration began considering plans for a rescue. 
 
 Bergdahl slipped away from his post in Afghanistan’s Paktika province in June 2009 and fell into Taliban hands. He was then moved across the border into the tribal areas of Pakistan, where he was held by the Haqqani network, a ­U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization with connections to Pakistan’s intelligence service. 
 
 The circumstances of Bergdahl’s captivity forced the administration to decide whether it would be willing to share more intelligence with Pakistan’s government, despite concerns about its loyalties, or deploy troops to try to grab Bergdahl. On each count, the answer from many inside the administration was no. 
 
 “There were negotiating paths we could have explored other than the Taliban in Doha,” said David Sedney, who until last year served as the Pentagon’s top official overseeing policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Specifically, putting more pressure on the Pakistanis to get him or get us more intelligence. I am not aware of them actually helping us, despite repeated requests. 
 
 “It could have made the possibility of rescuing him more likely,” Sedney said. 
 
 1 of 33 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Taliban-held U.S. soldier released in exchange for Afghan detainees View Photos U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only U.S. service member known to be held hostage in Afghanistan, was handed May 31 by members of the Taliban in exchange for five Afghan detainees held at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, U.S. officials said. Caption U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was handed over May 31 by members of the Taliban. U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is seen in this undated photo. Courtesy of Kim Harrison Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. 
 
 The long arc of Bergdahl’s deployment and captivity is being scrutinized in light of the rising, mostly partisan debate over whether President Obama gave up too much to the Taliban for the 28-year-old soldier’s release. 
 
 With Bergdahl’s mother and father by his side, Obama celebrated the soldier’s return Saturday as a late milestone in the United States’ longest war and a necessary step in helping conclude America’s post-9/11 era. 
 
 But an increasing number of Republicans said Tuesday that they would not have freed five Taliban commanders from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for one soldier. 
 
 “I think we should have made efforts to bring Bergdahl home, but this price is higher than any in history,” said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who as a Navy pilot was held captive in North Vietnam for six months longer than Bergdahl’s time with the Taliban. 
 
 Other congressional leaders, including some Democrats, criticized the administration for not notifying Congress of the exchange in the time frame outlined by law. 
 
 Obama, traveling in Poland on Tuesday, offered a forceful defense of his decision. 
 
 “We saw an opportunity, and we were concerned about Bergdahl’s health,” he said, adding that assurances from the government of Qatar, the Persian Gulf emirate where the released Taliban commanders will remain for at least a year, helped solidify the deal. 
 
 “Is there the possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely,” Obama said. “There’s a certain recidivism rate that takes place.” 
 
 The debate has been shaped by simmering frustration within military ranks. Some have found fault with national security adviser Susan Rice’s comments on a Sunday news show, when she said Bergdahl had served “with distinction and honor,” despite questions about the circumstances around his capture. 
 
 U.S. military officials signaled Tuesday that they will investigate those circumstances along with allegations that Bergdahl, possibly disenchanted with the war effort, willingly abandoned his post. 
 
 Criticism from Congress 
 
 On the Hill, Democrats were more vocal than in previous days in expressing their concern that the White House did not notify Congress of the Guantanamo detainee release ahead of time. 
 
 The National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 requires the administration to notify Congress at least 30 days before releasing a prisoner from Guantanamo. But Obama, in what is known as a signing statement, forecast that he may disregard the rule because he believed that it unlawfully restrained his presidential authority. 
 
 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that deputy national security adviser Antony J. Blinken called her Monday night to apologize for failing to notify her of the release before it was disclosed publicly. 
 
 A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the phone call, said Blinken told Feinstein “that we regretted we were not able to reach some members personally on Saturday.” 
 
 “We have been very clear about the reasons we did not notify the Congress 30 days in advance,” the official said. 
 
 Indirect talks between the United States and the Taliban, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, in pursuit of a broad political reconciliation began in early 2011. That same year, according to House Republican aides, the White House first mentioned the possibility of a prisoner exchange for Bergdahl’s release. 
 
 Soon afterward, House Republicans sent two letters to the Obama administration seeking more information on the possibility of an exchange, the aides said, and another briefing with the administration followed on Jan. 31, 2012. 
 
 GOP aides said the next time congressional Republicans spoke with the administration about the issue was Saturday, when a Pentagon official called an adviser to House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) with word of Bergdahl’s release. 
 
 “I haven’t had a conversation with the White House on this issue in a year and a half,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday. “If that’s keeping us in the loop, then this administration is more arrogant than I thought they were.” 
 
 A complicated debate 
 
 Inside the administration, the calculations over Bergdahl’s fate were complicated by seemingly unrelated events, including the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in May 2011, when U.S. forces traveled deep into Pakistan and killed the al-Qaeda leader. The operation infuriated Pakistan’s government and raised fears among U.S. officials that their uncertain ally’s already mixed support for the war effort would wane further. 
 
 Around that time, U.S. officials began to contemplate an operation to rescue Bergdahl, according to a former senior administration official who participated in the discussions. 
 
 At least twice before Bergdahl’s release, U.S. officials had a possible fix on where he was being held, but some administration officials familiar with the intelligence said there were gaps that left his circumstances unclear. And there were strong voices opposed to an operation, led by then-national security adviser Thomas Donilon and his deputy, Denis McDonough, who is now White House chief of staff. 
 
 Their concern, the official said, was further angering Pakistan’s government and spy agency, which has close connections to the Haqqani network. 
 
 Those who supported a rescue operation included Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then-CIA Director Leon E. Panetta. Their argument in favor of a high-risk, lower-reward operation than the bin Laden raid eventually failed. 
 
 During the same debate, officials were considering the emerging prisoner-exchange proposal. White House advisers believed that a successful exchange would not only free Bergdahl but would also encourage moderate Taliban members to take an Afghan-led reconciliation process seriously. 
 
 But Panetta and other officials — including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. — opposed the terms of the proposed prisoner exchange, according to the official. 
 
 Clinton replied in writing to the written concerns of lawmakers in between the various meetings, according to House aides. The contents of her responses were deemed classified and were not available for review by reporters, the aides said Tuesday. Clinton, now considering a run for president in 2016, on Tuesday publicly endorsed the deal to free Bergdahl that the official said she once privately opposed. 
 
 A spokesman for Clapper said that he, like others, had expressed concern about the proposal but added that “circumstances have changed dramatically,” citing concerns about Bergdahl’s declining health, the drawdown of U.S. troops and cooperation from Qatar in monitoring the detainees after their release. 
 
 Another former Obama administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secret process, said Gen. Martin Dempsey, who took over from Mullen as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began a renewed effort to free Bergdahl about a year ago. 
 
 Dempsey, concerned that time was running out to make a deal for Bergdahl before the U.S. combat mission concluded at the end of this year, was searching for new ideas. 
 
 “They were looking at what are the options that are currently available to get this kid home one way or the other,” said a U.S. counterterrorism adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the search. 
 
 “He wanted all the theoretical options on the table. Dempsey knew there was a short window. Obama was looking for a way out of Afghanistan,” the adviser added. “Those things were communicated. It has a cascade effect.” 
 
 Karen DeYoung in Brussels; Zachary A. Goldfarb in Warsaw; and Ed O’Keefe, Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima in Washington contributed to this report. ||||| Side Eye 
 
 In 2011 and 2012, Hillary Clinton’s State Department negotiated directly with the Taliban over a swap for Bowe Bergdahl, but Clinton was not a fan of the idea. 
 
 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 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 demanded stricter conditions for the release of the prisoners than what President Obama settled for last week. 
 
 Despite that the White House’s claim this week that the United States did not negotiate “directly” with the Taliban to secure the Bergdahl swap, the State Department, Defense Department, and White House officials did meet several times with Taliban leaders in 2011 and 2012 to discuss the deal. The negotiations, held in in Munich and Doha, fell apart in early 2012. But before they did, Clinton had a framework deal drawn up that was much tougher on the Taliban than what ultimately got done two years later. 
 
 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.” 
 
 Clinton was not the only top member of the Obama administration skeptical of the deal. Three U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast on Monday that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, flat out rejected the release of the five detainees, saying there was too high a risk these Taliban commanders would return to the battlefield and orchestrate attacks against Americans. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declined to certify that the United States could mitigate the risk of releasing the Taliban commanders. 
 
 Other officials weren’t so sure and said the American negotiators knew the deal had to be iron clad because convincing Clinton to support it would be a challenge. 
 
 “She was felt that the Haqqani network were really bad guys,” Congressman Jim Moran told The Daily Beast. “She was reluctant to enter into negotiations with them.” 
 
 There were two main differences between the Clinton-led negotiations that took place in 2011 and 2012 and the largely White House-led process in late 2013 and this year that ultimately achieved the prisoner swap. First of all, Clinton’s deal would have had stricter measures to ensure that the Taliban held up their end of the deal—and kept their released commanders from returning to the fight. 
 
 The U.S. was going to release three of the five Taliban commanders first, then wait 60 days to see how it went. After that, Bergdahl would be handed over and the other two Taliban would be released from Guantanamo Bay. 
 
 The Qatari regime under the Clinton deal would have been required to do a whole host of things to ensure that the released prisoners were adhering to the terms of their pseudo-house arrest, including surveillance, systematic monitoring, and travel bans that would last until there was peace. 
 
 Under the deal Obama struck last week, the assurances given by Qatar have remained secret other than a one-year travel ban the White House announced. Reports from Doha this week show that the released prisoners are free to roam about with little or no supervision. 
 
 Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Daily Digest Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. Cheat Sheet A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't). By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason 
 
 Secondly, for Clinton, the prisoner swap only made sense if it was one piece of a series of events that led to a peace process between the Taliban and the Afghan government. In February 2011, Clinton delivered a major speech that set out her offer to the Taliban for a future inside the Afghan political system. 
 
 “Break ties with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by the Afghan constitution, and you can rejoin Afghan society,” she told the Taliban. “Refuse and you will continue to face the consequences of being tied to al Qaeda as an enemy of the international community.” 
 
 The sequence to peace, officials said, was supposed to begin with the Taliban opening a representative office in Doha first. Then the prisoner swap would occur, establishing confidence between the two sides, and after that, the Taliban would join a formal reconciliation process with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The office did eventually open in June 2013 but closed the same day after Karzai said the Taliban violated the initial agreement by hoisting their flag above it. 
 
 In late 2012, Clinton spokesman Patrick Ventrell said the Bergdahl case was only one part of the overall effort to convince the Taliban to make peace. “We said within the reconciliation track… that his case was something that, in that track, could potentially be raised.” 
 
 Following Clinton’s departure and the collapse of the Taliban peace outreach, the White House took a more assertive role in pushing for the prisoner swap. Eventually, the White House agreed to the prisoner swap as a stand-alone deal with no relationship to the broader effort to end the war. 
 
 Moran said although it’s true Clinton was negotiating for a tougher deal than Obama, it’s also true the circumstances surrounding the Clinton-era deal had changed. 
 
 “The talks evolved. The fact that we are going to be pulling out of Afghanistan shortly meant that the likelihood of retrieving Bergdahl was diminishing. And once the war in Afghanistan is over, some will argue that we no longer have a legal right to detain the Taliban,” he said. 
 
 On Tuesday, Clinton gave a vague and noncommittal statement on the prisoner swap, declining to say whether she was for it or against it or whether she still fears the released prisoners pose a threat to America. 
 
 “This young man, whatever the circumstances, was an American citizen—is an American citizen—was serving in our military,” Clinton said. “The idea that you really care for your own citizens and particularly those in uniform, I think is a very noble one.” 
 
 “You don’t want to see these five prisoners go back to combat. There’s a lot that you don’t want to have happen. On the other hand you also don’t want an American citizen, if you can avoid it, especially a solider, to die in captivity,” Clinton added. “I think we have a long way to go before we really know how this is going to play out.” 
 
 Either way, Obama may have done Clinton a huge favor by proving he can release high-risk detainees from Guantanamo without Congressional approval, because that could save her the trouble of dealing with them later on, if she became president.
– Hillary Clinton offered a less-than-ringing endorsement of the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap yesterday, calling the administration's no-man-left-behind ideal "noble," but adding, "I think we have a long way to go before we really know how this is going to play out." Which isn't surprising, sources tell the Daily Beast, because while Clinton actively led negotiations for Bergdahl's release in 2011 and 2012, she was "very skeptical" about a prisoner swap deal, and might not have signed off on any final agreement. She "felt that the Haqqani network were really bad guys," Congressman Jim Moran explains. Clinton was negotiating a tougher version of the deal that would have staggered the release of the Taliban detainees, and subjected them to more restrictions, like monitoring and travel bans. At the time, people like Adm. Mike Mullen and Leon Panetta were advocating a rescue operation instead of a prisoner swap, the Washington Post reports. Obama hoped a swap would help along the Afghan-Taliban peace process, but Clinton, Robert Gates, and James Clapper all believed that releasing the detainees was too risky. A spokesman for Clapper confirmed that he'd had doubts, but added that "circumstances have changed dramatically" since then.