Incredible - Obama: 'I did not pay a ransom. IRAN paid the ransom!'

[Care4all]

Ransom, you pay... then get hostages,

leverage, you get hostages... then you give them back what was theirs...or, then you pay.

It's a fine line, but there is a difference.

 

[Jarhead]

lol Some days it seems the Obama administration can't finish a sentence without telling another lie.

U.S. Admits Payment To Iran Used As Leverage For Prisoners' Release

Yes indeed. The Democrat catch word for today Little Children is "LEVERAGE". In the future, the word "leverage" will be inserted wherever the word "ransom" was previously used. This is part of the Obama enlightenment and re-education program.

Ah, human, I knew you would distort and demean the spirit of the argument. It is expected. Do you doubt that the Iranian money we held was used as "leverage" for the return of the 4 souls recovered? If not, then what? Ransom comes to mind, but since we do not (to my knowledge) hold any other country's money in a freeze, this transfer can hardly be called ransom when we paid them their own money. Even so, one of the prisoners is from my home town and I am overjoyed that he is home again.

Seeing as it was paid in cash speaks volumes. The BS about "we don't have a financial tie to Iran" was an insult to the intelligence of his supporters (he knew they would believe it AND repeat it as they defended him). I have no tie to Belgium but I can wire money to them anytime I want...at the very least, the money could have been wired to a swiss account......
When something is done in exchange for the release of a person, it is a ransom.

 

[Jarhead]

Ransom, you pay... then get hostages,

leverage, you get hostages... then you give them back what was theirs...or, then you pay.

It's a fine line, but there is a difference.

where did you come up with that spin? (no need to answer....I know where you get your spin on just about everything)

Someone who holds someone hostage for ransom is not trustworthy....so, more often than not, ransom is paid AT THE EXCHANGE of the hostage

 

[the_human_being]

Ransom, you pay... then get hostages,

leverage, you get hostages... then you give them back what was theirs...or, then you pay.

It's a fine line, but there is a difference.

Actually, it's termed "aiding and abetting the enemy". People have been imprisoned for doing that.

 

[Votto]

After reviewing this case, we find that multiple untruths were spoken but no evidence of purposeful wrongdoing could be found, also known as lying.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Some days it seems the Obama administration can't finish a sentence without telling another lie.

U.S. Admits Payment To Iran Used As Leverage For Prisoners' Release

This incident was definitely handled wrong, but I'm having a hard time getting all worked up over it. We knew for months the money was going to be released to it's rightful owners, and holding off until our people were released was better than paying off without a return. But I'm disappointed that Obama didn't just explain the leverage part from the gitgo. Republicans were going to make an issue of the return under ANY circumstances, so why not come clean right away? Reagan did the same thing with the Iranian hostages with the arms/Contra mess and didn't admit it for months. And nobody let him forget it. Seems like Obama could have learned a lesson from that.

Otherwise, I leave it to the Trump choir to get all twittered, stoking their adrenalin with faux outrage. I'll just have another cuppa instead.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Some days it seems the Obama administration can't finish a sentence without telling another lie.

U.S. Admits Payment To Iran Used As Leverage For Prisoners' Release

This incident was definitely handled wrong, but I'm having a hard time getting all worked up over it. We knew for months the money was going to be released to it's rightful owners, and holding off until our people were released was better than paying off without a return. But I'm disappointed that Obama didn't just explain the leverage part from the gitgo. Republicans were going to make an issue of the return under ANY circumstances, so why not come clean right away? Reagan did the same thing with the Iranian hostages with the arms/Contra mess and didn't admit it for months. And nobody let him forget it. Seems like Obama could have learned a lesson from that.

Otherwise, I leave it to the Trump choir to get all twittered, stoking their adrenalin with faux outrage. I'll just have another cuppa instead.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Some days it seems the Obama administration can't finish a sentence without telling another lie.

U.S. Admits Payment To Iran Used As Leverage For Prisoners' Release

This incident was definitely handled wrong, but I'm having a hard time getting all worked up over it. We knew for months the money was going to be released to it's rightful owners, and holding off until our people were released was better than paying off without a return. But I'm disappointed that Obama didn't just explain the leverage part from the gitgo. Republicans were going to make an issue of the return under ANY circumstances, so why not come clean right away? Reagan did the same thing with the Iranian hostages with the arms/Contra mess and didn't admit it for months. And nobody let him forget it. Seems like Obama could have learned a lesson from that.

Otherwise, I leave it to the Trump choir to get all twittered, stoking their adrenalin with faux outrage. I'll just have another cuppa instead.

The past four presidents, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, had refused to yield to Iran's demands, but leave it to Obama to wet his pants again when dealing with Iran and cave to their demands.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Some days it seems the Obama administration can't finish a sentence without telling another lie.

U.S. Admits Payment To Iran Used As Leverage For Prisoners' Release

Yes indeed. The Democrat catch word for today Little Children is "LEVERAGE". In the future, the word "leverage" will be inserted wherever the word "ransom" was previously used. This is part of the Obama enlightenment and re-education program.

Ah, human, I knew you would distort and demean the spirit of the argument. It is expected. Do you doubt that the Iranian money we held was used as "leverage" for the return of the 4 souls recovered? If not, then what? Ransom comes to mind, but since we do not (to my knowledge) hold any other country's money in a freeze, this transfer can hardly be called ransom when we paid them their own money. Even so, one of the prisoners is from my home town and I am overjoyed that he is home again.

You can twist and spin all you want, but saying it was leverage implies the money would not have been paid if the hostages had not been released. That makes it ransom.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

lol Some days it seems the Obama administration can't finish a sentence without telling another lie.

U.S. Admits Payment To Iran Used As Leverage For Prisoners' Release

This incident was definitely handled wrong, but I'm having a hard time getting all worked up over it. We knew for months the money was going to be released to it's rightful owners, and holding off until our people were released was better than paying off without a return. But I'm disappointed that Obama didn't just explain the leverage part from the gitgo. Republicans were going to make an issue of the return under ANY circumstances, so why not come clean right away? Reagan did the same thing with the Iranian hostages with the arms/Contra mess and didn't admit it for months. And nobody let him forget it. Seems like Obama could have learned a lesson from that.

Otherwise, I leave it to the Trump choir to get all twittered, stoking their adrenalin with faux outrage. I'll just have another cuppa instead.

Leverage shit. It was ransom, and one happily paid by Obama.

The money should have been equally distributed to the hostages and their families in 1981 as compensation for their suffering and inconvenience.

Had it been, there would be no question about the recent event.

OMG! Admitting Reagan made a mistake! I know you would never admit that if it didn't disparage Obama. But for that you're even willing to tarnish Reagan's armor. Curmudgeon!

Reagan made mistakes. Obama makes them on purpose, with clear intent.

 

[ogibillm]

if the payment of the money was a condition in any way tied to the release of the hostages, yes it's a ransom.

spin it however you want. Iran ended up with 400M more than it had yesterday as a condition under which hostages would be released.

Wrong. It was already Iran's money. It just hadn't been released to them.

Nonsense. The state department flat out lied and told people that the timing of these things were unrelated.

"Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false."

That's ^^^ John Kirby a spokesperson for the State Department.

Obama got in on the act also claiming that people saying otherwise were engaging in the 'fabrication of outrage' and that they'd announced these payments in January, blah, blah, blah.

And now, lo and behold, we are now finding out they were indeed related. Spin all you want. It's silly. They lied to our faces about this payment being a condition, which it was, and they themselves have now admitted it.

No. Letting the prisoners go was OUR condition. We were holding Iran's money hostage, idiot.

so Iran traded hostages for money then, instead of us trading money for hostages? Wow, that is soooo different. LOL.

however you want to see it, moron, the administration traded the money for the people. It was a clear condition of this deal, which they have now admitted, after initially completely denying, so you can basically shut the fuck up or keep making yourself look like a fool, it doesn't really matter to me.

you really have a tough time understanding that we owed iran that money and they were getting it, eventually, whether they released the prisoners or not

 

[Fueri]

if the payment of the money was a condition in any way tied to the release of the hostages, yes it's a ransom.

spin it however you want. Iran ended up with 400M more than it had yesterday as a condition under which hostages would be released.

Wrong. It was already Iran's money. It just hadn't been released to them.

Nonsense. The state department flat out lied and told people that the timing of these things were unrelated.

"Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false."

That's ^^^ John Kirby a spokesperson for the State Department.

Obama got in on the act also claiming that people saying otherwise were engaging in the 'fabrication of outrage' and that they'd announced these payments in January, blah, blah, blah.

And now, lo and behold, we are now finding out they were indeed related. Spin all you want. It's silly. They lied to our faces about this payment being a condition, which it was, and they themselves have now admitted it.

No. Letting the prisoners go was OUR condition. We were holding Iran's money hostage, idiot.

so Iran traded hostages for money then, instead of us trading money for hostages? Wow, that is soooo different. LOL.

however you want to see it, moron, the administration traded the money for the people. It was a clear condition of this deal, which they have now admitted, after initially completely denying, so you can basically shut the fuck up or keep making yourself look like a fool, it doesn't really matter to me.

you really have a tough time understanding that we owed iran that money and they were getting it, eventually, whether they released the prisoners or not

Bull-oney.

You people have a tough time understanding that by making the cash a bargaining chip they made it part of the deal.

How that is not self-evident to someone who is such a sharpie that they are calling out others for their obtuseness I dunno, but I do know I find that pretty funny.

Then they lied about it, of course. They wouldn't have had to if one of two things had been true:

1. They hadn't made it part of the deal, as they claimed.
2. It didn't matter so there was nothing to conceal.

And now, of course, it doesn't matter to the true believers, who are busy spinning, spinning, spinning.

 

[jwoodie]

I'd like to hear how the Obama apologists on this board spin this one...

 

[nat4900]

I'd like to hear how the Obama apologists on this board spin this one...

Here, moron, address these simple questions:

1, Was that money given to Iran, American money or Iranian money?

2. Did an international court order for the Iran money to be given back to Iran from all foreign banks that were holding that money through an embargo??? .....Yes or No?

3. Did we have 6 Iranian spies in U.S. prisons and basically did a "prisoner swap"??? Yes or No?

(if there's a grownup in your trailer park, ask for some help.).

 

[NYcarbineer]

A little late to ask Reagan about that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So which was worse.

Reagan giving Iran arms for hostages,

or Obama demanding the hostages be released before we gave Iran their own money?

 

[nat4900]

A little late to ask Reagan about that.

.....but Ollie North may still be around...LOL

 

[ogibillm]

Wrong. It was already Iran's money. It just hadn't been released to them.

Nonsense. The state department flat out lied and told people that the timing of these things were unrelated.

"Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false."

That's ^^^ John Kirby a spokesperson for the State Department.

Obama got in on the act also claiming that people saying otherwise were engaging in the 'fabrication of outrage' and that they'd announced these payments in January, blah, blah, blah.

And now, lo and behold, we are now finding out they were indeed related. Spin all you want. It's silly. They lied to our faces about this payment being a condition, which it was, and they themselves have now admitted it.

No. Letting the prisoners go was OUR condition. We were holding Iran's money hostage, idiot.

so Iran traded hostages for money then, instead of us trading money for hostages? Wow, that is soooo different. LOL.

however you want to see it, moron, the administration traded the money for the people. It was a clear condition of this deal, which they have now admitted, after initially completely denying, so you can basically shut the fuck up or keep making yourself look like a fool, it doesn't really matter to me.

you really have a tough time understanding that we owed iran that money and they were getting it, eventually, whether they released the prisoners or not

Bull-oney.

You people have a tough time understanding that by making the cash a bargaining chip they made it part of the deal.

How that is not self-evident to someone who is such a sharpie that they are calling out others for their obtuseness I dunno, but I do know I find that pretty funny.

Then they lied about it, of course. They wouldn't have had to if one of two things had been true:

1. They hadn't made it part of the deal, as they claimed.
2. It didn't matter so there was nothing to conceal.

And now, of course, it doesn't matter to the true believers, who are busy spinning, spinning, spinning.

the 'true believers' as you call them are the ones pretending two things

1) that paying a debt arbitrated at the hague is ransom
2) that using the debt payment as leverage for the return of our citizens is somehow bad

 

[Lakhota]

I'd like to hear how the Obama apologists on this board spin this one...

1. It was Iran's money.

2. Why not release it at the most advantageous/strategic time to help facilitate U.S. goals?

 

[Fueri]

Nonsense. The state department flat out lied and told people that the timing of these things were unrelated.

"Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false."

That's ^^^ John Kirby a spokesperson for the State Department.

Obama got in on the act also claiming that people saying otherwise were engaging in the 'fabrication of outrage' and that they'd announced these payments in January, blah, blah, blah.

And now, lo and behold, we are now finding out they were indeed related. Spin all you want. It's silly. They lied to our faces about this payment being a condition, which it was, and they themselves have now admitted it.

No. Letting the prisoners go was OUR condition. We were holding Iran's money hostage, idiot.

so Iran traded hostages for money then, instead of us trading money for hostages? Wow, that is soooo different. LOL.

however you want to see it, moron, the administration traded the money for the people. It was a clear condition of this deal, which they have now admitted, after initially completely denying, so you can basically shut the fuck up or keep making yourself look like a fool, it doesn't really matter to me.

you really have a tough time understanding that we owed iran that money and they were getting it, eventually, whether they released the prisoners or not

Bull-oney.

You people have a tough time understanding that by making the cash a bargaining chip they made it part of the deal.

How that is not self-evident to someone who is such a sharpie that they are calling out others for their obtuseness I dunno, but I do know I find that pretty funny.

Then they lied about it, of course. They wouldn't have had to if one of two things had been true:

1. They hadn't made it part of the deal, as they claimed.
2. It didn't matter so there was nothing to conceal.

And now, of course, it doesn't matter to the true believers, who are busy spinning, spinning, spinning.

the 'true believers' as you call them are the ones pretending two things

1) that paying a debt arbitrated at the hague is ransom
2) that using the debt payment as leverage for the return of our citizens is somehow bad

1 - Sure if it had nothing to do with the release of the hostages, except, yeah, it did, despite the lies initially told by the administration.

2- Utterly irrelevant. Good, bad, up, down. Just irrelevant.