Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Obamao regime FINALLY ADMITS.... the 400 million was ransom.


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

There's already a thread about this subject -that you started, no less - so, please, do keep spamming the board with the same old shit.

 

Looking forward the the next (I think 53rd) installment of the "More big, serious trouble" thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a liberal pink piglet. There is no thread about "FINALLY ADMITS"

 

that is deserving of it's own thread. and it isn't spamming, it's bringing up subjects on the

board you want to keep quiet, because you want to hump higgardly.

 

Now STFU, or talk about the content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a liberal pink piglet. There is no thread about "FINALLY ADMITS"

 

that is deserving of it's own thread. and it isn't spamming, it's bringing up subjects on the

board you want to keep quiet, because you want to hump higgardly.

 

Now STFU, or talk about the content.

Ah, starting with insults already?

 

b4c56fb693640c6e31e84b3c123ce0ec.jpg

 

Looks like you're a little bit on the edge these days, Cal. Did Tour fray your wires that much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, since we're on the subject:

 

1) The payment was probably some sort of payoff/goodwill gesture/loan/etc to Iran

 

2) The payment was made in foreign currency, to potentially get around embargo laws, which, if true, is extremely shady

 

3) Payment of this money more than likely did facilitate the release of those people

 

4) If it was indeed a ransom, then it was a deplorable action, which only further endangers other Americans abroad, and Obama should be made to explain himself.

 

5) Obama wasn't the only sitting President to pay some form of "ransom" to a hostile country. In fact, ol' Gipper himself did a deal with Iran:

 

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/6/1557527/-An-American-president-paid-a-ransom-to-Iran-but-it-wasn-t-Barack-Obama

 

Reagan_Iran_Contradictions.png?147051559

 

But, conservatives seem to have a short memory on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, since we're on the subject:

 

1) The payment was probably some sort of payoff/goodwill gesture/loan/etc to Iran

 

2) The payment was made in foreign currency, to potentially get around embargo laws, which, if true, is extremely shady

 

3) Payment of this money more than likely did facilitate the release of those people

 

4) If it was indeed a ransom, then it was a deplorable action, which only further endangers other Americans abroad, and Obama should be made to explain himself.

 

5) Obama wasn't the only sitting President to pay some form of "ransom" to a hostile country. In fact, ol' Gipper himself did a deal with Iran:

 

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/6/1557527/-An-American-president-paid-a-ransom-to-Iran-but-it-wasn-t-Barack-Obama

 

Reagan_Iran_Contradictions.png?147051559

 

But, conservatives seem to have a short memory on that.

It was a ransom you stupid fat pussy. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a ransom you stupid fat pussy. Deal with it.

Well, thank God we have you as our DoJ employee to go to in these matters, DH, or we'd never know.

 

So, tell me, does the Department of Justice still pay your salary in cash, or do they just skip the middle man and go straight to the cases of Gordon's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thank God we have you as our DoJ employee to go to in these matters, DH, or we'd never know.

 

So, tell me, does the Department of Justice still pay your salary in cash, or do they just skip the middle man and go straight to the cases of Gordon's?

I'm a retried MACM, don't drink and know a hell of a lot more about this than you do junior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, since we're on the subject:

 

1) The payment was probably some sort of payoff/goodwill gesture/loan/etc to Iran

 

2) The payment was made in foreign currency, to potentially get around embargo laws, which, if true, is extremely shady

 

3) Payment of this money more than likely did facilitate the release of those people

 

4) If it was indeed a ransom, then it was a deplorable action, which only further endangers other Americans abroad, and Obama should be made to explain himself.

 

5) Obama wasn't the only sitting President to pay some form of "ransom" to a hostile country. In fact, ol' Gipper himself did a deal with Iran:

 

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/6/1557527/-An-American-president-paid-a-ransom-to-Iran-but-it-wasn-t-Barack-Obama

 

But, conservatives seem to have a short memory on that.

 

But jb, the truth is important.

 

Why would anyone want to maintain a shred of plausible deniability for linkage when they can put lives at risk in the future by reinforcing that which they already believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, since we're on the subject:

 

1) The payment was probably some sort of payoff/goodwill gesture/loan/etc to Iran

 

2) The payment was made in foreign currency, to potentially get around embargo laws, which, if true, is extremely shady

 

3) Payment of this money more than likely did facilitate the release of those people

 

4) If it was indeed a ransom, then it was a deplorable action, which only further endangers other Americans abroad, and Obama should be made to explain himself.

 

5) Obama wasn't the only sitting President to pay some form of "ransom" to a hostile country. In fact, ol' Gipper himself did a deal with Iran:

 

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/6/1557527/-An-American-president-paid-a-ransom-to-Iran-but-it-wasn-t-Barack-Obama

 

Reagan_Iran_Contradictions.png?147051559

 

But, conservatives seem to have a short memory on that.

 

30 years ago isn't recent history and the democrats did everything they could to run Reagan out of office for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

State Dept now saying 400 million cash payment to Iran was CONTINGENT on hostage release

 

The State Department is still spinning hard, but now they are saying that they used this money we supposedly owed Iran as leverage to get the hostages released:

 

BREAKING: State Dept. says $400 million cash payment to Iran was contingent on American prisoners' release.

 

Spokesman John Kirby says negotiations over the United States’ returning Iranian money from a decades-old account was conducted separately from the prisoner talks. But he says the U.S. withheld delivery of the cash as leverage until the U.S. citizens had left Iran.

Both events occurred Jan. 17.

 

This is such bull. I’ll tell you how this really went down.

Iran knew that Obama was so weak that he would kowtow to their demands, especially after the horrible Iran deal, so they demanded lots of money for the release of the hostages. In order to make it not look like cash for hostages, Obama and his lackeys decided to use this old debt as cover so they could meet Iran’s demands without media backlash.

 

And here we are today with the Obama administration still pushing this cover story that everyone knows is garbage.

 

It’s like Obama is in court and the media is the jury. As long as Obama can create a reasonable doubt, the media will never find him guilty. All the while the citizens in the courtroom, watching the trial, know the truth and are screaming GUILTY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partisanship certainly plays a role, Steve... both ways.

 

Iran-Contra was fully investigated. The results of that investigation showed a clearly negotiated exchange of arms for hostages. Even Reagan in his famous, final remarks broadcast to the nation admitted that was the case.

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind."

 

 

In an above post I sarcastically commented on "plausible deniability" (BTW... that's how sarcasm really works), but all that is visible at this time in the current situation are questions of timing. At present there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo negotiation of $400m in exchange for the hostages at this time.

 

Do the "timings" constitute circumstantial evidence? Absolutely, but the weight that it is given will be directly proportional to partisanship. It's already visible in the interpretations of what State Dept. Spokesman John Kirby said yesterday. Even the MSM has been all over his "linkage" of the payment to the hostages. The word Kirby used to describe the timing of the delivery was "leverage". But the delivery is not the only timing question.

 

The negotiations of around the amount to be paid to settle the 1970's dispute, the Iran nuclear deal and the fate of the four hostages all overlapped in time if not place. Were they all conducted by the same personnel? Don't know... but at a minimum reporting relationships would bring them all together at John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart. Certainly they could not compartmentalize each negotiation in their heads.

 

The partisan positions taken will be held until the matter is investigated... and Congressional hearings have already been promised. The same partisans that publicly criticized the administration for not getting the hostages out as part of the nuclear deal, which involved the "unfreezing" of over $100 billion of Iranian assets, can now criticize them for the appearance of paying a $400 million "ransom"... perhaps the first ransom in history paid with the kidnappers' own money.

 

Will this end with a similar televised address by Obama? Stay tuned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And lost in the entire mess? One helluva negotiation...

 

Had the proceedings at the Hague gone through to verdict, then the judgement could have been as a high as $10 billion.

 

Negotiation of $10 billion down to $400 million might even be considered an "artful deal"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC there's no evidence that Reagan was aware of the deal. Was there?

 

Not in it's entirety...

 

From all I've read with one exception there was no evidence that Reagan knew details of the Iran end of things. That is really all he addressed in his statement... and BION... I believe him. The exception was unsubstatiated notes by his Sec of Defense:

Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on December 7, 1985, indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country. Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages'". - Wikipedia

 

But there is some evidence that he at minimum knew of the continued funding of the Contras and may have actually authorized the diversion of funds to them. If true, then one would be led to wonder if he knew where "the funds" came from.

 

 

Side Note: I'd forgotten that despite his notes, Weinberger also denied knowing anything about the deal. And that after being indicted a Presidential pardon by HW Bush kept him from going to trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...