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

[ogibillm]

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.

whether or not we owed the money and whether or not we would pay it had nothing to do with the prisoners

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It got the hostages released at no cost to us. I marvel at why dopes like you think that's a bad thing.

 

[Lakhota]

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

1. It was Iran's money.

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

 

[Fueri]

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.

whether or not we owed the money and whether or not we would pay it had nothing to do with the prisoners

True, it had nothing to do at all with the situation right up until they made it have something to do with it by making it a contingency.

This is simple stuff. Was the 400M cash a part of the deal or not.

According to the administration, at least now after lying through their teeth about it, yes it was.

 

[mamooth]

I think everyone agrees that conservative lying about it is the inexcusable thing.

They just can't accept that Obama scored another big win. You can tell when good things happen for the USA, because the Obama-haters start crying.

 

[Fueri]

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.

It got the hostages released at no cost to us. I marvel at why dopes like you think that's a bad thing.

Well by that logic shouldn't we be wondering why the administration lied about it in the first place?

 

[couch protester]

So which was worse.

Reagan giving Iran arms for hostages,

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

Sounds like deflecting, apples/oranges

 

[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.

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

Do you truly believe every Whitehouse lawyer under the Sun is not giving the President legal advice on these type of things before any moves are made?

Even Bush had lawyers draw up why an invasion of iraq was legal, or basically, why the ''Bush Doctrine-Preemptive War Doctrine'' was constitutional and legal....

Trust me, or as Trump would say, ''Believe me!'' Our Presidents are covering their rear-ends, and are lawyered up in moves like this...before they even make them!

I'm certain the WhiteHouse lawyers would have advised him it was aiding and abetting, IF IT WERE the case!

 

[couch protester]

I think everyone agrees that conservative lying about it is the inexcusable thing.

They just can't accept that Obama scored another big win. You can tell when good things happen for the USA, because the Obama-haters start crying.

It's contained.

 

[couch protester]

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,ask for some help.).

Naive was her name.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It got the hostages released at no cost to us. I marvel at why dopes like you think that's a bad thing.

Well by that logic shouldn't we be wondering why the administration lied about it in the first place?

They denied the misrepresentation of the transaction that was already racing out of the RW propaganda machine.

 

[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?

Sounds like deflecting, apples/oranges

Yeah, the apple was trading arms for hostages.

the orange was brilliantly using our leverage to get hostages released for free.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.).

Ok 1 billion, who cares.....we could have told Iran you got 150 billion fuck off.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

whether or not we owed the money and whether or not we would pay it had nothing to do with the prisoners

True, it had nothing to do at all with the situation right up until they made it have something to do with it by making it a contingency.

This is simple stuff. Was the 400M cash a part of the deal or not.

According to the administration, at least now after lying through their teeth about it, yes it was.

nobody has said it was a part of the deal

 

[Fueri]

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.

It got the hostages released at no cost to us. I marvel at why dopes like you think that's a bad thing.

Well by that logic shouldn't we be wondering why the administration lied about it in the first place?

They denied the misrepresentation of the transaction that was already racing out of the RW propaganda machine.

No, that's not true. They flat out denied they were in any way related.

 

[Fueri]

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.

whether or not we owed the money and whether or not we would pay it had nothing to do with the prisoners

True, it had nothing to do at all with the situation right up until they made it have something to do with it by making it a contingency.

This is simple stuff. Was the 400M cash a part of the deal or not.

According to the administration, at least now after lying through their teeth about it, yes it was.

nobody has said it was a part of the deal

except for the State Department, who changed their tune yesterday, after claiming otherwise, which I'm thinking is why this thread is here....

 

[jwoodie]

Thanks for the comedic relief. I notice that the "lying" aspect was completely ignored. No wonder Hillary is doing so well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It got the hostages released at no cost to us. I marvel at why dopes like you think that's a bad thing.

Well by that logic shouldn't we be wondering why the administration lied about it in the first place?

They denied the misrepresentation of the transaction that was already racing out of the RW propaganda machine.

No, that's not true. They flat out denied they were in any way related.

And you're lying about whether or not the RW'ers were already misrepresenting it as a ransom.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

whether or not we owed the money and whether or not we would pay it had nothing to do with the prisoners

True, it had nothing to do at all with the situation right up until they made it have something to do with it by making it a contingency.

This is simple stuff. Was the 400M cash a part of the deal or not.

According to the administration, at least now after lying through their teeth about it, yes it was.

nobody has said it was a part of the deal

except for the State Department, who changed their tune yesterday, after claiming otherwise, which I'm thinking is why this thread is here....

they said they held thr money until after the release. it was not part of the deal.

 

[Fueri]

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.

It got the hostages released at no cost to us. I marvel at why dopes like you think that's a bad thing.

Well by that logic shouldn't we be wondering why the administration lied about it in the first place?

They denied the misrepresentation of the transaction that was already racing out of the RW propaganda machine.

No, that's not true. They flat out denied they were in any way related.

And you're lying about whether or not the RW'ers were already misrepresenting it as a ransom.

I did no such thing. Find my quote in this thread where I said any such thing.

And even if I had, which I didn't, that would be irrelevant to whether or not they lied about this.

they did. and they have admitted it.

take off the clown shoes and go to happy hour. it's Friday.