Obama Admin Paid Iran $1.7 Billion, Iran says money was ransom payment

[Jackson]

and thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

The Abu Sayyaf M.O. was the normal one—to demand large (or oddly not so large; the original demand for the Burnhams’ safety was $1 million) sums of money for their captives’ safe return. There were talks, and they bled into 2002. In April of that year, Bush gave a speech that included the line: “No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.”
A nice line. But of course, at that exact moment, the United States was negotiating intently with Abu Sayyaf for the Burnhams’ release. And not only that: The Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists.”


yet another "been there, done that" score against Republicans.

but but but ,,, the story goes.

Loved your link.

 

[Siete]

and thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

The Abu Sayyaf M.O. was the normal one—to demand large (or oddly not so large; the original demand for the Burnhams’ safety was $1 million) sums of money for their captives’ safe return. There were talks, and they bled into 2002. In April of that year, Bush gave a speech that included the line: “No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.”
A nice line. But of course, at that exact moment, the United States was negotiating intently with Abu Sayyaf for the Burnhams’ release. And not only that: The Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists.”


yet another "been there, done that" score against Republicans.

but but but ,,, the story goes.

Loved your link.

forgot the pic

thanx, you're welcome

 

[depotoo]

You really are clueless. Maybe delve outside your usual sources once in awhile. You might learn something

Who gives a **** about what IRAN says . They will make up any shit in order to appease their versions of "conservatives".

Why? Cause the U.S. scored a good deal and now IRAN is spinning things to save face .:

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Oh brother . They didn't pay them , those were IRAN assets that were frozen but now are released wh the sanctions ending . That was going to happen anyway.

Getting the prisoners out was a bonus on our side .

Open mouth insert foot...

 

[Jackson]

and thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

The Abu Sayyaf M.O. was the normal one—to demand large (or oddly not so large; the original demand for the Burnhams’ safety was $1 million) sums of money for their captives’ safe return. There were talks, and they bled into 2002. In April of that year, Bush gave a speech that included the line: “No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.”
A nice line. But of course, at that exact moment, the United States was negotiating intently with Abu Sayyaf for the Burnhams’ release. And not only that: The Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists.”


yet another "been there, done that" score against Republicans.

but but but ,,, the story goes.

Loved your link.

forgot the pic

thanx, you're welcome

you forgot your link, too.

 

[Siete]

and thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

The Abu Sayyaf M.O. was the normal one—to demand large (or oddly not so large; the original demand for the Burnhams’ safety was $1 million) sums of money for their captives’ safe return. There were talks, and they bled into 2002. In April of that year, Bush gave a speech that included the line: “No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.”
A nice line. But of course, at that exact moment, the United States was negotiating intently with Abu Sayyaf for the Burnhams’ release. And not only that: The Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists.”


yet another "been there, done that" score against Republicans.

but but but ,,, the story goes.

Loved your link.

forgot the pic

thanx, you're welcome

you forgot you link, too.

and you forgot spellcheck ..


snort~


seriously, the link you loved is a live link in the story text.

anything else?

 

[Jackson]

and thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

The Abu Sayyaf M.O. was the normal one—to demand large (or oddly not so large; the original demand for the Burnhams’ safety was $1 million) sums of money for their captives’ safe return. There were talks, and they bled into 2002. In April of that year, Bush gave a speech that included the line: “No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.”
A nice line. But of course, at that exact moment, the United States was negotiating intently with Abu Sayyaf for the Burnhams’ release. And not only that: The Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists.”


yet another "been there, done that" score against Republicans.

but but but ,,, the story goes.

Loved your link.

forgot the pic

thanx, you're welcome

you forgot you link, too.

and you forgot spellcheck ..


snort~


seriously, the link you loved is a live link in the story text.

anything else?

I didn't look at the post when I wrote it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Also, thank you for leading me to the link.

 

[Jroc]

and thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

The Abu Sayyaf M.O. was the normal one—to demand large (or oddly not so large; the original demand for the Burnhams’ safety was $1 million) sums of money for their captives’ safe return. There were talks, and they bled into 2002. In April of that year, Bush gave a speech that included the line: “No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.”
A nice line. But of course, at that exact moment, the United States was negotiating intently with Abu Sayyaf for the Burnhams’ release. And not only that: The Bush administration arranged an indirect payment to Abu Sayyaf of $300,000, as reported a little later by ABC’s John McWethy, the veteran Pentagon correspondent, and even by Fox’s Brent Baier, whose phrasing had it that “the U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to al Qaeda-linked terrorists.”


yet another "been there, done that" score against Republicans.

but but but ,,, the story goes.

You cant negotiate with the islamofacist, get it though your dumbass head. Obama can't negotiate with the Republicans, but he can negotiate and capitulate to the Iranian mullah scumbags

 

[Jroc]

Who gives a **** about what IRAN says . They will make up any shit in order to appease their versions of "conservatives".

Why? Cause the U.S. scored a good deal and now IRAN is spinning things to save face .:

RW's care. They'd much rather believe Iran or a communist KGB thug than their own country.

what else is new huh.

Who's the one believing in Iran you moron? that would be your pathetic president and his stooge John Kerry

 

[Jroc]

Korea looking to make some money
North Korea Says It’s Holding an American Tourist Hostage

North Korea has detained an American tourist for committing an unspecified crime, the third U.S. citizen being held there.
The state Korean Central News Agency said authorities were investigating him for committing acts inconsistent with the purpose of a tourist visit. It did not give details.
“American citizen Jeffrey Edward Fowle entered the DPRK as a tourist on April 29 and acted in violation of the DPRK law, contrary to the purpose of tourism during his stay,” KCNA reported, referring to the country’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The U.S. State Department confirmed an American was detained, but did not identify the person or provide details for privacy reasons.
“We are aware that a U.S. citizen has been detained in North Korea. This is the third U.S. citizen that has been detained in
North Korea,” spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters in Washington. She added there’s “no greater priority for us than the welfare and safety of U.S. citizens abroad.”

[FONT=frnkgothitc_bk_btbook]North Korea Says It's Holding an American Tourist Hostage - RYOT News[/FONT]

 

[jknowgood]

Who gives a **** about what IRAN says . They will make up any shit in order to appease their versions of "conservatives".

Why? Cause the U.S. scored a good deal and now IRAN is spinning things to save face .:

RW's care. They'd much rather believe Iran or a communist KGB thug than their own country.

what else is new huh.

Oh, but you will believe Iran when they tell us they aren't trying to build a nuclear bomb.

 

[Jackson]

Korea looking to make some money
North Korea Says It’s Holding an American Tourist Hostage

North Korea has detained an American tourist for committing an unspecified crime, the third U.S. citizen being held there.
The state Korean Central News Agency said authorities were investigating him for committing acts inconsistent with the purpose of a tourist visit. It did not give details.
“American citizen Jeffrey Edward Fowle entered the DPRK as a tourist on April 29 and acted in violation of the DPRK law, contrary to the purpose of tourism during his stay,” KCNA reported, referring to the country’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The U.S. State Department confirmed an American was detained, but did not identify the person or provide details for privacy reasons.
“We are aware that a U.S. citizen has been detained in North Korea. This is the third U.S. citizen that has been detained in
North Korea,” spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters in Washington. She added there’s “no greater priority for us than the welfare and safety of U.S. citizens abroad.”

[FONT=frnkgothitc_bk_btbook]North Korea Says It's Holding an American Tourist Hostage - RYOT News[/FONT]

Well, if this makes the nightly news, Obama just may pay up for this one too. He'll do that to claim that Kerry has incredible negotiation skills on his behalf.

 

[Clementine]

Did Obama, Kerry pay Iran ransom for the hostages? ..of course they did it's open season on Americans under Obama


Iran says money was ransom payment

The Obama administration is facing criticism for paying Iran $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds as part of what critics described as a “ransom” bound up in a controversial hostage trade designed to secure the release of five Americans long held by Iran, according to conversations with administration officials and experts critical of the agreement.
The administration denies the issues are tied and insists that the money was provided to settle a decades-old dispute with Iran over the United States’ refusal to make good on a deal to provide the country military equipment following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

A senior Iranian military commander said Wednesday that the cash settlement was reached as a perk to motivate Iranian authorities to free the imprisoned Americans, who were released over the weekend.
“The annulment of sanctions against Iran’s Bank Sepah and reclaiming of $1.7bln of Iran’s frozen assets after 36 years showed that the US doesn’t understand anything but the language of force,” Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of Iran’s volunteer Basij forces, told the country’s state-controlled press.
“This money was returned for the freedom of the U.S. spy and it was not related to the [nuclear] negotiations,” he said.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Obama Admin Paid Iran $1.7 Billion From Taxpayer Funds[/FONT]

Kerry even admitted that the money will go toward funding terrorists but says there isn't much we can do about that. Except maybe not give it to them and stop helping them advance their agenda.

To give in and hand them money for hostages means that even more Americans will die down the road. This is what liberals call success. They are incapable of looking ahead and do whatever makes them feel good now.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh brother . They didn't pay them , those were IRAN assets that were frozen but now are released wh the sanctions ending . That was going to happen anyway.

Getting the prisoners out was a bonus on our side .

The Frozen assets were a separate issue genius. How about you get your talking points straight ..Ok Timmy?

President Donald Trump has left the impression with foreign officials, members of his administration, and others involved in Iranian negotiations that he is actively considering a French plan to extend a $15 billion credit line to the Iranians if Tehran comes back into compliance with the Obama-era nuclear deal.

 

[easyt65]

Barry was so desperate for Iran to sign his illegal personal 'Treaty' that he refused to demand the release of US hostages be part of the deal. This demonstrated negotiating from an unparalleled level of weakness. Instead, after Iran signed his illegal 'Legacy' Obama then paid a massive ransom to get the Americans back.

Snowflakes can -and will - call it whatever they want, but the entire process was a MASSIVE failure for Barry and his administration.

From remaining at the table while Iran's top General was publicly declaring Barry was on his knees licking their boots in order to get the deal done to Iran's military practicing strikes on a mock US aircraft carrier to Iran's leader leading chants of 'Death to America' to investigators revealing Iran was already violating the temporary rules they had agreed to that were to exist until replaced by the ones in the final signed copy of Barry's illegal treaty, throughout the entire negotiations Iran was treating Barry like their bit@h, having their way with him....and he took every bit of it because he wanted the agreement to be part of his 'Legacy'.