Patterico's Pontifications

8/3/2016

I Guess It Depends On What The Definition of “Ransom” Is

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:54 pm



[guest post by Dana]

It looks like it was a $400 million ransom payment, but Josh Earnest is saying Hell no!

First this:

The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The settlement, which resolved claims before an international tribunal in The Hague, also coincided with the formal implementation that same weekend of the landmark nuclear agreement reached between Tehran, the U.S. and other global powers the summer before.

“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Jan. 17—without disclosing the $400 million cash payment.

Lest you think the timing of the payment and the prisoner release suspicious, don’t. It was just a happy coincidence:

“As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim…were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of The Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years.”

At a presser today, Josh Earnest demonstrated that famous most-transparent-administration-ever attitude:

Untitled

Here are the arguments that it was a ransom:

U.S. officials acknowledged that Iranian negotiators wanted the cash to show they had gotten something in return.

Despite Secretary of State John Kerry claiming the prisoner release “unlocked” diplomatic channels, Iran has since arrested two additional Iranian-Americans.

Senior Iranian defense officials claimed the cash was indeed a ransom payment.

Iranian news sites reported the money arrived on the same day the American prisoners went home.

Gen. Mohammad Reza Naghdi, a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, bragged: “Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies.”

And arguments that it was not:

Earnest and senior U.S. officials denied the cash was ransom. (Hahahaha!)

The payment was part of a settlement between Iran and the U.S. over a failed arms deal from 1979.

Different teams in both Iran and the U.S conducted the negotiations for the payment and prisoner release.

It was the first installment of the settlement, which is worth $1.7 billion overall.

Then, this afternoon we learn that not everyone thought this was a good idea:

Senior Justice Department officials objected to sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled by the State Department, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The timing and manner of the payment raised alarms at the Justice Department, according to those familiar with the discussions. “People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment,’’ said one of the people.

Apparently, there was also concern that this could weaken the president’s Iran deal before leaving office.

Further, the exorbitant dollar amount wasn’t even seen as exorbitant to officials. Their concerns centered around the world’s perception of the U.S. paying a ransom.

And there were other concerns:

The Justice Department raised other objections to the Iran deals. Prosecutors were concerned that the U.S. would release too many Iranian convicts and drop too many pending criminal cases against people suspected of violating sanctions laws.

They prevailed regarding some of the suspects—those accused or suspected of crimes of terrorism or other violence—but the objections on others were overruled, according to the people familiar with the discussions.

The cash transfer and prisoner exchange coincided with the formal implementation that same weekend of the landmark nuclear agreement reached between Tehran, the U.S. and other global powers the summer before.

Funny, no comment from Hillary Clinton

–Dana

103 Responses to “I Guess It Depends On What The Definition of “Ransom” Is”

  1. Okay then.

    Dana (995455)

  2. sigh

    mg (31009b)

  3. How do you make this more palatable?

    Shrink wrap.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  4. Either go with the Trumpkins and vote for The Donald or you will get MUCH more of this.

    Hillary makes Josh Earnest and Obama look like Girl Scouts in terms of lying, obfuscating, dissembling, and the like.

    Hillary is the queen of sociopaths.

    And don’t forget.. the DIRECTOR OF THE FBI said that Hillary is an honest person.

    Just ask her.. go ahead ask..

    Expect to see this in campaign ads coming to a screen near you.

    PTS (ce7fc3)

  5. You release the hostages within 24 hours, and as a token of our appreciation, your presidential palace won’t be bombed.

    That’s how John Forbes Kerry should have handled the diplomacy.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  6. The US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. They name their price.

    Leviticus (d077e5)

  7. As Trump and his sycophants are already pointing fingers of blame for a humiliating loss, Newt Gingrich is, once again, on point:

    “Trump is helping her to win by proving he is more unacceptable than she is.”

    Which, I might add, is no small feat.

    The ones who will own the Trump loss are not those who won’t vote for him, but the fools who thought he would make a good nominee in the first place and, of course, Shorty, himself.

    All the while, Mitt Romney remains lost in the wilderness – but, yeah, the Mittster would have been a much better CinC.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  8. Who is to blame for the Hillary Clinton presidency? – a candidate that nobody on the right or left wants to vote for.

    Donald J. Trump

    ThOR (c9324e)

  9. good gravy, the stakes don’t make your monomania abate for a moment, of course this was all enabled by the rhodes road show, that tom cotton couldn’t get one co sponsor to try to review it constitutionally like a treaty,

    narciso (732bc0)

  10. “The most beautiful sound on earth is the Mooslim call to prayer”

    Barack Obama President of the United States of America

    PTS (ce7fc3)

  11. 9.Who is to blame for the Hillary Clinton presidency?

    Everybody who doesn’t vote for Donald Trump, that’s who. You can twist it any way you want ThOR, but if more people vote for Trump there won’t be a Hillary Clinton presidency. That’s how elections work.

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  12. The White House if for closers.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  13. Team lying rino is where the blame lies. Many people have had it with decades of nonsense.

    mg (31009b)

  14. The money wouldn’t have been sent to Iran unless the prisoners were released. I think the Obama Administration made that quite clear to the Iranians. It was Iran that did not want to openly link the two things.

    For the prisoners they gave other prisoners, and not cash. The money was given to keep them on board with the nuclear deal – to help make sure they disabled the Arak heavy water reactor. But that deal wouldn’t be done unlessthey released the prisoners.

    The heavy water reactor core was disabled about January 11. But there were conflicting reports. Inspectors visited it on Jan. 14. The prisoner swap was about January 16. The money was sent after both things were done.

    Sammy Finkelman (7fce49)

  15. remember when they made such a fuss over iran contra, or even the unfrozen cash disbursed in the early days of the invasion, it was all (redacted) they didn’t care about any of that, interesting much of that cash ended up in southern lebanon,

    narciso (732bc0)

  16. Paying off Iran or Southern Lebanon, it’s intraparty squabbling amongst Democrats, for intents and purposes.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  17. I remember Carter banning Iranians from coming to this country and sending some back to their sand castles. He was a fricking racist

    mg (31009b)

  18. Oh my God, we could have had a Rubio/Jindal ticket.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  19. Hillary has commented. She said she knew about it, but “it’s old news.” Classic Clinton. Keep the bury body long enough so that you can say “it’s old news” when the skeleton is unearthed.

    Craig Pirrong (40b798)

  20. lmao at the elite money tycoons, political hacks from both parties and movie stars joining the no-Trumpers to get him out. I look at the people showing up at each candidates appearances and come to the conclusion – They is scared. Or if the fox poll is correct, Why the fuss? I talk to lifelong dems everyday in Ma. They are voting Trump. The media is full of poo.

    mg (31009b)

  21. They will say, Reagan did it to!! Iran Contra!

    Reagan did it to fund a war against Communists in Latin America; Obama did it for his political gain.

    And now Iran has kidnapped two other Americans. Wonder why.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  22. Isn’t it obvious that we agreed to ransom the four for $1.7 billion, and the first installment was $0.4 billion. Notice how the media and the administration have twisted this whole thing so that the total amount is no longer the issue. Only the first payment.

    In every successful negotiation both parties must believe they gained something. The only thing the U. S. had to gain was the release of the four prisoners. So the negotiation was over the payment schedule and nothing else. If there was some other benefit to be gained for the U. S., the child/man in the White House would have been willing to disclose this to the Senate. He did not. He knew what he got out of the deal, and what ever that was, it was sufficient for him.

    And this leaves unanswered what did we gain with the $120 billion released to Iran?

    BobStewartatHome (f2b3a5)

  23. yes, but it was stipulated it was a bad idea, this is iran contra, eleventy thousand,

    narciso (732bc0)

  24. Earnest and senior U.S. officials denied the cash was ransom. (Hahahaha!)

    Recall the deer-in-the-headlights look on Stephanopoulos’ face when Obama lied right to his face and claimed his Obamacare penalty was not in fact a tax. Stephanopoulos pulled out a dictionary and read him Obama the definition of a tax. Obama replied with the non sequitur, “You’re reaching, George, you’re reaching.” implying that it was ridiculous to claim that just because his penalty fit the definition of of a tax that it was in fact a tax.

    Then Obama’s Solicitor General salvaged Obamacare by convincing Roberts that the penalty was in fact a tax as it fit the defintion.

    It’s same M.O. here. No U.S. or administration official (you have to draw that distinction with this administration) is disputing the fact that the Iranians demanded the money when negotiating the prisoner swap. Not even Earnest would say that the Iranians would have released the prisoners without the cash payment. Because everybody knows they wouldn’t have. The Iranians are saying they would not have released the prisoners without that $400M in cash.

    If it was just a first installment on some settlement of a dispute over an arms deal the Obama administration would not have paid in cash, as these government-to-government transfers are done electronically. The U.S. isn’t going to be flying cargo planes full of cash into Tehran to deliver the other “installments.” The fact that Obama took the highly unusual step of flying in pallets of non-US cash shows this wasn’t any such “installment.” They were meeting the Iranians’ demands for the prisoner release.

    It’s the very definition of a ransom. When hostage takers demand a cash payment as a condition to release the hostages, and the people trying to get the hostages back meet the hostage takers’ demands, it’s cut and dried; that’s a ransom. Since Obama has already paid up once, the Iranians have quickly seized more hostages in anticipation of another payday or two before Obama leaves office. And they’ll get it, I’m sure, as this isn’t the first time Obama has broken the law to get a prisoner released and it won’t be the last.

    http://www.npr.org/2014/08/22/342335099/gao-bergdahl-exchange-violated-law

    Also keep in mind that even at the time it was considered a virtual certainty that Obama had also paid a ransom to get Bergdahl back in addition to releasing those five prisoners, thus replenishing the enemy in the field. As the article at the link notes Obama gave the Taliban back five high ranking members of that group. But the Taliban wasn’t holding Bergdahl; Bergdahl was actually in the custody of the Haqqani network which is really more of fundamentalist Islamic mafia than anything else. They work with the Taliban, but then this mafia will work with anybody if the price is right.

    Now one of those prisoners might have arguably been primarily a member of the Haqqani network as well as a member of the Taliban. But that wouldn’t have been the right price for Bergdahl as far as this Islamist mafia is concerned. They would have also demanded cash. And the Obama administration has just demonstrated it’s happy to pay cash and price is no object.

    Steve57 (2d3b12)

  25. Everyone knows that if something is “old news,” then it doesn’t count!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  26. Sammy,

    The heavy water reactor core was disabled about January 11

    If infantile fantasies amuse you, I’d strongly recommend you dispense with regulatory commission reports and substitute Tolkien. We have no way of determining whether the facility was restarted on January 20th, or whether the whole thing was rebuilt at an undetermined location. Tolkien is more colorful, fast moving, and he even arranged for a happy ending where good intentions followed by decisive actions are rewarded. Nothing Kerry and Obama have done will ever result in what we might call a success, and regulatory commissions are just one of many mechanisms that have been created to divert responsibility from these feckless men.

    BobStewartatHome (f2b3a5)

  27. Contrast the coverage this is getting with Iran/Contra. Where are the howls of protest and demands of impeachment?

    There is a galactic disconnect in the treatment of BHO, and Reagan. There is even a direct acknowledgement that some of this cash has been used to aid terrorist attacks!

    On what basis should I believe that this republic has a ghost of a chance of survival in its present form?

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  28. #28 Ed from SFV,

    Just wait until Hillary gets to remake the Supreme Court over the next four years.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  29. the 4th estate is very zombie, but we have seen here the laser like attention to a statement that probably didn’t happen, ignoring a Salafi apologist and other riding squirrels,

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. The WH was desperate for any deal. Rhodes simply lied from dawn until dusk about the negotiations and the value to the US of the imaginary deal.

    Iran repeatedly told us we were being lied to, that they had no intention of honoring the BS Kerry ladled out.

    We had all the cards save the knowledge that the WH was pro-Iranian and their entire ME strategy was a total failure from Libya, thru Egypt and beyond to Syria and Yemen then unfolding.

    We were ignoring Turkey’s purchase of Iranian oil with gold, we were know as world famous putzes. Of course it was ransom, on the way as the hostages were released.

    DNF (755a85)

  31. 9. Ever heard of logic. Didn’t think so.

    DNF (755a85)

  32. I bet the Iranian Mullahs are #Never Trumpers!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  33. Don’t bet on it. A hostile President Trump would benefit them as much as an amicable President Clinton, albeit in different ways.

    kishnevi (1c16da)

  34. kishnevi,

    You’ve always got all bases covered.
    Heads you win, tails everyone else’s argument loses.
    Pssst … if we just don’t vote, or if we just don’t have an election, then the whole world will stand still! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  35. Ed,

    Where are the howls of protest and demands of impeachment

    You’ve hit the nail on the head. Democrat Congresscreatures have the courage to do what ever it takes to dismantle a Republican administration. Consider Henry Waxman. He is about the ugliest fellow I’ve ever seen, and yet day after day, year after year, he inflicts himself on our news casts with baseless, infantile, partisan claims, that would be ignored except for the fact that forty or fifty other Democrats are singing the same song. The poor specimens we have elected to Congress may be much prettier, but they are simply incapable of acting in a coordinated fashion to achieve a political goal. Each member of the GOPe cartel cares only about his or her reelection, and they abhor any action that might cast them in an unfavorable light. They know that nobody will have their back. Cruz is despised because he had the courage to do the right thing, even though he scores in the upper quartile of the Waxman beauty scale and he knew no one would have his back.

    If our Republican Congresscreatures were in the landing craft off Normandy in June of 1944, each little boat would have developed engine trouble and the whole thing would have had be cancelled.

    Trump is their offspring. He is the action to their inaction.

    BobStewartatHome (f2b3a5)

  36. because democrats understand it’s about power, you can work with the Soviet Union, and the entire party will cover it up, you can slander the entirety of all your fellow veterans, you can accuse an rebel faction of trafficking in drugs, you can render a small child back to the hellhole his mother died bringing him here, and it’s not considered a negative,

    narciso (732bc0)

  37. reagan pulled out of lebanon after the multiple beirut bombings, the result hezbollah turned the country into a total iranian puppet, at least one airliner was caught in that mess, bin laden learned from the mastermind mugniyeh that america would flinch, and he repeated that again in somalia,

    narciso (732bc0)

  38. carlos slim’s did sort of acknowledge, others might think, that something went wrong, kind of.

    narciso (732bc0)

  39. #37 narciso,

    You have a good way of reminding us of all the crap that we sometimes forget even happened.
    For example, you alluded to Elian Gonzales being rushed back to Cuba.
    It’s so Orwellian, because now Team Clinton is all about bringing refugees into the country by the boatload.
    In a Hillary Administration, there will be no more surprise Easter Sunday pre-dawn raids on illegal children overstaying their VISA!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  40. well that’s likely to be more true than not, the contrast is the 9/11 hijackers were starting to arrive exactly at that time, so who did they bring down the full weight of law enforcement on, a six year old boy,

    narciso (732bc0)

  41. the first example was ted kennedy, the lion of the senate, btw he was also trying a back channel to the iranians in the early 80’s, this appeared in the tower report,

    narciso (732bc0)

  42. We as a NATION as a SOVEREIGN Country are FROG in A SAUCEPAN SOUP.
    We’ve put up with this utter Treason and Bu!!shi!.
    1)THE SENATE ADVISES and CONSENTS or not. When did that STOP??? Who allowed this?
    2)Obama traded VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY dangerous TALIBAN JIHADI’S for BOWE motherfocking Bergdahl. Who approved or allowed this??
    3) Where is the GOP LEADERSHIP… McCONNELL, RYAN, WEEEEEPING JOHNNY BONER…….ET AL…….
    4)And the MAINSTREAM FOCKING MEDIA is 100% complicit. THIS IS WHY RODHAM MUST BE STOPPED.

    GUS (30b6bd)

  43. Most voters don’t want President Hillary – her negatives approach 60%. All Trump would have to do to close this deal is shut the phuck up.

    Since he won’t, I’m left to infer that he craves the spotlight far more than he wants the office.

    I’ll leave it to the co-dependents to serve as enablers. Just don’t expect others to join in.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  44. I still can’t figure out why Obama wants the deal so desperately. The whole country hates it, and are reminded of why every time Iran humiliates us or sets up a “death to America” festival.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  45. ThOR, what do you mean by CO-DEPENDENTS?? You’re a clown. WE GET TRUMP or WE GET RODHAM and DISASTER. You’re home spun ego is of no consequence.

    GUS (30b6bd)

  46. Patricia. God bless you ma’am. Obama is emotionally disturbed. Obama is a Communist, he is an Alynski accolyte, and he is a NARCISSISTIC abject and complete LIFE LONG FAILURE.

    Yet he got elected. Miss Patricia, again, God bless you. You are expecting a VILE DYSFUNCTIONAL, UNABLE, Communist FREAK, to act LOGICALLY, MORALLY and PATRIOTICALLY.
    Obama has DADDY ISSUES, and Val Jarrett and Obama have ISLAM ISSUES.
    I do not mean to bloviate, but OBAMA is a WASTE of POTENTIAL. Both of his CRAPTARD MOMMY’S HUBBIES, were Muslims. Both DUMPED HIM, as did his MAMA. Obama is a wreck
    I have A TEENAGED SON. Obama would not like to EVER meet me ALONE.
    Both of my Parents are buried at ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY. My Brit GRANDFATHER was SEVERELY WOUNDED at El Alemein and imprisoned by the NAZI’S for more than 2 years. Crippled forever.
    My GREAT GRANDAD for WHOM, I and my son are named, died in Egypt 1918, Oct 23. 3 weeks before ARMISTICE, and……….WAS…..buried in Damascus. British War graves. Obama is sick. SERIOUSLY

    GUS (30b6bd)

  47. #45 Patricia,

    Barack wants to cut America down to size.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  48. stinkypig will do so good

    ransom ransom trash for cash

    failmerica lol

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  49. He wants to restore the humiliated Persian empire, remedy the exploited third world, that’s all he knows.

    narciso (732bc0)

  50. Hillary has responded to this. Funny, no update on this post.

    I’m not claiming that you’ll be happy with her response, but at this point, that statement’s not true.

    Tillman (a95660)

  51. One more time for all the members of the Church of Donaldology: The case AGAINST Hillary is NOT the case FOR Trump.

    This would have been gold for a Republican who knew what to say about it, but for Trump, meh. He’s got more important things to talk about, like how those mean ol’ fire marshals keep plotting to keep his rally crowds small. God only knows how long this information has been out there in the possession of a precious few. I believe it’s been strategically leaked because the Democrats think that Trump has babbled his post-convention bump into a spectacular faceplant by bashing the Khan family, and can’t stay focused enough to take proper advantage.

    I also firmly believe that if President Trump (retch) thought he could get away with something like this, not only would he do the same thing, but that he would lie just as brazenly as the oxymoronic Josh Earnest.

    In case I haven’t made my point: The case AGAINST Hillary is NOT the case FOR Trump.

    L.N. Smithee (397bcb)

  52. A true Persian plays chess like the Russians and Chinese, not the checkers of cuckold Western nations, and certainly not the Connect-Four of the Sunni-dominated nations.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  53. Tillman,

    The story had only been in the news for 12 hours when Hillary referred to it as “old news.”
    Ironically, if you left wing goofs were to ever remain consistent and be dismissive of every issue that is “old news,” then you wouldn’t have a platform to run on.
    Most left wing grievances are about the past.

    Isn’t BLM’s demands for reparations for slavery really just “old news”? Slavery ended in the 1860s, right?
    Isn’t Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin “old news”?
    How about the “illegal” Iraq War — isn’t that “old news”?
    And isn’t Hillary, herself, “old news”?
    That old woman already spent 8 years living in the White News, right?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  54. “As Trump and his sycophants are already pointing fingers of blame for a humiliating loss, Newt Gingrich is, once again, on point:”

    “Trump is helping her to win by proving he is more unacceptable than she is.”

    Which is the whole point of Trump in the first place. Proving that the Repubs are way to dumb to be trusted with our security. Unfortunately their opposition is way too dishonest as well. Gonna be a bumpy ride folks.

    f1guyus (5a4596)

  55. Cruz supporter, you make some decent points, but they don’t address what I was talking about. By the way, don’t talk as if the Democrats are the only ones who use the “old news” ploy. Both parties do. Frequently.

    This would have been a big blow to Hillary, I’m afraid, had it not been for the fact that her opponent is such a lame, incompetent, juvenile train wreck – creating a civil war within his own party.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t just blame the Republicans for this Trump tragedy, I blame the Democrats too. Both parties have more or less left the working class hang out to dry. Oh, they may pat them on the head from time to time to try to appease them. But they’re largely ignored on real policy. So, now the working class is revolting, in both senses of the word.

    Tillman (a95660)

  56. don’t talk as if the Democrats are the only ones who use the “old news” ploy. Both parties do.

    Tillman (a95660) — 8/4/2016 @ 7:44 am

    False. In fact it was the Clinton admin. that developed the tactic of labeling every damaging revelation “old news”. We’ll be seeing a lot of that in the coming years.

    Gerald A (945582)

  57. Josh Earnest Isa brazen liar.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  58. Tillman,

    I can’t recall when Republicans have claimed something is “old news.” Perhaps you will cite some examples.
    Hillary’s grateful to Team Barack for not prosecuting her, so she’s going to be over-the-top in her defense of anything his Administration does/did.

    I totally agree that the Republican primary voters royally screwed up this election by choosing Trump. The first problem was that there were too many candidates, and then there were too many primary voters who were “#NeverRubio,” #NeverKasich,” #NeverJeb,” etc, due to a poor vote here or some “establishment” ties there.
    A plurality of primary voters wanted the Washington outsider who will fight.
    Well, they got him. But he doesn’t know how to stay on a message like a Washington insider does, and he wants to fight everyone — he doesn’t know how to choose fights wisely.

    In retrospect, I bet many of the #NeverRubio crowd will admit that Marco’s unfortunate “Gang of 8” flirtations looks quite palatable compared to the Trump Circus we’ve got now.

    We don’t exactly know what we’re going to get with a President Trump, but we do know exactly what we’re going to get with a President Hillary.
    So I’m voting for Trump.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  59. 52. “Church of Donaldology”

    There you go again, casting ignorant assertions indiscriminately. Either HRC or DJT will be the next president.

    Some of us actually give a damn about our children, you however, care only about being the cleanest wad of TP in the toilet.

    Drop dead a

    DNF (755a85)

  60. Its not ransom – the PuffHost says nothing about it

    joe (debac0)

  61. If you don’t vote for Trump – your a Clinton republican.

    mg (31009b)

  62. Yesterday’s media narrative: That DJT has lost the election, that his whole team, e.g., Neuter are pushing for an intervention, that victimizing a GoldStar father is fatal is pure horsesh!t.

    Leave it to the Party of Stupid to once again flee from the fight at the first sign of opposition.

    Neuter is as capable as Trump of saying something unfathomably stupid and cowardly. He’s proven so whenever given two weeks of attention, remember Scozzafava in NY 23rd?

    #nevertrump has no perspective, they are feral children.

    DNF (755a85)

  63. It cant be ransom – the Clinton News Network is not reporting it

    joe (debac0)

  64. BobStewartatHome (f2b3a5) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:34 pm

    The only thing the U. S. had to gain was the release of the four prisoners.

    No, no, that’s wrong. They also got Iran not repudiating the agreement he negotiated the year before, and following through on some of its commitments. Iran was making noises about the nuclear sanctions not really having been lifted.

    Sammy Finkelman (f0ed15)

  65. Steve57 (2d3b12) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:44 pm

    But the Taliban wasn’t holding Bergdahl; Bergdahl was actually in the custody of the Haqqani network which is really more of fundamentalist Islamic mafia than anything else. They work with the Taliban, but then this mafia will work with anybody if the price is right.

    No, I don’t think so. The Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network were two different branches of the same organziations, and were both controlled by Pakistan’s rogue military intelligence agency, the ISI, who had also protected Osama bin Laden, but the Obama Administration did not want to connect the dots.

    But that wouldn’t have been the right price for Bergdahl as far as this Islamist mafia is concerned. They would have also demanded cash.

    The Obama administration, in assuming them separate organziations, did indeed assume cash was paid, but apparently the secret intelligence assessment is that the Taliban paid the cash.

    Let’s see what it says here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowe_Bergdahl

    In early 2014, it was suggested that the United States had attempted to secure the release of Bergdahl by paying a ransom, and that the intermediary absconded with the money. The Pentagon states that a ransom was not paid, but there was a payment made for intelligence, that did lead to the release of Bergdahl.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/19/justice-department-may-probe-alleged-bergdahl-ransom-payment.html

    Some money was paid to someone, but Bewrgdahl was not released at that time. (February 2014)

    I think this was all just arranged by the ISI to “explain” why the supposedly unrelated Haqqani network would release a prisoner in exchange for Taliban officials. Maybe not so well explained is why the Haqqani network was holding him.

    Sammy Finkelman (f0ed15)

  66. It’s like ground hog day, gary, and they are Stephen tobolowski

    narciso (732bc0)

  67. i trade you all my starwars for your bowe bergdork

    hell yeah take him he’s a worthless cowardly p.o.s.

    oh. I changed my mind I don’t want him.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  68. BobStewartatHome (f2b3a5) — 8/3/2016 @ 7:55 pm

    We have no way of determining whether the facility was restarted on January 20th, or whether the whole thing was rebuilt at an undetermined location.

    I don’t know enough to evaluate the technical details, but I assume Iran is still contonuong on with its nuclear program in other ways. It is suppposed to have bene disabled in a way in which could not be restarted for less money than would cost to build a new one from scratch.

    Iran is still working on missiles, that it makes no sense for it to have, unless the idea is that the missiles would be carrying nuclear warheads. They could buy them from North Korea if North Korea was not afraid to sell them, and could smuggle them in. (North Korea has officially Donald Trump for president. Now maybe they are making a mistake, or it’s just pique.)

    Sammy Finkelman (f0ed15)

  69. I guess you guys are right–he wants to punish us, not Iran. And he can get away with it, with his allies in the media.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  70. Yesterday’s media narrative: That DJT has lost the election, that his whole team, e.g., Neuter are pushing for an intervention, that victimizing a GoldStar father is fatal is pure horsesh!t.

    Leave it to the Party of Stupid to once again flee from the fight at the first sign of opposition.

    Neuter is as capable as Trump of saying something unfathomably stupid and cowardly. He’s proven so whenever given two weeks of attention, remember Scozzafava in NY 23rd?

    #nevertrump has no perspective, they are feral children.

    DNF (755a85) — 8/4/2016 @ 8:27 am

    I believe some or all of what we heard yesterday is stuff that the Democrats fed to media accomplices.

    Gerald A (945582)

  71. Trump: “I don’t know why we’re not leading by a lot”

    Simply clueless.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  72. It used to be this place actually did media analysis, now They mostly slurp from the trough.

    narciso (732bc0)

  73. Is it a coincidence this fable was being put out the same time the real news about the same held was coming out?

    narciso (732bc0)

  74. Ransom, shmansom. It’s obviously merely an amazing coincidence!!!

    /sarc

    J.P. (9e0433)

  75. Sammy, if words were as powerful as you seem to think they are, then Neville Chamberlain would have had an illustrious career. And those missiles that Iran is developing would be useless if all they had was a fission bomb like Little Boy (9,700 lbs) or Fat Man (10,800 lbs). North Korea is attempting to perfect the fission trigger that will ignite a fusion warhead. The warheads they are working on could be small enough and light enough to be delivered by those North Korean and Iranian missiles that are under simultaneous development. So there must be fairly extensive projects underway in Iran and North Korea that Kerry and all the other fools refuse to recognize. The stuff Iran has allowed us to see, the equivalent of the development project for Little Boy, is probably two generations old at this point. They are letting us see what we want to see. And we are funding this fiasco.

    Of course, Boeing just sold a fleet of 737s to Iran, so the missiles may not be needed. And we will get a substantial portion of our funds back upon delivery of the jets. However, the maintenance contract won’t work out as well as our globalist elite might have hoped.

    BobStewartatHome (f2b3a5)

  76. All the while, Mitt Romney remains lost in the wilderness – but, yeah, the Mittster would have been a much better CinC.

    ThOR (c9324e) — 8/3/2016 @ 6:18 pm
    ==============================================

    Much too late to cry over spilled Mitt.

    Colonel Haiku (c0ad39)

  77. Clinton republicans for mitty and ryan.

    mg (31009b)

  78. Trump: “I don’t know why we’re not leading by a lot”

    Simply clueless.

    ThOR (c9324e) — 8/4/2016 @ 9:29 am

    Where is ropelight with a Drudge poll?

    Gerald A (945582)

  79. To paraphrase Ernst and Obama: “Don’t believe your lying eyes.”

    WarrenPeese (9ca554)

  80. Cruz Rubio supporter,

    You once again mention every GoPe member as an acceptable replacement for Trump without mentioning the guy you claimed to support. Do you think you are fooling anyone with your moniker? Really?

    njrob (38ab73)

  81. So reports have surfaced now that the plane returning the hostages was kept on the tarmac for several hours and told they wouldn’t be allowed to take-off “until the other plane landed”. This was as reported by one of the 4 hostages.

    Colonel Haiku (c0ad39)

  82. Don’t bet on it. A hostile President Trump would benefit them as much as an amicable President Clinton, albeit in different ways.

    kishnevi (1c16da) — 8/3/2016 @ 8:44 pm

    Please provide examples how the Iranians benefit just as much from a hostile President as they do from a compliant President.

    We’ve already seen that is not true, based on their reactions to Bush v. Obama. But I’d be interested in your attempt to make the case against reality.

    Steve57 (2d3b12)

  83. A US president willing to aid the Iranian people rebelling against the Mullahs would not aid the regime.

    A US president refusing to aid the Iranian people rebelling against the Mullahs does aid the regime.

    See “Green revolution” for a shameful example of how the Mullahcracy benefits more from compliant, supplicant US presidents than they ever could from a hostile president.

    Steve57 (2d3b12)

  84. njrob,

    I listed #NeverRubio, #NeverKasich, and #NeverJeb, because there were distinct public proclamations by certain conservatives to deny each of those three the nomination.
    (That’s what the whole “#Never” means, bud.)

    For Rubio, it was due to the Gang of 8, and for Kasich it was an alleged membership in the “establishment” corps, and for Jeb it was because of his last name and perhaps a couple of disagreements on policy, although he actually governed Florida pretty conservatively.

    So, in other words, you should stop hyperventillating.
    You ascribed those three as my preferred candidates when that’s not even close to what I ever said.
    My preferred candidates were Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, Walker, and Fiorina. I think Rubio would have easily been the most electable in a general election. And I think with more hindsight, it appears Cruz lacks the populist instincts to wage a successful general election campaign appealing across diverse regions of the country.
    Running for President of Texas is one thing, but running for President of the United States is another ball game.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  85. How odd that the word “Danegeld” does not appear here even once.

    It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say: —
    “We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
    That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
    And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

    It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say: —
    “Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say: —

    “We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!”

    Rudyard Kipling

    Fred Z (9ed538)

  86. I listed #NeverRubio, #NeverKasich, and #NeverJeb, because there were distinct public proclamations by certain conservatives to deny each of those three the nomination.
    (That’s what the whole “#Never” means, bud.)

    For Rubio, it was due to the Gang of 8, and for Kasich it was an alleged membership in the “establishment” corps, and for Jeb it was because of his last name and perhaps a couple of disagreements on policy, although he actually governed Florida pretty conservatively.

    So, in other words, you should stop hyperventillating.
    You ascribed those three as my preferred candidates when that’s not even close to what I ever said.
    My preferred candidates were Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, Walker, and Fiorina. I think Rubio would have easily been the most electable in a general election. And I think with more hindsight, it appears Cruz lacks the populist instincts to wage a successful general election campaign appealing across diverse regions of the country.
    Running for President of Texas is one thing, but running for President of the United States is another ball game.

    Cruz Rubio Supporter (102c9a) — 8/4/2016 @ 2:48 pm

    And many were never Cruz. That didn’t factor into your equation because you don’t really support him. You never did as any here could see throughout the campaign. But carry on with the charade if it makes you happy.

    njrob (a07d2e)

  87. trump trump trumpin’ on heaven’s door

    lighters up people

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  88. 72. Volatility of opinion 100 days out is as much artifice as reality. Recent polls during this bum rush period range from Clinton up 3 to 14.

    What do you make of that jackspittle?

    DNF (755a85)

  89. The goal of #nevertrump in its entirety is to lose. This has never been about winning, not even an attempt at convincing those sharing some common aspirations.

    The goal has always been to drag the impulse and momentum of the Right into disarray, infighting, bickering and slander. “Winning” has failed even to receive lip service.

    The moment #nevertrump opted to steal the nomination via Party rules, via “voting one’s conscience” its hopes of victory were lost, its integrity blown to bits.

    Every plan for battle has to adapt on first contact with the enemy, #nevertrump just put its head down and kissed its azz good bye.

    DNF (755a85)

  90. nevertrump is mostly a social climber thing Mr. Gary

    people what are desperate to preserve the perceived social value of their sensibilities and credentials

    they maybe got a little over-invested in the status quo i think bless their hearts

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  91. that tom cotton couldn’t get one co sponsor to try to review it constitutionally like a treaty,

    Sigh. This nonsense again? What does that even mean, “to review it constitutionally like a treaty”? It’s a meaningless phrase. To be a treaty, the deal would need the consent of two thirds of the senate. It didn’t get that. What difference do you imagine holding a vote would have made?

    What difference do you imagine exists between a failed vote and no vote at all? I have never run for president. Romney ran and lost. Is Romney somehow less of a president than I am?! The senate recently defeated a proposed bill to ban gun sales to people on the no-fly list. The senate has never even voted on a proposal to ban pink guns. Does the second ban somehow have more validity than the first one?! That’s what you’re proposing, and it’s ridiculous.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  92. (Trying again to beat some moderation algorithm)

    that tom cotton couldn’t get one co sponsor to try to review it constitutionally like a treaty,

    Sigh. This nonsense again? What does that even mean, “to review it constitutionally like a treaty”? It’s a meaningless phrase. To be a treaty, the deal would need the consent of two thirds of the senate. It didn’t get that. What difference do you imagine holding a vote would have made?

    What difference do you imagine exists between a failed vote and no vote at all? I have never run for president. Romney ran and lost. Is Romney somehow less of a president than I am?! The senate recently defeated a proposed bill to ban gnu to people on the no-fly list. The senate has never even voted on a proposal to ban pink gnus. Does the second ban somehow have more validity than the first one?! That’s what you’re proposing, and it’s ridiculous.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  93. “The most beautiful sound on earth is the Mooslim call to prayer”

    What exactly is anyone’s problem with that quote?

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  94. I have no idea why my last comment is in moderation. I thought it might be the reference to gnus, but it wasn’t. Pink, maybe? Surely not.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  95. Pink

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  96. Who knew? The color name for light red triggers moderation! I wonder why.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  97. OK, now that I know which word triggered the moderation, I’m posting this for the third time, without that word:

    that tom cotton couldn’t get one co sponsor to try to review it constitutionally like a treaty,

    Sigh. This nonsense again? What does that even mean, “to review it constitutionally like a treaty”? It’s a meaningless phrase. To be a treaty, the deal would need the consent of two thirds of the senate. It didn’t get that. What difference do you imagine holding a vote would have made?

    What difference do you imagine exists between a failed vote and no vote at all? I have never run for president. Romney ran and lost. Is Romney somehow less of a president than I am?! The senate recently defeated a proposed bill to ban gun sales to people on the no-fly list. The senate has never even voted on a proposal to ban purple guns. Does the second ban somehow have more validity than the first one?! That’s what you’re proposing, and it’s ridiculous.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  98. Reagan did it to fund a war against Communists in Latin America; Obama did it for his political gain.

    No, Reagan did it in the false belief that he was helping a “moderate faction” gain credibility within the regime. 30 years ago it may have been reasonable to fall for that trick; 30 years later it isn’t.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  99. #96… pure, unadulterated Horsesh!t.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  100. Milhouse,

    I just saw your comments in moderation, and released them.

    Dana (995455)

  101. I remembered that phrase from a discussion about Iran contra, by the ambassador in cost a rica, btw the tape exists of the ransom interval.

    narciso (732bc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1134 secs.