Ransom for captives?

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

What part of 'it was their money in the first place' doesn't penetrate your thick skull, Mike?

Originally Posted by Oerets

What you don't get is the simple fact, it was not ransom!

""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."" J Goebbels

Barney

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Don't expect him to let the truth get in the way of his talking point. He has his orders.

Hate to break it to you, but the administration has already stated the payment of the funds was contingent on the release of the hostages.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-18-15-49-33

The Obama administration on Friday defended its decision to make a $400 million cash delivery to Iran contingent on the release of American prisoners, saying the payment wasn't ransom because the Islamic Republic would have soon recouped the money one way or another.

Just because the Obama flunkies don't want to call that bird with webbed feet and a orange bill floating on the pond a duck doesn't mean that it isn't. But you three Obama brown-nosers can stay in denial if you want.

"They would have recouped the money one way or another...." Well, that's all very nice, and very convenient excuse - making. Recouping the money could have been handled via a series of wire transfers over time. It didn't have to be a pallet full of various currencies arriving in the dead of night on a plane at an airport where another plane full of hostages wasn't going to take off until the plane with the money arrived.....but it was.

The administration called the $400 MM "leverage". Very nice word-smithing there. Now that's something Barney's hero Goebbels would have been proud of.

Sure it was a ransom. If it wasn't a ransom, why was there an argument about it within the administration. Why did the politicos in the state department have "over-rule" the attorneys at the DOJ?

Nice try, guys.