Obama paid 400 MILLION IN CASH to Iran for the Hostages

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2016 4:37 AM GMT
    Ummm why? Because he's a fraud!
    Why not give it to all
    AMERICANS??

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/was-the-400-million-in-cash-paid-after-the-iran-prisoner-deal-really-ransom/2016/08/03/569f855e-59a8-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2016 4:41 AM GMT
    Co9k0paXYAAmcNg.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2016 2:09 PM GMT
    You need to read the article more carefully, paying attention to the context and subtext. For example, the article states, "In fact, the money was earmarked to settle a decades-old Iranian claim on the money, plus $1.3 billion in interest. The funds were deposited by Iran before the 1979 revolution to buy U.S. military equipment, and they were frozen under President Jimmy Carter after Americans were taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Iran has been trying to recover the money ever since, at one point contending that it was owed $10 billion or more with accrued interest."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2016 5:43 PM GMT
    The deal has been known about since January, and it is not a ransom payment, but the remuneration of IRANIAN money the US stole (after they overthrew their dictator who the US supported).

    Ronald Reagan also paid Iran millions to free hostages in Lebanon, and even sold them arms with the collaboration of Israel, funnelling the profits through a secret government apparatus to arm the right-wing death squads in Nicaragua, the better to fight its democratically elected government.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2016 6:53 PM GMT
    DOMINUS saidYou need to read the article more carefully, paying attention to the context and subtext. For example, the article states, "In fact, the money was earmarked to settle a decades-old Iranian claim on the money, plus $1.3 billion in interest. The funds were deposited by Iran before the 1979 revolution to buy U.S. military equipment, and they were frozen under President Jimmy Carter after Americans were taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Iran has been trying to recover the money ever since, at one point contending that it was owed $10 billion or more with accrued interest."


    BAD DEAL REGARDLESS BITCH!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2016 7:07 PM GMT
    In heat of the campaign, White House and Clinton face questions about $400-million payment to Iran

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-iran-payment-20160804-snap-story.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 3:12 AM GMT
    2BFree saidIn heat of the campaign, White House and Clinton face questions about $400-million payment to Iran

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-iran-payment-20160804-snap-story.html





    Trump claims to have seen Iran payment sasquatch video icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 3:40 AM GMT
    2000 Democrat VP nominee and US Senator Joe Lieberman opposes the Iran deal.

    Shows how far left, the weak on defense Democrats have lurched.


    700x394


    http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-joe-lieberman-iran-deal-0726-story.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 4:26 AM GMT
    2BFree saidUmmm why? Because he's a fraud!
    Why not give it to all
    AMERICANS??

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/was-the-400-million-in-cash-paid-after-the-iran-prisoner-deal-really-ransom/2016/08/03/569f855e-59a8-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html


    Obama explained that pallets of cash were used in the exchange because the United States doesn’t have a banking relationship with Iran.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 5:21 AM GMT
    Why have republicans sold our military equipment and arms to Pakistan when 'friend' Israel is in direct conflict? icon_eek.gif


    U.S. Arms Sales to Pakistan
    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22757.pdf


    In 2006, the United States signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5
    billion, ranking Pakistan first among all arms clients of the United States during that calendar
    year. The key elements in Pakistan’s arms purchases from the United States were 36 F-16C/D
    Block 50/52 fighter aircraft for $1.4 billion; a variety of missiles and bombs to be utilized on the
    F-16 C/D fighter aircraft for over $640 million; the purchase of Mid-Life Update Modification
    Kits to upgrade Pakistan’s F-16A/B aircraft for $890 million; and 115 M109A5 155mm Selfpropelled
    howitzers for $52 million. The rise of Pakistan to its new status as a major arms
    purchaser from the United States is particularly noteworthy given the difficulties the United
    States has had with Pakistan since the 1970s over its successful effort to produce nuclear
    weapons. The total value of Pakistan’s 2006 arms purchases from the United States nearly
    matches the total value of all Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program purchases by Pakistan from
    the United States for the entire period from FY1950-FY2001 (more than $3.6 billion in current
    dollars). For the period from calendar year 2005 through calendar year 2008, Pakistan has placed
    orders with the United States for defense articles and services through the FMS program valued at
    $4.5 billion

    In 1985, Congress added Section 620E(e) to the Foreign Assistance Act.2 This provision, known
    as the Pressler amendment, required the President to certify to Congress that Pakistan did not
    possess a nuclear explosive device during each fiscal year in which the Administration proposed
    to provide assistance to Pakistan. This placed an important brake on expansion of a defense
    supply relationship between the United States and Pakistan. With the withdrawal of Soviet
    military forces from Afghanistan, the nuclear weapons development program of Pakistan came
    under intensive U.S. examination again. Finally, in October 1990, President George H. W. Bush
    suspended U.S. military assistance to Pakistan. As a result of this action, the United States
    stopped the delivery of 28 F-16 fighter aircraft that Pakistan had purchased 1989

    Throughout the 1990s, the United States essentially ended military cooperation and arms sales to
    Pakistan. It was only after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001,
    that the Bush Administration chose to re-engage with Pakistan in the area of defense cooperation,
    and was willing, once again, to consider and approve major weapons sales to that country. It
    secured authority from Congress, which has been extended annually as required, to waive
    restrictions on aid to Pakistan. President Bush has invoked this authority to keep providing aid.
    The rationale for this change of policy regarding arms sales to Pakistan was to secure its
    government’s support for the U.S. counter-terrorism program. In June 2004, President George W.
    Bush designated Pakistan a Major Non-NATO ally

    This statement succinctly summarizes what continues to be the underlying argument by the Bush
    Administration for arms sales and military assistance to Pakistan. Apart from the 40 F-16A/B
    aircraft sold to Pakistan during the early years of the Reagan Administration, few other major
    weapons systems have been sold to Pakistan by the United States until the 2006 F-16 aircraft sale.
    Other systems sold have primarily been missiles such as the Sidewinder for the F-16 aircraft, and
    a limited number of Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Since the Bush Administration has announced its
    willingness to sell major weapons systems to Pakistan, various press accounts have speculated
    about possible new sales. Apart from the major 2006 F-16 sales and related equipment noted
    above, no additional major weapon systems have been sold to Pakistan
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 5:35 AM GMT
    How could we ever forget RayGuns duplicitous act, republicans are pulling Obama straws again icon_rolleyes.gif


    Iran–Contra affair
    [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair[/url]


    The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجراي ایران-کنترا‎‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several U.S. hostages and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

    The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[4]

    While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[6] the evidence is disputed as to whether he authorized the diversion of the money raised by the Iranian arms sales to the Contras.[4][5][7] 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.[8] 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'".[8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages.[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[10] On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages