hillery can't stop - Page 18

Isn't it a bit ridiculous though... that out of the 365 days there are in a year, that the converted-currencied, money drop had to be made on the same day as the hostage release? You have to admit that it sure LKS like it was a work-around-solution for a ransom payment.

The deal for the money was struck a month or more ahead of the release. Looks can be deceiving. We owed them the money. I have read it could have been 10 billion plus so to pay them 1.7 billion was a steal.

The administration lies to cover up their criminal behavior and sheeple lap it up...truth told by an American in statement below....

“We were right in January 2016 to describe the Administration’s $1.7 billion transfer to Iran as a ransom payment," Kirk said in a statement. "Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk. While Americans were relieved by Iran’s overdue release of illegally imprisoned American hostages, the White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages, including Siamak Namazi, his father Baquer Namazi, and Reza Shahini.”

That was tax payer money, to be used against us by the terrorist state. Again ob'ama and hilery have blood on their hands.

Always spot on...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/08/03/ann-coulter-khizr-khan/

The Iran deal was going to happen regardless of prisoners. Did it have a role since there were prisoners? It probably didn't hurt proceedings. I mean, if we went through with this and didn't get them released it would have looked worse than having them as part of the deal. This was Iran's money which was frozen. This wasn't tax payer money. Those who claim it is are lying or just plain ignorant.

Here's a question: European nations don't like to advertise this but they do pay terrorists groups like ISIS ransom money to get hostages released, hostages who would otherwise be getting decapitated. People can whine about paying money to Iran to get our citizens back but what if it were a family member of one of the whiners? How much would they want the government to spend to get their son or daughter back?

If there is anyone here who has a problem with paying ransom money to secure the release of Americans I would like for them to answer this: If your son faced having his head sawed off for the whole world to see or your daughter faced becoming a sex slave, how much would you want the government to pay to get your kid back? If you say you wouldn't want anything paid then you don't have kids, I hope.

Something to consider is that we already had this argument over 30 years ago when Reagan became president and then, coincidentally?, Iran released the hostages. That was pretty good timing as well. Of course the Reagan cult likes to say that it was due to Iran fearing Reagan and not because of any deals then we had Iran-Contra. Yet somehow Reagan isn't considered a traitor for that. In fact, Iran-Contra started in order to get some American hostages in Lebanon released. It's amazing how ignorant Americans are of their own history, even recent history. Or is it because Reagan was a republican god and Obama is, well, not, that gives Reagan a pass?

Obama gives Iran its own money back, hostages get released = Obama bad.
Reagan sells Iran weapons, hostages are released = Reagan great.

Yes, Americans should arm themselves and fight terrorists. They do know they will be going to Syria and Iraq, right?

The most disgusting person the us has ever produced, on par with the worst in history...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EGBOMvBrZw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

@GSDAdmin

This is the real problem I have that leaves me a bit unconvinced with that money drop being unrelated to ransom being paid. It is that if it were true, then there would be no need to do a money conversion. People who are owed money really won't quibble if they are being paid in US dollars. That was our issue, not theirs! Wiring the US funds would be the simplest way to move that quantity of money from one bank to another... If the transaction and deal were 100% unrelated.

It took a lot of effort on our part, and expense to simply, "repay a loan." Not to mention Iran called it, ransom paid, too! But what the heck, Obama just is hoping to make points being nice all the time to old enemies, I guess it makes the rest of Americans being stupid, easy...right?

What's more important, that somehow there's is some link between Iran getting its money back and the prisoners being freed or that the prisoners were freed? I don't think it matters much to them or their families if they were part of the deal.

Guess the ob ama regime can't even buy friends for $400,000,000.00 Haha, suck it b Hussein !

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/04/irans-ayatollah-tweets-u-s-created-islamic-state/