Obama Admin Won’t Tell Congress How It Paid Iran $1.3 Billion in Taxpayer Funds

originally posted by: roadgravel
Huh

From the thread about the lady who claimed she was owned 100,000 in SS.

She carried three suitcases of paperwork documenting her claim that the government owed her more than $100,000. Many people thought she was mentally ill and was making it up. But she was right all along, and Social Security wrote her a check for $99,999. They will probably give her more.

Maybe the government charges $1 for writing a check now.

Iran Bank will pay it off !!

Yup.

Obama on track ....

State Department issues updated travel warning for Iran

The State Department issued an updated travel warning on Monday for Americans, especially Iranian-Americans, on the risks of travel to Iran, even after the U.S. signed a nuclear deal and made a $400 million cash payment to the country that was contingent on the release of four American prisoners.

The travel warning replaces what was in effect since March 14, which reiterates the risk of arrest and detention of U.S. citizens, especially those with dual Iranian-American citizenship. Iran does not recognize dual nationalities.

The warning says that Iranian authorities continue to "detain and imprison U.S. citizens, particularly Iranian-Americans, including students, journalists, business travelers, and academics, on charges including espionage and posing a threat to national security."

Hmmm.

Good friends Iran is.

a reply to: xuenchen

Why can't they just tell the public what the Hell is going on?

They would all get lynched.

...and they won't because nothing will happen to them when they don't.

You get how this works yet?

dbl post

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen

There was a decision some time ago to pay monry frozen since 1979 or 78. We paid it. It's over.

Its not over for those in Iran who are now ransom bait.
Did you miss the new State Department travel warning?

Kidnapping over there will become very profitable.

originally posted by: burntheships
dbl post

I didn't miss it, and neither did you, so don't go there. Has nothing to do with the fact some US citizens were freed.

a reply to: reldra

Sure it does, it has everything to do with it.
That is why it has been U.S. policy to refrain
from paying ransom for kidnappings.

Even The State department said this was wrong,
and would be wrong. And it is wrong.

Hmmmm.

Obama administration says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners

However, Kirby said that the U.S. withheld the cash delivery until Iran made good on its promise to release the prisoners.

“In basic English you are saying you wouldn’t give [Iran] the 400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?” asked a reporter at Thursday’s State Department briefing.

“That’s correct,” Kirby responded.

a reply to: LifeMode

It would appear so but that is not how hostage takers see it. Now they know how to get what they want. Take more hostages which they just did to restock the shelf.

I don't doubt that they will keep doing it. Their track record confirms it.

Maybe next, if there is, we pay in a different way. But if they do continue, it would seem to be a reason to never trust or remove future sanctions should they arise.

I suppose it's not as easy to do as it seems.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: reldra

Sure it does, it has everything to do with it.
That is why it has been U.S. policy to refrain
from paying ransom for kidnappings.

Even The State department said this was wrong,
and would be wrong. And it is wrong.

It has been, in general. It is not a law. Why is it wrong? The answer is usualy 'because others will think they can do it and get the same result'. That is simply untrue. It is not done often, but it has been done.

Unless you are an expert in this field, I am not sure how you can say it is always wrong.

a reply to: reldra

But no reply as to why the State Department objected?
And I don't have to be an expert in this area to know it is counterproductive.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra

We all seem to "know" that.

So why all the secrecy and defensive posture by Obama?

Why not just issue a written page explaining the whole thing?

He must be nervous about something.

In the context of promising to be one of the most transparent administrations?

The truth?

From: www.washingtonpost.com... 1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html

But the Obama administration itself has been part of a different know-nothing problem. It has kept the news media — and therefore the public — in the dark far too much over the past 7 1/2 years.

After early promises to be the most transparent administration in history, this has been one of the most secretive. And in certain ways, one of the most elusive. It’s also been one of the most punitive toward whistleblowers and leakers who want to bring light to wrongdoing they have observed from inside powerful institutions.

a reply to: xuenchen


Just give us a full accounting of the money froze back in 1997, where it was kept and where the money paid recently came from. If banks, etc. got to keep the money, I'm gonna be pissed. Otherwise, just another shady deal of Obama bowing to the Muslims.

If there is nothing to hide, then they shouldn't have to try hide information....unless they don't want people to know. And if they don't, then why don't they?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: burntheships
dbl post

I didn't miss it, and neither did you, so don't go there. Has nothing to do with the fact some US citizens were freed.

Read this about your dear leader and get back to me...I put a quote below...
Enjoy
All Hail King Obama and his minion Rhodes

I'm curious as to ur thoughts....this is tangential I know but tell me your thoughts on Rhodes narrative...im genuinely curious...

Rhodes, 38, said in the article that it was easy to shape a favorable impression of the proposed agreement because of the inexperience of many of those covering the issue.

“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington.

The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

-Christosterone

aren't they anti American too ?a reply to: avgguy

a reply to: reldra

Just a reminder...

a reply to: reldra

You've got to be kidding me.

This has nothing to do with Republicans and everything to do with this criminal of a President using our hard earned money to pay off a country which supports and funds terror against us!, and covering up how and why he did it.

a reply to: xuenchen

More lawless action from the lawless one. Maybe he's just funding their new nuclear program.