Perhaps you should educate yourself with the <a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair'>Iran-Contra scandal.</a>

Liberals are so quick to try to pin this issue on anyone but Obama.


Something about this story is just not right.

Of course Clinton was not part of the administration for this.

---

Perhaps you should educate yourself with the Iran-Contra scandal.

 

Liberals are so quick to try to pin this issue on anyone but Obama.

 

Something about this story is just not right.

 

Yeah, the Iran-Contra scandal was after the Iranian Revolution, and worse than this. This was a settlement over a suit going back to the days of the shah, and separate from the treaty negotiations, though the timing makes that claim suspect.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

If only the OP would share his WSJ subscription.

 

Sharing subscription credentials would be illegal.

 

Web sites with a paywall are easily circumvented using developer tools, depending on the browser that you use.

 

That being said, this story is starting to gain a little bit of steam.

 

CNN is now reporting on it.

 

ABC News is now reporting it, though the story is mostly refuting the "ransom" part of the story.

 

The thing is, without looking at other news websites, I would bet that their reporting on it is related to the "ransom" part of the story.  Any good journalist, especially an investigative journalist would probably be all over this.  Something is very wrong yet the narrative is all about the "ransom" part and trying to play it down.  What if it's true and can be proven?  Did the Obama administration regime break the law?  Is there something shady about this whole story?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

No

---

Yeah, the Iran-Contra scandal was after the Iranian Revolution, and worse than this. This was a settlement over a suit going back to the days of the shah, and separate from the treaty negotiations, though the timing makes that claim suspect.

 

There is a couple of problems with that.

 

1.  This (what you are referring to I think) happened way before Iran was added to the list of State Sponsored Terrorism.  That was a different regime and a different government.  The "failed deal" happened before the fall of the Shah and prior to the country being added to the list.  So why are we paying for that to a government that is responsible for the fall of the leader that we made the deal with in the first place?

 

2.  You have to be honest with yourself if you think that it just "happened" to take place on the SAME DAY that Iran was releasing American prisoners hostages.  Our government delivering foreign currency physically via an unmarked cargo plane and refusing to answer how payments are made to a congressional query doesn't smell?  Do you really think that it's that difficult to wire money to anyone in Iran?  Do you really think that it's that difficult for someone in Iran to receive a wire transfer?

 

The "excuses" being thrown out by our current regime don't add up.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

There is a couple of problems with that.


1. This (what you are referring to I think) happened way before Iran was added to the list of <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm'>State Sponsored Terrorism</a>. That was a different regime and a different government. The "failed deal" happened before the fall of the Shah and prior to the country being added to the list. So why are we paying for that to a government that is responsible for the fall of the leader that we made the deal with in the first place?


2. You have to be honest with yourself if you think that it just "happened" to take place on the SAME DAY that Iran was releasing American <del>prisoners</del> hostages. Our government delivering foreign currency physically via an unmarked cargo plane and refusing to answer how payments are made to a congressional query doesn't smell? Do you really think that it's that difficult to wire money to anyone in Iran? Do you really think that it's that difficult for someone in Iran to receive a wire transfer?


The "excuses" being thrown out by our current regime don't add up.

I think anyone who looks at this in a logical way would think it smells. If there is a legitimate explanation then there should be no problem explaining it. If this is all legit A. Why would they do the drop same time prisoners are released and risk any suspicion the two would be connected? And B. Why are they refusing to answer how payments are made unless there is something to hide? It's suspicious and we should demand answers.

---

They actually did provide a legitimate explanation... But once you hate, you cannot think logically--- much less objectively...

---

There is a couple of problems with that.

 

1.  This (what you are referring to I think) happened way before Iran was added to the list of State Sponsored Terrorism.  That was a different regime and a different government.  The "failed deal" happened before the fall of the Shah and prior to the country being added to the list.  So why are we paying for that to a government that is responsible for the fall of the leader that we made the deal with in the first place?

 

2.  You have to be honest with yourself if you think that it just "happened" to take place on the SAME DAY that Iran was releasing American prisoners hostages.  Our government delivering foreign currency physically via an unmarked cargo plane and refusing to answer how payments are made to a congressional query doesn't smell?  Do you really think that it's that difficult to wire money to anyone in Iran?  Do you really think that it's that difficult for someone in Iran to receive a wire transfer?

 

The "excuses" being thrown out by our current regime don't add up.

 

i believe I said the timing is suspect, but the treaty, bad or not, released all funds, did it not?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Sharing subscription credentials would be illegal.

 

I was being facetious, just pointing out that providing a link to a subscription site is pointless.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

They actually did provide a legitimate explanation... But once you hate, you cannot think logically--- much less objectively...

There explanation was basically, it is just coincidental. I read the explanation and your objectivity is obviously skewed. What they have not answered is why they sent the money in secret in the manner they did without disclosing it? If it is all to do about nothing then why is the press secretary saying "why is that relevant?" And this has been the problem with the Obama regime. The most transparent Government which has been the least transparent.


The American people have a right to know how the money was paid, how they have spent the money (Iran) and why they sent $400 million in secret. There's still no explanation and they never disclosed it. If there is nothing to it that's fine, but they should answer questions or just be more forthcoming from the get go.


The timing is suspicious and the secrecy only adds to it. The not answering as to why adds fuel to the fire. You sure your being objective?

---

There explanation was basically, it is just coincidental. I read the explanation and your objectivity is obviously skewed. What they have not answered is why they sent the money in secret in the manner they did without disclosing it? If it is all to do about nothing then why is the press secretary saying "why is that relevant?" And this has been the problem with the Obama regime. The most transparent Government which has been the least transparent.

The American people have a right to know how the money was paid, how they have spent the money (Iran) and why they sent $400 million in secret. There's still no explanation and they never disclosed it. If there is nothing to it that's fine, but they should answer questions or just be more forthcoming from the get go.

The timing is suspicious and the secrecy only adds to it. The not answering as to why adds fuel to the fire. You sure your being objective?

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/'>http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/</a>


I don't know maybe you could research and find it was Irans money to begin with. Of course this was all news in Jan of this year. But lets not confuse facts with good ol fashion fear mongering.


And struggling with the secrecy considering they put out a press release 7 months ago.

---

The explanation was that it would be ILLEGAL to pay Iran in U.S. currency.  So they circumvented the law by changing it into Francs and Euros.

---

Sorry I must be a moron here - but why again do we owe Iran this insane amount of money stemming from some agreement dated 1979? What did we get for it?


Weren't they paying us money back then for weapons so we could circumvent congress and fund the Contras? Now we owe them?

---

Sorry I must be a moron here - but why again do we owe Iran this insane amount of money stemming from some agreement dated 1979? What did we get for it?

Weren't they paying us money back then for weapons so we could circumvent congress and fund the Contras? Now we owe them?

And why are we just now paying them almost 40 years later???

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

And why are we just now paying them almost 40 years later???

Right! Statute of limitations for most debt is 5-7 years in the USA. Couldn't we continue stringing them along (like I do with my Visa card) or just stiff them altogether? Meanwhile disabled vets can't get real pain medication??

---

Not to the let the facts get in the way of some good old fashioned ignorant, misinformed hating and fear mongering but... 

 

This is actually the result of a long-running claims process that had been at The Hague. In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn't return Iran's money either. So that money essentially was held in what could, I think -- essentially in an escrow account.
 
And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million.This resolution that we agreed to was to return the $400 million and also to pay about $1 billion in interest. Now, the reason that this ends up being a very good deal for taxpayers is that our exposure, when it came to paying interest, could have been much higher. The Iranians were actually seeking $7 billion to $8 billion in interest payments. And I think that's an indication of how the interests of taxpayers were very well served by reaching this settlement.
 
The process leading up to the extensively and delicately negotiated settlement was also covered in detail by major news organizations at the time: 
 
The United States is to repay Iran a $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest dating to the Islamic revolution, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday.
 
The repayment, which settles a suit brought under an international legal tribunal, is separate from the tens of billions of dollars in frozen foreign accounts that Iran can now access after the end of nuclear sanctions.
 
But the timing of the announcement, one day after the implementation of the Iran nuclear accord, will be seen as pointing to a broader clearing of the decks between the old foes.
 
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/03/obama-b...prisoners/

---

 

Not to the let the facts get in the way of some good old fashioned ignorant, misinformed hating and fear mongering but... 

 

<div>This is actually the result of a long-running claims process that had been at The Hague. In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn't return Iran's money either. So that money essentially was held in what could, I think -- essentially in an escrow account.
 
And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million.This resolution that we agreed to was to return the $400 million and also to pay about $1 billion in interest. Now, the reason that this ends up being a very good deal for taxpayers is that our exposure, when it came to paying interest, could have been much higher. The Iranians were actually seeking $7 billion to $8 billion in interest payments. And I think that's an indication of how the interests of taxpayers were very well served by reaching this settlement.
 
The process leading up to the extensively and delicately negotiated settlement was also covered in detail by major news organizations at the time: 
 
The United States is to repay Iran a $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest dating to the Islamic revolution, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday.
 
The repayment, which settles a suit brought under an international legal tribunal, is separate from the tens of billions of dollars in frozen foreign accounts that Iran can now access after the end of nuclear sanctions.
 
But the timing of the announcement, one day after the implementation of the Iran nuclear accord, will be seen as pointing to a broader clearing of the decks between the old foes.
 
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/03/obama-b...prisoners/
 

</div>

 

I'd just like to take a few minutes to discuss the absurdity of what was just posted.  Timing and ransom aside, I think that has been discussed enough and frankly is pretty obvious.  

 

We gave the #1 state sponsor of terror 400 million dollars in cash that is impossible to trace and someone actually said, well at least we saved the tax payers some interest payments?  Really?  This is what our country has been reduced to?  So the soldiers in foreign theaters of operation that get blown u by IED's and other devices purchased with this money should thank their lucky stars that their tax liability was reduced by 1 1millionth of one percent while he is in line for his prosthetic limbs?  If Israel gets hit with a suitcase nuke we are just supposed to sit back and say, well...  hey what a really great deal!

 

We made a deal with a government that we had an established diplomatic relationship with.  The fact that the current government enacted a Coup against them means we should have blown them off the @!#%^ MAP!  Interest!  You're really going to post a @#$$%^^&^&&&U Article about INTEREST!!!!  We just made a deal to release 150 billion dollars to Iran in a nuke deal that we are helping them cheat on.  And we couldn't get this wiped off the map?  What about the damage to the US Embassy and the fact that they tortured the soul of the country by holding our country hostage?  What about the human rights violations?  Are we asking them to pay for those?  What about playing the families of the soldiers that they wounded in Iraq?  What about the debt they owe to the world for exporting terror to every continent except antartica?

 

INTEREST???  REALLY?

 

The world has gone STARK RAVING MADDDDDDDDDD!

---

^^ thank you very much. THIS WAS TO FELONIOUS ^^.


So it's not Obama's fault?


Funny story - GTE - the now defunct telecom -shipped over $100 + million worth of network equipment over to Iran in 1979 or 1980 expecting to reap record profits by establishing the infrastructure. Then, after whatever happened - they bailed and left it all to rot on the docks.

---

There explanation was basically, it is just coincidental. I read the explanation and your objectivity is obviously skewed. What they have not answered is why they sent the money in secret in the manner they did without disclosing it? If it is all to do about nothing then why is the press secretary saying "why is that relevant?" And this has been the problem with the Obama regime. The most transparent Government which has been the least transparent.


The American people have a right to know how the money was paid, how they have spent the money (Iran) and why they sent $400 million in secret. There's still no explanation and they never disclosed it. If there is nothing to it that's fine, but they should answer questions or just be more forthcoming from the get go.


The timing is suspicious and the secrecy only adds to it. The not answering as to why adds fuel to the fire. You sure your being objective?

 

I'm trying to be objective.  I think the explainations seem valid.  They are not "fishy" as JIB would have you believe...  We did not pay a ransom to free those hostages...  I urge you to do a little more research.  The money that was originally Irans to begin with was frozen back in 1979...  

 

Perhaps you should check your objectivity?

---

 

Not to the let the facts get in the way of some good old fashioned ignorant, misinformed hating and fear mongering but... 

 

<div>This is actually the result of a long-running claims process that had been at The Hague. In 1979, there was obviously an Iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. And prior to that revolution, the U.S. government had entered into an agreement with the then-Iranian government to transfer about $400 million in military equipment to the Iranian government. Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn't return Iran's money either. So that money essentially was held in what could, I think -- essentially in an escrow account.
 
And for more than 30 years now, the Iranians have been using this claims process at The Hague to try to recover that $400 million.This resolution that we agreed to was to return the $400 million and also to pay about $1 billion in interest. Now, the reason that this ends up being a very good deal for taxpayers is that our exposure, when it came to paying interest, could have been much higher. The Iranians were actually seeking $7 billion to $8 billion in interest payments. And I think that's an indication of how the interests of taxpayers were very well served by reaching this settlement.
 
The process leading up to the extensively and delicately negotiated settlement was also covered in detail by major news organizations at the time: 
 
The United States is to repay Iran a $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest dating to the Islamic revolution, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday.
 
The repayment, which settles a suit brought under an international legal tribunal, is separate from the tens of billions of dollars in frozen foreign accounts that Iran can now access after the end of nuclear sanctions.
 
But the timing of the announcement, one day after the implementation of the Iran nuclear accord, will be seen as pointing to a broader clearing of the decks between the old foes.
 
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/03/obama-b...prisoners/
 

</div>

 

 

^^ thank you very much. THIS WAS TO FELONIOUS ^^.


So it's not Obama's fault?


Funny story - GTE - the now defunct telecom -shipped over $100 + million worth of network equipment over to Iran in 1979 or 1980 expecting to reap record profits by establishing the infrastructure. Then, after whatever happened - they bailed and left it all to rot on the docks.

 

I'm assuming this was was the post you were originally wanting to thank!  Not JJ's...  :-)

 

People may not like the timing, but it seems that since we were making all these negotiations with Iran, might as well settle the old debt as well.  But yes, I can see how people that have an axe to grind over the current administration regime (did I do that right, JIB?) would like to find something to get thier girly panties in a twist over.  

---