Obama denies $400M payment to Iran was ransom

[webfact]

Obama denies $400M payment to Iran was ransom

By JOSH LEDERMAN and MATTHEW LEE

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama vigorously denied on Thursday that a $400 million cash payment to Iran was ransom to secure the release of four Americans jailed in Tehran. He defended the transaction as evidence that the nuclear accord with Iran has allowed for progress on other matters.

 

"This wasn't some nefarious deal," Obama said during a news conference at the Pentagon.

 

The money was delivered to the Iranian government in January, at the same time the nuclear deal was settled and the Americans were released. The payment was part of a decades-old dispute over a failed military equipment deal dating to the 1970s, before the Islamic revolution in 1979.

 

Obama also answered political questions at the news conference, pushing back at Republican nominee Donald Trump's suggestions that the November election might be rigged, calling the assertion "ridiculous." He said his advice to Trump, a candidate he has declared "unfit" for the presidency, was to "go out there and try to win the election."

 

Also, in regard to the presidential race. Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton will soon be receiving classified briefings, giving them access to sensitive information about national security and America's military posture. Asked whether he was worried about Trump having access to such material, Obama said simply that those who want to be president need to start acting like it.

 

"That means being able to receive these briefings and not spread them around," he said.

 

The president's appearance before reporters followed an hours-long meeting with military leaders at the Pentagon on the fight against the Islamic State group.

 

Obama said there have been gains in weakening IS in Iraq and Syria, but he conceded the extremist group still poses a threat to the United States as it shifts its tactics to carrying out attacks elsewhere around the world. While those attacks may result in less carnage, Obama said IS knows they still create "the kinds of fear and concern that elevates their profile."

 

The rise of the Islamic State has kept Obama tied to the Middle East in a way he had hoped to avoid in his eighth and final year in office. While the U.S. has far fewer troops in the region than when he took office in 2009, Republicans argue that the drawdown of troops from Iraq created a vacuum that allowed the Islamic State to thrive.

 

Asked whether he feels any personal disappointment about not being able to do more to stop the Islamic State, Obama said "I haven't gotten numb to it. It bugs me."

 

On Syria, the president criticized Russia's support of government attacks against opposition forces and its sieges of cities such as Aleppo.

 

He accused Russia of failing to take steps to reduce violence in Syria — where a civil war has raged for much of Obama's presidency — but said the U.S. would continue trying to push Moscow to focus on the fight against IS and other extremists.

 

On Iran, Obama expressed surprise at criticism of his administration's cash payment to settle a longstanding legal claim, adamantly rejecting claims that it was a ransom paid for the release of the four Americans.

 

He pointed out that the payment, along with an additional $1.3 billion in interest to be paid later, was announced by the administration when it was concluded in January, a day after the implementation of a landmark nuclear agreement with Iran. "It wasn't a secret. We were completely open about it," he said.

 

Obama allowed that the one piece of new information, first reported this week by The Wall Street Journal, was that the $400 million was paid in cash. It was delivered to Iran on palettes aboard an unmarked plane.

 

"The only bit of news is that we paid cash," he said. "The reason is because we couldn't send them a check and we couldn't wire the money. We don't have a banking relationship with Iran which is part of the pressure we applied on them."

 

The payment has revived allegations from Trump and other critics of the Iran nuclear deal.

 

The president's session at the Pentagon occurred as the U.S. was bombing targets in and around the Libyan city of Sirte, a notable expansion of the U.S.-led coalition's military mission against IS. At the urging of the Pentagon, Obama authorized the strikes that started this week and include precision attacks against IS tanks, rocket launchers and fighting positions.

 

Mired in chaos following the ouster of strongman Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, Libya became a target for IS extremists hoping to build a safe haven outside its initial territory in Iraq and Syria. Though the number of IS fighters in Libya has dwindled, the U.S. is hoping to help Libya's fledgling U.N.-backed unity government finish the job.

___

AP writers Julie Pace and Alicia A. Caldwell contributed.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-08-05

[Ulysses G.]

Another obvious lie.

[ClutchClark]

Please fact check me but CNN reported that this $400 million in cash was delivered to Iran within a couple of hours of the hostages being flown out of the country.

 

Why was this money sent through this difficult to trace method and not wired from a US Govt account into an Iranian Gov't account through a neutral 3rd Party Country IF it was all above board for some other debt? 

 

Why did Iranian leadership immediately parade this payment to its population as a "ransom"?

 

And where was Clinton during this time frame and negotiation?

Edited August 5, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

4 US hostages and $400 million paid.

 

Those nice round numbers do nothing to dissuade the allegations it was a ransom payment.

 

[ClutchClark]

$1.3 Billion in interest will be paid later for an arms deal from 1970.

 

For some reason, after 46 years of refusing to pay for this "arms deal", obama decides he wants to send Iran a good faith payment of $400 million immediately after the US hostages leave Iran airspace?

 

And he sends the payment in cash on an unmarked charted aircraft? 

 

And this is just some coincidence? And not one Democrats BS meter is going off right now?

 

 

[Caps]

$100 million per person is a bit much

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, Caps said:

$100 million per person is a bit much

 

Is it?

 

I really don't know what the going rate is for Us hostages being held by the Iranian Govt these days.

 

Is it usually listed after Corn and Soybeans prices in the Business section?

[Silurian]

Iran is a tricky topic. The US has messed up that country since 1953 when the US backed a coup and put that awful Shah in power. Of course this was due to Iran trying to gain rights back to the oil that the foreign interests held. The Shah was a a terrible ruler with long lists of immoral acts. With US turning a blind eye to the Shah, it is no wonder why Iran hated the US for so long after the Shah was kicked out of power.

 

Currently, the Iranian people are getting a more favorable attitude towards the West but it will take time and trust on both sides. I believe it would be far better if the US can improve relations with Iran instead of the fear that some US people have of Iran. The Iranian people have similar fear of the US returning and messing with their country once again and with good reason.

 

As far as I am concerned, $400M is just a drop in the bucket against how the US really messed up Iran.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Silurian

[MaxYakov]

25 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

$1.3 Billion in interest will be paid later for an arms deal from 1970.

 

For some reason, after 46 years of refusing to pay for this "arms deal", obama decides he wants to send Iran a good faith payment of $400 million immediately after the US hostages leave Iran airspace?

 

And he sends the payment in cash on an unmarked charted aircraft? 

 

And this is just some coincidence? And not one Democrats BS meter is going off right now?

 

 

 

According to one of the freed hostages they were not allowed to leave until (ostensibly) another plane had arrived. Could it have been the plane with the cash? Naaaaaah!:

 

Ref: Breitbart Article - August 3, 2016

Edited August 5, 2016 by MaxYakov

[Pinot]

Another obvious lie? (sigh)

 

Put Obama in the headline of a post and watch the wingnuts become rabid dogs. Despite what you hear from the usual faux sources...IT'S ALL BULLSHIT! 

 

He's running out of material to entertain his supporters with during his wingnut rallies, but to make up such an out and out lie is incomprehensible.

 

We know he's a serial exaggerator and is a liar, but this is just crazy.

 

This is actually the Republican candidate for office of the Presidency spewing complete bullshit,  with the stupid drones smiling, and cheering him on, as if everything he says drips of profundity.

 

What is coming is a landslide he can't make excuses for. It will take  his diseased, obsolete party of racists, bigots, misogynists, and free-range idiots down with him. 

 

Enjoy:

 

 

[boomerangutang]

sorry if this has already been said here (I haven't read all posts): but that $400 mil was money the US took from Iran for an arms sale, right before US hostages were taken.  In retaliation, the US held the money but didn't provide the goods ordered and paid for.  In other words, IT WAS AND IS IRANIAN MONEY.  So the US is rightfully returning Iranian money to Iranians, with %.  

 

Trump proves yet again what a lying cheating uninformed dufus he is.  He deserves every % point fall in popularity that he's getting.  

[zydeco]

30 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

$1.3 Billion in interest will be paid later for an arms deal from 1970.

 

For some reason, after 46 years of refusing to pay for this "arms deal", obama decides he wants to send Iran a good faith payment of $400 million immediately after the US hostages leave Iran airspace?

 

And he sends the payment in cash on an unmarked charted aircraft? 

 

And this is just some coincidence? And not one Democrats BS meter is going off right now?

 

 

 

And it is cash in foreign currency, not US dollars!

[ClutchClark]

11 minutes ago, Pinot said:

Another obvious lie? (sigh)

 

Put Obama in the headline of a post and watch the wingnuts become rabid dogs. Despite what you hear from the usual faux sources...IT'S ALL BULLSHIT! 

 

He's running out of material to entertain his supporters with during his wingnut rallies, but to make up such an out and out lie is incomprehensible.

 

We know he's a serial exaggerator and is a liar, but this is just crazy.

 

This is actually the Republican candidate for office of the Presidency spewing complete bullshit,  with the stupid drones smiling, and cheering him on, as if everything he says drips of profundity.

 

What is coming is a landslide he can't make excuses for. It will take  his diseased, obsolete party of racists, bigots, misogynists, and free-range idiots down with him. 

 

Enjoy:

 

 

 

What part is an obvious lie?

 

Its always the same with your posts.

 

Once we edit out the vitriol and name-calling you excel at there is really nothing of substance remaining.

 

Can you please explain your position directly and succinctly? 

 

Much appreciated.

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, Yoram said:

The only people that will fondly remember Obama when he will fade into anonymity will be the

Muslims of this world, who couldn't believe their luck, and the several millions illegal immigrants, whom. thanks to Obama, has allowed them to illegally enter the US and stay there, as the man who championed their causes....

 

 

You need to do some fact checking. A recent interview with an ISIS member revealed that their operation is very minimal in the US, due to the great difficulties they have, when it comes to getting into the US legally. He talked about all of the sleeper cells in Holland, France, and Germany. Very few in the US. There are still only about 3 million Muslims in the US. One of the lowest percentages in the Western World. So, contrary to your belief, he has been very tough on Muslim immigration. And I am no fan of Obama. But, lies and distortions are just that. Get your news from somewhere other than FOX please. 

 

It does appear that this payment was legal. And it was revealed to the American people back in January:

 

Secretary Of State John Kerry Issued Press Release Announcing Settlement Of Iranian Government’s Claims, Beginning With $400 Million Payment. On January 17, Secretary of State John Kerry issued a press release explaining that Iran will be paid $400 million, to be followed by $1.3 billion more to settle “a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague”:

https://mediamatters.org/research/2016/08/04/myths-facts-400-million-payment-iran/212190

Edited August 5, 2016 by spidermike007

[Ulysses G.]

8 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

sorry if this has already been said here (I haven't read all posts): but that $400 mil was money the US took from Iran for an arms sale, right before US hostages were taken.

 

Which they just happened to pay back the same day 4 hostages were released. Yeah, sure. There really is a sucker born every minute.

[thaihome]

How can returning money that belongs to Iran, has been held for going on 40 years, for which a signed agreement exists to finally return it, be considered "ransom"?

TH 

[ClutchClark]

Just now, thaihome said:

How can returning money that belongs to Iran, has been held for going on 40 years, for which a signed agreement exists to finally return it, be considered "ransom"?

TH 

 

One might argue that a debt from 45 years ago that has not yet been paid is very likely a debt that was never intended to be paid. 

 

That would suggest that the $400M was not related to a debt long ago charged off and which was instead a "ransom". 

 

BTW, if we owed $1.7 Million for this old debt then why wasn't that entire amount paid back IF obama suddenly has this desire to make amends?

 

Can you actually not comprehend the situation given these facts? 

Does it honestly just seem kosher to you?

[Pinot]

12 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

What part is an obvious lie?

 

Its always the same with your posts.

 

Once we edit out the vitriol and name-calling you excel at there is really nothing of substance remaining.

 

Can you please explain your position directly and succinctly? 

 

Much appreciated.

 

Oh my Buddha. Nope, can't be bothered. 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

What part is an obvious lie?

 

Its always the same with your posts.

 

Once we edit out the vitriol and name-calling you excel at there is really nothing of substance remaining.

 

Can you please explain your position directly and succinctly? 

 

Much appreciated.

There was no video.  That's the falsehood. i won't say lie because Trump is most likely just confused.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/04/questions-abound-as-trump-claims-to-have-watched-video-leaked-by-iran-of-the-money-transfer/

[ClutchClark]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

There was no video.  That's the falsehood. i won't say lie because Trump is most likely just confused.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/04/questions-abound-as-trump-claims-to-have-watched-video-leaked-by-iran-of-the-money-transfer/

 

There was no video? 

 

OK, now I understand what the accusation of a "lie" was referencing. 

 

Thankyou.

 

But since obama has admitted to the payment and the timing and detsils of the flight and amount of the payment are not being contested by obama then a video is not really paramount to this topic.

 

IMO.

[Pinot]

Just now, ClutchClark said:

 

There was no video? 

 

OK, now I understand what the accusation of a "lie" was referencing. 

 

Thankyou.

 

But since obama has admitted to the payment and the timing and detsils of the flight and amount of the payment are not being contested by obama then a video is not really paramount to this topic.

 

IMO.

 

IMO Listening to Donald Trump explain anything about foreign policy is like listening to someone explain a plot to a movie they've never seen.

[ClutchClark]

8 minutes ago, Pinot said:

 

Oh my Buddha. Nope, can't be bothered. 

 

 

 

This is all that you can contribute to this conversation? 

A song that has nothing to do with anything and constant vitriol. 

 

You are genuinely unwell and unfit to participate in a forum. 

 

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

25 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

19 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Which they just happened to pay back the same day 4 hostages were released. Yeah, sure. There really is a sucker born every minute.

 

If you know anything about deal making, you know that often something is 'piggy-backed' on the deal, sometimes at the last minute.  Plus, the US has very little control on what the Iranian gov't does or doesn't do.   Note:  the US hostages were returned to the US on the exact day Reagan was inaugurated as president.   Was that Reagan's decision, or was it the Iranians who chose which day to return them?

[ClutchClark]

34 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

 

 

You need to do some fact checking. A recent interview with an ISIS member revealed that their operation is very minimal in the US, due to the great difficulties they have, when it comes to getting into the US legally. He talked about all of the sleeper cells in Holland, France, and Germany. Very few in the US. There are still only about 3 million Muslims in the US. One of the lowest percentages in the Western World. So, contrary to your belief, he has been very tough on Muslim immigration. And I am no fan of Obama. But, lies and distortions are just that. Get your news from somewhere other than FOX please. 

 

It does appear that this payment was legal. And it was revealed to the American people back in January:

 

Secretary Of State John Kerry Issued Press Release Announcing Settlement Of Iranian Government’s Claims, Beginning With $400 Million Payment. On January 17, Secretary of State John Kerry issued a press release explaining that Iran will be paid $400 million, to be followed by $1.3 billion more to settle “a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague”:

https://mediamatters.org/research/2016/08/04/myths-facts-400-million-payment-iran/212190

 

The only thing your link provided was that on january 17, 2016 obama negotiated the release of 5 US hostages and promised the first installment of a 35-year old arms deal that had beharged off long ago. 

 

The timing of these two events being discussed at the same Jan 17 meeting is in itself suspicious but for the actusl transfer of these funds to occur within hours of the hostages release almost 7 months later ties them together beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Where is Credo? Please let me know when some intelligent obama supporters arrive.

I would very much like to hear an educated counterpoint to all this.

 

 

[Pinot]

13 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

It looks like the only obama supporters who want to touch this thread are the ones that always lack anything relevant to say. 

 

 

 

 

 

This just in...Donald Trump has seen top secret footage of Obama using an Iranian plane to deliver Christ to Pontius Pilate.

[ClutchClark]

17 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

If you know anything about deal making, you know that often something is 'piggy-backed' on the deal, sometimes at the last minute.  Plus, the US has very little control on what the Iranian gov't does or doesn't do.   Note:  the US hostages were returned to the US on the exact day Reagan was inaugurated as president.   Was that Reagan's decision, or was it the Iranians who chose which day to return them?

 

Boomer, I fear you are getting your centuries confused.

 

No disrespect, it happens to me sometimes as well.

 

But this arms deal and this hostage release with Iran is a new one under obama in 2016.

 

Not the Ollie North hostage for arms deal from back in the day.

 

I far prefer those days myself and don't blame you a bit for taking that trip down memory lane amigo.

[TEFLKrabi]

Simply, as part of the deal to return the money to Iran, Obama asked if the hostages might be freed too. Not a ransom but a good piece of diplomacy. 

[Ulysses G.]

32 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

If you know anything about deal making, you know that often something is 'piggy-backed' on the deal, sometimes at the last minute.  

 

There is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn that you might be interested in.

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, TEFLKrabi said:

Simply, as part of the deal to return the money to Iran, Obama asked if the hostages might be freed too. Not a ransom but a good piece of diplomacy. 

 

OK. 

 

I am not offering an argument to you.

 

I just want to know if you genuinely believe this. 

 

I am just hoping to understand the mindset of my fellow Americans.

 

You honestly see this as a good bit of diplomacy and not a ransom payment?

 

OK...so how do you define a ransom payment?

 

When someone is kidnapped and a ransom payment is made, couldn't that also always be called just a "good bit of diplomacy"? 

[Pinot]

5 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

Pinot, I had to place you on ignore.

I don't know how much time I have left on this planet and don't want to have you waste any more of it.

 

This from someone who just put up 10 wingnut posts in a row. I never put anyone on ignore...ruins the fun. 

 

Conclusion: We’re debating an endless drumbeat of misleading stories designed only to undermine the nuclear deal and faith in the Obama administration’s negotiating prowess. The ransom faux scandal is only the latest such story in this pattern.

 

The US did not pay a $400 million “ransom” to Iran. Here’s what actually happened.