What's your take?

[Hooter]

It is reported that the U.S.A. gave Iran a ton of money for the release of 4 prisoners.  The White House says it wasn't  a ransom.  What was it then, paying for their airplane ride home. I'm all for bringing our people home but why is the White House lying about it? It's supposed to be against some type of policy.

[sleepngbear]

If that jackass says it wasn't a ransom, you can bet your sweet patootie it was a ransom.

[hubcapsc]

It's a simple coincidence that they happened at the
same time.

-Mike

[Patrick]

It seems to me they completely denied it back in Jan when the rumor hit.

Now that it was found they have lied once again about something and stepped hard on their short arm, what else are they do do. They'll just continue to try and spin it in their favor and some will sop it up.

[sleepngbear]

They'll skate on this just like they skate on everything else.

[Daddie O]

From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979.  When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons.  Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.

[Serk]

From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979.  When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons.  Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.

...and you don't find the timing of the return just a teensy weensy bit suspicious?

[Valkorado]

From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979.  When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons.  Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.

Well, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.  Now that relations are improving with Iran and all.  
Maybe we should give them a big pile of weapons to cover that interest.  Seems they don't currently have a cash problem.

[The emperor has no clothes]

From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979.  When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons.  Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.

...and you don't find the timing of the return just a teensy weensy bit suspicious?

I do. But it was their money to begin with. But yes it's suspicious. Almost as suspicious as when Reagan traded weapons for hostages. As Reagan said afterward, I can explain the illegality but I can't explain leaving the hostages. (I'm paraphrasing) I suspect Obama felt the same.

[MP]

From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979.  When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons.  Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.

IF that is true, why the need to lie about it before, saying it had not happened?

Why not just come and, and say they were paying Iran back monies they had gotten earlier?  But no.  They had to lie, once again, to the American people.  The only reason it came out now, is proof was leaking out, so they had to admit it.

Maybe it was not ransom, per se.  But, I will not swallow their statement that it had NOTHING to do with the hostages.  Give me a break.  It was part of the deal. Otherwise, it could have been done years earlier, or later.  But, it occurred just when the hostages were released.  How many other people in this world will be injured or die, with all the havoc $400 million in terrorists hands can wreak? A lot.

[The emperor has no clothes]

From what I have heard, the money transferred to Iran was money that Iran gave the US for weapons in 1979.  When the Shah was overthrown, the US kept the money and did not send the weapons.  Now that relations are improving with Iran, the US returned the money, 37 years later, with no interest.

IF that is true, why the need to lie about it before, saying it had not happened?

Why not just come and, and say they were paying Iran back monies they had gotten earlier?  But no.  They had to lie, once again, to the American people.  The only reason it came out now, is proof was leaking out, so they had to admit it.

Maybe it was not ransom, per se.  But, I will not swallow their statement that it had NOTHING to do with the hostages.  Give me a break.  It was part of the deal. Otherwise, it could have been done years earlier, or later.  But, it occurred just when the hostages were released.  How many other people in this world will be injured or die, with all the havoc $400 million in terrorists hands can wreak? A lot.

MP, you've got to start getting your news from reputable sources. They didn't lie about anything . Did you want them to advertise HEY WEVE GOT A PLANE FULL OF MONEY GOING TO IRAN ON SUCH AND SUCH A DATE. COME AND HELP YOURSELF. 

[Hooter]

Their money and we reneged on the the weapons. How long did we have the money and them no weapons? Since 79 or something? So to me this so called weapons deal was made when Iran was transitioning into a trust worthy country..  Who was the brainiac behind that idea?

Then we are just giving THEIR money back? It looks like it and smells like it to me here. Im all for bringing our people home but for the speaker of the house to stand there and lie about this whole thing and the way it was done is crap. Didn't the timing and the denial look hinky to these people making a febal attempt to run this country?