Thursday, August 4, 2016

Obama: We do not pay ransom for hostages

10 comments:

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...



So why did he send $400 million, in cash, in an unmarked aircraft?

Because Obama lies like Hillary does. They are both crooked.

edutcher said...

I said it wasn't.

It wasn't, it wasn't, it wasn't!

And, if you don't stop saying it was, I'll hold my breath until i turn blue and I'll hate forever.

He spent 7 minutes dancing around it.

And one of the hostages said his plane was held until the ransom plane landed.

Screw the Khan job.

Synova said...

We don't pay ransoms, we just recall long forgotten debts.

ricpic said...

You didn't build that and I didn't pay ransom.

virgil xenophon said...

OK,I'm old school: "If it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, etc....." Or, alternatively classic choice #2: "Who ya gonna believe--me or you're lyin' eyes?"

I'm Full of Soup said...

Obama admin is a Gangster Government. Hillary will take it to the next level.

Amartel said...

Then why was it a secret? Why not tell everyone that we finally successfully concluded negotiations in this very important 40 year old dispute. Chalk one up for the great negotiating skills of the Obama Administration. Also, why was the hostage plane kept grounded until the pallets of gold and cash arrived? Also, why gold and cash? SO MANY QUESTIONS.

Leland said...

Iran says it was a ransom payment. They refused to free the prisoners until the plane arrived with the funds. Even giving the Administration complete benefit of the doubt, the kidnappers believe something else and feel incentivized to continue doing what they have done in the past. So giving that Iran has admitted to kidnapping Americans for ransom, what will Obama, Kerry, or Hillary do about it? Continue to cave to Iran's demand for cash?

Synova said...

Arresting the video maker that caused Benghazi is the same sort of thing. Oh, oh, no! Supposedly he got arrested for violating the terms of his parole... but does it matter? Hillary told those offended by the video that we would arrest him (IIRC, she actually did say something very much implying that we wouldn't tolerate what he did) and then we arrested him.

At this point can we EVER claim that our morals and our rules require us to allow people to speak? Do we have a single Free Speech leg to stand on? No we don't.

I'm Full of Soup said...

When the president is lawless, this is what get Gangster Government. Society will decline when laws are applied and enforced arbitrarily.

We need a reverse Hunger Games where We The People pick ten longtime elites to face off to the death on Worldwide TV. I would vote for these ten:

John Kerry, Joe Biden, George Bush, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, [McCain gets a pass due to his military service]. Lindsay Graham, Chuck Shumer, and two more Repubs to make it 50-50 from both major parties.