Politics 'Ransom' paid to Iran?

Simply not true.

There were negotiations to free the hostages ongoing for quite a while before the nuke deal was even pondered.

 

The hostages in question were being held since the 2000s. Negotiations to free them about as long. To say the hostages were freed for any reason beyond the $400M in cash flown to the terrorists in the middle of the night, right before the hostages were released is kind of naive.

Here's the Clinton News Network's take:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/opinions/iran-payments-ghitis/index.html

Despite Obama administration denials, the transaction looks very much like a ransom, adding one more disturbing layer to what was already a troubling and secretive agreement, and ensuring that relations with Iran, and the agreement over its nuclear program, will remain near the top of the agenda for the next president.

Indeed, in January, when the deal was announced and the hostages released, many complained that the Obama administration was paying a ransom. The White House vehemently denied it, explaining that the $1.7 billion figure had nothing to do with the prisoners. Furthermore, it argued it was a good deal for the United States, settling a $10 billion claim filed by Iran at an international tribunal in The Hague over Iranian funds frozen in 1981, a matter separate from the much larger sums involved in the agreement to dismantle Iran's nuclear program.

But is the White House telling the truth? State Department Spokesman John Kirby has repeated the Obama administration's denial, stating that the talks about settling the frozen assets claim and freeing the imprisoned Americans were conducted by entirely different negotiating teams.

That explanation, however, is hard to swallow. A large cash payment at a time of a prisoner release looks precisely like a ransom payment. And that's what the Iranian commander of the dreaded Basij militia called it when he said the money "was in return for the release of American spies." If Iran thinks it was ransom, then for practical purposes it was.

 

More:

Since the nuclear deal was reached, Iran's spending on its military has grown exponentially. That has allowed it to help its ally, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and the Hezbollah militias gain the upper hand in the Syrian war. Worse yet, just this week the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stoked conspiracy theories, blaming the United States for the failed coup in Turkey and warning that negotiations with Washington on regional issues would be "a lethal poison."

Iran has also stepped up its missile program, which U.N. resolutions had banned in addition to proscribing the nuclear program. After all, developing missiles capable of carrying warheads is a key requirement for a country seeking to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Despite recent Iranian military spending and political rhetoric, the Obama White House views the nuclear deal as its paramount foreign policy accomplishment.

 

CNN, mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Cheerleaders for Obama.

Remarkably, they actually did their job in writing that article. The money quote:

"If Iran thinks it was ransom, then for practical purposes it was."

 

Hiliar found lesser reasons to go bomb Libya.

http://theweek.com/articles/532678/why-invading-north-korea-insane

Why invading North Korea would be insane

 

All that matters is who got the money and who released the hostages in exchange for the ransom.

"If" in that sentence means "since" or "because"

 

I didn't compare the two (Hiliar and Kim Jong Un). I compared the situation in Libya with the one in N. Korea. She urged the bombing of Libya and regime change there due to lesser crimes (compared to N. Korea's) against humanity. She didn't urge bombing of N. Korea or regime change there.

As for China... GHW Bush went to a Democratic congress and asked them to grant China Most Favored Nation status, but they were partisan and refused. Our entire trade deficit with the world was $80B at the time. Fast forward to the Clinton presidency. He went to the Democratic congress and asked them to grant China MFN status and they had no problem doing so. By the end of the Clinton presidency, our trade deficit was $400B and $80B to China alone. Today, the trade deficit with China is $365B, a record high.

FWIW, Bush was the first ambassador to China, appointed by Nixon when he normalized the relationship with the commies.

I'm quite sure the administration did not want to leave a legacy of Iran/hostages as Carter did. Therefore, they gave up way more than we should have just for the sake of a deal (a bad deal!) and they paid the ransom for the hostages.

"If Iran thinks it was ransom, then for practical purposes it was."

 

I'm quite sure there are 40+ year old debts, even debts going back centuries, that haven't been repaid. By nations, I mean. So THIS particular debt just happened to be a handy excuse for the administration to pay the ransom.

The problem is, few fall for it and only the hard core sycophants defend it.