If you believe the money to Iran wasn't part of the nuclear and hostages deal, do you believe that if...
If you believe the money to Iran wasn't part of the nuclear and hostages deal, do you believe that if it was, that the U.S. wouldn't lie about it?
There was an existing $400M claim by Iran, but was the reason we paid it because we wanted to get back our hostages and get the deal done, or because the claim was actually legitimate and we were likely to lose a court case? The money was shipped to Tehran, apparently, just as the hostages were freed.
This sounds very much like what we know about the White House and Iran: that they will string true facts together to mislead the public about the larger narrative. We know, for a fact, that they lied about the talks that resulted in the Iran deal, that they admitted to lying about them, and then that they intentionally deleted records of admitting to lying.
Long story short: in 2015, President Obama portrayed the Iran deal as the result of a moderate president being elected in Iran, even though the talks with Iran's government had begun more than a year before that election. There were secret talks going on, and they not only lied about it at the time to maintain the integrity of the talks, but they lied about it after the fact.
Reporter James Rosen had asked the State Department in 2013 if there were secret talks going on, and was told there were not. That was a lie. He later that year asked if it is the policy of State to lie "where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned," and spokesperson Jen Psaki said, in essence, yes, it is.
In May of this year, the New York Times wrote an article about Ben Rhodes, in which he admits to the fact that they lied about the timing of the Iran talks. This prompted Rosen to look up the video of his past questions, and found that the one of Psaki admitting to a policy of lying had been deleted by the State Department. State later admitted it was intentionally deleted (after first lying about it), but they do not know who ordered the deletion.
So we know they lied about this deal. They admitted lying about it, they admitted to having a policy of lying, and they admitted to deleting the record of the admitting to lying.
This, even combined with the timing of the payments, isn't proof that the payment is linked to the hostages. But it is strong evidence that we have no reason to believe the U.S. government on this matter.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/of-pride-falls--and-foreign-policy/2016/05/09/4ac5311e-160c-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/it-wasnt-a-glitch-state-department-deliberately-cut-embarrassing-questions-from-press-briefing-video/2016/06/01/68ab3664-2837-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html
There was an existing $400M claim by Iran, but was the reason we paid it because we wanted to get back our hostages and get the deal done, or because the claim was actually legitimate and we were likely to lose a court case? The money was shipped to Tehran, apparently, just as the hostages were freed.
This sounds very much like what we know about the White House and Iran: that they will string true facts together to mislead the public about the larger narrative. We know, for a fact, that they lied about the talks that resulted in the Iran deal, that they admitted to lying about them, and then that they intentionally deleted records of admitting to lying.
Long story short: in 2015, President Obama portrayed the Iran deal as the result of a moderate president being elected in Iran, even though the talks with Iran's government had begun more than a year before that election. There were secret talks going on, and they not only lied about it at the time to maintain the integrity of the talks, but they lied about it after the fact.
Reporter James Rosen had asked the State Department in 2013 if there were secret talks going on, and was told there were not. That was a lie. He later that year asked if it is the policy of State to lie "where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned," and spokesperson Jen Psaki said, in essence, yes, it is.
In May of this year, the New York Times wrote an article about Ben Rhodes, in which he admits to the fact that they lied about the timing of the Iran talks. This prompted Rosen to look up the video of his past questions, and found that the one of Psaki admitting to a policy of lying had been deleted by the State Department. State later admitted it was intentionally deleted (after first lying about it), but they do not know who ordered the deletion.
So we know they lied about this deal. They admitted lying about it, they admitted to having a policy of lying, and they admitted to deleting the record of the admitting to lying.
This, even combined with the timing of the payments, isn't proof that the payment is linked to the hostages. But it is strong evidence that we have no reason to believe the U.S. government on this matter.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/of-pride-falls--and-foreign-policy/2016/05/09/4ac5311e-160c-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/it-wasnt-a-glitch-state-department-deliberately-cut-embarrassing-questions-from-press-briefing-video/2016/06/01/68ab3664-2837-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment