Great paywall link, as always.
What, he didn't sell them guns? Total amateur.
Did Iran funnel any of the money to rebels fighting in central america?
Diplomacy, foreign relations. I'm sure Trumpf would have cut a much better deal using hid flawless business acumen.
Diplomacy, foreign relations. I'm sure Trumpf would have cut a much better deal using hid flawless business acumen. What, again, does Trump have to do with the current President paying a bribe to a state sponsor of terrorism to release US hostages (and hiding this from the American people)?
Diplomacy, foreign relations. I'm sure Trumpf would have cut a much better deal using hid flawless business acumen. What, again, does Trump have to do with the current President paying a bribe to a state sponsor of terrorism to release US hostages (and hiding this from the American people)? I like to live in a country that has been sponsoring terror since at least 1910, and then act like an ignorant hypocrite about states that sponsor terror, while also belonging to a party whose biggest hero in the last 50 years did the exact same thing.
Not true on many levels, but thanks again for being a lemming and trying to excuse it. And no, Reagan did not pay a bribe to release hostages...but thank you for playing.
Odd move for an administration that has been pretty outspoken about the fact that they will never create a market for American hostages by paying out ransoms.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon. He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught. The October surprise was an entirely different incident.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon. He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught. The October surprise was an entirely different incident. No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.You really are bad at this.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon. He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught. The October surprise was an entirely different incident. No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon. He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught. The October surprise was an entirely different incident. No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages. Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon. He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught. The October surprise was an entirely different incident. No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages. Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon. He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught. The October surprise was an entirely different incident. No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages. Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening. You are bad at this. Trump is terrible on so many levels. But keep sucking his dick, his balls on your chin are a good look on you.PS paying off foreign governments is something pretty much every president has done. It's part of the job.
Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon. He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught. The October surprise was an entirely different incident. No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages. Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening. You are bad at this. Trump is terrible on so many levels. But keep sucking his dick, his balls on your chin are a good look on you.PS paying off foreign governments is something pretty much every president has done. It's part of the job. Speed limit IQ. None of this discussion is about Trump...it's about the actual event of Obama paying Iran for hostages, which is not something every President does. And yet you are still too stupid to realize this and ramble on about Trump. I guess we shouldn't expect more.
News will be out that Hillary was running guns out of Benghazi which is why Stevens was still there
News will be out that Hillary was running guns out of Benghazi which is why Stevens was still there Gun running was the cool thing to do when Bush was president. Now you hate gun running.
News will be out that Hillary was running guns out of Benghazi which is why Stevens was still there Gun running was the cool thing to do when Bush was president. Now you hate gun running. Fuck off
