I am having a hard time understanding republican outrage over this. In fact, I'm having a hard time believing that the outrage isn't feigned.

It isn't ransom when you are simply returning their own money to them. It was the Iranian's money. Our having it is an impediment to improving relations. Sooner or later the United States would have had to pay Iran back for the military goods it never delivered.
So, why not get something out of it?
A simple quid pro quo is something I'm fine with.

Can you imagine the cries of anger that would have arisen if we had paid this money back while Iran continued to hold these people? 
"You gave their money back and didn't get anything for it"?



U.S. Concedes $400 Million Payment to Iran Was Delayed as Prisoner ‘Leverage’

The State Department conceded for the first time on Thursday that it delayed making a $400 million payment to Iran for several hours in January “to retain maximum leverage” and ensure that three American prisoners were released the same day.

For months the Obama administration had maintained that the payment was part of a settlement over an old dispute and did not amount to a “ransom” for the release of the Americans. Instead, administration officials said, it was the first installment of the $1.7 billion that the United States intends to pay Iran to reimburse it for military equipment it bought before the Iranian revolution that the United States never delivered.

But at a briefing on Thursday, John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, said the United States “took advantage of the leverage” it felt it had that weekend in mid-January to obtain the release of the hostages and “to make sure they got out safely and efficiently.”

Republicans opposed to the nuclear deal President Obama reached with Iran have described the payment as ransom and a further sign of his administration’s feckless dealings with Tehran.

Administration officials have said that the two transactions were negotiated entirely separately over a period of years. That they came together on one weekend reflected a desire on the part of Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, to set aside a series of disputes, complete the nuclear deal and try to remove irritants from the relationship between two longtime rivals.

The acknowledgment by Mr. Kirby on Thursday touched off a torrent of criticism from Republicans.

“It was ransom,” said Representative Ed Royce of California, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “We now know it was ransom. And on top of that it put more American lives at risk. And we’ve emboldened Iran. We’ve encouraged them, frankly, to take more hostages and put more American lives at risk of being taken hostage.”

Neither the payment nor the prisoner release was a secret. Mr. Obama announced the financial settlement, and the release of three Americans, on Jan. 17, just as the Iranian nuclear deal reached its “implementation day.” But for months the administration remained silent on the carefully choreographed timing, apparently fearful of the political blowback of appearing to have paid for the release of the three — a Washington Post reporter, a Marine veteran and a pastor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/world/middleeast/iran-us-cash-payment-prisoners.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Last edited by Goose (8/19/2016 9:03 am)