 |
| Editorial |
This is an OPED from my old paper back home the so called "Conservative Paper in Boston" the Boston Herald but better than the liberal mouth piece at the Boston Globe.
It is entitled "Editorial: Ransom by another name" a decent piece by the Herald.
It starts "We now have a fuller explanation from the White House for why the $400 million in cash that it shipped to Iran back in January was not actually a ransom payment for the five wrongly-imprisoned Americans released at the same time.It’s because the White House says it wasn’t a ransom payment.
“It is our contention that there was no ransom paid to secure the release of U.S. citizens who were being unjustly detained in Iran because, A, it’s against the policy of the U.S. government to pay ransoms,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “And that’s something that we told the Iranians that we would not do.”
Well, enough said then!
We also have a fuller explanation for why the White House didn’t reveal the payment when it was made: After absorbing a barrage of questions from reporters on Wednesday Earnest conceded that it had to do with politics.
“If we announced this financial settlement on the same day that the prisoners were released, that’s fodder to our Republican critics,” Earnest said.
Hey, points for honesty, if not for transparency.
Besides hiding the delivery of cash from the American people there may be another reason the administration kept the payment on the down-low. The Wall Street Journal now reports that senior officials in the Justice Department objected to making the payment at the same time the prisoners were being released because, yes, it would be seen as a ransom payment.
Those objections were overruled by John Kerry’s State Department, which appears willing to keep Iran happy at all costs lest its hard-earned nuclear deal go kaput.
Earnest struggled mightily to lay blame for this controversy at the feet of “right-wing” opponents of the Iran nuclear deal. Does that make those opponents in the Justice Department “right-wingers” too?
Its very clear of the White House's intentions with this $$ scam to the Mullahs in Iran.“It is our contention that there was no ransom paid to secure the release of U.S. citizens who were being unjustly detained in Iran because, A, it’s against the policy of the U.S. government to pay ransoms,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “And that’s something that we told the Iranians that we would not do.”
Well, enough said then!
We also have a fuller explanation for why the White House didn’t reveal the payment when it was made: After absorbing a barrage of questions from reporters on Wednesday Earnest conceded that it had to do with politics.
“If we announced this financial settlement on the same day that the prisoners were released, that’s fodder to our Republican critics,” Earnest said.
Hey, points for honesty, if not for transparency.
Besides hiding the delivery of cash from the American people there may be another reason the administration kept the payment on the down-low. The Wall Street Journal now reports that senior officials in the Justice Department objected to making the payment at the same time the prisoners were being released because, yes, it would be seen as a ransom payment.
Those objections were overruled by John Kerry’s State Department, which appears willing to keep Iran happy at all costs lest its hard-earned nuclear deal go kaput.
Earnest struggled mightily to lay blame for this controversy at the feet of “right-wing” opponents of the Iran nuclear deal. Does that make those opponents in the Justice Department “right-wingers” too?
No comments:
Post a Comment