Neo

Because we seem, in my experience, to "get" each other's aged pop culture references, I've assumed we're of the same vintage. You just hit a three iron and I have no lie less than a seven to respond! Neo .. Born on Date 1961.

I jumped hard to a conclusion, yesterday, and then just as hard to a retraction after posts by you and by Mr. Whiskey. There's danger in fast jumpin', as they say. News sources are weighing in today. WSJ is pointing to DOJ advising that congress be notified of the payment in its op-ed. Notification makes sense to me under a coincidental and pre-arranged agreement independent of hostages. The Journal also reports DOJ was over ruled. I think the truth will lie somewhere in between routine logistics, constrained by bank availability under a previously agreed to settlement, and an "arrangement" regarding hostages. In light of my admittedly confusing hop scotch, I'll give the President latitude with important and intractable Iran. I did the same with the nuclear treaty. If I hear detractors say "ransom", I'll point to the win and the triumph of judgment over dogma. If I hear spokespersons say logistics, I'll smirk and say "c'mon". In either case, I'll await complete information. That's my accountability. You have street cred with me. You'll recall I checked Nate Silver's bona fides with you! I've never emailed Nate about True Blue.

No doubt that you're correct on what Iran is. My jury's out on the effectiveness of our strategy. I'd have loved to see more during the Arab Spring when those liberal eyes turned to the west.

My view, stand or fall. It fell! I cut the President little slack. I won't say I learned that about me for the first time, tonight, I will say I saw more evidence of it, tonight. Interesting to me: when I have cut him slack in the past, it's been around Iran.

Because I capitulated, indulge me. What's with cash and night cover? I WOULD trumpet just what you've pointed out.

Being more interested in being honest than right, your link changes my calculus. I'll cling to "he got caught doing something he'd like to have hidden" and acknowledge that sets me off with Mr. President. I'll also move to Whiskey's "all deals" are ransoms. Back to my spinning spleen .., administration officials saying it isn't ransom drives me nuts. Swamp's conclusion is best, stripped of the rhetoric of partisans. Not just financially, either, as Swamp indicated above. There's an element of unsavory, but I'll retreat with this better information. Much like my take months ago on the Treaty, I don't care for it, but don't blame the administration. Iran is a rock and hard place. You informed me. You, too, PastaJ. Go eat a d####, all of you. Grateful, Hank!

I went back to my original post. I'll add "under an agreement announced in January" ... After that change, is nothing curious? To Swamp ... I'd agree with the finances.

I clicked before I saw your link ... Check my edit.

You do if you're President. We've disagreed on the Constitution in the past. That'd be one approach to settling the claim. Are you suggesting that's not announcement worthy? The US returns funds held for 32 years to Iran in settlement of claims before The Hague isn't an announcement? Me, I'd use John Kerry. Link! And he did. I am informed and grateful. But again, are you saying this wasn't hostage related? I hope I'm fair and balanced. Your link is huge to me! I am still left, though, with the delivery method and ransom and cash in the hands of terror sponsors. We agreed it was owed. Good news. Trumpet the settlement. Do you call it ransom?

I have no doubt President Obama made an agreement and lived up to his word. Unfortunately for him, his cloak wasn't large enough and the night wasn't dark enough.

To PastaJoe: Not relevant to my point, but that's not a hostage quid pro quo, as that term has meaning. Your "want cash because of mistrust" is, well, even I'm at a loss for words .... there's nothing to distrust about a wire. When it hits, it's yours. Just like a bag of unmarked bills. Man, what if the Francs were COUNTERFEIT! If the President believed the money was Iran's, why'd he not give it to them sooner? Why not announce this shining triumph of diplomacy? Why not consult congress? Can I assume, then, that it's your opinion, setting bags of bills and Reagan aside, that the timing was coincidental? My candidates have screwed the pooch. I've never blamed the pooch. I will let my view stand or fall ...

I know you weren't claiming you "Trumped" me!

It was part of the settlement before The Hague. I'm acutely aware. See my reference to "grow to several billion", as that figure's being discussed in The Hague. If it's illegal to conduct monetary transactions, how's it legal to deliver stacks and stacks? Is it legal to convert dollars to Francs and bag them, but not convert dollars to Francs and wire them? If so, say it. I think ransoms are paid in bags and settlements under international tribunals in wires. Ask me why Iran insisted on cash, by the way. We can commence the blood money conversation I've avoided. The Iranian hostage release wasn't coincidence. The October Surprise that didn't come may have been Iran's way of choosing Reagan over Carter. What was the quid pro quo that'd equate to ransom? Other than allowing you to get a Republican President's name into the conversation, how's this relevant? The illegal Iran Contra deal is an example of Hawkishness. I considered writing about it, but it relates not to acting weakly and paying ransom. It does relate to lack of transparency. Reagan had the decency of not making the transparency claim during Iran Contra. I'll ask you. Was settling a claim, before a world court, covertly during a hostage situation, in cash, to a terror sponsor, ransom or coincidence? Did we alert The Hague that the claim was settled? I can't say silly things.

Perfect.

Well, I think the administration arranging the fact set was concerned it showed weakness. I'd trumpet settling a potentially several billion dollar claim for $400 million. That is, unless I thought it would be perceived as weak. In that case, I'd send unmarked planes and bills in bags and not say a word. I'd also reject the word ransom as recently as today. If it was strength and victory, why the cover of night?

^. I agree rigged is the wrong word. Surprising isn't an issue. I see "offensive" only in the public statements contrary to the behind closed door contradictions. This is not unique to the party in question.

D4rk is Jon Snow. He's a thoughtful and reluctant, while worthy, adversary ... and a bastard. Reminded me of "Pulp Fiction" and The Bonnie Situation.

I'm not sure if our politics agree, or not, but your philosophy around "git r done. Day in. Day out." is awesome. A finer claim cannot be made. You beat me, jet lag and west coast notwithstanding.

$400 million of non-US currency, in an unmarked airplane, was delivered to Iran by the US government, under cloak of secrecy ... simulataneous with the release of hostages. Planes and bags of cash. Really. Today, the administration said the timing was coincidental. The most transparent administration in history, I might add. We're told cash in bags was because the US couldn't arrange a wire from European banks. Somewhere, someone has the authority to get $400 million from Treasury, buy Euros and Swiss Francs, and arrange cloak and dagger flights into Tehran. That same authority can't arrange wires. "Wires are prohibited ... So we filled bags". We're also told this had nothing to do with the hostages. The crowing Iranians disagree. When a bully takes your lunch money, you're not in a position of strength when you ask him not to giggle, not to mock you, and not to tell anyone else. It wasn't marked "Ransom" at the time. I'll bet ol' Hezbollah's got some serious walkin' aroun' cash this weekend. Something about treaties, legacies and bags of cash. A good poster indicated one party is "perceived" as weaker on foreign policy than the other. I would say one party actually is. Now, we can debate the relative wisdom of one approach or the other. There are times when hawks thrive, and there are times when doves thrive. There are times when each fails miserably. I don't have a perception problem with regard to the parties and their relative firmness in foreign policy. Perception has nothing to do with it. I should've written "calve-knots"! Even better!

I don't think HRC is trying to destroy the DNC from within. I do think the DNC's relationship with HRC cost the Chairwoman, CEO, CFO and Communications Director their jobs. Trying? No. Care less? Yes.

We will soon be segregated not as liberals and conservatives, and not as Democrats and Republicans. Instead, we will be the calves and calve-knots.

I've had the same thought. I've extended it through an imaginary first term.

First Dudacek, then Smell, then a host of others, have drawn a line I can see in the shifting wind and sand that is Mr. Kane. I have no idea what he's guilty and/or innocent of. I'm gratedul to the system and experts that together sort these matters out. I'll read and learn everyday. I do know I'm not a fan of Kane as a Buffalo Sabre. That speaks as loudly of me as it does of him, whether good, bad or indifferent. I hope all find justice and peace. I have a memory of the Knox family as patrician, proud and not terribly forceful. I wonder how this plays out under the team's original ownership. Musing about a different world, indeed.

Mercí.

I'd never seen anything like this. I've never seen anything like it, since. Charles Barkley Larry Bird Clyde Drexler Patrick Ewing Magic Johnson Michael Jordan Christian Laettner Karl Malone Chris Mullin Scottie Pippen David Robinson John Stockton My personal Greatest Team of All Time.