NORTH KOREA CALLS THE MEETING WITH POMPEO "REGRETTABLE." ANYONE WHO THOUGHT NORTH KOREA WOULD GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANYONE?
says Linnster on Jul 7th 18 (#821107)
We said all along, didn't we, that N. Korea would NEVER give up their nukes. And our naïve president thought he saved the world by talking with the guy. Was even wanting the Peace Prize.
....I SEE NO HANDS, LINN! lol
says StarzAbove on Jul 7th 18 (#2789013)
I didn't really expect to see any hands. :)
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789035)
says StarzAbove on Jul 8th 18 (#2789037)
No, I didn't believe that.
Believing that would have been almost as dumb as believing Iran would give up its nuclear and missile programs after giving them access to $150 billion and removing other sanctions.
Oh, wait... Obama/Kerry forgot to include Iranian missiles in the deal.
says Thinkerbell on Jul 8th 18 (#2789038)
We are discussing North Korea here. Obama is no longer the president - Trump is, and the sooner you guys stop using Obama's presidency as your fallback excuse for Trump's asinine actions the better we will all be.
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789040)
To be honest, I did not recall seeing that clip before or hearing his speech. Clearly, he was wrong in his assumptions as those before him and after him also failed to curtail NK.
Did Clinton give NK the international legitimacy of meeting with Kim's father?
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789049)
Yep. Not while he was president, but he did in 2009, when he negotiated the release of two American journalists. I wonder if Obama had pallets of hundreds of millions in cash flown into Pyongyang, in the middle of the night to pay them off, like he did with Iran, but couldn't keep secret in the latter case?
The plain fact, Linn, is that many libs hate Trump's guts, and therefore it doesn't matter what he does, it is ipso facto BAD in their eyes, although had a Democrat done the very same things in substance, they would have had no problem at all, and in fact didn't when Obama or Clinton did them.
says Thinkerbell on Jul 8th 18 (#2789055)
Well, there's a big difference between meeting Kim as a current president and meeting him as a former president. If Trump wants to meet with Kim when he's no longer president, that's fine with me. As for the money Obama sent to Iran, it's been proved time and again that it was Iran's money to begin with. You claim Dems don't want to accept the truth, but neither do you.
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789056)
If it was "Iran's money" to begin with, then why wasn't it released in the same way the other frozen Iranian assets (about $150 billion) were released? Why did it have to be delivered in cash in the middle of the night in an unmarked plane? And why were the hostages released at the same time?
says Thinkerbell on Jul 8th 18 (#2789057)
Can't answer that. You'll have to ask someone who really knows.
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789059)
After responding that I didn't know, I did a bit of research which you may find interesting, in spite of it coming from snopes.com:
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789063)
Unfortunately for Snopes, they seem to undercut their own (i.e., Obama's) argument at the very end:
"The fact that the money was physically sent to Iran in various currencies rather than simply transferred by wire may seem odd in the context of the United States’ increasingly cashless society, but that was done in order to avoid existing Treasury Department sanctions that banned the use of American currency in transactions with Iran, and international sanctions which at that time kept Iran from accessing the global financial markets (and which were lifted in January 2016)."
If Iran was granted access to financial markets in Jan 2016, there would have been no need to send cash secretly in Jan 2016, which was when the cash was sent.
Furthermore, Obama's argument that he had to send cash because there was no "banking relationship with Iran" is belied by the fact that at least two money transfers by wire were made between the US and Iran, one before and one after the cash drop.
says Thinkerbell on Jul 8th 18 (#2789114)
True, but does that mean the money that was sent didn't belong to Iran in the first place?
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789118)
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that.
The money was supposedly being held in an escrow account. Why wasn't Iran simply given wire access to that account, like all the rest of its frozen assets, when the freeze was lifted in Jan 2016? Why did it have to be transferred like a drug deal drop?
Neither Snopes nor Politifact nor Obama gave a credible answer to that. In fact, the whole cash transaction was kept a big secret until the Wall Street Journal broke the story six or seven months after it occurred. Why the secrecy concerning the method of payment, if everything was above board?
says Thinkerbell on Jul 8th 18 (#2789121)
I took another look at the snopes link and opened one of the parts towards the end about sanctions. Unless I'm misreading it, it appears that the EU lifted the sanctions completely, but the US looks as though it continued some of the sanctions due to human rights violations. That may be why the money had to be returned through other means.
I think the relevant part is this:
"Forrest also said ongoing human rights and terrorism-related sanctions in the US would have an effect. “While the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US.”
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789151)
Oh, yes, there definitely "remains a lack of clarity," to this day, I might add.
But let's take the previous Snopes quote at its word: "...but that [the cash transfer] was done in order to avoid existing Treasury Department sanctions that banned the use of American currency in transactions with Iran."
Ok, so what did the Obama administration do? They laundered the money, using the US dollars to buy Swiss francs and other European cash, to circumvent the sanction, which presumably had the force of law rather than policy, otherwise Obama could simply have waived or abolished the sanction. The Treasury Department is part of the Executive branch.
Now I ask you Linn. Do you really, truly, honestly suppose that the sanction law would have been written so carelessly as to allow something like that? Can a drug dealer circumvent a law against drug transactions simply by laundering the money and paying in a different currency? I think not.
says Thinkerbell on Jul 8th 18 (#2789159)
Not positive, but I don't think a president can abolish sanctions by executive order. I believe sanctions are approved and abolished via Congress.
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789161)
I agree. And do you suppose the sanction law was so carelessly written as to be so easily circumvented?
says Thinkerbell on Jul 8th 18 (#2789164)
Probably not, but there may be something in the sanction law or banking laws that would prevent drug cartels from doing the same thing. I don't really know enough about it.
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789165)
But this sanction law was written specifically to deal with US-Iran transactions, and Obama felt he had to get around it. Do you really suppose that using prohibited US dollars to buy foreign cash to then make the payoff was permitted by that law? Really?
says Thinkerbell on Jul 8th 18 (#2789167)
I can't answer that unless I read the sanctions law and, frankly, I already have a headache so it's not looking like I'm going to get around to it today. :)
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789169)
That's all they know how to do. They can't defend Trump so they deflect back to Obama and even Clinton. Pathetic.
says StarzAbove on Jul 8th 18 (#2789051)
I was giving it hope. That is all you can do.
says LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred on Jul 8th 18 (#2789068)
Everyone, including the White House and Trump, was skeptical
says Diego on Jul 8th 18 (#2789088)
If I had thought it would've been that easy for Korea to give up their nuclear weapons...
I would've taken 3 or 4 days of p.t.o and went got it done myself.
It doesn't hurt to talk and Korea knows the U.S. can still blow them off the map by the time we see any rockets from them, coming this way.
The rockets they would(foolishly) send.. would more than likely be intercepted and never make it here..
That Korean nut job worries me about as much as a fly, when I'm trying to enjoy BBQ outside..
says DandyDon on Jul 8th 18 (#2789096)
I sure didn't think they would just give them up so easily, just because Trump said they were no longer a threat.
says Piper2 on Jul 8th 18 (#2789144)
No reasonably sane person would have.
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789149)
I didn't know before, but I never thought it would be easy or fast.
says Will_Janitor on Jul 8th 18 (#2789158)
Certainly not as easy or as fast as Trump seemed to indicate. In fact, he very recently claimed that NK would be denuclearized within a year. I'm wondering if NK knows his plan.
says Linnster on Jul 8th 18 (#2789162)
It did seem like a long shot, but since I'm no good at predicting the future I wasn't certain.
says PhilboydStudge on Jul 12th 18 (#2790318)