Topic: Watch: Obama Scolds CBS’s Major Garrett for Question About US Hostages in Iran (Read 373 times)

And when have we not negotiated with terrorist states? Wasn't holding hostages in Iran a terrorist act in the 80s?

Quite a different scope though. Trading Bergdahl for other prisoners didn't hinge on a global scale tipping. And, in the new quote, he says they are still trying to free them via the regular channels, so it isn't like he isn't making the effort (as far as we know from current information anyway).

Oddly enough, however, Iran got and demanded relaxation of the prohibitions on purchase of conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. Ballistic Missiles!!!!!! Neither of those were topics of the nuclear issues either, yet Obama caved completely.

Seems like a big departure from what he said about the Bergdahl exchange:

“I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents and that the American people understand that this is somebody’s child and that we don’t condition whether or not we make every effort to try to get them back.”

Read the article, we are talking about 4 Americans IN Iran. Holding hostages is a terrorist act, well prior to Obama it used to be anyway...

And republicans too !

The definition being : We and our friends can kill innocents and commit acts of terror but we are not terrorists. When our enemies (the folks who will not play economic ball with us under the rules that we make up) kill innocents and commit acts of terror it is they who are the terrorists.

Thanks for bringing up this interesting and salient issue !

Yep remember 'man caused disasters'? This administration is pathetic, this is just one more feather in the dunce cap.

If you mean terrorist supporting states then that's silly. We always have.
Obama should offer them weapons if they let the hostages go. Then republicans will praise him like they do Reagan

And redefined the word "negotiate". It now means that they get everything and we get nothing in return.

Democrats have redefined the word "terrorist"

I thought the US didn't negotiate with terrorists.

Why would Obama screw up his plan to arm Iran with a nuke and give them $150 billion for the luxury of doing so? If anyone, and I mean anyone, thinks Obama is doing this for America or Americans he or she is dead wrong. And he couldn't care less about the Americans being held by Iran. I mean, how complicated would it have been to even ask the Iranians if they were interested in showing a sign of good will and releasing the Americans? You see, to do that risked Iran saying no yet again to anything Obama asked for when all Obama wants to hear is yes. What a scumbag Obama is.

I think that was a good response. By requesting the release of the hostages as part of the deal, that would give Iran a HUGE leveraging tool. By leaving them out entirely, it removes both sides ability to leverage the situation to their advantage. Imagine what Iran could of asked for in exchange, and watch the Media pounce on it as a capitulation if they gave in.

Exchange as follows:

    GARRETT: Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran — three held on trumped-up charges and according to your administration and one whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscious of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans? And last week the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It is perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. Many in the Pentagon feel you’ve left the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Would you comment?

    OBAMA: I’ve to give you credit for how you craft those questions. The notion that I’m content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails — Major, that’s nonsense, and you should know better. I’ve met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody is content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates.

    Suddenly Iran realizes, you know what? Maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals. Makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if Iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal, and, by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we’d still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. That’s why those issues are not connected, but we are working every single day to try to get them out and won’t stop until they are out and rejoined with their families.

Read and watch

And my response to Obama's response to Garrett's question would have been....'Who needs hostages as a bargaining tool when we have you in the WH Mr. President. You're bending over backwards to give them what they want irregardless of hostages.'