Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's Huge Ties to the Military Industrial Complex
"...The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clintons State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data..."
"...deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations [when compared to] the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obamas arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period..."
"Hillary Clintons willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard Universitys Safra Center for Ethics. These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment, Lessig told IBTimes. Can it really be that the Clintons didn't recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?
"...National security experts assert that the overlap between the list of Clinton Foundation donors and those with business before the the State Department presents a troubling conflict of interest... Questions about the nexus of arms sales and Clinton Foundation donors stem from the State Departments role in reviewing the export of American-made weapons. The agency is charged with both licensing direct commercial sales by U.S. defense contractors to foreign governments and also approving Pentagon-brokered sales to those governments... Hillary Clinton was empowered to approve or reject deals for a broad range of reasons, from national security considerations to human rights concerns..."
More here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-inc-the-military-industrial-candidate/5415651
And here:
Half the Foreign Policy Experts Signing Clintons Anti-Sanders Letter Have Ties to Military Contractors
Hillary Clintons campaign released a letter this week in which 10 foreign policy experts criticized her opponent Bernie Sanders call for closer engagement with Iran and said Sanders had not thought through these crucial national security issues that can have profound consequences for our security.
The missive from the Clinton campaign was covered widely in the press, but what wasnt disclosed in the coverage is that fully half of the former State Department officials and ambassadors who signed the letter, and who are now backing Clinton, are now enmeshed in the military contracting establishment, which has benefited tremendously from escalating violence around the world, particularly in the Middle East.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/clinton-foreign-policy-experts/
And:
Article in Sunday's NY Times documents how the US acts as Saudi Arabia's mercenary in the Middle East:
U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.htmlWASHINGTON When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syrias embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the C.I.A. has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Since then, the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the C.I.A takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles.
More at the link.
Hillary urged Obama to follow her neo-con adenda, starting with toppling Qaddafi. Why were we in Libya? For the billions in its sovereign wealth funds?
Hillary urged Obama to topple Assad. Granted Assad is a monster, but we support far worse monsters. We're doing Saudi Arabia's bidding. Most recently, US taxpayers spent $500 million training some Syrian rebels. Only 5 proved viable.
But the bigger issue is: why are we toppling Assad in the first place? B/C Saudi Arabia wants another Shiite regime gone? We've now created a huge space for ISIS in Syria, with millions of Syrian refugees seeking shelter in Europe.
As Bernie Sanders noted: don't depose a leader until there is a plan in place for the day after.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1804 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (20)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary's Huge Ties to the Military Industrial Complex (Original Post)
amborin
Jan 2016
OP
She was a queen of military pork barrel spending when she was a Senator.
Bread and Circus
Jan 2016
#3
cali
(114,904 posts)1. Her conflict of interest problems may not be a big deal
in the primary, but they sure will be in the general election.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)2. The MIC is the elephant in the Living Room
There's lots of talk about Wall St., which is great, but the MIC and it's thousands of
corporate 'private contractors' on the Federal tits, are the main why "we just can't afford"
Universal Healthcare, or free college tuition.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)3. She was a queen of military pork barrel spending when she was a Senator.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)4. Kicking.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)5. Actuallythe MIC, CIA, and NSA including
all the corporations connected to them scare me more
than Wall Street.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)6. K & R !!!