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

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:58 AM Jan 2016

Hillary, As Secretary of State, Showered Billions on Defense Industry for Contributions



Money Quote:
"......have used Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State position as an endless bank where their combined sales have seen 75 billion dollars in increase in commercial military sales far beyond even the Bush administration during the three years that Hillary served as Secretary of State."

Now, watch Bernie here and the contrast is amazing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=979660

"Today is a tragic day for humanity."

"...and for the children. 30,000 of whom in the third world will starve to death today while we spend billions to wage this war."

How can Hillary supporters hear this and continue to support a war monger bent on regime change?

STOP THE WARS!

42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary, As Secretary of State, Showered Billions on Defense Industry for Contributions (Original Post) tecelote Jan 2016 OP
When is the FBI going to release its findings? peacebird Jan 2016 #1
This just another crazy post: Hillary never any billions to give! lewebley3 Jan 2016 #15
Oh, really, what about Sanders voting over and over again to continue funding Lockheed Martin, Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #2
So, where are the contributions then? tecelote Jan 2016 #4
You tell me where he puts the money, Hillary is very open Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #37
I'm not against "military action". tecelote Jan 2016 #38
Our opinions are different, actually there is not any difference. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #39
Hillary Clinton's Clusterbomb vote Ichingcarpenter Jan 2016 #3
Wow! +1!! tecelote Jan 2016 #6
Kids play with unexploded bomblets. I guess Hillary is not their abuela after all. thereismore Jan 2016 #12
their Azrael instead reddread Jan 2016 #17
Please make this an OP if you can. dixiegrrrrl Jan 2016 #19
Its in the Bernie group right now Ichingcarpenter Jan 2016 #21
Thanks for this. 15 Dems voted this way? ...whew...appalling. EndElectoral Jan 2016 #27
Nobody seems to be pulling the "real Dem" argument this time n/t arcane1 Jan 2016 #30
How does the SOS have the power to do that treestar Jan 2016 #5
Regulations have been reduced and are basically powerless. tecelote Jan 2016 #7
There has to be a regulation under which the SOS acts treestar Jan 2016 #8
There's also, crooked, back door quid pro quo deals. Fuddnik Jan 2016 #20
This veteran agrees with you. n/t tazkcmo Jan 2016 #10
When Clinton became SoS, the Hillary haters loved to say she did only what Obama told her to do. LexVegas Jan 2016 #9
So, was she "just following orders"? Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #14
Dame Hillary Plucketeer Jan 2016 #18
If this is true the Clinton's are grifters of the highest order. jalan48 Jan 2016 #11
Kick and R BeanMusical Jan 2016 #13
K & R ! TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #16
The real dirt might actually lead somewhere. Fuddnik Jan 2016 #26
True. TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #28
So what's the problem? War is a racket. zwyziec Jan 2016 #22
Which one are you...Cheney, Bush or Rumsfeld? EndElectoral Jan 2016 #25
Certainly spells trouble for Clinton. Duval Jan 2016 #23
Got to be an errror- 75M right, not 75B...I know she's a hawk, but c'mon. EndElectoral Jan 2016 #24
Brought to you by the Russian Times Network. leftofcool Jan 2016 #29
Truth hurts. But the unnecessary killing hurts more. tecelote Jan 2016 #32
Kickin' Faux pas Jan 2016 #31
K&R EndElectoral Jan 2016 #33
Neither of the people in the video has any thing to back up their allegations treestar Jan 2016 #34
You can try to say it's not true but... tecelote Jan 2016 #36
You are trying to make the Clinton Foundation into a bad thing treestar Jan 2016 #40
Valid points. tecelote Jan 2016 #41
Bernie has been in the House/Senate a long time treestar Jan 2016 #42
I'm going to say it again and will keep saying it. You cannot SAY you support women and children sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #35
 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
15. This just another crazy post: Hillary never any billions to give!
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:41 PM
Jan 2016

The Secretary of State doesn't make any policies:
she carries out the President policies of the US
with the help of congress funding.

The Billions that go to defense because the defense of the
country cost money for which the American people have approved
of an demanded through their reps.

Next you will be telling people Hillary is responsible for
the weather by herself: She alone created climate change.



Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. Oh, really, what about Sanders voting over and over again to continue funding Lockheed Martin,
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:29 AM
Jan 2016

the contractor for the F-35 program, way over budget and he continues to vote for this one to continue. Sanders knows he votes for defense contractors.

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
4. So, where are the contributions then?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:35 AM
Jan 2016

Watch the video to see the passion and compassion that Hillary should have.

If Bernie is also a war monger then show me his financial support from the MIC.

Hillary is the war monger.

How many more people have to die before you care?

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
37. You tell me where he puts the money, Hillary is very open
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 05:44 PM
Jan 2016

about her contributions. Since Sanders has voted more times for military action than Hillary has so he has to wear the war monger title. On how many more needs to die, there are about 80 people who dies daily from gun violence, Sanders voted five times against the Brady Bill, it is still happening.

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
38. I'm not against "military action".
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 05:54 PM
Jan 2016

I'm against regime change - you know, toppling governments.

Our military should not be used for profit. They should be peacekeepers.

Veterans should be top priority and they should be honored with top benefits and healthcare. We should not fight wars if we can not afford it's veterans.

Sanders has been a in the Senate a lot longer. He's voted a lot more period.

Sander's view on war is moral and Hillary's is not.

My opinion.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
3. Hillary Clinton's Clusterbomb vote
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:34 AM
Jan 2016

Last edited Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)




The main point: Hillary Clinton voted to let our military continue to use cluster bombs in areas with concentrated civilian populations and thirty Senate Democrats did not agree, despite the thousands of innocent children who have died or been handicapped due to picking up unexploded cluster bomblets.

This vote was cast in September 6, 2006 on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations act by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Before I get into why this was such an important amendment and why a no vote was so terrible, I just want to post the vote totals with presidential candidates in bold.





30 Democrats voted YEA: Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR)


15 Democrats and every Republican voted NAY (R's not listed):
Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY)

Now, on to the importance of this amendment.

I'll start with Senator Feinstein's own description of the amendment from the Congressional record (emphasis is mine);

I offer an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill to address a humanitarian issue that I have actually thought a great deal about over a long period of time; that is, the use of the cluster bomb. The human death toll and injury from these weapons is felt every day, going back decades. Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and suddenly their arm is blown off.

I believe we need to take a look at our policies and adjust them. Specifically, our amendment would prevent any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until the rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as inhabited parts of cities or villages or in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees.
And we've been using these cluster munitions in every war since Vietnam.

Why are they such a danger to children? Senator Feinstein explains:

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor, covering approximately a .6-mile radius. In other words, their swath is over one-half mile. Yet in practice they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. They end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping. They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play. They end up in homes where families live. And in some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.

This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball. Children outside with their friends and relatives come across these cluster bombs. They pick them up out of curiosity because they look like balls and they start playing with them and a terrible result follows.
Many countries are just full of these bomblets and many more innocent children will die as a result:

Looking at these figures, it is clear that several countries are awash with unexploded bomblets--Laos, 7 to 27 million; Iraq, 1.2 million; and then Lebanon, 100,000.
As a result, 84 countries are currently participating in the Oslo process to ban cluster munitions (of course, we're not part of this either):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/425303/-



UN accuses Saudi-led coalition forces of using cluster bombs




January 6, 2016 10:21 GMT


The United Nations has voiced concern over the alleged use of cluster bombs by Saudi-led coalition forces in north-west Yemen, where numerous air strikes have been reported. UN investigators have reportedly discovered 29 cluster submunitions in al-Odair village in Haradh district, which lies in the northwestern region of the country.

At a press briefing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) spokesperson Rupert Colville said: "We have also received alarming information on the alleged use of cluster bombs by coalition forces in Hajjah Governorate." According to eyewitnesses, many villages in Haradh district have also been affected by the use of cluster bombs, he said. UN investigators have also reportedly found the use of cluster submunitions in several other districts, including Hairan and Bakel Al-Meer.

Civilian casualties

Colville noted the alarming number of non-combatant casualties in Yemen. At least 62 civilians were killed in Saudi-led air strikes in December and 29 were killed in November. On the other hand, Iran-backed Houthi rebels are reported to have killed at least 11 civilians in December and 32 others in November.


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/yemen-civil-war-un-accuses-saudi-led-coalition-forces-using-cluster-bombs-1536254

US To Sell Cluster Bombs To Saudi Arabia


The international community is not happy with the United States and Saudi Arabia amid news that they have inked a deal for hundreds of millions of dollars of controversial and potentially unethical cluster bombs.

The $641 million deal would send 1,300 cluster bombs to America's closest ally on the Arabian Peninsula, through U.S. defense contractor Textron, according to a Pentagon release on the contract.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-to-sell-cluster-bombs-to-saudi-arabia-2013-8?IR=T

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
7. Regulations have been reduced and are basically powerless.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:59 AM
Jan 2016

Lawmakers get rich from this too.

America has been sold out to the MIC.

I'm not anti-military. I just think we should be the Peacekeepers. Not the force behind aggressive regime change.

War profiteering should be illegal or heavily taxed.

Veterans should be a top priority.

Before we bring Democracy to other countries through force, maybe we should re-instate it here.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
8. There has to be a regulation under which the SOS acts
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:10 AM
Jan 2016

a law under which the SOS acts.

Then regulations about how it is carried out.

Point to a violated regulation. Perhaps there is a party with standing to challenge the acts in court.

LexVegas

(6,031 posts)
9. When Clinton became SoS, the Hillary haters loved to say she did only what Obama told her to do.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:18 AM
Jan 2016

Now, she was an all powerful puppet master.

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
18. Dame Hillary
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:48 PM
Jan 2016

Honorable servant of the people. *





* "People" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States

TIME TO PANIC

(1,894 posts)
16. K & R !
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:43 PM
Jan 2016

Funny how corporate media pushes all these fake Clinton scandals (emails, Benghazi, etc.) and ignore the real dirt.

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
26. The real dirt might actually lead somewhere.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:58 PM
Jan 2016

We can't have that now, can we?

Elections anymore are about which branch of the Party...The Money Party... gets the majority of goodies from K Street. Everything else, other than a couple of social issues, is a sideshow.

zwyziec

(173 posts)
22. So what's the problem? War is a racket.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:55 PM
Jan 2016

It is the policy of the USA to use and grow its military to protect its corporate interests.

Regime change to put in place puppet dictators, like the Shah of Iran and in every South American and Asian country, is also a policy of the USA, regardless of who is the Secretary of State.

Our boys are not sent to die to protect our democracy, but to protect our access to rare earth magnets, bananas, tin, rubber, uranium, and oil.

Our boys are sent to die to protect the World Bank, Wall street bankers and multi national corporations.

We spend money to make bullets and missiles, that have to be either sold or spent and replenished.

Improvements in technology demand new investments in weaponry.

"According to official information provided by the Department of Defense (DoD) and its Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) there are still about 40,000 US troops, and 179 US bases in Germany, over 50,000 troops in Japan (and 109 bases), and tens of thousands of troops, with hundreds of bases, all over Europe. Over 28,000 US troops are present in 85 bases in South Korea, and have been since 1957.

Altogether, based on information contained in the DoD’s latest Base Structure Report (BSR), the US has bases in at least 74 countries and troops practically all over the world, ranging from thousands to just one in some countries (it could be a military attaché, for instance).

By comparison, France has bases in 10 countries, and the UK has bases in seven."

Bashing HRC on this issue is silly.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
34. Neither of the people in the video has any thing to back up their allegations
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 04:00 PM
Jan 2016

they are just wild allegations.

If Company A gives to the Clinton foundation and also has a deal cleared with the DOS, prove there are ethics rules it violates. They are two separate things. If the deal cleared the DOS, it was pursuant to law. We could have no laws and regulations and contractors could sell to anybody.

The allegations about the Clinton Foundation have been proven spurious before.

It's just hinting that if Company A is in both realms, there must be a payback. Prove it. The DOS is not in the business of disallowing every deal just because they are being peaceniks. They have to apply the rules. Nobody in that video mentions that at all.

Saying she showered billions on the defense industry is blatantly untrue. All SOS must apply the law as is. If you are thinking some peacenik SOS could exist and refuse to approve all deals, then that SOS is like Kim Davis - applying their will rather than the rule of law.

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
36. You can try to say it's not true but...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 04:17 PM
Jan 2016
Clinton Tops List of Arms Company Donations
U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was also a favorite of the arms producing giants during her 2006 senate campaign.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Clinton-Tops-List-of-Arms-Company-Donations-20151214-0002.html

The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for
The Clinton Foundation's business relationship with 20 foreign governments raises real questions about her judgment
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

treestar

(82,383 posts)
40. You are trying to make the Clinton Foundation into a bad thing
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 06:56 PM
Jan 2016

And imply it should not take donations from large companies. The Clinton Foundation is not a campaign. And it's not Hillary's personal funds.

And as SOS she has to apply the law to the deals. She can't deny them because they gave to the Clinton Foundation. She would have the duty to apply the law to those deals if they did not give to the CF. And would have to grant them per the law. She could not demand they give to the Clinton Foundation first. That would be what would be misusing the power. And that would have made the news as another scandal.

It might be like big CEOs to think it does no harm to give to the Clinton Foundation, as it might keep them on her good side, but the bureaucrats who make the decisions won't care about that and Hillary would have had the duty to apply the law regardless.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

tecelote

(5,122 posts)
41. Valid points.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:04 PM
Jan 2016

I don't consider this a conspiracy. I think money in politics is rampant on all sides.

The Clinton Foundation deserves respect.

But, I also think that Hillary will lean towards those that contributed in one area or another. It's what politicians do.

Bernie does not have those influences.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
42. Bernie has been in the House/Senate a long time
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jan 2016
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=205OVvSUEcSt-QGTt4T4AQ&ved=0CAQQqS4oAQ#q=ITAR

That is the other way round, in that we are regulating them. I doubt contributing the the CF is grounds for getting something approved. Those are huge bureaucracies that take a lot of time to do things and exist over years and over many SOS and Presidents. There are too many people involved for them to think in terms of the CF. Now Kerry is SOS, the same things are happening. What money have his campaigns gotten would be an equally relevant question. Bernie might have some contacts too, or at least, the people of Vermont have an interest in whatever it was he voted for military-spending wise.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
35. I'm going to say it again and will keep saying it. You cannot SAY you support women and children
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 04:03 PM
Jan 2016

AND be a War Hawk at the same time. It's. just. not. possible!

Bernie Sanders is really the only choice in this election.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary, As Secretary of ...