8 ms·

"Rresearch done by Sirota and Perez of International Business Times and based on US government and Clinton Foundation data shows that during her term the State

"Rresearch done by Sirota and Perez of International Business Times and based on US government and Clinton Foundation data shows that during her term the State Department authorized $165 billion in commercial arms sales to twenty nations that had given money to the Clinton Foundation. These include the governments of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all of whose records on human rights had been criticized by the State Department itself. During Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bush’s second term." Maybe this is normal and I am naive, but this seems pretty screwed up.

tghw 11y ago
I'd like to know if that's adjusted for inflation (not that there's been a ton of it in the intervening years), but it's certainly worrisome. Of course, it could all be a coincidence...
notliketherest 11y ago
It's all hearsay and coincidence, stop spreading GOP FUD,stop thinking about this, and vote Clinton 2016. Don't ask questions.
- rifung 11y ago
  GOP FUD? Doesn't the GOP support big contributions by corporations? If anything it should be "Sanders FUD"?
obastani 11y ago
Couldn't this be a result of the massively increased amount of conflict in the region since Bush's second term?
kingkawn 11y ago
Arab spring was happening during her tenure too, something that the countries listed wanted to make sure didn't take hold domestically.
hiddencost 11y ago
How did arms sales to other countries change in the same period? "Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress." [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreig... When did the IB times folks look at their numbers? (from October 2010 to September 2012). That looks damn cherry picked to me.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- meritt 11y ago
  Of course it is. That's all Clinton attackers have to go on. Constant attacks that she's corrupt and untrustworthy. Meanwhile her policies and stances are nearly identical to Sanders except with a dose of reality when it comes to implementation.
  - kaiku 11y ago
    There's a world of difference between the two candidates' positions. Sanders has a history of stubborn, unwavering commitment to his progressive ideas, whereas Clinton has only recently aligned herself with some of the popular ideas championed by him. (Many of these ideas were truly radical when they were first proposed, even fringe.) Clinton, like most politicians, maneuvers for votes when convenient, and when required by her deep, complex ties to industries with their own, decidedly non-populist agendas. As for reality – if I had to define the dialogue of this election, at least on the Democratic side, it wouldn't be a focus on modest, incremental, or "practical" approaches, but rather achieving ambitious, populist goals, demanded by those with a deep frustration with and even sense of injustice about the state of politics and the world. There's a very real desire for these kinds of changes, so much so in my view that implementation will necessarily follow from such strong demand.
    - meritt 11y ago
luckydata 11y ago
How many countries donated to the Clinton Foundation? Doesn't seem a particularly incriminating detail considering the scope and breadth of the foundation. Let's call this one irrelevant?
- markdown 11y ago
  > How many countries donated to the Clinton Foundation? She gets a strike for each and every one. Why oh why would a government donate money to an NGO like the Clinton Foundation if not to buy influence. There is not a single government that doesn't have it's own poor and suffering to deal with. Others, like Qatar have their own vehicles (Qatar Foundation) through which to render aid and assistance and fund research. There is no reason to hand that off to a third party.
- moonshinefe 11y ago
  Are you seriously not seeing the blatant conflict of interests here?
hackuser 11y ago
> International Business Times It's controlled by a religious cult or its leader, at least last I knew. I don't know that I put much faith in it. I'm not trying to tear down the whole story, but I think knowing and trusting sources is essential, especially in politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media#Partnerships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media#Partnerships Someone from IBT seemed to guard their Wikipedia pages, so there's probably more than you'll read there. If you really want to dig into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBT_Media#Olivet_and_David_Jang_relationships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBT_Media#Olivet_and_Davi...

tghw 11y ago

I'd like to know if that's adjusted for inflation (not that there's been a ton of it in the intervening years), but it's certainly worrisome. Of course, it could all be a coincidence...

notliketherest 11y ago

It's all hearsay and coincidence, stop spreading GOP FUD,stop thinking about this, and vote Clinton 2016. Don't ask questions.

rifung 11y ago
GOP FUD? Doesn't the GOP support big contributions by corporations? If anything it should be "Sanders FUD"?

obastani 11y ago

Couldn't this be a result of the massively increased amount of conflict in the region since Bush's second term?

kingkawn 11y ago

Arab spring was happening during her tenure too, something that the countries listed wanted to make sure didn't take hold domestically.

hiddencost 11y ago

How did arms sales to other countries change in the same period? "Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress." [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreig... When did the IB times folks look at their numbers? (from October 2010 to September 2012). That looks damn cherry picked to me.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
meritt 11y ago
Of course it is. That's all Clinton attackers have to go on. Constant attacks that she's corrupt and untrustworthy. Meanwhile her policies and stances are nearly identical to Sanders except with a dose of reality when it comes to implementation.
- kaiku 11y ago
  There's a world of difference between the two candidates' positions. Sanders has a history of stubborn, unwavering commitment to his progressive ideas, whereas Clinton has only recently aligned herself with some of the popular ideas championed by him. (Many of these ideas were truly radical when they were first proposed, even fringe.) Clinton, like most politicians, maneuvers for votes when convenient, and when required by her deep, complex ties to industries with their own, decidedly non-populist agendas. As for reality – if I had to define the dialogue of this election, at least on the Democratic side, it wouldn't be a focus on modest, incremental, or "practical" approaches, but rather achieving ambitious, populist goals, demanded by those with a deep frustration with and even sense of injustice about the state of politics and the world. There's a very real desire for these kinds of changes, so much so in my view that implementation will necessarily follow from such strong demand.
  - meritt 11y ago

luckydata 11y ago

How many countries donated to the Clinton Foundation? Doesn't seem a particularly incriminating detail considering the scope and breadth of the foundation. Let's call this one irrelevant?

markdown 11y ago
> How many countries donated to the Clinton Foundation? She gets a strike for each and every one. Why oh why would a government donate money to an NGO like the Clinton Foundation if not to buy influence. There is not a single government that doesn't have it's own poor and suffering to deal with. Others, like Qatar have their own vehicles (Qatar Foundation) through which to render aid and assistance and fund research. There is no reason to hand that off to a third party.
moonshinefe 11y ago
Are you seriously not seeing the blatant conflict of interests here?

hackuser 11y ago

> International Business Times It's controlled by a religious cult or its leader, at least last I knew. I don't know that I put much faith in it. I'm not trying to tear down the whole story, but I think knowing and trusting sources is essential, especially in politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media#Partnerships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media#Partnerships Someone from IBT seemed to guard their Wikipedia pages, so there's probably more than you'll read there. If you really want to dig into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBT_Media#Olivet_and_David_Jang_relationships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBT_Media#Olivet_and_Davi...