3 ms·

> There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across

> There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. "In late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been 'a top priority' for Clinton personally." http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons... > The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd. Absolutely, but as a society I'm not comfortable with just writing off a million deaths under the guise of "it's complicated." In my personal opinion, making the comparison and deciding that Hillary is less bad is completely reasonable, but not making the comparison at all is what's absurd.

wehadfun 10y ago
Lets just say Clinton did not push for the sales of the weapons. You thing Saudi Arabia would say oh well and make peace with the people they are bombing? They would find some other way to kill them. This may have been a "choose your pit of snakes" situation. Either sell them some weapons or let them by develop or acquire gas/nuclear/bio weapons,
thedifference33 10y ago
Your beef seems to be with the media and how it is framing the issues in the election. Yet your arguments sound more directed at the average Joe. You seem to have assumed, based only on headline news, no one else is making the comparison. This is a pretty self-aggrandizing position to take.
hackinthebochs 10y ago
Your quote doesn't really address the point I'm making. Sure, as head of the state dept she would be involved with very large deals between our "allies" and U.S. corporations. The question is who is responsible for the supposed growth in sales that occurred, and can this growth be traced to her doing or her urging? It's also worth noting that the article says Saudi Arabia donated tens of millions in the years before she became Sec of State. So claiming the money was for a quid-pro-quo is a stretch. The fact is, any nation friendly to the U.S. probably has had a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation in recent memory.

wehadfun 10y ago

Lets just say Clinton did not push for the sales of the weapons. You thing Saudi Arabia would say oh well and make peace with the people they are bombing? They would find some other way to kill them. This may have been a "choose your pit of snakes" situation. Either sell them some weapons or let them by develop or acquire gas/nuclear/bio weapons,

thedifference33 10y ago

Your beef seems to be with the media and how it is framing the issues in the election. Yet your arguments sound more directed at the average Joe. You seem to have assumed, based only on headline news, no one else is making the comparison. This is a pretty self-aggrandizing position to take.

hackinthebochs 10y ago

Your quote doesn't really address the point I'm making. Sure, as head of the state dept she would be involved with very large deals between our "allies" and U.S. corporations. The question is who is responsible for the supposed growth in sales that occurred, and can this growth be traced to her doing or her urging? It's also worth noting that the article says Saudi Arabia donated tens of millions in the years before she became Sec of State. So claiming the money was for a quid-pro-quo is a stretch. The fact is, any nation friendly to the U.S. probably has had a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation in recent memory.