2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Blaming Sanders: Why Democratic Party Unity is Officially Impossible [View all]creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)First we have that Saudi Arabia did not donate while Hillary was secretary. They did before but no quid pro quo was possible because it wasn't known that she'd be secretary.
Arms deals are extremely complex and take up to seven years to complete. Most of the work is carried out under the Pentagon, not the State Department. You couldn't just sell one.
The Saudi Arms deal was a major initiative of the entire administration. It started under Bush but was expanded under Obama for two major reasons. First, it was expected to produce 50,000 or 75,000 jobs. This was at a time when the 2008 crash left the country with high unemployment and the arms jobs were among the few that could be produced. The administration also wanted to build a barrier to Iran. The Saudi deal was the largest arms sale ever. It was inconceivable that Hillary wouldn't approve it. Tying the approval to donations to a foundation the Clintons got no direct compensation from is far fetched. Its like a whole city being flooded by a hurricane and somebody saying the flood was caused by someone letting their faucet drip.
IBT found that countries that did not donate also saw an 80% increase in arms sales. That was because we needed the jobs. IBT shows a chart with donors getting bigger increases. But all those countries with the huge increases were all Saudi allies from the Gulf Cooperation Council. They were part of the same initiative to build the wall against Iran. What IBT tries to make look like a pattern is just a single initiative, that went all the way to the top, above Hillary.
The fact that Hillary criticized those countries shows she wasn't bought off, not that she approved the arms deal for any other reason than policy.
IBT tried to make the deal suspicious because the sales were made to Saudi despite their horrible human rights record. We've been making arms deals with Saudi for decades despite their record. They are our best customer.
IBT also tried to question the deal because they said Israel opposed it. That was misleading at best and a lie at worst. While Israel at first made tactical objections to the deal, the weapons systems they were most concerned about were eliminated from the deal. Israel was then promised weapons that were more sophisticated than the ones the Saudis got. Israel's objections were dropped before the deal was even announced and sent to Congress.
IBT also tried to cast suspicion by saying that a defense contractor made a large donation just before the deal was finalized. But the deal was already sent to Congress with Hillary's backing a year before that. Hillary couldn't have possibly approved because of the donation because she'd already backed the deal.
Mother Jones isn't a right wing publication but they are definitely in the tank for Bernie and are out to get the Clintons. The idea that the foundation is corrupt originates with the right wing. It makes no sense, because the Clintons got no income from the foundation. In fact, $15 million that they raised giving speeches was turned over to the foundation. Why would they commit crimes when there was nothing in it for them?
People who hate the Clintons just can't stand the truth, that the Clintons did something wonderful for the world based on their own benevolence. They are great people, not the monsters the Clinton haters pretend they are.