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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Sirota: Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department [View all]think
(11,641 posts)41. Activities can occur without violating the letter of the law that still are questionable at best.
Dick Cheney is the poster boy for doing things that have not been declared as violating the law but still smack of irresponsible and unethical activity. (This is not a comparison but rather an extreme example of impropriety that was not declared as illegal.)
It is a fact that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state sold weapons to Qatar in vastly increased quantities after receiving large donations from that country and no one is disputing this fact including you:
The monarchy in Qatar had similarly been chastised by the State Department for a raft of human rights abuses. But that country donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. During the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bushs second term. The department also approved the Pentagons separate $750 million sale of multi-mission helicopters to Qatar. That deal would additionally employ as contractors three companies that have all supported the Clinton Foundation over the years: United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric.
Qatar is known to send weapons to extremists that the U.S. is actively fighting against. This is also a fact:
How Qatar is funding the rise of Islamist extremists
The fabulously wealthy Gulf state, which owns an array of London landmarks and claims to be one of our best friends in the Middle East, is a prime sponsor of violent Islamists
By David Blair and Richard Spencer 10:00PM BST 20 Sep 2014
Few outsiders have noticed, but radical Islamists now control Libya's capital. These militias stormed Tripoli last month, forcing the official government to flee and hastening the country's collapse into a failed state.
Moreover, the new overlords of Tripoli are allies of Ansar al-Sharia, a brutal jihadist movement suspected of killing America's then ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and of trying to murder his British counterpart, Sir Dominic Asquith.
~Snip~
Qatar, the owner of Harrods, has dispatched cargo planes laden with weapons to the victorious Islamist coalition, styling itself "Libya Dawn".
Western officials have tracked the Qatari arms flights as they land in the city of Misrata, about 100 miles east of Tripoli, where the Islamist militias have their stronghold. Even after the fall of the capital and the removal of Libya's government, Qatar is "still flying in weapons straight to Misrata airport", said a senior Western official...
~Snip~
Last December, the US Treasury designated a Qatari academic and businessman, Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi, as a "global terrorist". The US accused him of sending nearly £366,000 to "al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", named as Abu Khalid al-Suri.
~Snip
But critics question why Qatar has failed to act against him. "It's deeply concerning that these individuals, where sufficient evidence is in place to justify their inclusion on the US sanctions list, continue to be free to undertake their business dealings," said Stephen Barclay, the Conservative MP for North East Cambridgeshire...
Read more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11110931/How-Qatar-is-funding-the-rise-of-Islamist-extremists.html
The fabulously wealthy Gulf state, which owns an array of London landmarks and claims to be one of our best friends in the Middle East, is a prime sponsor of violent Islamists
By David Blair and Richard Spencer 10:00PM BST 20 Sep 2014
Few outsiders have noticed, but radical Islamists now control Libya's capital. These militias stormed Tripoli last month, forcing the official government to flee and hastening the country's collapse into a failed state.
Moreover, the new overlords of Tripoli are allies of Ansar al-Sharia, a brutal jihadist movement suspected of killing America's then ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and of trying to murder his British counterpart, Sir Dominic Asquith.
~Snip~
Qatar, the owner of Harrods, has dispatched cargo planes laden with weapons to the victorious Islamist coalition, styling itself "Libya Dawn".
Western officials have tracked the Qatari arms flights as they land in the city of Misrata, about 100 miles east of Tripoli, where the Islamist militias have their stronghold. Even after the fall of the capital and the removal of Libya's government, Qatar is "still flying in weapons straight to Misrata airport", said a senior Western official...
~Snip~
Last December, the US Treasury designated a Qatari academic and businessman, Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi, as a "global terrorist". The US accused him of sending nearly £366,000 to "al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", named as Abu Khalid al-Suri.
~Snip
But critics question why Qatar has failed to act against him. "It's deeply concerning that these individuals, where sufficient evidence is in place to justify their inclusion on the US sanctions list, continue to be free to undertake their business dealings," said Stephen Barclay, the Conservative MP for North East Cambridgeshire...
Read more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11110931/How-Qatar-is-funding-the-rise-of-Islamist-extremists.html
That action of allowing a country known for funneling weapons to radical extremists to purchase substantially larger amounts of U.S. military weaponry after that country donated a large sum of money to Clinton's foundation is certainly circumspect. It may not have violated the law but it is indeed an action I consider counterproductive to U.S. long term interests in combatting extremism in the middle east.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
152 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sirota: Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department [View all]
grasswire
Oct 2015
OP
Bernie establishing a world-wide highly respected charity? I probably could!
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#62
If it was a Bush, DU would be UNANIMOUS in opposition to it. Not one post would be in support.
arcane1
Oct 2015
#94
Yes. And of course the same reliable readers fall reliably for the same unreliable propaganda.
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#70
From GOP propaganda coffers directly to the OP sections of DU....there is an obvious co-relation.
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#59
None of this money was going to benefit the Clintons personally. The foundation is for charity.
pnwmom
Oct 2015
#9
Again, Presidents have always promoted the US air industry, which is a major producer
pnwmom
Oct 2015
#15
Yes. Promoting US interests is part of what the State Department does, and Boeing provides
pnwmom
Oct 2015
#18
Helping to escalate the global arms race is good, because it save jobs here??? Wow are we lost.
reformist2
Oct 2015
#21
Selling billions worth of weapons to a country that beheads more people than ISIS.
arcane1
Oct 2015
#95
it's not like the wife of one of her biggest donors in 2008 and now is on the BoD of Clinton Fd.
azurnoir
Oct 2015
#24
Well, they don't state that it's bribery, per se. Although appearances aren't too good.
senz
Oct 2015
#13
Clinton supporters will say it was just business as usual, nothing to see here.
Bernblu
Oct 2015
#19
I often forget that the Secretary of State approves all these arms deals. She's deep in all that.
reformist2
Oct 2015
#20
Are you claiming the article contains factual inaccuracies or just that you disagree that facts
think
Oct 2015
#36
If you believe Hillary Clinton has violated the law I will extend to you the courtesy ...
DemocratSinceBirth
Oct 2015
#38
Activities can occur without violating the letter of the law that still are questionable at best.
think
Oct 2015
#41
If you believe there was a quid pro quo then you have established one of the elements neccessary
DemocratSinceBirth
Oct 2015
#42
I wrote right in the title that letter of the law wasn't violated but keep ignoring the damn subject
think
Oct 2015
#49
Did SoS Clinton increase sales of military weaponry after donations were made or not?
think
Oct 2015
#54
If you believe you have satisfied the elements of bribery I gave you the Statute and A G info.
DemocratSinceBirth
Oct 2015
#57
Thanks for not answering the simple question and then making a baseless claim once again....
think
Oct 2015
#63
If she didn't violate any laws what is the point of our tete a tete?
DemocratSinceBirth
Oct 2015
#68
It's a question of character which is the subject here. Do you approve of the selling of weapons
think
Oct 2015
#77
If it's question of character as a small (d) Democrat I will let my fellow Democrats hash it out...
DemocratSinceBirth
Oct 2015
#79
So you prefer not to give your opinion correct? That is understandable given the circumstances....
think
Oct 2015
#80
My opinion is she did nothing wrong. You hold a different opinion. That's how we roll in America.
DemocratSinceBirth
Oct 2015
#81
You are welcome, sir or madame, and I would be remiss if I didn't wish you a happy week./nt
DemocratSinceBirth
Oct 2015
#83
I hope you have a great week also. For what it's worth Hillary did extremely well in the hearing.
think
Oct 2015
#85
That was not an answer to the question I posed. I didn't ask you why you supported Clinton.
Bread and Circus
Oct 2015
#71
I am convinced far too many Bernie fans know too little about statistics and co-relations
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#55
There is no subject to discuss...that was my point, as others have tried to tell you!
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#61
I read Clinton Cash excerpts.. the GOP propaganda rag that alleges the same nothing...did you?
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#67
I read THIS article. This is what is being discussed. I have no clue what you are referencing
think
Oct 2015
#69
This article is not your right wing source so either discuss facts in THIS article or keep spinning
think
Oct 2015
#78
Consider it counter-spin....just keeping things in balance for the thinking folks at DU.
Fred Sanders
Oct 2015
#100
Correlation <> causation, but in this case, it does equal a GLARINGLY HUGE conflict of interest! nt
mhatrw
Oct 2015
#148
Ugh. A punch to the gut. Bernie should head-on spotlight conflict of interest "realities" as a core
JudyM
Oct 2015
#66
There are other conflicts of interest like Walton family members and Walmart foundation donations.nt
Snotcicles
Oct 2015
#91
Terry McAuliffe..Al Gore & "Stolen Election 2000"....and Who Profited? It Goes On...
KoKo
Oct 2015
#141
Okay, so we're basically accusing Clinton taking bribes now. On a Democratic forum?
BlueCheese
Oct 2015
#118