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

GoLeft TV

(3,910 posts)
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 06:34 PM Jun 2015

How Hillary Ruined Her Legacy As Secretary of State

While Republicans have been distracted by phony scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton (like Benghazi), they missed one of the dirtiest scandals ever to emerge involving the former First Lady and current front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

A damning new report from the International Business Times explains how Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to create a pay-to-play atmosphere for world leaders seeking military equipment and defense contractors looking to make a few extra billions.

Ring of Fire’s Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss this.

84 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Hillary Ruined Her Legacy As Secretary of State (Original Post) GoLeft TV Jun 2015 OP
But we are told this is unimportant. zeemike Jun 2015 #1
Under Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations. NYC_SKP Jun 2015 #2
"The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for " (salon magazine) magical thyme Jun 2015 #46
Yeah, but I'm continually told: "Where's the smoking gun? All you ever got with Hillary is her appearance of impropriety"... InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2015 #53
I don't think she would survive an interview or a debate with a competent questioner. NYC_SKP Jun 2015 #55
I hear ya NYC. Unfortunately, because of Hillary's enablers, I think we're gonna be stuck with her as our nominee, unless Bernie or MOM gets a serious cash infusion... InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2015 #61
There may be no 'smoking gun' in the sense of absolute proof of illegality, but . . . markpkessinger Jun 2015 #68
Of course it raises questions; that's why Hillary is wise to avoid answerin those questions - u gotta give her credit for that at least. InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2015 #73
GOPers see the sales as a positive Increases corporate dividends. nt NCjack Jun 2015 #3
Question: Did Hillary Clinton personally benefit from these various arms sales??? NYC_SKP Jun 2015 #57
Yes, I think she benefited. Will that hurt her legacy? I doubt it. Sadly, USA makes its NCjack Jun 2015 #64
GOPers see the sales as a positive. Increases corporate dividends. nt NCjack Jun 2015 #4
That IBT article has been posted several times.. IBT is owned by religious nutcases OKNancy Jun 2015 #5
Here we go again then Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2015 #12
Ring of Fire Radio cited that source. alp227 Jun 2015 #25
Okay so Ring of Fire quoted the right wing source Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2015 #27
I am sorry I could not seem to find a "Moon" type link at Wiki, I am probably wrong, Usually am. LiberalArkie Jun 2015 #14
You didn't bother to read the link I posted OKNancy Jun 2015 #18
And the MSM media has no conflict of interests? Jesus Malverde Jun 2015 #75
Isn't the issue whether the story is true or false? merrily Jun 2015 #77
Exactly. Jesus Malverde Jun 2015 #78
Religious nutcases, eh? You mean like "The Fellowship"? RufusTFirefly Jun 2015 #33
The Family. The Fellowship. hmm. marym625 Jun 2015 #39
One of The Family top dogs David Coe quotes that always gives me shudders.... peacebird Jun 2015 #52
When you attack the source, it's usually because there's no way counter the TRUTH. NYC_SKP Jun 2015 #54
Wow. Great source 4now Jun 2015 #6
David Sirota is a reliable source... raindaddy Jun 2015 #13
since when? wyldwolf Jun 2015 #17
There's some facts included in the article that could be easliy checked? raindaddy Jun 2015 #19
they COULD be checked... or Sirota could be misquoting and misleading as he's often done wyldwolf Jun 2015 #22
How about the US State dept. & The Clinton Foundation Donor list are they misleading liars too raindaddy Jun 2015 #38
This has nothing to do with Bernie, Sex novels, etc. wyldwolf Jun 2015 #47
You're avoiding the question.... raindaddy Jun 2015 #58
You've not asked a question, but I'll play. wyldwolf Jun 2015 #59
How do you spin facts such a this in any other light? raindaddy Jun 2015 #60
Raindaddy DID ask a question in post #38 markpkessinger Jun 2015 #72
Boom! RufusTFirefly Jun 2015 #20
yes wyldwolf Jun 2015 #23
No need for a messenger here Joe Turner Jun 2015 #30
list the smoking guns wyldwolf Jun 2015 #32
It's all over the internet but you want a list. Below link for starters Joe Turner Jun 2015 #34
"all over the internet" is not a smoking gun. wyldwolf Jun 2015 #48
Care to cite some specific examples? n/t markpkessinger Jun 2015 #65
Sure wyldwolf Jun 2015 #69
You may have a point on Nos. 2 and 3 . . . markpkessinger Jun 2015 #71
The only reliable sources are polls from 2013 and anti-Left DU'ers Scootaloo Jun 2015 #26
anti left DUers? marym625 Jun 2015 #40
Or Correct the Record! TM99 Jun 2015 #43
Or a video of Hillary. merrily Jun 2015 #80
Wow. Love and trust zentrum Jun 2015 #28
Reminds me... Jesus Malverde Jun 2015 #74
Don't worry. Where there's smoke there is no fire. L0oniX Jun 2015 #7
so far that's been the case. wyldwolf Jun 2015 #8
certainly isn't how I want anyone in public office acting marym625 Jun 2015 #41
Thank you! markpkessinger Jun 2015 #67
It certainly is marym625 Jun 2015 #83
Link to the article swilton Jun 2015 #9
'Progressives' still looking for their smoking gun, using any source towards that goal wyldwolf Jun 2015 #10
This is something I would expect from Dick Cheney... raindaddy Jun 2015 #11
Excellent! Thespian2 Jun 2015 #16
Wish I could double rec this. Paka Jun 2015 #15
Hey, the poor woman was stuck working at Walmart for years. Fuddnik Jun 2015 #21
True. Enthusiast Jun 2015 #31
Even the Governor wouldn't help her. merrily Jun 2015 #79
rwnj? stonecutter357 Jun 2015 #24
Been a Democrat zentrum Jun 2015 #29
+1000 - That's pretty much HRC in a nutshell. Divernan Jun 2015 #45
When push comes to shove... SoapBox Jun 2015 #35
It's true. zentrum Jun 2015 #50
Lies! All Lies!!! Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #36
No he is not! marym625 Jun 2015 #42
So, after all is said and done, all HRC was Unknown Beatle Jun 2015 #37
Yes, nothing new here, SOSs have for years been promoting trade and commerce. NYC_SKP Jun 2015 #56
GOP isn't going to touch this with a 10 foot pole IkeRepublican Jun 2015 #44
So, in other words . . . markpkessinger Jun 2015 #66
What I'm saying is... IkeRepublican Jun 2015 #84
K&R Scuba Jun 2015 #49
Wow.... /nt think Jun 2015 #51
We've got to be careful about hating on the RWers. They may end up voting for Bernie libdem4life Jun 2015 #62
From the couple who brought you the Mark Rich pardon Adenoid_Hynkel Jun 2015 #63
You can't prove a direct quid pro quo there, either. merrily Jun 2015 #81
I am thankfull silenttigersong Jun 2015 #70
Trashing the source- What the old school campaigners seem to miss.... is this is a new era. Jesus Malverde Jun 2015 #76
Looks like the responsibilities of a SOS can be looked upon as yes Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #82
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
2. Under Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 06:50 PM
Jun 2015

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.

And then a LOT of those arms manufacture's dollars went back to the Clintons in the form of high priced speaking fees.

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
By David Sirota @davidsirota d.sirota@ibtimes.com
Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC andrew.perez@ibtimes.com on May 26 2015 8:44 AM EDT



Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Scott Olson/Getty Images

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
46. "The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for " (salon magazine)
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 05:47 AM
Jun 2015
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

The Clinton Foundation's business relationship with 20 foreign governments raises real questions about her judgment

While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation — and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton — also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.” The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,128 posts)
53. Yeah, but I'm continually told: "Where's the smoking gun? All you ever got with Hillary is her appearance of impropriety"...
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 09:18 AM
Jun 2015

There is some truth to that, I'll admit, not that should absolve Hillary. But then, again, if she's smart enough to evade bribery charges, she has the chops to run circles around the Rethugs.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
55. I don't think she would survive an interview or a debate with a competent questioner.
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 09:51 AM
Jun 2015

Her campaign is, like none before it, totally dependent upon controlling the message and the interactions.

She hasn't stepped foot near a microphone where she might be asked about these specifics.

I know what you're saying though about her defenders and their "where's the smoking gun?"

Well, we just provided all the smoke and all the guns you could ever expect to see and we still get that reply.

.... http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8501643/Clinton-foundation-donors-State

.... http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/28/clinton-sinking-as-vox-yes-vox-continues-barrage-against-charity/

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,128 posts)
61. I hear ya NYC. Unfortunately, because of Hillary's enablers, I think we're gonna be stuck with her as our nominee, unless Bernie or MOM gets a serious cash infusion...
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 02:47 PM
Jun 2015

to overcome all the bribe money Hillary is getting.

markpkessinger

(8,409 posts)
68. There may be no 'smoking gun' in the sense of absolute proof of illegality, but . . .
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 05:20 PM
Jun 2015

. . . surely this should raise serious questions about her ethics and judgment -- which are perfectly appropriate topics for consideration with respect to any nominee or potential candidate!

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,128 posts)
73. Of course it raises questions; that's why Hillary is wise to avoid answerin those questions - u gotta give her credit for that at least.
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 01:55 AM
Jun 2015
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
57. Question: Did Hillary Clinton personally benefit from these various arms sales???
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 10:11 AM
Jun 2015

Is her candidacy being run in part by funds derived from favorable treatment of arms manufacturers?

I think it is.

NCjack

(10,279 posts)
64. Yes, I think she benefited. Will that hurt her legacy? I doubt it. Sadly, USA makes its
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 03:47 PM
Jun 2015

export earning by supplying weapons.

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
5. That IBT article has been posted several times.. IBT is owned by religious nutcases
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:12 PM
Jun 2015

similar to Moon.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-owners-background

Article about how IBT bought Newsweek, but goes into their background.

Sample:
Similarly, he dismissed the notion that readers should be troubled by the little-known fact that he has personally endorsed the view, espoused by the so-called “ex-gay” movement, that gay people may have developed their sexuality as a result of being sexually abused as children, and can be cured by therapy to make them heterosexual.

In a Facebook post in February 2013, Davis described as "shockingly accurate" an op-ed article written by Christopher Doyle, the director of the International Healing Foundation (IHF), which works to convert gay people. Davis said it “cuts like a hot knife through a buttery block of lies”.

Doyle, who once identified as gay but is now married to a woman, wrote that “same-sex attractions” are typically felt by people born with a “sensitive nature” and then subjected to “early sexual initiation and/or sexual abuse” or unusual attachment issues with their parents. He said last week that he was delighted by Davis’s praise. “Considering how much of the media is very gay-friendly, this is a breath of fresh air,” he said.

alp227

(32,079 posts)
25. Ring of Fire Radio cited that source.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:19 PM
Jun 2015

"Go Left TV" is the name of the Ring of Fire YouTube and DU accounts.

LiberalArkie

(15,739 posts)
14. I am sorry I could not seem to find a "Moon" type link at Wiki, I am probably wrong, Usually am.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:40 PM
Jun 2015


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Times


The International Business Times is an online news publication,[1] comprising seven national editions and four languages. The publication, sometimes called IBTimes or IBT, offers news, opinion, and editorial commentary on business and business-related stories.[3] It was ranked by Alexa as the third-most visited site among business newspapers as of October 2011.[4]

IBTimes was launched in 2005; it is owned by IBT Media,[1] and was founded by Etienne Uzac and Johnathan Davis. Its headquarters are in a former Newsweek office in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan, New York City.[5]

Founder Etienne Uzac, a native of France, came up with the idea for the global business news site while a student at the London School of Economics. He found that the strongest business newspapers had a focus on the U.S and Europe and planned to provide broader geographic coverage. Uzac recruited Johnathan Davis to join him in the enterprise.[6] In late 2005 Uzac and Davis moved to New York to launch the site, with Uzac primarily focused on business strategy while Davis coded the site and wrote the first articles.[7]

In May 2012, the company announced that Jeffery Rothfeder had been appointed as the publication's new Editor-in-Chief, while Davis, who previously served as Executive Editor, will manage the company's content strategy across all platforms as the Chief Content Officer.[8]

On August 4, 2013, IBT Media, the owner of IBTimes, announced its purchase of Newsweek and newsweek.com from IAC/InterActiveCorp. The purchase does not include The Daily Beast.[9] Peter S. Goodman became the editor in 2014.

By October 2011, the site ranked within the top 400 U.S websites,[10] and the top 900 global websites.[11] By March 2015, the site ranked within the top 550 U.S websites, and the top 1,050 global websites.[12]

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
18. You didn't bother to read the link I posted
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:48 PM
Jun 2015

That is why people post links.

I'll help you out a little:


But they come with a backstory that is unusual for the mainstream media. The pair started their company in 2006 reportedly after meeting via Christian fellowships, and have frequently been the subject of reports linking them to David Jang, a controversial Korean pastor who is also the founder of Olivet University, an evangelical school based in San Francisco, California.

Davis once taught journalism at Olivet, and his wife, Tracy, is the university’s president. Uzac sat on Olivet’s board of trustees until last year, and his wife, Marion, who has also worked at IBT Media, was previously the press secretary for the World Evangelical Alliance. Olivet is a member of the alliance and Jang sits on the alliance’s North American council. Olivet graduates have been hired to work in a number of roles at IBT Media. The Guardian has confirmed that as Olivet expands its operations around the US, IBT Media has given money to the college.

Davis said in an interview that their work and faith were separate, and that he wanted “the journalism to speak for itself” both at their new magazine and at the International Business Times, a news website that was IBT Media’s flagship title until it bought Newsweek.

Similarly, he dismissed the notion that readers should be troubled by the little-known fact that he has personally endorsed the view, espoused by the so-called “ex-gay” movement, that gay people may have developed their sexuality as a result of being sexually abused as children, and can be cured by therapy to make them heterosexual.

----------------------------------

Another link: http://observer.com/2013/08/moonies-messiahs-and-media-who-really-owns-newsweek/

n Saturday, news broke that IBT Media, a company that runs the online business (at least, in theory) newspaper International Business Times, had purchased Newsweek from IAC. So IBT Media now owns Newsweek. But exactly who controls IBT Media?

IBT Media’s corporate leadership site lists two cofounders: Etienne Uzac, the company’s CEO, and Johnathan Davis, its chief content officer.

But some say that the company is actually controlled by—or at least has very close undisclosed ties to—someone whose name appears nowhere on the site: David Jang, a controversial Korean Christian preacher who has been accused of calling himself “Second Coming Christ.”

A story in The Tennessean about Olivet University, a university founded by Mr. Jang, lists IBT as one of Mr. Jang’s businesses. A deeply reported investigation into Mr. Jang’s church by the magazine Christianity Today also lists IBT as among Mr. Jang’s enterprises. (That investigation, incidentally, was named one of the “Best Long Reads of 2012? by The Daily Beast, which had partnered with Newsweek.)

IBT’s two cofounders seem to have ties to Mr. Jang as well.



merrily

(45,251 posts)
77. Isn't the issue whether the story is true or false?
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 05:12 AM
Jun 2015

This business of calling a source "right wing" and assuming that answers all questions is silly. If it's a pure opinion piece, sure. If it cites facts, attacking the source doesn't refute shit.

This is very similar to what Hillary does. When asked a question about an adverse fact, her answer begins, "The Republicans...." as if no one on the left has a single question about her and as if citing Republicans is some kind of refutation of what was said. When asked about Monica Lewinsky by Matt Lauer, she cited a vast right wing conspiracy. Guess what? There was something between her husband and Monica, even though the ones making the allegations were on the right.

Sorry. Killing the messenger solved nothing and refuted nothing before common era

.

Plutarch's Lives states: "The first messenger, that gave notice of Lucullus' coming was so far from pleasing Tigranes that, he had his head cut off for his pains; and no man dared to bring further information. Without any intelligence at all, Tigranes sat while war was already blazing around him, giving ear only to those who flattered him."[1]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger


It still doesn't. But only ducks the issue. For some, that's the only goal.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
33. Religious nutcases, eh? You mean like "The Fellowship"?
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:42 PM
Jun 2015
Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics
For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating—or living her faith?

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."


2007 article from that notorious right-wing rag, Mother Jones

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
52. One of The Family top dogs David Coe quotes that always gives me shudders....
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 09:17 AM
Jun 2015

"Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were three men. Think of the immense power these three men had.... But they bound themselves together in an agreement.... Jesus said, 'You have to put me before other people. And you have to put me before yourself.' Hitler, that was the demand to be in the Nazi party. You have to put the Nazi party and its objectives ahead of your own life and ahead of other people."

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
54. When you attack the source, it's usually because there's no way counter the TRUTH.
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 09:19 AM
Jun 2015

If you can come refute the facts of these allegations, please continue.

If you can only attack the source, then I'll rest my case and continue informing readers what was going on in the Clinton state department and Clinton Foundation.

It would be a shame to see a person become president using money that came from selling arms and chemical weapons.

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
13. David Sirota is a reliable source...
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:33 PM
Jun 2015

He's also real journalist. Mike Papantonio is credible as well.

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
19. There's some facts included in the article that could be easliy checked?
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:06 PM
Jun 2015

"While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton's three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term."

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

The Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton's State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country.

Al-fucking-geria, human trafficking, slave labor Algeria? Awwww,you don't want to know about this..../

wyldwolf

(43,873 posts)
22. they COULD be checked... or Sirota could be misquoting and misleading as he's often done
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:10 PM
Jun 2015

There comes a point where it becomes a waste of time to fact check someone who has been wrong often and has a clear agenda.

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
38. How about the US State dept. & The Clinton Foundation Donor list are they misleading liars too
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 10:37 PM
Jun 2015

Here's mu question to you the media just had to ask Bernie about a sex novel he wrote in the 70's, do you think they should ask Hillary about the $250 grand Algeria donated to the Clinton Foundation and the following weapons they received?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

wyldwolf

(43,873 posts)
47. This has nothing to do with Bernie, Sex novels, etc.
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 06:01 AM
Jun 2015

It's about a muckraker with a clear agenda named Sirota trying to disguise himself as a journalist who's been wrong often.

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
58. You're avoiding the question....
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 10:51 AM
Jun 2015

Sirota's used information from reliable sources. And that information doesn't paint a very attractive picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton..
It looks like there's another clear agenda and it has nothing to do with Sirota...

wyldwolf

(43,873 posts)
59. You've not asked a question, but I'll play.
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 10:59 AM
Jun 2015
Sirota's used information from reliable sources

And spun it in the worse possible light. That's called playing to your audience. Just one more example of Sirota's write first, defend later style.

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
60. How do you spin facts such a this in any other light?
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 12:11 PM
Jun 2015

Hillary's State Dept publicly admonishes Algeria for being a human rights nightmare...
Algeria donates $500,000.00 to the Clinton Foundation.
The State Dept. authorizes $2.4 billion worth of military weapons to Algeria
The Clinton Foundation fails to disclose the donation until a year later

And it's not just Algeria.. Qatar another human rights nightmare, donates to Clinton Foundation receives huge increase of arms sales

Other than making large donations to the Clinton Foundation why are we suddenly shipping billions of dollars worth of arms to countries like Algeria, a hub for human trafficking, forced prostitution, etc...?

markpkessinger

(8,409 posts)
72. Raindaddy DID ask a question in post #38
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 08:51 PM
Jun 2015

Raindaddy wrote:

Here's mu question to you the media just had to ask Bernie about a sex novel he wrote in the 70's, do you think they should ask Hillary about the $250 grand Algeria donated to the Clinton Foundation and the following weapons they received?


Sure looks like a question to me. Even has a question mark after it. What more do you need? (And is my last sentence a question?)
 

Joe Turner

(930 posts)
30. No need for a messenger here
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:36 PM
Jun 2015

The Clinton Foundation's long list of corporate and international contributors is a bank full of smoking guns. Note: You have a problem with your candidate.

wyldwolf

(43,873 posts)
69. Sure
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 06:26 PM
Jun 2015

Sirota's tendency to go after the Clintons and others seems to have started when sought work from Lieberman twice and the DLC once and was turned down each time. And each application came after those nefarious centrists had done the evil things Sirota writes about.

David Sirota doesn't like so-called centrists. We get it. He's made it abundantly clear. And if he'd stick with facts and avoid the slime-ball Matt Drudge tactics, I'd have a lot more respect for the guy even while disagreeing with him. But as it is, he's seldom been one to walk the straight and narrow when it comes to writing.

1. There was that really odd attack on Senator Clinton in 2007 after one of the Democratic debates. Here was the line from then that so infuriated Sirota:

Moderator: All of us remember the big NAFTA debate when your husband was President of the United States and a lot of us remember the debate between Al Gore, who was then Vice President, and Ross Perot. Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA. Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right?

(Laughter first from the audience, then from Hillary]

Clinton: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts. That sort of is a vague memory.


Here, Senator Clinton was obviously making a quip about Perot's debate with Gore and his use of charts. But how did Sirota react?

Really, what an offensive statement Clinton made to the millions of American and Mexican workers who lost their jobs and saw their wages destroyed thanks to NAFTA - a deal pushed by the Clinton administration. You want to talk about showing how utterly out of touch you are, that's how you do it - you laugh and say you barely remember the debate over the very trade deal that is destroying America's middle class.


Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA or Hillary Clinton, Sirota's reaction was way off the mark - either intentionally or unintentionally. Either way says much about Sirota.

2. Matt Yglesias called out Sirota's creative spin on reality in a thorough debunking of a piece he wrote on 'centrism.' Again, regardless of how you feel about the subject matter, it's clear Sirota simply didn't know what he was writing about:

It seems to me that David Sirota's latest attack on the DLC and other "centrists" is in need of a response... the problem is that he's gone off and created a straw man here, attacking the nefarious DLC for positions it doesn't hold... The point here isn't to become a thoroughgoing DLC apologist, and I've offered criticisms of some things they've said... Sirota's attacks are growing increasingly vitriolic and wind up having increasingly little to do with the actually existing DLC and its real merits and flaws.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html


http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005332.html" target="_blank">This blog also took on Sirota's less-than-honest piece.

3. No one was surprised at Sirota's little jab at Clinton here. I mean, all this has been debated thousands times on DU but he broke new ground here with his inclusion of Elizabeth Warren:

For example, in her book, The Two Income Trap, Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005... “As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs,” Warren wrote. “As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. … The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025321334

quoting: http://inthesetimes.com/article/17021/Clinton-Warren-differences


Typically, Sirota either didn't dig deep enough or left off some pertinent Warren information to better influence progressive minds. It only took me 30 seconds of Googling to find this from a 2007 PBS interview between Maria Hinojosa and Elizabeth Warren

HINOJOSA: There's a story that I wanna share with our listeners that you actually shared when you were on Now—on our TV program and it's a fascinating story about Hillary Clinton. You said that when the credit card companies were pushing for legislation to tighten the bankruptcy laws, and this is when President Clinton was in office you were summoned by Hillary Clinton to discuss this legislation. And you sat down with her in this back room and you filled her in on what this new bankruptcy law was gonna mean.

And she at that moment said, "Oh my God. We have to stop this law. It's not gonna happen." It gets passed in Congress and Bill Clinton, because of Hillary's conversation with you more or less, vetoes that bill. Now we fast forward to Senator Hillary Clinton, bankruptcy law comes for a vote and she votes for it?

WARREN: Yes.


This excerpt was quoted and posted a lot at the time - not as any statement on Warren because none of us knew who she was back then. Rather, it was meant damning evidence of how Senator Clinton has changed.

But Warren made a clarification in that interview and gave, in my opinion, some very insightful information about working in Washington that we already know:

WARREN: ... So it was one thing for Mrs. Clinton to be First Lady and not running for office and tell President Clinton what she felt about this bill. And then very different for Senator Clinton who had to get political contributions and run her—her campaign—she voted differently. Now I wanna be fair in this story.

Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure position—as Senator a couple of years later—when the bill came up once again—Senator Clinton was not there—the day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it. I—I tell my story not to try to thump Senator Clinton but the story is important because it's a reminder of how money talks in Washington.


Here is an excerpt from Clinton's statement on the bill:

This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.


I also want to add Senator Clinton voted for every single amendment to add consumer protections to the bill - each of which were rejected by both Republican majority and other Democrats. She voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.

As a side note, Joe Biden not only voted for the 2005 bill, he rallied around it.

As President Obama has said when referencing the ACA and Republican attacks on it, "if it's really so bad, why do you have to be misleading about it?"

David Sirota - if Hillary Clinton is so bad, why do you have to be misleading about her (and, for that matter, misleading about Elizabeth Warren?)

markpkessinger

(8,409 posts)
71. You may have a point on Nos. 2 and 3 . . .
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 08:43 PM
Jun 2015

. . . As for No. 1, I don't find Sirota's reaction to Hillary's response to be misleading in any way. Her response was a clever dodge of an uncomfortable question -- and a very insensitive one at that.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
26. The only reliable sources are polls from 2013 and anti-Left DU'ers
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:28 PM
Jun 2015

Who accuse Democratic candidates of being segregationist gun-nuts.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
40. anti left DUers?
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 10:47 PM
Jun 2015

Well! I never! There's no such thing as an "anti left DUer" don't ya know!? Every one here is a Democrat and by definition, left. Can't you tell!? Good god!

Hee hee

merrily

(45,251 posts)
80. Or a video of Hillary.
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 05:29 AM
Jun 2015

No matter what links I posted, one of DUs more dishonest Hillary supporters insisted that the fact that Hillary never read the NIE had all come from a single, incorrect source. So, I posted a transcript of Hillary saying it to Russert from the MTP website, whereupon, the theretofore persistent DUer vanished from the subthread.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
41. certainly isn't how I want anyone in public office acting
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 10:56 PM
Jun 2015

There are those with principles and those that pretend to have them.

Frankly, I want to know why there are still so many starving children in the world with all the money corporations give to "charity. " absolutely could feed all the starving children in the world with the billions collected, many times over.

I want to know why there are not schools and farms everywhere in the world that they're needed with this astronomical amount of money

I know that what I just said has zero to do with the OP. I just can't stand that someone with the kind of wealth she has, and the amount of money collected by the Clinton foundation that we're not hearing - forget it. I'm going off on another tangent. I'm tired.

markpkessinger

(8,409 posts)
67. Thank you!
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 04:28 PM
Jun 2015

It is truly disturbing to me that so few seem to be troubled by a candidate who constantly manages to skate so close to the outer edges of ethical conduct.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
83. It certainly is
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 09:00 AM
Jun 2015

And frankly, if it happens once or even twice, it's possible that it doesn't mean anything. But when it's constant, there's a great likelihood there's more to it.

wyldwolf

(43,873 posts)
10. 'Progressives' still looking for their smoking gun, using any source towards that goal
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:22 PM
Jun 2015

Becoming worse than the Arkansas Project.

raindaddy

(1,370 posts)
11. This is something I would expect from Dick Cheney...
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:25 PM
Jun 2015

Is there any criteria anymore for being able to have a (D) behind your name? Guess not?

Thanks for posting this.. No way I'll vote for this woman. How is this not illegal? And who ends up paying for it when this stuff gets in the hands of some terrorist group.. Not Hillary Clinton, not the weapons contractors, innocent civilians and our troops.

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
21. Hey, the poor woman was stuck working at Walmart for years.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:08 PM
Jun 2015

Let her earn a few bucks to supplement her SS and cat food.

zentrum

(9,866 posts)
29. Been a Democrat
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:33 PM
Jun 2015

…since I was a little child and my father was the Democratic Party Precinct organizer. I know a Democrat when I see one and she is a weather vane who stands for one thing only—the further fame and power of one HRC.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
35. When push comes to shove...
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 09:02 PM
Jun 2015

If she is the candidate on our side...she will not win.

She has too much baggage and FuksNews, Hate Radio, Pukes, Baggers, women haters and on and on...will HAMMER non-stop 24/7 about her.

There may be Bush Burnout but there is Clinton Burnout too.

zentrum

(9,866 posts)
50. It's true.
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 08:33 AM
Jun 2015

There is Clinton burnout. Both for the real scandals and the phony ones. And even the phony ones (mostly) I blame them for—because they are both so careless. The carelessness comes from arrogance I think. Wish they'd both fold it up and just go do their Foundation work. Like the Carters.

Unknown Beatle

(2,672 posts)
37. So, after all is said and done, all HRC was
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 09:47 PM
Jun 2015

during her term as SoS was a glorified salesperson for defense contractors and her payment were donations to the Clinton Foundation.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
56. Yes, nothing new here, SOSs have for years been promoting trade and commerce.
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 10:09 AM
Jun 2015

The difference in this case is the way influence was pedaled for personal gain.

That is entirely fresh.

IkeRepublican

(406 posts)
44. GOP isn't going to touch this with a 10 foot pole
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 12:14 AM
Jun 2015

They try it and the Hillary Camp will get every bit of data on all the Repuke candidates along with plenty of others in Congress and bury them all the way down to the mantle.

markpkessinger

(8,409 posts)
66. So, in other words . . .
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 04:24 PM
Jun 2015

. . . since Republicans are just as venal as HRC, it's all good. Is that what you're saying?

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
62. We've got to be careful about hating on the RWers. They may end up voting for Bernie
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 02:51 PM
Jun 2015

because he is talking about issues they believe in. And this info on Clinton? I'd say surprising but it's not. She's never met a banker, now it appears arms dealer she didn't like. Brings back the photo of her hugging Henry Kissinger...ugh. Maybe the Benghazi-type fluff is to keep at bay the real stuff?

We'll see if Bernie picks up on it. I don't care if Fox News or the Moonies bring it out...which they probably will...much later. If it's true...and it appears to be pretty damning...the sooner it's out to the common folk the better.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
81. You can't prove a direct quid pro quo there, either.
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 05:32 AM
Jun 2015

Or in using the Lincoln bedroom like a Red Roof Inn for donors.

All just mere RW speculation and insinuation.

silenttigersong

(957 posts)
70. I am thankfull
Wed Jun 3, 2015, 07:29 PM
Jun 2015

That Pap and cousins are on this .Anyone else who posts concerns is thrown into the Clinton spin cycle,Pathetic situation.

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts)
76. Trashing the source- What the old school campaigners seem to miss.... is this is a new era.
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 04:56 AM
Jun 2015

A new social media era where even anonymous memes can destroy careers.



The MSM is disappearing quicker than than water in California. The days of the boob tube are over.

Ignoring a candidate like Sanders or others who resonate with the new media by trying to trash the source, ignoring the issues, is a losing proposition. People these days increasingly seek out information and don't passively sit getting fed it. As mcglauglin that old blowhard who nobody watches says...bye bye. This is the anonymous era where anyone with a Twitter account or YouTube channel can impact millions.

I don't watch TV unless it's on YouTube, worldstar, liveleak, iTunes or Netflix, passively being fed pablum is a waste of time.

btw great video. Thanks‼️

https://m.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
82. Looks like the responsibilities of a SOS can be looked upon as yes
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 06:38 AM
Jun 2015

Hillary is a success with this information, one of the responsibilities is commerce, thanks for the heads up on her success.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»How Hillary Ruined Her Le...