Is this just a coincidence?
As secretary of state, Clinton approved the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia. Just prior to her becoming secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had apparently donated $10+ million to the Clinton Foundation. And Boeing contributed $900,000 to the foundation 2 months before the deal was finalized.
According to the IBT article, Clinton’s state department approved $165 billion in arms sales to 20 countries who had donated to the Clinton Foundation. It’s also worth noting that many of these countries were accused by the state department of funding terrorism, and are authoritarian human rights abusers, such as “Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar”.
And then there is Clinton’s history with her public opposition to and then support of a “free” trade agreement with Columbia. She ran in 2008 as a vocal opponent of the trade agreement. And as secretary of state, she publicly spoke out against human rights abuses in Columbia, while simultaneously developing ties with Frank Giustra, who is now on the board of the Clinton Foundation. Giustra was the financier who founded Pacific Rubiales. Apparently, after the oil company and Giustra provided millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, Clinton changed her position and supported it.
The two IBT articles are great examples of investigative journalism, but they contain a ton of information – none of it good for Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
Could this all just be a coincidence?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
9 Answers
The biggest fallacy I see here is the (just invented) “Autocrat Fallacy” or, more familiarly, ‘the Trump delusion’.
Basically that officials in the US government have the ability to operate in a vacuum and summarily sign contracts that dispatch trillions of dollars to recipients of their choice.
This is not North Korea, and things just don’t work that way.
Clinton likely signed off on more agreements that had their foundation in the Bush administration than in the Obama administration.
And ‘Praise Cheeses’ for that! Look at the bipartisan boondoggle that the rush to Homeland Security brought us!
Some of it might not be coincidental, but a lot of it probably is. The reasons that @ibstubro points out are important, but so is this one: the US has a long history of being massively hypocritical (or, as the politicians say, “pragmatic”) with regard to both its “enemies list” and human rights—especially in the Middle East. Also, the Clintons have a long history of taking money from anyone and everyone. So its almost inevitable that someone getting something from the government has at some point donated to the Clintons.
US has been giving military aid to the Saudis since the early ‘70s.
It is not a coincidence. It is plain old corruption.
She’s dirty. Rolling in filth. This is why it continually staggers me that anyone who supports Bernie could switch to her.
@Rarebear: “US has been giving military aid to the Saudis since the early ‘70s.”
I suppose the relevant part is the large increases in arms sales to countries who contribute to the Clinton Foundation. It could just be coincidence, and it could just be a sign of corporate Democrats’ ties to companies that sell weapons. But if you look at the data in this link (near the bottom, there is a table), you’ll see that Qatar’s sales increased 1482% from the same period of GWB’s presidency. And the UAE saw an increase of 1005%.
Is this just a matter of the industry that corporate Democrats serve? Why the donations to the Clinton Foundation?
There are many reasons why the US sells weapons to Saudi Arabia and other countries but the donation to the Clinton Foundation isn’t really one of them. I am all for stopping the arms trade altogether and I am sure that the Saudi’s $10 million donation was put to far better uses than the $29 billion they spent on military hardware.
The question misses the point that the SOS is in actuality the mouthpiece for the President in matters of foreign policy. THAT is her real function as part of his cabinet. The interesting coincidence that American foreign policy dovetails nicely with her own self enrichment is more than predictable, it’s the actual model for the way the game is configured. And here we arrive at the crucial reality regarding “American interests” and national diplomacy. Whenever the term is used it is essential to question exactly WHICH Americans’ interests we’re talking about.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
