|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Fergie wrote:Nothing illegal, but it seems that should be the sort of thing that is frowned upon in government. I personally feel that if you are a politician who accepts large amounts of cash, you should be ineligible for a position to give favors to those who paid you a lot of money. Obviously, many people disagree with this idea. What I perceive as bribery is shrewd business dealings to others.
It's not frowned upon in the government though. You're basically describing US foreign policy since 1940 (with the Wilson and Monroe doctrines being the basis/justification for doing it).
It's so entrenched, I highly doubt Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson would be able to change it even if they were elected president. Name a president who didn't engage in this policy, and I'd bet they were born before the end of Reconstruction.
I don't like it either, but I'm not going to vote based on an issue that zero candidates can even change (regardless of their opinion on the subject). This is going to continue as long as the US is a superpower, and probably for a while afterwards too.
Edit: Here's an example, Carter was the most vocal opponent of arms sales of any president in the past 70 years. Yet his administration sold billions of arms EVERY YEAR. Including:Quote:Even before announcing this decision, Carter had made a virtual about-face on the arms export issue. In February 1978 he authorized the transfer of two hundred advanced combat aircraft to three countries in the Middle East—-supplying sixty F-15s to Saudi Arabia, fifty F-5Es to Egypt, and a combination of ninety F-15s and F-16s to Israel. Six months later he gave preliminary approval to the sale of another $12 billion worth of high-tech weaponry to Iran. Other major sales of this sort were announced in the final months of his administration.
And that was a president who saw arms sales as...
I hate to speak for Comrade Fergie, but I don't think he's necessarily talking about the generalized imperialist war-mongering and weapon sales to dictators that are, indeed, the United States' stock in trade, but rather the explicit "pay-to-play" nature of the "donate to the Clinton Foundation, get greenlighted for weapon sales" game that appears to have been going on while she was Secretary of State.
I'll quote the first two paragraphs of the Mother Jones article on the chance that posters aren't reading it:
"In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom's troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.
"The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department. IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses."