Posted on Jul 4, 2015
Hillary Clinton along with other politicians approved the sale of arms for Terrorist Enemies of the U.S.
2.13K
28
5
4
4
0
I don't know what to say about this. I would like to think there is no way it could be true, but we've done it before, supplied arms to groups we later ended up fighting. I don't have a bias for or against Hilary Clinton (well maybe now I do) and I was not searching for negative information about her when I stumbled on this.
Watch the segment to hear the discussion about who knew what.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/02/judge-nap-hillary-clinton-approved-arms-terrorists-syria-libya
Watch the segment to hear the discussion about who knew what.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/02/judge-nap-hillary-clinton-approved-arms-terrorists-syria-libya
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Hillary Clinton
Politics Hillary Clinton
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
5
5
0
Yet these same politicians wish to severely restrict our own Second Amendment rights...
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't think that this is surprising, but if there is actually a trail of paper or digits that leads to that conclusion, Mrs Clinton is done in politics. This is a pretty clear-cut impeachable offense.
What is interesting to me is that an operation like this requires the informing and assent of the Select Intelligence Committee. Either they were informed and knew all this Bengazi business and stuff about arms transfers all along - just keeping their mouths shut because of it's sensitive nature, or they were not informed and multiple laws were broken.
The whole "spontaneous demonstration" story smelled like a cover story all along. I don't think everyone needs to know everything that the US is up to overseas. But I do know that we are a republic with built in safeguards between the branches of government as well as accountability. We are a nation of laws. We knew darned well that there was plenty of bad actors in the Libyan rebel groups and the Syrian groups had been questionable before Islamic State arose. The Nusra Front is an Al Queda affiliate, for Christ's sake.
All of these rotten groups have common origins and mostly common cause. They are linked and to think one is better than the next is foolish beyond words. The only thing that separates them is different visions of who should be in charge after the jihad ends. If they want to fight each other, let them. The last thing they need is more arms; they are content to do it with knives and small arms.
What is interesting to me is that an operation like this requires the informing and assent of the Select Intelligence Committee. Either they were informed and knew all this Bengazi business and stuff about arms transfers all along - just keeping their mouths shut because of it's sensitive nature, or they were not informed and multiple laws were broken.
The whole "spontaneous demonstration" story smelled like a cover story all along. I don't think everyone needs to know everything that the US is up to overseas. But I do know that we are a republic with built in safeguards between the branches of government as well as accountability. We are a nation of laws. We knew darned well that there was plenty of bad actors in the Libyan rebel groups and the Syrian groups had been questionable before Islamic State arose. The Nusra Front is an Al Queda affiliate, for Christ's sake.
All of these rotten groups have common origins and mostly common cause. They are linked and to think one is better than the next is foolish beyond words. The only thing that separates them is different visions of who should be in charge after the jihad ends. If they want to fight each other, let them. The last thing they need is more arms; they are content to do it with knives and small arms.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
This stinks, and smells like a massive cover up! Pay attention at the 2:24 mark of the video, this puts the blood of Ambassador Chris Stevens' on somebody's hands......
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
If you take a look at the historical perspective, you will see that there is absolutely nothing unusual about the transactions.
During WWII American firms were legally selling goods and materials to "neutral" Swiss firms (previously wholly owned subsidiaries of the American firms) which then sold them to Germany.
President Reagan sold arms to the Iranians to get money to buy arms for the Contras.
A whole series of American Presidents sold arms to General Chiang Kai-shek a corrupt and murderous thug who robbed his own people and who only avoided being prosecuted because the US government defined him as "a good guy".
A whole series of American Presidents sold arms to Syngman Rhee a corrupt and murderous thug who robbed his own people and who only avoided being prosecuted because the US government defined him as "a good guy".
During WWII American firms were legally selling goods and materials to "neutral" Swiss firms (previously wholly owned subsidiaries of the American firms) which then sold them to Germany.
President Reagan sold arms to the Iranians to get money to buy arms for the Contras.
A whole series of American Presidents sold arms to General Chiang Kai-shek a corrupt and murderous thug who robbed his own people and who only avoided being prosecuted because the US government defined him as "a good guy".
A whole series of American Presidents sold arms to Syngman Rhee a corrupt and murderous thug who robbed his own people and who only avoided being prosecuted because the US government defined him as "a good guy".
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
A big difference is that the Arms Export Control Act was not enacted until 1976. If the story above is accurate, there appears to be two significant breeches of the law at issue here. Basically, government or private weapons transactions are prohibited to nations or factions that have been identified as terrorist organizations or state sponsors of terrorism.
section 40(d): “The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,” Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act.
section 40(g) of the AECA, the (Executive Branch must) also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — “the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items,” along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.
It would appear that both elements were conveniently forgotten or deliberately circumvented, and the approval was given at least at the level of Cabinet Secretaries. This is a big problem. The deaths of Americans in Benghazi and the mayhem in Syria and Iraq draw attention to some very shaky policy-making.
Someone has some explaining to do.
section 40(d): “The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,” Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act.
section 40(g) of the AECA, the (Executive Branch must) also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — “the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items,” along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.
It would appear that both elements were conveniently forgotten or deliberately circumvented, and the approval was given at least at the level of Cabinet Secretaries. This is a big problem. The deaths of Americans in Benghazi and the mayhem in Syria and Iraq draw attention to some very shaky policy-making.
Someone has some explaining to do.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google