Arms dealer says administration made him scapegoat on Libya operation to 'protect' Clinton

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm in denial? LOL. Do a bit of actual research and get back to me.

Learn about how your government works.

PS: What question did Mr. Paul actually ask Secretary Clinton? Start there.

So basically what you're telling me is that you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion so you would rather insult anybody who disagrees with you?

Rand Paul specifically asked Hillary Clinton if the annex in Libya was involved in weapons procurement. These leaks now confirm that this was indeed the case. She lied about it to Rand Paul, Congress, and the American public.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

No, that's not what I'm basically telling you.

If you're insulted by being told to find out the facts of what you're talking about, that's your issue.

No, she didn't lie about anything to anyone. Yes, Congress (specifically the Senate) approves all arms sales of this magnitude.

If you can't parse between the facts of the matter and your beliefs, I can't help you.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Gryphon66

She was not "given tons of money from these groups." You know that's not true.

So Saudi Arabia didn't donate 20 million to the Clinton Foundation?

The Clinton Foundation is not Hillary Clinton, and is not the topic of this thread.

Do you have any points that aren't wingnut MSM based?

Yoour denial of facts is very impressive! You keeo blathering about how the Clinton Foundation doesn't matter but anyone that is remotely reasonable can see this is not true.

But fine, lets look at money that wasn't given to the foundation. Here are a couple.

Hillary isn’t the only Clinton to have considerable Saudi influence. While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, Bill Clinton received $600,000 in speaking fees for two talks from the Saudi Arabian government. This was after receiving more than $10 million from it for his presidential library

www.americanlibertyreport.com...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to have received the most expensive gift, described as “white gold jewelry with teardrop rubies and diamonds containing a necklace, a bracelet, earrings, and a ring.”

Bestowed upon Clinton by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, the jewelry is valued at half a million dollars. It is pending transfer to the GSA, according to the State Department.

thehill.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh but the facts are that she's a reptilian that eats babies!

How do I know this?

I checked the facts!

Where are they you ask?

Why don't you do a little research and get back to me, silly!

I don't have the time to be finding legitimate sources to back up my wild claims. That's why I vote democrat! I listen to whatever my Queen tells me.

/sarcasm

a reply to: Grambler

Now you're appealing to common knowledge? LOL "Anyone can see this is/is not true." Argumentum ad populum? LOL

Your debate skills are really slipping lately; you're on the verge of being boring to talk to.

Bill Clinton is a popular speaker? Is that a crime?

King Abdullah likes Hillary Clinton? Is that a crime?

Did you notice the last phrase in your second quote? "It (the necklace) is pending transfer to the GSA, according to the State Department."

Did you miss this point earlier in your article from The Hill:

Most of the gifts are turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration or the General Services Administration (GSA), though recipients are allowed to retain many for official use or buy them for their personal collections.

Hmmm... so Clinton didn't get to keep this necklace? Hard to call that a bribe, eh?

Now, if we're done with the barrels of red herring you're tossing ... did you have proof that there were any arms sales outside those approved by Congress?

If not ... I think it's time to admit that the repeated claim that "Hillary sold weapons to terrorists" is just BS.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh but the facts are that she's a reptilian that eats babies!

How do I know this?

I checked the facts!

Where are they you ask?

Why don't you do a little research and get back to me, silly!

I don't have the time to be finding legitimate sources to back up my wild claims. That's why I vote democrat! I listen to whatever my Queen tells me.

/sarcasm

I think you've demonstrated the level of your dialogue here.

You're confused about the difference between arms sales and supposed covert transfers (from the CIA Annex in Libya which has NOTHING to do with the topic here and for which there has been no proof at all).

You're confused about the basic procedures for how the United States sells weapons to other countries.

You've just shown your level of debate abilities, and you've bored me to tears.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Now you're appealing to common knowledge? LOL "Anyone can see this is/is not true." Argumentum ad populum? LOL

Did you not say this? "Clinton knew, as Congress knew, as we all know that Saudi and Qatar have their own agendas in the Middle East" So we all know this do we, everyone knows that? Argumentum ad populum? Hypocrite.

And I love you usual tactic of appeals to authority.

We have to ignore the millions that the Clinton Foundation has got, because its not on topic.

Your debate skills are really slipping lately; you're on the verge of being boring to talk to.

Of course it is boring to talk to someone who proves you wrong constantly.

Speaking of debate skills, lets get back to your great argument that we can't hold Hillary accountable because she didn't personally sell a weapon. HAHAHA! This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in such a long time!

What a great debater you are.

Bill Clinton is a popular speaker? Is that a crime?

You asked me to provide examples of the Saudis giving money that wasn't to the foundation. I do that, and you change the goal post and say that money was deserved.

King Abdullah likes Hillary Clinton? Is that a crime?

Did you notice the last phrase in your second quote? "It (the necklace) is pending transfer to the GSA, according to the State Department."

Did you miss this point earlier in your article from The Hill:

"
Most of the gifts are turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration or the General Services Administration (GSA), though recipients are allowed to retain many for official use or buy them for their personal collections.
"

Hmmm... so Clinton didn't get to keep this necklace? Hard to call that a bribe, eh?

The King gave it to her. She is allowed to use the necklace for official business. But you are right, giving a half a million dollar necklace to someone is no big deal.

Now, if we're done with the barrels of red herring you're tossing ... did you have proof that there were any arms sales outside those approved by Congress?

If not ... I think it's time to admit that the repeated claim that "Hillary sold weapons to terrorists" is just BS.

Do you have proof that congress knew that the government of Saudi Arabia was sponsoring Isis?

Did congress sign off on her sending her people over to run PR for the Saudis to cover up their crimes?

Did congress get half a million dollar speaking fees or necklaces from the Saudis? Did their charities get 25 million dollars?

Even if every person in congress knew that saudi was among Isis, and approved the deal, how in gods name does that absolve Hillary?

Before congress apporved the deal, it was a "top priority" of Hillary to sell weapons to the saudis, weapons that we know she knew would end up with Isis.

Had congress approved or disproved of this deal, it doesn't change the fact that Hillary wanted to arm Isis.

You are excusing her behavior because other acted poorly. This is not an excuse!

If members of congress knew the government of Saudi Arabia were arming Isis, and they still sold the arms, then they too have committed treason, and both the and Hillary should be jailed.

a reply to: Grambler

If you don't know that Saudi and Qatar have their own agendas in the Middle East I think the problem is with you.

There's a vast difference between common knowledge that everyone, well, knows, and making some ridiculous accusation that is unfounded and for which you have provided ZERO evidence and saying "everyone knows this." Specious hypocrite.

You're the only one who has to constantly self-declare victory Grambler.

There's no "if" that Congress approved the weapon sales. For example, they just did it again:

Senate rejects bid to block US-Saudi Arabia arms deal - CNN, Sept 21, 2016

Really, if you guys get some basic understanding of what's going on here, I'll continue the conversation. If not ...

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are right I am done with this conversation to after this post.

You constantly ignore points and try to focus on clever fallacies, while you engage in the same fallacies.

You make one point that you think proves something, and you refuse to even acknowledge all other points.

I know that congress generally approves these deals. I never claimed they didn't. Yet thats all you say.

You have ignored all of the following points.

Do you have proof that congress knew that the government of Saudi Arabia was sponsoring Isis?

Did congress sign off on her sending her people over to run PR for the Saudis to cover up their crimes?

Did congress get half a million dollar speaking fees or necklaces from the Saudis? Did their charities get 25 million dollars?

Even if every person in congress knew that saudi was among Isis, and approved the deal, how in gods name does that absolve Hillary?

Before congress apporved the deal, it was a "top priority" of Hillary to sell weapons to the saudis, weapons that we know she knew would end up with Isis.

Had congress approved or disproved of this deal, it doesn't change the fact that Hillary wanted to arm Isis.

You are excusing her behavior because other acted poorly. This is not an excuse!

If members of congress knew the government of Saudi Arabia were arming Isis, and they still sold the arms, then they too have committed treason, and both the and Hillary should be jailed.

And lets not gloss over your super great fantastic argument that Hillary didn't personally sell the guns. HAHAHA!!!!!

Oh and I guess I will add one more question for you not to answer.

If we can't blame Hillary because congress signed off on it, then do you also believe we can't blame Bush for the Iraq war, because congress signed off on it?

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, I'll believe you're "done" when I hear the blissful sound of silence.

I do ignore ridiculous points that have no basis in reality, guilty.

I do point out the considerable fallacious reasoning in posts, guilty.

The one point that I have made here does disprove the other points being made here: Hillary Clinton did not approve arms deals on her own. Clinton didn't "sell" anything to anybody, either literally or metaphorically.

You're the one that claimed that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to terrorists. I agree that's ludicrous.