“Hillary Clinton got $500,000 gift from Saudis to vote for Syria war” – Webster Tarpley

According to Iranian Press TV, American historian Webster Griffin Tarpley said that former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has received 500,000 dollars in jewelry from Saudi Arabia to vote for war on Syria.

Photo: Wikipedia
Photo: Wikipedia

“The Saudis and the Qataris are reported to be deploying huge amounts of money for bribery, bribery to the families and political and business interests of these members of congress,” Tarpley said in an interview with Press TV on Friday.

“Hillary Clinton has received 500,000 dollars in jewelry from the king of Saudi Arabia and Hillary Clinton just came out for war,” he added.

Tarpley also said that the US war on Syria with congressional authorization, but without a UN Security Council mandate “is illegal.”

4 COMMENTS

  1. $500K? Seems a bit much for a two-dollar pros*****e. That being said, I have no doubt that whomever launched sarin gas in Syria probably only did so in response to a YouTube video which nobody ever saw. As for Hillary, she may still be suffering a touch of PTSD from her terrifying dash across that airstrip in Bosnia under intense sniper fire, which would make anyone a bit touchy, confused, and unsettled. I, for one, will always be comforted by her courageous and stirring words, “What difference does it make?” It ranks right up there with FDR’s “Day of infamy” speech, and Churchill’s ” We shall never surrender” speech. Hillary’s “What difference does it make?” speech might be even more memorable than Churchill’s and FDR’s, as it perfectly and completely defines her tenure as Secretary of State.

  2. First of all, Hillary Clinton is the former Secretary of State. She’s not in Congress, and doesn’t get to “vote” for anything.

    Second, Webster Griffin Tarpley is clearly not much of a historian – or at least, knows little about the norms of international relations. Gifts are exchanged all the time between high-level government officials. And in the United States, they can’t be kept. It’s in the Constitution. They are turned over the the National Archives, where they are stored, displayed in some manner (like in a museum) or sold at auction.

    She received no gift personally, it was immediately the property of the United States, and will be handled in accordance with the law.

    I personally don’t care what you think of her… But come on, this is irresponsible of this supposed “historian”. Look into his background. He’s a conspiracy theorist. And what he said during the interview is factually untrue.

    • Second: Hillary Clinton is a PRIVATE citizen and holds no political elected or appointed office, so YES, she can accept the gift. And, her vapid refusal of running for President in 2013 aside, she still has influence among the Democrat Elitists in DC, so currying her favor is a means to an end. As far as Tarpley being a “conspiracy theorist” is concerned, that is what was heaped on McCarthy while he was alive and then dead. However, we now KNOW he was RIGHT.

  3. “She received no gift personally, it was immediately the property of the United States, and will be handled in accordance with the law.” — Swift76

    You are only partially correct. If you think she can only benefit from the gift if it becomes her own personal property, you’re wrong. So long as it is valuable, on display, and has her name on it in some way or another, it benefits her historical profile via her ego.

LEAVE A REPLY