Bill Clinton, the 20 Million Dollar Man
Jan 22, 2008 Political
Last night during the Democratic debate there was some banter about Hillary Clinton sitting on the board of Wal Mart (that evil corporation that does not allow unions). The news today discussed this and the fact that the Clintons owned Wal Mart stock as part of their blind trust. I think it is unlikely that they did not know they had Wal Mart stock because they probably had it before the blind trust was established but then again, I don’t care what stock they own. Stocks only matter when a Republican owns them even if they have been awarded to charity (see Dick Cheney and Halliburton).
The Clintons went through their blind trust to see if there was anything that would be problematic (if it was truly blind, would it matter) and they got rid of the Wal Mart stock. This was done to prevent problems during her run for the White House. Interestingly, they (probably more so Bill) are now in the process of severing ties with a company that will end up paying Bill about $20 million dollars. The company is Yucaipa Cos. and it is run by long time Clinton pal Ron Burkle. Interestingly, this company has ties with Dubai though the pay out comes from domestic dealings.
Not so long ago the President was trying to allow Dubai Ports permission to run six ports here in America. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were huge opponents and Clinton was very vocal in her opposition. At the time, Bill was advising the company on how to make things smoother and get the deal passed (which did not happen). It appears that in addition to Bill there were other Hillary advisers working with Dubai only in this case it was to take over two defense plants.
Bill is severing the ties with Yucaipa because he does not want the relationship to reflect negatively on Hillary and her campaign. He is ending the relationship to prevent potential conflicts of interest. The question is, were there not conflicts related to her position as a Senator? If there were, why has he waited until now to end this relationship? If the only problem arises with her as president then why did he not end the relationship when she announced? Surely he was aware of any potential conflict.
Severing the tie to Dubai, a U.S. ally, will remove a potentially tricky problem for Mrs. Clinton. Questions raised about the activities of sovereign wealth funds — giant pools of money controlled by foreign governments — have become a campaign issue, as the funds have made a spate of multibillion-dollar investments in such corporate giants as Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mrs. Clinton said such purchases are “a source of concern,” partly because the foreign funds “lack transparency” and could be used by foreign governments as “instruments of foreign policy.” WSJ
With this item things become more clear. This was not a problem until Hillary called these kinds of relationships a “source of concern.” With that, Bill had to relieve himself of the burden of those kinds of concern so that Hillary’s chief rival, Senator Obama, would not be able to use the relationship against her as he did with her and Wal Mart.
The Clintons are opportunists and they only worry about potential conflicts when people discover them. They will keep potential conflicts alive as long as they can make money and there is no political liability (as in being discovered). Once there is mention of a problem or once Hillary makes a statement that is contrary to the Clinton’s behavior, things get changed. Of course, they always act as if there was never a problem and anyone who thinks otherwise is part of some conspiracy (Vast Right Wing or otherwise). Do as I say and not as I do.
I can’t help but wonder how Clinton and Schumer and the other Democrats would have acted if it were a Bill or Hillary Clinton that worked the Dubai Ports deal. Of course, the Republicans probably would have had a different opinion as well.
The Clintons have their hands in a lot of cookie jars. It will be interesting to see how many of them become public knowledge as the campaign season rolls along.
Others with similar items:
Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, third world county, Right Truth, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: blind trust, burkle, Clinton, conflict of interest, yucaipa
Another Lie About Bill Clinton?
Jan 21, 2008 Political
I was recently told in my comment section that a bunch of things about Bill Clinton were disproven including the story that he and Hillary fell asleep during the Reagan funeral. I watched that video and it looks like Bill is asleep and Hillary is trying to stay awake but, of course, if the Clintons say they were awake then who are we to question it?
The Reagan funeral might be something that can be debated but today Bill Clinton fell asleep during a church service commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King. The video leaves no doubt as Clinton falls asleep and his head drops down as he jerks back up to consciousness. You can see the story here (the story says he fell asleep at Reagan’s funeral) and you can see a video here.
I realize that this will probably be billed as some contrived story made up by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and those who worship the ground that Bill walks on will buy that however, this does not appear to be a hoax.
It is ironic that Bill claims that King’s “I Have a Dream” speech inspired him to get into public service. I guess he took the title literally.
UPDATE: For what its worth, I don’t care if Bill Clinton falls asleep or not. The point of the post was to counter a claim that the story of him falling asleep in the past was proved false or made up by the right. This post is in response to the comment, just to make it clear (for the boobs who are not able to tell). **and I don’t mean the commenter**
Which Clinton is Running Against Obama?
Jan 21, 2008 Political
During this primary season we have a Democratic Party which includes H. Rodham Clinton, wife of former president Bill Clinton. When the campaigns started over a year ago a lot was made of Bill and how he would be involved. Hillary made it known that this was her campaign and that she was running on her own and when things started out it certainly looked that way. Then Hillary was rocked in Iowa and went into New Hampshire with a double digit deficit. Enter Bill Clinton.
Bill has been very involved since Hillary’s embarrassing loss in Iowa and since then he has been the one confronting B. Hussein Obama. Sure, Hillary cried to garner the sympathy of women but it has been Bill who has been attacking. Bill went on the warpath and said Obama’s record of opposition to the war was a fairy tale and then he defended the teacher’s union’s lawsuit in an effort to disenfranchise voters in Nevada. Bill then questioned the veracity of the process and accused the union of voter suppression though eyewitnesses tell that it was the Clinton campaign trying to suppress the vote and disenfranchise Obama supporters. That info came from a member of the Daily Kos.
Bill Clinton is now campaigning in South Carolina while Hillary runs through the tsunami Tuesday states. If she is the one running for president, why is she not in South Carolina? It is not unusual for campaigns to send surrogates to future states but usually the candidate campaigns in the active state. Hillary is not in SC and Bill is so that begs the question, which Clinton is running against Obama? Bill Clinton is vastly more popular than his wife and was widely viewed as the first black president which might explain his presence in SC but he is not the candidate. If we are to believe that Hillary is her own person why is she not the one campaigning? If Hillary is capable of being president on her own merits then why does she send her husband out to fight her fights?
When Bill ran in 1992 he told people that with him you get two presidents for the price of one. Is there any doubt that Bill is running for his third term this time as Hillary’s co-president? From what we have seen in her campaign, is there any doubt that Bill will be calling some of the shots? Is there any doubt that Bill will have an active roll in governing this country?
People can make the claim that H. Rodham is the strongest candidate but the truth is, her strength is Bill and without him she is nothing. She depends on him and without his strengths her negatives make her completely unelectable and this is just in the Democratic base. In the national election, nothing Bill says or does will erase the greater than 50% negatives she carries. Republicans will come out in droves to keep her out of office.
Of course, if the Clinton crime family keeps working on the voter disenfranchisement they might be successful in granting Bill his third term.
Tags: bill is running, Clinton, disenfranchise, negatives, third term
Presidential Words I Agree With
Jan 21, 2008 Political
These are the words the president stated in a State of the Union speech nd I agree with them:
“Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation’s wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq’s arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, “You cannot defy the will of the world,” and when I say to him, “You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. Washington Post
Saddam Hussein was perceived as a threat and it was acknowledged, in more than 16 words, that he had a viable nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons program. This speech was from 1998, long after the time that the left keeps saying that Hussein got rid of weapons. Ten months later, then President Clinton, signed HR 4655 into law. This law instituted a policy of regime change in Iraq. True to form, the law explicitly stated that it did not address the use of military force. I guess he was saving that option for when another scandal popped up.
There is little difference between what Clinton said and what Bush said and there is little difference between their policies. The major difference is that Bush took action while Clinton was getting a little action.
Let this also serve as notice to those who say I never find anything good to say about Bill Clinton.
Tags: Clinton, hussein wmd, regime change, state of the union
MLK Holiday is an Insult
Jan 21, 2008 General
That little gem according to Dallas minister Peter Johnson. Johnson believes that celebrating King’s birth rather than the date of his death by assassination is an insult to him [King} and all he stood for. Johnson also believes that celebrating the birth of King rather than his death allows whites to escape the guilt of King’s death:
“We have ignored the essence of his life and the horror of his death,” said Johnson. “We’ve allowed white America to escape the guilt of his assassination and we’ve allowed black America to drift back into a coma.” United Press International
The first thing to recognize is that we celebrate the lives of people. We celebrate the life of Lincoln not the date of his assassination and we celebrate the birth and resurrection (rebirth) of Jesus. This minister is focusing on the death of King in order to do what? Does he want to stir more hatred? His assertion that this allows white America to escape guilt. What part of white America is guilty? The only person guilty in the death of King died in jail.
There was no huge conspiracy among all the whites to kill King. One deranged guy with a gun shot King and that man was tried and served life in prison. There might have been a few others associated with the assassination plot but they hardly represent white America. John Kennedy was killed by a white guy and we do not have a federal holiday commemorating his death in order to flourish in white guilt. As a matter of fact, we do not have a holiday celebrating Kennedy’s birth.
Many white Americans who are alive today were not around when King was assassinated and 100 years after King’s death there will few, if any, people around who were here then so why would we have a holiday to perpetuate white guilt? Why would we have a holiday to perpetuate white guilt when few whites were involved?
We celebrate the life of Dr. King by commemorating his birth, the beginning of a great journey. Today in America we have large numbers of blacks and other minorities in positions of great responsibility and we have a black man running for the highest office in this nation with a good chance to win.
Certainly that is the part of the King legacy that matters rather than some perceived notion of white guilt.
Tags: assassination, insult, MLK holiday