More Clinton Hypocrisy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, Mar 11, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Great article by Linda Chavez guaranteed to bring out the Clinton defenders


    Hypocrisy catching up
    By Linda Chavez
    March 4, 2007


    The Clintons have always behaved like the rules that governed everyone else didn't apply to them. And they've largely gotten away with it -- but perhaps Hillary Clinton's quest for the White House will finally bring this to an end.
    Two stories in recent days suggest the mainstream media are uncomfortable with ignoring the Clintons' hypocrisy, especially about money.
    Until Bill and Hillary left the White House in January 2001, they were hardly what you would call rich. They had never owned a home until they purchased one in late 1999 so Hillary could have a permanent address in the state she hoped to represent in the U.S. Senate. Their friends' and political allies' efforts to enhance their financial status when the two occupied the Arkansas governor's mansion had ended badly in investigations into land deals and mysterious commodities windfalls.
    These investigations, along with those into Bill's infamous peccadilloes and the Republicans' impeachment efforts, left the Clintons with huge legal bills. But they quickly made up for it by amassing a small fortune over the next six years. And that has provoked some concern among the media.
    Over the last several days, The Washington Post has put two stories on its front page that reflect this uneasiness. The first focused on Bill Clinton's lucrative speaking engagements, which The Post noted in its headline garnered nearly $40 million since 2001. The second story revealed that, despite Senate ethics rules requiring her to do so, Hillary Clinton failed to disclose the amount of money she and Bill had sheltered from taxes through a family charity they set up when they left the White House (though she amended her disclosures after the story appeared).
    The Post did important investigative reporting on both these stories, which should quell some conservatives' fears that the mainstream media is somehow in cahoots with the Clintons in their efforts to move back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    The revelations about her failure to report the tax shelter caused Mrs. Clinton some embarrassment at a time when her presidential campaign surely did not need that kind of attention. More importantly, the story about Bill's speaking engagements hinted at some unsavory links between the former president's hefty fees and his wife's own presidential aspirations.
    "Many of Bill Clinton's six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton's top backers in her Senate campaigns," note John Solomon and Matthew Mosk. For example, The Post's reporters discovered Goldman Sachs paid Bill $650,000 for four speeches in the last few years, while its employees and political action committee (PAC) have given Hillary $270,000 since 2000.
    Citigroup also made large contributions to the Clintons' efforts by paying Bill $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004 and committing $5.5 million toward his Global Initiative aimed at helping the poor in other countries start their own small businesses, while its employees and PAC gave more than $320,000 to Hillary's campaigns. If this isn't buying influence, what is?
    Bill Clinton may give one heck of a speech and his charitable efforts may be commendable, but does anyone really believe his benefactors aren't prompted to give largely because they want to buy access and influence with Hillary? And what better way than to fatten the couple's bank account, boost the ever-insecure former president's ego and help the missus reach the pinnacle of American politics?
    Maybe Bill and Hillary thought no one would notice this influence-buying. More likely, they believed they would be given a pass, since it was being done in the noble cause of furthering their liberal policy agenda.
    Like some 16th-century Antinomians who believed they were anointed by God and could ignore the moral laws that applied to the rest of mankind, the Clintons seem to think they can do whatever they want in pursuit of some greater good. But the more ambitious and greedy they become, the less likely they'll get away with it.
    Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal."



    http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/lchavez.htm
     
  2. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,837
    Thanks Received:
    12,787
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,866
    I really love how the Extreme Left shriek about the Bush Family's relationship with the Saudi Royal Family - but are ignoring how Clinton accepted $600,000 from them for a speaking engagement.

    In fact, the majority of Clinton's speaking fees are from foreigners - which I suppose fits in with his plans to become Secretary General of the U.N. He and Hilary really do believe in World Government. The U.S. Presidency is just a stepping stone for that.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Remember one the rules liberals live by

    "Do not do as I do - do as I say"

    Liberals usually accuse Republicans of doing what the libs themselfs are doing
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Not too mention all the money Carter has picked up for speaking engagements and donations to his library and 'center.' Gag.
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Also all his Jew bashing and coddling of terrorists?

    I remember very well the four years of President Peanut. The economy was in shambles, terrorists laughing at us, Peanut sitting in the Oval Office unable to make a decision, and while people watch their heating bils double overnight - Pres peanut wears a sweater on TV and tell the folks to tunr down the heat and conserve energy
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    The Jew baiting/blaming is the result of the payouts or just his own Redneck/religious background, for which he's been amply rewarded financially.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    kathy, I was not around 70 years ago, but all the Jew bashing and racism does remind me of what I have read about Berlin in the 1930's

    It is disgusting a former US President is part of the racism toward the Jews these days
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I wasn't around in the 30's either. :clubbing your head: However, while you are certainly correct on the rise of anti-semitism globally, I don't think that it's necessarily related to the Clinton/Carter discussion.
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    They are sure adding to it Kathy. You had most of the board of the Carter Center walk away form their jobs, and Pres Peanut dismissing the Jewish leaders response as an attempt to raise money
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    And that's what I'm addressing, while Carter might be bought and paid for, the Center wasn't in lockstep. I'm convinced there are bad winds blowing. Unfortunately mistakes are being used as reasons to ignore the obvious by too many.
     

Share This Page