FROM OUR BRITISH COUSINS GUS.....
Bill Clinton back at centre of ethics debate
By Alex Spillius
Bill Clinton used his influence with the president of Kazakhstan to help a business friend gain a lucrative uranium mining deal, it has been claimed.
The report in the New York Times will raise concerns about possible conflicts of interest that the former president could face if he returns to the White House as "first gentleman" and raised the spectre of the financial scandals that dogged the Clintons in the White House.
Mr Clinton has already began cutting his links to Ron Burkle, the supermarket magnate who has paid the couple considerable sums in consulting fees while benefiting from the association with the popular former president.
However, the Kazakh connection had been kept under wraps and could prove damaging as Mrs Clinton's tussle with Barack Obama for the Democratic Party's nomination intensifies.
The New York Times detailed how, on a visit to Kazakhstan in 2005, Mr Clinton praised President Nursultan Nazarbayev for "opening up the social and political life of your country".
He also recommended that Kazakhstan should lead the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, an ad hoc group under the United Nations umbrella that monitors elections.
Mr Nazarbayev had been pursuing the OSCE's rotating leadership - a goal he finally achieved in late 2007 - as a way of gaining credibility for his government.
His rule, which began when the Soviet Union broke up, had long been criticised for stifling human rights and rigging elections - including in a Human Rights Watch report on election fraud published yesterday.
Mr Clinton's support for Kazakhstan ran contrary to US administration policy, and to the wishes of a Congressional commission that his wife sat on as senator for New York.
In early 2005 Mrs Clinton signed a letter to the State Department saying that Kazakhstan's bid "would not be acceptable" and raised "alarm bells" about "serious corruption" and strong-armed control of the media.
In a statement to the New York Times, a spokesman for Mr Clinton said the former president saw "no contradiction" between his support for Kazakhstan and Mrs Clinton's position.
The official purpose of Mr Clinton's trip had been to launch an agreement on discounted drugs for Aids patients.
However, Mr Clinton travelled with Mark Giustra, a Canadian businessman who was seeking a lucrative deal to partner the Kazakh government in a uranium mining project.
A few days after they had dined with Mr Nazarbayev, Mr Giustra's company signed an agreement to buy into three projects with Kazatomprom, the state-owned uranium agency, according to records seen by the New York Times.
Months later, Mr Giustra made a ?16?million donation to the Clinton Foundation, which has grown into a significant global charity since Mr Clinton left office.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuspols401.xml
SR: Do we really want these people back in office for another 8 years ? [img]rolleyes.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Michelle Obama said it best about HRH Hillary....Originally posted by gus danger:
I think that would definitely qualify as a loaded question!
Not gonna play that game with ya Jim!
[img]frown.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]
Gus
"How can we expect a woman to run the White House when she can't even run her own house properly ????"
YOU GO GIRL !!!!! [img]wink.gif[/img]
[quote]Originally posted by SouthwestRanger:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess you missed this video!Michelle Obama said it best about HRH Hillary....
"How can we expect a woman to run the White House when she can't even run her own house properly ????"
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY[/nomedia]
Funny how easy it is to sling mud, ain't it!
[img]wink.gif[/img]
GD
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shouldn't you say FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTER Cal Thomas?Originally posted by SouthwestRanger:
The Fall Of The House Of Clinton
The Washington Times
By Cal Thomas
And the Wshington Times????
Oh yeah! Very "unbiased" sources you quote!
[quote]Originally posted by gus danger:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SouthwestRanger:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess you missed this video!Michelle Obama said it best about HRH Hillary....
"How can we expect a woman to run the White House when she can't even run her own house properly ????"
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY[/nomedia]
Funny how easy it is to sling mud, ain't it!
[img]wink.gif[/img]
GD</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gee Gus If I were HRH Hillary, I'd use two bit actors to make phoney videos like this to prevent the following from happening ....
The Fall Of The House Of Clinton
The Washington Times
By Cal Thomas
February 1, 2008
The man of hope has beaten the man from Hope (and possibly his wife). The endorsement of Barack Obama's presidential campaign by three Kennedys from different generations was a political trifecta for the young upstart from Illinois. He is not to be confused with Sen. Hillary Clinton who is from Illinois, Arkansas, New York or wherever you want her to be.
The contrast of sincerity (Mr. Obama) with insincerity (Hillary and Bill Clinton) could not be starker. Critics can say that "Camelot" was a myth created after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but it is a powerful myth and to see Ted, Caroline and Patrick Kennedy standing on the same stage together at American University endorsing Mr. Obama brought the myth back for those of us old enough to have lived through it. It also inspired younger people who want to believe politics can still have purpose.
There is nothing wrong with myth so long as it does not obliterate reality. We like our ***** tales. The film "Enchanted" is doing well at the box office. But the Kennedy endorsement is more than myth. It represents a potential divorce between the Democratic establishment and the Clintons.
Recall the early 1990s. Democrats were desperate for a presidential candidate who could take back the White House after 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. They rejected the establishment and chose a little-known governor from a small state who Republicans would have difficulty sliming as a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Bill Clinton was part of the new Democratic Leadership Council, which bills itself on its Web page as "an idea center, catalyst, and national voice for a reform movement that is reshaping American politics by moving it beyond the old left-right debate."
It was a shotgun wedding between the old Left and new moderates within the party, some of whom hid their liberalism behind moderate rhetoric for political gain. Now the old Left wants the party back and the endorsement by the Kennedys is the opening salvo.
The trouble with using people is that when someone better comes along, you get dropped like a bad habit, or like a woman who believes Bill Clinton will call her in the morning. Liberal Democrats don't need the Clintons anymore. They think the Republican field is weak and the time to retake their party and the government is now.
There can be no question that Mr. Obama is the most exciting political orator for Democrats since John F. Kennedy. Notice in Caroline Kennedy's endorsement how she skipped over Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and even Bill Clinton (not to mention, which she also didn't, Ronald Reagan) as inspirational leaders. What a slap in the face to the Clintons. Caroline Kennedy, though a liberal, has class, but the Clintons know little about such things, as they troll for power and personal advancement, obliterating all who get in their way. They define the politics of personal destruction.
Will this split have the same result as the Kennedy-Carter clash in 1980, which involved another former Southern governor and ended with a Republican victory? It's too soon to tell, but Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 will make things clearer.
It's a long way to November and Mr. Obama's lack of experience has yet to be fully tested and his background fully vetted. Yet it might almost be worth his election if he could force the Clintons to finally leave the stage. Almost.
sr: Face it Gus, people are getting sick and tired of the Clinton's and their double dealing ways...
And that includes their soon to be former Hollywood Friends as well
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shouldn't you say FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTER Cal Thomas?Originally posted by gus danger:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SouthwestRanger:
The Fall Of The House Of Clinton
The Washington Times
By Cal Thomas
And the Wshington Times????
Oh yeah! Very "unbiased" sources you quote!
I don't know who will prevail in this fight, but I do believe that the GOP's best chance, after being totally demoralized by dubya's eight years, is Hillary as the opponent. She's like a minor-leaguer trying to bat cleanup in the world sreies. But then, dubya did it so anything's possible.
Yeah but Hillary was <u>elected</u> to the Senate, not appointed. I guess "lots of liberals" like her, or something. I'm not even a liberal. and I like her! Go figure!
And the most obvious fact about these elections, is that whoever runs against the republican machine, had better have a thick skin.
Not sure if anyone has a thicker skin than the Clintons, after all the mud that has been slung at them over the years, very little of which has stuck, mind you!
BTW, I watched a Ron Paul speech yesterday and agree with most of what he says and he doesn't engage in the politics of personal destruction either, unlike the way Southwest Ranger does it, on his behalf!
Remarkable really!
[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
Gus
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't know how you describe yourself, but to me, one of the ten warning signs of a liberal is when they describe their opponents as hannitized and dittoheads. They think in cliche's and think that one is clever after the millionth time.Originally posted by gus danger:
Yeah but Hillary was <u>elected</u> to the Senate, not appointed. I guess "lots of liberals" like her, or something. I'm not even a liberal. and I like her! Go figure!
Shawn Hannity describes his fans as Hannitized!
Rush Limbaugh describes his fans as Dittoheads!
I describe myself as a social libertarian!
[img]biggrin.gif[/img]
GD
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shouldn't you say FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTER Cal Thomas?Originally posted by gus danger:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SouthwestRanger:
The Fall Of The House Of Clinton
The Washington Times
By Cal Thomas
And the Wshington Times????
Oh yeah! Very "unbiased" sources you quote!
Oh and Gus would you mind telling me why HRH Hillary suffered a severe memory lapse when she could'nt remember the "Slumlord" she chastised Obama about even though she did take many photos with him and accepted quite a large contribution from him as well ?
Oh as for Hillary's election, quite amazing how the two men who represented a serious threat to her election chances John Kennedy Jr and Rudy Guiliani managed to be eliminated quite suddnely when John Jr. went down in a plance crash even though the plane was checked out throroughly and Rudy suddenly came down with cancer....
We can only wait and see what befalls Barack Obama if he makes a good showing on Super Tuesday...
Remember folks this woman will sacrifice anyone including her husband and daughter and do anything to attain the Oval Office...
Time will tell [img]rolleyes.gif[/img]
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks