Shaking Down America, by Hill & Bill Clinton
Harry Dope
By Linda Chavez
Friday, March 2, 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 when it
comes to money.
Until Bill and Hillary left the White House in January 2001, they were
hardly what you'd call rich. They had never owned a home until they
purchased one in late 1999 so that 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 Avenue.
The revelations about her failure to report the tax shelter caused
Sen. 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 reporters discovered that Goldman
Sachs paid Bill $650,000 for four speeches in the last few years, while its
employees and 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 that 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'd 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 that they were
anointed by God and could therefore ignore the moral laws that applied to
the rest of mankind, the Clintons seem to think that 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 chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of
Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American
Politics .
--
Eight years before 9/11, on Feb. 26, 1993, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida
terrorist network declared war against the United States with a deadly
attack on the World Trade Center. Al-Qaida continued to wage war on the U.S.
throughout the Clinton administration, attacking Khobar Towers in 1996, two
U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
Wino@crawfordl.net Americans For Truth
"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:468d48f2$0$14931$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
In light of all that Bush and Cheney [have] said recently, I am sending this
info:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for
the production of biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, September 12 2002
"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once
again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials
to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass
destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, February 5 2003
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi
field commanders to use chemical weapons."
- George Bush, February 8 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons ever devised."
- George Bush, March 17 2003
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq
has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . .
all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever
duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of
mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be
identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who
guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003.
"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly
gases."
- Bush in October 2002.
"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al
Qaeda."
- Bush in January 2003 State of the Union address.
"Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons
training."
- Bush in February 2003.
"sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network."
Powell in his U.N. speech prior to the Iraq War.
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda."
Bush in May 2003.
Stated that the Iraqis were "providing bomb-making expertise and advice to
the Al Qaeda organization."
- Cheney in September 2003.
"Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to
Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional
weapons."
- Cheney in October 2003.
.......
Cheney said Saddam "had long established ties with Al Qaeda."
- June 14, 2004.
Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship
between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship
between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
- June 17, 2004.