Browse > Home / Archive: January 2007

Bill Clinton May Find It Hard To Get Paid

January 29, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s White House run has hubby Bill weighing changes to his business activities, including curtailing his paid speeches and his role at a California equity firm, sources told The Post.

His business activities have revolved around the paid-speaking circuit and his role as an adviser to a group of funds run by Yucaipa Companies, a private-equity firm operated by billionaire Ron Burkle.

Bubba made $7.5 million last year for 43 speeches, according to public disclosures. He also stands to make millions from his Yucaipa work. But both income sources raise potential conflict-of-interest questions for his wife’s candidacy.

The pitfalls of Bill’s business relationships became clear early last year, when it was revealed that he gave advice - albeit unpaid - to Dubai on its bid to run U.S. ports, at the same time his wife was railing against the deal. He made $450,000 in speaking fees in Dubai in 2002.

“It’s not Clinton-specific - when you run for president, everybody makes an issue out of everything,” said Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who worked for Rick Lazio in his 2000 Senate race against Hillary.

But Murphy said it will be an obvious issue for Sen. Clinton.

The likeliest scenario has Bill limiting speeches but not ruling them out entirely.

At Yucaipa, Bill helps with investments on three funds, two domestic and one international, on which he takes a regular profit. The funds invest in issues he cares about, like underserved communities, but could pose conflict questions. The California public-employees pension invests in the two domestic funds.

Sen. Clinton referred calls to her husband’s office, which declined comment.

(Excerpt) Read Article Here

Written by Hillary · Filed Under 2008, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, News 

Hillary Clinton Lies About Iraq - Caught on Video Tape

January 29, 2007

Hillary Clinton lies about Iraq vote

Hillary">Hillary" />Clinton Meets Code Pink

My transcription of Ms. Clinton’s remarks:

I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of of the women and children of Iraq. There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

If he was serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming coming. There may be progress, we may be destroying the Samoud missiles, but there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. And I just respectfully disagree about what the proximate cause of any action that may be taken is.

Now I also believe that for now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children. And it is a — it is a very unfortunate situation for the Iraqi people that they have been so horribly misgoverned for so long.

Now, I do think that there are continuing discussions ongoing that I hope can make some further progress building on the success of the missile destruction program. But that has been the first real compliance, and it was only brought about when the inspectors discovered the missiles — they were not revealed — that their length was longer than what had been prescribed [sic] under the resolutions ending the Gulf War.

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

But we are in a very difficult position right now. And so I would love to agree with you, but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

In response to a question from an audience member:

… With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.

And I’m talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council Resolution to save the the Kosavar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States. And we had to do it alone.

It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations. They would not.

I’m happy that in the face of such horrible suffering we did act. And so I see it somewhat differently, if you’ll forgive me, from my experience and perspective.

I’m agreeing with you a hundred percent that even though I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man. That position in no way supports the disastrous economic policies that this administration is pursuing. In fact I think that this is the height of irresponsibility.

And it would be far preferable to be more patient and more thoughtful and more willing to try to engender support with respect to Iraq. That is a decision that has to be made in the world community.

Here at home this administration is bankrupting our economy, forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don’t fund. And between security and everything else, which they don’t want to fund.

So you have me a hundred percent on that. And it is absolutely wrong — it is wrong that for the first time in American history we have a President who is talking about leading this country to war and wanting to cut taxes at the same time.

That is the height of cruel, arrogant irresponsibility.

Note how Hillary’s remarks purportedly made two weeks before the Iraq War began contradict all of her claims made in her first campaign stop in Iowa this weekend.

From the New York Times:

Clinton Calls on Bush to ‘Extricate’ U.S. From Iraq

January 28, 2007
By PATRICK HEALY

DAVENPORT, Iowa, Jan. 28 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called today for President Bush to “extricate our country” from Iraq by the time he leaves office in 2009, and she also said she knew enough about “evil and bad men” to protect the country from its enemies…

One person in the audience pressed Mrs. Clinton on her vote authorizing military action in Iraq in 2002, saying she allowed “the president to go to war,” and asked for specific steps she would take to end the war. She replied by selectively quoting from her speech in 2002 about her vote, saying it was not cast “for pre-emptive war,” but rather as leverage for the president to work diplomatic channels. (She did not mention that she also said at the time that she cast her vote ">Hillary Clinton lies about Iraq vote

Hillary">Hillary" />Clinton Meets Code Pink

My transcription of Ms. Clinton’s remarks:

I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of of the women and children of Iraq. There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

If he was serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming coming. There may be progress, we may be destroying the Samoud missiles, but there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. And I just respectfully disagree about what the proximate cause of any action that may be taken is.

Now I also believe that for now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children. And it is a — it is a very unfortunate situation for the Iraqi people that they have been so horribly misgoverned for so long.

Now, I do think that there are continuing discussions ongoing that I hope can make some further progress building on the success of the missile destruction program. But that has been the first real compliance, and it was only brought about when the inspectors discovered the missiles — they were not revealed — that their length was longer than what had been prescribed [sic] under the resolutions ending the Gulf War.

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

But we are in a very difficult position right now. And so I would love to agree with you, but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

In response to a question from an audience member:

… With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.

And I’m talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council Resolution to save the the Kosavar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States. And we had to do it alone.

It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations. They would not.

I’m happy that in the face of such horrible suffering we did act. And so I see it somewhat differently, if you’ll forgive me, from my experience and perspective.

I’m agreeing with you a hundred percent that even though I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man. That position in no way supports the disastrous economic policies that this administration is pursuing. In fact I think that this is the height of irresponsibility.

And it would be far preferable to be more patient and more thoughtful and more willing to try to engender support with respect to Iraq. That is a decision that has to be made in the world community.

Here at home this administration is bankrupting our economy, forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don’t fund. And between security and everything else, which they don’t want to fund.

So you have me a hundred percent on that. And it is absolutely wrong — it is wrong that for the first time in American history we have a President who is talking about leading this country to war and wanting to cut taxes at the same time.

That is the height of cruel, arrogant irresponsibility.

Note how Hillary’s remarks purportedly made two weeks before the Iraq War began contradict all of her claims made in her first campaign stop in Iowa this weekend.

From the New York Times:

Clinton Calls on Bush to ‘Extricate’ U.S. From Iraq

January 28, 2007
By PATRICK HEALY

DAVENPORT, Iowa, Jan. 28 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called today for President Bush to “extricate our country” from Iraq by the time he leaves office in 2009, and she also said she knew enough about “evil and bad men” to protect the country from its enemies…

One person in the audience pressed Mrs. Clinton on her vote authorizing military action in Iraq in 2002, saying she allowed “the president to go to war,” and asked for specific steps she would take to end the war. She replied by selectively quoting from her speech in 2002 about her vote, saying it was not cast “for pre-emptive war,” but rather as leverage for the president to work diplomatic channels. (She did not mention that she also said at the time that she cast her vote " />#8220;with conviction.”)

Mrs. Clinton also took issue with President Bush’s recent statements that he did not expect to have the troops out of Iraq by the time he leaves office.

“I think it’s the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it — this was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office,” the senator said this morning…

Hillary Clinton is a liar.

(And an idiot for talking to CodePink as if they are a legitimate organization.)

Source

Written by Hillary · Filed Under 2008, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Make Overs, Hillary Clinton in the News, News, Scandals 

American Idol: Hillary Clinton?

January 29, 2007

Always be careful of an open microphone is the rule among both celebrities and politicians.  The open mic has nabbed President George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney with some hilarious shots at the press corp.  And now America’s next anointed prez, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has been victimized in an American Idol like moment with her singing of the National Anthem by the dreaded open mic.

Hillary Clinton was in Iowa to pump up her 2008 presidential campaign on what she is calling her ">singing of the National Anthem by the dreaded open mic.

Hillary Clinton was in Iowa to pump up her 2008 presidential campaign on what she is calling her " />#8216;listening tour.’  Listening would have probably been a better idea than singing.

The ‘tour’ hit some very sour notes during the singing of the Anthem which caught Clinton’s horrible off-key rendition.  It is hard to imagine what American idol’s Simon Cowell would have said, but the British judge certainly would have asked Clinton ‘What was that?’

While many have already started to mock Hillary Clinton’s Iowa visit for basically slamming her husband Bill Clinton by answering a question on how to deal with “evil and bad men” others are looking to You Tube to listen to the woman that would be president absolutely butcher the National Anthem.

A report from the NY Post details that Clinton’s quip, “what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?” was all about Bubba and drew 31 seconds of straight laughter and applause that left little doubt among attendees that she’d made a joke at hubby Bill Clinton’s expense.

Which is funnier?  The video of Hillary’s American idol moment is here,">here," />you decide.

Written by Hillary · Filed Under 2008, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Make Overs, Hillary Clinton in the News, News 

Hillary Clinton Presidential Run Reignites Corruption Questions

January 29, 2007

It’s official.  This week, Hillary Clinton threw her hat into the ring of contenders for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.  Now, the American people will take a long, hard look at Hillary’s record as they weigh her candidacy.  And any discussion of Hillary Clinton’s record begins and ends with her alleged crimes and ethical transgressions.

Since its inception, Judicial Watch, of course, has been pursuing both Hillary and Bill Clinton, launching numerous investigations and lawsuits.  In fact, according to Time magazine’s Margaret Carlson, “Thanks in no small part to Judicial Watch, Hillary Clinton may be the most investigated person in the history of the Republic.”  (I’ll take that as a compliment.)  This effort continues today with our investigation of the records at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.  But here is just a partial summary of Clinton scandals that are relevant to Hillary’s candidacy, as so many questions remain unanswered:

Bribery and Extortion:  According to sworn testimony in federal court, Hillary Clinton devised a scheme to sell public, taxpayer-financed trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the Democratic Party and the 1996 Clinton reelection effort.    

Filegate:  In the early 1990’s, the Clinton White House violated the privacy rights of their perceived political enemies by “stealing” over 900 FBI files of the Reagan and first Bush administration staffers and using the information to destroy their credibility.  Judicial Watch’s sued Hillary Clinton in federal court over this scheme, as she evidently was its mastermind.

Pardongate:  In the last days of his presidency, former President Clinton granted 140 pardons and commuted 36 sentences.  The pardons were for individuals who had paid large fees to Clinton associates.  Hugh Rodham, brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton, accepted $400,000 after successfully lobbying his brother-in-law for clemency for two felons.  Anthony Rodham, Hillary’s other brother, has also been accused of illicitly brokering another pardon deal.

Campaign Finance Scandal:  Hillary Clinton’s campaign failed to properly disclose more than $2 million in contributions to her New York Senate 2000 campaign.  Hillary’s National Finance Director, David Rosen, was indicted for his role in the scandal (though later acquitted after the Bush administration watered down his prosecution by keeping Hillary Clinton out his criminal trial).  And in response to a complaint filed by Judicial Watch, the Federal Election Commission fined Senator Hillary Clinton’s fundraising operation $35,000 for failing to accurately report the contributions.

Clinton Sex Scandal and Character Assassination:  Hillary Clinton personally orchestrated media campaigns to slander the women who had allegedly been sexually and otherwise abused by her husband.  One such woman, Gennifer Flowers, was subjected to a vicious smear campaign orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and carried out by former Clinton administration aides James Carville and George Stephanopoulos.

I could go on and on:  cattle futures, perjury on the Travel Office firings, hiring private investigators, selling policy to communist Chinese generals and their agents, Whitewater, Vince Foster, and all the rest.  Hillary has been angling for the presidency since her corrupt husband took the oath, and certainly before then.  Their crimes have all been means to keep and obtain power.  So we can expect more of the same in a Hillary candidacy.  

Judicial Watch does not endorse nor oppose candidates for public office.  Hillary is free to run for president.  But Judicial Watch is also free to continue to pursue accountability for her many crimes and ethical transgressions, past and present.  Hillary Clinton is the most powerful corrupt politician in the country and much attention should be paid to this corruption, whether or not she is running for office.  If you would like more information on our efforts in this regard, be sure to check out the Hillary Watch section of our Internet site.

Mixed Results in Congressional Ethics Reform

Democrats used the issue of corruption in last year’s election to seize control of both houses of Congress.  So, how are they doing so far in their efforts to clean up corruption on Capitol Hill?  The results are mixed.  Read on and you’ll see what I mean.

Last week the House voted 431-0 to deny tax-funded pensions in the future to lawmakers convicted of felonies.  The measure will not be applied retroactively, which means former California Rep. Duke Cunningham will continue to be compensated by taxpayers long after he finishes his eight-year prison sentence for taking bribes.  (He is entitled to $36,000 per year for his eight terms in Congress.)  The same is true for Ohio Republican Bob Ney, recently sentenced to 2 ½ years for an Abramoff-related scandal.  (He’ll receive $29,000 per year after the age of 62.)

I’m not thrilled that congressional felons will continue to receive taxpayer-funded benefits.  However, this type of measure had been debated for a long time with no movement by Congress, so I guess it’s a start.  Why deal with the issue now?  Arizona Republican Rep. John Shadegg stated the obvious:  “…The American people are no longer willing to tolerate corrupt behavior by their elected officials.”

While the House of Representatives appears ready to remove privileges from their convicted criminal alumni, they have so far failed to crack down on a serious potential conflict of interest:  congressional spouses who work as lobbyists.  According to The Washington Post, at least a half-dozen congressional spouses are registered lobbyists, while a few others work for lobbying firms.  Yet there has been no movement by the House to address the obvious conflicts of interest.  In fact, as it stands, a lobbyist can lobby his or her congressional spouse directly!

This according to The Washington Post:  “Democrats made ethics reform a major issue in last fall’s congressional elections, but the ethics package the House approved earlier this month didn’t address the issue…”

The Senate, meanwhile, recently passed a series of ethics reforms that included an amendment by Louisiana Republican David Vitter that would ban spouses of senators from lobbying the senate, with the exception of spouses who were lobbying one year prior to their spouse’s election to office.  This proposal jumped the first hurdle. However, it is unknown whether or not it will ever make it to President Bush’s desk for signature.  The bill would first have to go to conference with the House which is less keen on the idea.  Significant changes are likely.  Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) predicts the most stringent ethics proposals “…are going to be discarded once we go to conference.”

Source

Written by Hillary · Filed Under 2008, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton in the News, News, Scandals 

Hillary Clinton Tells BushTo End War Before Next President Is Sworn In

January 29, 2007

President George W. Bush has the responsibility to end the Iraq war before the next president is sworn into office in 2009, an angry Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told voters in the nation’s first caucus state yesterday.

The former first lady, speaking to hundreds of backers at the frigid Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds in eastern Iowa, slammed Bush for repeatedly suggesting the winner of the next election will carry the burden of concluding the most unpopular, costly and bloody conflict since Vietnam.

“It’s the height of irresponsibility and I resent it,” Clinton said at the final public event of a 48-hour whirlwind political tour of the Hawkeye State. New York’s junior senator plans a similar excursion to New Hampshire, the kick-off primary state, next weekend.

Responding to a questioner who wanted to know her plan to end the war, Clinton replied, “We should expect him [Bush] to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.”

In response, the White House issued a statement denouncing Clinton for a “partisan attack that sends the wrong message to our troops, our enemies and the Iraqi people.”

Speaking yesterday at the fairgrounds’ town hall meeting, Clinton seemed looser and more combative than she did at a Saturday forum in Des Moines. At the end of the event, she was surrounded by a 10-deep crowd of admirers, signing autographs and posing for snapshots for an hour after speaking.

Read Entire Article Here

Written by Hillary · Filed Under 2008, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton in the News 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Copyright © 2007 Against Hillary Clinton Where the facts are - Hillary Clinton News · Theme by Brian Gardner · Log in