LMAO...Hillary didn't know Bill is on the UAE payroll for the Dubai deal

[mlyonsd]

MSNBC Story (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11657573/)

Hillary Clinton 'unaware' of Bill's Dubai ties
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner
Updated: 3:12 a.m. ET March 4, 2006

Hillary Clinton, a leading opponent of DP World's takeover of some US port operations, was this week forced to admit that she did not know her husband had advised Dubai leaders on how to handle the growing dispute.

But former President Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates should not have come as a surprise to his New York senator wife.

Mrs Clinton's own senatorial financial disclosure forms reveal that her husband earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002.

Officials from the UAE also donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas.

It was part of an effort by the emirates, said a person close to UAE officials, to forge a close relationship with a former US president who is influential and highly regarded in the region.

Mr Clinton's admiration for the UAE was last on display in November, when he made his fourth visit to the American University in Dubai and met students participating in the Clinton scholarship programme.

The UAE has also contributed $100m to Hurricane Katrina relief funds – which Mr Clinton had a leading role in raising.

Mrs Clinton's tough stance that the deal represented an "unacceptable risk" to national security has caused UAE officials some consternation.

Regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential elections, she has used the deal – which polls show is disliked by most Americans – and the anti-Arab sentiment it sparked to attack the Bush administration on national security, an issue that has been seen as a weak point for Democrats.

Although Mrs Clinton has been careful not to criticise the UAE directly, her stance has put her in the same camp as legislators who openly accuse Dubai of helping to finance the September 11 terrorist attacks and deem the UAE untrustworthy.

Privately, some Democrats see the revelations about his ties to the UAE as a classic Clinton dilemma. Mrs Clinton told the New York Post on Thursday that she did not know her husband had been contacted by Dubai officials two weeks ago and offered them advice on the deal. Although both Hillary and Bill Clinton say he stands behind her on the issue and there is no direct conflict, his relationship to the UAE has complicated her political stance on the transaction.

Meanwhile, the UAE has sought to quell the backlash against the takeover by hiring some Clinton officials - and Republicans - to lobby on Dubai's behalf.

Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.

[mlyonsd]

I guess there's not much discussion going on at breakfast in the Clinton house.

[banyon]

It's probably all part of their "triangulation"/DLC strategy.

I can't stand these f***ers.

[mlyonsd]

But Hillary, baby, come on be reasonable.

I promised the guys we could make a few hundred G's on the deal before you blew up it up. I know this looks bad but I'm gonna use the money to finish paying off Paula Jones. I swear, scouts honor. LMAO

[Bowser]

Does this mean that Republicans everywhere now wholeheartedly embrace Bill Clinton?

[Taco John]

Eh, this is rather uninteresting.

[Boozer]

I guess there's not much discussion going on at breakfast in the Clinton house.

I'm guessing most of Bill's breakfasts are at McDonald's on the way home.

[SBK]

I'm guessing most of Bill's breakfasts are at McDonald's on the way home.

ROFL

[Chief Henry]

She also didn't know the Rose Law firm Billing Records were gone either,
nor did she know how the FBI files just (SHAZAAM) appeared on the
coffee table of the living qtrs of the white house :rolleyes:

[stevieray]

The DC forum's "rules of engagement" don't apply to the Clintons.

This country is even more pathetic and polarized if all we think our choice only consists of two families since 92.

[go bowe]

interesting way to look at it...

it is strange, when you put it that way...

maybe we should open it up to non-relatives next time (that would leave out hillary and jeb, btw)...

[CRONUS]

The DC forum's "rules of engagement" don't apply to the Clintons.

This country is even more pathetic and polarized if all we think our choice only consists of two families since 92.Don't you mean since 89?

[stevieray]

Don't you mean since 89?

yes, thank you.

[go bowe]

The DC forum's "rules of engagement" don't apply to the Clintons.

This country is even more pathetic and polarized if all we think our choice only consists of two families since 92.i must have missed that thread...

what are the forum's "rules of engagement"?

is it something like you can only propose at night? :shrug:

[Hydrae]

Such a strong marriage those two have. We should look up to them as a shining example of American wedded bliss.




:shake:

[mlyonsd]

Don't you mean since 89?

That is an interesting statistic if you think about it. If Hillary were to win in '08 that would mean for two consecutive decades the executive branch was filled by two exclusive families. No wonder they are so chummy with each other.

[patteeu]

But former President Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates should not have come as a surprise to his New York senator wife.

Mrs Clinton's own senatorial financial disclosure forms reveal that her husband earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002.

Officials from the UAE also donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas.

I hope there is some kind of mechanism available to the voters of New York to recall their junior Senator. They shouldn't have to continue to be represented by someone with ties to the 9/11 terrorists. That's just salt in the wound.

[mlyonsd]

I hope there is some kind of mechanism available to the voters of New York to recall their junior Senator. They shouldn't have to continue to be represented by someone with ties to the 9/11 terrorists. That's just salt in the wound.

Funny the usual Cheneyburton bashing crowd isn't speaking up on the deal. It's apparent the UAE has bought off an ex-President and is trying to use his political influence and possibly persuade his wife, a US Senator.

Naw, on second thought we probably won't hear from them.

[banyon]

It's apparent the UAE has bought off an ex-President and is trying to use his political influence and possibly persuade his son, a U.S. president.

fixed the post. :)

[MarcBulger]

How dare you evil right wingers speak ill of Saint Hillary, I mean these people never lied to us and led the country to the morale high place on every issue. After all Saint Hillary is the Libs annointed Dem Pres Canidate. Don't dare ever get in her face with facts its what she MEANT to do not what she did. You see for Libs its just trying that gets the job done. SEE:WELFARE

[go bowe]

Funny the usual Cheneyburton bashing crowd isn't speaking up on the deal. It's apparent the UAE has bought off an ex-President and is trying to use his political influence and possibly persuade his wife, a US Senator.

Naw, on second thought we probably won't hear from them.i don't know that i would go so far as to say that former president clinton has been "bought off"...

accepting money for speaking engagements and "other sonsultative services" is not like accepting a bribe...

he's not in office anymore, and i don't see anything wrong with him gettiong a littler jack for trying to help get the port deal done...

as far as the bashing crowd, they'll be around before too awfully long... :) :) :)

[mlyonsd]

i don't know that i would go so far as to say that former president clinton has been "bought off"...

accepting money for speaking engagements and "other sonsultative services" is not like accepting a bribe...

he's not in office anymore, and i don't see anything wrong with him gettiong a littler jack for trying to help get the port deal done...

as far as the bashing crowd, they'll be around before too awfully long... :) :) :)

I know. I don't really have a problem with the port deal as long as the security aspect is scrutinized closely.

I just find it ironic those that found an imaginary connection between some Bush administration officials and UAE/Dubai aren't speaking up about a previous President's affiliation with said country where there is proof he has accepted money from them in the past AND is advising them.

[banyon]

i don't know that i would go so far as to say that former president clinton has been "bought off"...

accepting money for speaking engagements and "other sonsultative services" is not like accepting a bribe...

he's not in office anymore, and i don't see anything wrong with him gettiong a littler jack for trying to help get the port deal done...

as far as the bashing crowd, they'll be around before too awfully long... :) :) :)

To pile on...

Bill also works for a company that has formed a partnership with the Crown Prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoun.

Back in 2002, the Yucaipa Co. LLC hired the former president as a "senior adviser." He won't say how much that pays; Hillary's disclosure forms only put it at "more than $1,000" a year. A company lawyer recently disclosed that he gets a percentage of profits, if they're above 9 percent -and also says the firm's been averaging about a 40 percent.

And Yucaipa last year with the Dubai Investment Group to create a new U.S. company: DIGL Inc, with, which invests the private funds of the Crown Prince. So Bill and Yucaipa have a big stake in keeping a positive image for the Dubai royals and their many companies


http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60616.htm

[patteeu]

To pile on...



http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60616.htm

Do you find this troubling, banyon?

[banyon]

Do you find this troubling, banyon?

Why would I? I despise Clinton.

[patteeu]

Why would I? I despise Clinton.

No, I mean do these kinds of "connections" between US politicians and states "connected" to 9/11 bother you like the "connections" between UAE and the 9/11 hijackers do? Should something be done to stop it?

[banyon]

No, I mean do these kinds of "connections" between US politicians and states "connected" to 9/11 bother you like the "connections" between UAE and the 9/11 hijackers do? Should something be done to stop it?

I agree with Dick Morris when I saw him on O' Reilly.

Clinton should be required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" or some equivalent, since he is in partnership/employ of the crown prince.

I stand by the idea that letting any foreign entity, esp a state-run one control our ports is a lousy idea, even if the company has enough jack to buy off 2 ex-presidents to lobby for them.

[go bowe]

No, I mean do these kinds of "connections" between US politicians and states "connected" to 9/11 bother you like the "connections" between UAE and the 9/11 hijackers do? Should something be done to stop it?yes...

kill all the politicians...

[go bowe]

I agree with Dick Morris when I saw him on O' Reilly.

Clinton should be required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" or some equivalent, since he is in partnership/employ of the crown prince.

I stand by the idea that letting any foreign entity, esp a state-run one control our ports is a lousy idea, even if the company has enough jack to buy off 2 ex-presidents to lobby for them.depends on just exactly clinton is doing on behalf of the uae, but registration as a foreign agent might not be a bad idea if he is actively lobbying specific senators and congressmen on behalf of the government of the uae...

but i'm pretty sure that giving advice about and publicly advocating for the port deal doesn't make him a foreign agent, whether or not he is paid for it...

edit: i was wrong, looks like clinton's activities might make him subject to the foreign agent registration act link (http://snipurl.com/nah9)

[Velvet_Jones]

The thread should have started out with ooooopppps instead of LMAO. That would have attracted jIZ and "so horse fug me".

[Lurch]

Hilarious. But not at all surprising.

[patteeu]

I agree with Dick Morris when I saw him on O' Reilly.

Clinton should be required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" or some equivalent, since he is in partnership/employ of the crown prince.

Makes sense to me. I don't really think there is anything wrong with what he's doing, but if he's talking with our Senators and other government officials, he probably ought to be registered. (I don't know what the technical requirements for registering are so I'm not commenting one whether he should HAVE to register or not).

I stand by the idea that letting any foreign entity, esp a state-run one control our ports is a lousy idea, even if the company has enough jack to buy off 2 ex-presidents to lobby for them.

I still don't get why the "state-run" part makes it worse. If anything, I think the UAE state is more likely to have interests aligned with ours than their private citizens.

[patteeu]

yes...

kill all the politicians...

That would probably take care of it. :)

[banyon]

Makes sense to me. I don't really think there is anything wrong with what he's doing, but if he's talking with our Senators and other government officials, he probably ought to be registered. (I don't know what the technical requirements for registering are so I'm not commenting one whether he should HAVE to register or not).
go bo had a nice link (see above)



I still don't get why the "state-run" part makes it worse. If anything, I think the UAE state is more likely to have interests aligned with ours than their private citizens.

1. It doesn't advance the free market (it advances planned/controlled economies).

2. If you did agree that this made our security more vulnerable, then it only logically follows that allowing a foreign government to infiltrate us like that is foolhardy (but you don't agree so this doesn't follow for you). Foreign governments have a much different set of interests than foreign companies.

[patteeu]

go bo had a nice link (see above)

Thanks, I saw it after I submitted my reply.

1. It doesn't advance the free market (it advances planned/controlled economies).

That might make sense if we were concerned with the economy of the UAE, but from a US perspective it doesn't matter unless the UAE goverment is subsidizing DP World so that they have unfair advantages over US firms. I don't see any evidence of this. Everything I read seems to indicate that DP World is thriving in the shipping business because it "runs a tighter ship" than their competitors (so to speak). If it's true that DP World is competing on a level playing field with other companies who are not state-run, I don't think there is a valid free market argument against dealing with them.

2. If you did agree that this made our security more vulnerable, then it only logically follows that allowing a foreign government to infiltrate us like that is foolhardy (but you don't agree so this doesn't follow for you). Foreign governments have a much different set of interests than foreign companies.

Which would be a bigger security threat, a company owned by the ruler of the UAE or a company owned by a private individual named Osama Bin Laden? How about a company owned by the ruler of the UAE as compared to a private citizen of the UAE who shares the islamist ideology of Osama Bin Laden? How about a company owned by the ruler of the UAE as compared to a US citizen who shares the islamist ideology of Osama Bin Laden? I think that your answers to these questions should show you that being state-owned doesn't necessarily make a company more of a security threat than being privately owned. I do agree that for a given ownership group, a company is more of security threat if that group has access to valuable state assets that they wouldn't have access to as private citizens (e.g. state intelligence agencies, state military assets, etc.) which is why I'm more bothered by Chinese ownership of some of our western port operations than the proposed UAE ownership (because of my perception that the Chinese have more formidable government assets to draw upon and because I think Chinese interests are less likely to align with US interests than UAE interests are).

[banyon]

That might make sense if we were concerned with the economy of the UAE, but from a US perspective it doesn't matter unless the UAE goverment is subsidizing DP World so that they have unfair advantages over US firms. I don't see any evidence of this. Everything I read seems to indicate that DP World is thriving in the shipping business because it "runs a tighter ship" than their competitors (so to speak). If it's true that DP World is competing on a level playing field with other companies who are not state-run, I don't think there is a valid free market argument against dealing with them.


They are government-owned. At the very least they are likely to get incidental subsidies in the form of infrastructure costs/pension plans.

Which would be a bigger security threat, a company owned by the ruler of the UAE or a company owned by a private individual named Osama Bin Laden? How about a company owned by the ruler of the UAE as compared to a private citizen of the UAE who shares the islamist ideology of Osama Bin Laden? How about a company owned by the ruler of the UAE as compared to a US citizen who shares the islamist ideology of Osama Bin Laden? I think that your answers to these questions should show you that being state-owned doesn't necessarily make a company more of a security threat than being privately owned.

You're right. They are all bad. It's like asking who do I want to babysit my kids: the criminally insane; Hamas (the Palestinian organization, not the CP poster), a pack of feral dogs. How about a good ol' fashioned American babysitter?



I do agree that for a given ownership group, a company is more of security threat if that group has access to valuable state assets that they wouldn't have access to as private citizens (e.g. state intelligence agencies, state military assets, etc.) which is why I'm more bothered by Chinese ownership of some of our western port operations than the proposed UAE ownership (because of my perception that the Chinese have more formidable government assets to draw upon and because I think Chinese interests are less likely to align with US interests than UAE interests are).

The Chinese deal is troubling too. We cannot buy Chinese companies, so that's definitely not free trade.

[banyon]

BTW, the political ads have already begun.

http://www.fordfortennessee.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=45

(click on "Don't Outsource our Ports)

[patteeu]

They are government-owned. At the very least they are likely to get incidental subsidies in the form of infrastructure costs/pension plans.

I've never seen any evidence of that. I'm not saying there are absolutely no subsidies, but I would think that if they were getting subsidies that seriously distort the playing field, someone ought to be able to point it out. Even American companies get some government provided subsidies (e.g. tax breaks, corporate welfare, infrastructure, etc.).

You're right. They are all bad. It's like asking who do I want to babysit my kids: the criminally insane; Hamas (the Palestinian organization, not the CP poster), a pack of feral dogs. How about a good ol' fashioned American babysitter?

I'm not sure whether my take from your answer should be that you don't distinguish between Al Qaeda and the UAE or that there isn't anything in particular about a state-owned company that makes it any more menacing, in terms of security, than a privately-held company.

[alanm]

That would probably take care of it. :)
You know, most of them are lawyers. :) We could get 2 for 1. :D

[patteeu]

You know, most of them are lawyers. :) We could get 2 for 1. :D

Excellent point! :)