Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An Ex-President, a Mining Deal and a Big Donor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Cheney Killed Bambi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:46 PM
Original message
An Ex-President, a Mining Deal and a Big Donor
Source: New York Times

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good job!! It's time for all the crap to come out ...
I've been wondering why Bill Clinton needs to get his hands back on the White House so bad. Favors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Doesn't seem to need the White House to get them, you'll notice.
In fact, he will take a big blow to his earning power if Hillary wins.

So try the next theory, sweetie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
36. aquart, do you have a crush on me? you seem to be following me around!
And, btw, no theory needed. This story just shows how Bill has always operated and is one more example of why we don't need this kind of drama in the White House again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #36
58. what's the matter, somebody is upset cause he ain't locking lips with Prince Abdullah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #58
102. Not a good analogy
This revelation is comparing the Clintons to Obama's Rezko, not Clinton to Bush. As I always say people who live in glass houses should throw stones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #36
63. Well, keep up this Democratic Bashing
and we'll get another murdering war criminal in the White House...which would you prefer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #63
132. This is not dem bashing. This is calling a crook and crook!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #132
147. What was illegal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #147
166. Maybe USC 18 which prohibits public officeholders from
benefiting materially from their office. But it probably isn't retroactive. Fuck the Clintons they enabled this fascists at every turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #166
167. So you admit they weren't "crook"s, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #36
127. Bill passed up a chance at a huge commission to make money
for charity. How in hell can this be a bad thing? I think its fantastic that Bill pulled this off. Hillary ought to be elected unanimously for marrying such a wonderful man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
129. Kick &R. Great Post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
39. No, but passages like this makes one wonder whether similar conflicts ...
... of interest would continue, after he becomes First Spouse.
    Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. krkaufman, check this timeline out of 2005 in this country. this is bad
http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=110

I got this from a post of sandandsea under a different thread. Jeezus. This is no laughing matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Yeah, Nazarbayev is a bad guy (understatement) ...
... but we seem to be doing the same-old "enemy of my enemy" and market opportunities bulls**t. Democracy and human rights be damned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. oh, I do agree ...jeezus ...read this part of the timeline ...just after Bill was there
snip...

2005 November 14. Murder of Zamanbek Nurkadilov.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/14/news/stan.php
Andrew E. Kramer, “Kazakhstan opposition member slain,” The New York Times. A former minister in the government of President Nursultan Nazarbayev who had said he would speak publicly about high-level corruption has been found shot to death, according to the police and an opposition leader. The killing Saturday night comes three weeks before a presidential election in this oil-rich former Soviet state. Zamanbek Nurkadilov, 61, was a member of the leading opposition group, For a Fair Kazakhstan. He was fired from his post as minister of emergency situations in 2004 after saying that Nazarbayev should answer allegations that Kazakh officials had accepted millions of dollars in bribes from an intermediary for American oil companies during contract talks in the 1990s. The leading opposition candidate in the presidential race, Zharmakhan Tuyakbai, said in an interview Sunday that Nurkadilov had recently said he would go public with information about corruption in Nazarbayev’s government. . . Nurkadilov was shot twice in the chest and once in the head, Musin said, adding that the police had recovered a pillow pierced by bullets that may have been used as a silencer.

2005 November 29. “Kazakh Opposition Figure’s Death Ruled Suicide,”

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/55e307fe-ebd7-4d80-b9f0-be332e4ae583.html
RFE/RL. The official investigation into the shooting death of Kazakh opposition figure and former Emergency Situations Agency head Zamanbek Nurkadilov has concluded that he committed suicide. The investigative team found that Nurkadilov first shot himself twice in the chest before putting the gun to his head and firing a bullet into his brain.

2005 December 4. Nazarbayev wins reelection with 91.15 precent of vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan_presidential_election,_2005

2005 December 7. Clinton congratulation of Nazarbayev on his reelection.

http://www.kazakhembus.com/120705.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #39
66. did you miss the part about ** "EX" ** president??????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #66
84. apparently the moral issues involved in this don't mean anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #84
96. Sure they do, but why here and now?
The post was a not-so-subtle attempt to drag Hillary Clinton into something with which she had absolutely nothing to do. As I say, classic rightwing attack tactics. Mr. Rove couldn't have done it any better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #96
103. If H.C. gets into the WH
Bill will be running the show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Daniels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #103
105. Precisely
Anyone who doesn't think Hillary's presidency isn't an avenue to effectively give Bill a 3rd and possibly 4th term is smoking something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #103
112. You know that for a fact, eh?
And if so, is that worse than Romney or McCain in the White House?

At least under Bill Clinton when terrorists attacked the WTC they were tracked down, prosecuted, convicted, and are now rotting in jail, and it didn't cost the country 1/4 trillion dollars or 4000 brave Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #103
119. it does not matter
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 12:42 PM by beezlebum
whether it be bill or hill running the show- they are BOTH invested up to their eyeballs inschemes and corporate wet dreams. they are one. they are part of the same machine.

edit: dood, i totally did not intend to wax so poetically there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #66
113. No. But thanks for the heads-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArfDogMNO Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #39
156. repl;y
"No, but passages like this makes one wonder whether similar conflicts"

is 'makes one wonder whether' a code-word for 'we know they will but cannot simply say so?'

Of course this will influence administration policy in some form or fashion. People who believe in Chinese walls with this stuff are looking for the wrong kind of wall (the correct chinese wall is the one Hsu helped funnel money for).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
43. this ones for you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matt819 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
126. Very simple
They'll take a four year break, and then there will be two of them selling their favors - to say nothing of, say, ready access to the president via the first fellow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
my3boyz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
45. Oh but Clinton
has been thoroughly vetted and Obama is unknown. Seems like ALL of the politicians have a skeleton or two in their closet so they should not try to seem above it all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #45
72. Some have far less than others
All the Clinton people have found on Obama is Rezko. Both Gore and especially Kerry were far cleaner. Gore was tarnished by the 1996 campaign financing led by McAuliffe for the Clintons - he was picked for VP partially because he had a super clean reputation. Kerry fought BCCI and like Biden, corporate money in campaign financing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
52. CRAP???????????? the real story
This business man wanted an introduction to someone Bill Clinton knew, so Bill Clinton gave him the introduction and the business man promised to donate 31 million dollars to an ''''''AIDS ORGANIZATION''''''''. And he did.

So you all think getting the introduction for this business man so he would donate 31 million dollars to AIDS is crap.

I see the type of people who support the other candidate, callous, cold and non feeling. And those that Do not appreciate a 31 million dollar donation to AIDS.

But when the real article is not posted and only selective parts so it can bash Hillary Clinton by way of Bill for the other candidate, shows low class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #52
60. It wasn't an introduction...it was a public statement of positive human rights record
for a clear human rights abuser. That means any pressure that could be brought to bear on Nazarbayev by NGO's and other international human rights bodies evaporated. That's what the pay-off was for, if we're to believe the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #60
68. Reread the article, the entire one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. I read the whole article
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong with direct evidence from the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #60
85. people read selectively ... & in this case, fail to understand who the human rights abuser really is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #60
151. It wasn't a statement of a positive human rights record
Clinton only praised the COMMITMENT to fair elections. Others from the Bush administration and leaders of other European and Asian leaders also were on board. What Clinton said didn't decide anything. Clinton said he was just being polite and his exact words don't convey anything more than that.

The payoff charge makes no sense because Clinton played no significant role in getting the uranium business. The businessman was interested in Clinton's charities before and after the deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #52
67. Thank you...and that should be "no" class in place of "low" class
Too bad these people forget that Clinton is a DEMOCRAT, and with her faults (we all have them) she would STILL be 100 times better than what we have in the White House today or Romney or McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. Who's forgetting THAT
I'm 100% behind Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #70
97. I'm 100% behind Oback Obama until he does or doesn't win the nomination...
and then I'll be 100% behind the person who DOES win the nomination. I just find it disgusting when so-called "democrats" stoop to the level of attacking other Democrats - it's just too bad we've evolved into a society where we find it easier to destroy our opponent instead of promote our preferred candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #97
99. I'm 100% behind the Democratic nominee
That's neither here nor there.

You apparently don't want a front page news story in the NY Times discussed at all. So don't discuss it. I don't see the problem. Are you suggesting that we do not talk about it at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #99
114. Now you're projecting and psychoanalizing
Stick to attacking democrats, ok? Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. Huh?
What are you even talking about?

Notably, you never replied to my post asking you to show me how I'm wrong with evidence from the article. easier to make up random charges, I guess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #115
157. You answered your OWN question in another post in this discussion:
It's still here in the discussion ..... ferret it out:

alcibiated_mystery:

"there is not sufficient proof to establish quid pro quo in that article"

So, you're admitting there is not enough evidence, but now you're asking for me to show how you're "wrong with evidence from the article"????

Damn this is an easy debate. I wish I ran across your kind in my college debating classes. Thanks for the assist!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #157
161. You're a master of inventing contradictions that don't exist
I have said all along that the evidence was thin. That doesn't explain your "read the whole article" post, which is apparently as meaningless as the wind. Did your "college debating" coach (this from a person who doesn't understand a qualifier!...) encourage and promote nonsensical dishonesty, because that's all you seem prepared to offer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #161
162. All I did was repost YOUR words.
"Qualifier" my ass. You're using that to now claim you didn't say what you really did say. By now dodging your own words, you're looking more republican than I even thought a day or two ago - perhaps the master of "nonsensical dishonesty"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BonnieJW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
135. It certainly explains his desperation
to get his wife elected. Promises have already been made. He's going to be Hill's Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R - it pains me to feel ashamed of the Big Dog...
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. this reminds me of the Carlyle Group, Bush and Cheney
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. They are all Carlyles ... the ones that aren't
never get nominated/win ... Edwards, Gore, etc.

If the powers that be, let them go forward, fact is -- it is in the interest of those with the greatest power/wealth.

That is what our so-called 'democracy' has been diminished to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. A couple of Clinton's top advisors *did* join the Carlyle Group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
71. be ashamed
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 09:56 AM by beezlebum
be very ashamed of:
*his open arms embrace of the "free market" agenda that led to more than two million Mexican farmers being forced off their land since 1993,
*some six million of America's poor being thrown out on the street without welfare (welfare "reform")
*the slashing of Medicare and Medicaid
*the lowering of capital gains tax for the rich.
*the half million Iraqi children who died as a result of Clinton's economic sanctions

alan greenspan called bill clinton "the best republican president we've had in a while."

i wish MORE people, namely democrats, especially those who term themselves as "liberals" and "progressives," those who fight for human rights, would be ashamed for buying into charm, the charisma, the fucking charade.

i fucking give up. there is not a soul in the white house or trying to get there who can save us. it's all about the big money, not the people. when i read zinn's "a power governments cannot suppress," i had a lil hope. but this election tells me we're fucked. it will never happen, because even after all these years, after none of the above was even attempted to be "covered up," we still have "progressives" in luv w/ the big dawg." :puke:

and NASA studies say 10 more years, and that the only way to put the brakes on cataclysmic climate change is the abrupt discontinuance of the usage of fossil fuels. will. never. happen.

i'm so tired of wasting my breath, and worrying, and not being able to sleep at night, and anxiously awaiting the resluts of primaries, only to be disappointed. 10 more years before i have to attempt to flee to higher ground with my children, or until we drown in the next fucking katrina- so why am i bothering when there is no one who will change this, not enough- they'll only do enough to appease us,

meanwhile, environmental activists can go to prison, termed as domestic terrorists as per the patriot act, the military commissions act, oh, wait, you thought that was all? how about a bill introduced by a california dem, one i hadn't even heard of, the violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism prevention act of 2007- that one's a real peach- rly blurs the lines between nonviolent protest and/or activism and "terrahism"- basically anyone who "gets in the way" of corporate power (via protest, simply speaking up or questioning corporate policy, and even merely "thinking" about it- yes, thought crime has officially been indoctrinated...) can be disappeared. and guess what? it passed the house w/ a 404-6 vote! so if you think anyone has our interests at hand, think again. and the clintons are the LAST people who are going to save us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #71
86. thank you for this post. it seems that it is only ok here to take a hard look at Obama
but not at Clinton because Bill is so holy. Those of us with memories remember these things ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #86
121. Bill Clinton isn't running for President, is he? [no speculating now, please!]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. does it matter [once again]
whether he or his partner in corporations/crime are running?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #123
164. yep
still no answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. this will be the Big Dog's "Halliburton" when the right wing gets hold
of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. yeah, that $100 million donation to his personal foundation is disgusting
look at the timing of it. I want to puke. This is the kind of crap Edwards campaigned against. He's out and the Clintons are greedy running across America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. hmmmmmmm....if only this could surface in the next debate, somehow
after HRC's backhand comment about the "slumlord". This is going to get very interesting, although I hate to think we'll spend another $100m investigating it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alizaryn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
31. I'd guess it will. They have asked Clinton
about releasing the donor list before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
152. How could giving $100,000,000 to charity be greedy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. More Clinton $$$ scandals?
Oh how I hated the 90's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
38. If not a scandal, the participation in the Kazahk. deal makes it difficult ...
... to differentiate him from the stereotypical Republican profiteers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
153. Here's the difference
Clinton didn't keep any of the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. So much for, "I've been vetted for 16 years, and they've found nothing". (Said in screechy voice)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
56. That's only because the vetting will NOT look into stuff w GOP big shots!
Take Jackson Stephens, for example!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. So what is the point of all this? A "big donor"? To whom or to what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caligirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. whats Hillary's position on Nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, Uranium deal
netsw Bill $33Million to his foundation and another $100 million later plus big party one wants to know what Hillary plans to do on nuclear energy here and in other countries(foreign policy of other countries use of Uranium).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. So it's for the Clinton Foundation? Any laws broken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caligirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. I don't know about laws being broken, but I am seeing the White House
as a broker for the powerful to get rich. So much for the WH as a symbol of democracy. The door will be swinging much as it is now for Bush and his cronies. So this is what Bill was doing with Bush 41, learning the art of brokering and leveraging power for self enrichment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #25
34. How about the ethics issue of this whole deal? And what will happen with nukes?
Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws! Isn't that what we've learned for the past 8 years? And now we are going to give Hill a bye on this?

Come on...nuclear energy? Shouldn't this be a dead issue? If you think for a minute that having this going on in the background isn't going to increase nuclear power in this country, you need to re-examine the issue quite a bit more deeply. And that's just the surface of it. That's an awful lot of money to change hands and go into a "philanthropic" organization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
150. Foundations ARE HOW the Ultra-Rich Manage their Fortune and Transfer it to Next Generation
Been done this way in the US for over a century now.

Foundations have Boards who take Huge Pay Plans and other high paid employees.

They invest in corporations just like other corporations do, except it's tax sheltered as a Charitable Org.

Where the fuck do you think rich fucks like Pat Robertson got their game plan from.

Foundations don't pay inheritance taxes.

The very first thing any smart person does when they have a windfall of assets
like is any of us won a multi-hundred million Powerball or something

First thing, start a foundation. Say it's for a charitable purpose

Then take as much from it for yourself as you want.

Give your kids and all of your buddies huge salaries too, working for the foundation
and doing jack shit for it.

I am dirt fucking poor and probably always will be

But I know how the fucking scam works
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. It's not that complicated
The article suggests the following set of relationships and motivations:

Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States

What he wants: Donations for his foundation; money from engagements
What he has to offer: Blessing the human rights record of Kazakhstan's dictator

Frank Giustra, uber-rich mining company owner

What he wants: Contracts for his shell mining company UrAsia with the Kazakhstan state-run uranium agency
What he has to offer: Money in the form of donations, connections, etc.

Nursultan Nazarbayev, dictator of Kazakhstan

What he wants: International legitimacy for his anti-democratic regime, including a pass on human rights abuses
What he has to offer: Instant contracts to Kazakhstan's uranium mines

Given this configuration, one can see how things might - ahem - unfold...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. Who hasn't been fully vetted again?
The Balzac rule still applies: Behind every fortune, there's a crime.

Bill has been running up the score financially since 2000 and you don't do that without covering yourself in some mud. He has fought every single effort to disclose information on his foundation donors, which should be a red flag right there. In addition to this dodgy deal, there's a $10 million from the Saudi royal family that was only discovered when the Washington Post reviewed tax records. I'm sure there are other embarrassments in the file.

So you have the specter of President Hillary's husband owing all sorts of favors to criminal types around the world, all of whom anted up with the idea that they would be one phone call away from the White House next time they needed a favor.

Someone convince me that the Clintons aren't a political disaster waiting to happen if we send them into the general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. all good points. can you imagine fours years in office under investigation
cuz of international dirty deals like this? Exactly what I've been worried about. Exactly what Edwards would not have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
75. The Clintons have NOT been fully vetted. Their ties w GOP bigwigs have been left out.
2 Examples: Jackson Stephens and (the real reason for the pardon, do you think it was just for campaign donations?) Marc Rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #75
154. Jackson Stephans goes all the way back to Arkansas
That's all been explored endlessly. And the Rich pardon was investigated by Congress and the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Nothing came of any of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
12. wow!
Edited on Wed Jan-30-08 11:12 PM by madrchsod
this isn`t good for hillary....shit, was he going around her back on the rights issue?

..dam this really isn`t good for the democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
37. once a cheater, always a cheater!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjdnb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
15. Obama and Rezko ... Clinton and Giustra - no difference
Give Obama a few more years with power and his list will be just as long... fact is honest, forward thinking candidates - like Gore or Edwards - can not win anymore. And, while Carter won, he was rendered ineffectual by the 'powers that be'. Gore won - yet, Bush is the President. Kerry was swift boated and Bush is the President.

It's all about ego, money, power, and compromise - to retain the same, at the expense of hard-working, honest, Americans. In 2006, we handed the Dems the majority -- had they embraced that mandate, they'd have done much more to serve the country by now. Instead, they chose the 'safe road' and have caved to the Admin at almost every crossroad.

My son was right --- it IS time for a legitimate, viable, third party to emerge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. As we all know, Rezko is a foreign dictator and slums are the equivalent of nucular stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
40. You have obviously mistaken this country for a democracy.
This is a corporatocracy and from now on, we only get candidates who are good corporatists. That's why we have have the remaining two choices we have and only those. And that's all we'll ever get.

I'd love a viable 3rd party and I have voted for many third party candidates for local elections and one Prez election...but the powers that be will not allow it. It's like trying to start a union in this day and age.

I just don't think I can vote for either one of these two candidates. I'm really, really concerned for the direction of this country when we have the weakest field of Repukes EVER running and all we can come up with is two corporatists to run against them. Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
120. and you have obviously mistaken our elections
as legitimate. wink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #120
143. No illusions of legitimacy here.
What a bummer, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. Yeesh
Edited on Wed Jan-30-08 11:24 PM by alcibiades_mystery
Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

“You are correct that I asked the president to meet with the head of Kazatomprom,” Mr. Giustra said. “Mr. Dzhakishev asked me in February 2007 to set up a meeting with former President Clinton to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.” Mr. Giustra said the meeting “escaped my memory until you raised it.”

Wednesday, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman, Ben Yarrow, issued what he called a “correction,” saying: “Today, Mr. Giustra told our office that in February 2007, he brought Mr. Dzhakishev from Kazatomprom to meet with President Clinton to discuss the future of nuclear energy.”

Mr. Yarrow said his earlier denial was based on the former president’s records, which he said “show a Feb. 27 meeting with Mr. Giustra; no other attendees are listed.”

Mr. Dzhakishev said he had a vivid memory of his Chappaqua visit, and a souvenir to prove it: a photograph of himself with the former president.

“I hung up the photograph of us and people ask me if I met with Clinton and I say, Yes, I met with Clinton,” he said, smiling proudly.


-----------SNIP-----------

Ugh-lee...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. I hate the lying.
Like he did not remember a meeting like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
155. When I read all that
its unclear who made the denial. It looks like a spokesman made the denial, not Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. WILLIE: Major Screwings of America for Make Benefit Glorious President of Clinton
Edited on Wed Jan-30-08 11:29 PM by originalpckelly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. ROFL!!!
High five!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Well, hell, it is Borat's home.
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. omfg! I forgot about Borat! Wonder if he knew? HAHA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheney Killed Bambi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
35. Wish I could rec your reply!
Two thumbs up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
109. "...All other countries run by little girls..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
26. This is the kind of sleaze factor we could really do without right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
29. RINOS, DINOS, and CINOS
The Clintons are CINOS. Clintons in name only. They were adopted by the Bushes. In case anyone has forgotten the not-so-funny-but-possibly-revealing comment by Barbara Bush. Adopted and nurtured and quickly educated about the ways of the real world. The real world the Bushes have created. A world of oligarchy. All for the few. To hell with everyone else. And educated about the way things are put in place to fool the voters. And now about the way things are just merely ignored. Once you have changed the Constitution to place yourself above the law. With a wave of the hand, you dismiss the charges and those who have leveled them. After all, you control everything. And everyone.

Including the Attorney General of the United States. Congress can try to stop you. And the Justice Department can stop Congress. Just put the right US Attorney in place and watch the representatives in that judicial district jump in your lap and wag their tail. Now that everyone knows the US Attorneys can do whatever they want. Just as long as it's what you want. Pulling strings to make sure you're not prosecuted. Pulling strings to make sure your enemies are. Don't think that's the reality? Just ask anyone in Texas who knows Oscar Wyatt. He more than anyone has proven how powerful the Bushes have become. And why so many in Texas in particular have begun to fear them. Including Oscar Wyatt. Who never feared anyone before in his life. But does now.

The Bushes are the patriarchs, and the matriarch, of the oligarchists. And the oligarchists want Hillary. And will have Hillary. By hook or by crook. Think they won't? You've forgotten 2000 in Florida. And 2004 in Ohio. Watch Barack Obama win the primaries. And then watch Hillary Clinton end up with the delegates at the convention. By hook. Or by crook. With the Bushes and the oligarchists firmly behind her.

Hillary Clinton is merely going to be an extension of the oligarchy established by George W Bush the way Bill Clinton was an extension of the laying of the foundation of the oligarchy established by George HW Bush. Why would the Clintons sell everyone out? They like the money, honey. They like it very much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. Re: delegates at the convention.
Hillary needs to win the proportionally-allocated delegates outright, putting MI & FL aside, or there will be a s**tstorm of conflict. I don't want her to be the Dem. nominee, but if she is, I hope she won a significant majority of the delegates -- and doesn't have to rely on MI, or FL, or especially the superdelegates.

p.s. As soon as I started reading the article, I began picturing all the Clinton/Poppy Bush chumminess we've seen over the last number of years. I'm not equating them; just too damn cozy w/ some seriously bent, wicked people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
47. she can be Jeb's chairwarmer.... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #29
108. Actually they were adopted by Bush/BCCI/Walmart Financier Jackson Stephens:
Stephens Inc. was founded by Witt Stephens, a state legislator's son who parlayed a Depression-era belt-buckle, Bible, and municipal-bond business into an immense personal fortune. After his retirement in 1973, the company was run by his shy younger brother, Jackson (a classmate of Jimmy Carter's at the Naval Academy). Witt Stephens and Stephens Inc. did much to create the economic paradox that is modern Arkansas: a desperately poor state with a scant 2.3 million inhabitants that is nonetheless home to a number of wealthy companies. Without the financial assistance of the Stephens brothers, Sam Walton might have ended his days as the most innovative merchant in Bentonville. Stephens money was also important to the fortunes of enterprises as various as Tyson Foods and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, the television producer and reigning First Friend. Stephens Inc. is an important client of the Rose law firm, whose chairman, C. Joseph Giroir, made Hillary Rodham Clinton a partner. And back in 1977, Stephens assisted BCCI's infiltration of the American banking system by brokering the latter's purchase of National Bank of Georgia stock held by Bert Lance, former President Jimmy Carter's friend and disgraced budget director.

Jackson Stephens (who turned over the reins to his son, Warren, in the late eighties) and his firm were both substantial contributors to the campaigns of Presidents Reagan and Bush (to the tune of at least $100,000 in 1980 and 1989), but they have been closer still to Bill Clinton (whom Witt Stephens had been known to call "that boy").

On two occasions, once when Clinton was running for reelection in Arkansas in 1990 and again in March 1992, when his battered presidential campaign was broke, the Stephens family saved Clinton's bacon with an infusion of money. Indeed, it may not be too much to say that their Worthen Bank's emergency $3.5 million line of credit saved the presidential campaign from extinction. --L.J.D.

-snip

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1993/11/davis.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
32. I hate being so jaded. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
33. Oh-oh!
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
42. Ruh-roh.
Now this is the kind of thing that sinks a candidacy. With Hillary's poll numbers already sinking in major Super Tuesday states, this some veeeery bad news. I really wish Edwards had stayed in just one more day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #42
49.  I really wish Edwards had stayed in just one more day.
Hah!

That was a good one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #49
57. Actually he said he "suspended his campaign" so technically he could return!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #57
136. Maybe it was a strategy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #49
139. Was that supposed to be a joke?
Yeah I wish Edwards could have stayed in until today so he could see even more evidence of the Corrupt Corporate Clintons.

Obama supporters being dickish to Edwards supporters isn't very smart. I'm supporting him now that Edwards is out so there is no need for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #42
101. Had he stayed in one more day, the NYT would have printed it tomorrow.
They've obviously been sitting on this story for some time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #101
146. Yeah I do get that feeling about it
I actually wondered if Edwards agreed to drop out just so this story could come out, but that seems a bit far-fetched.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
50. And the slime flows from the other candidate supporters
I have never ever seen such a group of reprehensible individuals as his supporters. But BIRD OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER. So we see what type of person the other candidate is.

Spew and slime all you want, it will not improve that candidates chances to get the nomination...HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT. And that just frosts them to bits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. There is that Rovian stink of inevitability again. n/t
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 07:42 AM by JTFrog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #50
61. I'm happy to see Hillary Clinton as the next president
Doesn't "frost me" in the least bit.

If you don't see how praising the human rights record of a brutal despot in exchange for a mining contract is even a little bit dirty, then you really have no business calling other people reprehensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
149. Remind me again how Queen Inevitable did in SC?
And you may want to check out the poll numbers of those big Super Tuesday states in the Northeast. Hillary's going down down down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
51. It always amazes me how the Repubs absolutely hate the Clintons
when he's more Republican than they are. Look at some of the major things passed under Clinton's watch---all Republican staples:

Passage of NAFTA and WTO by the U.S. Congress, thanks in large part to strongarming and sweetheart deals to Congress by the Clinton Administration;

Banking deregulation by removing major depression-era firewalls;

Welfare reform;

And the list goes on.

Yet, when you mention "Clinton" to a conservative Republican, they just about blow a gasket from the anger built up from the mere mention of the name.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
54. Does anyone think it's possible for one empire to loot another without moral compromise?
"Shocked, I'll tell you, just shocked."

This simply illustrates how the western world stripped the energy assets of the Former Soviet Union. We did it by making deals with the meanest, ugliest local ogres and then looked the other way as the uranium and oil flowed out. Kind of like flushing a toilet.

You want to do it another way? You have to kick the Business As Usual politicians in both parties out of Washington. Then invest a trillion dollars in converting America into a self-sufficient, post-carbon economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. As tall as the order is, I like it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #54
64. I'm not shocked at all
Of course this is how things work. The people claiming it was all for the good of the AIDS charity seem to be the laughably naive ones, not the people saying this stinks to high heaven.

It's funny, though. When one of our people is caught in a very sleazy sort of deal, you see people coming out of the woodwork to remind us that the whole world is sleazy, really, and that we should say or do little about THIS particular sleazy deal since we can't do everything about general sleaziness. That strikes me as a false problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #64
128. Bill Clinton and G.H.W. Bush are both involved with Canadian Mining Companies in 3rd World countries
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 02:11 PM by leveymg
The NYT reports today that Former President Bill Clinton operates a foundation with Canadian mining magnate, Frank Giustra. The two are reported to have worked together to seal a uranium mining deal with the President of Khazakstan, who is accused of human rights violations. Clinton, who runs a non-profit foundation with Giustra, is not said to have personally gained from this transaction.

Meanwhile, the Times has failed to provide some important context. Former President G.H.W. Bush, Sr. has made a personal fortune doing business with Barrack Gold, a huge Canadian mining company affiliated with the Carlyle Group. Both former Presidents have, in their different ways, tapped into the $USD trillion global mining industry, based largely in Canada, which operates in the most unstable and underdeveloped regions of the world.

Giustra is a relative newcomer to the global mining business, while Barrack Gold is one of the very largest and oldest global extraction companies, and has long-established ties with conservative politicians in Canada and the United States. Both outfits do business with private military contractors and corrupt Third World dictatorships. These companies are major contributors to "charitable" and "development" agencies that operate in mineral-rich areas of Africa, South America, and Central Asia.

Giustra has partnered with Clinton as a major contributor to a charity that operates in the Third World. This not really a new story. See, http://www.stockhouse.ca/bullboards/viewmessage.asp?no=15115993&tableid=0

Andy Hoffman
Thursday, June 21, 2007

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton has teamed with a reclusive Vancouver mining financier and a Mexican billionaire to create a massive charitable effort that will see the mining industry channel funds to fight poverty in areas affected by the resource sector.

Frank Giustra, who has made millions for himself and investors financing mining deals, has pledged $100-million (U.S) and half of all his future earnings from the mining business towards the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI). Carlos Slim Helu, a Mexican billionaire who made his fortune in the telecom industry has also committed $100-million towards the effort, which will initially focus on alleviating poverty and fostering growth in Latin America.


“I firmly believe that this innovative partnership between the Clinton Foundation and the business community – and the mining industry in particular – will have a profound and positive effect on the lives of countless people in the developing world during the months and years ahead,” Mr. Giustra, the 49-year-old son of a Sudbury miner and former head of Yorkton Securities, said in a statement.

Several large mining companies including zinc and copper producer Teck Cominco Ltd. and gold miner Newmont Mining Corp. have signed on as partners to the charity group which plans to expand its efforts beyond Latin America to other parts of the developing world.

As well, mining focused Canadian brokerage firms including Canaccord Capital Inc. and GMP Securities LP have committed to the fund and will direct a percentage of their resource-related commission fees to the CGSCI.

Toronto law firm Cassels Brock has promised a financial contribution as well as a pledge to provide legal services at no charge. The Toronto Stock Exchange and London Stock Exchange are also supporting the initiative.

SNIP

Although many mining companies have spent millions on funding sustainable development, education, health and infrastructure in countries and areas in which they operate, the industry still gets a bum rap, according to Newmont Mining board member and former company president Pierre Lassonde.

“What I find absolutely genius in the move here is that what has done is he has got Bill Clinton to more or less, be the spokesman for resource development. That is momentous,” Mr. Lassonde said in an interview.

In the past, some mining companies have faced severe criticism for exploiting resources in developing nations and giving little back to the community. In some cases, mining has caused environmental damage that has made some areas uninhabitable or been linked to illnesses in local people.

The CGSGI said it intends to work with local leaders to address, social, economic and environmental issues in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. The Clinton Foundation will act as the “implementing partner” linking the resource industry with local communities in the developing world.

SNIP

While the CGSGI may be the single largest charity initiative by the mining sector, Mr. Giustra's contribution follows previous large-scale donations by other industry heavyweights from Canada.

Mr. Lassonde has donated millions through his own active philanthropic efforts as has his Franco-Nevada co-founder and long-time business partner Seymour Schulich. Mr. Schulich recently gave $22.5-million (Canadian) to the Technion-Israel Institute, which is naming its chemistry department after him. His past gifts have included $27-million to York University's school of business and $20-million to McGill University's faculty of music. Barrick Gold co-founder Peter Munk gave almost $61-million to charity last year alone including $37-million to the Toronto General Hospital, $18.5-million to the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and $5-million to the University of Toronto.



According to this 2006 article by Keith Harmon Snow and David Barouski, Barrack Gold is connected to both Bush and, less directly, with close Clinton associates in mineral extraction operations in some of the bloodiest areas in Africa. See, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9832


SNIP

Some people have lauded great progress in the exposure of illegal mining in DRC, particularly by the group Human Rights Watch (HRW), whose 2005 report “The Curse of Gold” exposed Ugandan officials and multi-national corporations smuggling gold through local rebel militias. The cited rebel groups were the Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI) and the People’s Armed Forces of Congo (FAPC). The western companies targeted by HRW were Anglo-Ashanti Gold, a company headquartered in South Africa, and Metalor, a Swedish firm. The HRW report failed to mention that Anglo-Ashanti is partnered with Anglo-American, owned by the Oppenheimer family and partnered with Canada-based Barrick Gold described below (3). London-based Anglo-American Plc. owns a 45% share in DeBeers, another Oppenheimer company that is infamous for its near monopoly of the international diamond industry (4). Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, a director of Anglo-American, is a director of Royal Dutch/Shell and a member of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s Advisory Board (5). The report also suppressed the most damning evidence discovered by HRW researchers—that Anglo-Ashanti sent its top lawyers into eastern DRC to aid rebel militia leaders arrested there.

Several multi-national mining companies have rarely if ever been mentioned in any human rights report. One is Barrick Gold, who operates in the town of Watsa, northwest of the town of Bunia, located in the most violent corner of the Congo. The Ugandan People’s Defense Force (UPDF) controlled the mines intermittently during the war. Officials in Bunia claim that Barrick executives flew into the region, with UPDF and RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front) escorts, to survey and inspect their mining interests (6).

George H.W. Bush served as a paid advisor for Barrick Gold. Barrick directors include: Brian Mulroney, former PM of Canada; Edward Neys, former U.S. ambassador to Canada and chairman of the private PR firm Burston-Marsteller; former U.S. Senator Howard Baker; J. Trevor Eyton, a member of the Canadian Senate; and Vernon Jordan, one of Bill Clinton’s lawyers (7).

Barrick Gold is one of the client companies of Andrew Young’s Goodworks International lobbying firm. Andrew Young is the former Mayor of Atlanta, and a key organizer of the U.S.-Uganda Friendship Council. Young was chosen by President Clinton to chair the Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund in October 1994. Goodworks’ clients—or business partners in some cases—include Coke, Chevron-Texaco, Monsanto, and the governments of Angola and Nigeria (note weapons transfers from Nigeria cited below). Young is a director of Cox Communications and Archers Daniels Midland—the “supermarket to the world” and National Public Radio sponsor whose directors include Brian Mulroney (Barrick) and G. Allen Andreas, a member of the European Advisory Board of The Carlyle Group.

Barrick Gold’s mining partners have included Adastra Mining—formerly named America Mineral Fields (AMFI, AMX, other names), formerly based in Hope, Arkansas, Bill Clinton’s hometown. Adastra had close ties with Lazare Kaplan International Inc., the largest diamond brokerage firm in the U.S., whose president, Maurice Tempelsman, has been an advisor on African Affairs to the U.S. Government and has been the U.S. Honorary Consul General of the Congo since 1977 (8).

Maurice Tempelsman accompanied Bill Clinton during his African tour in 1998, and he sails with the Clintons off Martha’s Vineyard.
He serves on the International Advisory Council of the American Stock Exchange, and is a director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, a
”scientific” front for his offshore diamond mining—raking the seabed into oblivion.

Adastra also purchased a diamond concession on the Congolese-Angolan border from the Belgian mercenary firm International Defense and Security (1998), and currently has cobalt and copper concessions in Congo’s Katanga (Shaba) province (9). Adastra is a member of the Corporate Council on Africa, along with Goodworks, Halliburton, Chevron-Texaco, Northrop Grumman, GE, Boeing, Raytheon, Bechtel and SAIC—the latter two being secretive intelligence and defense entities involved in classified and supra-governmental “black” projects.

In April 1997, Jean-Ramon Boulle, a co-founder of Adastra (then AMFI), received a $1 billion dollar deal for mines in the Congo at Kolwezi (cobalt) and Kipushi (zinc) from Laurent Kabila’s Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Zaire (ADFL) before they were even officially in power. The ADFL were even allowed to use Boulle’s private jet (10). Meanwhile, directors of Adastra are also former directors of Anglo-American (11). Other Clinton-connected founders of Adastra include Michael McMurrough and Robert Friedland—both involved in shady, criminal, offshore businesses in Indonesia, Africa, Burma and the Americas (12).

Barrick sub-contracts to Caleb International, who has also partnered with Adastra in the past. Caleb is run by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s half-brother Salim Saleh, the former acting General of the UPDF. When Uganda withdrew from the Congo in 2002 following a so-called “peace” agreement, Saleh began training paramilitary groups to act as Ugandan proxies to sustain the flow of minerals into Uganda (13).

SNIP

Katanga’s militias and racketeering are connected to criminal networks of businessmen, including Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, Billy Rautenbach, John Bredenkamp, and Marc Rich. U.S. diamond magnate Maurice Tempelsman has profited from Katanga concessions since the Kennedy era. Lawrence Devlin, the old CIA station chief of Lubumbashi under Eisenhower, maintained Tempelsman’s criminal rackets with direct ties to Zaire’s former President Mobutu, and was subsequently employed by Tempelsman (16).

The Forrest Group has the longest history of exploitation in the Congo, gaining its first mining concessions before the Congo declared independence from the Belgians. The group, which includes the Ohio-based OM Group, has numerous concessions in Katanga (Shaba). Chairman George Forrest is the former chairman of the Congo’s state-owned mining firm GECAMINES, and owner of the New Lachaussee weapons manufacturing company.

Coltan ore is widely used in the aerospace and electronics industries for capacitors, superconductors and transistors after it is refined to tantalum. The U.S. is entirely dependant on foreign sources for tantalum, an enabling technology for capacitors essential to aerospace weaponry and every pager, cell phone, computer, VCR, CD player, P.D.A. and TV. U.S. import records show a dramatic jump of purchases from Rwanda and Uganda during the time they were smuggling tantalum and cobalt out of the Congo.

SNIP

Bechtel, a U.S. aerospace & construction company, provided satellite maps of reconnaissance photos of Mobutu’s troops for the ADFL invasion of Congo in 1996; they also created infrared maps of the Congo’s mineral deposits (22). The Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), led by Paul Kagame, the current Rwandan President graduate of the U.S. Army officers school at Fort Leavenworth, used Bechtel’s NASA maps to locate Rwandan Hutu civilians that fled the cataclysm in Rwanda in 1994. An estimated 800,000 refugees were hunted down and killed in the Congo’s forests (23). Bechtel’s friends in high places include former Secretary of State George Shultz (Board of Directors), former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger (Bechtel Counsel) and retired U.S.M.C. general Jack Sheehan (Senior Vice President), who is also a member of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon (24). Riley P. Bechtel is on the Board of J.P. Morgan (25). Bechtel’s Nexant Company is the prime contractor on the Uganda-Kenya pipeline project, believed to ultimately facilitate petroleum transport out of the Semliki Basin of Lake Albert.

The U.N. Panel of Experts named New England-based Cabot Co. for conducting unethical business practices (26). Cabot is one of the largest tantalum processors in the world. The current Deputy Director of the U.S. Treasury, Samuel Bodman, was CEO and chairman of the board for Cabot from 1997-2001 (27). Current Director John H. McArthur is a Senior Advisor to Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank (28).

Private Military Contractors (PMCs) are also big business in Africa. Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, helped build a military base near Cyangugu, Rwanda just next to the Congo-Rwandan border. ”Officially,” Brown and Root was there to clear land mines, but instead housed mercenaries from Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI) who trained the RPF and Laurent Kabila’s ADFL for invasion of the Congo in 1996, and the Rwandan army’s re-invasion in 1998, after
Laurent Kabila threw out the Rwandans, Ugandans, Bechtel and the IMF (29). The French intelligence service reported that U.S. Special Forces and mercenaries from MPRI participated in the murder of Rwandan Hutu refugees on the Oso River near Goma in 1996 and even claims to have turned over the bodies of two American soldiers killed in combat near Goma (30). The circumstances surrounding the unofficial recovery of these two U.S. soldiers remain very mysterious (31).

MPRI is based in Arlington, Virginia and is staffed and run by 36 retired U.S. generals. It is contracted by the Pentagon to fulfill the African Crisis Responsive Initiative (ACRI). This program includes the Ugandan military, and it supplied military training in guerrilla warfare to Ugandan officers at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in July 1996. During the invasion of the Congo in 1998, Ugandan soldiers were found with ACRI equipment while Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have implicated Ugandan battalions trained by ACRI in rapes, murders, extortion, and beatings of Ugandan civilians (32).

Executive Outcomes founder Tony Buckingham has established other Private Military Companies that operate around Africa. Buckingham’s Heritage Oil & Gas works closely with his PMC Sandline International to manipulate the petroleum options around Lake Albert, and is believed to have signed concession deals with warring armies and governments on both sides of the Uganda-Congo border. Branch Energy is another Buckingham affiliated company operating in the Great Lakes region.

SNIP


Perhaps reflecting a larger reality about global business, these interlocking mining and charitable operations make Bill Clinton and G.H.W. Bush both competitors and business partners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
55. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
One hand seems not to know what the other is doing. As far as we know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
62. Why is this posted on "Democratic Underground"????
Shouldn't you post it on Free Republic or Ann Coulter's website???????????????????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. Huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #65
76. What is there to "huh" about? It is amateurish and pointless.
This is the kind of Amateur Hour tactic that the FReepers and the Coulters love; put person-you-want-to-discredit-A in a situation-with-unsavory-character-B, and watch all the people with a bone to pick against Person A work themselves up into a masturbatory-like glee. There's no real attempt to debate or discuss the finer points, it is just an old-fashioned smear job.

If this is the best that Team Obama can muster of political maneuvering, then they're in a world of trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #76
79. I'm happy to "debate the finer points" with you
As I see it, this isn't merely "putting person you want to discredit A with unsavory character B." It's a legitimate news story about how power works. You can dispute that or not, but you're hardly on solid ground substantially when all you do is call names and rant about the existence of the story, period.

So, what are the finer points?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #79
81. There aren't any
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. Ah...I see
OK, then. I guess we're done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #79
88. But BILL Clinton is NOT running for president and...
when he made that trip...he was NOT president any longer! So why is this being posted now, and especially on Democratic Underground??? This is a classic tactic of the rightwing attack machine. PERIOD!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. Yell and pout all you want
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 10:44 AM by alcibiades_mystery
It is a legitimate news story when a former US president renowned for his global human rights work praises the human rights record of an obvious despot, with the suggestion that such praise was a quid pro quo for a private mining interest.

If that's not news to you, then you're simply a fanatic. Now, I'm happy to debate any aspect of this, including the dubious credentials of the reporters, etc. But to yell and pout that it shouldn't even be discussed (PERIOD!) is a bizarre response indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #90
92. You just exposed either your naiivity or bias with that post
i.e., "SUGGESTION" that such praise was a quid pro quo.

OUTED!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. I thought I was being fair there
It means that I don't necessarily agree with the characterization, largely because there is not enough evidence. I've been open with this disclaimer throughout these discussions, so this is a bit like "outing" me for saying something I've said all along: there is not sufficient proof to establish quid pro quo in that article. but there is smoke enough to discuss it. You got me. of course, like I said, I've been saying that all along, so congratulations on outing me. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. "Disclaimer" notwithstanding...
you still go on with the criticism. THAT is the "outing" I was talking about, you definitely have developed an opinion on the issue, but are cushioning it with the disclaimer once/in case it turns out this is all smoke. :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #95
98. It's called a qualifier, friend
And there's nothing particularly wrong with it. Yes, I am a careful person. I include qualifiers when making claims. Wow. Guilty. You got me! :shrug:

The facts of the article seem well-established. The question is whether they are connected in a particular way 9i.e., quid pro quo). Reasonable people can draw conclusions about that.

Your version of discussion is "absolute certainty about intentions or don't discuss it at all." You must not have very much to talk about in life! :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #90
124. Never said it shouldn't be discussed...
but the timing and the place is questionable, especially in the context of presidential candidacies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #76
100. It is in the NY Times. It is reasonable and prudent to talk about it.
The press has been holding back. It's phase 2 of the JDNE strategy. Now that he's out of the way, it's time for the corporate press to unload on Obama and Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #62
87. George II, it seems we are supposed to address Obama's issues here but not Clintons', why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #87
89. Sure, discuiss HILLARY Clinton's issues, OK?
I didn't see anywhere in that article where HILLARY Clinton participated in that trip or those meetings or those introductions.

Listen, I am an OBAMA supporter, and will vote for him next Tuesday, but I absolutely DESPISE these sleazy tactics of attacks. I hated them when the republicans began attacking Bill Clinton even before he took the oath of office, and I hated them when they attacked Gore in 2004 and I hated the swift-boat attacks on Kerry in 2004.

The really disgusting thing is that now we have "Democrats" doing precisely the same thing to other DEMOCRATS. We're all supposed to be above that crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
73. So what? He was a consultant for a Canadian mining company.
Kazakhstan is not going to become a democracy by isolating it. And so what if the company head donated to Clinton's charity. I thought that would be a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #73
80. I'm with you on this one
And if you go into the article it was even mentioned that Bill started to sever ties with these people as Hillary's campaign intensified.

I hardly see anything to get that bent out of shape - but the anti-hill folks will be all over this like a cheap suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #80
107. you mean like the Hill folks jumped all over Obama's Reagan comments?
and totally distorted his meaning? The truth is in the eye of beholder. The Hill people are still hoping & praying that the Rezko story will grow legs. When you sling mud, you're bound to get some on yourself.

As a former Edwards supporter, I can't understand why no claim is too ridiculous when it comes to Obama, but the Clintoons are off limits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #73
83. Consultant is one thing...praising the human rights record of a despot is quite another
The quid pro quo here is clear: Nazarbayev would give Giustra's company the contract in exchange for Clinton's happy words about his human rights record. But his human rights record remained atrocious.

For you, this is just standard consulting work?

Here's another option Clinton had: NOT publicly praising the human rights record of a clear human rights abuser.

I know. i know. This makes me a "naive" "moral purist." I don't think Democratic former Presidents should make it easier for despotic regimes to continue their abuses. I'm like a fringe lunatic, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
74. WOW we sound just like
The Repukes eating up John Mcain over his working with Democrats to get legislation passed... They hate Mcain because its their way or no way intolerant ass clowns the lot of em...

Anyway.. How bout we don't fuel that same kind of intolerant hate in the Democratic party. If there is wrong doing lets allow the judicial system to work in this country... Calling names and making accusations is just no different than partisan attacks if you cannot prove that a law was broken then just shut up about it...

This is exactly the type of Politics that Barrack Obama wants to change in D.C....

If Clinton is guilty of doing something wrong then Congress should hold her accountable under the ethics rules. If she is guilty of crime then she should be prosecuted...

But if this is all conjecture and innuendo and context and nuance and subtlety.. then it needs to stop now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. so we shouldn't
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 09:59 AM by beezlebum
call out the wolves in sheeps clothing, those masquerading as our "friends," when really, they not only occasionally "sound" like repukes, but ARE repukes? they are all one in the m/effing same- corporatist douchebags, oligarchs. there are no republicans, and there are no democrats.

how 'bout we don't let that "don't eat your own" meme stop us from weeding out operatives and infiltrates? oh wait- too late. f that- i'm still calling them out. i don't care who or what i sound like anymore. i'm so tired of progressives pimping corporatists like billary et al.

the people are that last hope for checks and balances- if the people didn't sniff out stories like this, and make accusations like this then our "representatives" could get away with murder...oh wait...

and most of all, since WHEN should i expect fucking CONGRESS to hold ANYONE accountable for criminal activity? where have you been the last 7 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #77
137. Owww...
You had way too much coffee... step away from the folgers....

I agree with some of your assesment but I hate when we eat our own because any Democratic candidate is a thousand times better than their Puke Counterpart...

I think in order to change the world your gonna have to start small...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #137
145. i disagree
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 04:31 PM by beezlebum
and i rarely drink coffee, and folgers is gross- CDM or community, thank you; irrelevant since i had none this morning. i'm simply having a moment of severe disillusion which no amount of immodium could possibly remedy, and a newfound cynicism which can be cured by neither platitudes nor superficial, empty, disingenuous, meaningless blatherings of change and difference.

if i thought hillary was a thousand times better than mccain- and i'll give her this one- she wants to stay in iraq until 2013, making it a full decade (or until the next big turrist attack) instead of the full century that mccain cheers for- then perhaps i would be willing to look past a handful of indiscretions.

sorry- but one time better (and please note that 1 times 1 is only 1- multiply hillary and mccain, and you get hillary and mccain) really isn't good enough for me, or my children and grandchildren, that is if my children will ever have the opportunity to venture into parenthood, whose future i would like to believe has some sort of hope for security, and not just the "armed" kind.

once again- if there were a difference between "us" (democrats, at least the "front runners, as our media would have us believe) and "them" (republicans), and good gravy i wish there were one, perhaps i wouldn't be so reluctant to swallow the putrid bile that our front runners spew.

keeping mouthes closed (read: refraining from "bashing") because a poli has a certain letter by its name does not a good patriot make. it is only by cognitive dissonance, critical thinking, and lack of willingness to place said servants on a pedestal and call them gods that one can make a viable choice.

i have no reverence for the office these people are trying to attain, but i do have it for the people they will ensure continue to slip through the cracks, if they aren't altogether blown to smithereens, so please do not attempt to persuade me to have any sort of pity on hillary clinton, or obama. or anyone else, just because a "(D)" resides near their names on the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrJJ Donating Member (657 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
78. Silence from Billary
Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions
Tapes Reviewed by ABC News Show Clinton As a Loyal Company Woman

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.

Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."

An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
91. I thought the childish candidate bashing was going to be kept in juvenile hall!
Take it to GDKids will you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #91
104. seriously...
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 11:28 AM by beezlebum
are we not supposed to point to truths and fallacies of revered gods? can we not ask questions and point to possible serious indiscretions without being accused of "bashing?" how then are we supposed to decide whom is best suited to run this country, thusly having a massive impact on the rest of the world?

i equate "stop bashing my candidate" with "stop bashing bush, bush hater!" (hm...i never rly noticed until just now...bushbots and hillbots sound eerily similar)

i've heard it for seven goddamned long years from trolls on general news forums and co-workers and neighbors and friends when pointing out the number of soldiers killed and/or questioning the policy, tactics, and plain contradictory statements fed to us by the bush/cheney corporation. "stop hating bush!" "oh you're just anti-bush" "bush basher"-

replace "bush" with "hill-dawg" and whoa- we have the new buzz cut.

please, i, a tremendously cynical citizen, implore you or anyone else to kindly explain how a "democrat" cuts medicare programs, and taxes for the rich, etcetera (see my post @ 71), tell me how corporate beddings, like chairing on the board at effing walmart, proves any interest in people over money- please, so i can stop worrying and learn to love the bigdawg/bama. and i swear, i'll stop the bashing (er, asking questions, researching, investigating) right away. i have asked for this many times, and i have yet to recieve a response- all i get is, "stop teh bashing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #104
163. i guess not
still waiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
94. Yikes.
Bill Clinton certainly gets around, doesn't he. I don't know why I ever believe a word he says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
106. Kazakhstan is a U.S. ally
We give them military aid and Bush has entertained the president.

Morally this is a problem, but not politically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
110. Gore met with him too what exactly does THIS prove?
I guess I must be missing something...google around, Clinton and Gore apparently had long standing negotiations with Nursultan A. Nazarbayev--silly me it just sounds like they were trying to get him to shape up his act.

http://www.fas.org/news/kazakh/931213-317011.htm

12/13/93 *

U.S., KAZAKHSTAN SIGN NUCLEAR DISMANTLEMENT PACT (Gore, Nazarbayev announce agreement in Almaty) (770) By Jim Shevis USIA Correspondent Almaty, Kazakhstan -- Vice President Al Gore and Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev signed an agreement December 13 that provides for United States assistance in the ultimate destruction of Kazakhstan's nuclear weapons arsenal.

At a joint press conference following the signing ceremony, Gore told reporters the Safe, Secure Dismantlement (SSD) agreement -- together with other pacts signed during his brief visit here -- "mark the beginning of an entirely new relationship between Kazakhstan and the United States."

Meeting with "Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent" certainly sounds nefarious, given the way the article is written, but IMO that is about it.

Obviously negotiations with this dictator have been ongoing for several years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. good point, but it doesn't sound like Gore got $137m in return....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #110
117. If meeting with him were all there was to it, I'd agree
But that's not what happened. Clinton publicly praised his non-existent progress toward democracy. This doesn't help him "clean up his act." It does precisely the opposite, because it relieves international human rights pressure on him to do that. And the suggestion is that Clinton made these statements as part of a quid pro quo: take the human rights pressure off, and your buddy Giustra here gets a uranium contract.

This goes beyond simply "meeting with." It's a monumental ethical breach. UNLESS, unless, unless Clinton actually believed that Nazarbayev was cleaning up his act, human rights-wise. In which case, Clinton is a fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. I don't know enough about Nazarbayev
To know whether his conduct has or hasn't improved over the last 19 years...but after googling for five minutes it has come to my attention that Giustra's film company was the one responsible for bringing us Fahrenheit 911 and he is a known philanthropist.

I have no reason to think (based on what I have been reading about Giustra) that Clinton didn't think "his buddy" was an ethical individual that puts his fortune to good use.

I'm sorry I just don't see anything all that shocking about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #122
134. "Puts his fortune to good use"
This is neither here nor there.

Do you think it is right to talk up somebody's human rights record in exchange for a mining contract, if that person's human rights record is not great.

That's the question. Now, you are correct to say that we should ask about Nazarbayev's human rights record (had it actually improved?), but that's the only pertinent objection. What mining company owner would do with his windfall profits is beside the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #134
138. OK Point taken
I would in fact like to look up the goods on Nazarbayev to see if in fact his conduct has improved.

I can understand what you are saying about the windfall profits going to charity being beside the point because yes, in the end it would be.

I guess my thoughts are...that perhaps Clinton believed that his friend
( the mining magnate) is ethical and would have been a good choice for the mining contract.

I am not arguing that this issue doesn't warrant further research (which I will in fact pursue because I would like to know)

I just don't like all the knee jerk Bill is a crook, slick Willy, Billary bla bla bla crap that has been floating around on DU for weeks--you don't appear to be just blasting insults at anyone who posts anything that isn't anti-Clinton,
but there are a lot of people who are and to me it's counter productive to anything but getting McCain (or Romney hair helmet man) elected in November.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. I suspect Giustra is better than most
1. It's clear that he made a tremendous personal profit from the UrAsia dealings in Kazakhstan. Not all of this went to charity. Even if a good chunk did, we still have to wonder whether it's right to smooth the international dealings of a despot in order to get money for a potential donor. That's an ethical concern of first importance, it seems to me.

2. People seem to have been utterly flummoxed about how Giustra's shell company got that deal cleared with little in the way of relevant assets, in so short a time. Maybe the guy is a brilliant salesperson. I don't know. His presence on the same trip during which Clinton hands a major PR asset to the Kazakhstani government, though? Let's be honest. If it wasn't Clinton this would be setting off bullshit-o-meters from here to Piscataway.

3. The timing of this story is obviously political, and aimed at Hillary's candidacy. Very clearly so. That's a huge problem, and brings up other ethical concerns for people who are discussing it, including me. Yes.

4. Knee-jerk anti-Clintonism is stupid and unproductive. Fascinating stories of the internal workings of international power, wrapped in compelling ethical conundrums? That's worthy of discussion, and hardly seems knee-jerk given the fact pattern. At the very least, it is completely plausible that Clinton threw Nazarbayev a human rights endorsement in return for the mining deal. The timing stinks of it. I think that's worthy of discussion, and not reflectively negative. Sometimes, the knee-jerking is a real response to stimuli. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
116. Ah-hem Giustra brought us Fahrenheit 9/11
Before you guys get yourselves too worked up about this maybe you'd better check out Giustra's background -- he sure sounds like one really bad character
( Maybe Michael Moore is part of this whole conspiracy)

BTW Has the New York Times put Judith Miller back on the pay roll?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Giustra

Lions Gate Entertainment
Giustra is also the founder of the current incarnation of Lions Gate Entertainment.

After he left investment banking in 1996, Giustra started the new Lions Gate in 1997. He hoped to capitalize on the growing film industry in Vancouver. The company bought a number of small production facilities and distributors. Its first success was American Psycho, which began a trend of producing and distributing films far too controversial for the major American studios. Other successes included Affliction, Gods and Monsters, Dogma,

and the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (which turned out to be the studio's highest grossing film in their history).



In 2000, Guistra left the firm and it was taken over by Jon Feltheimer and Micheal Burns. Giustra sold most of his stake in Lions Gate in 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #116
141. What better rerason to provide a human rights endorsement to a dictator
in return for a mining contract! He made Fahrenheit 9/11, so I guess that's OK.

You're not seriously running that line, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
118. And this is bad why?
...Donating to fight AIDs sounds like a good thing to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #118
142. It's OK
To sell out the people of Kazakhstan by praising the human rights record of their brutal, anti-democratic dictator in exchange for a mining contract for your friend?

Oh, right. Just so long as your now even richer mining company friend contributes a portion of the take to your global AIDS initiative. Yeah, I forgot where I read that in in The Critique of Practical Reason....:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
125. Maybe this is why Edwards only "Suspended" his campaign?
He can still be in this you know.

Things that make you go ummmmmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
130. Bush 41 did the same thing in the same place for his oil buddies nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
131. Defend Clinton all you want, but this is the rot of neoliberalism. Clinton
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 01:50 PM by happydreams
is a rotten bastard like anyone who uses his political power to enrich himself. Here is a key paragraph:

"In a statement Kazakhstan would highlight in news releases, Mr. Clinton declared that he hoped it would achieve a top objective: leading the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would confer legitimacy on Mr. Nazarbayev’s government."

Nazarbayev is a thug. Clinton is enabling foreign thugs like he has the one sitting in the Whitehouse today. End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #131
144. George Kennan summed it up quite neatly about 60 years ago:
The reference to Moscow here is specific to the context of the Cold War, but given Russia's rising authoritarianism, isn't too much of an anachronism.

The only part that doesn't still ring true is the bit about dispensing with the idea of raising living standards in Asia - which people in large areas of Asia have succeeded in doing for themselves quite nicely, thank you.

"Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples--the Chinese and the Indians--have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and--for the Far East--unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic. We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on. It is my own guess, on the basis of such study as we have given the problem so far, that Japan and the Philippines will be found to be the corner-stones of such a Pacific security system and if we can contrive to retain effective control over these areas there can be no serious threat to our security from the East within our time.

Only when we have assured this first objective, can we allow ourselves the luxury of going farther afield in our thinking and our planning."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #131
160. this is a man who viewed the White House as a "valuable piece of real estate"
to use for fundraising ...renting out the Lincoln bedroom for overnight guests was one example. Why do people want to give these people another chance at pulling this crap?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happydreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #160
165. and let the BCCI basteeds go as well. I'd rather have
a repuggie in there than a neo-liberal democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #165
168. No no no no no. The repugies will rape our rights and rob us.
the dem will just rob us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MetaTrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
133. So, has Clinton gotten a seat on the board of directors?
It took George H.W. Bush only a year to be welcomed into the fold at Barrick Gold...and that was only after the Clinton administration's attempts to forestall Barrick's purchase of the richest gold-bearing land in Nevada (which Bush was believed to have rammed though the Department of the Interior at the end of his administration) failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #133
158. wow, thanks for posting ...I lived in Elko when that happened and poppy came to town
it was disgusting to celebrate it after he left the White House. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broadslidin Donating Member (949 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
148. No Wonder, the D.L.C. has ordered Reid & Pelosi to back off from Bush the Liar.
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 05:22 PM by Broadslidin
Tis the amurikan :nuke: :Patriot :nuke: way of doing 'The Biz'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
159. Funny thing happened on the way to this "scandal".....
In the REAL world this has become a non-issue. Think of how you could have better expended your energy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
169. How poppy bush of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC