NPR talk show caller said Bill Clinton pushed hard for Dubai port deal.

Anyone else hear ANYTHING at all about Bill Clinton being involved in that deal? That show host could not verify or deny, nor could the guest he had on the show.

:wtf:

it was on the tv last weekend...

on edit to include that there was the Dubai forum backdrop (CFR is involved(Clinton is involved with CFR)..

the deal ultimately falls on the chimp. Do they want to make it seem more palatable just because B.Clinton supports it, or do they want to somehow, undermine a H.Clinton presidential nomination, due to her husband's actions? I have heard of his being supportive of it, but they need to talk about the chimp and his willingness to use his first veto for a deal he knew "nothing" about.

anything to get the spotlight off of the Lying Coward In Chief.

this issue.

It was discussed here a few days ago at some length. Read the whole article not just the headline which is rather misleading. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2140525

Not sure why this is being spun so hard to make Bill look like he's supporting this in some way and that in doing so the Clintons seem at odds since Hillary's strongly against it.

edited for a typo

Who called Clinton when he was in Pakistan. Clinton's spokesman said Clinton told them they should submit to the 45 day inspection.

The Clintons claim that they did not speak to each other about the DP World deal prior to the phone call, especially about the fact that HRC was pushing legislation to oppose it.

The reason some people are calling this support of the deal, or saying it's at odds with HRC's stance, is that Clinton's advice to DP is not a clear statement against the deal like "you guys need to withdraw the deal".

It also gets a certain amount of negative press because it seems fairly implausible that the Clintons don't talk to each other about her political positions - - and this instance seems even less plausible, given the press HRC's stance on the DP World deal was getting at the time. Their explanation ("we didn't discuss it") plays into the stereotype of the Clinton's marriage being "in name only", a business arrangement gone sour, etc., etc., etc.

There will be plenty more of these sorts of "Clinton v. Clinton" stories over the next two years if HRC runs for the Presidency, because the two of them are not good at keeping in sync, message-wise. And that's something that a political spouse has to be good at, or else the spouse becomes a distraction, making it that much harder for the pol to get her/his message to the people.

and greedy as well. His opinion doesn't change mine.

If that's true, (and I have no doubt that it is) it'd be a great opportunity for * to make Clinton look bad. This is just the kind of thing that Clinton loves (plus he got paid handsomely for his advocacy as I recall). Remember he's the one who signed NAFTA and GATT. It's still a bad deal.

due to my misreading the OP concerning the time frame of when Clinton did this

when you are attempting to solicit millions in speaker's fees from UAE organizations and educational institutions...