Arianna on Clinton, Kemp and the Dubai Ports Deal (MUST READ)

Below are just selected parts of the article, it can be viewed in its entirety here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/having-dinner-with-the-r_b_16897.html

<snip>
Kemp was undaunted, and launched into an impassioned defense of the deal and of the United Arab Emerites, echoing a column he wrote taking to task those who have criticized it.

<snip>

What Kemp didn't say is that the UAE has invested millions in Free Market Global, an energy-trading company that he chairs.

<snip>

People like Bill Clinton who, we learned last week, had advised the UAE on the ports deal. I can't help but wonder if that advice was in any way colored by the millions (the exact figures are still not in) Dubai has given to Clinton -- in speaking fees and donations to his presidential library. And then, as Lloyd Grove reports, there is Clinton's lucrative relationship with Ron Burkle's private investment firm, Yucaipa, which has partnered with Dubai in bidding on some major investment deals. Money clouds on both sides of the aisle.

That's why transparency is so important on matters like this. Jack Kemp, Bill Clinton, and the establishment's cost-benefit analysis of the Dubai ports deal is clearly different than yours or mine.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/having-dinner-with-the-r_b_16897.html


Thoughts? I guess it shouldn't be a shocker that Clinton is somehow tainted. The man stays tainted, and Hillary isn't any better. They'll sell us down the river at their first convenience. We just can't trust people like them. They don't share our values. There are truly two Americas, the America of the Clintons and the Bushes, and the America we live in.

This is what these people are. They value money and power. They will do whatever it takes to obtain money and power and keep it.

It's "up a creek without a paddle," or a more scatological description of the waterway. On the other hand, slaves could be "sold down the river," i.e. to Louisiana plantations where the death rate of slaves was quite high -- property there was used to destruction.

Not to disagree with what you are saying, understand.

From NYC to the big old prison up the river at Sing Sing (now Ossining.) But when one is mixing metaphors, as the saying goes, Fool me once, you won't get fooled again.

Chow.

:eyes:

Normally, that's what we always said around here where I live. (Send us up the creek without a paddle.) However, I'll take your word for it, and I'd rather people focus on the content of the post rather than the delivery. So I changed it.

Plus I've been up since 3AM, so I could be way off.

The corporate name spells out evil. "Free Market Global." Also known as, "We'd eat babies if we could make a buck doing it."

Excellent article. Shame on Bill Clinton. Sibel Edmonds was right. We have quasi allies which are protected and are not getting the scrutiny they deserve. And both party's leaders are at fault.

People always say to me, that it doesn't matter which party is in charge they both do the same thing. I hear it constantly and consistently across the board. It doesn't matter if they claim they are Democratic, Independents, Republicans, Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. I hear it constantly.

We know PNAC approached Clinton about invading Iraq. He didn't, but that was toward the end of his Administration. I often wonder what would have happened had they approached him at the beginning. Then I wonder how many so-called Liberals and Progressives would break their necks defending the invasion into Iraq.

Wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it.

Then again, maybe I don't have to wonder. Democrats voted for war with Iraq.

The more and more I look at the Democratic Party the more and more I have to ask myself what the real difference is between a Democrat and Republican? I think Lewis Black may have had it right: "The difference between a Democrat and Republican is that a Democrat sucks and a Republican blows."

I blame the Clintons and the DLC for all that the Democratic Party has become.

parties. I'm not stupid or naieve...I firmly believe that a democratic president could have brought us to this same point in time. Which is why Tony Blair as the labor candidate came to the same conclusion. The differences between the party remain on the social/fiscal front. We get what we can take....at least this fiasco of a war is falling on repub shoulders.

is it possible that Clinton advised the UAE to agree to the 45-day wait on the chance that it would show they were willing to work together with us and that maybe things would cool down enough we could be convinced to go ahead with the deal...as in defusing the crisis? Clinton is good at mediating, even though we rarely know what was in it for him.

I just hate to think Clinton would jeopardize the gains he has going with the people. He has to feel on top of the world by the way he is accepted, after the mess he made of his life while in the White House. I'm going to reserve giving him a black mark until I know more. Just a thought.

The Ports deal was a gift to the Democratic Party, something that allowed the Democrats to really stick it to Bush on Security issues. It was... perfect. We didn't need or want Clinton mediating. We wanted Clinton to shut up, sit down and stay out of it. Why would we want mediating? The deal wasn't going to go through, everyone knew that, Bush could stomp his feet all he wanted, but there was no way the Republican Congress was going to let him get away with this.

It gave the Democratic Party the chance to do something that they haven't done in a long time: Leading. Clinton, obviously, didn't want that. Everyone scratched their heads and wondered why he'd poke his nose into this and try and smooth things over, when that is the last thing that was good for the party. Well, now we know.

It's just another knife in the back. Just like DOMA, just like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, NAFTA, the Telecom Reform Act... need I go on? He is responsible for bringing the Democratic Party down to the low point it is now at. His actions are not for the benefit of us, or the party, but the benefit of him and people like him. He isn't one of us, and he used us to gain power and wealth.

Clearly, the Clintons are not in their pocket!

That's been the Clinton strategy from the beginning. They aren't exactly, you know, secret about that. Bill is done in politics, Hillary isn't.

My biggest hope for them is that she loses the Nomination in 2008, the Democratic Candidate wins the White House, then appoints Hillary to the Supreme Court (I'm crossing my fingers for Scalia to drop dead). Then we'll at least have a moderate on the Supreme Court and Hillary will be out of our hair. Then a real liberal can be elected to fill her place in the Senate in New York.

Sounds like no matter what they do, they're wrong.

Before hurling accusations it's important to know which insider leaked the deal to the media.

I think it was Joe Conason (spelling?), but I could be wrong. Clinton was in Dubai at the time, giving a speech. He was approached and asked what they could do about the deal and he gave them advice on the 45 days and such. He did it more as a person giving directions than as an adviser. When he came home and talked to his wife, he supported her position. It apparently was no big deal, but the press made it into one.

zalinda

His job is to protect Hillary.. that's why AAR exists, that's why Joe is a regular guest (like David Brock) - his job is to debunk the spins and to spin facts in the best light.

that's not a critisism, just a reminder of what his job is.

:sarcasm:

Democratic Party members must stand up to and become stronger than the DLC.
Extremely hard to do. Only the DLC is recognized by corporate propaganda networks.
This Party is not the Clinton's and the DLC to have.

A good number of people who vote for Democrats (and probably some who vote for Republicans) are crying out for leaders and a strong country with integrity. Not having the leaders and the country is equivalent to throwing in the towel on a person's personnel integrity.

Bill should do some things for free.

Hillary should wait for the Supreme Court. It is a better match than President.
It would take an entire two generations to get over the hate that has been successfully plotted, planned, planted, watered, and fed by Republicans against Hillary.

The games that have been and are being played by Dems for personal gains is going to be exposed side by side with the games of the Republicans.

We have come a long way in our knowledge and understanding of what is going on. We've been apalled and let down. We need someone who is not part of the rights denials, sell-outs, and outrageous personal profits.

We may need a third party made up of people from both sides for another new beginning.

Otherwise, we need to just acquiese to extremely menial jobs, loss of privacy, and never questioning where our child, friend, or neighbor disappeared to.

Could they have asked him for advice, especially since she spoke out against the deal?....I mean, hasn't every thing that's happened on *'s watch, so far, been Clinton's fault? Would we be surprised if they were advised to call him, in particular, because later on, it could be used as ammunition against her?.....(Remember the way Ferraro was screwed, because of what her husband had done in his private business life?)....With this couple, it's not the first time the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing..Perhaps, Hillary should make an effort to correct that...either that, or a divorce might work to distance herself from a possible problem...I don't think he'd want to muck up her chances to get him back into the WH, so what was he thinking?...He may not be president any longer, but his allegiance should still be to THIS country...not Dubai...so his giving them advice, seems to me to be, at the least, a conflict of interest...

I suggest that if people want to know anything about Clinton...check out the exec. orders attributed to his presidency...if you have questions, the answers are right there..
windbreeze