Uh oh...that beeping noise you hear is Hillary backtracking....

[Drbio]

From MSN.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FishForLunch]

Come dont Hate on the Clintons, they cant help it if they care for only themseleves.

[Mavdog]

odd, the article didn't mention ANY "backtracking" by Hillary, just the facts that Bill has been very close to the emirates, and that he has been an advisor to them.

is there some reason that hillary and bill cannot be on different sides of an issue? it seems that they may be on this one.

when there is something factual to the accusation let us know....

until then, it seems that hillary hasn't been "backtracking"" on anything regarding the DP world deal.

personally, imo she is on the wrong side of the issue. if she were to come out in favor, after being provided with info that would satisfy her concerns, would that be "backtracking" or would be evidence of an open mind and her willingness to compromise?

I'd go with the latter.

[dude1394]

I don't expect she will backtrack. It's perfectly logical and ethical to be against something while accepting their lobbying money, isn't it?

[Mavdog]

you are confusing the monies paid to bill with the absence of any monies going into hillary's coffers.

and to answer the question, yes, if the lobbyist's donations are made without any strings attached (which they say they are), why shouldn't it be "logical and ethical" that the recipient may take the contrarian stance on an issue?

to presume that the lobbyist's donation is "paying" for the politicians vote or position on an issue indicts all those politicos who took money from the lobbyists. while I agree that the money provides a forum for the lobbyist, I also don't expect that any politico is saying "if you give me the cash you'll get my vote".

[dude1394]

Hmm....you think that dubya getting monies from UAE to his wifes foundation would be handled so cavalieraly?

[Mavdog]

yes. do you have an example of it being handled differently?

[FishForLunch]

Come on Hillary did not know that her husband was an agent for the UAE government. Are they not husband and wife. I get it now UAE gave money to the Clinton library, he billed hundred of thousands for speeches in UAE and still her wife did not know about these transactions. She must think the people who are watching this are stupid.


DUBAI DUETS
Late Friday, Department of Justice lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel were attempting to determine if former President Bill Clinton had registered as an "Agent of a Foreign Principal."

Federal statute requires that anyone -- even a former President -- doing political or public affairs work on behalf of a foreign country, agency or official must register with the Department, and essentially update his status every six months. It was not clear the Clinton had done so.

If his status is less clear, here is what we do know: If Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did not know about her husband's standing with the United Arab Emirates and with Dubai World Ports, members of her Senate staff most assuredly did.

"There were enough people in the Clintons' orbit who were potentially going to be part of the deal," says an employee of a firm that does work for both Clintons. "We were pursuing work on the ports deal, and we cleared our participation with Clinton's office. We didn't want there to be a conflict."

In fact, at least two senior outside advisers to Senator Clinton were attempting to get business out of the Port Deal, and President Clinton was the go-between. Associates with the Glover Park Group, which houses just about the entire shadow staff for Hillary's run-up to a Democratic presidential bid, were attempting to get a slice of the DPW deal before the deal was made public about three weeks ago. According to current and former President Clinton staff, Hillary Clinton's Senate office was aware that Glover Park was in the running to do work on the DPW deal.

"She was also very much aware of President Clinton's financial arrangements with the UAE," says a former Bill Clinton staffer. "We're talking about more than a million dollars, some of paid out soon out after they left the White House. That income helped the Clintons buy the properties that allow them to live both in New York and Washington, D.C. This was not an insignificant financial arrangement."

What is not clear is whether or not the junior Senator from New York was aware that Clinton was acting as an agent of a foreign principal, which Clinton clearly was. According to sources with knowledge of the deal, President Clinton was advising members of the DPW buyout team in the UAE, London, and Washington before the deal hit the headlines. He encouraged them to hire a number of people working in consulting firms based in Washington with whom he had both personal and financial ties: The Cohen Group, the Albright Group, and the Glover Park Group. Other sources claim that longtime Clinton confidante and golf partner Vernon Jordan's name was also suggested as potential helpful fixer in the capital.

Much of this activity and consultation took place before the DPW deal hit the front pages of newspapers in mid-February, and about ten days before the DPW deal was to close in Great Britain.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9492

[Drbio]

you are confusing the monies paid to bill with the absence of any monies going into hillary's coffers.

mavdog has totally lost it. This is even farking stupid for him.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

mavdog has totally lost it. This is even farking stupid for him.

so in your mind if a dollar goes to bill that same dollar is going to hillary?

talk about "farking stupid"....

[kg_veteran]

Let's be realistic. She doesn't have any personal beliefs about whether the ports deal is right or wrong, Mavdog. It's not like if she changes her stance it will be because of an "open mind" or "willingness to compromise." It will only be because public opinion has swayed back in the other direction. Her move was blatant and obvious pandering.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Let's be realistic. She doesn't have any personal beliefs about whether the ports deal is right or wrong, Mavdog. It's not like if she changes her stance it will be because of an "open mind" or "willingness to compromise." It will only be because public opinion has swayed back in the other direction. Her move was blatant and obvious pandering.

I agree in a large way kg, almost ALL of the politicos who have taken an adversarial position on the port sale are doing so to pander to the anti-arab sentiment that is an undercurrent of the public's opinion. Hillary is no different.

I do expect that Hillary, and several others who have been against the port deal, to change their positions as this unfolds.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I agree in a large way kg, almost ALL of the politicos who have taken an adversarial position on the port sale are doing so to pander to the anti-arab sentiment that is an undercurrent of the public's opinion. Hillary is no different.

I do expect that Hillary, and several others who have been against the port deal, to change their positions as this unfolds.

I do too, and she'll do it in such a way that makes her look like she "rushed to defend our national security" and at the same time is "tolerant of other cultures and religions." Or somesuch.

Only folks like Gaffney, Savage, Malkin, etc. are true believers in the position that the ports deal is wrong. And I give them credit for that. They aren't taking a politically expedient position. They're speaking from their heart and saying what they truly believe.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so in your mind if a dollar goes to bill that same dollar is going to hillary?

talk about "farking stupid"....

You are truly ignorant if you think that they don't share financial resources. Of course, there is no burden of proof here to prove that you are truly ignorant. That has been well established.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

You are truly ignorant if you think that they don't share financial resources. Of course, there is no burden of proof here to prove that you are truly ignorant. That has been well established.

what is truly "ignorant" is your presumption that bill and hillary "share financial resources". do you have ANY basis for stating such as fact?

no?

yep, "ignorant" just about nails it.

[FishForLunch]

What mavdog is saying is just because Bill and Hillary are married it does not mean they are husband and wife.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

What mavdog is saying is just because Bill and Hillary are married it does not mean they are husband and wife.

Classic.

[Mavdog]

pretty funny fish.

bill and hillary may have not been "married" for years under the classic sense of the word.

frankly, I cannot blame either one of them if that's the case.

[FishForLunch]

The Clintons pass in the night


Written in conjunction with Eileen McGann

Bill and Hillary Clinton are the first couple to appear simultaneously and independently on the national political stage. They are using their special circumstances as a convenient shield for one another, fulfilling, at once, Hillary’s dream of no accountability and Bill’s of being able to take both sides of an issue.

Did Hillary know that Bill was pardoning the FALN terrorists to help her win Puerto Rican votes in New York? Oh, she was opposed to the pardon.

Did Hillary find out that Bill was granting pardons to felons and drug dealers who had hired her brothers for six-figure fees to lobby her husband for pardons right under her nose? No way. In fact she was “saddened” at her brothers’ involvement.

And we all know that Hillary was “gasping for breath” when she first learned the truth about Monica Lewinsky.

And the former first lady was “bewildered” that members of the White House staff would treat her demands that they fire the travel-office staff as an order.

Bill has been out there criticizing the war while Hillary plays to the center by voting for it.

And now, this heavy-footed pas de deux straddles the issue of whether a Dubai company should run six American ports.

Are we truly to believe Hillary’s insistence last week that she knew nothing about Bill’s counseling of his friend and benefactor the crown prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, on the ports deal? Do Bill and Hillary Clinton ever speak to each other, or do they just attend funerals, fundraisers and Billy Graham crusades together for photo-ops?

Bill is, after all, a regular in Dubai. The crown prince — that is, the government — contributed to his presidential library and pays him $300,000 per speech. Recently, Yucaipa, an American company that has Bill Clinton as a “senior adviser” and pays him a percentage of its profits, formed a partnership with the Dubai Investment Group to form DIGL Inc., a company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments.

No doubt Bill Clinton was brought in to cement this lucrative deal from which he — and therefore Hillary — will likely make millions. Neither Bill nor Hillary will disclose how much he is paid, but her Senate financial disclosure says that he will make “more than” $1,000. They also won’t say how much Dubai royalty gave to the Clinton library.

So when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) broke the story that the administration had approved the Dubai ports deal and Bill Clinton started to defend it in public, are we to believe that Hillary did not know that the sheik had called him to ask his advice, and are we to believe that Bill’s defense of the deal was unrelated to his myriad financial ties to Dubai?

Hillary stands to gain millions in income from her husband’s Dubai connection. She knows he flies there very, very frequently. And she must realize that Bill is close to the Dubai royal family.

So why did she dump on the port deal? Likely to cover herself. If she were anything less than front and center against the Dubai port deal, she would vulnerable to criticism over Bill’s involvement with the Dubai royal family. So she held marathon press conferences denouncing the deal and professed not to realize her husband was defending the deal at the sheik’s request.

What’s really going on here is that Bill Clinton is trying to please his Arab patrons and business partners at the same time that Hillary Clinton is trying to capitalize on American stereotypes about Arab terrorists.

More important, she’s desperately trying to distract attention from the Dubai dollars that flow into her family checking account from Bill’s political and business dealings with the Dubai crown prince. What better way than to attack them?

We should insist that:

• Bill Clinton register as an agent of a foreign principal.

• The Clintons say how much he makes from Dubai.

• The Clinton library tell us how much Dubai royalty gave to the library.

• And Bill disclose, in the future, whenever he is speaking as an ex-president or as a paid public-relations flack.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race

[Drbio]

Actually what mavdog is saying is that he doesn't have a clue as usual so he will take the opposite side of reason and pull another log of his typical crap out of his ass.

[Mavdog]

lol.

the most humourous part of the above post is to read the part about "doesn't have a clue" and then looking at the title of this thread.

tell us, just what and when has hillary been "backtracking" on? what, there isn't any "backtracking" shown?

yep. "no clue" is an appropriate moniker for the author of this thread, proven by their own hand.

[Drbio]

Another mavdog forum fart. Lot's of noise, but it just stinks.

[Mavdog]

thanks for proving me correct.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

thanks for proving me correct.

You are truly a moron.

[Mavdog]

thanks, more validation of my above post.

keep up the good work!