Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
How To Be Black

How To Be Black

By Baratunde Thurston
$24.99

more items

 
Report

Pondering the Inner Meanings of Bill’s Big List

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 19, 2008
Bill Clinton
Flickr / Photo Mojo

By Eugene Robinson

    It’s far-fetched to think that Hillary Clinton’s performance of her duties as secretary of state would be influenced in any way by foreign donations to her husband’s charitable foundation. But it is naive to think that the exhaustive list of donors released Thursday by the William J. Clinton Foundation won’t provoke suspicion and give rise to conspiracy theories in parts of the world where transparency is seen as nothing more than an illusion.

    President-elect Barack Obama knew that if he named Hillary Clinton to take charge of U.S. foreign policy, Bill Clinton’s charitable and business activities would be complicating factors. The former president had steadfastly resisted naming the contributors to his foundation—saying he had promised them confidentiality—and released the list only as part of a negotiated deal paving the way for his wife to become secretary of state.

    Posting the list on the Internet drew so much interest that the Clinton Foundation’s computer servers were overwhelmed. The charity really could afford to buy more robust hardware: Over the past decade, it has raised nearly $500 million to pay for Clinton’s philanthropic initiatives and his presidential library.

    Of the foundation’s 205,000 contributors, only 13 gave donations of $10 million or more. Among them is one sovereign government: the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is no surprise, given Saudi Arabia’s combination of oil wealth and political savvy. But an initial scan of the list, which covers nearly 3,000 Web pages, shows tens of millions more in donations from Saudi individuals or nongovernmental organizations. The list also details donations of between $1 million and $5 million each from the governments of Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. Hillary Clinton should be prepared to answer for any perceived “tilt” toward the oil-rich sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf.

    The state of Israel will have no reason to feel that it missed an opportunity. Television producer Haim Saban, who is a vocal supporter of Israel and lives there part of the year, gave between $5 million and $10 million, some of it through his family foundation. Slim-Fast diet magnate S. Daniel Abraham, who has been a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, donated between $1 million and $5 million; and the rest of the list is studded with well-known backers of the Jewish state.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    More ominous would be any perceived tilt toward India in its bitter standoff against neighboring Pakistan. The list reports several huge donations from Indian tycoons and a high-six-figure donation from the Confederation of Indian Industry. Pakistan is not similarly represented. I know this is a ridiculously slim thread from which to hang any charge of bias, or potential bias. But India and Pakistan, in their unbounded mutual suspicion, take the concept of paranoia to a new level. I guarantee that somewhere in Islamabad a sense of grievance is already being nurtured.   

    The list reflects both the former president’s charitable interests and his high-wattage celebrity. Given his work to combat AIDS in Africa, it is no surprise to see the Elton John AIDS Foundation listed—nor is it shocking to run across the name of the Princess Diana Memorial Fund. That both organizations gave the foundation between $1 million and $5 million does give a sense of the circles in which Bill Clinton travels.

    One smaller donation that leaps out is from Blackwater, the North Carolina-based firm that provides security for State Department personnel in Iraq. Five Blackwater guards were indicted recently on manslaughter charges for a 2007 incident in Baghdad in which unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed. The Blackwater Training Center gave the Clinton Foundation between $10,000 and $25,000. Hillary Clinton, if confirmed by the Senate, will have to decide whether to renew Blackwater’s contract.

    At first perusal, there’s nothing in the list of Clinton Foundation donors to derail her confirmation. Here and there you run across a Ukrainian mogul or a businessman with interests in Kazakhstan, but nothing startling. Bill Clinton is a very important, charismatic and persuasive guy. A lot of people gave him a lot of money to do good things.

    His reasons for keeping the list secret may be more personal. I noticed that one mogul who told people he was giving $10 million to the foundation is shown by the list to have donated “only” between $1 million and $5 million.

    Hey, times are tough.
   
    Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
   
    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Louise, December 22, 2008 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

cyrena;

“I know, I know. I’m just silly sometimes. Twisted humor. It’s been something I’ve been forced to acquire in the past 8 years as a sanity saver. It’s because I’m over protective of my mental health.

That’s important because so many people in my immediate environment have lost their minds as a result of the 8 year plague. (others were crazy before that, in which case the plague has rendered a mixed-bag result.)”

~~~

Love it! Tee-hee smile

Now where would we be if we couldn’t laugh at what is so obviously silly? Like Geroge W. Bush, being labeled, “The most powerful man in the world.” How silly does that make the US of A look to the rest of the world? Thank goodness for a good sense of humor, otherwise we’d be doomed forever to trying to explain Bush to the rest of the world! 

The rest of the world already understands silly. wink

Watching Bush bumble through an interview has become a national sport! Debating what he meant, or even what he said, has kept the “news” people busy for years! Watching the confused, or grinning faces of those who’ve had the experience of “interacting” with him is just plain fun. And the national industry of “Bush Humor” has made more than a few, a lot of money!

“Poor George, he can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” [Ann Richards]

Then we can move on to Bushes administration. The acts, or lack thereof. The mind-set [or lack thereof] of the folks he appoints to do the stuff that needs doing and never gets done, or gets done wrong. Like, what color is today?

The silliness that will keep authors and comedians going for years!

As nasty as the mess is, the ability to see the humor of these last eight years, keeps those with a sense of humor from slipping into the gloom and doom that keeps so many from seeing any hope.

Thank goodness for silly, the tangent that keeps us from slipping into insanity!

Whatever will we do when the Bush and Co. is gone? Whoever can take their place on the laugh-o-meter? However will we manage to get our daily dose of humor?

Well there’s always mainstreammedia.

And Sarah Palin. smile

~~~

KDelphi;

Passive-aggressive?

Naw, more like opinionated with a smile. smile

I am chuckling, but you fall short of throwing me into hysterical laughter!

Bush is still the master. wink

But don’t give up! You may still find humor in your soul. smile

Report this

By mackTN, December 22, 2008 at 9:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena: “A committed “propaganda conspirator with a cause” will spin anything. The greater the transparency, the more creative the conspiracy for the committed monger.

I mean really, look at all the political hysteria drivel Rick Warren has stirred up, and all he is - is a preacher who got invited…”

Why would concern over Bill Clinton’s international business be considered propaganda? 

I question the way he does business…especially as a president of the U.S.  We see how money shapes our legislation everyday.  Who wouldn’t be concerned about foreign countries donating millions of dollars to presidents, the guardians of our democracy?

As a president, I would not have handled foundation business in this manner.  Certainly, Clinton could have been transparent about this from the beginning and explained the necessity for it to his donors. 

Democracy requires vigilance 24/7.

Report this

By cyrena, December 21, 2008 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

“As to Obama selecting Hillary for Secretary of State, maybe that was a stroke of genius. Think about it. Give her a job with clout that will keep her under his thumb, while at the same time keep her busy and out of his hair! You can be sure he recognizes her ability to handle the job. And you can be sure he will listen to her and still make any final decision. Even if it counters her opinion. Like I said, give her a job with clout, that will keep her under his thumb, but out of his hair. Genius.

And having a husband who knows everybody everywhere, which by extension implies so does she, cant hurt. Duh…”

Oh Louise,

I love the “duh”...part!! smile

Of course it’s a GENIUS move, and another one of those ‘oh so transparent’ that dummies can’t figure it out. Keep her busy, and IN PLAIN SIGHT, which therefore keeps her out of his hair. Of course it’s genius, but that’s far too obvious to the rest of us.

Ya know what’s really funny, is that Obama LONG AGO said (in one of the first Democratic Primary debates) that he INTENDED to hire Hillary as part of his Admin. I remember it so well, because of the way (and in the context of the moment) he said it. I laughed out loud at the time. He was audacious (and slightly mocking) but without a doubt sincerely earnest. 

But, I said that to say that we were forewarned. He said he was gonna do this long ago. People should pay more attention.

He was damn sure smart not to select her as VP, seeing as how he would have needed a food taster if he’d done that. But this way, Obama makes sure that Hillary keeps her hands where he can see ‘em. (The transparency weapon - tee hee, wink )

I know, I know. I’m just silly sometimes. Twisted humor. It’s been something I’ve been forced to acquire in the past 8 years as a sanity saver. It’s because I’m over protective of my mental health.

That’s important because so many people in my immediate environment have lost their minds as a result of the 8 year plague. (others were crazy before that, in which case the plague has rendered a mixed-bag result.)

Report this

By KDelphi, December 21, 2008 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

Louise—?????????????????  Hysterical?

“Sorry for the confusion. I keep forgetting, in some cases Kinder-write should govern what I type. Hope I haven’t confused you further.”

Why not get rid of the smiley-faces and stop being so passive-agressive?

Report this

By Louise, December 21, 2008 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi;

Good grief ... I’m not angry!

Wherever did you get that from?

Matter of fact I am so happy it’s downright disarming!

And in spite of republicans, gloom and doomers, fear mongers, and people who have difficulty understanding what a nice day means, I shall stay that way.

But thanks for the chuckle. smile

Report this

By Sepharad, December 21, 2008 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Folktruther—Give us a break. Cyrena is not a cynic and intellectually dishonest, and you only object to what you call “academic filibusters” (which other less conspiracy-ridden truthers might describe as “documented information”) because you lack the facts to rebut her statements.

You also frequently accuse me of “Zionist propaganda” yet fail to provide facts to the contrary. It’s absolutely true that Israel is important to me and I defend it whenever it is attacked, but only with information I believe to be true. I also read articles and books by people in a position to know what they’re talking about who disagree with or offer facts that sometimes alters my own opinion. Cyrena also questions and criticizes some of my posts, but she does it like a grownup with a brain and thought process independent of conspiracy fantasies.

Re Obama’s appointments and advisors, I think the jury is (or should be) still out. In some respects, it’s beginning to seem like he’s gathering strong-minded, well-informed people around him who disagree with each other as well as some of his policies, which promises an intense free-marketplace-of-ideas debate on just about everything which could result in a very strong place to move from toward drastic and rapid changes in the coming years. (E.g.,the admiral up for Obama’s intelligence head—criticized by old Obama supporters as being just another militarist—was also up for head of the Joint Chiefs under Bush, but despite his many credentials and knowledge of counterterrorism strategies and tactics, was rejected by Rumsfeld because the good admiral was, according to a quote in today’s NYTimes, too outspoken, independent, and not on board for the Bush agenda.) Let it play out a bit before deciding whether Obama is the Second Coming or the AntiChrist. I’m a former Hillary supporter, and one of my objections to Obama was that despite his Chicago-politics background he wasn’t tough enough to confront the many crises he would inherit and smart but in an academic rather than “street” way. For sure I was wrong about that. Also must say I can’t imagine why any sane person would not only be willing to but fight hard for the opportunity to wade into the disgusting mess in which Bush has left our country.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 21, 2008 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

Louise—I have no idea what you are so angry about.

I SEE what you are saying, I just do not think it makes much sense. I dont care what he does, with or without Hillary. It will be impossible to tell the difference. He’s just another damn Democrat. It will be very predictable.

I still say that this paragraph is contradictory. But, now we’re just parsing words. It’s ok. I expect you to rationzalize everything Obama does.
“As to Obama selecting Hillary for Secretary of State, maybe that was a stroke of genius. Think about it. Give her a job with clout that will keep her under his thumb, while at the same time keep her busy and out of his hair! You can be sure he recognizes her ability to handle the job. And you can be sure he will listen to her and still make any final decision. Even if it counters her opinion. Like I said, give her a job with clout, that will keep her under his thumb, but out of his hair. Genious. “

“Under his thumb” “Out of his hair” and “recognizes her ability to handle the job” “a job with clout that wil keep her under his thumb and out of his hair”

WTF????

Report this

By Louise, December 21, 2008 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

KDelphi;

You are not misreading. What you are doing is trying to re-construct what I wrote in an effort to change it’s meaning. But allowing for the possibility that you really can’t understand ... perhaps this will help.

~~~

“… he (being Obama) will listen to her (being Hillary) and (HE, being Obama, will) still make any final decision. Even if it counters her (Hillary’s) opinion.”

Definitions:

Final:

1. Forming or occurring at the end; last.
2. Of or constituting the end result of a succession or process; ultimate: an act with both an immediate and a final purpose.
3. Not to be changed or reconsidered; unalterable.

Decision:

1. The passing of judgment on an issue under consideration.
2. The act of reaching a conclusion or making up one’s mind.
3. A conclusion or judgment reached or pronounced; a verdict.
4. Firmness of character or action; determination.

Counter:

Contrary; opposing:

1. One that is an opposite.

Opinion:

1. A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
2. A belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

~~~

“even if,” indicates and refers to opposition, or holding a firm but different view by her (being Hillary), that will not necessarily guarantee she (being Hillary) will have the final say on all decisions related to her (being Hillary) position in the administration. But rather her (being Hillary)opinion and information will be valued and weighed, along with the opinion and information from others in the administration. Then a final decision will be made by him (being Obama) based on the best information, and knowledge of facts available, and/or known to him (being Obama) at the time.

In other words Obama will be what we have not seen for some time. A president not afraid to let the “buck stop here.” (buck being accountability, here being at the desk of, and specifically related to all final decisions requiring action by said president, Obama.)

Sorry for the confusion. I keep forgetting, in some cases Kinder-write should govern what I type. Hope I haven’t confused you further. smile

Report this

By KDelphi, December 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

Louise—No , I am not in politics…nefver really have been. Not the paid kind, anyway.

It is true that there are not alot of ambitious people in social work or counseling. Obama didnt have to deal with these ambitious people—he couldve appointed someone less ambitious.

But, to hold one under one’s thumb is not to “let them make the final decision” is it?? What am I “mis-reading”?

Report this

By Louise, December 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment

Maani and cyrena ... Bravo!

Interesting how we assign the Saudi’s credit for
terror, middle east style, but still love to be awash in their oil.

And they say Bill & Hill have a double standard. smile

Report this

By Maani, December 20, 2008 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Brava!  (And for God’s sake, ignore fauxkliar’s response to you.)

Purplegirl:

“Considering the Saudi’s spawned the majority of 9/11 terrorists…”

While there are plenty of reasons to dislike and distrust the Saudis, this is not one of them; if, as many suspect, 9/11 was an inside job - in which Bush, Cheney et al were complicit in both the planning and execution - then there either were NO Saudi hijackers, or they were CIA assets.

—-

As a general matter, it should be pointed out that, with the exceptions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Nationale Postcode Loterij, ALL the other 16 top donors ($5 million +) are non-controversial individuals and foundations - including many progressive ones dealing with AIDS, children, environment, etc.  The “questionable” donors are further down the list.  This does not “excuse” them in any way, but it puts things in perspective.

Peace.

Report this

By Louise, December 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi;

“... he will listen to her and still make any final decision. Even if it counters her opinion.”

Maybe you need to re-read. wink

Obviously you’ve never had to deal, in a productive way, with ambitious, competitive people. But that’s OK. Most haven’t which is why most never try their hand in politics.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 20, 2008 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

Louise—These two statements are so contradictory as to be laughable:

“As to Obama selecting Hillary for Secretary of State, maybe that was a stroke of genius. Think about it. Give her a job with clout that will keep her under his thumb, while at the same time keep her busy and out of his hair! You can be sure he recognizes her ability to handle the job. And you can be sure he will listen to her and still make any final decision. Even if it counters her opinion. Like I said, give her a job with clout, that will keep her under his thumb, but out of his hair. Genious.”

“Clout” while “under his thumb”?? “Busy and out of his hair”? Yet, he “recognizes her ability to handle the job and still make any final decision”.

Think about what you are saying here.HOw can she “make a final decision” while she is “under his thumb”? If you just “like” Hilary Clinton, fine. I have no idea why he apponted her. It seems that enough people do not like it,in fact, are very angry about it.

To me, she is another conservartive DLC—just like Obama. Same/same.

Report this
Clash's avatar

By Clash, December 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

The Clintons should be in prison if only for the mass murder of 87 men, women and children in WACO TEXAS.

They were in charge, it was their watch and they let this atrocity happen here in your country.

These people are hideous and to expect anything else is just plain ignorant. Personally the money like all money being stolen from the people is a secondary issue to the real problem with these corrupt killers.

Your country is crumbling before your very eye’s, and the divide and conquer policy goes on. We let it go on because we cannot agree on the simplest of issues we divide ourselves daily over the smallest of ideas and nothing gets done.

Report this

By Louise, December 20, 2008 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

“Bill Clinton is a very important, charismatic and persuasive guy. A lot of people gave him a lot of money to do good things.”

Is this one of those “only in America” stories? People with wealth like to give money to do good deeds. It kinda offsets some of the bad deeds they may have done to acquire that wealth. Those are the “they” that people who run charitable foundations count on!

But mainstreammedia, always looking for the “important” story to fill up their endless [literally] hours of news-making will make this non-news story, news.

What I want to know is where is the real story?

The one about the good deeds! smile

As to Obama selecting Hillary for Secretary of State, maybe that was a stroke of genius. Think about it. Give her a job with clout that will keep her under his thumb, while at the same time keep her busy and out of his hair! You can be sure he recognizes her ability to handle the job. And you can be sure he will listen to her and still make any final decision. Even if it counters her opinion. Like I said, give her a job with clout, that will keep her under his thumb, but out of his hair. Genious.

And having a husband who knows everybody everywhere, which by extension implies so does she, cant hurt. Duh ...

Report this

By Folktruther, December 20, 2008 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Cyrena- I am one of the conspiracy theorists that you are referring to.  Of course like prole I don’t think that giving milliions of dollars to Dem pols in expectation of a good return on investment is a conspiracy, but like Prole, think this is just the American way of doing business.

But the truth doesn’t matter because, as I have said before, you are cyncial and intellectually dishonest, Cyrena, and will distort the views of your ideological opponents venoumously to defend the undefendable. 

You differ from rank and and truthers who are honestly conflicted about Obama and the Dems and fearful of breaking with them.  You know that Obama and the Dems are selling out progressives but defend them anyway because you want to be an Insider.  As the progressives split into pro-warterrorists and anti-warterrorists you will go with the Dem leaders.

So we can expect more academic filibusters from you justifying the unjustifiable and spewing venom on the anti-warterroists.  This is in the sleazoid Gop tradition of Rush Limbarger, Karl Rove and Ann Coulter, which is being taken over into the Dem party of Obiden.

You serve a useful function in getting progressives hardened to the sleazoid abuse they will experience from Dem leaders and their truth agents as the move to a closer alliance with Gop leaders.  The sleazoids are morally disgusting and pervert reason and truth to serve the ends of oppressive power.  But, like Cyrena, they often do so for personal power purposes, and in that case they are not politically dangerous.  Merely contemptable.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 20, 2008 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

Yes, call your reps., Cancel your credit card (dont blame workers in India for taking a job—blame your company for outsourcing it!) if your “contract” wil let you, without having to pay it all off at once.

The most important people in the Hillary appointment are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. She would not be there if Obama hadnt appointed her.

Call her ioffuce , and tell her you want her to not accept. But, I would ceratainly tell Obama, at change.gov, I guess. Unless you think “he had to nomonate her” for some reason.

I think that he did it because they think alike on many things, including foreign policy.

Report this

By uglyfemale, December 20, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

to Hillary Clinton being confirmed as Secretary of State, call your representatives and voice your opposition.  If he/she goes ahead and votes to confirm her, or ANY of Obama’s nominees you disapprove of, VOTE THEM OUT NEXT ELECTION CYCLE. Nuff said.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, December 20, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

Considering the Saudi’s Spawned the majority of 9/11 terrorists. cosnidering they and their Oil rich minions have hoarded Oil or extorted money from US at the pumps.
considering the numbe ro fJobs which were shipped over to countries like India, while laying off people here. Why must I muttle my way through a conversation about my credit card with someone from India? Can’t find an American who’d do that job?
And as far as Israel is concerned…. Handle your own fights YOU Pick..Act like an Independnet nation and stop looking to US to pull you out of theshit you get yourselves into!
It’s not the people of these countries I despise, it’s their manipulative, whiny, BS their Gov’ts get away with and then run behind US to protect them, or give them jobs, or give them money.
The Clintons Betrayed US and this is the list of the people they Sold US to.

Report this

By cyrena, December 20, 2008 at 5:09 am Link to this comment

Eugene says..

“...it is naive to think that the exhaustive list of donors released Thursday by the William J. Clinton Foundation won’t provoke suspicion and give rise to conspiracy theories in parts of the world where transparency is seen as nothing more than an illusion.”

I think these conspiracy theorists who see transparency as nothing more than an illusion, (or the basis for their conspiracies) are located mostly in THIS (US) part of the world.

They abound right here on this website.

A committed “propaganda conspirator with a cause” will spin anything. The greater the transparency, the more creative the conspiracy for the committed monger.

I mean really, look at all the political hysteria drivel Rick Warren has stirred up, and all he is - is a preacher who got invited to say a prayer at the Inaugural bash. And he’s not even married to the Sec of State nominee, or a former president.

So of COURSE the spin-meisters will be on this like flies on excrement. This distracts from the point of the transparency. In ‘counter-truth’ operations, nothing can ever just be what it is.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 19, 2008 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

Can you just imagine the “hearings”??

I wish that they had been as hard on some of Dubya’s “picks”.

Robinson, it is a little odd to hear someone who denied that Obama would be influenced by Wall St., say that it would be impossible for Hillary Clinton not to be influenced. So why did Obama pick her? Do you think it was a ‘deal”??

Of course, Obama picked her because she will represent rich people in the Midele East (including Israel), just like he will.

“The Clinton s regularly put their own concerns above…” LOL! Duh! Like practically every other politician in DC! When did (esp. Bill) do anything else?

What is really bizarre, is all the people blaming the CLINTONS for OBAMA"S appointing Hillary! Is it all the appointees faults? WHY DID OBAMA APPOINT THEM?! Unless it, too, is a conspiracy, or they blackmailed him, then, ASK OABAMA!

Report this

By P. T., December 19, 2008 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

Jimmy Carter can say what he thinks (as in his book on Israel and the Palestinians) because he is not for sale.

Report this

By Sepharad, December 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jackpine says it all. Maybe Cameron Diaz (on the list) could help Pakistan (not on) raise enough money to become a player by not charging for her services in a blood-spashed Islamawood musical, proceeds to go to supporting American politicians and their pet causes.

It’s been true for a long time that big money of any kind always supports both mainstream parties in and out of election years. Until public financing of politics becomes mandatory, even for the Obamas, why
does anyone think any of this will change?

Report this

By Colin Rudd, December 19, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How else could Obama have gotten the world to see who was greasing BC?  To see what motivates BC these days?  By nominating his wife to State.  This way, Obama’s gotten Bill Clinton to show his cards, every move he makes will be linked back to some donor, and he’s got Hillary in a position where she basically just does his bidding.  Secretary of State has lost a lot power since the days of Seward.  What with the jet, the video conference, etc, the secretary of state doesn’t carry and interpret the president’s will into far off lands anymore, she just passes the message and prepares a summit.

Hillary was all about health care and domestic policy reform.  By keeping her busy jetting around the world, telling people what Obama could just as easily tell them over the phone, Obama’s got her out of his hair, and she still thinks she’s important.

Report this
prole's avatar

By prole, December 19, 2008 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment

“It’s far-fetched to think that” anyone would give millions of bucks (even the de-valued kind) to a political fund raiser (even out of office) without expecting some quid pro quo. At the time most of this easy money was ‘donated’ there was every reason to think that there was a very high probability that another Clinton would be back in the Oval Office come January. In the end, they didn’t quite grab the brass ring, but Secretary of State can still be very helpful to Saudi despots or the Jewish State terrorists. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a simple “transparent” fact of political life. Politics revolves around money; it’s is the axis that makes the political world go around. You want the White House, you have to buy it. Even public funding isn’t enough for a ‘community organizer’. And you want favors from the White House, you have to buy them in return. It doesn’t even take a “conspiracy” anymore, it’s so blatant and rampant, it’s simply taken for granted. “it is naive to think that the exhaustive list of donors released Thursday by the William J. Clinton Foundation won’t provoke suspicion and give rise to”  the obvious inferences “in parts of the world where” they have been on the receiving end of Clinton-supported repression and savagery by the Saudi police state and the terrorist Jewish State, among others. But in parts of the world closer to the imperial center, it is important that this “is seen as nothing more than an illusion”. That’s what we have The Washington Post for. “President-elect Barack Obama knew that if he named Hillary Clinton to take charge of U.S. foreign policy, Bill Clinton’s charitable and business activities would be complicating factors” - but he went right ahead and did it anyway. “Bill Clinton is a very important”...charlatan and genocidal war criminal. “A lot of people gave him a lot of money to do good things” for them and their cronies and keep it quiet. And some day in the fateful future when the Barack H. Obama Foundation is raking in hundreds of millions or more from authoritarian states and sleazy marketing moguls looking for a favor - or repaying one - it won’t be a “conspiracy”, it will simply be business as usual.

Report this

By Folktruther, December 19, 2008 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

No, Basho, of course Robinson isn’t that naive.  He is covering his ass from Zionist attack when he reveals that Zionists, among others, are funding Clinton organizations.  Media truthers have children to feed and miseducate like everyone else, and they cannot survive in the capitalist media unless they ideologically suck up to power.

But doing so distorts and deforms the progressive population’s political and social worldview.  It must be understood that this is a PROGRESSIVE truther writing for a PROGRSSIVE newsletter to influence PROGRESSIVES.  These blatent lies by mainstream progrressive truthers support authorized power even while attacking a specialized aspect of it.

Note that Robinson states that anyone thinking that giving money to the Clintons would influence their behavior is guilty of a Conspiracy Theory.  Calling any truth incnvenient to power a Conspiracy Theory is the current means that both mainstream Conservatives and Progressives combat those truths that subvert the sanitizing truths of the mainstream truth consensus.

So that even while revealing that the Clintons are essentially being legally bribed, Robinson maintains those power delusions that legitimate oppressive power.  And this goes to induce progressives to support the authorized power that oppresses us.

Report this

By mackTN, December 19, 2008 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That BC kept this list of names private in the first place is what bothers me, but no more than the fact he solicits and accepts donations in the millions from countries with complex profiles and relationships.  Why? 

Should U.S. presidents, sitting or former, put themselves (and thus our government) in this kind of position?  We the people sit here today ripped off by financial institutions who have given so much money to senators that, for some reason, they now control legislative agenda that prevents a credit card customer’s bill or rights from being passed. (and that amnesty bill that failed a couple of years ago was actually written by corporate entities who tossed it to a senator to sponsor).

What’s the difference between Rod Blagoyevich and Bill Clinton?  If Caroline Kennedy had no money or influential fundraising contacts, would she be a contender? 

Why is Citigroup bailed out with my taxes then allowed to squeeze me dry with impunity?

A former president is a president for life and a guardian of our country, people, and democracy.  Financial dealings of this sort should be public and foreign donations should be limited in size & number.

As time goes on, I lose more and more respect for the Clintons who regularly appear to put their own interests in front of all else. 

Shame on these people, and shame on us if we don’t assert our authority and insist on change we can actually believe in.

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, December 19, 2008 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

‘It’s far-fetched to think that Hillary Clinton’s performance of her duties as secretary of state would be influenced in any way by foreign donations to her husband’s charitable foundation.’

are you really that naive?

Report this

By P. T., December 19, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

It’s likely that these repressive nations do not want Bill Clinton saying unfriendly things about them in his speeches, books, etc.  These countries want something for their money; that something is probably goodwill.

Report this

By felicity, December 19, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

I wondered how long it would be before the Clintons took center stage again.  Between pharaoh Bill’s pyramid building venture in Arkansas and Hillary’s role as Queen of State, they’ll work it so they continue to draw flies, hyenas and vultures - that’s what carrion do.

Report this

By kloe, December 19, 2008 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

“At first perusal, there’s nothing in the list of Clinton Foundation donors to derail her confirmation.”

You’re joking right?

Report this

By Jim Yell, December 19, 2008 at 7:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At first I thought that considering the wide amount of support for Hillary that this would be a good move to give her something constructive to do and reassure her supporters, but the obvious question is how trust worthy are the Clintons?

I was never surprised that Bill was not a progressive President. It was obvious from his history of conspiring with the Chicken Factory Owners against labor that he was not necessarily a friend of labor.

Still and more than ever he was reasonably competent as President especially in comparison to the Bushs, but then again his enabling of deregulation helped Bush to create the mess that he has made of the country in the last 8 years.

Now we have sort of a list of his gravy train and it reflects badly upon the Hillary appointment. It might not be such a good idea.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, December 19, 2008 at 7:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

US citizens like sleeze. It’s what makes soap operas Rush Limbaugh and Alan Stearn popular.

I was wondering in the interest of fair play, maybe we should make Monica Lewinsky an “under” secretary of something?

Report this

By jackpine savage, December 19, 2008 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

Oh, her decisions will be influenced by the list…but on the other hand, the list mostly contains sources that already have undue influence on our foreign policy.  It’s not like this is going to bring the House of Saud and Israel in from the cold.

And it has become clear that foreign policy isn’t going to change much (if at all), so it really doesn’t matter.  At best we’ll return to the shit foreign policy of the Clinton years…which is basically the same as the Bush foreign policy, just less brazen.

Report this

By Shift, December 19, 2008 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

Where there’s a Willie there’s a way!

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook