Clinton vs Clinton: UAE control over US ports

Newsday, MSNBC, EINNEWS, USA Today ^

[DBCJR]

While Senator (Presidential candidate) Rodham-Clinton vehemently opposes the United Arab Emirates' company contracting with the USA to run our ports, her former-President husband has been consulting with the UAE about hw to obtain that contract * and lobbying illegally (unregistered) on their behalf for very lucrative fees. One recent junket there he denounced US involvement in the war, on Arab soil, during a war against Arabs + . The Clintons bring "opportunism" to new standards, playing both extremes for everything they can gain.

[DBCJR]

While Senator (Presidential candidate) Rodham-Clinton vehemently opposes the United Arab Emirates' company contracting with the USA to run our ports, her former-President husband has been consulting with the UAE about hw to obtain that contract * and lobbying illegally (unregistered) on their behalf for very lucrative fees. One recent junket there he denounced US involvement in the war, on Arab soil, during a war against Arabs + . The Clintons bring "opportunism" to new standards!

* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11657573/ http://www.einnews.com/uae/ http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin094655086mar09,0,6267265.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

+ http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-16-iraq-clinton_x.htm

[wouldntbprudent]

On Feb. 17, Hillary denounced the Dubai deal, declaring, "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments." But on March 2, the Financial Times reported that Bill was called in to advise the United Arab Emirates about securing the deal for its company.

Indeed, Hillary's own financial disclosure forms showed that Bill received $450,000 for giving speeches in Dubai in 2002, and that UAE officials had donated up to $1 million to the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock. Did Hillary really not know about that? Didn't she get curious about any possible conflict of interest that those Arab monies might have posed?

Hillary stoutly insisted that she knew nothing - nothing. And she hastened to add that now the two of them have the same position; they are both for an additional probe of the deal.

May this scoop be shouted from the rooftops!

And, please. MRS. BILL CLINTON---a vote for whom equals a vote for the Sinkmeister also to be roaming the halls of the White House looking for love in all the wrong places---a vote for whom is also a vote for Bubba to grow in influence as a paid "speaker" and lobbyist on the world stage---must answer for this money from this terrible security threat, the UAE.

[wouldntbprudent]

this post from another thread bears repeating:

Here's the real money quote from the Dick Morris column that was posted earlier today at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593000/posts regarding the Clintons' relationship with the UAE:

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.


If BJ is deeply involved in a "company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments," he and the Witch will be receiving millions of dollars of income in the following years from that very company. In other words, if she's elected President, the President of the United States will be on the Dubai payroll due to BJ's involvement in managing the sheik's personal investments. Her denunciation of the ports deal is nothing but cover for this raging, continuing conflict of interest. If the Pubbies can't take advantage of this, they can't take advantage of anything.


8 posted on 03/09/2006 5:51:31 AM PST by libstripper

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

There ya go. They're just playing boths ends against the middle. Opportunists?...

[syriacus]

A Tale of Two Countries
Beijing may manage our ports
After smuggling large arms* of all sorts.
Yet we punish the Arab "good sports."

*On March 18, 1996, Federal agents surreptitiously seized a Poly shipment of 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles in Oakland, California. These weapons had left China on February 18 aboard a vessel belonging to another state-owned company, the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company (`COSCO').

COSCO, and other Chinese interests**, were given a big boost during the Clinton era
-- exemptions from US laws "discriminating against state owned shippers
-- Clinton-guaranteed loans for COSCO to build ships in Alabama
-- Cinton-arranged lease for COSCO on the Long Beach Navy Base (Congress negated the lease, but COSCO later got to manage a marina at the Port of Long Beach, anyway.)

**Clinton-guaranteed loans helped build a reactor in China, a reactor that supplies power for building their warships.

[DBCJR]

Regarding the UAE control of ports, I think Bush is missing it if he doesn't’t get someone to start asking which Clinton is right. Bill was consulting with UAE to get the contract and lobbying (possibly without registration, illegally) while Hillary was vehemently attacking Bush. The Republicans always stand there like a deer in headlights when Dem’s attack. I don’t know how I feel about the UAE running our ports. Anyway Bush went on it, he would have been nailed. If he went against the UAE he would have been branded a bigot against Muslims and affronting our trusted ally when we need their oil. Bill Clinton would have lead that assault. Republicans need to expose the Dem’s strategies right now.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

You know, that's what ticks me off the most about the Republicans. They know which end is up, but then when the verbal assaults come from the Democrats, they all of a sudden turn into whiny little babies, "I want my mommy".

Regarding the Clintons, I think them folks have the truth diveed up between them, mixed with their trashy lies, of course. They want to keep everyone off balance.

And if this port business goes through, if this country is to remain sovereign, no one is to see our security business, except loyal Americans.

On a side note, this is bringing to light our utterly silly propensity to sell out to the highest bidder. And things seem to be going in the right direction to expose the, knock 'em, sock 'em strategy of the leftists.

[Logical me]

"to run our ports"

Simple minds still stuck on stupid.