A Penn-Less Pennsylvania For Clinton
Mark Penn, chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, quit Sunday.
The official reason: his meeting last Monday with the Colombian ambassador in Washington to discuss strategy to pass the U.S.-Colombia free trade pact that Sen. Clinton vehemently opposes.
Why was Penn meeting with the Colombians?
Because he’s always had another job as chief executive of Burson Marsteller Worldwide. Burson, you see, has a lucrative contract with the Colombian government to win congressional passage of the bilateral trade deal. Penn met with the Colombian government within hours of a Clinton speech to the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in which she pledged to fight the trade deal in part because the Colombian government beats and intimidates union organizers.
Having your chief strategist plot strategy to pass a trade deal you oppose for reasons of economic and bedrock politics is, how should we say, awkward.
Penn bargained successfully for his job Friday, when the story first broke in The Wall Street Journal. He sent around apologetic e-mails to senior staff and apologized to Clinton by phone. The typically air-tight Clinton campaign was authorized to speak on background that Clinton and her senior staff were furious at Penn — a clear sign his days might be numbered.
Pressure built over the weekend as members of Congress with strong union ties and top union officials demanded swift action against Penn. Friends of Clinton had long disagreed with Penn’s strategy. Specifically, they questioned whether his obsessive tendency to slice and dice the electorate into microscopic sub-groups suitable for micro-targeted appeals was sufficient to compete against a full-fledged social movement in Barack Obama.
Those tensions had boiled under the surface for months and Clinton’s top delegate hunter, Harold Ickes, and her top ad consultant, Mandy Grunwald, had long been gunning for Penn. “Harold and Mandy must be very happy tonight,” a top Democratic source on Capitol Hill told The Bourbon Room on Sunday.
But Penn retained the unflinching loyalty of former President Bill Clinton, for whom he polled and offered strategic advice after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. Hillary also favored Penn for his work on her first and second campaigns for the U.S. Senate.
So why dump Penn this close to Pennsylvania where so much — dare I say everything — rides on a Clinton victory?
The campaign won’t say anything more than the meeting with the Colombian government was viewed as an unpardonable act of poor judgment (it won’t say betrayal but other Democrats not affiliated with the campaign do). The deeper reason, according to several top Democrats close to the Clinton camp, is that Penn’s continuation with the campaign threatened to disrupt the flow of money and the status of Super Delegates already committed to Hillary or those with whom she is actively negotiating support.
Clinton can’t afford a slow-down in fundraising. She needs every penny she can raise for the primary and her ability in February and March to solicit funds for the general election may make for decent fundraising headlines, but it doesn’t pay the bills now. And paying the bills now is Clinton’s top priority. Why? Because campaigns don’t end when the candidate decides he/she has had enough (because he/she never has enough). Campaigns end when the candidate can’t pay to keep the lights on.
Clinton also can’t stand any superdelegate defections or to suddenly have dozens of supers on the “negotiation” line suddenly stop answering their phones or ignoring Hillary’s e-mails. Money and superdelegates were about to slip away from Hillary if she kept Penn.
His departure, by the way, was not cause for panic, concern, alarm, remorse, regret, sadness, nostalgia or nausea in Hillaryland. Indeed, those were the reactions to Penn’s continued presence.
“Penn will always be linked to one strategic approach and one strategic approach only for Hillary’s campaign,” said Tony Coelho, former campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000. “And that was inevitability.
Penn cast Hillary as inevitable and everything flowed from that. But inevitable became imperial and began to hurt her. And then as the inevitable one, she didn’t compete in caucuses because she wouldn’t need them. If she had competed in those caucuses she would have won some and finished strong in the rest and would be ahead in delegates now. But Penn was all about inevitability. That drove institutional money to Hillary but it also drove grassroots money to Obama.”
Chris Kofinis served as John Edwards’ communications director and said the Edwards camp never understood Clinton’s approach to the race as the candidate of inevitability.
“Who roots for the inevitable candidate,” Kofinis asked. “It’s like Saturday’s NCAA national semi-final. Everyone expected North Carolina to wipe the floor with Kansas. So who do people cheer for? Kansas.”
Kofinis said Clinton’s pitch as the inevitable candidate helped her consolidate her base but left little or no room to expand the base. “Inevitability isn’t a rationale to vote for someone.”
Clinton adopted other approaches and campaign pitches, of course. She keyed on experience and results-oriented solutions. She then cast herself as a fighter .
She’s now casting herself as the manager of the Democrats’ Buyer’s Remorse Emporium. All of these appeals to voters came after the bubble of inevitability burst.
“Where campaigns end has a lot to do with where they begin,” Coelho said. “That’s where this one began.”
Coelho said he believes Obama could win Pennsylvania. As I write that, Dick Bennett at American Research Group, has just released a poll in Pennyslvania that shows Clinton and Obama tied at 45 percent. ARG’s numbers have been shaky this year but this is the second poll since Wednesday to show the race tied. Several other polls have showed Clinton’s lead shrinking. Whether the race is actually tied or not is less important than the inescapable truth that the trend favors Obama.
Every Democrat I talk to believes if Clinton loses Pennyslvania the race ends there. Why? Because Clinton has defined it as a can’t-lose, must-win state and Democrats eager to end the prolonged battle for the nomination will conclude Obama can win a “big state.”
More importantly, they will conclude that Democrats in an ethnically, economically, educationally and religiously diverse state will have sized up the candidates and the race and said we know the deal, and the race ends now. Obama’s the nominee. Let’s fight the Republicans.
The coverage of Penn’s departure will play up the sense of chaos and disorder at Hillary’s headquarters in Arlington, Va.
I have a different take. I believe Penn’s departure, while bad for headlines, could be good for the candidate and very good for her over-worked and beleaguered senior staff.
If Penn’s detractors are to believed, he had a suffocating effect on Clinton’s team, more probably than she fully realized. It is possible that those in Hillaryland who have smoldered for weeks or months about Penn’s approach to the campaign will find new freedom and new energy and the campaign will find within itself a sense of possibility and renewal. We will know the answer to this question within a week in terms of Clinton’s speeches and ads.
Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh believes that’s already happened with Clinton’s crisper and more economically focused stump speech. Clinton has also looked fresher and more inventive with ideas last to woo on-line donors by having them direct where in Pennsylvania their contribution will be spent and a new ad in North Carolina (where Clinton trails) soliciting questions about the economy that Clinton will answer in subsequent TV spots (yes, that’s a canned conversation, but it at least has a bit more flair than the standard TV spots and offers the prospect of more ads, signaling the campaign isn’t on its deathbed). If ever a campaign needed a blast of energy, enthusiasm and rebirth, it’s this one. Penn’s exit offers that possibility. But only that.
The more conventional analysis of Penn’s ouster is that the smell of death will overwhelm the staff and they will grow ever more morose at the loss of their chief scapegoat. That depression will only deepen into lethargy, the theory goes, with the realization that Penn’s heading back to his mega-bucks job at Burson while their own resumes and reputations will be forever smudged (tainted?) by the massive failure of the most “inevitable” campaign in American presidential history.
Tags: Bill Clinton, Chris Kofinis, Dick Bennett, Harold Ickes, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mandy Grunwald, Mark Penn, Mary Anne Marsh, Pennsylvania, Tony Coelho
Share
The role of a senior strategist is to find ways to help their candidate improve their position with voters not make the news be about themselves. Mark Penn has had a habit of letting the media spotlight shine on him sometimes more than HRC, and this time, it resulted in a demotion. Keep in mind, HRC has already paid Penn over $12,000,000 for his services, I’m sure his new position will cut his billing rate, I know we all hope he can survive on that new lower rate.
Remember, Mark Penn is the man behind the women who is behind Barack H. Obama and now he has taken a step back himself. For the Clinton Campaign, I guess this is considered progress.
http://www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
Wright
Rezko
Farrakhan
Black Panther
BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA
Are the same type or group of people.
It is up to you now to decide what is best for the country.
Don’t blame Hillary for fire the guy…Gosh…one obstacle after another..thank the stars above she is strong and determined.
We can be her Mark Penn, Hillary needs your support now. Firstly, to get you inspired check out these videos, they made me laugh so hard.
http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/2008/04/video-well-oiled.html#links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceym55Xlmzg
The website that put the second one out is a great forum if you want a sanctuary if you are bored of fighting with Obama supporters.
UPDATE: Your lead is DEAD WRONG.
“Mark Penn, chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, left today.”
In one more indecisive move, Clinton did NOT remove Mark Penn, but simply gave him a new job title. All your article’s speculation as to how and why are just blowing smoke as the Camp Clinton spin-mesiters hoped you would.
From the official Camp Clinton press release:
So once again Hillary only gives us “some of the truth some of the time.”
Shame on you, Hillary Clinton.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
So now he will get paid for wearing 2 hats in the campaign as opposed to 3.
………………….Advice and Consulting = Lies and Mispeaking………………….
*************ITS ALL THE SAME and I WANT CHANGE******************
So is this good or bad for Hillary?
So is this a good thing or a bad thing for Hillary. Go Hillary, beat that dork named Heissein back where he belongs.
Hillary has a problem, and a change of strategy is not going to solve it. She and Obama share basically the same spot on the political spectrum. They would be great allies if they both wanted to have long legislative careers. But, neither of them wants a long legislative career. Both of them ran for the United States Senate not to be a Senator, but rather, as the jumping off place for being in Presidential Race.
When Hillary was first elected to the Senate in 2000 it was not to meet the needs of long term New York constituents. Heck, she needed to live apart from her husband, at least on paper, to become a resident of New York and thus eligible for the Senate Race. Then she marched through the past 8 years, correctly judging that John Kerry was not going to win against Bush (she really is not as stupid as her opponents portray her to be). Then she built a large exploratory committee and came into the 2008 campaign as “THE PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE”. She also spent money like the presumptive nominee that could come in handy now. Being the nominee, she figured by early March she would be working on her VP and Cabinet Selections for the tough campaign ahead. At least that was the battle plan — forget who the strategist was — it was everybody’s expectation sort of like finding the weapons of mass destruction (oops another story scratch that one).
Then the unthinkable happened. Somebody who came from the same spot on the political bandwidth as her — Barrack Obama started picking her apart in March and moved in front of her in delegates. What Hillary did not realize was that in a person to person matchup Obama was winning over her. The folks that shared both of their views liked Obama more than they liked Hillary.
Then it happened. It late March both sides started throwing bombs at the other side, and we are not talking about regular bombs, but the political “WEAPONS OF MASS DESDRUCTION”.
Hillary supporters have claimed that Obama is a Muslim Terrorist in Hiding; a racist; even ready to degrade all the weapons of our troops; etc.
Barrack supporters have claimed that Hillary is going to surrender to Iraq on January 20, 2009, end MLK Day; Have Obama’s grandmother drug tested and x-rayed to see if there was any damage when Obama threw her under the bus, etc.
Note the above examples are deliberately over the top — just like the actual charges of racism, terrorism etc. are in reality over the top.
Folks, I disagree with both Hillary and Obama based on their policies, but I do not think either has a secret plan to take over America.
So where does this take us? By the time the Denver Convention arrives in late August, it appears that the Democratic Candidates will have spent close to $250 MILLION DOLLARS. WHAT DOES A QUARTER BILLION BUY YOU? You need to let a bunch of party insiders select the party nominee in a smoke filled room. (Note the smoke in that room is not covered by the $250 million and would have to be provided by the DNC.
This is utterly ridiculous. We cannot continue on having a QUARTER BILLION DOLLAR process does not decide anything — because in the end, not one of the Democratic Primary voters mattered — IT WILL ALL BE DONE BY THE SUPER DELEGATES.
One great thing, those delegates coming to Denver will have a great view of the Rockies while they are waiting to see the color of the smoke coming out of the College of Super Delegates at the Pepsi Center.
Lloyd
With Hillary staying in the race (and possibly winning),it postpones Obama’s swift demise at the hands of the GOP. Most will think Penn’s exit is a positive thing. In fact people in PA will probably not notice.
Pennsylvania is a very conservative state and very anti -abortion. Obama’s speech mentioning his daughters possibility of being “punished” by a child they did not want is not going to get him votes there.
Maybe if those 700,000 college students get up in time to vote, he may have a chance to come within 10. This may turn out to be similar to New Hampshire. They could want to seem more open minded to pollsters calling. Remember, Pennsylvania has not had a say in the election in years and may be pollster shy.
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton.
Best regards
jacksmith…
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!
If you don’t know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering…
Hillary has a problem, which no change of strategy is going to solve. Obama and she share basically the same bandwidth on the political spectrum and thereby attract the same groups of followers. If they were seeking legislative careers they would be fast friends and instant allies; full of love and stories of the others kindness. Allow their true believers a moment to reflect on what might have been had they worked together.
The problem with that vision is that neither of them dreamt of being a Senator as an end within itself. Nope. Both of them viewed the job as the stepping stone on a calculated run for the roses.
When Hillary was first elected to the Senate in 2000 it was not to meet the needs of long term New York constituents – she had none. Heck, she needed to live apart from her husband, at least on paper, to become a resident of New York and thus eligible for the Senate Race. Then she marched through the past 8 years, correctly judging that John Kerry was not going to win against Bush in 2004. Rather she built a large exploratory committee and came fully formed, into the 2008 campaign as “THE PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE”. She also spent money like a presumptive nominee, money which would come in handy about now. As the all but ordained nominee, Hillary’s strategy was to be working on her VP and Cabinet Selections and raising money for the tough campaign ahead. At least that was the battle plan — forget who the strategist was — it was everybody’s expectation sort of like finding the weapons of mass destruction (oops another story scratch that one).
Unfortunately for that planned coronation the unthinkable happened. Somebody who came from the same political bandwidth as Hillary, Barrack Obama started wiping her out in March and; horror of horrors; actually moved in front of Hillary in delegates. What the Hillary camp, populated by lifetime admirers could not realize was that in a real world person to person matchup Obama was winning over Hillary. Her two rays of hope were with voters who considered the gender of the candidate to be major selection criteria somewhere between 65% to 75% for Hillary. The other group was those who consider the race of the candidate to be a major factor in deciding who to vote for currently 55% favoring Obama. That last factor was important due to it being only an issue for a small percentage of white voters, while it was a much larger issue for black voters. In general, white voters who thought race was a major characteristic selected white candidates, though there were still a significant amount of crossovers. The black voters who considered race to be significant voted strongly black.
The rest shall we say is history. All of a sudden race became a battle of charge and counter charge – Obama is a Racist, Hillary is Guilty of Scandal etc. etc.
So where does this take us? By the time the Denver Convention arrives in late August, it appears that the 2 major Democratic candidates will have spent close to $250 million dollars. For what? To let a bunch of party insiders select the party nominee in a smoke filled room. Isn’t that what all of the reform was about – coming up with a process that would give the voters the power and take it away from the insiders? Guess what? It Aint Working!!
This is utterly ridiculous. We cannot continue on having a process that spends a quarter of a billion dollars and does not even decide anything — because in the end, none of the voters mattered — it will all be done by the super delegates. One great thing, those delegates coming to Denver will have a great view of the Rockies while they are waiting to see the color of the smoke coming out of the College of Super Delegates.
In the meantime has anybody stopped to figure out what taking that $250 million out of party donors is going to do for the bottom feeders? Is all of this giving going to strangle the future contributions to them – remember real people unlike countries have only have so much money, and they cannot print more just to give it again to a deserving state house candidate.
Lloyd
This is pretty sad, but after clicking on this article, I decided not to read it. I figure it really would not have any true news value.
I was listening to Gretchen on Fox this morning. She made the statement that she was “fair and unbiased” about this ’story’. Two minutes before she and others were grasping there hands in victory stating “June is wrapped up”…wink wink…grin grin.
You, Gretchen, are pathetic. There is nothing “fair and unbiased” about the way you or any of your media cohorts are handling this campaign. I’m particularly upset about women “journalists” trashing a very worthy female candidate. It’s as if you know nothing about history or the struggles of women. 100 years ago we couldn’t even vote. SHAME ON YOU FOR SELLING OUT.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said
in February 2005.
these are her words people. how can you trust this woman she would say anything to win.
and yet another lie from hillary
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton’s claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, “when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.”
It’s an odd way to measure opposition to the war — comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama’s opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton’s vote for it
Hillary should go back on Leno’s show and joke about Penn/Columbia ! I suppose Hillary, Bill, and all the rest of the Clinton team had NO idea about Penn’s “side job” - another lie !
Although truth/reality and the Clinton campaign too often have not been able to coexist, I think the conventional analysis provided above is much closer to the reality of the situation.
Wright
Rezko
Farrakhan
BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA
They are the same kind or group of people.
It is up to you now to decide what is best for our country.
If Hillary gets this nomination(and she will break the Dem party if she has to for her own agenda), then how many more people will be “let go”? Didn’t she fire everyone in the White House? Then there are all the exaggerated stories she tells…..and the need to sleep with the poll numbers so she can change her mind about how she feels about a position based on the polls, not on true leadership….this lady is a time bomb for Americans to elect….the Republicans will have a field day between she and Bill and all the scandals…heck, she had more scandals in the White House than Bill….she is lucky she isn’t behind bars….oh, I forgot, the Clintons are above the law.
For Clinton to receive the nomination she must get 60% of the votes in all remaining states and 60% of the remaining superdelegates. Her campaign is in desperate need of support. Please sent your money today. Everyone can make a donation of $2300.00. Please go to Hillary’s web site and make your donation now!!!!!! Show your support through you donation.
Is it true that the “trade” deal that Hillary is against is to support the fight against illegal drugs in Columbia?
The next person from the Clinton campaign to step down should be … Hillary. How can she let Obama continue to fight for the nomination, while McCain sits back and interviews his two dozen VP candidates? McCain can take the time to select the running mate who best balances his own age, ideology, geography, etc. Here’s how it is supposed to work:
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digits.php?rType=1&sPath=1140&sNode=1140&uId=198
Another Classic Clinton Moment.
What’s inevitable is that there will be more and more and more lies from Hillary Clinton.
She lies when she doesn’t even have to. It’s her fatal flaw.
She’s a “fighter” who fights to win votes and then dashes off to South Dakota to vehemently insist to pledged delagates for Obama that in her mind “there is no such thing as pledged delegates.
LIE.
She’ll change the rules of the game and say that opposition to the Iraq war should be measaured from January 26, 2005, when Obama became a U.S. Senator. And then, hours later when it’s shown that even by her new (fake, liary) standard he STILL preceeded her in being against the war (that she voted for) she moves on to the next lie.
TIME FOR A NEW LIE.
She’s done making up stories (that she didn’t have time to vet) about prenant women who are turned away from hospitals because they don’t have $100.
TIME FOR A NEW LIE.
She’s no longer saying she brought Peace to Northern Ireland, because the guy that won the Nobel for it says she is “a wee bit silly” to inflate her role there, and that she did nothing.
TIME FOR A NEW LIE.
She’s no longer saying she opened borders for refugees that were opened days before she even arrived.
TIME FOR A NEW LIE.
And she, the self-proclaimed “Rocky” the fighter of the working class, who turns out to have 70 million dollars in cash, can’t be bothered to pay grocery stores and Vendors (to the tune of millions) back in Iowa because you know what? Iowa already voted and she and her staff have already eaten those deli trays and sandwiches.
But the real issue is actually being hidden. Her husband, whom she insinuates will be her “co-president” as she allegedly was to him (though the White House papers clearly disprove it) has recieved over 500 million dollars in donations to a Presidential Library that cost 165 million dollars to build.
Who gave the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in that fund, and what kind of return do they expect on their investment?
We know that among the donars are the Sheik of Dubai, and the Saudi Royal Family. That’s on the record.
What do they expect from the “co-President” for their HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
Other candidates are limited to accepting a maximum of $2,300. Obama accepts no PAC money, so he has no large donors waiting for payback.
THAT is the real issue.
Isn’t the truth remarkably simple?
Latest Politics Blog
Hoffa: Penn “Demotion” Not Good Enough
Posted by Josh Gerstein
Sun, 6 Apr 2008 at 11:09 PM
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
The announcement from Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign that Mark Penn has resigned as chief strategist is not enough to assuage one of Mr. Penn’s top critics in the labor movement. The president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, James Hoffa, said through an aide tonight that the change is of little significance, since Mr. Penn will continue to advise and poll for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid.
“Demotion doesn’t answer General President Hoffa’s concerns. Mark Penn is still on her payroll and Burson-Marsteller’s payroll,” a spokeswoman for Mr. Hoffa, Leigh Strope, said. “Title demotion doesn’t indicate loss of influence.”
In a statement on Friday, Mr. Hoffa called for Mr. Penn’s ouster. “Someone like Mark Penn should not be dictating strategy, and possibly legislation, for a Democratic candidate for president,” the Teamster leader said.
The Teamsters have endorsed Mrs. Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama of Illinois. While the recent criticism of Mr. Penn was triggered by a report in the Wall Street Journal that he met with Colombia’s ambassador to discuss strategy to promote the country’s free trade deal with America, the Teamsters’ issues with Mr. Penn go beyond the trade deal. They are also at odds over Burson-Marsteller’s work on behalf of Cintas Corp., which the Teamsters and another union, Unite Here, have been attempting to organize for years.
So, lets understand this - she has this guy as her chief stategist - without knowing exactly what the company he is continuing to work for is involved in. Not too smart! Says something about her judgement!
Why is it that everything regarding Mrs. Clinton’s situation is pitched up against impossible odds. Polls reflect the way people are in the morning. By the evening they are thinking otherwise.
It is good to get rid of a person who, despite great technical talents, does not think about the big picture. That has been the problem with her efforts up to now. Now that can change.
I believe she has more to offer than a stump speech. Bush had an agent of change stump speech too. What we got was an ineffective manager and a person who gets lost in his own office. Someone who offers a more tough exterior but a get it done attitude may offer us a more viable president.
I do not believe Obama can carry the White middle-class vote nationally. He is too liberal. With John Kerry and Ted Kennedy as backers, his idea of middle of the road is way left of center. Clinton is more in the center, in my opinion.
Although he can build a team too, he does not seem to have the same character. I do not need a president as psychologist or cheerleader but as leader. The problems facing the US are not going away. We are in a downward spiral internationally and not stopping. IF we do not address the problems we have, the dominance of China and India will be complete in under 25 years. The result will be a poorer US. The services we want as citizens must be financed. Without business it is over.
Look at the auto industry. It is spreading into every other industry. The world is now flat and those who think they are safe are fools. We have to reshape our methods and message. If not, we risk following in the footsteps of England 200 years ago, or Rome 1000 years ago.
Leadership is not cheerleading.
It is most unfortunate that the Hillary campaign is based so much on misinformation. The Colombian government has made impressive strides towards eliminating abuse of “syndicalists”. This is to be commended, particularly of a staunch US ally.
It is unfortunate that both Hillary and Obama ignore (or turn a blnd eye) to the truth in order to appease the AFL-CIO, et. al. They are interested in money and votes, not in cultivating hemispheric friendships (that are precious few nowadays).
Yes, Mark Penn is a disgrace to the Noble Name William Penn founder of Pennsylvania. The voters and Patriots of this great State may well make the connection that this is no casulal coincidence. The sons and daughters of the Keystone State can clearly see the Clinton campaign as a dog and pony show, not be worthy of their consideration when compared to the Excellent Example of William Penn of community and leadership. There exists the difference between east and west, of Mark Penn and William Penn, let the good voters of Pennsylvania reflect what their State stands for by rejecting Clintonism. The Clintons can keep Mark Penn; Pennsylvanians will keep William Penn. Obama 08, Judgment we can Trust, Change we can Believe in, Hope not despair.
The Clinton Tax Returns & Was Bill Clinton a Registered Foreign Agent for Dubai? an for who? an The Falcanry Hunting Camp 1999
Apr 5, 2008 | 8:46 AM
Category: Political
MYBLOGS:
http://community.myfoxboston.com/blogs/FisherCat
http://blog.myspace.com/fishercat69
Edit | Delete
Clinton Tax Returns & Was Bill Clinton a Foreign Agent for Dubai?
Current mood: annoyed
Category: News and Politics
Clintons Report $109 Million in Income Over 8 Years.. –> No Summary –> by FOXNews.com Friday, April 4, 2008
Facebook Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg Email
The Clintons report $109 million in income between 2000 and 2007. (AP Photo)
.. –> –>.. –> –>.. type=text/javascript>adsonar_placement=1338106;adsonar_
pid=144757;adsonar_ps1;adsonar_zw=320;adsonar_zh=139;ad
sonar_jv=’ads.adsonar.com’;..>.. language=JavaScript src=”http://js.adsonar.com/js/adsonar.js”>..>
It’s good to be the Clintons.
On the same day that she proposed creating a cabinet-level position devoted to ending poverty, Hillary Clinton and her husband reported earning more than $109 million over eight years in newly released tax data.
Hillary and Bill Clinton paid $33.8 million in federal taxes from 2000 through 2007. They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period.
The total income reported in that period was $109.2 million, with the most money — $51.9 million — coming from Bill Clinton’s speech income. Earnings from his two books — “My Life ” and “Giving” — totaled $29.6 million.
Hillary Clinton had $10.5 million in income from her book “Living History.” She donated earnings from her other book, “It Takes a Village,” to charity. Plus she earned about $1 million through her Senate salary and her husband earned a little over $1 million through his presidential pension.
They reported their after-tax earnings at $57.2 million.
“The Clintons have now made public thirty years of tax returns, a record matched by few people in public service. None of Hillary Clinton’s presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information,” the Clinton campaign said in a statement.
The campaign released tax returns from 2000 through 2006 and gave highlights from their 2007 return. The Clintons have asked for an extension for filing their 2007 tax returns, citing the dissolution of a blind trust last year.
Clinton had been under mounting pressure to release the tax returns, especially from rival Barack Obama, who posted his 2000 to 2006 returns on his campaign Web site last week.
Barack and Michelle Obama’s income was significantly less than the Clintons’. They earned close to $1 million in 2006, according to their returns.
The itemized earnings the Clinton campaign provided in its summary only added up to $94 million, leaving $15 million unaccounted for.
But that difference can probably be located in practically one source. Besides speeches and books, Bill Clinton’s biggest single business income is from his partnership with Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund, a Los Angeles-based investment firm founded by longtime Clinton fundraiser Ron Burkle. Between 2003 and 2006, the returns show total Yucaipa partnership income of $12.5 million. The 2007 summary provided by the campaign lists $2.75 million in partnership income.
President Clinton also has been an adviser to InfoUSA, a data company whose chief executive, Vinod Gupta, has been a major donor to Democrats and gave at least $1 million to Bill Clinton’s presidential library in Arkansas. Clinton received $400,000 in payments from the company in 2006 and 2007, according to the documents.
The Clintons last made their returns public in 2000 when they reported an adjusted gross income of $416,039. Since then, the former president has embarked on a number of business ventures and has made millions from speaking engagements.
Clinton’s tax returns show that of the remaining presidential candidates, she is the one most able to access large amounts of personal money. She lent her campaign $5 million in late February and could contribute more if she finds herself falling far behind Obama’s proficient fundraising.
Neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain have made their 2007 tax returns public, though both say they will this month.
Clinton said earlier Friday in Memphis, as she spoke in memory of Martin Luther King Jr., that she would appoint a cabinet-level position “fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it in America.”
Kate Obenshain, of the conservative Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, told FOX News: “There is an irony of putting this out on the day that you announce a cabinet-level position for poverty czar.”
But she said Republicans likely wouldn’t criticize her just for making money.
Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said the tax returns do not conflict at all with Clinton’s statements on poverty.
“I reject the idea that there’s some sort of conflict between people who make a lot of money actually caring about the poor,” she said.
Click here to see the Clintons’ tax returns.
Click here to see a breakdown of the 2000-2006 returns.
This document in pdf link below is the key to Clintons connections according to Dick Morris as they say follow the monies!
http://www.sebi.gov.in/takeover/thomascooklof.pdf>
October 2002: Deutsche Bank Reports Says Saddam Hussein’s Removal would Benefit US and British Oil Companies Deutsche Bank publishes a report, titled Baghdad Bazaar Big Oil in Iraq, which analyses the large stakes that certain countries and oil companies have in the United State’s conflict with Iraq. It notes that the removal of Saddam Hussein would benefit US and British companies, while Russian, French, and Chinese companies would benefit from a peaceful outcome. Either way, companies from many different countries are positioning themselves for a role in Iraq’s post-conflict oil industry, the report says. [New York Times, 10/26/2002; Friends of the Earth, 1/26/2003]
Entity Tags: Deutsche Bank
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
The Clintons must immediately release their TAX Records why? DUBAI & Bin Ladin & Billy Boy
HILLARY AN BILL MUST DISCLOSE THEIR TAXES! IMEDIATLEY YES THEY FIANLLY DID BUT NOW WE NEED TO MAGNIFY THEIR RECORDS….
This is what Dick Morris said: Her lifelong pattern of secrecy was once again evident. While publicly promoting transparency in government, she steadfastly refuses to release her personal income tax returns. That’s a clear tip-off that there’s something to hide. Recall that the Clintons selectively released tax returns in Arkansas, but refused to go back to 1980, when Hillary had her windfall in cattle futures. During the debate, Hillary suggested that she’d release the returns “soon,” but her staff quickly backtracked. She implied that she’s been too busy to deal with releasing the returns. Does she really think anyone believes that it will take more than simply making a copy of the return? She’s stalling and there’s a reason for that.
Most likely, the return will show how much Bill has been making from his partnership with the Sheik of Dubai and his other business ventures. Should the spouse of a presidential candidate be in business with a foreign leader who needs favors from the U.S. government? Definitely not. That’s why we’ll never see those returns.
And then there are the Clinton Library records that document her schedule as first lady. She doesn’t want them released either because they will definitively show that she was never the co-president. The Library has been stalling on the release of those documents for years. During the debate, she said that she wanted them released as quickly as possible and seemed to blame the Bush administration for the delay. But today, the White House indicated that she had made no requests for any expedited release. 2nd paragraph buy Dick Morris an also said today Bill Clinton received 10 Million dollars from Dubai Prince
Hillary as the tool of the lobbyists. He must underscore the need for her to release her tax returns for 2007 and 2006 to show the source of her newfound wealth.
He’s got to probe her relationship with Norman Hsu and Bill’s financial ties to the emir of Dubai. He has to underscore how Hillary’s so-called experience, particularly in military affairs is largely derivative of her husband’s. He’s got to learn to trade blows with the Clintons, the best counter-punchers in the business. A PREVIOUS POST OF MINE: Why didn’t give the order to kill Bin Ladin 1999Feb 26, 2008 | 7:51 AM
Find out who Bill Clinton an Madeline Albright an her ALLBRIGHT Group represent as agents of foreign countries an must be reported when doing so under Senate Rules an Hillary must disclose their joint bank accounts to see where their monies come from….Clinton works for Yacipha Cos as a highly paid senior advisor an has many other connections to Dubai Prince an others this same Prince owns P&O Nedlloyd an MAERSK shipping which al operate in Boston Harbor at the BLACK FALCON TERMINAL AN MASS AUTOPORT which gives them access to send in potential TRUCK AN CARS dirty bombs an moist recently the Massachusetts State Police took free shipping containers with MAERSK shipping Logos for re-hearsing Counter Terrorism Actions seen recently on FOX25 I believe with Bob Ward piece….sleeping with the Enemy these Dubai friends of Usamah Bin Ladin also own DUETCHE BANK an subsidiaries where Bin Ladin kept his 9/11 Monies an his total assets…these people are controlling our FOOD SOURCES in Yacipha an ports….an Banking…..more to come about Madeline Albright an Clinton about the deal about the Sudan in a document called WHOS CHASING WHO’M? a released classified document that shows was a deal to take Usamah brokered through the Sudan an Clinton refused to do it….when he was sitting on the WTC 1993 Bombing case an indictment….Madeline Albright denied there was a deal Hannity Colmes… 1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with Bin Laden in Afghanistan
Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, who is said to go falcon hunting with bin Laden, will later rule the emirate that owns DP World, the UAE company attempting to purchase a number of US ports in 2006. [Source: UAE Government]After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001] General Wayne Downing, who will later serve as one of President Bush’s counterterrorism “tsars,” says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses.” [MSNBC, 9/5/2003] One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai. While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries’ outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001] On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he’s falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates’ royal family (see February 11, 1999).
Entity Tags: Turki al-Faisal, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, United Arab Emirates, Mullah Omar, Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, Osama bin Laden, Wayne Downing
Context of ’1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with Bin Laden and Mullah Omar in Afghanistan’
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event 1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with Bin Laden and Mullah Omar in Afghanistan. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
1
2
3
4
5
1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with Bin Laden and Mullah Omar in Afghanistan .. type=text/javascript>sEL(’1626004942-38649’,’38649’)..>
After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers such as Saudi Intelligence Minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for bird hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001] General Wayne Downing, who will later serve as one of President Bush’s counterterrorism “tsars,” says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses.” [MSNBC, 9/5/2003] One noted visitor is Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, United Arab Emirates (UAE) Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai. Another is Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, ruler of the UAE. While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both Osama bin Laden and Taliban ruler Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Al Maktoum allegedly hunts with bin Laden once in 1999 (see 1999). [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001; Farah and Braun, 2007, pp. 120-121] On one occasion in 1999, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he’s bird hunting with important members of the UAE’s royal family (see February 11, 1999). US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries’ outbound jets may also have smuggle out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001] The CIA also develops suspicions that many royals use the hunting trips as cover to fly out of Afghanistan with large amounts of heroin, but they are unable to prove it (see 1998).
Entity Tags: Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Turki al-Faisal, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Wayne Downing
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
.. type=text/javascript> addthis_url = ’http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a9
5huntinga95hunting’; addthis_title = ’1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with Bin Laden and Mullah Omar in Afghanistan’; addthis_pub = ’historycommons’; ..> .. src=”http://s7.addthis.com/js/addthis_widget.php?v=12″ type=text/javascript>..> 1998: CIA Suspects Persian Gulf Royals and Arms Dealer Victor Bout Are Flying Heroin Out of Afghanistan .. type=text/javascript>sEL(’1626004942-38675’,’38675’)..>
A houbara bustard. [Source: Eric and David Hosking / Corbis]In 1998, the CIA becomes interested in the links between arms dealer Victor Bout, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, and some US counternarcotics officials are particularly intrigued by a pattern they see between the flight patterns of Bout’s airplanes to and from Afghanistan and the hunting vacations of some Persian Gulf royals. Many of the Persian Gulf elite are known to regularly go bird hunting in Afghanistan, sometimes meeting Taliban ruler Mullah Omar and/or Osama bin Laden during their hunting trips (see 1995-2001). US analysts notice that there is a surge of Bout-controlled flights to Afghanistan in February and March of each year, the same time many royal elite fly to Afghanistan on their private jets in time for the migration of thousands of houbara bustards through Afghanistan. Then, in early autumn, there is another surge of flights by both Bout’s planes and the royal jets when the bustards migrate through the country again. Officials at the CIA’s counternarcotics center suspect some of the royals are using the hunting flights as cover to export heroin. The Bout flights increase the suspicion, since he is a known drug trafficker as well as an arms dealer. Scheuer will later comment, “They were very interested on the counternarcotics side about the patterns between Bout’s flights and the bustard-hunting season.” British intelligence is interested in the same thing, and at one point they approach United Arab Emirates (UAE) officials for permission to sneak a team of agents aboard one of Bout’s flights to search for Afghan heroin. However, they are unable to get permission, and the CIA also does not act on these suspicions. [Farah and Braun, 2007, pp. 141]
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, Victor Bout, UK Secret Intelligence Service, Michael Scheuer
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
.. type=text/javascript> addthis_url = ’http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1
998huntingheroina1998huntingheroin’; addthis_title = ’1998: CIA Suspects Persian Gulf Royals and Arms Dealer Victor Bout Are Flying Heroin Out of Afghanistan’; addthis_pub = ’historycommons’; ..> .. src=”http://s7.addthis.com/js/addthis_widget.php?v=12″ type=text/javascript>..> October 1998: Military Analyst Goes Where Spies Fail to Go, but Her Efforts Are Rejected .. type=text/javascript>sEL(’1626004942-11103’,’11103’)..>
Julie Sirrs. [Source: Julie Sirrs]Julie Sirrs, a military analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), travels to Afghanistan. Fluent in local languages and knowledgeable about the culture, she had made a previous undercover trip there in October 1997. She is surprised that the CIA was not interested in sending in agents after the failed missile attack on bin Laden in August 1998, so she returns at this time. Traveling undercover, she meets with Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud. She sees a terrorist training center in Taliban-controlled territory. Sirrs claims, “The Taliban’s brutal regime was being kept in power significantly by bin Laden’s money, plus the narcotics trade, while [Massoud’s] resistance was surviving on a shoestring. With even a little aid to the Afghan resistance, we could have pushed the Taliban out of power. But there was great reluctance by the State Department and the CIA to undertake that.” She partly blames the interest of the US government and the oil company Unocal to see the Taliban achieve political stability to enable a trans-Afghanistan pipeline (see May 1996) (see September 27, 1996). She claims, “Massoud told me he had proof that Unocal had provided money that helped the Taliban take Kabul.” She also states, “The State Department didn’t want to have anything to do with Afghan resistance, or even, politically, to reveal that there was any viable option to the Taliban.” After two weeks, she returns with a treasure trove of maps, photographs, and interviews. [ABC News, 2/18/2002; New York Observer, 3/11/2004] By interviewing captured al-Qaeda operatives, she learns that the official Afghanistan airline, Ariana Airlines, is being used to ferry weapons and drugs, and learns that bin Laden goes hunting with “rich Saudis and top Taliban officials” (see Mid-1996-October 2001) (see 1995-2001). [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001] When she returns from Afghanistan, her material is confiscated and she is accused of being a spy. Says one senior colleague, “She had gotten the proper clearances to go, and she came back with valuable information,” but high level officials “were so intent on getting rid of her, the last thing they wanted to pay attention to was any information she had.” She is cleared of wrongdoing, but her security clearance is pulled. She eventually quits the DIA in frustration in 1999. [ABC News, 2/18/2002; New York Observer, 3/11/2004] Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R) will later claim that the main DIA official behind the punishment of Sirrs is Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes, who later becomes “one of the top officials running the Department of Homeland Security.” [Dana Rohrabacher, 6/21/2004]
Entity Tags: Patrick Hughes, Defense Intelligence Agency, Julie Sirrs, Osama bin Laden, US Department of State, Ariana Airlines, Northern Alliance, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Central Intelligence Agency, Ahmed Shah Massoud, Unocal
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
.. type=text/javascript> addthis_url = ’http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1
098juliesirrsa1098juliesirrs’; addthis_title = ’October 1998: Military Analyst Goes Where Spies Fail to Go, but Her Efforts Are Rejected’; addthis_pub = ’historycommons’; ..> .. src=”http://s7.addthis.com/js/addthis_widget.php?v=12″ type=text/javascript>..> 1999: Future Ruler of United Arab Emirates Allegedly Goes Bird Hunting with Bin Laden .. type=text/javascript>sEL(’1626004942-38713’,’38713’)..>
Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. [Source: UAE Government]Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, United Arab Emirates (UAE) Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai, allegedly goes bird hunting with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is already widely considered to have approved the bombing of two US embassies in Africa the year before (see August 7, 1998). Al Maktoum is known to love bird hunting, as do many other UAE royals (see 1995-2001). The US calls off an attack on bin Laden in 1999 because he is bird hunting with UAE royals at the time (see February 11, 1999). Al Maktoum hunts in Afghanistan several times in 1998 and 1999, but is only known to hunt with bin Laden once. He is so impressed by the Taliban that in 1999 he suspends all landing fees for Ariana Airlines, the Afghanistan national airline which has been effectively taken over by the Taliban and al-Qaeda by this time (see Mid-1996-October 2001). His father, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, ruler of the UAE, also hunts in Afghanistan around this time, but there are no reports of him hunting with bin Laden. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001; Farah and Braun, 2007, pp. 120-121] In 2006, Al Maktoum will become the Prime Minister and Vice President of the UAE, and the ruler of the emirate of Dubai. In 2007, his wealth will be estimated at $16 billion. [Forbes, 8/30/2007] As ruler of Dubai, he and his family have 100% ownership and control of DP World, a UAE company that will be the subject of controversy when it attempts to purchase some US port facilities in 2006. [Newsweek International, 3/16/2006]
Entity Tags: Ariana Airlines, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Osama bin Laden, Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan
.. type=text/javascript> addthis_url = ’http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1
999maktoumhuntinga1999maktoumhunting’; addthis_title = ’1999: Future Ruler of United Arab Emirates Allegedly Goes Bird Hunting with Bin Laden’; addthis_pub = ’historycommons’; ..> .. src=”http://s7.addthis.com/js/addthis_widget.php?v=12″ type=text/javascript>..> February 11, 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty .. type=text/javascript>sEL(’1626004942-18599’,’18599’)..>
Apparently, this surveillance photo of a C-130 transport plane from the United Arab Emirates plays a key role in the decision not to strike at bin Laden. [Source: CBC]Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Local informants confirm exactly where bin Laden will be in the camp on February 11, and a strike is prepared. But policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike is called off. Bin Laden leaves the camp on February 12. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004; Vanity Fair, 11/2004] Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit at the time, will claim in 2004 that “the truth has not been fully told” about this incident. He will claim that the strike is cancelled because senior officials at the CIA, White House, and other agencies, decide to accept assurances from an unnamed Islamic country that it can acquire bin Laden from the Taliban. “US officials accepted these assurances despite the well-documented record of that country withholding help—indeed, it was a record of deceit and obstruction—regarding all issues pertaining to Bin Laden” in previous years. [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2004] This may be a reference to Saudi Arabia. In mid-1998, the CIA called off a plan to capture bin Laden in favor of an ultimately unfulfilled Saudi promise to bribe the Taliban to hand bin Laden over (see May 1998). Many in US intelligence will be resentful over this missed opportunity and blame a conflict of interest with the Emirati royals (see Shortly After February 11, 1999).
Entity Tags: Michael Scheuer, Osama bin Laden, Alec Station, United Arab Emirates
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
.. type=text/javascript> addthis_url = ’http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0
299gulfroyaltya0299gulfroyalty’; addthis_title = ’February 11, 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty’; addthis_pub = ’historycommons’; ..> .. src=”http://s7.addthis.com/js/addthis_widget.php?v=12″ type=text/javascript>..> August 21, 2005: New Saudi Ambassador to US Has Controversial Past .. type=text/javascript>sEL(’1626004942-23044’,’23044’)..>
Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the US since 1983, steps down and is replaced by Prince Turki al-Faisal. It is said that Prince Bandar had been suffering health problems and is not close to the new Saudi King Abdullah (see August 1, 2005). Prince Turki was Saudi intelligence minister from the late 1970s until about one week before 9/11 (see August 31, 2001). Then he served three years as Saudi ambassador to Britain. Prince Turki has had a controversial past. He was considered a mentor to bin Laden, and encouraged him to represent Saudi Arabia in the Afghanistan war against the Soviet Union. There are allegations that Prince Turki took part in a series of secret meetings between bin Laden and the Saudis over a period of many years (see Summer 1991; May 1996; Spring 1998
Add a Comment
[...] to Policy by Aaron Bruns With many of the political reporters in Washington chasing the Mark Penn story, Hillary Clinton herself is staying out of the [...]
The Clinton Tax Returns & Was Bill Clinton a Registered Foreign Agent for Dubai? an for who? an The Falcanry Hunting Camp 1999
Apr 5, 2008 | 8:46 AM
Category: Political
my political blogs:
http://community.myfoxboston.com/blogs/FisherCat
http://blog.myspace.com/fishercat69
Clinton Tax Returns & Was Bill Clinton a Foreign Agent for Dubai?
Current mood: annoyed
Category: News and Politics
Clintons Report $109 Million in Income Over 8 Years.. –> No Summary –> by FOXNews.com Friday, April 4, 2008
Facebook Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg Email
The Clintons report $109 million in income between 2000 and 2007. (AP Photo)
.. –> –>.. –> –>.. type=text/javascript>adsonar_placement=1338106;adsonar_
pid=144757;adsonar_ps1;adsonar_zw=320;adsonar_zh=139;ad
sonar_jv=’ads.adsonar.com’;..>.. language=JavaScript src=”http://js.adsonar.com/js/adsonar.js”>..>
It’s good to be the Clintons.
On the same day that she proposed creating a cabinet-level position devoted to ending poverty, Hillary Clinton and her husband reported earning more than $109 million over eight years in newly released tax data.
Hillary and Bill Clinton paid $33.8 million in federal taxes from 2000 through 2007. They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period.
The total income reported in that period was $109.2 million, with the most money — $51.9 million — coming from Bill Clinton’s speech income. Earnings from his two books — “My Life ” and “Giving” — totaled $29.6 million.
Hillary Clinton had $10.5 million in income from her book “Living History.” She donated earnings from her other book, “It Takes a Village,” to charity. Plus she earned about $1 million through her Senate salary and her husband earned a little over $1 million through his presidential pension.
They reported their after-tax earnings at $57.2 million.
“The Clintons have now made public thirty years of tax returns, a record matched by few people in public service. None of Hillary Clinton’s presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information,” the Clinton campaign said in a statement.
The campaign released tax returns from 2000 through 2006 and gave highlights from their 2007 return. The Clintons have asked for an extension for filing their 2007 tax returns, citing the dissolution of a blind trust last year.
Clinton had been under mounting pressure to release the tax returns, especially from rival Barack Obama, who posted his 2000 to 2006 returns on his campaign Web site last week.
Barack and Michelle Obama’s income was significantly less than the Clintons’. They earned close to $1 million in 2006, according to their returns.
The itemized earnings the Clinton campaign provided in its summary only added up to $94 million, leaving $15 million unaccounted for.
But that difference can probably be located in practically one source. Besides speeches and books, Bill Clinton’s biggest single business income is from his partnership with Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund, a Los Angeles-based investment firm founded by longtime Clinton fundraiser Ron Burkle. Between 2003 and 2006, the returns show total Yucaipa partnership income of $12.5 million. The 2007 summary provided by the campaign lists $2.75 million in partnership income.
President Clinton also has been an adviser to InfoUSA, a data company whose chief executive, Vinod Gupta, has been a major donor to Democrats and gave at least $1 million to Bill Clinton’s presidential library in Arkansas. Clinton received $400,000 in payments from the company in 2006 and 2007, according to the documents.
The Clintons last made their returns public in 2000 when they reported an adjusted gross income of $416,039. Since then, the former president has embarked on a number of business ventures and has made millions from speaking engagements.
Clinton’s tax returns show that of the remaining presidential candidates, she is the one most able to access large amounts of personal money. She lent her campaign $5 million in late February and could contribute more if she finds herself falling far behind Obama’s proficient fundraising.
Neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain have made their 2007 tax returns public, though both say they will this month.
Clinton said earlier Friday in Memphis, as she spoke in memory of Martin Luther King Jr., that she would appoint a cabinet-level position “fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it in America.”
Kate Obenshain, of the conservative Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, told FOX News: “There is an irony of putting this out on the day that you announce a cabinet-level position for poverty czar.”
But she said Republicans likely wouldn’t criticize her just for making money.
Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said the tax returns do not conflict at all with Clinton’s statements on poverty.
“I reject the idea that there’s some sort of conflict between people who make a lot of money actually caring about the poor,” she said.
Click here to see the Clintons’ tax returns.
Click here to see a breakdown of the 2000-2006 returns.
This document in pdf link below is the key to Clintons connections according to Dick Morris as they say follow the monies!
http://www.sebi.gov.in/takeover/thomascooklof.pdf>
October 2002: Deutsche Bank Reports Says Saddam Hussein’s Removal would Benefit US and British Oil Companies Deutsche Bank publishes a report, titled Baghdad Bazaar Big Oil in Iraq, which analyses the large stakes that certain countries and oil companies have in the United State’s conflict with Iraq. It notes that the removal of Saddam Hussein would benefit US and British companies, while Russian, French, and Chinese companies would benefit from a peaceful outcome. Either way, companies from many different countries are positioning themselves for a role in Iraq’s post-conflict oil industry, the report says. [New York Times, 10/26/2002; Friends of the Earth, 1/26/2003]
Entity Tags: Deutsche Bank
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
The Clintons must immediately release their TAX Records why? DUBAI & Bin Ladin & Billy Boy
HILLARY AN BILL MUST DISCLOSE THEIR TAXES! IMEDIATLEY YES THEY FIANLLY DID BUT NOW WE NEED TO MAGNIFY THEIR RECORDS….
This is what Dick Morris said: Her lifelong pattern of secrecy was once again evident. While publicly promoting transparency in government, she steadfastly refuses to release her personal income tax returns. That’s a clear tip-off that there’s something to hide. R