New York Times: Bill Clinton supported a dictator

I was hoping to be the one to ask that...

And Oz? 83 whole percent?

 

The NYT never learns when it comes to the Clintons. The spirit of Jeff Gerth rides again.
A Canadian mining guy wants to do business with Nazarbayev. Clinton brokers the deal. Canadian guy thereupon gives $31 million to a foundation that everybody agrees is doing god's work around the world. (Evidence to the contrary would be welcome.) Except for Nazarbayev, everybody involved is a private citizen, and even he's a kleptocrat, so he's got one foot in the private sector. And then there this:
"Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy..."
How does the NYT conclude that this is the case? Here's the evidence from the story:

"Mr. Clinton’s praise was odd, given that the United States did not support Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid. (Late last year, Kazakhstan finally won the chance to lead the security organization for one year, despite concerns raised by the Bush administration.)"

In the first place, "concerns raised by the Bush administration" do not rise to the level of "US foreign policy," considering, well, this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060929-5.html
and, well, this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801282.html
and, well, this
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/07/sb-a-corrupt-brutal-dictator-1152915051
Like it or not, THAT'S "foreign policy," not vague "concerns" raised in a body the administration has shown demonstrable contempt.
This story is exactly like the Rezko story. Ominous vague concerns. Connections that function as a 49-foot bridge over a 50-foot chasm. In fact, it;s exactly like the original Whitewater story all the way back in 1992.

 

Fenian please stop. You are even making Karl Rove blush.

 

Re title of this thread:

Without getting bogged down in semantics . . . W's pretty much made this a career.

 

Can someone please succinctly explain the wrongdoing here? What great injustice to humanity came from Clinton's involvement? All I see is one more clumsy attempt to smear the Clintons during an election.

 

Criticize Senator Clinton and you are a misogynistic pig who hates children. Criticize Senator Obama and you are a race baiting slug who wants to go back to the antebellum days.

Immunity is good.

 

Show me a president who never did back some tinhorn dictator somewhere. Carter backed the Shah, Reagan backed Saddam, Bush II is packing the Perv.

 

Agreed. I'm no Hillary fan, but this does seem an old play. And this compares to the administration's connections to Saudis of incredibly questionable standing how?

 

I guess this might be news.
Though it seems small potatoes, since every presidential adminsitration dating back the last 100-125 years has supported a dictator in one form (installing them and a puppet government) or another (providing money and arms to maintain power).
It's the American way of foreign policy.


"He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."
quote attributed to FDR about Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza

 

I didn't see this coming from a mile away.

 

High five!

 

Can't believe it took a page for that, jg. Solid.

It's been proven that, when it comes to reaching, the New York Jets can't hold a candle to Clinton haters.