New York Times: Bill Clinton supported a dictator

Show me a union that was enamored of either Clinton.

And Bill's secret baby is eligible for the presidency in 4 years. Be afraid.

 

You mean a friend and former colleague on the Wal-Mart board said something complimentary of her? Nooooooo. :

Speaking of a need to try harder. And you need to come up with something better than Reagan Jr. It wasn't funny or clever the first time you posted it, and, unlike wine, it hasn't gotten better with age.

 

Ding.
Ding.
Ding.

 

This story and more questionable "friends of Bill" stuff was in the Newsweek magazine that came in the mail Monday.

 

1. I don't doubt for a minute that Clinton is a slimeball capable of all sorts of shady stuff. After all, she banged an intern in the Oval Office and then lied to the entire country and his own family about it.

2. I don't doubt for a minute that this is the latest campaign to smear Clinton. After all, how many stories have come out about old Bill in the past four years? Not many. Interesting timing.

3. If No. 1 wasn't so true, No. 2 wouldn't be so easy to perpetrate.

Lastly, I supported Clinton's presidency, and I rolled my eyes when they tried to make his personal affairs into a political issue. He's intelligent, and he demonstrated the ability to put that to use during his time in the White House and, potentially, while brokering the deal in question. But Bush is the worse of the two evils in this standoff. Fortunately, neither is a candidate in 2008. Then again, some see McCain as Bush Lite and some see Hillary as Bill Lite. I like my beer strong and dark and tall.

 

I don't disagree with the folks who say this is too complicated to stick, though it does look like there was a quid pro quo.

But I'll repeat what I said back on the first page: The minute Bill got out front, these kinds of stories were inevitable. Part of that, yes, is because some folks still want to hang Bill for who he is. But the biggest part, in my opinion, is because Bill acted like a guy who never had to run for anything again on his way out of office.

Well, now he's running again.

 

The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Hillary, both in her senate campaigns, and her primary campaign.

 

Even if there was a quid pro quo, so what?
Somebody has to dig out the uranium in Kazakhstan. I'd rather it was this Canuck than one of Putin's guys, and $31 million goes to a foundation that, by all accounts, is doing good work, especially in Africa.
This really is a lameoid attempt.

 

From the story:

"Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York."

 

And again, Doc, how can the Times prove that?

 

Prove what? That he was praising someone that the present administration, and his wife, was condemning for his history of brutally suppressing any opposition? Gee, I don't know how you could prove that.

 

I don't really disagree with any of that, Fenian. But our foreign policy is fucked up enough without having to clear the extra hurdle of not offending anyone that Bill is trying to shake down for donations, for any cause.

And the story said that Bill doesn't plan on stopping this kind of thing, even with Hillary in the White House.