To Help US Veterans Charity, George W. Bush Charged $100,000

[wautd]

Link

George W. Bush charged wounded vets group $100k for speech

Washington (CNN)Former President George W. Bush is under fire for charging $100,000 to speak to a group of veterans wounded in a pair of wars he started when he was in office, just the latest front in a political battle over speaking fees that has hit both sides of the aisle.

Members of the Texas-based Helping a Hero charity told ABC News that Bush charged $100,000 for his 2012 speech at a charity fundraiser for veterans who lost limbs in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. The former president was also given use of a private jet at a cost of $20,000 and former First Lady Laura Bush was paid $50,000 to speak to the group last year.

The fees infuriated one of the board members, who told CNN Wednesday that Bush should not have accepted any money.

"The point here is that a leader should not charge to speak on behalf of the men that he sent into combat, at any level, let alone the commander in chief," said Eddie Wright, a Marine who lost both his hands in a 2004 rocket attack in Fallujah, Iraq.

Helping a Hero builds houses for wounded veterans. But Wright and others were involved in a legal battle last year accusing some of the group's leaders of siphoning money and forcing veterans' wives to sell beauty products. The criminal complaint and a defamation lawsuit filed in response were settled out of court, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Following the reports, Helping a Hero issued a statement supporting Bush.

"We are proud that President Bush attended the Helping a Hero Gala. The event raised unprecedented funds that are putting our nation's heroes into specially adapted homes throughout the United States. His presence was appreciated by the veterans and supporters of the organization," the group said in a statement.

Workers from Helping a Hero did not immediately return other requests for comment Thursday. But Chuck Jenness, the group's chairman, lists Bush as a "close friend" and said the Bush speech grossed $3.2 million.

Financial information for the group show it netted $2.45 million the year Bush spoke and $1 million the following year.

A Bush spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment Thursday, but Bush touted his support for veterans two weeks ago at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event.

"I've decided to dedicate the rest of my life to helping our vets, to helping those with whom I was honored to serve," Bush said at a June 24 event. "They face challenges really different from the battlefield. Some feel misunderstood or under-appreciated. To many desperately so."

Republican contender Donald Trump -- who has been under fire himself for weeks for controversial immigration -- took a few swings at the former president on Twitter on Thursday in response to news reports.

"You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?" Trump wrote this morning.

The group's chairwoman told ABC News that Bush reduced his fees from $250,000 to $100,000. But Bush's typical speaking fee was reported by Politico at being between $100,000 and $175,000.

The group's lawyer deflected questions to Bush, but told ABC that Bush's appearance helped raise "an extra million dollars."

Bush spokesman Freddy Ford told ABC: "President Bush has made helping veterans one of his highest priorities in his post presidency."

Speaking fees for former presidents have always been touchy subjects.

Former President Bill Clinton made more than $106 million on the lecture circuit, according to a 2013 CNN report. Since then, the former president and possible First Gentleman, has collected $500,000 for single speeches.

Hillary Clinton came under fire last year, during the rollout of her book, after saying she was "dead broke" after departing the White House in 2001.

It must be nice to have no shame

[Ralin]

Was just reading about this. It's a non issue. Bush did give them special treatment by only charging them a hundred thousand dollars and as the article shows they more than made up for it in extra donations

[Flagg]

Was just reading about this. It's a non issue. Bush did give them special treatment by only charging them a hundred thousand dollars and as the article shows they more than made up for it in extra donations

It's not a non-issue, you dullard. Aside from the fact that he's making money off of an illegal war of aggression that he started, the vast majority of speakers at such events wave a speaking fee. But both Bush and his killer of a wife took the money. It's outrageous.

[Dartzap]

Blair has created a fortune by doing similar things.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Was just reading about this. It's a non issue. Bush did give them special treatment by only charging them a hundred thousand dollars and as the article shows they more than made up for it in extra donations

Chain of events.

1. Bush starts a war on false pretenses, getting many veterans killed, wounded, maimed, and psychologically traumatized

2. Bush administration does everything it can to fuck veterans over

3. Bush gets out of office

4. Requires veterans groups to pay him a sufficient quantity of money to build a house or two to request donations in order to do the sorts of things the fucking state should by all rights have already done.

How the fuck is that a non-issue?

[Ralin]

How the fuck is that a non-issue?

Because it's very common for ex presidents to do this sort of thing to raise money, the group in question choose to do so, he gave them a steep break on the fee and only afterward is one of their board members getting pissy about Bush not being charitable enough to them?

[Elheru Aran]

How the fuck is that a non-issue?

Because it's very common for ex presidents to do this sort of thing to raise money, the group in question choose to do so, he gave them a steep break on the fee and only afterward is one of their board members getting pissy about Bush not being charitable enough to them?

Yes. It's charitable to 'only' charge a hundred thousand dollars when these are the very men you sent out to get blown to bits in some desolate corner of the Earth. As though they haven't given enough already? No. Let's take even more away from them. Also note that it's quite common for other speakers at similar events to not bother with charging a fee, but no, not Bush. Instead, he gives them a *discount*... and it's still 100,000 dollars. Not 50,000. Not 5,000. Hell, it wouldn't have cost $1,000 to just fly there, take a taxi, and give the speech.

[SCRawl]

Yes. It's charitable to 'only' charge a hundred thousand dollars when these are the very men you sent out to get blown to bits in some desolate corner of the Earth. As though they haven't given enough already? No. Let's take even more away from them. Also note that it's quite common for other speakers at similar events to not bother with charging a fee, but no, not Bush. Instead, he gives them a *discount*... and it's still 100,000 dollars. Not 50,000. Not 5,000. Hell, it wouldn't have cost $1,000 to just fly there, take a taxi, and give the speech.

Now, this last part can't go unchallenged. I don't like the optics or even the reality of this situation at all either, but the operation you suggest can't be done for a thousand bucks when you're a former POTUS. W can't just fly coach and "take a cab". Anywhere he goes there's a secret service detail right with him, with all that that entails. My understanding is that the bill for this protection is being paid for by the government, but I really don't know if this includes their travel for this sort of event.

As for the notion that he should do the job for no fee, well, if he asks no fee from this group, how can he charge any worthy charity going forward? The fact that W ought to have some sort of shame about this group in particular would require that he not only feel guilt over how Iraq was handled, but effectively admit that guilt to the world. I really have no idea about whether or not he feels any guilt over Iraq, but he sure can't admit any now.

[Ralin]

Most speakers don't have the sort of pull Bush has. Note the spike in donations compared to their previous non-Bush fundraisers. As hard as it seems to be for some people to wrap their heads around it providing a valuable service at a cut rate is indeed charity (especially since it meant Bush wasn't doing something more profitable that day), and most of the other board members clearly agreed that having Bush was worth the money.

As though they haven't given enough already? No. Let's take even more away from them.

He gave what apparently amounts to over a million dollars in extra revenues plus whatever he knocked off from his usual fee ($250,000 according to the veterans group itself)

[Elheru Aran]

Yes. It's charitable to 'only' charge a hundred thousand dollars when these are the very men you sent out to get blown to bits in some desolate corner of the Earth. As though they haven't given enough already? No. Let's take even more away from them. Also note that it's quite common for other speakers at similar events to not bother with charging a fee, but no, not Bush. Instead, he gives them a *discount*... and it's still 100,000 dollars. Not 50,000. Not 5,000. Hell, it wouldn't have cost $1,000 to just fly there, take a taxi, and give the speech.

Now, this last part can't go unchallenged. I don't like the optics or even the reality of this situation at all either, but the operation you suggest can't be done for a thousand bucks when you're a former POTUS. W can't just fly coach and "take a cab". Anywhere he goes there's a secret service detail right with him, with all that that entails. My understanding is that the bill for this protection is being paid for by the government, but I really don't know if this includes their travel for this sort of event.

Fair point, I had forgotten about that detail. Even so, I feel that 100K is somewhat obscene of a speaking fee for such an engagement, especially when he does bear some personal responsibility for the soldiers' injuries. As far as I am concerned, he can damn well own up to it, future charges be damned-- he's sitting comfortable for the rest of his life, he doesn't really need to be charging anybody anything to make a living.

[Ralin]

he's sitting comfortable for the rest of his life, he doesn't really need to be charging anybody anything to make a living.

It's probably a safe bet that large chunks of the fees Bush makes for his speaking gigs go to other charities, honestly. And the reason why he can do that is because he can make money just by waving his hand and showing up somewhere. If he does enough free or not-ridiculously-expensive appearances that would dry up for reasons similar to the ones SCRawl outlined.

Fact is that Christian Former President George W Bush probably did more to help disabled vets with that one fundraiser than any of us in this thread have done in our entire lives.

[Grumman]

Fact is that Christian Former President George W Bush probably did more to help disabled vets with that one fundraiser than any of us in this thread have done in our entire lives.

I could say the same in return. My actions of the past minute have done more to help disabled veterans than George Bush has done in his entire life. Because while my actions might not have helped at all, they at least did not condemn thousands of soldiers to be maimed or killed in service of an illegal and unjustified war.

[Patroklos]

You guys realize the attendees to there events are not normally the targets for the charities themselves, correct? Rather they are generally wealthy individuals who consider their attendance charity as the fee to be there is generally many times the actual cost of the ticket. At best you can say Bush could have made event even more financially successful, but you certainly can't say he was charging the people he was claiming to help. You spend money to make money, the board made the correct decision.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Most speakers don't have the sort of pull Bush has. Note the spike in donations compared to their previous non-Bush fundraisers. As hard as it seems to be for some people to wrap their heads around it providing a valuable service at a cut rate is indeed charity (especially since it meant Bush wasn't doing something more profitable that day), and most of the other board members clearly agreed that having Bush was worth the money.

Why should we give a shit about his marginal daily profits? Are we Ferengi? Does the concept "He owes veterans far far more than the extra revenue generated by his visit" just not compute for you?

Irrespective of what the board calculated the extra revenue would be during the negotiation phase, the simple fact is, he should not have charged them money at all. The extra revenue of his visit could have been 100k larger, at virtually no perceptible cost to him. His net worth is around 20 million USD, and his annual income is somewhere around 1.5 million annually, plus *considerable* benefits. He could have easily written off the expenses of the trip as a charitable expense (and yes, most of the costs are covered by the government). But he didn't.

My normal position regarding that particular ex president is that he can go fuck himself, but this time no. He can go eat a pile of rancid dicks.

[Simon_Jester]

Fact is that Christian Former President George W Bush probably did more to help disabled vets with that one fundraiser than any of us in this thread have done in our entire lives.

Of course, unless you've been going around kneecapping soldiers every night for the past ten years, Bush also did more to create disabled vets with a few strokes of a pen than any of us in this thread have done in our entire lives.

And he's not a god, so "he giveth and he taketh away" isn't exactly reassuring me.

[Broomstick]

God help me, I'm agreeing with Trump on this one....

Was just reading about this. It's a non issue. Bush did give them special treatment by only charging them a hundred thousand dollars and as the article shows they more than made up for it in extra donations

No, you fuckwad, it IS an issue.

The Bush family have profited lavishly from business dealings in the Middle East for generations. They started several wars there. Now, one of them is profiting from the wounded and maimed veterans. Not surprisingly, it's the clueless one. It's not about the money, it's about the ethics. Bush's orders resulted in those men and women losing limbs. How the fuck can he sleep at night after charging them for speaking at an event?

Isn't it just amazing how some people can profit from the death and pain of others?

He should have done the speaking engagement for free. That would have let the charity spend an additional $120,000 to help someone.

[Broomstick]

As for the notion that he should do the job for no fee, well, if he asks no fee from this group, how can he charge any worthy charity going forward?

Simple:

"I won't charge a speaking fee to veteran's groups benefitting people who were wounded in any wars where I was Commander in Chief, or their families, because I don't feel it's right. I'll consider on a case-by-case whether or not to waive or discount fees for other charities."

It's not like the fucker will be living on ramen noodles and shit if he forgoes a speaking fee.

[SCRawl]

As for the notion that he should do the job for no fee, well, if he asks no fee from this group, how can he charge any worthy charity going forward?

Simple:

"I won't charge a speaking fee to veteran's groups benefitting people who were wounded in any wars where I was Commander in Chief, or their families, because I don't feel it's right. I'll consider on a case-by-case whether or not to waive or discount fees for other charities."

That kind of public self-awareness isn't going to happen. To make a concession like that W would effectively be acknowledging that he bears responsibility for putting the veterans who were at the time under his ultimate command in harm's way.

Do I think that he should make this concession? A Commander-in-Chief does not, I think, bear responsibility for deaths and injuries suffered by the service members under his command if they are deployed in a lawful cause for legitimate reasons. I don't believe that this is the case here, though; he and Darth Cheney and others do have blood on their hands, in my opinion, for going to war in the way that they did, by intentionally misleading the world about the nature of the evidence for it. But what I think matters very little, since I don't have to live with his consequences if W were to make this concession.

[Flagg]

Yes. It's charitable to 'only' charge a hundred thousand dollars when these are the very men you sent out to get blown to bits in some desolate corner of the Earth. As though they haven't given enough already? No. Let's take even more away from them. Also note that it's quite common for other speakers at similar events to not bother with charging a fee, but no, not Bush. Instead, he gives them a *discount*... and it's still 100,000 dollars. Not 50,000. Not 5,000. Hell, it wouldn't have cost $1,000 to just fly there, take a taxi, and give the speech.

Now, this last part can't go unchallenged. I don't like the optics or even the reality of this situation at all either, but the operation you suggest can't be done for a thousand bucks when you're a former POTUS. W can't just fly coach and "take a cab". Anywhere he goes there's a secret service detail right with him, with all that that entails. My understanding is that the bill for this protection is being paid for by the government, but I really don't know if this includes their travel for this sort of event.

As for the notion that he should do the job for no fee, well, if he asks no fee from this group, how can he charge any worthy charity going forward? The fact that W ought to have some sort of shame about this group in particular would require that he not only feel guilt over how Iraq was handled, but effectively admit that guilt to the world. I really have no idea about whether or not he feels any guilt over Iraq, but he sure can't admit any now.

People generally don't charge speaking fees at charitable events, is my understanding. I mean that is a colossal dick move. I don't think anyone is all that worked up that he spoke, they are pissed, and rightly so, that he charged them a six figure fee for himself and his wife combined, when no charitable events, especially for injured troops, have to pay all (to my understanding, and I will be the first to concede otherwise) other high profile speakers. The fact that he's charging this group is the irony icing on the shit cake.

[SCRawl]

People generally don't charge speaking fees at charitable events, is my understanding. I mean that is a colossal dick move. I don't think anyone is all that worked up that he spoke, they are pissed, and rightly so, that he charged them a six figure fee for himself and his wife combined, when no charitable events, especially for injured troops, have to pay all (to my understanding, and I will be the first to concede otherwise) other high profile speakers. The fact that he's charging this group is the irony icing on the shit cake.

My Google-fu has proven to be weak on this topic, but at least one former president has effectively sold his speaking services to a charity in exchange for a six-figure donation to his charity. But other than this one event I can't provide evidence which would trigger your charitable (ha!) offer to concede. My impression, though, is that while celebrity speakers may choose to reduce or even omit their fee, this is not universally or even generally the case. Like you, I would be glad to hear evidence which would refute my impression.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Here's how W could waive the fee, make himself look good, and make the people in government right now look bad: "I am waiving my usual speaking fee because the current administration has failed our veterans. If the administration won't help the veterans, I will."


He doesn't lose face, he doesn't charge them any money. Still an utter shitbag, but hey. He'd be able to waive the fee and save face at the same time. Fuck, he wouldn't even need to justify waiving the fee.

[Knife]

What the hell is wrong with that charity. Yeah, Bush is a dick for charging 100k, why the fuck would the charity pay that? I think I would blame the charity as much as the former POTUS. Fuck them.

[Welf]

Is that a well known charity? I googled it and aside the story about Bush I only found some links about irregularities with funds. US regulations on charities are very loose, so this might simply be another self-serving institution that doesn't pay taxes and spends a big part of its money on administration (a.k.a. pay checks for themselves). Charity is often enough a business, a circus that sells entertainment and absolution to rich people. We shouldn't blame Bush for getting a cut of that.

[Flagg]

People generally don't charge speaking fees at charitable events, is my understanding. I mean that is a colossal dick move. I don't think anyone is all that worked up that he spoke, they are pissed, and rightly so, that he charged them a six figure fee for himself and his wife combined, when no charitable events, especially for injured troops, have to pay all (to my understanding, and I will be the first to concede otherwise) other high profile speakers. The fact that he's charging this group is the irony icing on the shit cake.

My Google-fu has proven to be weak on this topic, but at least one former president has effectively sold his speaking services to a charity in exchange for a six-figure donation to his charity. But other than this one event I can't provide evidence which would trigger your charitable (ha!) offer to concede. My impression, though, is that while celebrity speakers may choose to reduce or even omit their fee, this is not universally or even generally the case. Like you, I would be glad to hear evidence which would refute my impression.

So Bill is still a shady asshole that rests his taint squarely on the line? Shocked, I say! I mean that's pretty bad, but it's just putting the Clinton Foundation (a well known and to my knowledge well respected charity) in control of another charities money. I mean charity is charity and you have to squint a bit to see how it's unethical but not immoral. I think it doesn't even exist in the same universe as what W did. I mean there's a difference between charging a large charity money for a speech, then maybe distributing among smaller ones that cater to certain regions, but to give one and pocket the money... I don't believe in hell, but if I did there would be a very special place for people like that.

[biostem]

I wonder how much was raised, as a result of him being the speaker, though. Regardless of his wrongdoing, if he brought in $1 million, even with his fee, it's still a net gain for the charity...