Clinton's Friends the Saudis

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-11-23 10:02am

LITTLE ROCK, ARK. - President Clinton’s new $165 million library here was funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen.

The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and the deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1 million or more for the archive and museum that opened last week.

Democrats spent much of the presidential campaign this year accusing President Bush of improperly close ties to Saudi Arabia. The case was made in Michael Moore’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” in a bestselling book by Craig Unger titled “House of Bush, House of Saud,” and by the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Kerry.“This administration delayed pressuring the Saudis,” Mr. Kerry said on October 20. “I will insist that the Saudis crack down on charities that funnel funds to terrorists... and on anti-American and anti-Israel hate speech.”The Media Fund, a Democratic group whose president is a former Clinton White House aide, Harold Ickes, spent millions airing television commercials in swing states with scripts such as, “The Saudi royal family ... wealthy ... powerful ... corrupt. And close Bush family friends.”

Perhaps as a result, the Saudi donations to the Clinton library are raising some eyebrows. Mr. Unger said he suspects that the Saudi support may have something to do with a possible presidential bid by Senator Clinton in 2008.

“They want to keep their options open no matter who’s in power and whether that’s four years from now or whatever,” the author said. “Just a few million is nothing to them to keep their options open.”

Wonder why this never turned up in Fahrenheit 9/11? Oh wait...

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-11-23 10:06am

lets be blunt. the saudis fund most every politician these days.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-11-23 10:13am

Yeah, they're in everyone's hip pocket. They hedge their bets by trying to buy every candidate. With any luck, they'll collapse under their own attempts to subsidize the large royal family, and not be replaced by a extremist conservative regime. Unfortunately, the Wahhabi sect of Islam is very strong (the founder was a friend of the first Saud king), which is the most anti-Western Islamic sect.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-11-23 10:15am

So what? The Saudis throw money at all the Presidents and none of them will turn it down. This thread seems like a giant "Tu Quoque" fallacy. Like, "Well, Bush and his family have made huge multi-million dollar business deals and have dozens and dozens of ties with the Saudi royal family... but look! Clinton got a few million in donations from some Sauds! That's, um, kind of like parity!"

It seems like if there is any honest criticism of Bush out there, some Republican will try to find something Clinton has done, no matter how big a difference scale or a stretch in logic, and go "Well... Clinton's bad too!"

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-23 10:17am

Augustus wrote:Wonder why this never turned up in Fahrenheit 9/11?

Because it isn't a "conflict of interest"? Because it was donated after the movie was made? So many reasons.

Oh wait...

Here we go again! The far right doing what it does best; connecting events and facts using bullshit and stupidity.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-23 11:03am

Wow, more of Augustus' "tu quoquo" bullshit. I'm so surprised.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-23 11:17am

Durandal wrote:Wow, more of Augustus' "tu quoquo" bullshit. I'm so surprised.

tu quoque aside, it does bring up a valid question. Just how many members of our government are financially tied to the Saudis?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-23 11:20am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Durandal wrote:Wow, more of Augustus' "tu quoquo" bullshit. I'm so surprised.
tu quoque aside, it does bring up a valid question. Just how many members of our government are financially tied to the Saudis?

It's hard not to have dealings with those people of some kind these days. They have billions of dollars in oil money, after all.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-11-23 11:21am

"dealing with the devil: selling our soul for saudi crude" has an interesting perspective on how much of dc is bought, or at least rented, by the sauds. written by a cia agent, with the occasional paragraph censor block.

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2004-11-23 11:24am

I am in the Saudi's front pocket.....vrooom vrooooom. I make donations to their interests every week.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-11-23 11:27am

terrorist.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-23 11:47am

actually there is another latin phrase that comes to mind after reading this with regards to the Saudis and the DNC. Quid pro quo.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-23 11:48am

If everything Clinton does is OK, then why not just keep him as president?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-23 11:50am

Wicked Pilot wrote:If everything Clinton does is OK, then why not just keep him as president?

I blame his penis.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-11-23 12:00pm

can we have clinton back? plz? pretty plz?

Im much happier with a president who wants to get laid then one whose rocks get off with high explosive.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-11-23 12:59pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:can we have clinton back? plz? pretty plz?

Im much happier with a president who wants to get laid then one whose rocks get off with high explosive.

No. If I wanted to see a bunch of talking heads talk about who's sleeping with who and which intern got knocked up this week, I'd watch a soap opera.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-23 01:05pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:I blame his penis.

Penises are never wrong.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-11-23 02:09pm

can we have clinton back? plz? pretty plz?

Only if he doesn't take any more campaign donations from the ChiComs...

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-11-23 02:23pm

aerius wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:can we have clinton back? plz? pretty plz?

Im much happier with a president who wants to get laid then one whose rocks get off with high explosive.
No. If I wanted to see a bunch of talking heads talk about who's sleeping with who and which intern got knocked up this week, I'd watch a soap opera.

I prefer it to which country did we invade this week?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-23 02:37pm

aerius wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:can we have clinton back? plz? pretty plz?

Im much happier with a president who wants to get laid then one whose rocks get off with high explosive.
No. If I wanted to see a bunch of talking heads talk about who's sleeping with who and which intern got knocked up this week, I'd watch a soap opera.

And if you want to see how many United States Marines died this week in Iraq, you'd vote for Bush. Which one seems more detrimental to you?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-24 01:40am

When Bush is accused of something and conservatives note that Clinton did something even vaguely similar, it's hard not to laugh at the irony, given that these conservatives usually hate Clinton with a passion.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-11-24 01:52am

Augustus wrote:Wonder why this never turned up in Fahrenheit 9/11? Oh wait...

It might just have had something to do with the rather important (and glaringly obvious) fact that Clinton was not the incumbent president when Fahrenheit 9/11 was being made. Come on Augustus I’d have thought that even you could have figured that out on your own.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-24 03:56pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Augustus wrote:Wonder why this never turned up in Fahrenheit 9/11? Oh wait...
It might just have had something to do with the rather important (and glaringly obvious) fact that Clinton was not the incumbent president when Fahrenheit 9/11 was being made. Come on Augustus I’d have thought that even you could have figured that out on your own.

I think he's trying to point out the fact that having business connections and recieving money from the Saudis is a rather common thing. It's certainly not the daming evidence of illegal collusion that Moore would have us believe.

And for those that said that it doesn't matter because Clinton's not a sitting President. He's not sitting now but fund raising had begun while he was in office.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-11-24 09:49pm

It's certainly not the daming evidence of illegal collusion that Moore would have us believe.

I think it's pretty morally damning. Wouldnt you criticise someone for accepting money from, say, the Nazis? Screw any conspiracy theory crap, accepting money from the Saudi royal family, a family ruling with an iron fist publically beheading criminals left and right and - well, I could go on, the point is, anyone with any sort of integrity or sense of justice would not accept their money.

Thanks Augustus, you've managed to further illustrate that Bush and Clinton both are evil motherfuckers. I'm not sure that's what you had in mind, but congratulations

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-11-28 06:23pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Durandal wrote:Wow, more of Augustus' "tu quoquo" bullshit. I'm so surprised.
tu quoque aside, it does bring up a valid question. Just how many members of our government are financially tied to the Saudis?

Looking at the past, there are some important names: Jimmy Carter, Spiro Agnew, George McGovern, John Connally, Colin Powell, George H W Bush (who recieved $500,000 for his library from the Saudis)...I don't know about current government members.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Clinton's Friends the Saudis

Clinton's Friends the Saudis

Re: Clinton's Friends the Saudis

Re: Clinton's Friends the Saudis

Re: Clinton's Friends the Saudis