RealNews: Hillary's Bush Connection

http://www.realnews.org/stories/2007-10-16_hillary.html

Hillary's Bush Connection

Bush's mystery money man becomes Hillary's
The Bushes and the Clintons

The Clintons meet with the Bushes at the White House.

by RUSS BAKER and ADAM FEDERMAN

Published in conjunction with The Nation

In the Clintons' pursuit of power, there is no such thing as a strange bedfellow. One recently exposed inamorata was Norman Hsu, the mysterious businessman from Hong Kong who brought in $850,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign before being unmasked as a fugitive. Her campaign dismissed Hsu as someone who'd slipped through the cracks of an otherwise unimpeachable system for vetting donors, and perhaps he was. The same cannot be said for the notorious financier Alan Quasha, whose involvement with Clinton is at least as substantial--and still under wraps.

Political junkies will recall Quasha as the controversial figure who bailed out George W. Bush's failing oil company in 1986, folding Bush into his company, Harken Energy, thus setting him on the path to a lucrative and high-profile position as an owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and the presidency. The persistently unprofitable Harken--many of whose board members, connected to powerful foreign interests and the intelligence community, nevertheless profited enormously--faced intense scrutiny in the early 1990s and again during Bush's first term.

Now Quasha is back--on the other side of the aisle. Operating below the radar, he entered Hillary Clinton's circle even before she declared her candidacy by quietly arranging for the hire of Clinton confidant and longtime Democratic Party money man Terry McAuliffe at one of his companies. During the interregnum between McAuliffe's chairmanship of the Democratic Party and the time he officially joined Clinton's campaign, Quasha's firm set McAuliffe up with a salary and opened a Washington office for him.

Just a few years earlier, McAuliffe had publicly criticized Bush for his financial dealings with Harken, disparaging the company's Enron-like accounting. Yet in 2005 McAuliffe accepted this cushy perch with Quasha's newly acquired investment firm, Carret Asset Management, and even brought along former Clinton White House business liaison Peter O'Keefe, who had been his senior aide at the Democratic National Committee. McAuliffe remained with the company until he became national chair of Hillary's presidential bid, and O'Keefe never left. McAuliffe's connection to Quasha has, until now, never been noted.

Another strong link between Quasha and Clinton is Quasha's business partner, Hassan Nemazee, a top Hillary fundraiser who was trotted out to defend her during the Hsu episode--in which the clothing manufacturer was unmasked as a swindler who seemingly funneled illegal contributions through "donors" of modest means.

In June, by liquidating a blind trust, the Clintons sought to distance themselves from any financial entanglements that might embarrass the campaign. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson argued that the couple had gone "above and beyond" what was legally required "in order to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest." But throughout their political careers, Bill and Hillary Clinton have repeatedly associated with people whose objectives seemed a million miles from "a place called Hope." Among these Alan Quasha and his menagerie--including Saudi frontmen, a foreign dictator, figures with intelligence ties and a maze of companies and offshore funds--stand out.

more...

http://www.realnews.org/stories/2007-10-16_hillary.html

Stop This One NOW!

all the while being in like flint with the Cabal the whole time. :puke:

Sure doesn't look anything like the Adams Family in 1760's, does it?

K&R

This sure doesn't bode well for HRC.

where they air non-stop hit pieces that twist the truth. Eventually, it works and people start to believe the constant barrage as the truth. That is why so many on DU use the term "flip flop" and suggest that Clinton is "divisive."

The internet has saved us from the coup perpetrated by the neo-cons. They underestimated the impact the "internets" would have on us. But, I see that they are catching on, and they do adapt well.

I just hope us normal citizens can see past the ugly, twisted, lies with which we are bombarded incessantly.

strong and, even with the change in majority in congress, has not lost any of its power, at all. The article appears to be well researched and if the claims in the article are untrue, they will be easy to refute. One thing we cannot do is start to view the Bush regime as just "politics as usual"; by saying that actions and inaction by the Clinton camp is okay when the same by the Bush regime was not okay we are saying that it is "just politics". If we elect Democrats to power and they continue the same behavior and general policies that the Bush regime does, then we have truly lost any and all hope of ever getting our country back. "Getting our country back" isn't about Democrats vs Republicans, it's about freedom and principle, the Constitution and our children, the Earth and everyone on it. If there is even a chance that any Democrat might be in any way a continuation of the Bush regime, we must look long and hard at the evidence and stand up for what is right, not just what is partisan...

between the dems and the neo-cons. Superfically, they appear similar. But if the Bush regime taught us anything, it is to question the sources, question the motives and don't assume the dems and reps are the same.

general election, but right now we have a choice between a full oaf and half a loaf. FOr example, Mr. Clinton allowed the institution of the practice of rendition and used it on half a dozen people*. Mr. Bush has used it on 20 some people*. Clearly Mr. Clinton was better than Mr. Bush, but wouldn't you rather have a president who would shut down the rendition program?





* We have to guess at the numbers because this is a "secret" program.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have differences, but they also share similarities. Traditionally, the two parties differ only in policies and in basic approaches to governmental management; but they have always been very near each other in regards to basic capitalist society and republican government. If Bush had just been a "Republican", we would not be in the mess we are now in. I think that a Democratic government would manage better and espouse better policies, but those things would be debatable and good people could disagree. But the Bush coup is not "Republican" in anything but name - it is fascist, not the old fashioned kind of the Italian/Spanish/German stripe, but a new and even more vicious kind of fascism that can be denied in the best Orwellian lingo. This kind of fascism is not peculiar to any party, but can easily jump from one to the other. The corporation/intelligence/war profiteer underpinning remains the same - they never get voted out of "office". This is what we have to guard against. I am not saying that Senator Clinton is the next "Unitary Executive", but it is something that we have to be willing to look at honestly and not let party sympathies blind us...

the powers that king George lays down when he leaves office - if he leaves office.

Her one overarching motivation is power and in the detritus of the executive post Bush she will find more power than anyone in the history of earth has ever wielded. Bill's aphrodisiac was sex. Hillary's is power. The powers that she will have if inaugurated are those that should not be entrusted to ANYONE! To take the oath of office while those powers are available to her is to lie under oath.

But she could place all our fears to rest with one little statement. All she would need to do is place her right hand on the holy book of her choice and swear to reverse all the damage done to our government by the Texan cowpoke (btw, that's another lie. He's afraid of horses.) Just reverse every signing statement, executive order, and repeal every law passed that gave him all those extraordinary powers.

Simple. Wouldn't take her thirty seconds to make such a statement.

It wouldn't cost her a penny out of her campaign funds, and would ensure her the presidency.

The simple fact that she has said not one word about refusing those powers is what many of us fear in a Hillary Presidency.

Come on, Hillary I dare your to say it. Do you have the balls to lay down all that power? I'm betting not.

deserves a medal.

I'm still reeling with dizziness that is turning into a migraine. MFG!!

it really is that bad. I may get drunk.

"That Hillary Clinton's campaign is involved with this particular cast of characters should give people pause," says John Moscow, a former Manhattan prosecutor. In the late 1980s and early '90s he led the investigation of the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) global financial empire--a bank whose prominent shareholders included members of the Harken board. "Too many of the same names from earlier troubling circumstances suggests a lack of control over who she is dealing with," says Moscow, "or a policy of dealing with anyone who can pay."

Ideology does not seem to be the principal issue driving either Quasha or Nemazee. Nemazee backed the likes of archconservative Republican senators Jesse Helms, Sam Brownback and Al D'Amato before moving aggressively into the Democratic camp. Quasha, frequently identified as a Republican fundraiser, gave to both Bush and Al Gore in 2000 and so far in the 2008 race has given to Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani as well as Democrats Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, in addition to Hillary Clinton. But Quasha's concerted efforts to get into Clinton's inner circle are reminiscent of his relationship with a pre-Governor Bush.

obvious.

Hillary is associated with somebody who was associated with Bush's business deals years ago? That means she's conspiring with corporations?

Want to know who bailed out Bush?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=196

Harken was a small concern, but poised to become much bigger. In 1983, a young New York lawyer named Alan G. Quasha, a man with no experience in the oil business, but with financial connections to Compagnie Financière Richemont AG, a Swiss-based investment company, took over the firm.

The company's biggest backer was fund manager George Soros. In late 1984, Harken was appointed exclusive agent and manager of Soros Oil Inc., a privately held corporation formed to invest in oil and gas properties. The deal allowed Soros shareholders to exchange their interest for shares of Harken stock.

George Soros. The same guy that gave $15 million to MoveOn.org to defeat Bush. Perhaps Bush is secretly working for MoveOn.org? Why not? They are connected!

:sarcasm:

would get an "F" for.

This article is another example of how far "The Nation" has fallen. I cancelled my subscription years ago.