Monday, December 22, 2008

Personal Aside: Note to Media—Look at Clinton Gifts As You Would Possibly Rice’s or Cheney’s. None Are So Blind as Those Who Will Not See.


The greatest political scandal in this country comes not from Blago’s trying to hustle a Senate seat…or an Indian potential giver to the governor so that Jesse Jackson, Jr. can get the appointment…but the willful refusal of the media to look at stories straight-on, rather than the cross-eyed way they apply them to shield the Democrats and liberaldom from criticism. . Where is the journalistic interest in the massive donations foreign governments and prominent individuals made to the William J. Clinton Foundation—donations which are bound to tie Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton in irrevocable appearances of conflict of interest.

Where’s the media skepticism? Not visible. A placid, nondescript story filed by the Associated Press last week…obligatorily reporting the Clintonian disclosure… sounded as boring as a laundry list. Can you imagine what would have been written if these people had given to contacts close to Dick Cheney? Saudi Arabia, Norway and other foreign governments have given Bill Clinton $46 million and contributors with important connections in India have signed off far more. Suppose we were at the start of the George W. Bush administration and it turned out that such governments and foreign notables conferred hundreds of millions to the Dick and Lynne Cheney Foundation. You’d have the Grey Lady of New York city, “the New York Times” raising a stink…Katie Couric’s eyes would pop out…Bob Schieffer would shake his grey head…Charlie Gibson would peer over spectacles perched on his nose… and “60 Minutes” would pull Mike Wallace out of retirement to produce a spectacular. Yet thus far, not a single syllable has been raised that I know of by our journalistic custodians of ethics on this matter.

One donor is the Blackwater security firm which is in hot water for failure to adequately honor its government contract to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq. Another is Yahoo as a corporation with additional gifts by its executives. It is engaged in disputes concerning its unwillingness to surrender internet information to the Chinese—an issue certainly to be bucked up to the secretary of state’s desk. On another issue, Yahoo released e-mails that identified two Chinese journalists, allowing China to imprison them…an issue that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is now negotiating and which Hillary Clinton will fall heir to.

Government contributors include Saudi Arabia (donor of between $10 million and $25 million) as well as hefty gifts from Norway, Kuwait, Oatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy, Jamaica and Tenerfe in the Canary Islands—not to forget the Dutch lottery which gave from $5 million to $10 million. Again—where’s the media skepticism?

Not to be ignored is the heavy preponderance of contributions from India at a time when, after her presumed confirmation, Hillary Clinton will have to serve as an honest broker between India and Pakistan in their hot confrontation between the deadly attacks, by Pakistanis, in Mumbai. . Gifts in the millions came from Amar Singh, an Indian pol who hosted Bill Clinton when he visited India in 2005 and who also met Hillary Clinton in New York last September to discuss an Indian-U.S. pact on nuclear fission production. Then you get Tulsi R. Tanti, chairman of Suzion Energy Ltd. who is interested in setting up power generators in India and China…the Confederation of Indian Industry, a trade association and David Katragadda, an Indian mega multi-millionaire with important stakes in media, entertainment, technology, health care and financial services.

And not just foreign interests: U.S. givers with ties to foreign policy big-shots. Slim-Fast’s S. Daniel Abraham a board member of the prestigious American Israel Public Affairs committee (AIPAC) which lobbies for Israel gave between $1 million and $5 million.

It’s not that I suspect any or all of these donors to exert leverage to lobby for improper interests—but the quietude and so-what nature of the supine, pro-Democratic party cross-eyed media (so liberal they can’t see straight) is dozing complacently as warm and cuddly friends of liberaldom…aroused only when they perceive some political advantage by assailing conservatives and Republicans on the same general nature of disclosures which they all but ignore when it pertains to the Obama administration. At one time, when Hillary was running against Obama, disclosure of this list would have been used ferociously by the press. Not now. She is a fixture in an Obama administration which…never better said than by its No. 1 media courtier MSNBC’s Chris Matthews (readying a Democratic senatorial campaign in Pennsylvania while he draws his salary from NBC)…the Big Foot media “want very much to succeed.”


  1. contributors with important connections in India have signed off far more

    HRC spent a lot of political capital on Tata in Buffalo, NY. Too bad that Tata didn't produce the number of jobs that they promised--except for transplanted Indian folks.

  2. Tom,

    As one of your readers, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas! Thanks for the gift of your blog!

  3. As to Abortion. Bush was clearly Pro-Life in spirit, less so in the flesh or action. Even the triumph of Roberts and Alito was more of a reprieve than a triumph. Left to his own instincts, Bush would have given us pro- choicers H. Meyers and R. Gonzalas.

    Hardly remarkable