Latest Clinton conflict of interest certain to be greeted by more MSM and pro-HRC yawns

[BeyondGeography]

Pick an issue, any issue, these days and there seems to be a nice chunk of money and some risky associations with the Clintons involved. There was Penn and Colombia, Bill's $800K in speaking fees from the same uniuon-busting government (and his approval of the trade deal that his wife opposes out of political necessity). What else is in the news these days? China, you say?

Have no fear, Bill's dirty money tree is here again. And, once again, the Clinton coffers turn out to have been amply supplied by an entity that is fundamentally at odds with the candidate's stated views.

From today's LA Times:

As Chinese authorities have clamped down on unrest in Tibet and jailed dissidents in advance of the 2008 Olympics, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken a strong public stance, calling for restraint in Tibet and urging President Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies in Beijing.

But her recent stern comments on China's internal crackdown collide with former President Bill Clinton's fundraising relationship with a Chinese Internet company accused of collaborating with the mainland government's censorship of the Web. Last month, the firm, Alibaba Inc., carried a government-issued "most wanted" posting on its Yahoo China homepage, urging viewers to provide information on Tibetan activists suspected of stirring recent riots.

Alibaba, which took over Yahoo's China operation in 2005 as part of a billion-dollar deal with the U.S.-based search engine, arranged for the former president to speak to a conference of Internet executives in Hangzhou in September 2005. Instead of taking his standard speaking fees, which have ranged from $100,000 to $400,000, Clinton accepted an unspecified private donation from Alibaba to his international charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation.

...When asked to comment on the impact of Bill Clinton's dealings with Alibaba, Hillary Clinton's campaign deferred to her husband's foundation. A spokeswoman for the foundation stressed, "President Clinton is not involved with Alibaba and is opposed to censorship and the repression of political dissent." The spokeswoman added, "Sen. Clinton's position on human rights, both in China and elsewhere around the world, is unwavering."

But her husband brushed aside a similar opportunity to address China's jailing of dissidents when he spoke at the conference hosted by Alibaba in 2005. Days before his appearance, two prominent rights groups, Human Rights in China and Reporters Without Borders, asked Clinton to raise Internet freedom issues during his speech and address the plight of Shi Tao, a Chinese writer arrested in 2004 after Yahoo's China operation provided state security authorities with private Internet data.

In his keynote address, Bill Clinton hailed the Internet as "an inherently cooperative instrument and an inherently shared technology. The Internet has the potential to put power through information and communication in the hands of ordinary people."

But he said nothing about China's Web censorship or Shi Tao's arrest. Asked later why, he said he was unaware of Shi Tao's jailing. "Unfortunately, there was no discernible result or response" from Clinton, said Carol Wang, a program officer with Human Rights in China...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clintonchina13apr13,0,499290.story

I fully expect this story to go nowhere, consumed as we are right now by a mangled version of an argument that Barack Obama has effectively made many times before. Prior to PennGate, Bill's $800K payday from a corrupt, anti-labor Colombian governmet, we had the Clinton tax returns, the reaction to which proved two things:

a) how the Clintons have cashed in on their White House celebrity, and
b) how little people (including many Democrats)care.

Our politics have been sadly inadequate for a long while, and money trails such as the above are always at the heart of the problem. What's new to me at least is the degree to which many Democrats have become complicit in this reality.

It's enough to make one slightly bitter.

[dkf]

1. Why would the MSM expose that the Clinton's are bought and paid for?

That's what the elite of this country want because they own them.

[bigtree]

2. the media will yawn because it's a smear which has no bearing at all on Hillary Clinton's stance

. . . on Tibet.

statement from a month or so ago:

"I am deeply concerned about the violent clashes that have erupted in Lhasa, Tibet. Based on the limited information available, there is an urgent need for all parties, and in particular the Chinese security forces, to exercise restraint, to demonstrate respect for human rights and to protect civilians from danger. I call on the Chinese government to prevent further escalation of this conflict and to urgently pursue resolution through peaceful means.

"I co-sponsored the Fourteenth Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act and co-sponsored the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001, supporting a dialogue between the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama. I have personally met with the Dalai Lama. I asked President Jiang Zemin to explain China's repression of the Tibetans and their religion during his 1997 state visit to the United States. More than 10 years later, Chinese repression in Tibet continues. This week, Tibetan monks have sent a message to the world that their aspirations for religious liberty remain as strong as ever.

"Upholding freedom and human rights in Tibet will happen through negotiation, and with a commitment on all sides to seeking constructive solutions for the benefit, above all, of the Tibetan people."

[BeyondGeography]

3. Just as Bill's Colombian payday had no bearing on her attitude toward the trade deal

And we're to assume that "independance" lasts how long once she gets into office and Bill starts whispering in her ear ?

What a bunch of suckers you are.

[mrJJ]

4. China Takes care of her Freiends

The Chinese always take care of their friends. The Clintons can always rely on the PRC's support. Its a matter of history. I wont even get into the more recent Chinese bundlers involved with the Clintons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/op080397.htm