Arab nations’ donations to Clinton Foundation: Curing world’s ills or currying favor?

[antigop]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/04/06/262201/arab-nations-donations-to-clinton.html

Four oil-rich Arab nations, all with histories of philanthropy to United Nations and Middle Eastern causes, have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.

Since 2001, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates gave as much as $40 million to the Clinton Foundation. In contrast, six similar non-governmental global charities collected no money from those same four Middle Eastern countries; the International Committee of the Red Cross was given $6.82 million. Since 2001, these global foundations have raised a staggering $40 billion to $50 billion to fund their humanitarian work.

The existence of foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation has been well-documented in the media. What hasn’t been revealed, however, is the disparity in donations by these four nations, all of which have been criticized by the State Department over the years for a spate of issues ranging from the mistreatment of women to stoking ethnic discord in the flammable Middle East.

Moreover, the level of Arab support for the Clinton Foundation, which occurred during the time Hillary Clinton was a U.S. senator, was seeking the Democratic nomination for president against Barack Obama, and was serving as secretary of state, fuels questions about the reasons for the donations. Were they solely to support the foundation’s causes, or were they designed to curry favor with the ex-president and with a potential future president?

[Thinkingabout]

1. Now if you had to make a guess what would you think? The money

Is going to cure some, provide services to communities in order for them to survive. The money goes for innovations and other worthwhile projects

[delrem]

8. Meanwhile, others might imagine a laundry.

I don't know why, but associations like that just kind of happen in these circumstances.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Information on the Clinton Global Initiative is easily found, gives information about

Projects they are doing.

[delrem]

14. Yes, of course it is. That's why the "laundry" association exists.

[KoKo]

2. One always has to go with one's Donors....Pay Back is the Question....

This is why I don't support her for President. These aren't the Clintons I thought I voted for.. They've come a long way since then and Owe Many for favors and Many Owe Them for Favors since they were Governor and First Lady of Arkansas and then President and First Lady of USA.

They've lived a well-endowed and pampered life amongst the 1% for too long now...to relate to the rest of us out here.

[antigop]

3. "...I think, frankly, there’s an arrogance of power here.”

Last paragraph:

“Most people, once they’ve gotten singed, they would say, ‘Hey, we’re going back to the public arena. Let’s just play this above board.’” he said. “The Clintons instead take a formalistic reading of it, knowing full well that they’re going to face another barrage of criticism. . . . I think, frankly, there’s an arrogance of power here.”

[KoKo]

4. The e-mails and her odd comments (Ghadaffi's Death) , etc seem to show..

"An Arrogance of Power" that is very worrisome if she is elected President. An absence of Involvement or Empathy, also.

[840high]

5. ...^ that

[antigop]

6. her corporate ties are also disturbing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html

They say she opposes legislative measures -- such as trade barriers -- to slow the loss of American jobs if they would restrain free trade. And they say she has supported the expansion of the temporary-worker visas because U.S. technology companies have repeatedly told her the visas are needed to maintain a ready workforce.

didn't even bother to ask the people who were/are impacted. She just listened to what the corporations wanted. The Clintons do not relate to working folks.

[delrem]

10. I cannot like a person who laughed like that, at Gaddafi's death.

Considering her involvement with "Friends of Libya" and with the larger scale program exemplified by her pick of Victoria Nuland (who links back to being Bill Clinton's choice, way back when, even before becoming Dick Cheney's choice).

It's creepy.

[antigop]

19. The Moral Hazard of Hillary Clinton and Company

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111666371#post9

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. With their other philanthropic activies, who were the currying favor with?

And why target Arab nations?

And why hold Hillary Clinton responsible for Bill Clinton's Philanthropic work?

[leveymg]

11. It is The Bill and Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, isn't it?

Her name is on the door. She is accountable, is she not?

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. The article says that the donors had a history of Philanthropic donations.

So did they suddenly stop currying favor with some other orgnaization or people, or were they just philanthropists who donated money for causes?

[delrem]

18. You try to answer the question.

What philanthropic activity best describes the House of Saud?

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. The article specifically says that they are known for their philanthropy.

I find it slimy that they imply that they are curry favor with the Clinton's when it is something they are known for. i did not see an article saying that they were currying favor with others.

Also, i found the anti-arab tone to be just wrong.

[The Stranger]

21. Yeah, there's always a sickening racist smell to articles like these.

They are fucking making charitable donations.

But because they're Arabs, yet there's this racist sense of distrust, like they are always controlling things with their money.

You can almost see the caricatures.

[delrem]

23. I'm not the one equating the House of Saud with "Arabs". That's you.

[The Stranger]

22. There's a sickening racist overtone that's objectionable.

Go answer your own questions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. Its not like they are pocketing the money....or using it for campaigns...sheesh!

[Thinkingabout]

15. If they took as much time to throw out the what if's and devoted the effort to see where

The money goes this would not be a question.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. I know right?

Its literally a family reunion of the usual characters that will jump on any of the red meat the Rightwing toss at their feet...so predictable they are...


Here is just ONE
No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project is a Clinton Foundation initiative led by Secretary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton to inspire and advance the full participation of women and girls around the world. Even today, persistent stereotypes and barriers keep women from equal access, representation, and compensation in our communities and around the world. No Ceilings is convening global partners to build a data-driven evaluation of the progress women and girls have made and the challenges that remain to help chart the path forward to full participation in the 21st century.

[delrem]

17. They aren't paid to DO things.

The House of Saud is fricken evil.
Even their "playboy prince's" and their "Bandar Bush's", so light hearted and plated in gold as they stroll thru' the casinos in Vegas, or dine in Monaco
http://royalista.com/79084/royals-travel-to-saudi-arabia-to-attend-condolence-ceremony/
are evil.

They are paid to *be blind* to some very evident things. It's a *political* pay-off.
And the pay-offs work!
To be sure, the Clinton Foundation pay-offs are small change compared to the total MIC pay-offs that the evil and utterly corrupt House of Saud regularly contributes. Squandering their countries' future for their immediate carnal pleasure.

It sure the fuck isn't about democracy, freedom and human rights.