Bill Clinton has financial ties with a company that helped the Chinese government persecute Titbetan protesters and Hillary Clinton demands that President Bush boycotts the olympics. The compnay, Alibaba Inc, posted the Chinese government-issued "most wanted" threatening on the website's homepage to provide information on Tibetan activists. Also to not that when she made the demand of President Bush boycott, the relationship between Alibaba Inc and Bill Clinton was not known.
The public knows the two of them are two different individuals, but please, we are talking about a former president with his wife aspiring to become president. If she was president today she would skip the opening ceremonies while President Clinton continues to cooperate with Alibaba?
According to the LA Times, Bill visited mainland China at least four other times between 2001 and 2005, reaping at least $1.25 million in speaking fees from Chinese groups. In 2005, Alibaba arranged for Mr Clinton to speak at a conference of internet executives in Hangzhou, but instead of receiving a fee - which can range from $100,000 to $400,000 - he accepted an undisclosed donation to the William J Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton cited "The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for presidential leadership." It looks like somebody missed the boat on showing leadership by asking her husband to cut ties with a company that collaborates with a government she condemns.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
I hadn't thought about the ramifications of a former President's spouse becoming President. There are rules for what kind of interactions a President or Congressman can have after leaving office. Bill obviously is a gregarious and generally likeable guy, which means he has lots of "friends." Since Hillary is fond of claiming a sort of co-Presidency, this means his friends are her friends. Now that he's been in the lecture/private enterprise/lobbyist business for almost 8 years, it's likely there are many conflicts of interest between what he does and his wife's campaign. I wonder how that sort of thing is handled in this unprecedented case?
Anyway, just my 2 cents on a peripheral topic to the article.
On the Olympics, I agree with John S. A boycott seems pointless. My issue is with the hypocritical aspect of it. I don't think she means it while the hubby is dealing with those people (indirectly) on a personal level, with financial gain.