Carlson falsely claimed Giustra allowed Clinton personally to "get rich"
SUMMARY: Discussing a New York Times article reporting on a trip by former President Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, Tucker Carlson stated: "Bill Clinton, the former president, out there, contravening official American foreign policy on behalf of some anti-democratic dictator so his buddy can get rich and he can get rich as a result? It's like unbelievable." In fact, The New York Times did not report that Clinton received money from Giustra for himself; rather, Giustra donated money to Clinton's foundation.
During a January 31 discussion of a New York Times article reporting on former President Bill Clinton's September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson claimed that Clinton was able personally to "get rich," when in fact the Times reported that after the trip Giustra donated money to Clinton's foundation. The Times did not report that Clinton received money for himself. Carlson stated: "Bill Clinton, the former president, out there, contravening official American foreign policy on behalf of some anti-democratic dictator so his buddy can get rich and he can get rich as a result? It's like unbelievable." Later, when nationally syndicated radio host Ed Schultz described Clinton as "one of the most popular people in the world," Carlson replied, "Also one of the greediest."
The January 31 Times article reported that in 2006, Giustra made a $31.3 million donation to the William J. Clinton Foundation and that more recently, Giustra publicly pledged to give Clinton's foundation an additional $100 million. A December 20, 2007, New York Times article on donors to the Clinton Foundation noted that the $31.3 million donation was made by the Radcliffe Foundation, which Giustra runs, and that in 2007, "Mr. Giustra announced separate plans to give the Clinton Foundation $100 million, plus half of his future earnings from natural resource business ventures, for a joint project to spur economic growth in poor Latin American mining communities."
Indeed, despite Carlson's statement that Clinton could "get rich as a result" of the trip to Kazakhstan, Carlson himself noted several times during the segment that Giustra's donations were to Clinton's foundation, not to Clinton himself.
From the January 31 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Still to come, when he's not stumping for his wife, Bill Clinton is out there raising money for his personal foundation. Now one of those deals is raising eyebrows. We'll tell you what it is in just a minute. But first, here's a look at your headlines.
[...]
CARLSON: Bill Clinton entwined with a shady donor. No, this is not a flashback to the '90s, though often it seems that way. It's a story from the front page of today's New York Times. It's an amazing story that includes Canadian mining tycoons, Third World dictators, uranium deals in Kazakhstan, and hundreds of millions of dollars. Here to parse the details, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan and the host of the nationally syndicated Ed Schultz Show, Ed Schultz.
Ed, this is actually an unbelievable story. And the bottom line is, here, let me outline very quickly: Bill Clinton goes to Kazakhstan with a friend of his who owns a mining company or series of mining companies in Canada. They show up and Bill Clinton basically charms the president of Kazakhstan, sufficient that he gives this uranium deal to Bill Clinton's friends, and in return Bill Clinton gets $31.3 million for his foundation and a pledge of $100 million more. Here's the quote from The New York Times that I think is going to hurt his wife's campaign: "Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton's public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton's wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York."
Bill Clinton, the former president, out there, contravening official American foreign policy on behalf of some anti-democratic dictator so his buddy can get rich and he can get rich as a result? It's like unbelievable.
SCHULTZ: Well, the bar talk on this would be Bill Clinton just loves to be the man. He loves to -- he loves to be in the action. In the minutiae of this whole story, Tucker, Democrats are out there saying, OK, hold the phone here. Is this the way it's going to be? Is this the kind of stuff we're going to have to put up with? They got to mop this thing up and they got to do it fast. To Bill Clinton's credit, he is disassociating himself; he's cutting a lot of ties. I know he's very good friends with Ron Burkle; they've done a lot of things together. In fact, I've been out at Ron Burkle's place, quite the digs, let me tell you. And they're good friends. But I think Bill Clinton is doing the best he can to disassociate himself. But, you know, when you're one of the most popular people in the world, you're going to be involved in deals like this. They come to you. They seek you out.
CARLSON: Also one of the greediest. Listen to this, Pat. "Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton's charitable foundation received its owned windfall: $31.3 million [donation] from Mr. Giustra" -- Clinton's friend from Canada -- "that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. That gift, combined with more recent and public pledges to give the foundation an additional hundred million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton's inner circle." A hundred million?
Carlson:"...They show up and Bill Clinton basically charms the president of Kazakhstan..."
Why do I think Tucky's imagining the Borat wrestling scene here?
Will wonders never cease?
Hey Johnny- I think I commented on this on one of yesterday's threads- every time I turn on wingnut radio, the NYT is being used as a source to support GOP positions, and every time it's being treated as a freak occurence.
I find it pretty fascinating that the am talkers have an audience that can hold these two conflicting ideas comfortably- that the source they use constantly to back themselves up is a liberal propaganda source.
Megadittos!
And believe it or not, one of the neutral commentators kept saying "well even Dr. Savage says.."
I was going to call and complain but my dog wanted me to stop for a Wendy's for cheeseburgers.
Did you catch the NY Times endorsements last weekend? McCain and Clinton. Their editorials on both races clearly puts any notion of them being conservative to rest;
On Clinton; "Brilliant". On Obama; "Incandescent". On Edwards; "Fiery oratory".
On the other hand;
On McCain; "tactical pander to the right, early advocate of global warming, argues passionately that a country's treatment of prisoners....says a great deal about its character". On Giuliani; "Mistrust, narrow obsessively secretive, vindictive man". On Romney; "Shape shifting". On Huckabee; "anti-immigrant absolutist".
Tell me again how they are conservative while not even endorsing Edwards or Obama, they can't hold back their love......and their soft endorsement of McCain is due to the liberal positions he holds.
Just FYI.........
Another day, another straw man.
Another day, another misrepresenting someone's post.
I find the notion that the NY Times is "ultra liberal" as you've posted here to be entirely laughable as is your attempt to portray McCain as some kind of liberal.
I think Carlson is pulling his misinformation from the front page; you seem to be pulling your quotes from endorsements found on the editorial pages.
Who denies the New York Times editorial board is liberal? Who denies the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is conservative? It is certainly their prerogative.
DB,
I posted this as a response to Johnny and his "ultra liberal" sarcasm directed at the NY Times. It is a gargantuan myth that the NY Times is some conservative paper, which is often stated here by many. It is not.
Maybe the world isn't as black and white as some see it.
But I thought the corporate media was conservative?
Wow, I am so confused.........
You won't get an argument from me.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Is that what the Ny Times was doing, eh Tommy. The Republican should not be held to the hypocracy of their policies, they should not have to face their record? They should not be held to their history of standing on both sides of radical beliefs on such things as tax cuts for the richest 1% and corporate welfare, abortion, civil liberties........,
The kind of treatment the media already gives McCain's "straight talk express" should apply, not the "flip flopper" brand they gave Kerry in '04?
Guiliani was all they said he was while NYC Mayor, and the NY Times is certainly a qualified voice. Huckaby has said enough on the record, and on the campaign trail to make him little more than the xenophobes candidate. Romney is the candidate for all issues, no matter which side of the issue.
The idea that you would paint this as proof of bias demonstrates your rare Republican quality of saying exactly what they think people want to hear, doing exactly what they promised not to do. Remember the "Compassionate Conservative," the "Uniter not a Divider" rhethroic??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's like unbelievable
I think Tucker's been spending too much time in The Valley. Like, you know?
The next few months are really going to suck.
Tucker is going to be one of the same people screaming about Bush raising AIDS funding from $15 to $45 billion over the next 5 years (like Michael Savage yesterday) – their reason being such arguments as “we don’t need government funding because there is plenty coming from Americans in the private sector” – and Africa is a “corrupt continent”.
Yet when someone like Bill Clinton decides to dedicate his life in the private sector to a Foundation whose sole mission is helping the sick and underprivileged throughout the world, these same fools find something “corrupt” in that also? Clinton just can’t win with these jerks – Rather than commending him for his humanitarian work, they’ll always be out there trying to convince you that money donated to his Foundation goes into his pockets or Hillary’s campaign. They did the same nitpicking and belittling to Jimmy Carter for his humanitarian work after he left office. I warned in a post months ago here at MM that this was going to happen. Have they no shame?
Why do right-wingers hate the poor and underprivileged and begrudge anyone who helps them?
Now, why these same people raise not an eyebrow over the BILLIONS being wasted in Iraq is beyond my feeble comprehension.
Cleve,
Right wingers don't hate people who help the poor. Contrary to the accepted thought around here, right-wingers contribute more to charity than lefties.
Oops sorry for stepping on your toes, Nerzog - I didn't see this post before I brought up the same question a few posts down. I hate when that happens.:)
This is an example of how facts and statistics are taken by some conservative writers and twisted around in their favor in an attempt to dispel the unsavory side of their ideology.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/12/10/who_gives/
Apparently the conclusions are not universally accepted. Here's an interesting quote from the review:
"Even when it comes to nonreligious giving, the observers come out ahead, with 66 percent giving, compared with 61 percent for secular types. (Evidence Brooks isn't in the tank for the Republican Party, he says: He finds that secular conservatives are even bigger skinflints than secular liberals. They're just a smaller group.)"
And:
"Brooks failed to note that much charitable giving in the "religious" category goes toward things "that don't have a whole lot to do with compassion or helping people in need," including ministers' salaries, church upkeep, and Sunday School."
That's what I thought.
I don’t believe your statistics no matter how many surveys or books there are on the subject or who wrote them. I heard all about “Who Really Cares:” when it was first published and laughed it off as propaganda.
I will tell you what I do believe – I believe that conservatives are much more likely to advertise or brag about who they gave to and how much they gave. That’s why I would take statistics of charity based on political persuasion with a grain of salt. I didn’t even know there was such a thing as “conservative families” or “liberal families” – this concept alone could only be used by conservatives with their block mentality. Give me a break – you conservatives think you can sell anyone on anything. Whatever it takes to smudge the facts and put you in a better light.
I believe that conservatives are much more likely to advertise or brag about who they gave to and how much they gave.(Cleve)
I would agree, based on my own (very limited and unscientific) study. I'd also question how the results were gathered.Surveys? Those most willing to talk about their giving, and to even remember giving, would rate highest.On the other hand, those most likely to give as a tax write-off probably have records and are more aware of their charitable work.
Probably meaningless overall, except, as somebody pointed out, in the black and white thinking of "liberal" and "conswervative" families, as a feel-good exercise for conservatives.
You make a good point. I'd like to see statistics that show the percentage of Republicans who itemize deductions vs Dems. I am only speaking from personal experience in saying that I never bother asking for a receipt for any contribution since I file short-form and don't worry about the tax write off - nor do I sit down with a pen and paper to try to figure out a yearly total so I can brag to my friends or some survey about how much I gave.
Another BIG percentage of Republican "charity" that we haven't yet factored in is the contribution to their church. Again, percentage-wise, there are more regular members of organized religions in the Republican Party - yet most of the money that goes to these "non-profit" churches is going for organizations within their own religion - youth groups, bible study, etc. - and has nothing to do with secular charities. They are trying to lump contributions to their churches as contributions in the "big picture" for "charity" - when in fact only a small portion goes to any outside charities.
What is giving to charities if not income redistribution? The only difference is that taxes are not voluntary.
I think a more accurate translation would be that Conservatives have been programmed to irrationally hate taxes, unless the money is used to blow people up... in which case no amount of waste is too much.