About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NY Post, Wash. Post editorials distorted key facts regarding Clinton's Kazakhstan trip

February 04, 2008 3:38 pm ET

SUMMARY: A New York Post editorial about President Bill Clinton's September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra misleadingly characterized Giustra as "a newcomer to uranium mining" and suggested he was able to secure mining agreements because of his connection to Clinton; in fact, Giustra reportedly had been involved in other Kazakh mining deals at least as far back as 10 years ago. And a Washington Post editorial misrepresented a New York Times report of a quote by Moukhtar Dzhakishev, the president of the Kazakh company that reached the uranium mining deal with Giustra, falsely suggesting that Dzhakishev had acknowledged that Clinton's presence had played a role in Dzhakishev's willingness to reach a deal with Giustra.

10 Comments

In February 4 editorials, the New York Post and The Washington Post distorted or omitted relevant facts concerning President Bill Clinton's September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra. The New York Post editorial misleadingly characterized Giustra as "a newcomer to uranium mining" and suggested he was able to secure agreements giving his company the right to buy into uranium mining projects in Kazakhstan because of his connection to Clinton. In fact, Giustra was not a "newcomer" in general to mining in Kazakhstan, reportedly having been involved in other types of Kazakh mining as least as far back as 10 years ago, as Media Matters for America has documented. The Washington Post editorial misrepresented The New York Times' report of a quote by Moukhtar Dzhakishev, the president of the Kazakh company Kazatomprom that reached the uranium mining deal with Giustra. The editorial noted that according to a January 31 New York Times report, Dzhakishev said Giustra's relationship with Clinton had "of course made an impression," but it excluded the very next line of the Times report: "Mr. Dzhakishev added that Kazatomprom chose to form a partnership with Mr. Giustra's company based solely on the merits of its offer."

Additionally, both the New York Post and Washington Post editorials repeated the New York Times article's assertion that Clinton praised Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev for "opening up the social and political life of your country," despite a conflicting report -- published at the time of Clinton's visit -- that Clinton actually said: "I applaud this statement you have made about opening up the social and political life of your country and [it's] a good point that you made this statement before the election this year" (emphasis added).

From the February 4 New York Post editorial:

Bill Clinton just can't seem to keep his sleazy private dealings out of the news: This time, it's a 2005 dinner he shared with a wealthy mining mogul and Kazakhstan's president, after which the businessman wound up with a coveted contract in that country.

The sordid story - about Clinton's meal with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev and UrAsia Energy Ltd. head Frank Giustra - ran on the front page of Thursday's New York Times.

Reporters Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. deserve kudos: They describe how Clinton praised the Kazakh dictator, absurdly, for "opening up the social and political life of your country" and suggesting his nation lead Europe's chief security agency - which would confer legitimacy on Nazarbayev's regime.

They also recount how Giustra, at the time a newcomer to uranium mining, won a deal with Kazakhstan to buy into three of its uranium projects - just two days after the dinner.

From the February 4 Washington Post editorial:

FRANK GIUSTRA is a Canadian mining tycoon who has given generously -- more than $130 million -- to support the charitable enterprises of former president Bill Clinton. Mr. Giustra's good works alongside Mr. Clinton may also have been good business. As the New York Times detailed in a front-page story last week, Mr. Giustra traveled with the former president in September 2005 to Kazakhstan, where Mr. Clinton announced an agreement to let that nation purchase discounted AIDS drugs and where he attended a midnight banquet with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev. Although he met with Kazakh dissidents, Mr. Clinton praised Mr. Nazarbayev for "opening up the social and political life of your country." And, in contrast to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's previously expressed reservations, Mr. Clinton embraced Kazakhstan's bid to head the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which works to promote human rights and fair elections, two characteristics that Mr. Nazarbayev's regime has been sorely lacking.

Within a few days, Mr. Giustra had in hand preliminary agreements giving his company the right to buy into uranium projects controlled by Kazatomprom, the state-owned uranium agency; Mr. Giustra had longtime business dealings in Kazakhstan but was a new player in uranium mining. And within several months, Mr. Giustra had pledged another $31.3 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation, adding to his previous $100 million donation.

The president and the businessman insist that these events are unconnected. Mr. Clinton knew of Mr. Giustra's mining interests in Kazakhstan but was "unaware of 'any particular efforts,' " a Clinton spokesman told the Times. Mr. Giustra told the paper that there had been "no discussion" of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton. But Kazatomprom's president said otherwise: Mr. Giustra discussed his proposal directly with the Kazakh president -- and his relationship with Mr. Clinton "of course made an impression."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Sueelldd (February 04, 2008 3:51 pm ET)
         
      Is it really a big deal what Clinton did?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2j (February 05, 2008 4:12 am ET)
           
        Of course not.  However, some folks just have to badmouth the Clintons.  In some ways it just shows how jealous they are of Mr. Clinton's likability when they have tried and tried to destroy him.  I tell you it will take as lot more effort than these sleaze folks put out to do in either of the Clintons.  If they only knew, all this crap just makes the Clinton's stronger and brings out the support of their friends.  Must be sad to spend one's lfe in such a jealous fit like they do. Sad indeed!!!!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (February 04, 2008 5:30 pm ET)
         

      I don't get it.

      One guy is a businessman, the other a national leader, and it seems Clinton was asked to be a facilitator of sorts, an ambassador of good will and stature.

      OK, sounds like a business deal GHW Bush would be proud of, having devoted his post-presidency to international dealings through the multi-billion dollar Carlyle Group (trading mostly in buying, operating, and selling overseas ARMS factories. WAR is very, very good for Carlyle's business!).

      So, what's the gripe here? The newspapers' REPORTING seems very light on details about what was wrong here, prefering to hint at ominous, nefarious, and perhaps illegal and treasonous dealings.

      Is the businessman a crook, and the leader instead a brutal dictator, on everybody's "cannot visit or do business with" list? Are one or both of these guys TERRORISTS? Has the State Department FORBIDDEN America citizens from visiting or talking to this guy? Nope, at least, there's no mention of such things in the story.

      And what exactly did Bill Clinton DO? Whatever it was, our MEDIA has determined it "smells bad", such that it should make everyone question whether Hillary should be elected president -- which is, after all, the NUMBER ONE GOAL of the rightwing media these days; torpedoing Hillary's candidacy.

      IF there's an actual STORY here, neither of these "news" outlets have discovered what the story IS. Too much to ask for them to actually HAVE a story before printing what the airline ticket agency knew ... some guys MET. The rest of the story? Pure innuendo and veiled implication. I.E. garbage.   

      Report Abuse
      • Author by The Stranger (February 04, 2008 8:18 pm ET)
           

        I guess you must have missed the sentence:

        And, in contrast to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's previously expressed reservations, Mr. Clinton embraced Kazakhstan's bid to head the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which works to promote human rights and fair elections, two characteristics that Mr. Nazarbayev's regime has been sorely lacking.

        ...and why did BillyJeffBubba lie about the whole thing?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Clevenative (February 04, 2008 9:32 pm ET)
             

          I’m not sure what we are to take from you making something of this? So it shows that Bill and Hillary are two separate individuals with their own ideas. And that’s a bad thing? Oh yeah, it confuses you because it goes against the concept of a “Clinton Machine”.

          And why did Bill at first deny the meeting? He was probably afraid Hillary would kick his butt.:)

           

          Report Abuse
        • Author by mari2j (February 05, 2008 4:18 am ET)
             
          hehehehe must be tough when your not in the know about the facts.  Further, you hate for the Clintons certainly shows and clouds anything you say.  I never listen to hate mongers and for sure I reject what you say out of hand.  Just that facts sir would be a good thing for you to commit to.  Otherwise do not expect anyone to pay a moments attention to your POV.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by The Stranger (February 05, 2008 9:55 am ET)
               

             Further, you hate for the Clintons certainly shows and clouds anything you say.  I never listen to hate mongers and for sure I reject what you say out of hand.  Just that facts sir would be a good thing for you to commit to

            Your affinity for the Clintons clouds your judgement. You will give them a pass in everything no matter how illegal, unethical or immoral.

            What "facts" do I have wrong here? What? You can't point any out? *GASP* I'm shocked!

            Report Abuse
    • Author by The Stranger (February 04, 2008 8:16 pm ET)
         

      The New York Post editorial misleadingly characterized Giustra as "a newcomer to uranium mining (snip)I

      n fact, Giustra was not a "newcomer" in general to mining in Kazakhstan, reportedly having been involved in other types of Kazakh mining as least as far back as 10 years ago, as Media Matters for America has documented

       

      Huh? It's not a mischaracterization. It's a fact that he was new to uranium mining. What the hell is this post about?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (February 04, 2008 9:35 pm ET)
           
        I'm with you on this one Stranger - Someone call Ripley's Believe-it-or not.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by divabunny (February 05, 2008 9:25 am ET)
         
      does this suprise anyone???  they came out and endorsed barry!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.