OWNER OF NEWSMAX: In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Screen Shot 2015-05-16 at 10.03.04 AMSomething smells. Why is a right-leaning website owner defending, and donating, an extremely liberal organization?

When I heard that Bill Clinton was making as much as $500,000 per speech and made many more millions in his post-presidency, I thought to myself, God bless him. This is the American way.

Former President Clinton’s speaker fees are probably in line with other former presidents who draw big fees, maybe bigger owing to his global popularity.

But God bless them all.

Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

The elder Bush served his country admirably over a long period, starting in World War II as a heroic pilot, and later in several public offices, including the presidency. He later got his reward after leaving the White House.

God bless George H.W. Bush.

So, it is not every day that I defend Bill and Hillary Clinton, or the Clinton Foundation.

In fact, it may come as a surprise to some. In the 1990s I was described by both James Carville and George Stephanopoulos as the Clinton White House’s No. 1 press enemy. But after Bill Clinton left the White House, I came to admire him and his post-presidential work.

I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.

This may be difficult for many of the Clinton critics to stomach, considering the miasma of allegations now being made about them, largely due to a new book entitled “Clinton Cash” (HarperCollins) by Peter Schweizer.

A Fox News special that aired this past Friday detailed many of the allegations from the still-unreleased book. Fox said the book showed the “tangled” and “blurred” relationships between the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ private or political activities.

After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing “tangled” and “blurred” are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.

John Cassidy, a columnist with The New Yorker, fair-minded and balanced, got it right when he wrote that “Clinton Cash” appears to contain “largely unsubstantiated allegations.”

He notes that Schweizer admits he cannot prove the allegations, and that “with [Fox News’ Sean] Hannity and other conservative media figures piling on, the Clinton campaign will be able to portray questions about the Clinton Foundation and the family’s finances as a political witch-hunt rather than a legitimate exercise in vetting presidential candidates.”

Even Bill O’Reilly, who has a penchant for telling the truth, told his Fox audience that the Clintons deserved the “presumption of innocence” and that “right now the evidence is circumstantial, not vetted, and the subject of wild speculation by anti-Clinton forces.”

Don’t get me wrong, if there were any serious allegations here, I too would want to have them investigated. But I also don’t want to go back to the ’90s, either, when one allegation led to a daisy-chain effect, and the GOP ended up looking bad as the Democrats kept winning.

But let’s get back to the matter of the Clintons and their foundation. I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now.  During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities.

I recall attending my first Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) event and meeting Jack Kemp there. As you may remember, Kemp had run against Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential race as the vice presidential candidate. At that meeting, Kemp had nothing but praise for what Bill Clinton was doing.

So what was the former president doing?

Rather than simply “cashing in,” the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

Remember also the context of the time. America was globally criticized during its war on terror, especially after the invasion of Iraq. Few nations joined the “coalition of the willing.” Our nation was losing its stature as leader of the free world.

It was Bill Clinton, using the platform of his foundation, who became the de facto goodwill ambassador of the United States.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton’s help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

Compare for a second how Bill Clinton has continued to serve America’s best interests abroad with former President Jimmy Carter, who has not always done so.

Read more: Newsmax

Share Your Comments
Trending Now on GJWHG