It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hillary Clinton Attacks Bush, Supports Mullahs

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:44 PM
It seems that Senator Clinton has a bit of explaining to do. She has just openly accused the president of "downplaying the threat from Iran" while not so openly accepting financial assistance from mullah supporters.

Senator Clinton has accused President Bush of downplaying the threat from Iran while accepting money from supporters of the Iranian regime.

Wealthy businessmen Hassan Nemazee and Faraj Aalaei are associated with the American Iranian Council, a pro-regime anti-sanctions group. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Namazee has contributed $4,000 to Clinton's reelection while Aalaei has given $1,000.

Hillary Clinton is also raising money from Gati Kashani, another figure linked with the Mullahs.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

First she was pro-Iraq war. Then she was anti-Iraq war. Now she is pro-Iran war, while taking contributions from Iranians who support the mullahs. What?

How can anyone believe anything this woman has got to say? Her only true stance is anti-everything Bush. She is setting herself up for a presidentential bid and will walk all over anyone and anything that stands in her way. How can anyone seriously consider this woman for president of the United States? IMHO, she make Jane Fonda look like a fine upstanding american citizen.

Mod Edit: De-ATSNN'd The Title.

[edit on 20/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:42 PM
no takers on my clinton bashing thread? funny how everyone jumps onboard the bush-bashing threads but leaves this one alone.....ATS maybe leans a little too far left?

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:21 AM
Ok, I'll join in. Ms. Hillary is just a politician, and I mean that in the worst possible way. All politicians, successful ones anyway, are at their roots con-artists, nothing more nothing less. She says what she thinks people want to hear. She doesn't seem to have any fixed opinions, or any fixed solutions either to the problems she seemingly addresses in her stump speeches. I haven't heard one original idea from her that hasn't changed later.

I could not, and sleep well at night, vote for her for any political office. Not impressed.

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 09:52 AM
This is from Clinton's challenger to the Senate, right? Do the words "smear campaign" mean anything to you?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with seagull. I couldn't vote for her in good conscience. I don't like her. And I'm not defending her or anything she's done. But I do think a little more info (and not from her direct opposition's website) might be appropriate in this case.

Oh, look, here's more.

Seems this (old) information is from a book by Jerome Corsi called "Unfit for Command." It was a rag against Kerry back in the day and was written to smear him and all Democrats. Corsi's plan was to move to Massachusetts and run against Kerry in 2008. Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy were also smeared in the book.

The Plot Thickens

Corsi is notorious for outrageous broadsides. He once called Hillary Clinton a "fat hog." He mused about Kerry: "After he married TerRAYsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm?"

He derided Islam as "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion." And he slammed Pope John Paul: "Boy-buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope, as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press."

Yesterday Corsi told me: "Yes, I was trying to be provocative, but those are out-ofcontext statements, and I have apologized to anyone who was offended."
Yesterday Nemazee - a wealthy Manhattan financier, U.S. citizen and Democratic Party donor who was Kerry's New York fund-raising chairman - told me that Corsi is risking a slander suit if the book says he's an agent of the Iranian government.

Sure, I don't trust Hillary, but this has SMEAR written all over it. Ah... the world of politics, huh?

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 10:55 AM
Hmmm...gee political smearing going on. Must say that I am shocked and dismayed. I mean it...I am just shocked. No I kid you not...shocked.

Having said that, you are right oh benevolent one
, one should always understand the source. Even if you agree with the idea.

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:59 PM
smear campaign it may be, but is it truth or a lie? i'm leaning toward truth myself. and what about the votes? anybody here ever met someone who will admit to voting for her?

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by snafu7700
smear campaign it may be, but is it truth or a lie? i'm leaning toward truth myself.

Is what the truth or a lie? Why are you leaning toward truth? Because you want to? Does the truth really matter?

Hillary apparently did get money from this guy Nemazee, but according to him:

"The concept that I'm a shill for the mullahs flies in the face of reality," said Nemazee, whose family fled Iran after the fall of the shah. "I haven't been back for 26 years, and everything I had was confiscated by them. It is patently ludicrous."

Doesn't sound to me as though he's an Iranian agent...

You tell me if it's true. I won't believe it till I see something more concrete than a 'swift-boat' like campaign page.

and what about the votes? anybody here ever met someone who will admit to voting for her?

Nope. But I don't know anyone who would vote for Bush either.

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:02 PM
well, i will admit to voting for bush....well, it was more of a vote against kerry than for anyone else. the man just couldnt make up his mind about anything, let alone the war on terror. and to be completely honest, if it comes down to a vote between a bush protege and clinton, i will vote republican again. the woman is just plain evil.

what i would really like to see is mccain in office. we'll see if he decides to run.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by snafu7700]

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:42 PM
hillary is not president of the us nor has she openly stated that she was going to definetly run. that is the difference ..bush is president therefore he is much more in the spotlight and much more of a target.

nor has hillary stolen the presidency started a false war not only for oil but to help out his buddies war monger oh i mean defense companies and to rally the country behind him in time of war and hoping to make them forget how he stole the election. now hes using the acts of 911 (which i believe that he was very aware of considering that 9 of the hijackers came from his best buds country yet we invade afganistan and then iraq yet no saudi arabia......) to spy on the american public..oh im sorry the terrorist.

i ask you who has bennifited the most from the last 6 or so years????
certainetly not the us and iraq has yet to prove that it will become or even stay democratic........what did ever happen to afganistan.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by plague]

[edit on 21-1-2006 by plague]

[edit on 21-1-2006 by plague]

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 12:54 AM
so, just to clarify, youre saying that it's okay for hillary (who, regardless what you say, is a voting member of the US senate) to back the war in iraq, and then turn around and act like she never supported the idea? furthermore, while you call bush the aggressor, she is the one who is actually out there stating that bush isnt being tough enough on iran.

nope, that's not a double standard

[edit on 22-1-2006 by snafu7700]

top topics


log in