Clinton took money from China. Clinton also gave U.S. military secrets to China. That action put the U.S. at risk for a nuclear missile attack from China. Two foreigners pled guilty but for some reason they didn't go to jail. Also, China secretly helped fund Bill Clinton's legal defense. Democrat politicians don't want the public to know the real facts about Clinton and China.
U.S. government documents:
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/20.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1999/May/213crm.htm
http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/18.pdf
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/rules_burt04.htm
2007-08-29 16:43:03 · 18 answers · asked by a bush family member 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clintons pushed the world into letting China join the WTO, instead of putting trade sanctions on China for numerous violations. Because China is now in the WTO it is difficult to put trade santions on them. And Goldman Sachs predicts China's GDP will surpass the U.S.'s within just 40 years. Within 10 years, the trade deficit with China will surpass $1 trillion a year.
2007-08-29 16:48:14 · update #1
To Boss H:
Those are real links to U.S. government websites. ".gov" is only allowed for government agencies.
2007-08-29 17:55:00 · update #2
There are none so blind as they who will not see.
Today's democrats seem to be very interested in winning elections but have little understanding of what they will do afterward.
.
2007-08-29 16:49:56 · answer #1 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
May be old news, but it is true. They still have secret deals with China. That is just one very tiny small drop in a bucket according to everything them two has done, since they were in high school. I have researched these two for many years, Crimes and corruption , is what what they are. Problem is, they are counting on people not caring, not remembering so they can continue on in the whitehouse, a place they never need to be again. You would not believe the world wide criminals they know, they have a lot of connections, and America needs to forget them, they are not good for America.
2007-08-29 17:05:42 · answer #2 · answered by lilly4 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I do agree with some on here, Hillery is Bush turned inside out
Power &Greed, She is a career politican & she has a partner
with her on her mission, as he had one on his.
She once sat on Wal-Mart board, that in in self tells me enough, Wal-Mart and China are joined at the hip, It amazes me more of my fellow country citizens don't see Wal-Mart for the ground hogs they are. Political war fare tires me, It is a
time more then ever before Rich vs Poor. The money the Clintons have raised tells the story.
2007-09-06 03:43:05 · answer #3 · answered by jenny 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Very good points. We will be paying for things Clinton did for a very long time.
It's funny to see people talk about how that was old news. The past if very important, it decides what happens in our present.
According to the 2000 exits polls:
60% of voters disapproved of Clinton as a person
59% -including some who approved of him - disliked him
68% said he would go down in the history books for his scandals rather than for his leadership
44% thought the Clinton scandals were important or somewhat important. (In contrast, only 28% thought Bush's drunk driving arrest was important or somewhat important)
18% said a reason for their vote was to oppose Clinton
15% of those who had voted for Clinton in 1996 voted for bush in 2000
2007-08-29 16:50:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Did the Clintons sell them any lead paint?
2007-09-04 17:17:38 · answer #5 · answered by toptuner1 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow those reports don't look very official at all. They wouldn't even pass as a decent essay for a college writing class. what kind of URL redirecting site are you using for that?
Funny when you go to the home page and do a search for those docs, the search comes up with no results.
have anything but deception and slander to sling?
2007-08-29 17:03:35 · answer #6 · answered by Boss H 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I think if there was actually evidence of wrongdoing, the Republican-controlled Senate that spent three years trying to nail Clinton to the wall would have done something about it, so I think even talking about it at this point is a waste of time.
You asked what I think, and that's what it is.
2007-08-29 16:49:20 · answer #7 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I prefer the candidate that raises the least money. They are less beholden to the special interests.
2007-08-29 16:54:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Democrat Republican
Republican Democrat
It makes no difference.
They are both beholden to the Central Bank.
2007-08-29 16:48:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Is this 1997 or 2007? Don't you think it would have been mighty pathetic if we constantly whined about Reagan's Iran Contra and huge deficits during Clinton's presidency? Or Bush I's deficits, recession, and raising taxes after promising not to? The reason why no one did, it that DISTRACTIONS from the PRESENT were not needed!!!!!
2007-08-29 16:46:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋