DebateGate

"DNA will prove I'm JFK son"

By VERONICA LORRAINE

Published: Today

A MAN has sensationally claimed he is the love child of assassinated US President John F Kennedy.

Jack Worthington, 45, is demanding tests from Kennedy family members to prove they have the same DNA.

Mr Worthington, an American living in Canada, was born a year before JFK was gunned down in Dallas 1963.

He came forward after a US newspaper claimed JFK had a possible love child living in Canada.

He said he wanted to do the right thing?.

He added: Many Americans won?t agree and will want to sweep the dirt under the rug.

JFK, who was 46 when he died, has one surviving child Caroline, 50.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article797556.ece

Clinton Ex-Campaign Manager Backs Obama 
 
Feb 13 11:00 AM US/Eastern
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -
An aide to Barack Obama says the man who led former President Clinton's 1992
bid plans to endorse the Illinois senator.

Obama's campaign plans a 1 p.m. conference call Wednesday to announce the endorsement
by David Wilhelm, who later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement would be made
public later in the day.

Wilhelm plans to tell reporters that Obama can build a coalition of Democrats, independents
and Republicans needed to win the general election. He also says Obama can bring the
change he promises?improving the economy and ending the war in Iraq.

Wilhelm is a superdelegate from Illinois who was previously uncommitted in the race.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UPH9EG0&show_article=1

Hillary has stooped to a new low to combat Obama's popularity with African Americans.

Hillary Slams MSNBC...Praises Fox?!?



Monday Feb 11, 2008

The Hillary campaign recently took MSNBC reporter David Shuster (and MSNBC generally) to task for asking
a guest on February 7th's "Tucker" program, "[D]oesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in
some weird sort of way?" MSNBC has suspended Shuster for his remarks.

Tonight, the Politico's John Harris asked Clinton for her thoughts on the situation during an interview that
aired on Washington, D.C.'s local ABC affiliate WJLA:

Clinton said that her staff had sent her "some independent study" "which seemed to suggest that" "in terms
of the fairness of the coverage," Fox News Channel has treated her campaign more fairly than MSNBC.

"I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear" on MSNBC, said Clinton. Recently,
two MSNBC hosts -- Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough -- have come under heat for comments deemed sexist
by many and liberal media watchdog group MediaMatters has increased its scrutiny of the cable network.

The Clinton campaign recently suggested that Shuster's suspension was inadequate and Harris asked what Clinton
thought would be a more appropriate punishment.

"That's not my job John," said Clinton. "That's the job of the people who run the network."

"They need to take a hard look. This is like the third time they've had to apologize and there are lot of things that
they haven't had to apologize for that might have merited one. So I wish they would take a look at some of the
patterns of demeaning comments made on their network."

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/hillary_slams_msnbcpraises_fox_77235.asp

  AWESOME NEWS 

Illegals Begin Leaving Arizona as New Law Approaches
Friday, February 08, 2008

By William LaJeunesse

AGIA PRIETA, Mexico: For the first time, Mexican officials in Arizona admit there is hard evidence illegal immigrants are preparing to leave the state because a new employer sanctions law is making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to keep a job.

Illegal immigrants are flooding the Mexican consulate in Phoenix for documents that will allow them to return to Mexico to enroll their children in school, the consul to Arizona, Carlos Flores Vizcarra, told FOX News. They are also requesting a document called "menaje de casa," which allows illegal immigrant families living in the U.S. to cross into Mexico without paying a tax on their furniture and personal belongings.

Vizcarra said 94 families asked the embassy for students transfer documents last month, compared to only three last year. He said several thousand immigrants asked for the tax document.

In a separate interview, Edmundo Hidalgo of the non-profit immigrant support group Chicanos Por La Causa, said 30,000 illegal immigrants said in a survey last week that they planned to leave Arizona sometime before March 1, when the state?s tough new employer sanctions law goes into effect. Under the law, employers can lose their business licenses if they hire undocumented workers.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has set up a hotline for citizens to report on employers who hire illegals. He has said enforcement will begin when the law goes into effect. Many deputies have also been given arrest authority by Customs and Border Protection to enforce federal immigration law. So in the course of a traffic stop, illegal immigrants without a driver's license could ultimately face deportation.

These factors, combined with a slowing economy, are forcing many undocumented workers to consider leaving Arizona. According to a study last year, 12 percent of Arizona?s workforce is in the U.S. illegally, the highest percentage in the nation.

At a immigrant shelter in Agua Prieta, Mexico, just south of the Arizona border, officials say illegal immigrants are leaving the Grand Canyon state because of the employer sanctions law.

In the last month, for every five immigrants trying to enter the U.S., four were crossing back in the other direction, said Rosa Soto Moreno, who runs a Catholic shelter that provides food and lodging for illegal immigrants.

Soto said illegal immigrants crossing back into Mexico is a new phenomenon, and she attributes it to the new law.

"Many of the supervisors are upset by the law, but have told their workers they have no choice," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329829,00.html

Is Al Qaeda Capable of Attacking the US?
Its Plans to Attack America are Active and Nuclear
 
The information that al Qaeda is pressing ahead with its plans to attack the United States comes from three sources.

One was mentioned by the US intelligence director Mike McConnel this week, when he said: It [al Qaeda] probably will continue to devote some effort towards honoring bin Laden?s request in 2005 that al Qaeda attempt to strike the United States, affirmed publicly by current al Qaeda leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri in a November 2006 threat against the White House.?

Then there are the high-value al Qaeda captives in American custody, who over the years have insisted under interrogation that a repeat of 9/11 and additional attacks in the American homeland have never been taken off the terrorist organization's operational agenda.

But no hard facts were ever elicited on how such attacks were to be implemented. Any particulars received turned out to be incorrect.

The third source is the multifarious theological texts published on the organizations websites.

These texts, which are not in general circulation, appear aimed at briefing network and cell commanders across the world on al Qaeda?s preparations for an attack on the United States.

The credibility of the information contained in these tracts is hard to establish  as is their purpose. Are they meant as morale-boosters for al Qaeda forces in the field, general guidelines for action by the networks, or a real-life plan of action building up toward implementation? No one can tell for sure.

Some al Qaeda experts have learned how to distinguish from their style, their operational content, names, places or dates, which of these documents are worth treating more seriously than others, with respect to the threat to the United States.

Al Qaeda's masterminds have never been caught red-handed
 
Counter-terror sources report that the most recent Internet text to be regarded by these experts as worth serious consideration is dated the night of the 25th of the second month of the Hijra year 1428, which corresponds to May 13, 2007.

It is signed by Abdul Abu Kandahar al Zarqawi [named for al Qaeda?s commander in Iraq] and Siyalon bin Abdullah a-Salafi al-Shemi [for the Nations of the East].

Both are clearly made-up names, but the al Qaeda chiefs whom the operational content of the text concerns certainly know who is addressing them.

A number of points have convinced our intelligence experts to address its content:

The writers affirm that the orders to attack the United States have already gone out and the attackers have reached their departure points - whether or not inside America is not specified and await their last instructions from Osama bin Laden before setting out on their final journey.

That instruction has not yet been issued [as of May, 2007].

Many terror experts note that al Qaeda has never since 2001 been able to bring off an attack inside America. Our sources point out a permanent feature of all al Qaeda operations: One is never approved unless its planners are absolutely certain that, whether it succeeds or fails, no leads to the masterminds and controllers will be left for Western intelligence to follow, and no clues to the military, intelligence and financial mechanisms which orchestrated the attack and brought the perpetrators to target.

In seven years, al Qaeda has managed to uphold this principle. Never so far in the war on terror has any counter-terror agencies cracked these mysteries.

This document states clearly for the first time that the next attack on American cities, especially New York, will be nuclear [not a bomb but some kinds of radioactive substance that contaminates the environment].

This reference ties in with data incoming from other sources in the last two years.

The bombers wait only for Osama bin Laden's say-so

The text also lists the US cities to be targeted, with New York at the top, followed by Los
Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, Seattle and Houston.

Here follows an approximate summary of the text:

Link to the original

The operations are ready but we are awaiting orders from the Supreme Commander, Osama bin Laden. He will decide when to strike, what to hit and what not, and how long to wait.

We shall pursue the following operations and bring about the fall of the United Atheistic States of America.

A quality attack is planned for the big and the biggest towns of America and its economic centers.

For some of these operations nuclear weapons will be used. It will be executed with the help of trucks which are undetectable. [DNW: A clue to American vehicles driven by terrorists capable of posing as authentic Americans].

The operation will employ ruses and tactics that will astonish the Americans.

Because we already know that you [Americans]) take no notice of our warnings, we will be forced to carry out further operations without mercy, because you have brought destruction on your own heads by refusing a hudna (truce).

[This is a reference to bin Laden?s offer to the Bush administration of a truce in an audiotape released Jan. 20, 2006 - provided US forces quit Iraq and Afghanistan.]

All these blows will land on you [the American people] because of your support for the White House robbers and your concurrence in their deeds.

In the first wave, five cities and one state will be struck.

The first is New York, the United States? economic nerve center where Allah proved for the first time that He is with us. [9/11]

Target: The fall of the United Atheist States to the mujaheddin

The second is Los Angeles, the most important West Coast city of the Atheistic Union.

The third is Florida, from which many funds reach the East Coast [the meaning is unclear] and which is the location of the Kennedy Space Center, which will also be struck.

We will of course not omit Washington.

The fall of the American capital into the hands of the mujaheddin will be one of the most important events of the New Era.

Seattle will be targeted as America's strategic center on the Canadian border; and Texas as the center of the big oil companies in which Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld have stakes.

In consequence of these attacks, the American economy will collapse; death and permanent injuries will result from nuclear damage; the American people will lose faith in its government and its centers will break down.

All this will lead to the evacuation of American forces from their places of deployment, because they will be needed to care for the desperately injured at home.

Some may decide not to return to the United States but rather seek asylum in other countries.

US military deployments will rapidly fall apart in their world bases, as officers and men come to blows, regular payments stop reaching the units and fuel supplies are no longer delivered to the army, air force, navy and armored units.

Young Muslims will obey the dictates of Allah, which include the liberation of Muhammad?s Island from the rule of Ali Saud, liberation of the eastern bank of the Jordan River from the American family which rules there and great progress for beloved Palestine.

[source: e-mail]

January 31, 2008

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan?s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after 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.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan?s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world?s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton?s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra?s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton?s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

Mr. Giustra was invited to accompany the former president to Almaty just as the financier was trying to seal a deal he had been negotiating for months.

In separate written responses, both men said Mr. Giustra traveled with Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan, India and China to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation.

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of ?any particular efforts? and did nothing to help. Mr. Giustra said he was there as an ?observer only? and there was ?no discussion? of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton.

But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton ?of course made an impression.? Mr. Dzhakishev added that Kazatomprom chose to form a partnership with Mr. Giustra?s company based solely on the merits of its offer.

After The Times told Mr. Giustra that others said he had discussed the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev, Mr. Giustra responded that he ?may well have mentioned my general interest in the Kazakhstan mining business to him, but I did not discuss the ongoing? efforts.

As Mrs. Clinton?s presidential campaign has intensified, Mr. Clinton has begun severing financial ties with Ronald W. Burkle, the supermarket magnate, and Vinod Gupta, the chairman of InfoUSA, to avoid any conflicts of interest. Those two men have harnessed the former president?s clout to expand their businesses while making the Clintons rich through partnership and consulting arrangements.

Mr. Clinton has vowed to continue raising money for his foundation if Mrs. Clinton is elected president, maintaining his connections with a wide network of philanthropic partners.

Mr. Giustra said that while his friendship with the former president ?may have elevated my profile in the news media, it has not directly affected any of my business transactions.?

Mining colleagues and analysts agree it has not hurt. Neil MacDonald, the chief executive of a Canadian merchant bank that specializes in mining deals, said Mr. Giustra?s financial success was partly due to a ?fantastic network? crowned by Mr. Clinton. ?That?s a very solid relationship for him,? Mr. MacDonald said. ?I?m sure it?s very much a two-way relationship because that?s the way Frank operates.?

Foreseeing Opportunities

Mr. Giustra made his fortune in mining ventures as a broker on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, raising billions of dollars and developing a loyal following of investors. Just as the mining sector collapsed, Mr. Giustra, a lifelong film buff, founded the Lion?s Gate Entertainment Corporation in 1997. But he sold the studio in 2003 and returned to mining.

Mr. Giustra foresaw a bull market in gold and began investing in mines in Argentina, Australia and Mexico. He turned a $20 million shell company into a powerhouse that, after a $2.4 billion merger with Goldcorp Inc., became Canada?s second-largest gold company.

With a net worth estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Giustra began looking for ways to put his wealth to good use. Meeting Mr. Clinton, and learning about the work his foundation was doing on issues like AIDS treatment in poor countries, ?changed my life,? Mr. Giustra told The Vancouver Sun.

The two men were introduced in June 2005 at a fund-raiser for tsunami victims at Mr. Giustra?s Vancouver home and hit it off right away. They share a love of history, geopolitics and music ? Mr. Giustra plays the trumpet to Mr. Clinton?s saxophone. Soon the dapper Canadian was a regular at Mr. Clinton?s side, as they flew around the world aboard Mr. Giustra?s plane.

Philanthropy may have become his passion, but Mr. Giustra, now 50, was still hunting for ways to make money.

Exploding demand for energy had helped revitalize the nuclear power industry, and uranium, the raw material for reactor fuel, was about to become a hot commodity. In late 2004, Mr. Giustra began talking to investors, and put together a company that would eventually be called UrAsia Energy Ltd.

Kazakhstan, which has about one-fifth of the world?s uranium reserves, was the place to be. But with plenty of suitors, Kazatomprom could be picky about its partners.

?Everyone was asking Kazatomprom to the dance,? said Fadi Shadid, a senior stock analyst covering the uranium industry for Friedman Billings Ramsey, an investment bank. ?A second-tier junior player like UrAsia ? you?d need all the help you could get.?

The Cameco Corporation, the world?s largest uranium producer, was already a partner of Kazatomprom. But when Cameco expressed interest in the properties Mr. Giustra was already eying, the government?s response was lukewarm. ?The signals we were getting was, you?ve got your hands full,? said Gerald W. Grandey, Cameco president.

For Cameco, it took five years to ?build the right connections? in Kazakhstan, Mr. Grandey said. UrAsia did not have that luxury. Profitability depended on striking before the price of uranium soared.

?Timing was everything,? said Sergey Kurzin, a Russian-born businessman whose London-based company was brought into the deal by UrAsia because of his connections in Kazakhstan. Even with those connections, Mr. Kurzin said, it took four months to arrange a meeting with Kazatomprom.

In August 2005, records show, the company sent an engineering consultant to Kazakhstan to assess the uranium properties. Less than four weeks later, Mr. Giustra arrived with Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said an aide to Mr. Nazarbayev informed him that Mr. Giustra talked with Mr. Nazarbayev about the deal during the visit. ?And when our president asked Giustra, ?What do you do?? he said, ?I?m trying to do business with Kazatomprom,? ? Mr. Dzhakishev said. He added that Mr. Nazarbayev replied, ?Very good, go to it.?

Mr. Clinton?s Kazakhstan visit, the only one of his post-presidency, appears to have been arranged hastily. The United States Embassy got last-minute notice that the president would be making ?a private visit,? said a State Department official, who said he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The publicly stated reason for the visit was to announce a Clinton Foundation agreement that enabled the government to buy discounted AIDS drugs. But during a news conference, Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for ?opening up the social and political life of your country.?

In a statement Kazakhstan would highlight in news releases, Mr. Clinton declared that he hoped it would achieve a top objective: leading the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would confer legitimacy on Mr. Nazarbayev?s government.

?I think it?s time for that to happen, it?s an important step, and I?m glad you?re willing to undertake it,? Mr. Clinton said.

A Speedy Process

Mr. Clinton?s praise was odd, given that the United States did not support Mr. Nazarbayev?s bid. (Late last year, Kazakhstan finally won the chance to lead the security organization for one year, despite concerns raised by the Bush administration.) Moreover, Mr. Clinton?s wife, who sits on a Congressional commission with oversight of such matters, had also voiced skepticism.

Eleven months before Mr. Clinton?s statement, Mrs. Clinton co-signed a commission letter to the State Department that sounded ?alarm bells? about the prospect that Kazakhstan might head the group. The letter stated that Kazakhstan?s bid ?would not be acceptable,? citing ?serious corruption,? canceled elections and government control of the news media.

In a written statement to The Times, Mr. Clinton?s spokesman said the former president saw ?no contradiction? between his statements in Kazakhstan and the position of Mrs. Clinton, who said through a spokeswoman, ?Senator Clinton?s position on Kazakhstan remains unchanged.?

Noting that the former president also met with opposition leaders in Almaty, Mr. Clinton?s spokesman said he was only ?seeking to suggest that a commitment to political openness and to fair elections would reflect well on Kazakhstan?s efforts to chair the O.S.C.E.?

But Robert Herman, who worked for the State Department in the Clinton administration and is now at Freedom House, a human rights group, said the former president?s statement amounted to an endorsement of Kazakhstan?s readiness to lead the group, a position he called ?patently absurd.?

?He was either going off his brief or he was sadly mistaken,? Mr. Herman said. ?There was nothing in the record to suggest that they really wanted to move forward on democratic reform.?

Indeed, in December 2005, Mr. Nazarbayev won another election, which the security organization itself said was marred by an ?atmosphere of intimidation? and ?ballot-box stuffing.?

After Mr. Nazarbayev won with 91 percent of the vote, Mr. Clinton sent his congratulations. ?Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life,? Mr. Clinton wrote in a letter released by the Kazakh embassy. Last September, just weeks after Kazakhstan held an election that once again failed to meet international standards, Mr. Clinton honored Mr. Nazarbayev by inviting him to his annual philanthropic conference.

Within 48 hours of Mr. Clinton?s departure from Almaty on Sept. 7, Mr. Giustra got his deal. UrAsia signed two memorandums of understanding that paved the way for the company to become partners with Kazatomprom in three mines.

The cost to UrAsia was more than $450 million, money the company did not have in hand and had only weeks to come up with. The transaction was finalized in November, after UrAsia raised the money through the largest initial public offering in the history of Canada?s Venture Exchange.

Mr. Giustra challenged the notion that UrAsia needed to court Kazatomprom?s favor to seal the deal, contending that the government agency?s approval was not required.

But Mr. Dzhakishev, analysts and Mr. Kurzin, one of Mr. Giustra?s own investors, said that approval was necessary. Mr. Dzhakishev, who said that the deal was almost done when Mr. Clinton arrived, said that Kazatomprom was impressed with the sum Mr. Giustra was willing to pay and his record of attracting investors. He said Mr. Nazarbayev himself ultimately signed off on the transaction.

Longtime market watchers were confounded. Kazatomprom?s choice of UrAsia was a ?mystery,? said Gene Clark, the chief executive of Trade Tech, a uranium industry newsletter.

?UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole process somehow,? Mr. Clark said. The company became a ?major uranium producer when it didn?t even exist before.?

A Profitable Sale

Records show that Mr. Giustra donated the $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation in the months that followed in 2006, but neither he nor a spokesman for Mr. Clinton would say exactly when.

In September 2006, Mr. Giustra co-produced a gala 60th birthday for Mr. Clinton that featured stars like Jon Bon Jovi and raised about $21 million for the Clinton Foundation.

In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.

That same month, Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan?s intention ? not publicly known at the time ? to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.

Nearly a year earlier, Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai on how to handle the political furor after one of that nation?s companies attempted to take over several American ports. Mrs. Clinton was among those on Capitol Hill who raised the national security concerns that helped kill the deal.

Mr. Dzhakishev said he was worried the proposed Westinghouse investment could face similar objections. Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him, but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation?s proposal to a former president.

Mr. Clinton ?said this was very important for America,? said Mr. Dzhakishev, who added that Mr. Giustra was present at Mr. Clinton?s home.

Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton?s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

?You are correct that I asked the president to meet with the head of Kazatomprom,? Mr. Giustra said. ?Mr. Dzhakishev asked me in February 2007 to set up a meeting with former President Clinton to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.? Mr. Giustra said the meeting ?escaped my memory until you raised it.?

Wednesday, Mr. Clinton?s spokesman, Ben Yarrow, issued what he called a ?correction,? saying: ?Today, Mr. Giustra told our office that in February 2007, he brought Mr. Dzhakishev from Kazatomprom to meet with President Clinton to discuss the future of nuclear energy.?

Mr. Yarrow said his earlier denial was based on the former president?s records, which he said ?show a Feb. 27 meeting with Mr. Giustra; no other attendees are listed.?

Mr. Dzhakishev said he had a vivid memory of his Chappaqua visit, and a souvenir to prove it: a photograph of himself with the former president.

?I hung up the photograph of us and people ask me if I met with Clinton and I say, Yes, I met with Clinton,? he said, smiling proudly.

David L. Stern and Margot Williams contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ei=5065&en=6a843530898e147a&ex=1202446800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

NBC confronts Hillary with "slum lord" photo
By Michael Roston and David Edwards
Friday January 25, 2008



On Friday morning's episode of the Today Show on NBC, host Matt Lauer discussed Monday
night's testy debate between presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack
Obama (D-IL). In particular, he focused on her allegation that Obama had represented Tony Rezko,
the indicted Chicago businessman whom she referred to as a "slum lord."

Lauer then presented Clinton with a photo of Rezko posing between Sen. Clinton as first l
ady and her husband during his presidency. He asked if she remembered meeting Rezko.

Clinton said she did not, and parried, "I don't have a 17-year relationship with him."

The senator also argued that it wasn't unfair for her to bring up Rezko during the debate.

"I try not to attack first," Clinton said, "but I have to defend myself and I do have to counter punch."

Clinton then argued that the debate between the two candidates should focus on their position on important issues, and implied that she was the most viable candidate to defeat Senator John McCain if he was the Republican candidate.

"Let's focus on what we want to do for the country and most importantly focus on the great difference between us and the Republicans," she argued. "Senator McCain has said it would be fine with him if we were [in Iraq] 100 years. It's not fine with me."

Transcript via closed captions


:: It is perfectly legitimate to draw comparisons and contrasts. And I think both senator obama and I have made it clear that we do want to focus on what we each would do for our country. It has been obviously an incredibly intense campaign. I think it's cause for celebration that we have an african-american, a woman running for the highest position in our country, the toughest job in the world.

:: Right, but --

:: But I do want to make it clear that our campaigns have to stay focused on what, you know, the legitimate differences are, so we can give voters information that will enable them to make the right decision.

:: On monday night in south carolina, it didn't always stay focused on that, senator. I want to run a clip. This is where you were attacking senator obama in particular about his work connected to what was called the so-called slum lord in chicago, a guy named tony rezko. Take a look at the clip.

:: I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor rezko in his slum landlord business in inner city chicago.

:: That was monday night, senator. I know you don't have video, you can't see what i'm about to put up on the screen right now. But i'm going to put up a picture right now that we've received. This is a picture of you and your husband, bill clinton, posing with that same man, tony rezko. It's undated, i'm going to ro-tel you right now. We know it's him. We don't know when it was taken. We think it was during your husband's presidency. I'm curious, do you know anything about the picture? do you know when it was taken? do you remember meeting this man?

:: No, I don't. You know, I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. But of course, matt, you didn't show what preceded what I said, which was a direct attack, one of several that was leveled against me by senator obama.

:: I understand. It was a counter punch, I understand that.

:: It was a counter punch. I try not to attack first, but I have to defend myself and I do have to counter punch. No, I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door. I don't have a 17-year relationship with him. But I think with a we ought to be looking at is how we go forward talking about the issues. I do think, however, that this is a campaign, it's a contest. It's something that is very important to each of us running, to our supporters, to those who believe in us. And I took a lot of incoming fire for many, many months and I was happy to absorb it because obviously I felt that that was part of my responsibility.

:: I guess what i'm saying, though --

:: As it gets toward the end of the campaign, you've got to set the record straight as I tried to.

:: Right. But does it make sense to use someone like this, tony rezko, against senator obama, when there's really no such thing as political purt anymore? I know you stand at events and stood as first lady along with your president and they fired 200 people by you a night --

:: A thousand people.

:: This man, he made a contribution to the dnc back in march of 2000. If there's no such thing as being able to fully vette who you come in contact with, is it appropriate to make this attack on your opponent?

:: I think you have to look at the facts. There's a big difference standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don't know and haven't seen since and having a relationship that the newspapers in chic chicago have been exploring. Let's focus on what we want to do for the country and most importantly focus on the great difference between us and the republicans. I think you saw that again in their debate. They're sticking with the failed policies of president bush, more in iraq. Senator mccain has said it would be fine with him if we were there 100 years. It's not fine with me. Yes --


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_confronts_Hillary_with_slum_lord_0125.html