money - money - money....change?

WASHINGTON—Secretary of State nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found.
The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton's foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raise new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband's fundraising. The AP obtained three of the senator's government letters under the Freedom of Information Act.
During Clinton's confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee's senior Republican, said the foundation's charitable efforts "should not be a barrier to Senator Clinton's service," but he acknowledged the potential that conflicts of interest might arise: "Work of the Clinton foundation is a unique complication that will have to be managed with great care and transparency."
Under an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million -- including millions from foreign governments -- to fund his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts worldwide on such issues as AIDS, poverty and climate change.
Lugar told Sen. Clinton on Tuesday that her husband's foundation should not accept any more contributions from foreign governments.
The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests. An aide to the senator said she made no secret of her involvement in many of the issues. Bill Clinton's foundation declined to say when it received the donations or precisely how much was contributed.
"Throughout her tenure, Senator Clinton has proven that she acts solely based on what she believes is best for the state and people she represents, without consideration to any other factor," said spokesman Philippe Reines. "In these instances, she was doing what the people of New York elected her to do: Work hard on the issues of importance to them."
Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Clinton Foundation both declined to answer questions about whether the senator tried to step away from issues directly affecting donors to her husband's charity, and whether the foundation tried to screen out money from those on whose issues the senator had intervened.
"Generally, through a combination of rigorous adherence to Senate and FEC income and asset disclosure rules, coupled with the voluntary and unprecedented release of the names of every single Foundation supporter since its inception, the Clintons are by far the most financially transparent former first couple in American history," Reines said.
Sen. Clinton wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in February 2004 expressing concern that changes to competitive local exchange carrier access rates could hurt carriers such as New York-based PAETEC Communications. PAETEC's chief executive is Arunas Chesonis, whose family and charity later contributed to the Clinton foundation.

Sarah Wood, executive director of the Chesonis Family Foundation, was invited by a part of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, to join the initiative after it was established in 2005, Wood said Monday. The Chesonis family personally paid $15,000 for Wood's membership in CGI in September 2007, and the Chesonis foundation paid $20,000 for it in March 2008, Wood said.
The Chesonis Family Foundation made a $10 million pledge last May to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for solar energy research, meeting Wood's commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative to act on a project, Wood said.
Wood said the Chesonis foundation was unaware of the senator's letter to the FCC on the PAETEC issue and didn't have any contact with her office.
PAETEC spokesman Christopher Muller said PAETEC had no involvement in the Chesonis donations to the Clinton foundation. PAETEC asked Clinton to intervene with the FCC on its behalf, he said.
"Yes, PAETEC feels strongly that a competitive telecom environment is in the best interests of New York businesses and consumers," Muller wrote in an e-mail to the AP. "PAETEC has petitioned numerous elected officials in the markets which we serve in an effort to retain the spirit of the Telecom Act of 1996." The issue is still pending at the FCC, and PAETEC remains involved in it, Muller said.
Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. is also a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, company spokeswoman Amy Rose said. Merck joined CGI in 2006, when dues were $15,000, and also was a member in 2007 and in 2008, when membership dues rose to $20,000. As part of its commitment to CGI, Merck sponsors public health initiatives around the world, Rose said. Merck joined CGI on its own initiative, she said.
Sen. Clinton wrote a November 2005 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt urging approval of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Merck applied in December 2005 for approval of its HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and the vaccine was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26. Merck is still seeking approval for use in older women, Rose said.
Rose said Merck's participation in the Clinton Global Initiative was unrelated to Sen. Clinton's letter. Merck didn't communicate with Clinton or her office about its HPV vaccine and was unaware of her letter before it was sent, Rose said.
Another letter involved an issue important to Barr Laboratories. Sens. Clinton and Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote to Leavitt in August 2005 urging that "science, not politics" guide the agency and "that a decision be brought swiftly on Plan B's application." Leavitt's office described the Clinton letter as pertaining to Barr's application for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive also called the morning-after pill.

Barr Laboratories gave $10,001 to $25,000 to the Clinton foundation, the charity's donor list shows. Barr joined the Clinton Global Initiative in April 2007, spokeswoman Carol Cox said. Cox didn't comment on Clinton's letter.
Several of the letters involve issues directly affecting KeySpan Corp., the energy company now known as National Grid. KeySpan didn't ask the senator to intervene and had no communication with her office about its later donations to the Clinton foundation, said company spokesman Chris Mostyn.
KeySpan joined the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007 because it wanted to become involved in the climate change issue, Mostyn said. KeySpan paid $15,000 for its membership in 2007 and $20,000 for 2008, Mostyn said.
Clinton joined several other members of Congress from New York in February 2003 asking the Commerce Department to consider an appeal by Islander East, a limited liability company formed by subsidiaries of KeySpan Energy and another company, to build a natural gas pipeline to serve Connecticut, New York City and Long Island, N.Y.
Clinton and the other lawmakers wanted the Commerce Department to overturn the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's determination that Islander East's pipeline plan was inconsistent with the state's coastal zone management program. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and other Connecticut lawmakers wrote to Commerce urging denial of Islander East's appeal.
Clinton earlier wrote to the Long Island Power Authority and to KeySpan urging them to consider the modernization of KeySpan's New York power plants. Her letter in June 2002 offered her help on the issue. Also in 2002, Clinton wrote the federal government letters on the natural gas Millennium Pipeline Project in which KeySpan was involved, urging an extension of a deadline for public comment and forwarding information on route alternatives.
Mostyn said KeySpan didn't ask Clinton to get involved in the issues. The Millennium Pipeline began commercial operations in December, the Islander East project is on hold due to Connecticut's rejection of permits, and the company is working with the Long Island Power Authority to study power plant modernization, he said.

God help us

Yes, it's anti-Semitism
Boston Globe

Criticizing Israel doesn't make you anti-Semitic. But those who demonize and delegitimize Israel, who say the world would be better off without it, are most definitely anti-Semites.
Jeff Jacoby
January 7, 2009

CRITICIZING Israel doesn't make you anti-Semitic: If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times. Yet somehow that message doesn't seem to have reached the hundreds of anti-Israel demonstrators in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who turned out last week to protest Israel's military operation in Gaza. As their signs and chants made clear, it isn't only the Jewish state's policies they oppose. Their animus goes further.

Demonstrators chanted "Nuke, nuke Israel!" and carried placards accusing Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and bearing such messages as: "Did Israel take notes during the Holocaust? Happy Hanukkah." To the dozen or so supporters of Israel gathered across the street, one demonstrator shouted: "Murderers! Go back to the ovens! You need a big oven."
The Arab-Israeli conflict induces strong passions, and the line that separates legitimate disapproval of Israel from anti-Semitism may not always be obvious. But its's safe to assume the line has been crossed when you hear someone urging Jews "back to the ovens."
The Danish website Snaphanen posted a photo the other day of a pamphlet being distributed in Copenhagen's City Hall Square. On one side it proclaimed: "Never Peace With Israel!" and "Kill Israel's People!" On the other side: "Kill Jewish people evry where in ther world!" The leaflet's spelling left something to be desired, but its message of genocidal anti-Semitism couldn't have been clearer.
Likewise the message in Amsterdam on Saturday, where the crowd at an anti-Israel rally repeatedly chanted, "Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas." And the message in Belgium, where pro-Hamas demonstrators torched Israeli flags, burned a public menorah, and painted swastikas on Jewish-owned shops.
Only marginally less vile is the message that has been trumpeted at demonstrations from Boston to Los Angeles to Vancouver: "Palestine will be free/ From the river to the sea" - a restatement in rhyme of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped from the map."
Let's say it for the thousand-and-first time: Every negative comment about Israel is not an expression of bigotry. Israel is no more immune to criticism than any other country. But it takes willful blindness not to see that anti-Zionism today - opposition to the existence of Israel, rejection of the idea that the Jewish people are entitled to a state - is merely the old wine of anti-Semitism in its newest bottle.
The hatred of Jews has always been protean, readily revising itself to reflect the idiom of its age. At times, it targeted Jews for their religion, demonizing them as Christ-killers or enemies of the true faith. At other times, Jews have been damned as disloyal fifth columns to be suppressed or expelled, or as a racial malignancy to be physically exterminated.
In our day, Jew-hatred expresses itself overwhelmingly in national terms: It is the Jewish state that the haters are obsessed with. "What anti-Semitism once did to Jews as people, it now does to Jews as a people," the British commentator Melanie Phillips has written. "First it wanted the Jewish religion, and then the Jews themselves, to disappear; now it wants the Jewish state to disappear."
The claim that anti-Zionism isn't bigotry would be preposterous in any other context. Imagine someone vehemently asserting that Ireland has no right to exist, that Irish nationalism is racism, and that those who murder Irishmen are actually victims deserving the world's sympathy. Who would take his fulminations for anything but anti-Irish bigotry? Or believe him if he said that he harbors no prejudice against the Irish?
By the same token, those who demonize and delegitimize Israel, who say the world would be better off without it, who hold it to standards of perfection no other country is held to, who extol or commiserate with its mortal enemies, who liken it to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, who make it the scapegoat not only for crimes it hasn't committed, but for those of which it is a victim - yes, such people are anti-Semitic, whether they acknowledge it or not.
Criticize Israel? Certainly. But those who so loudly denounce Israel in its war against Hamas are siding with some of the world's most virulent Jew-haters on earth. They may tell themselves that that doesn't make them anti-Semites. But it does. "When people criticize Zionists," Martin Luther King said in 1968, "they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism."