There is a obvious concern this week over the selection of the newest member of the board of directors for Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer: Vice President Joe Biden’s youngest son, Hunter Biden. Despite a strong resume, it seems rather coincidental that Ukraine is receiving aid from the United States and recently had a visit from Vice President Joe Biden only to decide that his youngest son was the very best person to sit on its board.
Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Burisma’s legal unit and will “provide support” among international organizations. The White House spokesman would only say that “Hunter Biden and other members of the family are obviously private citizens and where they work is not an endorsement by the president or vice president.”
Reporters were referred to Biden’s law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, which declined to coment.
Alan Apter, the chairman of the company’s board of directors, said it views the selection as part of its effort to “introduc[e] best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals.” Those “best corporate practices” are hardly the best ethical practices if the company is hiring the children of high ranking officials to curry favor. This is particularly a concern in Ukraine which, as we discussed earlier, leads Europe as one of its most corrupt nations where the family members of powerful politicians are routinely showered with gifts and positions.
Like many spouses and children of our politicians, Hunter Biden made a fortune as a lobbyist in Washington. That common path for children continues to raise troubling questions of influence peddling and corruption for our leaders as discussed in this earlier column. The company recently added Devon Archer, a wealthy investor and Democratic campaign bundler. Archer previously declared how his business deals at Rosemont Seneca rely on a “relationship network creat[ing] opportunities for our portfolio companies which then compound to greater outcomes for all parties.” That “relationship network” is precisely what many have objected to in the hiring of family members tied to our leaders — allowing companies to give millions legally to families of Democratic and Republican leaders.
In addition to his position as counsel with the firm, Biden is a co-founder and a managing partner of investment advisory company Rosemont Seneca Partners and serves as director of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a network of 400 businesses. He is also the chairman of the advisory board for the National Democratic Institute, a non-profit that works to support democratic institutions and elections around the world. Even with this experience, I am rather skeptical. First, his selection as counsel to Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP, seems designed to create a tie to his father and the Administration. He was was chief executive officer, and later chairman, of hedge fund PARADIGM Global Advisors – an association that he co-founded with convicted financier Allen Stanford. He was later appointed by Bill Clinton to serve in the United States Department of Commerce under Secretaries Norman Mineta and William M. Daley. He was then nominated by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of Amtrak. It is a resume that many would envy but also one that reflects the type of opportunities that are often afforded children of our ruling elite.
Of course, the selection of a Bush for such a position in the prior administration would have had Democrats and liberals in an uproar but they are again largely silent in the face of another deal benefitting one of our ruling elite. Obviously, Hunter Biden is an adult and does not need the approval of his father to accept a position, though his father has had an obvious impact on his past opportunities. It is simply worth noting that while we rightfully criticize the Chinese for the “Red Nobility,” we have a long list of children and spouses receiving millions in cushy deals and positions in this country. However, in the blue state/red state politics fosters by both parties, such issues are quickly brushed aside by those arguing again that the other side is worse or that such ethical questions are merely an effort to smear their side.
Scott,
It’s not in his programmed talking points, so he has no clue what’s going on. He hasn’t read the brothers dulles so he really has no understanding of the roles we have played toppling government. It’s a well known philophsy, “Hear no evil, See no evil, Speak no evil” except here the first is the only one Paul and his ilk follow.
Good point, randyjet. I understand. But I always hope that those reading this with an open mind will see where the mendacity lies.
Supak – Just HO HUM to you.
Schulte
“Supak – so?”
So what?
Where’s your list of Democratic chicken hawks?
“Supak – as Annie would say HO HUM”
Ho hum that you can’t answer Mr. Keebler’s interesting list of questions?
Or ho hum that you can’t get a list of Democratic chicken hawks?
“I cause a car accident. People are injured. I don’t condon my causing the accident, but the injured are my moral and ethical responsibility as long as I am physically able.”
And this is your argument that Carter caused the Iranian revolution? You don’t condone overthrowing the Shah, but Carter had a responsibility to clean up Ike’s accident?
“Mistyped on the North Vietnam”
I know. I even corrected it for you.
” China has continued to back them, while trying to contain them from their worst excesses.”
And this is you defending, or critiquing Carter?
“problems with the SAVAK were well known in the United States and they did nothing or little to try to get the Shah to reign them in. That includes Carter.”
Ugh… the point is that NO ONE would have had to “reign them in” if we hadn’t overthrown their democratically elected government and installed a hated despot in the first place.
Again, a matter of degree. Which is worse, doing a bad job cleaning up someone’s mess, or creating this mess in the first place?
Funny how that applies to the mess Bush left behind as well.
Mr Keebler asks a series of very good questions and all Schulte has to come back with is:
“is castro a person or a country??”
Honestly. What would you say to someone who avoided your points and just criticized your typos?
Scott, I simply cannot take such people seriously as thinking rational people. Thus it is pointless to respond to such types for a number of reasons. I like to contest with conservatives or those who oppose my views here since most are intelligent, rational, and respond appropriately which make my views change or sharpen. That is the reason I post here since it is enjoyable to see others views. But when one is so loutish and unable to respond in any meaningful way, I do not do so since it makes as much sense as debating with a chair.
Supak – so?
Schulte
“mitt is not my savior.”
And you’re not his. But if I understand his religion correctly, if you live a good life and get posthumously converted to it, you get to go be the savior of another planet.
“I voted for Mickey Mouse in the last two Presidential elections.”
That explains a lot. But I bet you voted for Bush in the two before that. You know, the guy who ran and hid from the war he supported in Vietnam?
Schulte
“Supak – Bush did serve”
NOt in Vietnam he didn’t. A war he supported, which, by your definition means he’s a chicken hawk.
“he was not God’s gift”
I wonder what you were saying in early 2003 about him? About people like me?
Hippie punching is so messy.
Clinton opposed the war he dodged.
“I must thank you for the genetic fallacy thing though. I think you misinterpret it”
And you’d be wrong. Look it up. I recommend Wikipedia.
“but I will be happy to use it as a weapon”
And yet I don’t see you digging up examples of Mr. Hightwoer being wrong.
“Because of the selection of ‘chickenhawks’ and the people left off the list”
WHAT PEOPLE? I allowed for an expanded definition of Chicken hawk so that you could put Bill and Hillary on the list. Let’s see your list of other Democrats who should, in your opinion, should be on it.
“I knew the game was rigged.”
Prove it. List the people you think should be on there.
By the way, if you click through to Coulter, you’ll see the argument for why she’s on there… “Anyone with her level of bellicosity is begging to be held to a higher standard”
Now, where’s your list of Democratic chicken hawks?
Supak – as Annie would say HO HUM
Schulte
“I am well aware of the CIA’s supposed involvement”
Supposed?
“I do not condone that. However, once putting him there, I think we have to take responsibility for him.”
Isn’t that, like, condoning the coup that put him there?
“China is propping up Kim in North Viet Nam”
I thought there was only one Vietnam now, and I don’t think China is propping up anyone named Kim there. In fact, China and Vietnam are having some major disagreements.
I don’t see how China’s relationship with North Korea’s dictator has anything to do with the Shah. China didn’t instigate and carry out a coup that removed the democratically elected leader of North Korea and replaced him with a despised despot.
And the point here is that to blame Carter for the Iranian revolution only shows how little you understand about blow back.
Supak – let me give you an analogy. I cause a car accident. People are injured. I don’t condon my causing the accident, but the injured are my moral and ethical responsibility as long as I am physically able.
Mistyped on the North Vietnam, my bad. However, China put and supported and propped up the Kim’s in North Korea. Although they border on the insane, or actually be insane, China has continued to back them, while trying to contain them from their worst excesses.
I understand blowback well. I also know that the problems with the SAVAK were well known in the United States and they did nothing or little to try to get the Shah to reign them in. That includes Carter.
Paul,
“Sixty years later, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency admitted that it staged the coup which toppled the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, replacing him with the more pliable Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/cia-admits-iran-1953-coup-revelations-unlikely-thaw-us-tehran-relations-1390867
Here’s a whole mess of articles, take your pick:
https://www.google.ro/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=iran+cia+shah+admission&btnG=&gbv=1&sei=hVN2U8j9HIfjO-bVgIAC
I thought you read lots of news, ya know like hundreds of blogs, seven/eight hours a day, multiple news sources.
Stultus – Thanks!!! During the period this came out I was having some serious medical difficulties and keeping up with the news was not my highest priority. Appreciate these.
Where did your savior Mitt serve? In France and didn’t he like kill two people while driving drunk? Oh wasn’t he a missonary in France, a Morman, but only part time as he was a drinker?
keebler – mitt is not my savior. I voted for Mickey Mouse in the last two Presidential elections.
Not so easy Shulte, the book, The Brothers Dulles is an exception read on our meddling and toppling various governments. Why do you think Castro closed its borders to Americans? Why do you think Chavez wanted total control. It seems that we have undermined a number if S. America governments. So you tell me?
keebler – is castro a person or a country??
Paul,
“I am well aware of the CIA’s supposed involvement of putting the Shah on the throne.”
Supposed?
stultus – did the CIA take credit for putting the Shah on the throne? I was not aware they had come clean yet. There is stuff from WWII that has not been released yet.
Schulte
“Supak – once we start adding women there are no end of women Democrats we can add.”
Go ahead. And I’ll add many more GOP women, and the incredible ratio of GOP chicken hawks to Republicans will be maintained.
“Supak – if you think Jim Hightower is a genetic fallacy”
I think Jim Hightower is a good man. I know that genetic fallacy is attacking the source while ignoring the point.
“then every claim you make about a conservative site or speaker is a genetic fallacy. ”
Wrong again. I try to attack the points and not just the source. But it is not the genetic fallacy to point out how wrong a certain source has been in the past. While it does not prove the wrongness of the point, if can lead one to doubt it more.
But by all means, if you have proof of Mr. Hightower’s wrongness, let’s see it.
When I criticize a source like Big Dead Breitbart, or Fox News, it’s because I can produce long lists of stuff they’ve been wrong, or outright lied, about.
In my world, I like to listen more to people who’ve been more consistently right, and less to those who’ve been consistently wrong.
Stultus – I am well aware of the CIA’s supposed involvement of putting the Shah on the throne. I do not condone that. However, once putting him there, I think we have to take responsibility for him. For example, China is propping up Kim in North Viet Nam. They really cannot control him, but they can at least try to contain him. It is not in their best interests to overthrow him though.
Schulte, still shilling for his boy W…
“not a chickenhawk.”
This after I showed you that, based on the actual definition of Chickenhawk that you copied and pasted from Wikipedia without citing it, GW Bush shirked his duty to go where the fighting is, and instead got his Daddy’s friends to sign him up for a weekend flight camp where he occasionally showed up.
And you call that “serving.” I call it nepotism.
How disingenuously patriotic.
Did you serve, Schulte?
Supak – Bush did serve, he was not God’s gift, but he was reportedly a good pilot, which came from military training. He got an honorable discharge. Clinton, got a Fulbright scholarship, ran to England, didn’t show for classes, may or may not have participated in anti-war events and very carefully did everything he could to stay out of the military.
I must thank you for the genetic fallacy thing though. I think you misinterpret it, but I will be happy to use it as a weapon. It is one more arrow in my quiver, but I will give you credit as is your due.
Because of the selection of ‘chickenhawks’ and the people left off the list I can tell that Hightower is not playing the game fairly. Once I saw Coulter’s name and no female Democrats, I knew the game was rigged. You can continue to believe in him if you like, but he is intellectually dishonest in this case.
Supak – once we start adding women there are no end of women Democrats we can add.
OK, Schulte, let’s say for the sake of argument we expand the definition of chickenhawk from the actual definition you copied and pasted from Wikipedia without citing it.
With that new, questionable, expanded definition (the argument here is that Ann Coulter is much more STRONGLY inclined to call for military force than Hillary is), you have now added Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton to your list of Democratic chicken hawks.
Is that it?
Paul,
Just a few more details on Iran/Mossadegh/Mohammad Reza Shah:
Britain held a monopoly on Iranian oil since 1901 through a corporation called the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company whose contract, “with a corrupt monarch, required it to pay Iran just 16 percent of the money it earned from selling the country’s oil.”[1] The payment of royalties to Iran was so meager that, “Anglo-Iranian made more profit in 1950 alone than it had paid Iran in royalties over the previous half century.”[2]
Mossadegh was elected as Prime Minister in 1951, and, “he was determined to expel the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, nationalize the oil industry, and use the money it generated to develop Iran,” and the Iranian Parliament agreed as it, “voted unanimously to nationalize the oil industry.”[3]
Naturally, the British could not allow such a large source of wealth that was, “of vital importance to [their] economy” to be controlled by anyone else, and so they refused an offer of a fifty-fifty split and decided to stage a coup.[4] The coup failed, along with many other strategies for destabilizing Mossadegh, and all British embassy personnel were expelled from the country.
The British government appealed to the chief of CIA operations in the Middle East, Kermit Roosevelt, for assistance and future Secretary of State John Dulles saw this as an opportunity to pursue one of his, “two lifelong obsessions: fighting Communism and protecting the rights of multinational corporations.”[5] Of course a foil was needed, as even Dulles realized that the nationalization of a British oil company in a foreign land, “would not stir the Americans to action.”[6] This foil, of course, would be the claim that Mossadegh had ambitions to turn Iran into a communist state.
Less than a year after the British were expelled from Iran, Mossadegh was under house arrest, (where he would remain for the remainder of his life), and Mohammad Reza Shah re-assumed his role as a monarch. The coup had all the hallmarks of a CIA operation: bribing government officials, hiring of local thugs and criminals to stage protests and violent rebellions, locating and bribing top military officials into making arrests and seize government assets at critical moments, and generally fomenting anarchy and economic disruption.[7]
Under Reza Shah’s control, Iran became a despotic country where hundreds of thousands of people were jailed and tortured by SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, and on November 4, 1979, the blowback from these actions would arrive with gale force strength.
1. Stephen Kinzer, “Overthrow: America’s Century Of Regime Change From Hawaii To Iraq.” Henry Holt and Company, 2006, 117.
2. Ibid. 117-118.
3. Ibid. 118.
4. Ibid. 119.
5. Ibid. 122.
6. Ibid. 121.
7. Ibid. 122-128.
feynman
“Once the John Birch Society is introduced as a source, Fox News almost seems respectable.”
Yeah, and I saw that Schulte asked what’s wrong with the Birch Society…
Well, for starters…
“With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.”–Robert W Welch Jr.
And with regard to common sense…
“How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points . . . so far removed from common sense? That dilemma weighs on conservatives across America. . . . The underlying problem is whether conservatives can continue to acquiesce quietly in a rendition of the causes of the decline of the Republic and the entire Western world which is false, and, besides that, crucially different in practical emphasis from their own.”–William F Buckely
(if you’ve lost Buckely…)
Gold buggery, McCarthyist red baiting, wanting to get rid of OSHA, wanting to withdraw from the UN, Dominionists… and they call us loons.
At least they always want to bring the troops home.
Supak – the Democrats on here think they have evolved on racism, etc. I asked what specifically was the problem with the John Birch Society. I probably should have asked what specifically is wrong with the current John Birch Society. Everything you have listed is from long, long ago.