George W Bush charged a charity $100,000 to guarantee his presence at fundraiser for military vets

[Auld Phart]

Odd, they didn't feel that way.

"The charity, which helps to provide specially-adapted homes for veterans who lost limbs and suffered other severe injuries in “the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the total $170,000 expenditure was justified because the former President and First Lady offered discounted fees and helped raise record amounts in contributions at galas held in 2011 and 2012."

The sourced article takes issue with the fee and says it wasn't discounted for other charges at the same time.

and this one says different.

To Help US Veterans Charity George W. Bush Charged 100 000 - ABC News

Politico is quoted on the ABC source he said it was discounted, Politico says it wasn't.

Odd, they didn't feel that way.

"The charity, which helps to provide specially-adapted homes for veterans who lost limbs and suffered other severe injuries in “the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the total $170,000 expenditure was justified because the former President and First Lady offered discounted fees and helped raise record amounts in contributions at galas held in 2011 and 2012."

The sourced article takes issue with the fee and says it wasn't discounted for other charges at the same time.

and this one says different.

To Help US Veterans Charity George W. Bush Charged 100 000 - ABC News

Politico is quoted on the ABC source he said it was discounted, Politico says it wasn't.

again:

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Politico?

See #118 and #119

I saw them.

Which president, vice president, etc has NOT charged speaking fees, benefit or not?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you knew anything, more than you think. We went into Iraq because Saddam repeatedly violated UN sanctions.

Really? Because I could swear W said it was because he was stock piling WMDs that never existed. And what did his violation of UN sanctions have to do with our national security anyway?

 

[Auld Phart]

Oh didn't they now.

"You sent me to war, I was doing what you told me to do, gladly for you and our country and I have no regrets. But it’s kind of a slap in the face,' raged former Marine Eddie Wright on ABC News.

Wright lost both hands in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004 after being hit by a rocket.​

--- (first thread's OP link)

and the paragraph I linked t?

"The charity, which helps to provide specially-adapted homes for veterans who lost limbs and suffered other severe injuries in “the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the total $170,000 expenditure was justified because the former President and First Lady offered discounted fees and helped raise record amounts in contributions at galas held in 2011 and 2012."

From my original post: “It was great because he reduced his normal fee of $250,000 down to $100,000,” said Meredith Iler, the former chairman of the charity.
However, a recent report by Politico said the former President’s fees typically ranged between $100,000 and $175,000 during those years."

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Pitico?

Doesn't make a bit of difference. From my perspective it's stealing from wounded warriors.

His appearance lead to an almost tripling of donations to the charity.

Brought in 2.5 million. Charity is thrilled.

They don't care about an increase of almost $2 million, he charged them almost 1/10 of that to show up.

 

[nuhuh]

The sourced article takes issue with the fee and says it wasn't discounted for other charges at the same time.

and this one says different.

To Help US Veterans Charity George W. Bush Charged 100 000 - ABC News

Politico is quoted on the ABC source he said it was discounted, Politico says it wasn't.

The sourced article takes issue with the fee and says it wasn't discounted for other charges at the same time.

and this one says different.

To Help US Veterans Charity George W. Bush Charged 100 000 - ABC News

Politico is quoted on the ABC source he said it was discounted, Politico says it wasn't.

again:

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Politico?

See #118 and #119

I saw them.

Which president, vice president, etc has NOT charged speaking fees, benefit or not?

My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech. In all of the blood and grief Bush hand delivered to this country he did not attend the funeral of a single soldier in eight years. He also left the Veterans Administration in a mess. He has no regard for the misery and pain he delivered just that his pockets get filled for his trouble. If you have a point to make about anyone else it is contingent upon you to produce that source so they too may join the ranks of the lowliest Americans. But for now, I have George Bush.

 

[nuhuh]

and the paragraph I linked t?

"The charity, which helps to provide specially-adapted homes for veterans who lost limbs and suffered other severe injuries in “the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the total $170,000 expenditure was justified because the former President and First Lady offered discounted fees and helped raise record amounts in contributions at galas held in 2011 and 2012."

From my original post: “It was great because he reduced his normal fee of $250,000 down to $100,000,” said Meredith Iler, the former chairman of the charity.
However, a recent report by Politico said the former President’s fees typically ranged between $100,000 and $175,000 during those years."

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Pitico?

Doesn't make a bit of difference. From my perspective it's stealing from wounded warriors.

His appearance lead to an almost tripling of donations to the charity.

Brought in 2.5 million. Charity is thrilled.

They don't care about an increase of almost $2 million, he charged them almost 1/10 of that to show up.

And again, you don't get that you don't charge people you send to fight for this country.

 

[Pogo]

 

[Pogo]

and the paragraph I linked t?

"The charity, which helps to provide specially-adapted homes for veterans who lost limbs and suffered other severe injuries in “the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the total $170,000 expenditure was justified because the former President and First Lady offered discounted fees and helped raise record amounts in contributions at galas held in 2011 and 2012."

From my original post: “It was great because he reduced his normal fee of $250,000 down to $100,000,” said Meredith Iler, the former chairman of the charity.
However, a recent report by Politico said the former President’s fees typically ranged between $100,000 and $175,000 during those years."

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Pitico?

Doesn't make a bit of difference. From my perspective it's stealing from wounded warriors.

His appearance lead to an almost tripling of donations to the charity.

Brought in 2.5 million. Charity is thrilled.

They don't care about an increase of almost $2 million, he charged them almost 1/10 of that to show up.

I've never charged anybody a goddam CENT to show up for a benefit.

Although to be fair, I've never been part of a benefit for people wounded because I sent them to a bullshit war. The beneficiaries I've been involved with had nothing to do with me putting them in their situation..

Guess that's the Bush Hypocrisy Difference.

 

[Auld Phart]

and this one says different.

To Help US Veterans Charity George W. Bush Charged 100 000 - ABC News

Politico is quoted on the ABC source he said it was discounted, Politico says it wasn't.

and this one says different.

To Help US Veterans Charity George W. Bush Charged 100 000 - ABC News

Politico is quoted on the ABC source he said it was discounted, Politico says it wasn't.

again:

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Politico?

See #118 and #119

I saw them.

Which president, vice president, etc has NOT charged speaking fees, benefit or not?

My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech. In all of the blood and grief Bush hand delivered to this country he did not attend the funeral of a single soldier in eight years. He also left the Veterans Administration in a mess. He has no regard for the misery and pain he delivered just that his pockets get filled for his trouble. If you have a point to make about anyone else it is contingent upon you to produce that source so they too may join the ranks of the lowliest Americans. But for now, I have George Bush.

"My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech."

and increased their usual take by 10x that.

I've already linked to Hillary charging a children charity twice what they took in, and putting it in her 'Foundation'.

I understand, you have a hard-on for Bush.

Seek help.

 

[bripat9643]

He means a thread was started on the same thing minutes before yours. To him that's "old news", especially since it's news he wishes would go away.

This happened 3 years ago.
Bush raises hundreds of thousands of dollars for wounded vets.

He raised way more money than the fee he charged.

Great excuse! how many prosthetic arms and legs do you think his fees would have bought?

Just quit with the fake outrage. You look ridiculous

Fake outrage? I promise you I am genuinely outraged by this.

I don't think it's true. I think they are using the 100k bike ride where he and wounded vets rode bikes for 100 kilometers and they fudged the story because of the Clinton's speaking fees being in the spot light.

And then someone like you comes along and posts it like it's true.

BINGO!

 

[Auld Phart]

From my original post: “It was great because he reduced his normal fee of $250,000 down to $100,000,” said Meredith Iler, the former chairman of the charity.
However, a recent report by Politico said the former President’s fees typically ranged between $100,000 and $175,000 during those years."

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Pitico?

Doesn't make a bit of difference. From my perspective it's stealing from wounded warriors.

His appearance lead to an almost tripling of donations to the charity.

Brought in 2.5 million. Charity is thrilled.

They don't care about an increase of almost $2 million, he charged them almost 1/10 of that to show up.

I've never charged anybody a goddam CENT to show up for a benefit.

Although to be fair, I've never been part of a benefit for people wounded because I sent them to a bullshit war. The beneficiaries I've been involved with had nothing to do with me putting them in their situation..

Guess that's the Bush Hypocrisy Difference.

Are you a former president, vice president, etc?

Or do you have reading problems too?

 

[Auld Phart]

From my original post: “It was great because he reduced his normal fee of $250,000 down to $100,000,” said Meredith Iler, the former chairman of the charity.
However, a recent report by Politico said the former President’s fees typically ranged between $100,000 and $175,000 during those years."

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Pitico?

Doesn't make a bit of difference. From my perspective it's stealing from wounded warriors.

His appearance lead to an almost tripling of donations to the charity.

Brought in 2.5 million. Charity is thrilled.

They don't care about an increase of almost $2 million, he charged them almost 1/10 of that to show up.

And again, you don't get that you don't charge people you send to fight for this country.

You need to tell the Clintons that, or at least someone does.

 

[Pogo]

Politico is quoted on the ABC source he said it was discounted, Politico says it wasn't.

Politico is quoted on the ABC source he said it was discounted, Politico says it wasn't.

again:

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Politico?

See #118 and #119

I saw them.

Which president, vice president, etc has NOT charged speaking fees, benefit or not?

My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech. In all of the blood and grief Bush hand delivered to this country he did not attend the funeral of a single soldier in eight years. He also left the Veterans Administration in a mess. He has no regard for the misery and pain he delivered just that his pockets get filled for his trouble. If you have a point to make about anyone else it is contingent upon you to produce that source so they too may join the ranks of the lowliest Americans. But for now, I have George Bush.

"My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech."

and increased their usual take by 10x that.

And if his presence helped them do that, they would have seen the same spike WITHOUT his taking a cut of literal blood money. Which means they would have made more.

I've already linked to Hillary charging a children charity twice what they took in, and putting it in her 'Foundation'.

I understand, you have a hard-on for Bush.

Seek help.

We understand, you tried to defend the indefensible, and failed.

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Pitico?

Doesn't make a bit of difference. From my perspective it's stealing from wounded warriors.

His appearance lead to an almost tripling of donations to the charity.

Brought in 2.5 million. Charity is thrilled.

They don't care about an increase of almost $2 million, he charged them almost 1/10 of that to show up.

I've never charged anybody a goddam CENT to show up for a benefit.

Although to be fair, I've never been part of a benefit for people wounded because I sent them to a bullshit war. The beneficiaries I've been involved with had nothing to do with me putting them in their situation..

Guess that's the Bush Hypocrisy Difference.

Are you a former president, vice president, etc?

Or do you have reading problems too?

Nope. What I have is called "ethics".

 

[Auld Phart]

again:

Which one's lying?

The chairman of the charity, or Politico?

See #118 and #119

I saw them.

Which president, vice president, etc has NOT charged speaking fees, benefit or not?

My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech. In all of the blood and grief Bush hand delivered to this country he did not attend the funeral of a single soldier in eight years. He also left the Veterans Administration in a mess. He has no regard for the misery and pain he delivered just that his pockets get filled for his trouble. If you have a point to make about anyone else it is contingent upon you to produce that source so they too may join the ranks of the lowliest Americans. But for now, I have George Bush.

"My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech."

and increased their usual take by 10x that.

And if his presence helped them do that, they would have seen the same spike WITHOUT his taking a cut of literal blood money. Which means they would have made more.

I've already linked to Hillary charging a children charity twice what they took in, and putting it in her 'Foundation'.

I understand, you have a hard-on for Bush.

Seek help.

We understand, you tried to defend the indefensible, and failed.

The former chairman of the charity had no problem with it.


As 'indefensible' when the Clintons do it...

Which doesn't seem to make any impression on people in this thread.

Too much BDS here.

Bash Bush, Cuddle Clintons.

Not worth the effort.

 

[nuhuh]

See #118 and #119

I saw them.

Which president, vice president, etc has NOT charged speaking fees, benefit or not?

My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech. In all of the blood and grief Bush hand delivered to this country he did not attend the funeral of a single soldier in eight years. He also left the Veterans Administration in a mess. He has no regard for the misery and pain he delivered just that his pockets get filled for his trouble. If you have a point to make about anyone else it is contingent upon you to produce that source so they too may join the ranks of the lowliest Americans. But for now, I have George Bush.

"My post is about George W. Bush who took $170,000 from wounded warriors for a short speech."

and increased their usual take by 10x that.

And if his presence helped them do that, they would have seen the same spike WITHOUT his taking a cut of literal blood money. Which means they would have made more.

I've already linked to Hillary charging a children charity twice what they took in, and putting it in her 'Foundation'.

I understand, you have a hard-on for Bush.

Seek help.

We understand, you tried to defend the indefensible, and failed.

The former chairman of the charity had no problem with it.


As 'indefensible' when the Clintons do it...

Which doesn't seem to make any impression on people in this thread.

Too much BDS here.

Bash Bush, Cuddle Clintons.

Not worth the effort.

However, former president Clinton, and his predecessor George H W Bush, both claim they have never charged a charity.

A representative for Bush has yet to respond to Daily Mail Online's request for a comment.


Read more: George Bush charged 100k to be at event for veterans wounded in the Iraq war Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It appears the Clinton's are innocent of your attempted smear and George has clammed up. The only way this goes away is by GWB returning his blood money.

 

[Judicial review]

Jeb Bush is officially finished with this news. No really he is so done. This just nailed his coffin shut. Watch John Kasich now.

 

[nuhuh]

Jeb Bush is officially finished with this news. No really he is so done. This just nailed his coffin shut. Watch John Kasich now.

"Jeb" Bush?

 

[Judicial review]

Jeb Bush is officially finished with this news. No really he is so done. This just nailed his coffin shut. Watch John Kasich now.

"Jeb" Bush?

Yes. This was a political genius move by the libs. The worst thing you can do is link the bush's last name to stealing from vets, period. Now Bush and the iraq war will come up next and he can't overcome his last name or redefine it in 1.5 years. I as a GOP voter was praying for this. Watch Kasich now. Really closely.

 

[Carla_Danger]

KILL HIM, STONE HIM, BEHEAD THE MoFo, ...how dare he UNDERCUT the Clintons!!!!

I'd be satisfied if they threw their shoes at him.

 

[Pogo]

Jeb Bush is officially finished with this news. No really he is so done. This just nailed his coffin shut. Watch John Kasich now.

Wtf ---- Jeb is George's sock? They're the same person?

 

[rdean]

Old news

But you like it, right? Go ahead, be honest. If a right winger is smart enough to bleed some unfortunate of every cent they can, then the unfortunate deserved what they got and as long as the right winger got the money, they "won".