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

[Auld Phart]

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

The former president was also flown from Dallas to Houston by private jet and provided accommodation, which added $70,000 to Helping A Hero's bill, the charity told ABC News.

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

OK


I read more



Did you read this sentence?
Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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

 

[nuhuh]

The former president was also flown from Dallas to Houston by private jet and provided accommodation, which added $70,000 to Helping A Hero's bill, the charity told ABC News.

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

OK


I read more



Did you read this sentence?
Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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."

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."

 

[bodecea]

The former president was also flown from Dallas to Houston by private jet and provided accommodation, which added $70,000 to Helping A Hero's bill, the charity told ABC News.

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

OK


I read more



Did you read this sentence?
Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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

Um...are you aware what you linked to?

 

[Auld Phart]

We do not. That is a lie. And many of us liberals ARE soldiers and sailors. You served when? What service?

I served YOU in this liberal circle jerk thread.
In service of putting shit into perspective.

So...you are not a vet and yet you show your disdain for vets. Yes, we know that's the true position of RWrs like yourself. Thank you for clearly confirming it.

And as far as general statements goes --- wave bye-bye to that tired old meme that "conservatives give more to charity" ---- after they get paid for doing so it would appear.

Ethics -- a lost art.

Unlike the Clinton, who take speaking fees from one charity and give it to another? (Their own)

That is also a shame....share a link with us, please.

Hillary Clinton s shameful charge to a children s charity New York Post

 

[Pogo]

And before the partisan bullshit starts, I also lambasted Hillary for this.

Why would you demand any payment for speaking at a fund raiser? Okay, if you have transportation costs I don't find it unreasonable to ask to have them covered, but that's it, and in Bush's case, he's a multi-millionaire so big fucking deal if he has to spend a couple thousand getting there. Consider the cost his donation. After all, how many of these veterans now need this charity because of the war he sent them into?

George Bush charged 100k to be at event for veterans wounded in the Iraq war Daily Mail Online

They all do it and it is wrong. Difference is W isn't running.

"Running" is irrelevant. The difference is, he's the reason they're injured in the first place.

That's like me burning your house down and you've got no place to live, so the town gets a charity event together and I offer to show up there --- for a substantial fee. It adds insult to injury.

As the article illustrates:

'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.
​

Also further down the page, this is interesting:

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

Retard, the terrorist scum who attacked us are responsible. Retarded commie.

And what did they have to do with Iraq, cretinous sludge?

If you knew anything, more than you think. We went into Iraq because Saddam repeatedly violated UN sanctions. And the majority of dimwits including her itchiness Hillary voted to go also. Retarded lib shit for brains.

Apparently you don't read too good.

So we'll toss the same question out yet again and expect different results:
What in the wide world of FUCK does that have to do with "the terrorist scum who attacked us"?

That's your own phrase you're trying to back away from. See if you can figure out a way out, now that you painted yourself into a corner.

Dumbass.

 

[Auld Phart]

OK


I read more



Did you read this sentence?
Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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."

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?

 

[nuhuh]

The former president was also flown from Dallas to Houston by private jet and provided accommodation, which added $70,000 to Helping A Hero's bill, the charity told ABC News.

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

OK


I read more



Did you read this sentence?
Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

OK


I read more



Did you read this sentence?
Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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

Um...are you aware what you linked to?

Yes. I am.

Did you read far enough down to see my point?


Or do you have problems reading as well as thinking?

 

[nuhuh]

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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."

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.

 

[Pogo]

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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."

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 matter ---- you don't charge for your presence when it's a benefit event.

 

[Auld Phart]

OK


I read more



Did you read this sentence?
Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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.

OK


I read more



Did you read this sentence?
Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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?

 

[nuhuh]

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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.

It means they would have made substantially more if Bush had not prospered from bloody hands.

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

 

[Pogo]

 

[tinydancer]

The charity themselves are thrilled with the outcome of the fundraiser. Bush's attendance helped them rake in a huge amount of money.

"In a comment emailed to Daily Mail Online, Helping A Hero spokesman Robert Clark said: 'We are proud that President Bush attended the Helping a Hero Gala.

The event raised significant funds that are putting our nation's heroes into specially adapted homes throughout the United States. His presence was appreciated by the veterans and supporters of the organization.'

The charity's lawyer Christopher Tritico seconded that Bush's presence at the event was likely a factor in boosting their revenue for that year.

Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000."

George Bush charged 100k to be at event for veterans wounded in the Iraq war Daily Mail Online

 

[tinydancer]

So does this mean all you left wing loons aren't going to vote for George W in the upcoming election?

 

[Pogo]

The charity themselves are thrilled with the outcome of the fundraiser. Bush's attendance helped them rake in a huge amount of money.

"In a comment emailed to Daily Mail Online, Helping A Hero spokesman Robert Clark said: 'We are proud that President Bush attended the Helping a Hero Gala.

The event raised significant funds that are putting our nation's heroes into specially adapted homes throughout the United States. His presence was appreciated by the veterans and supporters of the organization.'

The charity's lawyer Christopher Tritico seconded that Bush's presence at the event was likely a factor in boosting their revenue for that year.

Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000."

George Bush charged 100k to be at event for veterans wounded in the Iraq war Daily Mail Online

And whatever the figure is they would have made $100,000 more without Bush taking a cut, turning a profit from a war he started.

Which is to say, without his starting that war, he doesn't have wounded vets to profit from.

Which is puke-all disgusting.

 

[tinydancer]

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."

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.

 

[nuhuh]

So does this mean all you left wing loons aren't going to vote for George W in the upcoming election?

Real funny. I bet his fee would have put legs on these soldiers.

 

[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."

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 matter ---- you don't charge for your presence when it's a benefit event.

Well, WHEN that happens, it will be a new trend in Washington.

Bush's do it, Clintons do it, I have little doubt Carter and Nixon did it.

and when he leaves the WH, I have no doubt Obama will do it.

 

[tinydancer]

The charity themselves are thrilled with the outcome of the fundraiser. Bush's attendance helped them rake in a huge amount of money.

"In a comment emailed to Daily Mail Online, Helping A Hero spokesman Robert Clark said: 'We are proud that President Bush attended the Helping a Hero Gala.

The event raised significant funds that are putting our nation's heroes into specially adapted homes throughout the United States. His presence was appreciated by the veterans and supporters of the organization.'

The charity's lawyer Christopher Tritico seconded that Bush's presence at the event was likely a factor in boosting their revenue for that year.

Their IRS form shows the charity raised $2,450,000 after expenses. In 2013, they made $1,000,000."

George Bush charged 100k to be at event for veterans wounded in the Iraq war Daily Mail Online

And whatever the figure is they would have made $100,000 more without Bush taking a cut, turning a profit from a war he started.

Which is to say, without his starting that war, he doesn't have wounded vets to profit from.

Which is puke-all disgusting.

So you continue to hate and loathe him. And in other news.....