ADVERTISEMENT

Sounds about right.....

Wildcat98

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2001
3,159
109
63
Former President George W. Bush charged $100,000 to speak at a charity fundraiser for U.S. military veterans severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and former First Lady Laura Bush collected $50,000 to appear a year earlier, officials of the Texas-based Helping a Hero charity confirmed to ABC News.


The former President was also provided with a private jet to travel to Houston at a cost of $20,000, the officials said.

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.

“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.

One of the wounded vets who served on the charity’s board told ABC News he was outraged that his former commander in chief would charge any fee to speak on behalf of men and women he ordered into harm's way.

“For him to be paid to raise money for veterans that were wounded in combat under his orders, I don’t think that’s right,” said former Marine Eddie Wright, who lost both hands in a rocket attack in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004.

“You sent me to war,” added Wright speaking of the former President. “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.”
 
Everyone in the country needs to read this.

Why?

Is this news? Is George the only former president getting paid to give speeches?

One could certainly argue it is in poor taste to charge for speaking to wounded veterans, however, if a former president spoke for free, how busy would they be?

I would think there is more pressing issues to address than how much George is charging to give a speech, he hasn't been in power for 6 years.

The money Bill and Hillary have raked in over the years giving speeches should probably be under more scrutiny, as she is actually running for president.

I doubt we will read about that though, the Clintons are as pure as the driven snow. :D
 
Why?

Is this news? Is George the only former president getting paid to give speeches?

One could certainly argue it is in poor taste to charge for speaking to wounded veterans, however, if a former president spoke for free, how busy would they be?

I would think there is more pressing issues to address than how much George is charging to give a speech, he hasn't been in power for 6 years.

The money Bill and Hillary have raked in over the years giving speeches should probably be under more scrutiny, as she is actually running for president.

I doubt we will read about that though, the Clintons are as pure as the driven snow. :D

You can't be this clueless. Re- read the part where the handless veteran gives his opinion
 
It's not about the fees for speaking, but the group he was charging for his speech. Sometimes you amaze me with your logic! Making money off the men and women you ordered into the quagmire of war is a bit much.
 
It's not about the fees for speaking, but the group he was charging for his speech. Sometimes you amaze me with your logic! Making money off the men and women you ordered into the quagmire of war is a bit much.

Did I praise him for doing so? No

Do I agree with him for doing so? No

My point was, why is this news? Why are we spending time worrying about how much a past president charges to give a speech, or if they should charge to give a speech?

We have enough problems going forward in the political arena to worry about has-beens.

Maybe if we worried more about how the country is being run by the current president, or tried to make the best decisions about who is going to be president, we wouldn't have so much time to whine about past presidents.
 
Why?

Is this news? Is George the only former president getting paid to give speeches?

One could certainly argue it is in poor taste to charge for speaking to wounded veterans, however, if a former president spoke for free, how busy would they be?

I would think there is more pressing issues to address than how much George is charging to give a speech, he hasn't been in power for 6 years.

The money Bill and Hillary have raked in over the years giving speeches should probably be under more scrutiny, as she is actually running for president.

I doubt we will read about that though, the Clintons are as pure as the driven snow. :D

AH man, every former President get paid for speeches as well they should, BUT if you create the problem and then charge to raise money for the problem you had a hand in causing just ain't right.

Paula Dean used the "N" word 30+ years ago and it was addressed, so don't think Bush is going to get off easy for his atrocities after 6 years. Get use to it.

Do the Clintons make a lot of money speaking? Yep. Do they lie? Yep. Was Bill Clinton the best President since HST? Yep. You will read about it. Every time they crap the repubs are all over it.

Why don't you stick to the article and tell use what you think about George sending our soldiers off to fight a worthless a$$ war that was suppose to be paid for by Iraqi oil and is now charging speaking fees to raise money for his stupidity. This is what makes you come off as an ignorant person, "One could certainly argue it is in poor taste to charge for speaking to wounded veterans, however, if a former president spoke for free, how busy would they be?"
 
Did I praise him for doing so? No

Do I agree with him for doing so? No

My point was, why is this news? Why are we spending time worrying about how much a past president charges to give a speech, or if they should charge to give a speech?

We have enough problems going forward in the political arena to worry about has-beens.

Maybe if we worried more about how the country is being run by the current president, or tried to make the best decisions about who is going to be president, we wouldn't have so much time to whine about past presidents.

When our men are no longer in harms way over there, only then will we be over Bush's inconsiderate nonsense.
 
Did I praise him for doing so? No

Do I agree with him for doing so? No

My point was, why is this news? Why are we spending time worrying about how much a past president charges to give a speech, or if they should charge to give a speech?

We have enough problems going forward in the political arena to worry about has-beens.

Maybe if we worried more about how the country is being run by the current president, or tried to make the best decisions about who is going to be president, we wouldn't have so much time to whine about past presidents.
Your point was to slam the Clintons.
You are a piece of work AH man. What time is being spent on it? Just your pathetic rant.
 
Your point was to slam the Clintons.
You are a piece of work AH man. What time is being spent on it? Just your pathetic rant.

And your point was to slam Bush, whats the difference?

Oh, I know, Clinton is here and now, wanting to run the country,

Bush is gone
 
And your point was to slam Bush, whats the difference?

Oh, I know, Clinton is here and now, wanting to run the country,

Bush is gone

This isn't a competition. Bush did something insensitive and greedy. Just agree.

If you want to rip Clinton, start a thread. But don't act like what Bush did was fine because of Benghazi?????
 
When our men are no longer in harms way over there, only then will we be over Bush's inconsiderate nonsense.

Bush and the numerous democrats that voted for military action? Funny you never mention them.

Oh, I know, they were lied to. That's it, George pulled the wool over their eyes. Funny how a dumb Texan could pull that off on so many intelligent dems.
 
This isn't a competition. Bush did something insensitive and greedy. Just agree.

If you want to rip Clinton, start a thread. But don't act like what Bush did was fine because of Benghazi?????

I agree, it was insensitive and greedy, never said it wasn't.

Just find it funny that with all the problems of this presidency, people want to complain about the last one. I thought Carter sucked, but I'm not on here all the time running him down.
 
Why?

Is this news? Is George the only former president getting paid to give speeches?

One could certainly argue it is in poor taste to charge for speaking to wounded veterans, however, if a former president spoke for free, how busy would they be?

I would think there is more pressing issues to address than how much George is charging to give a speech, he hasn't been in power for 6 years.

The money Bill and Hillary have raked in over the years giving speeches should probably be under more scrutiny, as she is actually running for president.

I doubt we will read about that though, the Clintons are as pure as the driven snow. :D

Anytime you charge to help wounded Veterans who went to war for you and this country it is a disgrace. I would be just as appalled if it was the Clinton's or any other ex president. Shoot the NFL gets paid to salute our troops!! They get paid millions by the government to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duck_walk
Be like Clinton charging a fee to speak at a dry cleaners convention and talking about how you can get that stain off your dress. Just not right!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Black&Gold82
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT