He pulled the plug on the mid-east and of course our federal deficit. So makes sense in a perverted way that he would scalp for a speech to vets.
Members of the Texas-based Helping a Hero charity told ABC News that Bush charged $100,000 for his 2012 speech at a charity fundraiser for veterans who lost limbs in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. The former president was also given use of a private jet at a cost of $20,000 and former First Lady Laura Bush was paid $50,000 to speak to the group last year.
The fees infuriated one of the board members, who told CNN Wednesday that Bush should not have accepted any money.
"The point here is that a leader should not charge to speak on behalf of the men that he sent into combat, at any level, let alone the commander in chief," said Eddie Wright, a Marine who lost both his hands in a 2004 rocket attack in Fallujah, Iraq.
The group's chairwoman told ABC News that Bush reduced his fees from $250,000 to $100,000....
I guess Republicans will defend this saying it raised millions more for the charity, yes, but he would have raised millions without accepting the 100k fee. He didn't need the 100k and it was not contingent on them getting more charity donations.
The really sad part of this whole thing is why we need charities to help take care of our wounded veterans. If the Federal Government took care of our veterans like they do members of Congress, we wouldn't need to have veteran groups like Wounded Warriors to name just one. If there is a problem like money, stop the free healthcare for Congress, eliminate the pensions that they get and reduce their salaries and all the other perks.
-- Modified on 7/9/2015 8:31:51 PM
Obama is sending 40,000 pink slips, he's the current Prez BTW.
Why do all Partisan people sound the same to me?
This is actually a disgrace. No need to charge that group a penny. Yes, for the charity it may have been a wise investment, but he was responsible for sending those men to combat.
The only thing I would hope is that he donated the money to a different charity but you would think the Bush people would have come out and said that already.
Bush has done a very good job of rehabilitating his reputation since he left the WH, but this seems like it's a major step backward.
Ugh...
...by his Grandma Moses-meets-Forrest Gump painting style?
He had numerous chances to rip Obama but has taken the high road, unlike dumbass Jimmy Carter, who has the audacity to take shots at several presidents, including W and Barry, since many consider carter the worst prez ever.
up until this foul up, Bush really only ever spoke publicly about issues and charities that helped the troops and it certainly seems like the presidency humbled him.
His approval rating has risen dramatically since he left the WH.
Not sure about how the paintings fit in...I'll have to look into that. Lol
...Abe Lincoln who (maybe) said:
""Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt."
Too bad Dubya didn't remain more silent while he was President. He removed all doubt of his foolishness during his presidency and his reputation will never be completely rehabilitated as long as people can be reminded of his words.
but my second thought is to condemn Bush for it first, because it's indefensible and then blame Clinton later if and when it's brought to light that either he or she has done the same.
Yeah, there really is no defending this one. Maybe some real "right winger" will twist himself into a pretzel trying to defend this, but not me. I agree that the 100 grand made no difference in his life and he never should have accepted it. A few hours of his life to help the veterans should have been payment enough
you won't hear or see Repubs defend his action......but you will see many try to defend the same thing for Clinton.
He pulled the plug on the mid-east and of course our federal deficit. So makes sense in a perverted way that he would scalp for a speech to vets.