Clinton's newest attack raises questions she might not want answered

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton may have opened a big can of worms.

Seeking to stay on the offensive against Barack Obama, Clinton attacked him for saying one thing to Americans and another thing to foreigners. Her evidence? Comments about Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan made by Samantha Power (also of Monster-gate), who has now resigned from her unpaid role as an informal adviser to Barack Obama's campaign.

Obviously, Clinton's campaign must be pretty desperate to be attacking the unofficial comments of an informal unpaid adviser (who has now resigned).

But the real story is that her decision to make contacts between campaign advisers and foreign governments an issue could boomerang something fierce.

Here's what Clinton said:

I think it’s important to look at what she and his other advisors say behind closed doors, particularly when they’re talking to foreign governments and foreign press.

Sounds reasonable to me. Just remember that turnabout is fair play, and unless she is a complete hypocrite (always possible) she ought to be more than happy to cooperate in investigations into her own adviser's relationships with foreign governments.

I'll give you just three examples of areas where more needs to be known: her chief strategist Mark Penn's representation of sovereign wealth funds from the United Arab Emirates, her husband's financial ties to the United Arab Emirates, but and also her husband's relationship with Frank Giustra and what that could mean for U.S. relations with Kazakhstan in a third Clinton administration.

(Video of Clinton's attack and Obama's strong response is available here.)

#1: Mark Penn's representation of foreign government sovereign wealth funds in the United Arab Emirates

Sovereign wealth funds -- the enormously wealthy investment funds owned by foreign governments, many of them oil-rich states -- are playing an ever larger role in the U.S. economy. For example, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority recently purchased a 5% stake in Citigroup.

As a sovereign wealth fund, The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is an instrument of a foreign government, Abu Dhabi, an emirate in the United Arab Emirates.

Guess who represents the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority in the United States?

That's right: Burson-Marsteller, the public affairs firm run by Hillary Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn.

Indeed, ADIA isn't the only sovereign wealth fund that Burson represents. There's more, including Dubai Group and Dubai International Capital.

Whether or not it's a bad thing for foreign governments to be buying up important companies in the United States is one question, but you almost certainly don't want the next President of the United States top strategist to be representing them.

This is something the media needs to examine. If there is a firewall between Burson-Marsteller's representation of foreign governments and its CEO Mark Penn, that firewall needs to be examined in the public media. This is something the public has a right to know.

Perhaps there are no conflicts of interest, but we won't know until the media does its job.

There's vetting to be done.

#2: Bill Clintons' ventures in the United Arab Emirates

Were Bill Clinton's ventures in the United Arab Emirates connected with Mark Penn's company, its subsidiaries, or its middle east partners, and if so, does that pose a conflict of interest?

We know that Bill Clinton raised millions from foreign governments and foreign nationals for his library.

The Post confirmed numerous seven-figure donors to the library through interviews and tax records of foundations. Several foreign governments gave at least $1 million, including the Middle Eastern nations of Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the governments of Taiwan and Brunei.

We also know some of his biggest speaking fees have come from foreign entities. This is not unusual -- George H. W. Bush did it as well.

But that doesn't mean there might not be a conflict of interest. It's a question worth asking. We deserve to know.

Look at how it turned out with Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Not so good for America.

::

#3 - Frank Giustra and Kazakhstan

Despite the lengthy New York Times article, there has been little public debate about Bill Clinton's connection to Frank Giustra, the mining magnate who apparently used Bill's influence to get a lucrative mining deal in Kazakhstan.

Bill's relationship with Giustra is so important that last weekend, before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Bill left the campaign trail and flew to Toronto to launch a major initiative with Giustra.

The question is whether Clinton's ongoing relationship with Giustra (and other associates) would present a conflict of interest between Bill Clinton's interests and those of the United States, and if so, whether that influence Hillary Clinton as president.

It's an important question and deserves a thoughtful answer from independent journalists.

::

Conclusion: We just need answers, not more attacks.

As I indicated, a big part of the challenge here is that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have been quite secretive with their finances. They say they will release their tax returns on April 15, which sounds reasonable until you realize they aren't talking about this year's taxes -- they are talking about taxes from 2001, 2002, and so forth.

The truth is we don't know if any of these things pose conflicts of interest, despite their appearances. It may very well turn out to be the case that these are all just innocent business dealings and political maneuvers.

But we deserve to know the truth, and now that Hillary Clinton has stressed the importance of examining these sorts of relationships, they are fair game.

Will journalists will step up to the plate to answer them, or will they continue to coddle Hillary Clinton and sweep them under the rug?

We don't know, but the Obama campaign has every right -- and perhaps even obligation -- to urge the media to do its job.

It's time for some vetting.