This you tube video is Hillary's recent ad concerning the loss of Magnequench. In it she clearly blames Bush. Problem is it was her husband and by extension, or her proclaimed experience, herself who did this 1995-1999 while Bill was President. This was supposed to hit Indiana papers this weekend according to Howard Fineman. but so far its not been seen in any paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVg-ppACmD8http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/28/12049/2577Clinton is airing this advertisement in Indiana, bemoaning the closure of a defense contractor Magnequench's manufacturing plant in Valparaiso (she is also echoing this line in her stump speeches). Looking at the camera, she tells us she's upset that the 200 jobs that were sent to China, and that "now America's defense relies on Chinese spare parts." And then comes the kicker: She tells viewers that "George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't."
Clinton is certainly right that it is a tragedy that 200 American jobs were killed in a corporate deal that also exported sensitive military technology to China. But she forgets to mention that it wasn't George Bush who was in the key position to stop it - it was Bill Clinton.
Back in 1995, a Chinese consortium, which included two Chinese state-owned companies, made a bid to take over Magnequench. Because the company makes key parts for smart bombs, the takeover had to be approved by the Clinton administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Despite the national security and economic problems with selling off such critical manufacturing capacity to the Chinese - and despite the knowledge that such a deal would likely end in a domestic mass layoff - the Clinton administration approved the deal. This same deal - not surprisingly - paved the way for those 200 Indiana jobs and that sensitive military technology to be shipped to China.
The Clinton administration's move was not surprising. This was an administration whose NAFTA and China PNTR record more than proved it was intent on helping Big Money interests face as little resistance to international financial transactions as possible - consequences be damned. But the move was very controversial, raising the ire of key Hillary Clinton surrogate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN). As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2005, "Bayh was particularly disturbed by the committee's decision in 1995 to approve a Chinese consortium's takeover of Magnequench Inc." In 2006, Bayh specifically slammed the Clinton administration's approval of the deal to the South Bend Tribune, saying "It's not smart to put ourselves in the position of relying on the Chinese for a critical component of a vital weapon system, and yet that is what the CFIUS process has allowed."
Unfortunately, as he has campaigned around Indiana with Hillary Clinton listening to her decry the Magenquench fiasco, Bayh has suddenly gone silent on the matter. Apparently, the power-worshiping pursuit of the vice presidency is enough to silence a senator whose constituents were so brazenly sold out and who had previously feigned outrage at the situation.
Luckily, at least some Hoosiers have not forgotten. Here's just one recent letter to the editor - this one from the Merrillville Post-Tribune on 4/17/08:
Hillary Clinton must have been hoping we Hoosiers have short memories when she decided to take Magnequench as her main talking point in Valparaiso. Apparently Evan Bayh didn't tell her the company was sold in 1995 to an investment group, Sextant, that included two Chinese companies. Her husband was president at the time and allowed this to happen.
In 1995, Beijing San Huan New Material High-Tech Inc. and China National Non-Ferrous Metals Import & Export Corp. partnered with an investment firm, the Sextant Group Inc., to acquire Magnequench.
The sale required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. That committee is chaired by the secretary of the treasury. It was approved by the committee even though it was known that China National Non-Ferrous Metals is run under the State Council, an arm of the Chinese government.
That same year, it was found by the U.S. International Trade Commission that the San Huan New Materials was associated with the Chinese government and was engaged in illegal practices that harmed domestic industry.
The Clinton White House had one more chance in 1999 to stop the move when the Anderson, Ind., plant shut down and started shipping the equipment to China, but it failed to act. Can we really trust a Clinton not to let our jobs and national security go overseas?
Ed Dixon, Valparaiso
Certainly, some will attempt to argue that Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton and therefore she is perfectly justified in criticizing what happened in Valparaiso. But that strained logic crashes into two walls of truth.
First and foremost, Clinton has been citing her experience as a top economic and national security adviser in the Clinton administration as proof she's the most experienced candidate running. Either you take her at her world and you believe her experience in the administration was very real and very serious, or she's the most inexperienced person ever to make a major bid for president of the United States. I, for one, take her at her word about her experience - and that means it is perfectly appropriate - nay, essential - to ask her to answer for major decisions like the Clinton administration's approval of a deal shipping sensitive military technology to the Chinese and eliminating critical jobs in an economically hard-hit part of the heartland. And let's not forget - Hillary Clinton was an outspoken supporter of the China PNTR deal that helped smooth these kinds of deals for the long-haul.
Blaming Bush, when you know you and your husband were to blame for this is common to the Clintons. They did this years prior with WTI, a toxic waste incinerator they had at first said they would never let happen until Jackson Stephens involvement became known to them,he saved their broke campaign.
Toxic-waste incinerator in the backyard: White House and church steer clear in Ohio. (East Liverpool, Ohio)(includes related article)
From: National Catholic Reporter | Date: 2/18/1994 | Author: Jones, Arthur
National Catholic Reporter
* Print
* Digg
* del.icio.us
EAST LIVERPOOL, Ohio - Four year-old Alex Estell has one of the world's largest toxic-waste incinerators at the bottom of his garden. Its smokestack is about 600 feet from his bedroom window.
The incinerator is down on the Ohio River bank flood plain; the house is on a bluff overlooking it. Standing in his back yard, little Alex is eye-level with the 150-foot stack's 60-foot mark.
Von Roll USA Inc., the Swiss owner of the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) incinerator, has permits to annually pump 7,400 pounds of lead, dioxin and other hazardous materials into the air.
Scientists have deplored the serious health risks, and Alex's parents, Bob and Sandy Estell, along with thousands of other families and 20,000 petitioners in the tristate (Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia) area want it closed long before it reaches full capacity.
As a result, Alex's back yard has become what Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University (see accompanying story), calls "the central battleground for the toxic-waste incinerator permitting process."
"There is roughly a half-billion dollars on that Ohio River bank, and a great many companies and individuals have a financial interest in that incinerator going into full operation," Turley said. "Those people are willing to spend a lot of money and spill a great deal of political blood to keep the citizens from succeeding."
The hazardous-waste industry and its allies see East Liverpool and WTI as a battleground, too. They accuse environmental group Greenpeace, consumer activist Ralph Nader and Lois Gibbs of the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste of using the anti-WTI campaign as a fund-raiser.
A recent Waste Technologies news release states that its opponents "are running on empty, financially speaking, so they are trying to get money flowing their way."
Turley's affections are with WTI opponents in East Liverpool.
Turley, who founded the Environmental Crimes Project, based in Washington, said, "The WTI case reveals something of a noble lie in our country. Citizens are assured that the federal government will require careful permitting and operation of hazardous-waste facilities, are encouraged to participate in reviews
promised that affected communities will have a voice in decisions .
"What the WTI families did not realize was that you could prove your case, organize your community and convince your national leaders and still lose in the byzantine regulatory system. The Beltway's lawyers and lobbyists are paid to reverse such decisions in local communities.
"Ironically, the more public the outcry, the more the lobbyists and lawyers can charge to rescue investors and operators from the public whim. WTI has made a great number of people wealthy at the expense of the community of East Liverpool."
There are two questions: Is the WTI incinerator dangerous to public health? Is it, because of multiple transfers of ownership and the like, illegal?
Dangerous? In March 1993 just before the trial burn at which emissions would be measured, Federal District Court Judge Ann Aldrich, in a suit brought by Greenpeace, ordered the test burn halted on the basis that it would risk increased cancer deaths and "clearly may cause imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment." The 6th Court of Appeals reversed the decision on grounds of juristiction, not on Aldrich's risk findings.
Dangerous? WTI's operators say no: "The plant employs extensive emissions controls and monitoring systems that are setting the standard for the country."
Even so, in July 1992 in Weirton, W.Va., vice presidential candidate Al Gore told WTI protesters that a Clinton White House would mean a presidency "on your side for a change, instead of on the side of the garbage generators."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In December 1992, the incoming administration reaffirmed its safety-first decision to block the WTI incinerator. Those promises turned out to be clouds of political emissions, smoke quickly blown away when Clinton and Gore apparently discovered that an original financier for WTI was Jackson Stephens, an Arkansas investment banker. It was Stephens who, at the last minute, provided the rapidly emptying coffers of Clinton's presidential campaign with a $3.5 million line of credit.
The White House referred NCR to Vice President Gore's office and to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding WTI and the timing of Clinton's discovery that Stephens was involved. By press time, Gore's office had not responded to faxed questions or phone calls.
Clinton washed his hands of WTI by dumping responsibility for the WTI decision back on President Bush. Then, as Clinton and Gore looked the other way, the company received permission for the trial burn.
The Environmental Protection Agency appointee responsible for public liaison on WTI was Deputy Administrator Robert Sussman, a Clinton law school classmate and former legal counsel to the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Sussman's role is an indication "that the process is so corrupt," said EPA whistle-blower and engineer Hugh Kaufman, that he petitioned Attorney General Janet Reno to open a criminal investigation. No action was taken. WTI's incinerator is now in "limited commercial" operation, said Bill Omohundro, spokesperson for the EPA in Chicago. The final phase of a WTI health-risk assessment study will probably be made known by August or September, he said.
"The reason WTI is still operating has more to do with its political than its legal foundations," Turley said. "If we cannot stop a WTI incinerator, with all its blatant illegalities, it is doubtful that we would be able to challenge any incinerator."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WTI counsel Charles Waterman III of Columbus told NCR that there are "Hazardous Waste Facility Board proceedings in Ohio to transfer the permit that WTI initiated - an ownership change." Meanwhile, Greenpeace has appealed the Nov. 19 dismissal of its case against WTI and, Waterman said, his firm is waiting to see whether the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will reconsider its decision.
Whatever happens in the legal realm, by the time Alex is 14, toxic emissions laden with tons of lead, dioxin and more could have descended on him, his two brothers, Matthew and Ryan, two sisters, Elizabeth and Sierra, on the other kids who live on Etruria Street and on the 400 pupils in East Elementary School across the road from Alex's house.
And it does descend, said Alex's parents. Because the smokestack is below the tops of the surrounding hills, for most of the year there is a classic inversion - the smoke goes down instead of up.
That is dangerous for several reasons, said Bob Estell, not least because estimates by the EPA measure the "safety" of the emissions as if the smoke were being dispersed over a 50-mile radius.
In a June 24, 1993, letter to Clinton, experts in the fields of public health, toxicology, environmental health and medicine said "the facility is located in a flood plain on the banks of the Ohio River - source of drinking water for millions downstream - in a valley with frequent air inversions that can concentrate airborne pollutants."
This is Catholic territory, the Youngstown diocese. Youngstown Bishop, James Malone in November gave congressional testimony against environmental racism (NCR, Jan. 14) and for years fought "big steel" over Youngstown closures. East Liverpool's 500 African American live in the immediate vicinity of the WTI incinerator.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-14878916.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
