ABC Digs Into Clinton Trade Hypocrisy - Clinton Campaign Responds With More Deception
On Monday, I wrote about Hillary Clinton airing an ad decrying the closure of a defense manufacturing factory that her husband, Bill Clinton, helped close by approving the sale of the company to a Chinese state-owned firm. Now, ABC News is running with the story, and uncovers some more ugly details. The Clinton campaign has responded not by fessing up, but by putting out more dishonest deceptions.
From Jake Tapper:
"A memo prepared for [Indiana Senator Evan] Bayh by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service earlier this year stated that the Clinton administration could have objected to the sale under CFIUS, but it did not...In 2000, also during Bill Clinton's presidency, Magnequench purchased from UGIMAG the factory in Valparaiso that manufactured the Neo magnets. President Clinton's administration took no steps to stop the purchases in 2000, either."
The sale was a pretty serious national security issue, not so much because the technology was sensitive, but because the sale means our military has to rely on foreign companies for critical weaponry. Here's Tapper:
The two Chinese companies were headed by the husbands of the first and second daughters of then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. One of those daughters was at that time "vice minister of China's State Science and Technology Commission, whose responsibilities included acquiring military technologies by whatever means necessary," according to David Cay Johnston in Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Corporations Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You With the Bill)."Complaints about the sale of Magnequench were made to the U.S. government because of the military applications for the magnets," Johnston reports. "Still, the Clinton administration, an ardent proponent of globalization, approved the sale."
Around that time, Shingleton says, "there was talk about the national security issue and the loss of jobs because they were leaving. Some of the higher-wage jobs left immediately [in 2000]. I knew personally some people who were managers and who lost their jobs."
Not surprisingly, the Clinton campaign is compounding its deception with more deception as it tries to explain away this latest controversy. McClatchy today quotes Clinton spokesman Jonathan Swain claiming that "In 1995, when this group bought Magnequench, there were assurances made that production would stay in the United States." But as ABC recounts, the Congressional Research Service reports that the state-owned Chinese company that Clinton allowed to purchase Magnequench "promised to keep those Anderson, Ind., jobs in the U.S. only until 2005."
This is about as pristine an example of Clintonian deception and parsing as you are going to find. First comes the pander - an ad that conveys that signature Clinton bite-the-bottom-lip, feel-your-pain message of empathy and outrage. Then comes the revelation that the whole thing Clinton supposedly feels bad about was originally brought about by the Clinton administration, which she endlessly touts. And finally there is the lying - pretending that there were "assurances" that what happened wouldn't happen, when in fact those assurances were not what's being claimed.
With both Indiana and North Carolina being among the two worst-hit states by the Clinton-backed NAFTA/PNTR policies that this Magnequench controversy epitomizes, you would think this would make a perfect issue for Barack Obama to start talking about.
Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The only way a story like this gets play is if Obama uses it to attack Hillary. And it appears that Obama does not want to confront “Big Mama”.
What we see as telling the truth about Hillary, Obama sees as mudslinging.
For those of us outside the Obama Campaign decision making circle, the last two months have been particularly frustrating. Time and again we have seen our candidate, in whom we have trusted our fortunes and future, repeatedly turn away from confrontational challenges thrown down by his opposition.
It appears that Obama thinks he has already won the nomination no matter what the outcome of the remaining primaries. He may be right. But if this is his strategy, there may also be a downside. Obama supporters want a victory not an armistice and Hillary supporters need to see her defeated or else they may feel cheated.
There is plenty of time afterwards to be gracious.
So Hillary supporters would move towards Barack as long as he does it by attacking her? I think Obama is making the right move by avoiding flinging mud at a fellow Democrat. As little a fan as I am of the Clintons, I don't want to see Barack sink to that level. His peaceful approach with Hillary will help him bring more of her supporters over when he does eventually get the nomination.
When he is running against McCain, with whom he has many major policy differences, he will be much more aggressive, but I still think he will avoid playing dirty.
If you look at this is in conjuction with all of the illegal campaign donations being funneled to the Clintons from the government of China (Hsu) and to Bill ("speeches" and the Clinton Library); and the anti China rhetoric before Bill was elected president that turned into support for PNTR; AND the amount of American debt that is now owned by the Chinese government. I think a much clearer picture of who the Clintons are and what they are for emerges. Money and power, baby. Money and power.
Let's talk truth Hillary.
It doesn't matter if the Chinese buy the company and tells you they won't move any jobs until 2005, YOU ARE STILL LOSING THE JOBS.
And if your point about selling our national security production to other countries had any weight---that sale happened in the 1990's WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT.
Don't you dare come back to Valparaiso and spew spin about this issue. We know the truth, and hopefully everyone in the country will know this soon.
On Iraq, she claims she was naive as to Bush's true intentions. Is she now saying Bill was naive in believing that they wouldn't move jobs...
All this experience and the best they can do is claim to be naive?
Better yet it needs to be an Obama rebuttal ad in Indiana
Oh, now rightwing ABC is your friend because they hate Clintonn as much as you do.
ABC is as bad as Faux - you shouldn't cozy up with the enemy.
Ummm.....I could care less about ABC, the fact is the story is TRUE regardless of who carries it, there is no denying that...but by all means, attack when there is no defense.
David, We need to start a 529 for these points and the most damning. There is only one candidate isn't ready to start a nuclear war. We could put Hillary's face on the guy riding the A-bomb in Dr Strangelove as we show her speaking of obliterating Iran. At the end we could show Brent Scrowcoft, clearly labeled as the republican Bush I's top foreign policy advisor, speaking of how it is necessary to talk with our "adversaries". I believe that the War with Iran is the most striking difference among the three candidates. Hillary and McCain both advocate a nuclear war. That should scare any sane person in the country. It scares the hell out of me, but only the foreign press is carrying the story. It has been killed in the states.
johnnyboy456,
Paranoid much? Your little screed betrays you intelligence level -- approximately 10th grade, right???
-MS
Hate to be the wet blanket, but if Ohio and Pennsylvania weren't smart enough (or developed a rampant and virile amnesia) to recognize this pandering and lying -- and dumb enough to be scared into voting "against" someone who refuses to lie to them about the economic situation -- then, frankly, we deserve what we get. I've written, I've protested, I've boycotted and I've forwarded objective news articles to friends and family. You know what they say? "Doesn't matter." "No one's going to do anything about it." "But that's the way the world is." "So, it's not going to change." See, I didn't have a choice in being born in the 1970s. I didn't have the clairvoyance to say, "Hey, ma, things are looking a little murky about 20 years from now. Oh, by the way, can we visit New York City before the year 2001? It may not be as feasible later" I had a friend threaten suicide because she didn't want to see how much worse it could get. As someone who's survived domestic abuse, she recognizes when people become hopeless and actively participate in their own demise, and she didn't want to be a part of a world where people complain AND accept their fates. People are losing jobs, people are dying, people AREN'T happy, and I'm not sure very many of them want to be around for when we ALL hit rock bottom. That's not going to be pretty...n
Don't give up. We got the Corleones' win down to 9 points in PA, where they started with a 25-point edge. PA will vote for Obama in November. We got Mrs. Corleone's negatives way up all over the country, while Obama's remain significantly lower. Keep it up with the friends and relatives. Remind the older ones: Getting rid of Richard Nixon wasn't easy, either. But it got done.
Want to talk pandering? Think obama throwing his mento/spiritual advisor/friend under the bus for political expediency, just to stop the bad news for his campaign..
ndolomar,
I live in NYC. Know what? People hereabouts are NOT losing their jobs. Not threaatening to commit suicide. Lots of folks are visiting NYC. No-one I know of is a domestic abuse victim (not denying it exists, but maybe it's a lot more prevalent in your hinterlands).
In short, people are ALMOST AS HAPPY as they were between '92 and '00, when you know who was president. Perhaps the depression you are witnessing has something to do with the time period of your birth. It seems endemic to you Obamabots, many of whom were born in the 70s. Hate to be a wet blanket and point this out to you...
-MS
I am just floored every time I think about all of the Clinton scandals from the 90's that people have forgotten about, that were brought about by & for the Clintons!!! What are people thinking of, when they vote for them!!! If they are allowed in the White House again, it will be more & more scandals!!! They do not play fair.....a
I remember the Clinton yrs very well. They were yrs of peace and hi prosperity. These comments, this persistent search for lies , contradictions , deceptions that fill these blogs puts even Republicans (or Starr) who pursued Clinton in every possible way for 8 yrs to shame. Had they known they'd likely put u in charge of the investigation of Clinton' s "crimes". Shame on all of u. U can be forgiven if ur memory fails u or if u r just repeating things to make urself feel good. But wake up; sleepwalking is a not a prescription for good health. Clinton likely had the sale approved by the federal agency that looks into the matters of national security. Their decision was likely that the sale had few if any security concerns. But even if some people disagreed with it , this is only par for the course, since all such sales have resistance in some sections of opinion. Clinton claims that the sale was made under certain conditions; who r u tio contradict him? Just because Mr Tapper says so? Could Clinton ask any company in 1995 to retain working clauses beyond 2005? Can GM do it? Can Ford do it? I know that u journalists have to make a living. But u can restrain ur habits of accusing others of lying particularly those who spent a lifetime of dedication to your interests. Like it or not-- The Clinton presidency was a good presidecy for the majority of Americans.
Yeah, the great and wonderful Clinton-era economy that brought us the dot-com boom and Enron. It was an economy that was built on a bubble that HAD to burst and, due to trade agreements like NAFTA - championed by that working-class hero Bill and his "co-president" Hillary (when was SHE added to the ticket I voted against?) - the repercussions of that "great economic time" are still being felt today. Yeah - it was great! GIVE ME A BREAK!
Go Obama!
Please run a headline and picture of this story at the HuffPo to get the ball rolling.
It's on the wires.
http://www
Thanks for the post. The HuffPost is the only hope of humanity.
ABC has begun to redeem itself...I
I used to come home from work, grab dinner and tune into Hardball, then on to David Gregory, then the second hour of Chris (if I'd missed any for phone calls or conversation) then right in to Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I have lost ALL respect for them ALL, save Keith Olbermann. Poor Chris...it seems he still dreams of working for the National Enquirer.
Sicko:
Reality check: "Pastor" Wrong ain't goin' away!
-MS
If the electorate - notably where the upcoming primaries will be - continue to play dumb about real issues that matter to them, then we will all be damned! Heaven forbids!
Since we do not hope the MSMs will call the Clintons to task about this, then it is up for us - and of course, Senator Obama, to do the task of educating the masses.
Hope O runs a tv ad and have his folks pounce on this... he needs to sing this loudly.
This aired on ABC. This is major deception from the Clintons once again. Why is it receiving so little coverage elsewhere? If Obama had done this it would be running on a loop on MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN and in headlines in all the major newspapers.
State sponsored propoganda rarely benefits the populace.
SEND A COPY OF THIS STORY TO LOU DOBBS - HE SEEMS TO NOT BE AWARE OF THE CLINTON HYPOCRISY ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND HE AND WOLF BLITZER ARE NOW WAXING POETIC ON HOW TOUGH THEIR GIRL HILLARY IS ON CHINA...
Lou and Wolf are very aware of Clinton chicanery. Lou has the nerve to call himself the voice for the "independents". How do you let corporations dictate your position then turn around and tell people to be outraged at the illegal immigrant situation (when the corporations hire them), Lou? How do I know you let the corporations dictate your position? Because you build up Clinton and break down Obama constantly. I find it hard to believe that one person does everything right and another person does everything wrong, but that's what you do Lou. You know Clinton has way too much corporation backing to really be for the people, yet you push her anyway. Why don't you make Lou Dobbs tonight, Roland Martin tonight...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
