Hillary Clinton released her “Closed” ad this week.
In the ad Hillary talks about the Magnequench plant closing in Valparaiso, Indiana.
Hillary wonders how George Bush could have let such a thing happen.
Here’s the ad:
(30 seconds)
Well, wonder of wonders… It was later revealed that the sale of this plant that produced magnets needed to guided “smart bombs” to Chinese investors was approved by her husband, Bill Clinton.
But, none of that is important when you’re a Clinton and you’re running for office…
And, when you can blame everything on Bush and be assured that his administration will most likely not refute it.
Free Republic and NWI.com reported:
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton stood in a Washington Township gymnasium last month and publicly said President George W. Bush was forcing the American military to rely on “Chinese spare parts” by allowing the sale of a Valparaiso defense contractor.
But fresh questions are being raised in the wake of Hillary’s much-publicized comments questioning why Bush failed to stop Chinese investors from moving Magnequench to China and closing the Northwest Indiana plant.
For example, if the sale of the company to Chinese investors was going to jeopardize national security, why did President Bill Clinton’s administration approve it in 1995?
Magnequench made the sophisticated magnets needed to guided “smart bombs.” Today, bomb-makers have to buy the magnets from the Chinese.
Kevin Griffis, Indiana spokesman for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, said Hillary Clinton’s comments about Magnequench were part of “Washington game-playing” in which “people are willing to say anything to win an election.”
Truly.
Bill Clinton okayed the Magnequench move despite concerns about national security and eventual job loss. Experts say the Chinese acquired the “technical sophistication” that created the magnets long before George W. Bush took office –ABC News.
I know… You’re shocked!
UPDATE: Hillary’s “gun-rights attacks” on Obama are just as dishonest.
UPDATE 2: The Democrats are no better on energy.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
This is one strange debate the candidates are having on energy policy. With gas prices close to $4 a gallon, Hillary Clinton and John McCain say they’ll bring relief with a moratorium on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax. Barack Obama opposes that but prefers a 1970s-style windfall profits tax (as does Mrs. Clinton).
Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production. Mr. Obama supports most of those “no drilling” rules, but that hasn’t stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he’ll slap a tax on the $40 billion in “excess profits” of Exxon Mobil…
So now we have Congress threatening to help itself to business profits even though Washington already takes 35% right off the top with the corporate income tax.
You may also be wondering how a higher tax on energy will lower gas prices. Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics. We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980. It backfired.
