From the sometimes surprising ABC News:

Bill: “We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy” to Fight Global Warming

January 31, 2008

Jake Tapper

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?

I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan.

So there was something of a contradiction there.

Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort…I’m not quite certain.

You can watch that one clip HERE or you can watch the whole speech at the website of ABC News’ great Denver affiliate KMGH by clicking HERE…

Say, maybe this is why Mrs. Clinton has been trying to talk us into a recession for so long?

(And so much for Hillary being able to control her husband.)

From a shocked and outraged ABC News:

Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions

Tapes Reviewed by ABC News Show Clinton As a Loyal Company Woman

By BRIAN ROSS, MADDY SAUER and RHONDA SCHWARTZ

Jan. 31, 2008—In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world’s largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her.

Wal-Mart’s anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton’s fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.

Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, “Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living.”

Wal-Mart says Tate’s comments “were his own and do not reflect Wal-Mart’s views.”

But Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and other company officials often recounted how they relied on Tate to lead the company’s successful anti-union efforts.

An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions…

A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. “I’m always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else,” she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting…

“We’ve got a very strong-willed young woman on our board now; her name is Hillary,” said Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton at a 1987 stockholders meeting in describing Clinton’s role in pushing for more women to be hired in management positions.

Critics say Clinton’s efforts produced few tangible results, and Wal-Mart is now defending itself in a lawsuit brought by 16 current and former female employees…

Sen. Clinton has recently sought to distance herself from Wal-Mart.

In a campaign speech last year in New Hampshire, Sen. Clinton said, “Now I know that Wal-Mart’s policies do not reflect the best way of doing business and the values that I think are important in America.”

Her Senate campaign returned a $5,000 contribution from a Wal-Mart Political Action Committee, although ABCNews.com discovered another $20,000 in contributions from Wal-Mart executives and lobbyists.

Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson said, “There is no basis to return” the money.

According to the New York Times, Sen. Clinton “maintains close ties to Wal-Mart executives through the Democratic Party and the tightly knit Arkansas business community.” The May 20, 2007 article also reported that her husband, former President Clinton, “speaks frequently to Wal-Mart’s current chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr.” and held a private dinner at the Clinton’s New York home in July 2006 for him.

President Clinton defended his wife’s role on the Wal-Mart board last week after the issue was raised by Sen. Barack Obama in a CNN debate.

His wife did not try to change the company’s minds about unions, the former Arkansas governor said.

“We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve,” President Clinton said…

This information has been out there for decades now.

Funny how it too Mr. Obama’s playing of the Wal-Mart card to jar the memories of our watchdog media, such as it is.

Probably some 20 year old intern who has a thing for BHO decided to look into it.

(And of course they couldn’t be bothered to note that up until very recently the Clintons still owned Wal-Mart stock.)

She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve,” President Clinton said.

And yet this self-same woman is now telling us there is nothing she can’t do.

Still, the videotape ABC has unearthed is quite entertaining in its own right, as are some of the photos they have lifted from it:

On the campaign trail, President Bill Clinton has defended Hillary’s role on the Wal-Mart board even though he said she knew there was no chance of changing the company’s stance on unions.

In a written statement, Sen. Clinton’s spokesperson said, “As President she will fight alongside labor to promote the economic growth of America’s middle class.” He said Clinton believes Wal-Mart workers should have the right to unionize and bargain collectively.

Clinton’s Senate campaign also returned a $5,000 contribution.

Although there is no mention of it in her official biography, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton served for six years on the board of Wal-Mart, the huge retailer criticized by many for its treatment of workers and its strident opposition to unions.

Factories featured in Wal-Mart’s Buy America television spots were closed down a short time later as Wal-Mart abandoned the program and jobs shifted overseas.

As the wife of then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, Hillary also took a role in supporting a Buy America program to create American jobs.

“You know one of the reasons that we want to buy America is because we love America,” she said at the time.

While Hillary Clinton has since denounced Wal-Mart’s policies, nowhere on the tapes reviewed by ABC News, including at this 1990 meeting, did she speak up to defend the role of America’s labor unions.

“You know, as a shareholder and director of our company, I’m always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else,” she said.

Clinton would not agree to be interviewed on the subject but now says she no longer shares.

Videotapes obtained by ABC News from the archives of a production company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings reveal just how strident Wal-Mart’s opposition to unions was as well as what a loyal company woman Hillary Clinton was.

Nevertheless, it is quite naive for the folks at ABC News even to suggest that Hillary should have put her oft-proclaimed principles before a chance to make herself richer.

Mrs. Clinton hasn’t never been that small-minded.

From ABC News:

Clinton Says She Can Control Her Husband

January 30, 2008

ABC News’ Eloise Harper Reports: Senator Hillary Clinton, in an interview with ABC News’ Cynthia McFadden for ABC News’ Nightline, was asked about President Clinton’s controversial comments about race and Senator Obama  in the past weeks. Clinton apologized for her husband.

“I think whatever he said which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone,” Clinton said, “if it did give offenses then I take responsibility and I’m sorry about that.”

“Can you control him?” asked McFadden.

“Oh of course,” Clinton replied.

Of course she can.

She always has before, hasn’t she?

(Warning: the YouTube is of the whole endless fawning segment.)

From the Clinton-endorsing New York Times:

Former President Bill Clinton with Sir Tom Hunter, left, and Frank Giustra, major donors to Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation.

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton Charity

January 31, 2008

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton Charity

By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges…

The two men were introduced in June 2005 at a fund-raiser for tsunami victims at Mr. Giustra’s Vancouver home and hit it off right away…

In August 2005, records show, the company sent an engineering consultant to Kazakhstan to assess the uranium properties. Less than four weeks later, Mr. Giustra arrived with Mr. Clinton…

Mr. Clinton’s Kazakhstan visit, the only one of his post-presidency, appears to have been arranged hastily. The United States Embassy got last-minute notice that the president would be making “a private visit,” said a State Department official, who said he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The publicly stated reason for the visit was to announce a Clinton Foundation agreement that enabled the government to buy discounted AIDS drugs. But during a news conference, Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for “opening up the social and political life of your country.”

In a statement Kazakhstan would highlight in news releases, Mr. Clinton declared that he hoped it would achieve a top objective: leading the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would confer legitimacy on Mr. Nazarbayev’s government…

Mr. Clinton’s praise was odd, given that the United States did not support Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid. (Late last year, Kazakhstan finally won the chance to lead the security organization for one year, despite concerns raised by the Bush administration.) Moreover, Mr. Clinton’s wife, who sits on a Congressional commission with oversight of such matters, had also voiced skepticism.

Eleven months before Mr. Clinton’s statement, Mrs. Clinton co-signed a commission letter to the State Department that sounded “alarm bells” about the prospect that Kazakhstan might head the group. The letter stated that Kazakhstan’s bid “would not be acceptable,” citing “serious corruption,” canceled elections and government control of the news media.

In a written statement to The Times, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman said the former president saw “no contradiction” between his statements in Kazakhstan and the position of Mrs. Clinton, who said through a spokeswoman, “Senator Clinton’s position on Kazakhstan remains unchanged.”

Noting that the former president also met with opposition leaders in Almaty, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman said he was only “seeking to suggest that a commitment to political openness and to fair elections would reflect well on Kazakhstan’s efforts to chair the O.S.C.E.”

But Robert Herman, who worked for the State Department in the Clinton administration and is now at Freedom House, a human rights group, said the former president’s statement amounted to an endorsement of Kazakhstan’s readiness to lead the group, a position he called “patently absurd.”

“He was either going off his brief or he was sadly mistaken,” Mr. Herman said. “There was nothing in the record to suggest that they really wanted to move forward on democratic reform.”

Indeed, in December 2005, Mr. Nazarbayev won another election, which the security organization itself said was marred by an “atmosphere of intimidation” and “ballot-box stuffing.”

After Mr. Nazarbayev won with 91 percent of the vote, Mr. Clinton sent his congratulations. “Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life,” Mr. Clinton wrote in a letter released by the Kazakh embassy. Last September, just weeks after Kazakhstan held an election that once again failed to meet international standards, Mr. Clinton honored Mr. Nazarbayev by inviting him to his annual philanthropic conference.

Within 48 hours of Mr. Clinton’s departure from Almaty on Sept. 7, Mr. Giustra got his deal. UrAsia signed two memorandums of understanding that paved the way for the company to become partners with Kazatomprom in three mines.

The cost to UrAsia was more than $450 million, money the company did not have in hand and had only weeks to come up with. The transaction was finalized in November, after UrAsia raised the money through the largest initial public offering in the history of Canada’s Venture Exchange…

Longtime market watchers were confounded. Kazatomprom’s choice of UrAsia was a “mystery,” said Gene Clark, the chief executive of Trade Tech, a uranium industry newsletter.

“UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole process somehow,” Mr. Clark said. The company became a “major uranium producer when it didn’t even exist before.” ..

Records show that Mr. Giustra donated the $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation in the months that followed in 2006, but neither he nor a spokesman for Mr. Clinton would say exactly when.

In September 2006, Mr. Giustra co-produced a gala 60th birthday for Mr. Clinton that featured stars like Jon Bon Jovi and raised about $21 million for the Clinton Foundation.

In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.

That same month, Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention — not publicly known at the time — to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology…

Too bad The Times reporters chose to bury the basic details under their (all too typical) avalanche of mind-numbing verbosity.

But it would appear to be that Mr. Clinton sold his influence to an unknown person from a disreputable part of the world for (at least) a $31.3 million dollar “contribution.”

Shocking, is it not?

From the DNC’s Associated Press:

Romney Accuses McCain of ‘Dirty Tricks’

Jan 31, 2008

By LIZ SIDOTI

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) — Republican Mitt Romney accused John McCain of using dirty tricks by suggesting the former Massachusetts governor wanted a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, in a spirited debate Wednesday night that underscored the intensity of their presidential rivalry…

“I have never, ever supported a specific timetable” for withdrawing troops, Romney said. McCain’s accusation on the eve of Tuesday’s primary, he said, “sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.” …

McCain stuck to his guns, saying, “of course he said he wanted a timetable” for a withdrawal. McCain had made the allegation in Florida as he tried to shift the debate from the ailing economy, a stronger issue for Romney, a former venture capitalist and businessman.

Last April, Romney said U.S. and Iraqi leaders “have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about” in private.

In Wednesday’s debate, Romney said he was not calling for a specific withdrawal date. “It’s simply wrong, and the senator knows it,” he said. “I will not pull our troops out until we have brought success in Iraq.” …

Romney tried to portray McCain, who performs well among political independents, as out of the conservative mainstream as the contest moves toward a cluster of states where only registered Republicans can vote. He said the Arizona senator twice voted against President Bush’s tax cuts and pushed campaign finance reforms that restricted fundraising and spending. The Republican establishment embraced the tax cuts and opposed the new campaign law, which many saw as helpful to Democrats.

“Those views are outside the view of mainstream Republican thought,” Romney said. He made similar arguments in Florida, but lost to McCain by 5 percentage points.

McCain disputed the claims. “I’m proud of my conservative record,” he said.

In a counterpunch, he said Romney left Massachusetts with high taxes and a large debt. “His job creation was the third worst in the country,” McCain said, a claim Romney rejected…

McCain tried to deflect questions on illegal immigration, a sore point with many Republicans who resented his push for a Senate bill, ultimately unsuccessful, that would have granted a path to legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants now in the country.

Asked if he would vote for his bill now, McCain replied, “it won’t” come to a vote “because people want the borders secured first.” He said he supports new efforts to prevent illegal crossings…

Romney said McCain opposed Bush’s first-term tax cuts because they were tilted largely toward the rich. But Romney defended the cuts, saying, “I believe in getting rates down. I think that builds our economy.”

McCain said he opposes tax cuts that are not coupled with spending restraints. Republicans lost congressional seats in 2006 less because of the Iraq war than because of out-of-control spending that alienated conservatives, McCain said.

Mr. McCain does seem to be somewhat detached from reality, if he can say things such as this:

McCain disputed the claims. “I’m proud of my conservative record,” he said.

No wonder he is such bosom pals with Hillary.

If anything, the problem is that Mr. Romney is being too gentle. 

(Thanks to the ever-watchful BillK, who first posted this on the “Other News” thread.)

From where else but the tireless champions of illegal aliens at the New York Times:

Mexican immigrant Martin Gutierrez, partially hidden, speaks from the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border fence to his friend Martin Portillo, back to camera, in Playas de Tijuana, in Mexico, Sunday, Jan. 20, 2008.

Money Sent Home by Mexicans Almost Stagnant in 2007

January 31, 2008

By Mike Nizza

The money sent home by Mexicans working abroad — known as remittances — is the country’s second-greatest source of foreign income, after oil exports. But the flow has been leveling off after years of growth.

According to figures released on Wednesday by Mexico’s central bank, remittances grew just 1 percent in 2007, to $23.9 billion. Not too many years ago, annual increases of as much as 20 percent were common.

Around the world, remittances from people working outside their native country have maintained a growth rate of about 10 percent as more people migrate across borders for employment. About $300 billion is sent home every year, three times the global total of official foreign aid, according to Jason DeParle of The New York Times, who wrote a series of articles last year on the phenomenon.

Mexicans are clearly missing the extra cash from relatives up north, as Elisabeth Malkin South of The Times found after a visit to the Mexican village of El Rodeo in October. And more statistics backed that up:

“One out of three people in these new states who was sending a year ago is not sending it home today,” [Donald F. Terry] of the Inter-American Development Bank said. “There are some 500,000 families who aren’t receiving this year.”

Another report cited Mr. Terry’s explanation for the trend, saying that “uncertainty of the future” has increased as a crackdown on illegal immigration and a weakening American economy have combined to reduce opportunities for Mexicans working in the United States.

Still, questions are likely to persist over whether the American economy is being damaged by remittances, or, conversely, strengthened as they recede. Here’s what Julia Preston, immigration reporter for The New York Times, said in a question-and-answer session last year:

I suggest looking at the bigger picture. As the Times correspondent in Mexico for six years until 2001, I frequently saw the impact of remittances. The funds go directly from immigrants to their spouses, parents and children. The money is often used to refurbish homes, streets and schools; to sustain the elderly; to beautify village squares and start small businesses. They have lifted many Mexicans out of abject poverty and into the consumer market, helping to stabilize Mexico’s economy and expand the demand for American goods. Mexico today is our third largest trading partner, with $332.4 billion in trade in 2006, behind only Canada and China. Mexicans are buying more American stuff every day.

Isn’t it funny how we never hear about the billion of dollars being sent out of the country by illegal aliens.

After all, that is money that can no longer be used by the US, which would mean more jobs and more economic growth.

Couldn’t this story have just as easily have been framed as showing how removing so much money from our country might put us into a recession?

But of course the New York Times would never see it that way.

They would never want to have to resort to mowing their own lawns or minding their own babies.

Meanwhile, these selfsame illegal aliens will be receiving a hefty “tax rebate” for taxes they have never paid in, all in the name of stimulating the economy.

Never mind that they will send that out of the country as well.

From a terribly shocked New York Times:

A patient in Shanghai who was paralyzed by a tainted drug.

Tainted Drugs Tied to Maker of Abortion Pill

By JAKE HOOKER and WALT BOGDANICH

BEIJING — A huge state-owned Chinese pharmaceutical company that exports to dozens of countries, including the United States, is at the center of a nationwide drug scandal after nearly 200 Chinese cancer patients were paralyzed or otherwise harmed last summer by contaminated leukemia drugs.

Chinese drug regulators have accused the manufacturer of the tainted drugs of a cover-up and have closed the factory that produced them. In December, China’s Food and Drug Administration said that the Shanghai police had begun a criminal investigation and that two officials, including the head of the plant, had been detained.

The drug maker, Shanghai Hualian, is the sole supplier to the United States of the abortion pill, mifepristone, known as RU-486. It is made at a factory different from the one that produced the tainted cancer drugs, about an hour’s drive away.

The United States Food and Drug Administration declined to answer questions about Shanghai Hualian, because of security concerns stemming from the sometimes violent opposition to abortion. But in a statement, the agency said the RU-486 plant had passed an F.D.A. inspection in May. “F.D.A. is not aware of any evidence to suggest the issue that occurred at the leukemia drug facility is linked in any way with the facility that manufactures the mifepristone,” the statement said…

Last week, The New York Times asked the F.D.A. whether the Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group exported to the United States any drugs or pharmaceutical ingredients other than the abortion pill. But after repeated requests, the agency declined to provide that information; it did not cite a reason.

On at least two occasions in 2002, Shanghai Hualian had shipments of drugs stopped at the United States border, F.D.A. records show. One shipment was an unapproved antibiotic and the other a diuretic that had “false or misleading labeling.” Records also show that another unit of Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group has filed papers declaring its intention to sell at least five active pharmaceutical ingredients to manufacturers for sale in the United States.

One major pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, declined to buy drug ingredients from Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group because of quality-related issues, said Christopher Loder, a Pfizer spokesman. In 2006, Pfizer agreed to evaluate Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group’s “capabilities” as an ingredient supplier, but so far the company “has not met the standards required by Pfizer,” Mr. Loder said in a statement.

Because of opposition from the anti-abortion movement, the F.D.A. has never publicly identified the maker of the abortion pill for the American market. The pill was first manufactured in France, and since its approval by the F.D.A. in 2000 it has been distributed in the United States by Danco Laboratories. Danco, which does not list a street address on its Web site, did not return two telephone calls seeking comment.

Problems with the cancer drugs first surfaced last summer after leukemia patients received injections of one cancer drug, methotrexate. Afterward, patients experienced leg pain and, in some cases, paralysis. At the People’s Liberation Army No. 307 Hospital in Beijing, a 26-year-old patient, Miao Yuguang, was unable to stand up five days after being injected in the spine with the drug. “We were already unlucky to have this illness,” her father, Miao Futian, said of the leukemia. “Then we ran into this fake drug.”

The authorities recalled two batches of the drug, but issued only mild warnings because the cause of the problem was unclear. Officials with Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group stood by their products, saying that drug regulators investigating the plant had found no problems. But when another cancer drug made in the same factory — cytarabin hydrochloride — also began causing adverse reactions, investigators suspected contamination.

In September, health and drug officials announced that they had found that the two drugs were contaminated with vincristine sulfate, a third cancer drug, during production. After issuing a nationwide alert, the government announced a wider recall, and Shanghai’s drug agency sealed manufacturing units at the plant.

“Many people thought there was a problem with the hospitals,” said Zheng Qiang, director of the Center for Pharmaceutical Information and Engineering Research at Peking University. “It wasn’t until later that they discovered the problem was with the medicine.”

Chinese media attention on the case has surged, after a terse statement by China’s drug agency in December, accusing Hualian company officials of a systematic cover-up of violations at the facility that made the drugs.

Family members at the No. 307 hospital have counted 53 victims in Beijing, and say they were told that there were least 193 victims nationwide. It is unclear how many were paralyzed, because the authorities have not released an official figure. Relatives have joined to share information and advocate for the victims. Based on interviews with several families in Beijing and Shanghai, it appears that about half of those injected still cannot walk.

Wu Jianhua said his daughter, Wu Xi, 15, collapsed on her way to school after an injection in August. “We thought she was tired,” Mr. Wu said. Doctors now say she may never walk without a cane, he said.

Last week, on a window near the gate of the closed plant was a notice from the Shanghai Food and Drug Administration, dated Sept. 8, accusing the plant of “producing substandard medicine that poses major risks of causing serious harm to human health.” It identified a company official, Gu Yaoming, as the “person responsible” for the plant.

Records show Mr. Gu also met with the United States F.D.A. inspectors last May as part of the routine inspection of the plant that makes RU-486.

Reached by telephone, Mr. Gu declined to describe his role at the two plants. “I cannot answer your questions,” he said.

A spokeswoman for China’s Food and Drug Administration, Yan Jiangying, said that Shanghai Hualian had been stripped of its license to produce antitumor drugs, but that this action did not affect RU-486…

Will the gentleman in charge be executed and the rest of the problems swept under the rug, as usual?

(Thanks to NotSoYoungJim for the heads up.)

From the Project For Excellence In Journalism:

Clinton Finishes Third in Battle for Campaign Coverage (But it’s Bill!!!)

“I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes,” said Barack Obama last week. It was a reference to the aggressive campaigning before the Jan. 26 South Carolina Democratic primary by both Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Last week’s election coverage suggests he had a point. Although the landslide winner in South Carolina was the leading newsmaker of the week, he was certainly outdone in the race for media exposure by the Clinton tag team.

Obama edged Hillary Clinton by the narrowest of margins. But her surrogate and husband—whose aggressive attacks on Obama and increasingly conspicuous role have been manna for political pundits—was the third-most prominent newsmaker in the race for President last week, January 21 through 27. That period began two days after the Nevada caucuses and ended the day after the Democrats’ South Carolina primary.

The man who would be First Spouse made more news last week than any Republican, or than the other Democratic contender, John Edwards.

Among GOP rivals, Mitt Romney, a co-leader in many Florida polls, dropped precipitously in the race for exposure. So did Mike Huckabee, whose candidacy the media now appear to discount.

And Rudolph Giuliani was back, his coverage more than tripling from the week before, despite plunging in the polls—a sign that media coverage and poll numbers do not necessarily track.

Some candidates apparently are a good story whether they are rising or falling.

These are some of the findings from Project for Excellence in Journalism’s third edition of the Campaign Coverage Index, a measure of which candidate is winning in the all-important race for media exposure. The project will run the Index until nominees are selected in each party.

Obama, who ended the week of Jan. 21-27 with a surprisingly big win in South Carolina, was a significant or dominant newsmaker in 41% of the week’s campaign coverage. That marks his highest coverage level in the three weeks since the Project began its CCI and the first time he has edged Clinton.

It is not true, as some might have imagined, that Bill got even more coverage than his wife. But when Hillary Clinton’s 40% and Bill Clinton’s 18% coverage totals were added together, they were dominant or significant subjects in well over half the week’s campaign stories. John Edwards’ coverage increased, but at only 11%, he generated about one-fourth as much attention as the two frontrunners.

The leading Republican was John McCain, who was a significant or dominant newsmaker in 17%, down from 23% the previous week. Mitt Romney, although considered a co-frontrunner with McCain in the Florida fight, plummeted to 12% from 25% the week before. Mike Huckabee slid to 6% from 14%, with the media apparently concluding that his second-place South Carolina finish on Jan. 19 had crippled his chances.

Sitting out the first few contests, Giuliani showed up as a significant or dominant figure in only 4% of the stories in each of the two previous weeks. But last week, he was at 14% as the media focus shifted to Florida. Unfortunately for him, much of that coverage was about how his poll numbers had fallen…

This is truly shocking, isn’t it?

Except that we see the media’s bias everywhere, every single day, even when they do manage to cover the Republicans — which of course does not include John McCain.

For note that in the article the top coverage went to McCain, followed distantly by Giuliani — who was only mentioned to bring up his falling poll numbers.

But it was ever thus, was it not?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks to supporters at his Florida primary election night rally in St. Petersburg, Florida, January 29, 2008.

Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain smiles as he takes the stage at his Florida primary election night rally in Miami, Florida, January 29, 2008.

Really, what media bias?

It’s all in our imagination.

Here is yet another scalding indictment of Mr. Obama from Hillary’s “war room,” Hillary Is 44:

[Hillary Is 44 caption:] Readers of Big Pink knew long ago of Obama’s nasty anti-Hillary demeanor.

Do we really want these children back in the White House?

From a highly annoyed Associated Press:

Ralph Nader Kicks Off Exploratory Presidential Bid

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

WASHINGTON — Ralph Nader is seeking the presidency — again.

The consumer activist and political gadfly kicked off an exploratory presidential campaign Wednesday with the launch of a new Web site that promises he’ll fight “corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control” and asks people to donate $300 each.

Nader sought the White House in each of the last three presidential elections: He ran on the Green Party ticket in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent in 2004.

Gee, the AP sounds pretty snippy about this turn of events, don’t they?

Sadly, Mr. Nader may be our only hope.

Except he would probably draw as many voters from Mr. McCain, if he is the GOP’s nominee.

Run, Ralph, Run!

From a deeply saddened Associated Press:

John Edwards to quit presidential race

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

DENVER – Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters’ sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two aides. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Both candidates would welcome Edwards’ backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected…

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife’s recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign…

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians’ Village, the adviser said.

With that, Edwards’ campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn’t hear the cries of the downtrodden…

Sob. What a tremendous loss to our country.

(Just kidding of course.)

John Edwards is a waste of hairspray.

Though it is surprising that he intends to make the announcement, rather than have his wife do it.

But will he endorse Mr. McCain, as well?

From an elated Associated Press:

[Update] Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks before the CNN/Los Angeles Times Republican presidential debate at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California January 30, 2008 where he formally withdrew from the Republican presidential nomination race and endorsed rival US Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Giuliani to exit presidential race today

ORLANDO, Fla. – Rudy Giuliani told supporters Wednesday he’s abandoning his bid for president and backing Republican rival and longtime friend John McCain.

“I spoke with Rudy Giuliani this morning and he confirmed that he is dropping out of the race and will endorse Senator John McCain for president,” New York Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno said in a statement.

Once the Republican presidential front-runner, Giuliani suffered a debilitating defeat in Tuesday’s Florida primary.

The former mayor finished a distant third to the winner, McCain, and close second-place finisher Mitt Romney. After the results, Republican officials had said Giuliani would endorse McCain on Wednesday in California.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the public announcement.

Speaking to supporters Tuesday night, Giuliani stopped short of announcing he was stepping down, but delivered a valedictory speech that was more farewell than fight-on.

“I’m proud that we chose to stay positive and to run a campaign of ideas in an era of personal attacks, negative ads and cynical spin,” Giuliani said as supporters with tight smiles crowded behind him. “You don’t always win, but you can always try to do it right, and you did.”

Republican presidential candidates were scheduled to debate at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley on Wednesday night.

“I haven’t talked to him,” McCain said as he boarded a campaign charter plane Wednesday morning. “I’m going to talk to him today when we meet.”

Separately, Giuliani said as he prepared to leave Florida for California Wednesday he was “not yet” ready to announce his intentions…

McCain, addressing his own supporters moments later in Miami, gave Giuliani a warm rhetorical embrace, a possible prologue to accepting Giuliani’s expected support.

“I want to thank my dear friend, my dear friend Rudy Giuliani, who invested his heart and soul in this primary and who conducted himself with all the qualities of the exceptional American leader he truly is,” McCain said. “Thank you, Rudy, for all you have added to this race and for being an inspiration to me and millions of Americans.” …

It’s hard not to like Mr. Giuliani as a person. And of course he did a heroic job turning around New York City.

Consequently, it was tempting to give him the benefit of the doubt when it came to some of his more newfound professed conservative values.

After all, he had been working in the belly of the beast.

But if Mr. Giuliani does do the worst and endorse Mr. McCain it will be painfully clear that he was never a true conservative and that he would have been a disaster as President.

  Update!

And sadly it turns out Mr. Giuliani has done exactly that.

Alas.

From the front page of the DNC’s Washington Post:

After Romney’s Barrage, McCain Stands Tall

By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane
Wednesday, January 30, 2008; Page A01

On Friday, Mitt Romney accused John McCain of being the Democrats’ favorite Republican. On Sunday, the former Massachusetts governor mocked McCain’s endorsement in the New York Times and then observed, “If he’s been a leader, where has it led us?” On Monday, Romney accused McCain of clobbering Florida taxpayers at the gas pump. Yesterday, he called him an economic novice.

But last night, the senator from Arizona emerged from that negative onslaught a survivor. In money and message, Romney threw all he could at McCain in a bruising week in Florida, but it did not prove to be enough.

“You don’t want to say it doesn’t get you anything because a lot of campaigns are won on negativity,” said John Weaver, a longtime political adviser to McCain. “But if Romney wasn’t born on third base, if he had to campaign and fundraise like everyone else, I’m sure he wouldn’t be here anymore.”

The Republicans’ swing through Florida was a watershed. Not only was it the first big state of the presidential nomination fight, but it was also the first state that looked like the United States at large, with all its ethnic, religious and racial diversity, its economic haves and have-nots, and the sheer scale of its political universe. Romney was able to stay close, in part by far outspending McCain, but also by finding his strongest message yet as the can-do businessman standing against the ineffectual Washington insider.

“You’re getting your first taste of a real American election in Florida,” said Bill Nelson, the state’s Democratic senator. “Romney was telling folks: ‘I ran a business. I ran a state. I know how to run things and McCain doesn’t.’ Romney was hitting hard that McCain is not a real conservative. And I guess it didn’t work.” …

[I]t was Romney’s strategy that was laid bare, when he led with his chin and challenged McCain on his record on campaign finance, immigration, the environment and the economy…

In the end, though, those arguments did not appear to resonate with many Florida voters. The powerful Cuban immigrant community went for McCain over Romney by a 5 to 1 margin, according to the network exit poll. McCain beat Romney by 10 percentage points among voters older than 65.

McCain even won among voters who would seemingly be open to Romney’s economic pitch. Of the 63 percent of GOP voters who said the economy is doing poorly or not well, 41 percent sided with McCain, compared with 27 percent who voted for Romney…

Romney insiders believe that because of McCain’s opposition to President Bush’s signature $1.3 trillion tax-cut plan in 2001, they could portray the senator as not in command of the issue now soaring to the top of voters’ concerns.

Romney, however, faces a steeper hurdle in drawing those contrasts with McCain in the Super Tuesday states. In Florida, as he did in other early states, Romney blanketed the airwaves with ads financed partly by his own fortune. According to Nielsen Co., Romney ran nearly 4,500 ads in Florida by Monday, compared with 470 by McCain.

But with so many states up for grabs on Tuesday, it becomes increasingly difficult for Romney to leverage that kind of an advantage against his chief rival nationwide.

Who needs to spend money in advertising when you have the mainstream media behind you? Besides, Mr. McCain has plenty of his wife’s money to spend on ads, if he so desired.

And never mind that this was a victory in a state that despite claims to the contrary seems to have allowed “independents” to vote as Republicans. (According to CNN’s exit polls, 17% of supposedly Republican voters called themselves “independents.”)

And never mind the unusually high numbers of old people and Hispanics who quite naturally voted for one of their own, and the country be damned.

And it is also quite hard to buy Florida as the US “writ small.” It isn’t. It is a liberal state.

But according to the Washington Post none of this matters. This was simply a stunning triumph of good over evil. Of poor honest and hardworking John McCain over rich lying and wicked Mitt Romney.

(Why is it we so seldom hear about the money that Mr. McCain married? Or how McCain-Feingold has made running for President even more expensive?)

Still, the mainstream media’s campaign for Mr. McCain has been nothing compared to what we will be seeing between now and next “Super” Tuesday.

And, given how things turned out in Florida, it’s clear it stands a good chance of working again.

(By the way, just how tall can Mr. McCain stand? Isn’t he only about 5′ 9″?)

From her “war room” at Hillary Is 44:

Obama Snubs Hillary Clinton, Florida, and 15 Million Americans

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

Barack Obama betrayed his true unvarnished personality and politics when he responded at a New Hampshire debate to Hillary’s warm compliments, “You’re likeable enough, Hillary“.

Last night at the State of the Union speech Obama once again revealed himself. The Chicago Tribune caught Obama in the act of being himself:

“Sen. Barack Obama refused to make himself available to greet Sen. Hillary Clinton before the speech.

When members of the Senate entered the chamber, Obama came in before Clinton. He went out of his way to greet as many House members as possible and walked halfway across the chamber to greet members of the Supreme Court, the president’s cabinet, the military joint chiefs.

That made what happened next even more striking. Obama returned to stand by his seat next to Sen. Edward Kennedy who endorsed Obama today in a widely watched event that reverberated across the political world.

As Clinton approached, Kennedy made sure to make eye contact and indicated he wanted to shake her hand. Clinton leaned towards Kennedy over a row of seats and Kennedy leaned in towards her. They shook hands.

Obama stood icily staring at Clinton during this, then turned his back and stepped a few feet away. Kennedy may’ve wanted to make peace with Clinton but Obama clearly wanted no part of that.

As president, Obama has said he would meet with the U.S.’s enemies without precondition. But making nice with Clinton apparently is another mattter after the increasingly angry fight the two have waged, with charges and countercharges, for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The sense in the press gallery was that Obama didn’t cover himself in glory. Someone even used the word “childish.” (Not this writer.) Judging by how much conversation there was about this brush off in the press gallery, Americans will be hearing a lot more about this tomorrow and in coming days.”

Don’t bet on Big Media highlighting Obama’s boorish behavior.

Senator Hillary Clinton is not the only one Obama is snubbing these days. Obama has snubbed 15 million Americans by leaving them out of his health care plan. Obama is also snubbing the millions of Democrats who vote in the state of Florida.

Barack Obama doesn’t care what Florida Democrats say on Jan. 29.

In a memo released Tuesday, he reiterated his long-standing view that their primary votes will be worthless.

Obama has not been on the national scene for long. Obama needs to learn that Florida has millions of voters. Obama needs to learn that in 2000 a Democrat did not become president because Florida votes were not fully counted. Snubbing Florida is not a winning strategy for Democrats. We suspect that today, Florida voters will snub Obama.

You see, obeying the rules of the Democrat party and honoring his own pledge is “snubbing” the voters of Florida.

But what is truth to Hillary’s thugs?

From those defenders of the faith at the UK’s Times:

From left to right: Parviz Khan, Basiru Gassama, Hamid Elasmar and Mohammed Irfan, all of whom pleaded guilty.

Gang plotted to behead Muslim soldier ‘like a pig’

David Byers and agencies

Four Islamic extremists pleaded guilty today in a plot to kidnap a Muslim member of the Armed Forces from Birmingham City Centre and behead him “like a pig”.

The group, headed by Parviz Khan, 38, an unemployed charity worker, from Alum Rock, Birmingham, was arrested in February last year during a series of counter-terrorism raids by police.

At the start of the trial of Amjad Mahmood and Zahoor Iqbal – who deny involvement in the plot – the jury at Leicester Crown Court was told that Khan was “a man who has the most violent and extreme Islamist views”, and headed a Birmingham-based network gathering money and equipment to send to Pakistan for the use of “terrorists”.

“He was enraged by the idea that there are Muslim soldiers in the British Army,” Nigel Rumfitt, prosecuting, said.

The court heard that Khan decided to act on his hatred by kidnapping such a soldier with the help of drug dealers operating in Birmingham. The victim was to be seized in a part of the city known for its nightlife and bundled into a car.

“He would be taken to a lockup garage and there he would be murdered by having his head cut off like a pig. This atrocity would be filmed . . . and the film released to cause panic and fear within the British Armed Forces and the wider public,” Mr Rumfitt said.

The jury was also told that Khan made visits to a shipping and freight company in Birmingham in 2005 and 2006 in order to send packages to a village in Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, which was a hotbed of radicalism. He described the shipments, weighing up to a tonne, as aid for earthquake victims, such as medicines and clothes or “personal effects”.

The court was told that the cargoes included equipment ordered by his terrorist contacts in Pakistan, such as electronic equipment, sleeping bags, two-way radios and waterproof map-holders.

When he was stopped by a port official in July 2006 on his return to the UK he was found with a notepad. “He was bringing a shopping list from terrorist contacts of materials they wanted sent back in the next delivery,” Mr Rumfitt said. Among items written in the notebook was a laser range-finder.

In December 2006, Khan visited Manchester airport with relatives under the guise of a family outing to Pakistan, the court heard. He was under surveillance and, as he checked in, investigators went through his luggage. Inside the suitcases and bags were walkie-talkies, map holders and a bug detector.

A search of Khan’s home in Alum Rock found similar items stacked up and ready to be packed, the court was told.

In addition to Khan, Basiru Gassama, 30, has admitted knowing about the plot but not telling anyone about it. Mohammed Irfan, 31, and Hamid Elasmar, 44, admitted helping Khan to supply the equipment.

The jury was told that a bug placed in Khan’s home by the security services recorded “highly incriminating and damaging comments” made during conversations inside the property…

Another entry in the annals of the “religion of peace.”

Still, what is truly appalling is that stories such as this are no longer capable of shocking.

From the terrorists’ friends at BBC News:

Iraqi men check bodies laid out on the ground outside a morgue in the restive city of Baquba.

Gruesome find in Iraqi province

Nine bodies and 10 severed heads have been discovered near Miqdadiya, north-east of Baghdad, Iraqi police say.

The 19 victims were all male and some had died in recent days, said a Diyala province police spokesman.

The nine intact bodies were handcuffed and had been shot dead, local medical sources said.

Diyala province is where US and Iraqi forces have been carrying out major operations against Sunni militants.

Such gruesome discoveries were almost commonplace about 18 months ago when central Iraq was caught in a frenzy of sectarian killing between Shia Muslims and their Sunni Arab counterparts….

More handiwork from those heroic “freedom fighters.”