Hillary Faults Feds For 9/11 Health Risks

(AP)  New York Sen. Hillary Clinton ripped the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11 health risks, but did not question the actions of the most prominent Sept. 11 figure, Rudy Giuliani, who like her, happens to be running for president.

"Many who were exposed could have been protected," Clinton said Wednesday as she began the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee hearing into the government's response to the toxic dust and debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center. "We can clear the air here in Washington and clear the way to help those affected and hold accountable those who did let New Yorkers and Americans down."

Clinton, a Democrat, and other New York lawmakers have long faulted the Environmental Protection Agency for providing assurances in the days after the 2001 terror attacks that the air contamination was not a public health risk.

A subsequent internal investigation determined that those assurances were not based on scientific data and were issued partly at the direction of the White House.

---

Read more about the health crisis stemming from 9/11.

---

The head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, defended the administration's handling of the cleanup.

"In all instances, federal agencies acted with the best available data at the time and updated their communications and actions as new information was obtained," Connaughton told the panel.

Connaughton insisted that the reassuring pronouncements were accurate.

"All of us were relieved," he said. "We feared that there would be quite substantial amounts of asbestos that people might be directly exposed to. As it happens the data was showing that was not the case."

Even as Clinton pressed federal officials, she steered clear of challenging New York's response, which was led by then-mayor Giuliani.

Clinton currently leads the Democratic field of 2008 presidential candidates. Giuliani in the Republican front-runner.

In two Senate hearings into Sept. 11 health issues, Clinton has avoided challenging Giuliani's record on the subject. Many of those with the worst post-Sept. 11 illnesses are city employees, including police officers and firefighters.

When asked after the hearing why she had not examined Giuliani's role, Clinton first said that would be handled by a separate House hearing next week. Told that hearing would not address the city's role, Clinton said she was focusing on what federal agencies have done.

"For years, everybody has basically been pointing fingers at everybody else," she said. "We are attempting to try to first, in our focus, deal with the federal agencies."

Citing recent studies about the health effects of Sept. 11 contamination, Clinton warned that the casualties of the attacks will continue to mount for years.

"Many people will die as a direct result of their exposures," she said.

A study of more than 20,000 people by Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York concluded that in the months and years after the attacks, 70 percent of ground zero workers suffered some sort of respiratory illness.

A separate medical study released last month found that rescue workers and firefighters contracted sarcoidosis, a serious lung-scarring disease, at a rate more than five times higher than the years before the attacks.

Since the attacks, independent government reviews have faulted the EPA's handling of the immediate aftermath of the attacks and the agency's long-term cleanup program for nearby buildings.

Clinton and other New York lawmakers have sought to pressure the agency to do more to clean apartment buildings in lower Manhattan. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, whose district includes ground zero, will hold a Sept. 11 health hearing next week to question former EPA administrator Christine Whitman.

[bareemperor]

Once those bombs went off, there was a death fog blowing through NYC. The government version of 9/11 is a whitewash, lead by one President BuSh.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html

[rushman71]

infidel_us: That is what all of these liberal pundit news corporations want to give the news to. "Of the people, for the people." Now whether the news is true or full of hypocracy, that is beyond me.

[pwrslm]

Thats the problem with this bimbo supporting wife of a degenerate.

All she does in criticize everything. She never solves a problem, just makes a problem seem bigger.

The people to blame for 9-11 are al quaeda, no body else. Politicizing this issue is grandstanding on a ballon, it looks big, but has no real substance.

[infidel_us]

86% Contributed to Democrats. Still think you're getting "unbiased" news????

"By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 47 minutes ago

Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter

BOSTON - A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry's campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing "people I don't like," starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America ("these are the people who are really in charge").

Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."

[prinzowhales]

Isn't collective responsibility wonderful? Its 'the feds fault'...now why didn't she say "Christine Todd Whitman"? Why don't we have the full chain of those responsible named?

It is, however, hard to believe that anyone would have believed that air full of asbestoes, aerosolized mercury, concrete, plastics and chemicals would not be dangerous. One would think New Yorkers would be a bit more on the ball...but, Jones is just reporting a Gallup poll that gives Queen George a 28% approval rating...almost 1/3 of the sample group...too stupid for prime time...approval for Congress is around 14%...now that's a heady group as well...

Yet, with this limited support, the Regime is conducting the Stupid People's War on multiple fronts and the American people returned a pro-war majority to Congress....what a pack of droolers.

The criminal neglect of the first responsers extends well into the Bush Administration--he had funds cut for their health...even while supporting an amnesty bill that would provide free lawyers to illegal alliens...no health care for our heroes...they're just props for presidential photo ops.

[infidel_us]

(AP) Punjab "Sen. Hillary Clinton ripped the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11 health risks"

Imagine that! It's her state but it's Bush's fault. Dem politicians are one notch above pond scum.

[feelfree1]

Related:

'Hillary Gets Booed for Blaming the War on Iraqis'

"So Hilary gets to that "bring the troops home now(ish)" moment that all the candidates have nuanced into pure confusion. And when she gets to why our troops should be pulled out of Iraq, she introduces a really innovative idea. It went something like this: The American military, in the Clinton imagination, has "done its job" in Iraq. Valiantly, they liberated the people from Saddam and gave the Iraqi government a "chance" to take control. But now, because the Iraqi's have failed to stand up to fix their own country (you know, the one with the city-sized U.S. embassy sitting smack in the middle), it's time to bring the troops home."

"Blaming the Iraqi's for the mess in their country is beyond ignorant. Our country, the U.S.A, has invested half a trillion dollars to turn that nation into an unmitigated disaster - completely undermining real local leadership, rendering the nation nearly unlivable for Iraqis and impossibly dangerous for the foot soldiers forced to patrol the occupation. But why? Why would an intelligent and informed Senator and Presidential candidate tell this story to a room full of (mostly) white progressives?"

www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/54729/#more

[honest_news]

To the editors at CBSNews:

Do you think you could have chosen a less complimentary shot of Senator Clinton? I'm waiting for you to do a similar number on John McCain or any of the GOP contenders -- your photogs must take dozens of uncomplimentary photos of these guys at each outing, but somehow they don't grace your stories.

I know why you chose it -- as is typical of the mainstream press, you're overly sensitive about charges from the Reactionary Right that you lean to the left, so your kneejerk reaction is to find exceptionally demeaning photos of Hillary & Co. in order to prove that you don't harbor any such bias.

A suggestion: why don't you just concern yourselves with reporting the news in a fair and even manner and not worry so much about how you'll be perceived if, God forbid, you should print a nice, neutral picture of the senator from New York?

[alphaa10-2009]

KGerrels saidd, "I suppose Hillary would have wanted OSHA & the EPA to do a thorough study and final report before anyone could even attempt to go in for rescue operations...
---

Many have pointed out EPA chief Christie Whitman made her statements against the best interests, health and safety of the rescue workers. Chief among her critics are the rescue workers, themselves, and their families.

For Whitman, there is no excuse. Speaking from "best available information" is not an alibi, because neither she nor Bush had the information they claimed to have about ground zero safety.

Field data did not support EPA statements. And leaving truth completely behind, EPA official pronouncements made at White House prompting simply put politics first. This was not the first lie for the Bush regime, nor would it be the last.

[alphaa10-2009]

Interesting-- not one of the posters unhappy with Clinton had any issues to discuss. They objected without any intellectual content whatsoever, in the best five-year-old ("Nyah, nyah") style.

If this is the best the GOP can offer, Hillary is already elected-- and should be.

What animates Bush-boosters is a belief Bush is a leader, when Bush has done anything but lead this country. They believe America exports democracy, when Bush has done anything but promote democracy and the rule of law at home. They believe Bush has told them the truth about Iraq, when Iraq is the most massive political deceit in decades, costing 3,500 Aericans their lives.

With such genius for self-deception, do not expect their reason to be well-developed. Nor their capacity for shame.