Hillary Clinton Pretends She Never Praised NAFTA

[babylonsister]

Hillary Clinton Pretends She Never Praised NAFTA

by David Sirota | February 15, 2008


In response to Barack Obama's attack on NAFTA, the Hillary Clinton campaign has gone into meltdown mode. Here's Dow Jones' Marketwatch:

"Clinton's campaign fired back at Obama, charging the Illinois senator with misrepresenting Clinton's position on trade...'Recently falsely claimed that Hillary said that NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy. Now, Obama is resting his argument on a single paraphrase from an article written twelve years ago,' Clinton's campaign said in an emailed statement."


The Huffington Post has followed along with a laugh-out-loud piece in which the chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House.

What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools.

Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12850

[tyne]

1. Right on day one?

wrong....yet again.

[TalkAgain]

2. Lying as usual. These people lie with ease.....nt

[napi21]

3. I've heard several people who worked in the WH back then say that she kept telling

Bill NOT to sign the NAFTA agreement. After he signed it, I would think she didn't have a choice but to support her husband, the President. I'm trying to remember exactly who those people were. I know it was interviews on CNN & MSNBC, and the interviews weren't very long ago. A month or so ago I think.

I know during the debates she said that the trade agreements needed to be revisited, and that they hadn't produced the results that were expected.

[babylonsister]

4. I'd love to know who said that she didn't support NAFTA, and then

to see proof of that. The problem is she's trying to rewrite her own history. And if someone like Carville said that, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

[napi21]

6. I found this link. It doesn't state exactly who I heard in the interview,

but it does relate the same thing I heard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html

And NO it wasn't Carville! I know he's nothing but a political operative, and I wouldn't put a lot of trust in what I might hear from him.

[babylonsister]

9. Thank you for finding that article.

I still don't know what to believe. If she was against NAFTA, why is she hedging now when she's free to speak? I guess she doesn't want to totally condemn what her husband passed, but it's not doing her any favors.

[billyoc]

5. Yes, I'm part of the DLC leadership but I was against NAFTA.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[eilen]

8. I didn't inhale either.

One has to wonder where is the integrity. The media had been all over Bush because he won't admit to making any mistakes. Why can't people admit when they are wrong about something? The problem with taking credit for the Clinton administration is that she has to take the negative with the positive. If she were truly her own woman/person, why couldn't she have been public about her opinion on Nafta? It strikes me as a character flaw of hers to always back her husband up, even when he is screwing her over and disrespecting her in front of the entire nation. That tells me she is willing to sell herself out for ambition. If this is not true, tell me where she has put herself on the line for her beliefs. I am open to hearing positive things here and I desire to because truly, she may become President and we really need hope in this country that things will turn around and not merely be business as usual.

[eilen]

7. Why on Earth Are Hillary and Obama Supporting Pro-Corporate Trade Deals?

article from alternet

Excerpt:

"Supporting the NAFTA model does speak to the candidates' judgment. Obama said that he'd vote for the Peru deal because "it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO," but the AFL-CIO released a statement saying that, because of "several issues of concern to working families," the AFL-CIO "is not in a position to support the Peru FTA." "Labor and environmental protections" are a scam -- Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that his members were "encouraged" by assurances that the deal's labor provisions "cannot be read to require compliance."

Obama went on to insult the intelligence of a crowd of New Hampshire residents by explaining: "We cannot draw a moat around the U.S. economy because China is still trading, India is still trading."

....

"It's certainly difficult to interpret Clinton's justification for supporting the deal any other way. After waffling on the issue for a couple of days, her campaign released a statement saying she'll vote for the Peru FTA because it "levels the playing field for American workers."

Clinton said she'd oppose the next deals coming down the pike: treaties with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Given that they are all substantially similar -- the Panama deal, in particular, is basically identical to the Peru agreement -- I asked democratic strategist and columnist David Sirota if he had any insight into what game she was up to. "What's going on here," he said, "is that she is endorsing the NAFTA trade model, but saying that she has problems with certain countries' specific behaviors. And that's what's really telling. She is saying she has no problem with trade deals rigged to crush American and foreign workers on behalf of Wall Street, and that the only real reason to ever oppose that model is if there are other problems/complications with the specific country in question."

2008 Candidates on Issues from usliberals at about.com

"Summary for Hillary Clinton on Free Trade
Is she generally a supporter of U.S. free trade: YES
Does she actively push for major modifications to U.S. free trade arrangements? NO"

"Summary for Barack Obama on Free Trade
Is he generally a supporter of U.S. free trade: YES
Does he actively push for major modifications to U.S. free trade arrangements? YES"

Neither candidate is clean on trade issues. However, Sen. Clinton has referred to her "35 years of experience" and has insinuated that the next Clinton White House will be like the first and that her husband would be very influential. I tend not to believe she will do much to change the status quo-- I live in her state and we have lost more people for economic reasons. However Obama is untested. It's a toss up --but empirically, I know to have little stock in her promises.

[autorank]

10. NAFTA & Cocaine Sales -

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982359-1,00.html
Nearly 70% of the cocaine that reaches the U.S. each year passes through Mexico. In addition, Mexicans have begun to distribute and sell the drug on the streets of American cities. Meanwhile, cocaine has pushed corruption, violence and criminality in Mexico to a new level. Such facts raise embarrassing questions for the Clinton Administration, which fought so hard for NAFTA and has bailed out Mexico by issuing loan guarantees that will cost the U.S. $20 billion if Mexico defaults. "Mexico is not a stable country right now," says Indiana Republican Congressman Dan Burton, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. "It's almost, although not quite, a narco-democracy."


----------------------

http://www.siliconv.com/trade/tradepapers/drugs.html
With the advent of NAFTA, the drug gangs expanded into many legitimate businesses which could be used for smuggling. U.S. officials have reported on their purchase of airlines, trucking companies, new and used car dealerships, petroleum transport corporations and others. However, the increasing use of intermediaries as owners have made it almost impossible to trace their activities in detail. Operations of this size could not be carried out without at least the passive cooperation of key government agencies. In fact,corruption of the Mexican authorities by the drug cartels is notorious. A former Baja California Mayor showed how hopeless enforcement is by stating that he could pay police $ 300 per month while the drug cartels were offering $1,000 per week (2). The widespread corruption in the Mexican system has provided some spectacles which seem more like fantasy:

1. The newly appointed drug czar (General Guttierez) is arrested as a paid agent of the Mexican drug cartels.

2. The former Attorney General, to whom all drug enforcement reported, is detained in the U.S. after fleeing while his $7 million laundered U.S. bank account is seized.

3. Federal and City Police fight a pitched gun battle in Juarez that was a dispute between rival protection groups for the drug cartels. (2)

4. The brother of the President (Raul Salinas) is arrested and the Swiss are proceeding toward confiscating his $ 84 million account on drug charges.

[Turn CO Blue]

11. In all due fairness, my hero, Al Gore, was for NAFTA n/t