Hillary's NAFTA Lie
This column was written by John Nichols.
What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination - made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) - that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion - promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House - that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.
This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana - states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.
But that impression was a deliberate deception.
And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant - that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning" - that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.
By John Nichols
Reprinted with permission from The Nation
The Nation What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination - made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) - that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar - a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion - promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House - that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.
This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana - states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.
But that impression was a deliberate deception.
And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant - that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning" - that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.
By John Nichols
Reprinted with permission from The Nation
Hillary is a liar?
Hey we knew that.
Hillary is Pro-NAFTA?
Hey we knew that too.
So where is the news in this?
Why wont Hillary release her tax returns? If Hillary can loan 5 million dollars to her campaign then surely the voters have a right to know the source of her funding.
The main excuse we''ve gotten so far is that Hillary Clinton just has too much on her plate. "I''m a little busy right now," she said during the Ohio debate. "I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly work toward releasing, and we will get that done and in the public domain."
That was three weeks ago. Two weeks ago, Howard Wolfson promised the returns would be released "on or around April 15." But weren''t the returns completed and filed a long time ago? Doesn''t Clinton''s accountant have time to print them out and make some copies (note to Clinton''s accountant: many Kinko''s are open 24 hours).
In short, it''s well past time for Hillary Clinton to be as "vetted" as she claims to already be -- and to have this vetting done now by Democratic voters rather than later by GOP hit squads. She needs to live up to the standard she laid out for Rick Lazio, the opponent in her 2000 Senate race. At that time, she hypocritically said it was "FRANKLY DISTURBING" that Lazio was holding back on releasing his tax returns and she even sent a staffer dressed as Uncle Sam to taunt him during campaign stops.
What a difference eight years -- and tens of millions of dollars (some of them from questionable Arab deals) -- can make.
The silence is deafening and people are beginning to wonder...
You CAN''T defend the truth about Hillary ''s lies. So what do you do? You bring Obama into the picture!
But thank you nonetheless for acknowledging that Hillary is a "L-I-A-R".
CBS: NAFTA Lie
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/20/opinion/main3955120.shtml
WASHINGTON POST: Bosnia Lie
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html
LONDON TELEGRAPH: Ireland ''Silly'' Lie
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/whillary113.xml
HILLARYS TUTOR: The Lecher
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IpsGryBxyEY
CBS: NAFTA Lie
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/20/opinion/main3955120.shtml
WASHINGTON POST: Bosnia Lie
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html
LONDON TELEGRAPH: Ireland ''Silly'' Lie
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/13/whillary113.xml
HILLARYS TUTOR: The Lecher
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IpsGryBxyEY
I don''t think Clinton cares about me having a job and I also do not think Obama cares either. So why bring it up you may ask? I think politicians should be held accountable for their actions and positions. Clinton was/is for NAFTA and is for increasing the cap on H-1Bs, let the truth see light. Likewise, Obama is also for NAFTA and increasing the cap on H-1Bs. They do not care and it should be known that they are for giving American jobs to foreigners. They stand for less opportunity for you, me and our children. NAFTA, outsourcing, and H-1Bs are an ongoing assault of the American worker by corporations who have acquired self-serving governmental influence at the expense of the American worker and American families.
You really make me wonder about those questions...
Posted by IT_Oldtimer at 07:37 PM : Mar 23, 2008
My response: You have hit the nail on the head, sir! THIS may be the core question of Hillary Clinton''s political identity!
Events seem to suggest that she does not have any unulterable convictions!
For those who are not ready supporters, this is exactly what they are wondering! :)