Hillary's NAFTA Lie

The Nation: Clinton Distortion Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy

(The Nation)  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.

[ryindy]

What is this article trying to say?
Hillary is a liar?
Hey we knew that.

Hillary is Pro-NAFTA?
Hey we knew that too.

So where is the news in this?

[jockh]

PEOPLE WITH NOTHING TO HIDE DONT USUALLY HIDE !!

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.

[guysdigdirt]

Who thinks it is news that a clinton is a liar?

[mabs0]

When will the mainstream media run a story about Hillary''s Bosnia trip lie? It''s not like the video showing she lied has not been viewed by over a quarter million people on YouTube or anything?

The silence is deafening and people are beginning to wonder...

[aidan2nd]

Serrano338:

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".

[dav_j]

HILLARY CLINTONS LIES


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

[dav_j]

HILLARY CLINTONS LIES


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

[notopennshut]

We have always known how big liars the Clintons are. They will do and say anything in order to win, so this should come at no surprise. Now what will all those workers of OH and PA think of this liar who claims to be for them in rejecting NAFTA, and the truth is that she was one of the strongest advocate. She has helped caused the loss of jobs and other unfair practices. All you workers, look before you leap. You are only supporting the one who has been part of the cause of all of you losing jobs, homes and livelihood. McCain helped Airbus to win jobs that would have helped Boeing create many of them here in the US. So you can see that both Hillary and McCain will bring further losses in jobs to all of us. You can vote with your heart for either one of them, but you may end up having nothing going in you life either.

[maxperfectforce]

Hey Serrano338,
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.

[stn_sage]

Do you really even HAVE any convictions? Any that you won''''t deny in a heartbeat if you see some political gain in doing so?
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! :)

[it_oldtimer]

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary...you really need to get some guts and actually try to stand for something - CONSISTENTLY - you can''t just keep flip-flopping and disowning/denying all your past positions like this. It''s really starting to become apparent that you''d literally do or say anything, just to get elected.

Where''s some sign that you possess an enduring "courage of your own convictions"? Do you really even HAVE any convictions? Any that you won''t deny in a heartbeat if you see some political gain in doing so?

You really make me wonder about those questions...

[stn_sage]

NOW, to call her a L I A R and not call Obama out on his lies is just plain and simple a double standard
Posted by Serrano338 at 07:15 PM : Mar 23, 2008

Sir, I would point out to you that---for a change, but probably to counterbalance the dozens of negative articles on Mr.Obama this past week---THIS article was written to expose a shortcoming of Hillary Clinton!

I sense that it''s very emotionally satisfying to Clinton supporters that ALL articles be about Obama AND critical of him, but that is hardly fair, sir and doesn''t lend itself to balanced reporting!

Please except this one article, learn from it, and consider it! If you really believe in your candidate of choice, it won''t undermine that belief, so what''s the problem?! If it does, maybe you haven''t really decided yet! HUH?

[serrano338]

Whoever wrote that Senator Clinton does not care about you...Are you implying that Obama cares about you? Well if you think that, you''d better look at the real picture. Obama only cares about gaining power and giving nice speeches. If Obama really cared about YOU, he would take your questions, without a prepared statement to fall back on. But he can''t do that, because he knows the first person would ask the question that he does not want or cannot answer. So go ahead spew hatred and tear Hillary Clinton down, feels real good doesn''t it. Guess that feeling is what it''s like to support a real truth twister like Obama. You''re the one who needs to open your eyes. Obama isn''t the wonderful saint you are holding him up to be. At least I''m not expecting Hillary to walk on water and feed the multitudes with a loaf of bread and a fish.

[serrano338]

You know I just don''t get the nasty hateful tone and viciousness of this article. It must be paid for by the Obama campaign or the writer is crashing from drinking the kool-aid for all these weeks. While it may be true that Senator Clinton''s position on NAFTA now is different from when she was first lady but this article is leaving out some other essential facts about what Clinton has said about NAFTA. She fell in line on NAFTA after the president decided to promote it, but she also voiced some concerns about NAFTA, way before this election.

NOW, to call her a L I A R and not call Obama out on his lies is just plain and simple a double standard. Obama contradicted or L I E D about his knowing about the racist comments at his church and then in his speech says he knew. His lie is unforgiveable because unlike NAFTA he actively participated for 20 years, exposing his children, getting married, baptised and blessed by Rev. Wright in the church that awarded Farakahn only recently.

SO, be fair, tell the lies you want, but tell the lies of both candidates not only one, raising Obama up as some kind of saint when he is also a L I A R.

Please this kind of reporting just disgusts me and shows that people are the ones who need to change, a president is not going to change hateful reporting and hateful people, no matter what their beliefs about the candidates are.

[stn_sage]

If it weren''t so tragic, it''d be comical!

That is, the blind support of HRC supporters. That aspect of HRC, her pro-NAFTA support---at least---has been ''vetted'' and thoroughly substantiated! I don''t know why her supporters have such a difficult time believing this!

Hey, she sat on the board of Wal-Mart for years, all the while, THOUSANDS of women were being discriminated against, underpaid and underpromoted.
She didn''t lift a finger to help! More real evidence about how she supports women in the workplace and labor in general!

You pro-worker, pro-labor, pro-family people in Ohio who voted for Clinton, you''re all SUCKERS! You wasted your vote! She doesn''t care about you people! Open your EYES, for Jimini''s sake! You people in Pennsylvania, you''re NEXT! It''s up to you!

[dudzim]

This issue merits much broader media coverage and on-going discussion.


M

[maxperfectforce]

Hillary Clinton
"I also want to reaffirm my commitment to the H-1B visa program and to increase the current cap. Foreign skilled workers contribute greatly to our technological development. That is well understood in Silicon Valley."

Obviously she is not concerned if American high tech workers can find work. And as this article calls out, she is not concerned with American manufacturing workers. What I resent is people like sesanders1 lack of concern for the American worker, American families, and their ever decreasing chance to grasp the American dream.

[omega39-2009]

Big Surprise....Hillary is in a leadership position on the DLC and their policy, right from their website states:

Support pro-poor trade reform. U.S. tariffs, far higher on clothes and shoes than on any other products, are the most regressive part of American tax policy. Failing to save jobs, they nonetheless raise the price of life necessities for single mothers and other low-income American families, while imposing a heavy burden on poor countries. Congressional leaders should resist the temptation to promote anti-trade policies that neither benefits Americans nor less developed countries.

Hillary probably attended many meetings as First Lady and in playing that roll, she had to appear acquiescent to whatever Pres. Clinton wanted. Just because she attended the meetings doesn''t mean she approved of the plans.
I resent the egregious language in this article...It is over the top and divisive...a biased piece of claptrap!

[maxperfectforce]

Nice article. The truth laid out. The only people that would dispute such facts are Clinton supporters. The Clintons will say and do anything to get elected so it is no surprise that their supporters have no problems rationalizing, justifying, spinning and deceiving.

What is a surprise is the state that has borne the ill-effects of NAFTA would not hold her accountable.
How is your economy doing Ohio? The Clintons do not care about how Americans make a living. The corporations want NAFTA, outsourcing, and H-1B''s. You can count on Hillary NOT to stand up for the American worker.