Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton's Released White House Records show she Lied about Opposing NAFTA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:43 AM
Original message
Hillary Clinton's Released White House Records show she Lied about Opposing NAFTA
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080320_hillary_clinton_s_re.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20, 2008

By Steven Leser

We are starting to see why Hillary did not want to release the records of her actions as First Lady. There are embarrassing and seriously damaging items emerging on a host of issues. I'll address them one by one in articles over the next few weeks. One of the issues that has important implications for the current race for the nomination is the emergence of facts contradictory to what Hillary has said about her past positions on NAFTA.


NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement which came into effect January 1 1994, is blamed by many people throughout Midwestern and Rust Belt states for the region's massive loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico in the late 1990s. Democrats in those regions, in particular, tend to have a negative opinion of NAFTA and those politicians responsible for its passage. Statistics show they have good reason. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, since NAFTA was passed in 1994, net manufacturing employment in the United States has declined by 3,654,000.


The politician most associated with the passage of NAFTA is former President Bill Clinton. Since NAFTA has become such a liability in the race for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton has attempted to paint herself as being opposed to NAFTA all along. This CNN video of Anderson Cooper with Carl Bernstein shows that Hillary and her campaign were trying to sell the idea that Hillary was opposed to NAFTA and actually argued with Bill Clinton in 1993 not to pass NAFTA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahXDVLesZSA


In fact, the documents released today show a meeting that Hillary chaired at the White House on November 10, 1993 where she promoted the passage of NAFTA to 120 people. Reports are coming out in every news agency pointing out the contradictions between her stated positions since announcing her bid for the Presidency and everything before that. ABC News' Jake Trapper on Political Punch interviewed several of the attendees of Hillary's November 10th meeting http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html. Trapper reports:

Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress.

"It wasn't a drop-by it was organized around her participation," said one attendee. "Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary's position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive of NAFTA.

That first attendee recalls that the First Lady's office in the East Wing put together "the invitation list, who was invited authorizations and all that stuff."

And what is this attendee's response to Clinton today distancing herself from NAFTA? "For people who worked hard to pass NAFTA and who support the importance of markets opening for the economy in the long term, they're very upset. A number of the women who were there are very upset. You need to have some integrity in your position. The Clintons when Bill Clinton was president took a moderate position on trade for Democrats. For her to repudiate that now seems pretty phony."

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


This Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw where MSNBC's Tim Russert covers Hillary's position on NAFTA including her statements on NAFTA in a debate shows a Hillary Clinton constantly trying to have it both ways on NAFTA and contradicting herself every other time she talks about NAFTA.



One of the things you would expect of someone who really has good experience and judgment is that they can articulate a basic set of principles and positions on issues that they can run on and defend and that stay relatively static. I'm not saying you have to stick to them in the face of overwhelming evidence that one of your positions has been proven to be wrong, like George W. Bush does, even someone who has good experience and judgment occasionally changes their mind. That is not what we have with Hillary. Hillary gives a different opinion on the same subjects every couple of weeks depending on her audience and what she thinks it will net her. As evidence of this is now coming out and is going to be presented to the American people in the starkest terms, how can one be expected to trust her to do anything that she says she is going to do? How can one really know what she believes or intends to do about anything? The only things Hillary's experience seems to be good for is perfecting how to talk out of both sides of her mouth, engaging in the politics of personal destruction and other aspects of her ruthless pursuit of power that remind one of what a Karl Rove might do. That kind of person ought not to be the Democratic nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. this has been re-hashed 1000000000000000 times. She was against it, but supporting hubbys admin
as she should have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. So Laura Bush can come out against her husband on policy...
but not only does Hillary have to remain silent about her disagreement, she has to chair rah-rah meetings about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Is that like saying you are against the Iraq war, but deep down you really support it?
Maybe that is why we don't trust her. Because she will say she supports things when she really doesn't, and then you have no idea where she will fall in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. Or like voting for something, but hoping it doesn't pass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
37. or like saying "I voted for the war, but I will get you out of it"
crass pandering and lying.

SHE'S FAKE FAKE FAKE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Couldn't she have just stayed out of it completely?
Why did she have to go around touting it as a positive thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. BINGO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spotbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. She was secretly against it
trust her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. LOL
:evilgrin: :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
36. Remember how the media used to joke that "Hillary was running things" back then?
She wanted to be involved in whatever she could. I don't blame her. If I was a *woman* and historically resigned to picking out the curtains, and I had an opportunity to sit in a meeting, I would fucking do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Kinda like Obama being against Wright's viewpoints, but supporting him just the same....

...Why... if Hillary had CONVICTION, wouldn't she have stood UP to her husband and proclaimed for all the world to see that he was WRONG on NAFTA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Its like Hillary staying around even if Bill is cheating.
She doesn't support his cheating, but she doesn't kick him to the curb either, when I think she should have. Just like you think Obama should have kicked out Rev. Wright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
35. Uh, because she was a *woman* and *constantly vilified* in the media back then?
Do you people not understand our society?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky 13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Wow. Now THAT's some busted logic.
So let me get this straight. Hillary, the new icon of feminism, suppressed or mis-represented her own thoughts and opinions on an important issue and just said whatever hubby told her to?

Can you guys just pick a story and go with it? One minute she is a strong feminist who boldly spoke out against her husband's policy and the next minute she is the submissive little wifey that goes along with whatever her husband's stance is? Suspension of disbelief is much harder when the dialog is so intensely unbelievable.

This is getting pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. I know. The tortured logic to try to make Hillary look right on this is the kind of logic
'W' would choke on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. She was against the TIMING - stop spinning her trepidation over TIMING of NAFTA into being against
Edited on Thu Mar-20-08 11:13 AM by blm
it. Delude yourself, if that's how you want to live your life, but exppect to be called on the bullshit when you post it here.

You treat this forum as if there isn't a damn one of us who has paid attention the last 3-4 decades.

Those who have been fighting to reveal government corruption for decades and fighting to preserve the open government that is our right, definitely do NOT side with the Clintons.

Try jumping into a corruption thread here at DU and see how many Hillary supporters and defenders show up - they won't - they aren't even INTERESTED in the nation's historic record and respect it as much as Clintons respect open government - NOT AT ALL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. Right, as opposed to saying "Honey, I'll disagree so I'll work on XYZ instead, ok?"
Where XYZ is, oh, I dont know, any of tens of thousands of other policy initiatives?

What kind of ridiculous spin are you selling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
25. Let's make this easy for you. What is Hillary's position on NAFTA?
Start the thumb twiddling...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. The crickets are evolving into mammals at this point...
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchleary Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
You want a real WTF? Look her and TATA consulting up. Profits uber alles, right Hill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gayron Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. So Obama has two positions on NAFTA remember!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
11. I'm sure she's only saying she's against NAFTA to win the nomination
But now what will she say??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
13. Is it fun to spread lies?
Fmr. Clinton adviser confirms Hillary was critical of NAFTA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJxtzLQ51Q
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I remember that interview with Gergen. Turns out he was the MC at Hillary's proNAFTA meeting
according to the people who attended. That blows his credibility on the subject out of the water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. but the other 'attendees' who contradict him are credible to you?
Edited on Thu Mar-20-08 11:19 AM by bigtree
how quaint.


Carl Bernstein: Hillary Clinton and NAFTA

Bernstein: "Hillary Clinton’s economics, the ones she preached to her husband in the White House are much closer to John Edwards then you would think. She argued with Bill Clinton when she was First Lady, her husband, she said ‘Bill, you are doing Republican economics when you are doing NAFTA.’ She was against NAFTA. And if she would somehow come out and tell the real story of what she fought for in the White House and failed in a big argument with her husband she would end up moving much closer to those Edwards followers."

listen to Bernstein: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/31/carl-bernstein-says-hillary-clinton-fought-against-nafta-when-bill-implemented-it


"In August in '92, we had to make a decision," Mickey Kantor the former U.S. secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. "President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support NAFTA, and of course he did. ... Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward."

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


ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Aired February 25, 2008 - 22:00 ET

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: "If I could just add one other postscript, Anderson, on NAFTA, I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight. And I must tell you, Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA.

(LAUGHTER)

GERGEN: She -- and I think that's putting it mildly.

I'm not sure she objected to all the provisions of it. She just didn't see why her husband and why the -- that White House had to go do that fight. She was very unhappy about it, wanted to move on to health care. So, I do think there's some justification for her camp saying, you know, that she's never been a great backer of NAFTA.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Interesting.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But it did have to do with health care, David, right? Because health care was her baby, and NAFTA was the president's baby.

GERGEN: Well, that's right. But you -- as you remember, Gloria, they had to -- Bill Clinton, I thought it was one of his most courageous decisions. I'm a NAFTA backer. But he had to take on the labor unions, had to a lot of her Democratic constituencies that she wanted to keep firm for the health care fight.

So, there was a lot about NAFTA she didn't really like, but she had to keep her mouth shut, because, after all, she was -- he was the president.

COOPER: Fascinating.

David Gergen, thank you..."

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14842
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. As opposed to a paid political operative? Gee, let me think about that...
puhleeze.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. who are they? Sight unseen, you accept their word.
unbelievable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Let me make it real easy for you, What is Hillary's position on NAFTA?
I'm breeding crickets so lets see how many generations it takes to get a straight answer...

<chirp> <chirp>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. let me rush around for an answer you know well
Why don't you stick to defending the premise of your post? Who are these 'attendees' you put so much trust and faith in to accuse Hillary Clinton and dispute Gergen, who was there in his official role in the administration? If they are so credible, why are they unnamed? The sources I cited went on record. Why should anyone take the word of some unnamed source with their unknown bias?

crickets. cute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I am defending the premise of my post, Hillary's many lies on NAFTA
What is her position?

<crickets, generation #2>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. So it makes losers feel big and powerful to spread lies. Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Let me make it easy for you. What is Hillary's position on NAFTA?
Queue the jeopardy music please...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. Yeah, nothing, thats what I thought, no one is sure what her position is anymore she has changed it
so many times
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllexxisF1 Donating Member (559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
28. What else can you call it.



Ed Schultz has just had a journalist on his show that has already began sifting through the released documents from the Clinton Library to which Hillary held 4 closed meetings promoting NAFTA in the past.

Do not get me wrong I understand Bill's position clearly. NAFTA did not turn out the way it was supposed to and it was a mistake. However Hillary has said "She was always against NAFTA" which according to these documents proves she was not.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. the documents show she spoke at some meetings, no transcript, no account of what was discussed
. . . two unnamed 'attendees' speaking today, refusing to identify themselves.

These documents 'prove' she attended these meetings. That's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
31. Obama supports NAFTA and "free trade" too. Where's the contrast? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Newspapers Reported Obama's Support of NAFTA, Desire To Pursue Similar Agreements (02/16/08)

Associated Press: Obama said the United States should ‘pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.' "Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." AP, 9/8/04

Decatur Herald & Review: 'Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.' "While some people believe NAFTA has been good for U.S. farmers, the trade results could have been better, Keyes said. NAFTA negotiators said the United States might lose manufacturing jobs but would become a service economy, but now those service jobs also are being exported, he said. Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. 'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade." Decatur Herald & Review, 9/9/04
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. So we have two cheap-labor "progressives" running for the nomination
Do you think workers can feed their families on "hope" after their jobs are outsourced? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
34. Obama supported expanding Nafta in 12/2007 - they both suck when it comes to Nafta.
So get over it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC