Hillary's NAFTA Lies Kill All of Her Credibility on Trade
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation at 7:24 AM on March 22,
2008.
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. Post
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.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80454/www.thenation.com]
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(152 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
- 
