• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Somebody's been fibbing about NAFTA!

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,055
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Well, well, well. Guess who wasn't telling the truth when she said "You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

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.
Click to expand...
 
Kaylee said:
But on the positive side, we now how proof that Hillory Clinton was involved in strategy plans, policy making and negotiations beyond the typical role of a first lady and outside her failed and secretative attempt to get the USA a national health care plan. :p
Click to expand...

Well, there's that. :D
 
Not to mention it is a good thing that she is pro-NAFTA.
 
Let me add a few more lines to the quote from the debate you linked to, she clarifies her statement a little bit:
You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic. I've said it was flawed. I said that it worked in some parts of our country, and I've seen the results in Texas. I was in Laredo in the last couple of days. It's the largest inland port in America now. So clearly, some parts of our country have been benefited.
Click to expand...

So, I don't understand: she supported it, and she supports it; she is critical of it and wants to fix it. Why is that a problem?
 
OK, I'll break it down.
You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.
Click to expand...
We've already established that this part is false, and contradicts the following sentence.
I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration
Click to expand...
How can one be a "critic of NAFTA from the very beginning" and yet not have a public position on it from the very beginning? And if what John Nichols writes is true, she was an "ardent advocate" from the very beginning, not a critic. Perhaps she was both an advocate and a critic? Well, that sounds like trying to have it both ways. What was John Kerry's famous quote? "I was for it before I was against it?" Was Hillary both against it and for it simultaneously? That's a pretty nuanced position.
but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic. I've said it was flawed. I said that it worked in some parts of our country, and I've seen the results in Texas. I was in Laredo in the last couple of days. It's the largest inland port in America now. So clearly, some parts of our country have been benefited.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, but what she's claiming here is that she never had a position on it when she was first lady. John Nichols says she was an "ardent advocate" as first lady. Hence, that is the fib.
 
The problem is that she lied, exaggerated, conned, simply to win in Ohio...not surprised really. Disgusted, but not surprised...its Hillary remember.

TAM:)
 
Puppycow said:
OK, I'll break it down.
We've already established that this part is false, and contradicts the following sentence. How can one be a "critic of NAFTA from the very beginning" and yet not have a public position on it from the very beginning? And if what John Nichols writes is true, she was an "ardent advocate" from the very beginning, not a critic. Perhaps she was both an advocate and a critic? Well, that sounds like trying to have it both ways. What was John Kerry's famous quote? "I was for it before I was against it?" Was Hillary both against it and for it simultaneously? That's a pretty nuanced position.
That's interesting, but what she's claiming here is that she never had a position on it when she was first lady. John Nichols says she was an "ardent advocate" as first lady. Hence, that is the fib.
Click to expand...

'Critical of' does not mean 'Against'. She can full well think it isn't perfect and still think it is the best thing available. What we need to know is what the alternative to NAFTA was and if she was MORE opposed to that alternative.
I am critical of democracy but I am not against it, I am a strong supporter...

She does not claim she had no position against it when she was first lady, she had no 'public' position (she would not seek to differentiate herself from her husband at that time)
 
Puppycow said:
Too much nuance.
Click to expand...
What's nuanced about saying one thing in front of business leaders and the exact opposite in front of labor unions? That's not nuance, that's having your cake and eating it too.
 
The great thing is, this anti-Nafta spooge from Hillary/Obama wouldn't have even come out had the race been decided before Ohio.

I think it says a lot about the lust for power and the moral compromises people will make to get elected.
 
I read the statement as no more than "I've been a critic ever sense I've been allowed to take a public stand on it". Or to change her wording a bit "I've been a critic since the very beginning. Well, obviously not while Bill was president, since I took no public position at that time, but certainly since I began campaining for the senate I have been critical."

It's telling that in that very long and detailed transcript this was the only thing pulled out as possibly factually incorrect, and it hinges on exactly how you parse a sentence spoken extemporaneously. And that the rest of the transcript backs up the fact that she supports NAFTA, but is critical of it and thinks it needs to be changed.
 
I’ll parse it further --

From Puppychow’s 2nd link in the OP:

Democratic Debate Transcript, Cleveland, Ohio

Published February 26, 2008

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15604/
You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic. I've said it was flawed. I said that it worked in some parts of our country, and I've seen the results in Texas. I was in Laredo in the last couple of days. It's the largest inland port in America now. So clearly, some parts of our country have been benefited.
Click to expand...


From the first link in the OP:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860

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,
Click to expand...



In addition, not only was she unambiguously 100% for NAFTA during Bill Clinton’s administration, but per The Nation's analysis of the 11,000 papers released from the Bill Clinton's administration, she was actively involved in blocking the efforts of others to get a better agreement:

The Nation said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I would like to see the specific documents posted on the net that has led The Nation to come to the assertion mentioned just above -- I am inclined to believe The Nation’s and ABC’s reporting on this one.
 
WildCat said:
What's nuanced about saying one thing in front of business leaders and the exact opposite in front of labor unions? That's not nuance, that's having your cake and eating it too.
Click to expand...

And Every Politician does it.
It is not so much I disagree with what the Obama supporters say about Hilary. It is that I just think Obama is not much better.
 
WildCat said:
What's nuanced about saying one thing in front of business leaders and the exact opposite in front of labor unions? That's not nuance, that's having your cake and eating it too.
Click to expand...

A reasonable person will take a position which is a compromise between many different extremes. A reasonable person who is willing to be a bit "slick" will then focus on the parts taken from either extreme to suit their purposes. How sleazy this is varies exactly on how this is done. If you say both the things people agree with and disagree with but merely try to focus attention on the things they agree with and try to justify the things they disagree with, that's just being able to present your opinions effectively. If you say the things only the things people agree with and try to vaguely imply the things they agree with that you do not really support, then that's bull. And there's various intermediates in between. Both Obama and Clinton have probably done a bit of both, although I've not done some sort of rigorous examination of their respective speeches.
 
WildCat said:
What's nuanced about saying one thing in front of business leaders and the exact opposite in front of labor unions? That's not nuance, that's having your cake and eating it too.
Click to expand...

I know, I was just trying to be humorous. :duck:

John Nichols described it in the strongest, least charitable terms (Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar). Your formulation is somewhere in between. "Too much nuance" is a euphemism.
 
So how does this go?

She voted for NAFTA before she voted against NAFTA? Did this logic work the last time it was used? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom