If it’s going to be between Barack and Hillary, I’ll take Barack. There is no way I would vote for McCain or Huckabee. Hillary has given too much support for Dubya’s dirty little war, and now she has picked up one of Dubya’s worst habits: lying. I can’t believe that she claims that she has long been a critic of NAFTA. David Sirota has more on this in his article A Trade Transformation.
When it came to sex, Bill Clinton made us debate the definition of “is.” Now, when it comes to economics, Hillary Clinton wants to debate the definition of “long,” claiming this week in Ohio that “I’ve long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA.”Hillary claims that she has experience because she was the wife of a President. The President who was unsuccessful when it came to healthcare, but successful when it came to NAFTA. Of course this depends on what your definition of “successful” is. We did, and still do, need healthcare reform; we didn’t, and still don’t need NAFTA. Hillary’s definition of “experience”, is not the kind of experience I want in a President. Let’s just call her Hillary “Dubya” Clinton. Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire.
True, Clinton has recently criticized NAFTA-the 1993 trade policy whose lack of labor and environmental protections encourages companies to move American jobs overseas. But cheap campaign rhetoric over a few months does not make one a longtime critic-especially considering the record.
During Clinton’s 1996 visit to Texas, United Press International reported that she “touted the president’s support for NAFTA.” In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband’s “successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.” The Buffalo News reports that in 1998 she “praised corporations for mounting ‘a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.’” And last year, her lead Wall Street fundraiser told reporters that Clinton remains “committed” to NAFTA’s “free” trade structure.
Clinton’s attempt to hide this history emulates a principle pioneered by George W. Bush in this, the age of stenographic journalism. As he made his unsubstantiated case for war, Bush proved that the media are willing to present politicians’ lies as fact. Clinton simply figures that if she says she has “long been a critic” of NAFTA, then the assertion will be transcribed as truth.
0 comments - Post a comment :
Post a Comment