I'm still furious at the HuffPo idiots who saw fit to attack Bill Clinton. (See the revised version of the post below.) One of the die-hard CDS-addled Obots wrote:He's jealous because it [health care] is not a part of his legacy. NAFTA is.Actually, a principled fight for real health care reform is part of Clinton's legacy. As for NAFTA (which has, in common parlance, become a synonym for free trade)...
Does anyone remember the great NAFTA scandal of 2008? Before the Ohio primary, Obama published utterly false pamphlets claiming that he opposed NAFTA and always had. In fact, he had supported it -- and just as soon as the primaries were over, he turned right around and supported it again.
He explained his Janus-faced attitude thus: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."
During the period when Obama was telling crowds how much he hated NAFTA and favored protecting American workers, he had his Chicago School economics adviser Austan Goolsbee tell the Canadians that Obama didn't really mean it. When caught, Goolsbee at first tried to claim that he had no connection to the Obama campaign -- a laughable fib.
Daily Kos, functioning as an arm of the Obama campaign, engaged in damage control by publishing a fake story claiming that Hillary, not Obama, had offered back-channel assurances to Canada. The original source of this propaganda meme was a bit of unconfirmed journalistic flotsam in the Globe and Mail, based on a foolish mis-apprehension.
Nevertheless, a Kos writer named TocqueDeville to come up with the most inane conspiracy story ever published by the CDS-addled prog press during 2008. If TocqueDeville didn't take a pay-off to write that pile of garbage, he missed a fine opportunity. (The same writer seems to have turned against Obama in recent days, which led the other Kossacks to label him -- but of course! -- a racist. He has yet to apologize for his previous stint as a disinfo peddler.) The venomous Keith Olbermann picked up the Big CDS Lie from Kos and repeated it on the air.
The Canadian government conducted an investigation and concluded that Hillary was 100% innocent and Obama was 100% guilty as charged.
A subsequent account of the meeting by Canadian officials indicated that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had informed them that Obama's criticism of NAFTA could be taken as "political positioning."
HuffPo, trying to square the circle, decided that Obama had always offered "nuanced" support for NAFTA. Well, he sure as hell didn't sound very nuanced during the primaries.If Obama had not pretended to be anti-NAFTA -- i.e., anti-free trade -- he would not be president today. So what hath the progs wrought? What is Obama up to on the free trade front?
From an NYT piece published on April 20:
The administration has no present plans to reopen negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement to add labor and environmental protections, as President Obama vowed to do during his campaign, the top trade official said on Monday.Read those words, then read the words emblazoned on the campaign pamphlet to your right. What a fucking liar!
On the larger issue of free trade, Barack Obama has proven himself to be George Bush on steroids. What do you think the guy has been up during his foreign trips? Why do you think he went on those trips?
In Asia, earlier this month:
President Barack Obama raised hopes for creating an Asia-Pacific free-trade region by announcing Saturday that the U.S. would seek to join a smaller group seen as a precursor to a broader Pacific Rim agreement.Yup. That's what we need -- more cheap imports from Asia. (C'mon, do you really think that we're going to flood the region with American-made goods?)
Obama's move reinforced calls for expanding free trade rather than resorting to protectionist measures to cope with the recession. He pushed for progress on talks to liberalize world trade.This has been Obama's stance since the beginning of his presidency. That's why he worked hard to kill a "buy American" clause in his stimulus bill -- a clause which might have created jobs.
And now here come the Indians:
Prime minister Manmohan Singh indicated on Monday that he was open to negotiating a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the US, on the lines of a pact inked in August with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations.In other words, Obama wants to help the upper-class American fat-cats who want to profit from India's rise. But he will do nothing to help the working-class Americans whose jobs will now be outsourced at an ever-faster rate.
"I don't mind exploring the possibility of an FTA [Free Trade Agreement] with the US," Singh told the Council of Foreign Relations. According to Indian trade officials, an FTA with the US could ease barriers for US firms to invest in India's fast-growing economy and provide greater access and visas for Indian professionals to America's services industries.
Obama is also committed to a free trade deal with South Korea cobbled together by the Bushies. He had opposed this very same agreement during the campaign. The agreement remains unratified by both the U.S. Congress and the Korean National Assembly, but Obama has pledged to get the ball rolling once more.
Despite Obama's history of unabashed lying on the issue of free trade, the progs continue to blame Bill Clinton. Disgusting!
9 comments:
I for one like Bill Clinton and always have, except for a short time after he lied about Monica Lewinsky when I was pissed at him. When he said he had never had sex with "that woman" I knew instantly that he was lying and would likely get caught. But the Republicans over-reacted and put me back on his side.
Lying during a political campaign of course is completely acceptable.
History belongs to those that rewrite it the LOUDEST (or with the most resources to rewrite it).
In previous years, we've demanded laws to keep jobs here in the US. Laws and incentives are passed to do that, some rewarding companies with tax breaks, etc. The people of Ohio think jobs have been saved but actually, the good jobs that stay here are also going to foreign professionals. I don't think I'd spend $50,000 for an education now if I had to borrow the money.
Isn't it amazing how hard it is to let go of the lies and distortions that have led us to today. I want it all documented, in detail. And there's that apology thing.
C'mon, do you really think that we're going to flood the region with American-made goods?
Do we still have any?
Sure Sophie, there's a lot that's still American to export. Just gotta figure out how to package & can; obesity, crystal meth, illegal guns, planned obsolescence, teen pregnancy, and creationism! We're #1!
There seems to be an almost perfect correlation between people who hate the Clintons and people who got snookered by Obama.
This confirms my observation that Clinton-haters are full of sh*t.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, as I have also voted for all Democratic Party candidates for president since 1972 (McGovern).
I have defended Clinton against any falsehoods and distortions I found being lodged against him, which were mostly what was out there.
However, we should not deny his role in gravely exacerbating the plight of those in need through his unnecessary and unwise welfare reform measures. And why he did that.
After sensibly vetoing the GOP welfare reform twice, he signed it upon the third passage. He did it for his re-election, which wasn't even in the balance, but this made it a little easier according to the polling he commissioned Dick Morris to do.
The replacement of the long-standing federal guarantees of aid in cash and in food stamps for those who qualified under the law to a system of set and short time frames for which that aid would be provided-- whatever the circumstances-- had no immediate obvious downside, given the economic times.
In these opposite economic times, the folly and yes, I would say, the evil, of such a plan, cutting off the barest sustenance to Americans in need, even dependent children, becomes apparent.
And he did it for crass, personal reasons of his own success being made easier, even when success did not need this horrible step.
Clinton is a mass of paradoxes. Like most large scale actors on the world stage, the brilliance of his good deeds has a dark shadow consisting of the man's considerable personal flaws.
XI
Great Post! Your site covered the NAFTA scandal well when it occurred during the campaign.
I keep wondering: doesn't President Obama want to get re-elected? He won't be with this economy and I have seen no serious efforts to jump start it.
Maybe he thinks he can lose Congressional seats in 2010 (which would give him an excuse not to do anything for the country), and then still win in 2012. If so, he is dreaming. And he has been a perfect candidate for his early backers -- do they want him to have a second term? Or do his backers have a back up plan, with a Republican 2012 successor already picked out?
djmm
To my knowledge, every modern president (post-WW II) has seen losses in his Congressional party's numbers in the mid-term elections, with the exception of W's 2002 mid-term (under the politicization of 9/11), and Clinton's '96 mid-term (as the public objected to the impeachment going forward).
So I do not see how it is that Obama was ever supposed to prevent the loss of seats on a net basis. It isn't particularly conceivable.
XI
Post a Comment