Clinton Schedules Vague But Lead To Evidence of NAFTA Lie

Hillary Clinton released her schedules from when she was First Lady and we can be certain that journalists will be spending quite a lot of time digging through them. The records were quite vague, lacking specific information on the meetings. NBC News notes that the calendar entries are “full of unexplained private meetings on key dates when she and President Clinton were fending off a variety of scandals.”

The first item to embarrass Clinton shows she has not been honest when talking about NAFTA. Political Punch reports on a meeting regarding NAFTA in 1993 where Clinton expressed a much more favorable view on the treaty than she does today:

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 if 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.”

Recalls a second attendee, “they were looking for women in international trade who supported NAFTA. Senator Clinton came by at the end. And of course she asked for our support and help in passing NAFTA.”

Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. “They’re all saying, ‘What’s this all about?’ We all heard it firsthand.” She says Clinton isn’t being honest with voters today.

None of this is the least bit surprising considering Clinton standards for honesty and the manner in which they have no qualms about reversing themselves on any positions based upon what is most expedient politically.

ABC News  reviewed Clinton’s international trips and found they were “standard First Lady tourist fare” and which did not make her any more qualified to answer  a 3 a.m. phone call during a crisis.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Christopher says:

    No wonder the Borg Queen dragged her hands when it came to releasing the records of her tenure as First Lady.

    She knew there would information there that would contradict her debate points.

    Like her early support of NAFTA.

  2. 2
    Lex says:

    A recent reading of Elizabeth Drew’s On The Edge clued me into the deeper story here. The administration was trying to decide which major initiatives to focus on: NAFTA, health care, and/or reinventing government.

    Obviously, health care was Hillary’s fiefdom. She apparently was “against” NAFTA, but not on principle…because it subtract from the health care effort.

    So she’s able to say that she was against it, gently misleading us by not explaining why.

  3. 3
    Wayne says:

    Of course the reality is that NAFTA has not had the negative impact that Clinton, Obama or most of the unions claim. From, a WSJ article by Daniel T. Griswold, Mar 1 2008: “Ohio workers would pay a heavy price for pulling out of Nafta. Canada and Mexico are the top two markets for exports from Ohio, accounting for more than half of the state’s exports in 2006. According to the Ohio Department of Development, 283,500 workers in the state earn their living in the export sector, with machinery, car parts, aircraft engines and optical/medical equipment among the leading exports. A trade showdown would put those good-paying jobs at risk.

    Since Nafta took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, the U.S. economy has added a net 26 million new jobs. The average real hourly compensation (wages and benefits) of workers has climbed 23%. Real median household net worth has increased by a third. Of course, Nafta was not the primary driver of all that good news. But it is a useful counterpoint to the sense that large numbers of Americans have been “devastated” by Nafta and other trade agreements.”

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:


    The effects of NAFTA are certainly open to different interpretations. I’m far more interested in the manner in which Clinton tries to rewrite history on her views based upon what is politically expedient. It wouldn’t bother me if she had supported NAFTA if she was honest about it, and from there went on to discuss what she would do in response to any harm it might have caused, or even if she defended benefits from it.

    The problem with Clinton is that she has no principles other than supporting what is politically expedient. If the political winds change, she is perfectly willing to rewrite history, just as with her position on Iraq.

Leave a comment