BUSH SR game us NAFTA, not Clinton

[nadinbrzezinski]

I know the mytholody but time to correct this historical error and place blame where blame belongs

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html

Ah yes as discusion goes forth, remember it is the Bush crime family who is screwing us once again...

[Romulox]

1. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law...nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. my apologies

my apologies

[B Calm]

29. after the bill was introduced by republicans, and signed by a republican

majority..

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

38. wrong, the GOP didn't gain a majority until '94

NAFTA squeaked through the Democratic Senate (by one vote, I belive)
Clinton campaigned hard for it. And its passage is owed to him.
Why oh why do Dems keep apologizing for the Clintons? They're not on our side!

[B Calm]

44. You need to reread my post. I said the majority, if not all of the republicans

voted for it. I can't say that about the democrats who voted!

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. "It was signed into law by President Clinton"

I think we can place the blame on both bush and clinton.

[silverojo]

4. Even if Clinton hadn't signed it into law

He made it quite clear during the campaign and in the debates, that he strongly supported NAFTA.

[ProudDad]

13. Yep, Slick Willie was bought and sold

by the same people who hang out with ghwbush...his corporate capitalist masters...

[cali]

24. What's it like living in such a stark

black/white world?

[ProudDad]

25. What's it like

to be so dense, incurious and un-nuanced?


You have any proof he wasn't bought and sold by the corporations... He sure as hell got his campaign funding from them. He certainly did their bidding for them. He sure as hell didn't get in their way.

If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it craps like a duck -- it's probably a duck...

[cali]

30. Yawn. Can't you do better at the adhoms

than that? And you're the one that made the claim; it's YOUR responsibility to provide proof or even substantive evidence that Clinton was wholly a creature of "the corporations". I'm not by any means, claiming Clinton wasn't influenced by corporate money, but that's a little different than claiming, as you do, that he was their creature.

And I do have evidence that he wasn't completely owned by corporate interests: The Clinton Health Care plan.

[Greyhound]

40. The way I look at it is to compare what he did with what he said.

All of his "progressive" issues got lip service, but little action (i.e. equal rights for gays became DADT), while every one his Republik initiated "good for business" issues were imposed on us, to our great detriment.

[ProudDad]

42. Buzzzzzzzz --- Gongggggggg

Wrong!!!!

"The Clinton Health Care plan" was a sell-out to the health insurance industry that was a major funder of Slick Willie and now Hillary...

Nice try... :hi:

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. And the American people elected him on that platform

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Yeah, except that it was arpoved by the house and

the senate (controlled by Dems) and once that happens with a treaty of that scope there is little choice.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. There is this thing called a VETO

He had a choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Yes he had, but he wasn't willing to use

it

They made the calculation that

A it would be good for the United States (wrong)

B that this would appease the Pubblies... and we all know how well that worked

I am not defending Clinton, but Bush... he is as much or more to blame for it...

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

39. he pushed it through the senate

had it not been for the backing of a (fake) Democrat, it probably would have been defeated
yes, Bill acomplished the GOP agenda in ways that Regan and Bush never could

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. But Clinton pushed the implementing legislation.

As did Bill Richardson, Robert Matsui, Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Rostenkowski, and just enough other Dems to slip it through. I'm still pissed after all the years that our own people told us to eat fucking cake!

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. They did

now what pisses me off is that NEITHER side has pushed for the enforcement of ALL side agreements in toto.

Now if they did, them truckers would not be cheaper, if you get my drift

But I still say... Bush SR is responsible for negotiating this... and in my view at this point we should get out... and there are many in Mexico who would love Mexico to pull out and the same goes for Canada. It has NOT worked, except for the very top of the three societies

[ProudDad]

26. Those "side agreements"

had NO TEETH. They had NO enforcement provisions. They were NOT binding...

They were a smoke screen so that the Dems that were strong armed by Slick Willie to serve the corporate interests had some cover when they got back to their districts...

You're absolutely right about the results of NAFTA -- good for the ubber-rich in all three countries -- bad for everyone else...

[Jesse Hemingway]

11. Whats the difference

If a person can stop something and doesn't what the difference, during the 1992 only Ross Perot was clear against NAFTA. It is a fact that this was bush's project but ran out of time to get it finished. Clinton should have stopped it but he pushed it through.

[Elwood P Dowd]

17. I'm with you.

I was totally against it back then. There are several on this board that supported NAFTA and are just now realizing the error of their ways.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I was against it from word go

Hell I got to see the effects of this "wonderful" treaty on the Mexican Economy before it truly affected the US

And also with free trade with China.

But truth is truth, and it is time to blame the bush crime family for yet another crime against the american people

Its a long tradition going back to oh WW II... if not earlier

[Elwood P Dowd]

19. Don't forget Carla Hills.

I don't like using the word "bitch" on DU, but she definitely qualifies as one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Nope, but the point of this is for folks to realize

the bush's are economic royalists or worst, and they have done, now three generations running, great damage to this country

Yep, they have been enabled by the "gentlemany traditions" of the House, the Senate and the Presidency... but the bush family is a mafia

[HughBeaumont]

31. There are some, calling themselves "democrats", that STILL do.

Those people are in my Red X Toilet. That's how I can tell who they are.

[bridgit]

10. most correct...

[ProudDad]

12. The DEMOCRAT Congress gave us NAFTA

Don't try to let them weasel out of it...

It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993. He didn't HAVE TO...

bush was being bush...he had LOTS to gain from NAFTA...

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. I'm not trrying to weasel out of it

but to blame clinton exclusively as the history has been written by the right is just wrong

the way treaties are negotiated and until that administration the way gentlemen behaved, Bush Sr negotiated the bulk, in fact ALL of the Treaty

His son is enforcing it in a way that is just wrong.

Now yes, his idiot son got out of Kyoto, care to tell me why folks were shocked?

Hell his idiot son, for all intents and purposes, also got out of Geneva

Well in the country that existed until 2000 an agreement of this scope negotiated by a President WAS ratified by a congress, never mind this one was close, and signed by the incoming president

Yes Clinton is to blame, but the royal blame is on George H W Bush

[ProudDad]

21. The real blame is on their corporate capitalist masters

and the collusion of the two right-wings of the Big Business Party...

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. You have the two right wing

but knowing how things were done at one time, the bush crime family used TRADITION to screw us over

And that is the point

If bush had not negotiated this, you'd not see this.

And think of his two co-signers

Salinas did, under the promises of aide and other stuff, and as I have pointed plenty of times, the side agreements insofar as mexico were concerned, were never enforced

Canada, Mulroney, he was a liberal, why? How could Bush Sr get that over him and the Canadian Parlaiment? The Mexican Congress, was PRI, there was doubt that if the President told them to jump they would have asked how high?

You have to wonder, did Perot scream the dangers becuase he knew the bushes? He was from texas after all

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Clinton had to twist a lot of Democrats' arms to get the votes in Congress

Gingrich told him he could have NAFTA only if he got enough Democrats to vote for it. If a Dem President hadn't been pushing it, Congress would likely not have passed it.

[aquart]

28. Interesting. Don't you mean DEMOCRATIC Congress?

Funny you would say the other.

[Forkboy]

36. Not really.The only Dems I've ever seen get mad at it are online.

But draw whatever inference you want.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. Sorry. Nice try.

As has already been mentioned, Clinton signed it into law. He didn't have to do that. (If you have any doubts about that, look how Idiot Boy "unsigned" the Kyoto Treaty.)

Besides, much as we hate to admit it, his No. 1 NAFTA lieutenant was none other than Al Gore.



Please ignore that "giant sucking sound" in the background.

[BlooInBloo]

15. I'm a big fan of the big dawg, but this is just silly.

[Wilms]

27. You're funny.

[Larry Ogg]

32. This type of rationale is both disturbing and frightening

Bush Sr. put the noose around the necks of the working class, and the beloved Bill Clinton pulled the lever, so let’s blame it all on Bush and elect another Clinton.

Bush supplied the gun, and Clinton pulled the trigger, so let’s blame it all on Bush and elect another Clinton.

Bush Jr. has brought us too the brink of loosing our democracy and starting world war III, so lets blame it all on Bush and elect another Clinton…

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Did I excuse Clinton? Not quite

and have I supported Hillary Rotham Clinton? Not only no, but hell no

I just realize that over the last years Clinton is fully blamed for NAFTA while bush sr, who NEOGOTIATED the treaty, gets to skate free thank you

So for historical corectness, why not bring the Bush crime family into this?

What is the problem with blaming the crime family FOR YET ANOTHER CRIME?

Or would you rather keep repeating the very convenient talking point for the right that we have NAFTA thanks to Clinton?

[Larry Ogg]

46. Thank you nadin for clarifying ware you stand

The opening line of your OP is misleading; I guess it caused a response you were not expecting. Maybe what you said is not what you meant to say? Would it be more representative of your view to say something like, “Bush Sr. and a bipartisan Congress also gave us NAFTA and we shouldn’t blame it all on Clinton”.

You are right in believing, credit is not given ware credit is due, but I believe that is part of the plane, we need somebody too blame, and ‘they’ give us somebody too blame.

If I could give people a message that they would listen to I would say, “Lets not stop with just blaming the obvious executioners, i.e. ‘the corporately owned Clinton’s, the corporately owned Bush’s, and the corporately owned Congress’, most of whom are just following corporate orders or worse.” “Were our blame too fall in the laps of the most guilty and expose them, we would not know their faces”. But that does not lesson the guilt of the most obvious, they know who they serve..

You ask this question, “Would you rather keep repeating the very convenient talking point for the right that we have NAFTA thanks to Clinton”? Forgive me if I am once again take what you are saying the wrong way, but this is not a fair question. The fact is NAFTA is very wrong, it has hurt a lot of hard working people for the benefit of the few, and it is something that concerns the left also, and Clinton signed it into law. If it is a talking point for the right and the right condemns it along with the left, what is the problem? Are we to appose the right if and when reason enters their camp?

The problem is that the Clinton’s and the Bush’s get their orders from the same people and it’s not we the people. NAFTA is wrong no mater the measure of blame, and it must be abolished.

[paulk]

45. actually, the use of "another Clinton"

is disturbing and frightening in it's lack of rationale...

they really are two different people.

[sendero]

33. NAFTA is just like IRAQ....

... it wasn't the Dems' idea but they didn't really do much to stop it either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. In some ways you can say the Dems never learn

or are pure learners, What dems are guilty of is very poor political instinct

They thought that if they gave in the Pukes would act in a bipartisan manner, and we all know how well that worked

Also we have the genious of triangulation applied...

The DLC is guilty of much of this, but not all, I'd place most of the blame on the bush crime family knowing how treaties are negotiated and how they took advantage of tradition

[ProudDad]

43. As long as some refuse to see

that both the bush crime family and the corporate capitalist masters that supported Bill Clinton are the same forces....

Until we face and defeat the CLASS that's doing the damage we will continue to lose...

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

37. WRONG! Bill Clinton signed NAFTA as is, after campaigning that he would try to improve it

and then he pushed GATT on us, too
and wanted fast track authority
and delinked China's human rights record from renewal of its most-favored nation trading status, then pushed for permamnant MFN for China-and supported their entry into the WTO

Bill betrayed Democrats, labor and the progressive movement. I have zero respect for him and never will have more.
Oh, and there's those Mark Rich, bankrputcy bill, defense of marriage act and telcomm bill things, too.