  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Hope in the Time of NAFTAPosted on Mar 6, 2008By David Sirota Reading articles about Hillary Clinton attacking NAFTA can lead you to believe The Onion has taken over America’s news bureaus. Clinton spent the last 10 years repeatedly praising the trade deal in speeches, most recently calling the job-killing accord “good for New York and America.” Yet, journalists barely mention that record as they transcribe her assertions that “I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.” This week, such media negligence went from pathetic to absurd, as a CNN headline blared, “Clinton hammers Obama on NAFTA.” Political scribes breathlessly recounted how the New York senator criticized her opponent—a longtime NAFTA critic—over a thinly sourced television report claiming his adviser, economist Austan Goolsbee, told Canadian officials to not take the campaign’s anti-NAFTA platform seriously. Clinton said the uncorroborated allegations, seeded by Canada’s right-wing government, showed “the difference between talk and action.” Most journalists regurgitated her charges without noting the difference between Clinton’s new fair-trade talk and her decade-long pro-NAFTA actions (nor did they note that the same report said Clinton advisers also did what Goolsbee was accused of). Of course, Bill Clinton signed NAFTA after pledging to oppose expanded cross-border trade until Mexican wages rose. So Hillary Clinton’s dishonesty, which sealed her Ohio primary win, is nothing new in politics. What is new is the fact-free coverage. Whereas diligent reporting marked the original NAFTA debate, today’s media reduce trade discussions to vapid cartoons—ones so inane that a leading NAFTA booster is rewarded with glowing headlines for pretending she never supported the accord. An agenda is obviously at work. Reporters, pundits and lobbyists are insulated from the job and wage cuts that rigged policies like NAFTA encourage. To them, the profit-making status quo is swell, and so the news they manufacture avoids upsetting those who did the rigging. Consequently, the trade debate is portrayed as a battle between Saint Commerce and evil “protectionists”—a fallacious depiction burying significant questions. For instance, America became an economic force in the early 20th century thanks, in part, to tariffs sheltering our industries. Considering that, why are all tariffs now billed as inherently bad for the economy and “free” trade billed as inherently good? Speaking of that word free, why does it describe protectionism for corporate profits? “Free” trade deals wrapped in the rhetoric of Sally Struthers ads include no human rights protections. But they include patent protections that inflate pharmaceutical prices. Why does “free” trade refer only to pacts being free of protections for people? Similarly, why have Washington’s “free” traders passed laws blocking Americans from importing lower-priced, FDA-approved prescription drugs from other countries? What is “free” about letting corporations import lead-slathered toys, but barring citizens from importing lifesaving medicine? Trade fundamentalists like Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria say “struggling farmers” abroad want more NAFTA-style agreements. Why then are Mexican and Peruvian farmers now staging mass protests against our “free” trade deals? Could they know that our trade policy promotes market-skewing subsidies that help corporate agribusiness put “struggling farmers” out of business? Finally, what is “free” about trade rules letting international tribunals invalidate domestic laws? As the watchdog group Public Citizen discovered, Democrats’ climate and health care proposals could face such challenges at the World Trade Organization. What happened to the concept of sovereignty? Before being embroiled in controversy this week, Goolsbee was the only remaining presidential adviser openly pondering some of these questions. He publicly confesses that before the campaign, he never closely analyzed trade agreements, but now that he has, he says he sees the corruption and is appalled. The admission, while muted, is encouraging at a moment when substance is so brazenly ignored. This epoch of globalization has become an era of media-driven insouciance—one allowing a journalist like Thomas Friedman to retain his “expert” label while bragging that he “didn’t even know what was in” a trade deal he championed. This is a time when the biggest economic deliberations are dominated by commentators berating Democrats for mentioning trade and then falling silent when Republicans praise pacts that eliminate jobs. In the face of such insanity, it is promising that even one presidential adviser—however clumsy—acknowledges our trade policy’s underlying depravity. If there could be love in the time of cholera, there may yet be hope in the time of NAFTA. David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” will be released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Previous item: Dems Dropping the Ball on Iraq Debate Next item: Talking Points for Obama Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Taiwan Declares Peace on China
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By fempatriot, March 12 at 7:10 am #
I’ve seen Mr. Zakaria frequently on PBS and Link TV, and I get the strong impression that he’s a sell-out. I’ve also been dismayed at his attitude toward the Middle East.
Report thisBy biko24601@yahoo.com, March 11 at 9:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
(the Blog I wrote starts below the one that is posted here. The first posting is actually the second half of the first part—just an FYI)
biko
Report thisBy biko24601, March 10 at 11:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I wrote a blog that addresses Mr. Zakaria’s Newsweek article about NAFTA.
Here’s an excerpt:
The conversation commences and lasts about an hour. The majority of the time, Billy screams into the phone using a rather belligerent tone because after repeating his name, address, social security and phone number, and the problem with his computer at least 20 times – Billy’s about done with Bob Smith who sounds suspiciously like Apu. Now at this point, Billy isn’t really sure if what he’s experiencing is xenophobic, protectionist, racist outrage towards Bob Smith – who happens to be located in the country of India – because the only Indians Bob’s really had any encounters with are a few dark skinned kids he played football with in high school that moved to his part of Ohio from Oklahoma and had referred to themselves as members of the “Cherokee Nation”. The four or five Budweiser bottle necks not factored into the equation, Billy would probably be just as frustrated with Bob Smith who, in his defense, is doing his best to provide excellent customer service while Billy berates him with angry rhetoric because what’s happening here is what Sofia Coppola so eloquently referred to as: Lost in Translation.
Report thisIt doesn’t help Billy’s plight that, after getting nowhere closer to fixing his expensive new HP computer he bought at his local Super Walmart, when he calls Bank of America to figure out why he was charged $90 worth of overdraft fees a woman who is the female counterpart of Bob Smith answers the call and her name is: Sally Jones. At this point, Billy smashes his cell phone against the wall – (a $300.00 item that he’ll have to pony up the money for since his cell phone contract doesn’t expire for another two years so he can’t get the discounted phone, and the Assurion insurance policy doesn’t cover smashing his cell phone against the wall due to two frustrating phone calls to American corporations that routed him to India) – loads up his shot gun and marches into the woods for some target practice on whatever woodsy animal comes into his line of fire.
Is this the kind of scenario that Mr. Zakaria would like either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton to keep in mind when he asks them to consider how their rhetoric may be viewed to the governments of India and Indonesia? And the larger question begs to be answered: Are Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton running to be the leaders of India and Indonesia or are they running to protect and serve the interests of a guy like Billy from Ohio?
By biko24601, March 10 at 11:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I wrote a blog that addresses Mr. Zakaria’s Newsweek article about NAFTA.
Here’s an excerpt:
I wonder if Mr. Zakaria – can picture this scenario:
Report thisBilly is an Ohio born and bred Irish-American Catholic with an eleventh grade education (and no health insurance to speak of) in his late 30s who now works at a fast food restaurant making $7.00 an hour after working for 15 years at a factory that is now closed because the American multinational corporation that employed him at $15.00 an hour decided it would be more advantageous for them to be able to skirt around environmental regulations, health insurance and other benefits, and also realized that by paying workers in Mexico less than minimum wage it yielded a greater profit margin for stockholders and CEOs alike. Now Billy – who nets under $18,000.00 a year while his truck costs him $50.00 a week to fill up because at his local 7-11 the price at the pump for unleaded is hovering around $3.50 a gallon and his electricity bill went from $10.00 a month to $50.00 a month – decided to buy an HP computer and put it on an already almost maxed out credit card at 18% interest. Perhaps not a wise financial decision on behalf of Billy – but he figured, in the age of Globalization, he should be on the world wide web to go on Yahoo Finance to see how stock prices are doing around the globe and follow the world wide markets to track how someone besides himself is making outrageous sums of money somewhere by investing in an American based multinational corporation that’s headquarters has moved to Jakarta. And besides, he only has an eleventh grade education, so what does he really know about finance? The president that he voted for, George W Bush, told him it was good for the American economy to go out and buy stuff. So he went for the computer. However, the computer for some reason isn’t working properly and keeps crashing every ten minutes or so. Meanwhile, Billy opens his mail to see that his bank account is overdrawn and he’s accrued about $90.00 worth of penalties due to overdraft fees. Thinking this is an error on the bank’s behalf, Billy decides to use his cellular phone – that now costs him $118.00 a month because of rising taxes and surcharges – to call HP and Bank of America. Billy, who also possesses an Irish Catholic’s temper and possibly drinks a little in the middle of the afternoon, but since he can’t afford to go to the local tavern—because his truck ran out of gas and now he has no money in his bank account and he just maxed out his credit card on the computer purchase—he has to do all his drinking at home. So Billy’s a little frustrated and pissed off to say the least.
After being on hold to HP for 30 peak time minutes on a cell phone that’s already maxed out its 500 minutes allowance for the month, someone finally answers. But the voice on the other end of the line doesn’t sound anything like the kind of people that Billy – whose only venture outside of the U.S. was a road trip to Canada on a dare that he can’t really recall because he was 18 at the time and had one too many jager shots on the way – interfaces with on a daily basis. Adding insult to injury, the voice on the other end of the line sounds to Billy’s ears like that of Apu – the owner of the local Springfield “Kwiki Mart” from the animated television series The Simpsons that Billy’s been watching for close to 20s years (when he wasn’t working on an assembly line or flipping burgers). But this Apu sound-alike says his name is: Bob Smith.
By Outraged, March 9 at 10:36 pm #
Do you mean “liberation” as in Operation Iraqi Liberation, “O-I-L”..? Hey, they’re “liberated” and are “free” from all the ills of this world, the lucky “souls"…
Report thisBy cyrena, March 9 at 3:42 pm #
Outraged…
Excellent...my sentiments EXACTLY…
Like, fun with numbers, only ‘fun with words’.
Yep, we can all be ‘freed’ of something, and ‘liberated’ as well. We’ve been seeing alot of this ‘liberation’ in terms of millions of folks being ‘liberated’ from LIFE above ground.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 9 at 8:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Actually, Kegan Loam Went to Canada, Pennobscot and Dsh Boot went to Mexico. The remaining two being too small for a “move out or die” choice closed their doors and sold their machinery for scrap.
The paper Companies did a string of merger-buyout dances, but could never compete with what the Japanese and South Americans are doing in the Rain forests.
Not that I give a damn, but you might check to see where these companies are REALLY producing. You might get an education.... or is that another outsourced product.
Levies Born and raised in San Francisco are now ALSO produced in Mexico, and you might also want to check the date their factory left… then come back here and tell me again how NAFTA had “nothing to do with that.”
It’s amazing we may be the first country in the history of the world to finance our own invasion.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 9 at 4:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
With a Democratic do-nothing congress. If ANY of the current candidates were looking for new votes, they would propose tariff legislation…
and as for those Feb job losses being “cyclical” this is the greatest number of jobs LOST (that means hire/layoff ratio) since 2001
Counting with regards to percentage the lowest hiring rate since 1945!
Report thisBy fempatriot, March 8 at 6:49 pm #
Most feminists are very patriotic. I’m also a mother, and being a mother is largely what made me become a feminist. This is not a cyclical job loss--this is a bleeding away of jobs in the USA. I’m not young; I remember when the steel plants were closed down. I wondered then what we would do for steel. Then in the 80s I found out--they had gone to China and to South Africa, where there was no steel-workers union--no strikes for higher wages. And steel was being made by slave labor. That was the beginning of my awakening. I smelled the coffee long ago. There are forces that wish to turn the USA into just another third world country. Hence, the push for a North American Union, comprised of Canada, the USA, and Mexico. Unfortunately most of my fellow Americans are sleepwalking. They really believe that McCain, Clinton, or Obama are going to do something to restore prosperity to this country. Fat chance.
Report thisBy MAR, March 8 at 6:16 pm #
Egad, a feminist AND a patriot - what a combination!
In case you didn’t notice those jobs were lost under a republican regime - ever heard of George Bush? Anyway, job loss in February is cyclical as any economist will tell you.
Report thisBy fempatriot, March 8 at 4:57 pm #
63,000 jobs lost in February. Do the math.
Report thisI wouldn’t vote for Hillary (Billary) for dog catcher.
By Conservative Yankee, March 8 at 5:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Actually NAFTA did send jobs to Asia… Many “rim” companies doing business in Mexico using workers cheaper even than their own. SONY, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, all have factories in Mexico. to avoid getting hit with heavy tariff associated with doing business on the west side of the rim.
And to “Who Knew?
Ross Perot knew in 1990. remember when he ran for president in ‘92 The speech about “The great sucking sound as jobs left the USA?”
Remember his visual aids with graphs and charts showing that by 2020 50% of all manufacturing jobs would be gone from the USA? The only place he was wrong is the speed with which those jobs will leave… By 2020 it will be closer to 90%
Report thisBy Outraged, March 7 at 11:23 pm #
Thank you David Sirota. I especially like the way you analyzed that word “free”. Such a nice word isn’t it? Ohh.."free"...I want some...it’ll be great. Really though, isn’t this just the pundits paradise? Let’s give it a “good label”, something progressive, enticing in fact. Free Trade, ahh.. I like it already, I’m feeling empowered.
Ahhh...free...like freedom...as in no worries...I MEAN HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU “FEEL”? In fact shit is actually “a brown organic nurturing compound”, isn’t it? Sure it is...use your imagination.
On top of that, I bet we “freed” those “struggling farmers”. Sure we did. They’re not “struggling” at farming anymore now are they? Alas, they’ve been “freed”. How wonderful is that...?
Anyone ever see “Pollyanna"(the movie not the stripper, where’s your head at.)? Anyway, Pollyanna plays the “glad game”. Because, according to Pollyanna(Halley Mills), there’s always something to be glad about. So...when you lose your home, you can be “glad” you don’t have to clean it anymore, you’ve been freed. And when you lose your job, you can be “glad”, well..because you don’t have to work anymore, you’ve been freed. And there isn’t a thing I can think of that we CAN’T be FREED of...can you?
So I figured out that we ought to start demanding to be enslaved.....hey, it’s worth a shot.
Report thisBy MAR, March 7 at 6:10 pm #
Once again, mostly gone to Asia long before NAFTA had an effect.
Report thisBy MAR, March 7 at 6:07 pm #
NAFTA has little to do with sending US jobs to Asia.
That was happing big time as first, Japan, then the other Asian rim countries, and finally China were used by US companies to side track American and Canadian workers. Little went to Mexico.Little or none went to Canada.
American workers are put out of work by auto companies that produce junk and are superseded by Asian car makers, who incidentally are producing in the US and Canada to make better cars.
Similarly with electronics and cheap but effective Asian labor
Don’t blame NAFTA for sending jobs to Asia.
Report thisBy pbr90, March 7 at 5:54 pm #
No one knew in ‘92 exactly what would be the full impact of NAFTA, though the potential seemed sound, open borders, make trade easier, etc.
Who knew that it would be so well used to provide the loopholes that would send so many jobs elsewhere?
Not until 2002 did it begin to sink in that massive numbers of jobs were going overseas, by companies, and even government all too eager to cash in on the dynamics of global slavery where pennies on the dollar bought the same labor as in the U.S.
From a history of the U.S. and domestic slavery history, no one could have known that global slavery is what America was embracing, and who would have thought that America would be willing to refine the scheme to produce what from historical perspective can only be considered global slavery?
Who knew?
America certainly didn’t think it was passing a global slavery bill in NAFTA. But look twice now.
Like the OJ glove that didn’t fit, global slavery didn’t fit then in 1992-1994 when it was being devised. If government knew, they weren’t talking.
If America had been able to send its production to Africa in 1790 rather than bring slaves here, it would have been the same result, and there never would have been slavery in our U.S. history by using poor, vulnerable populations overseas in offshore lands.
Report thisBy Ryan Hartman, March 7 at 3:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The US news media isn’t telling the truth? I can’t believe it, what will we do now?
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 7 at 1:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
When Ham-burglar Bill came to work in 1992, there were five shoe factories in Old Town Maine.. (about 5 miles north of Bangor. There were three three-shift paper mills within 100 miles of my farm. In addition, we had the ancillary businesses which fed clothed, and entertained these workers.... All gone by 1999, a year before Bush took office....He (of course) finished us off by closing the Canadian border and ending (for all intents and purposes) tourism.
Monsters… a correct term IMHO
Report thisBy MAR, March 7 at 12:55 pm #
What nonsense! To read the article and these posts you would think that NAFTA is all about Mexico. Notwithstanding the agreement, which was preceded by a similar agreement between Canada and the US, and an agreement in the auto sector before that, US politicians and industrialists in teamwork have broken the letter and spirit of the agreement in respect to Canadian softwood lumber, beef and grains, not to mention a number of other issues where the US Government acts as if the agreement never existed. In the issue of softwood lumber, principal industries of several Canadian provinces, the US consistently lost arbitrations several times, even when the majority on the panel were Americans. Despite this, a certain Montana senator and the western US forest industry pressured Washington over many years to continue to charge illegal tariffs and penalties, until finally Canada gave ground on the issue just to get the wood rolling. Even though Bush was sympathetic to the issue, he owed the Montana senator for his support.
Look in the mirror. The US is the world bully in many areas of foreign policy, not the least of which is Iraq - on a false pretext of terrorist involvement. The auto industry in the US is on the rocks because they produce a high-cost inferior product, not because of NAFTA. I have had three Toyota Corollas since 1992 with nary a warranty or repair problem and a steady 41 miles per Imp gallon. By contrast my Olds, Pontiacs and Chevs and Fords (all American built, not Canadian) were repair disasters and gas-guzzler junk. There destiny was to become beaters with low trade in value, the very worst for me being the first Ford Taurus (I thought they had learned).
Speaking of bullies, remember Teddy Roosevelt who through jingoism almost singlehandedly caused the Spanish American war? I am sure you have a different story about the noble act of freeing Cuban peasants so they could toil for US fruit companies.
As for US sovereignty, that’s what treaties are all about,mutual agreements to act and perform in a way that two or three sovereign nations agree to forgo their freedom in certain areas in order to obtain advantages in others.
In respect to Mexico, not many technically challenged jobs move there because the educational standards and skill standards are so low. If one is going to move jobs, it is obviously more advantageous to move the jobs to Asia where abilities are high in comparison.
Free trade has always resulted in increased prosperity for all nations involved, despite that some sectors which are not world-competitive and subsidized are hurt. Witness the huge US agricultural subsidies.
Report thisBy mackTN, March 7 at 10:01 am #
Nafta was built on a theory that didn’t materialize as forecast. Mexico was supposed to invest in its workers and new manufacturing away from the border, raising wages and helping its citizens make transitions from corn to strawberries… or out of farming altogether. Mexico did nothing. But the government still benefits from encouraging its potentially costly low skilled people to work as slave labor for the corporatocracy who hates minimum wages, potential lawsuits for unsafe conditions and more, and the thought of paying benefits. Corporations get low cost labor, benefits paid by taxpayers--health, education welfare--and Mexico gets additional aid via western union. And of course we’ll emancipate the Mexicans after they’ve worked for so many years for nothing just like the Africans were emancipated…
Vicente Fox pushing Americans to accept Mexican labor was a lot easier than pushing his own government to step up to the plate and meet its Nafta responsibilities as planned.
Too much criticism is heaped on American citizens, when the culprits are both Mexico and big business, the slave seller and the slave buyer.
If Goolsbee had seen the light on Nafta he certainly didn’t get that point across to the Canadians, and I find it puzzling how Sirota dismisses it as a controversy somehow disconnected from what Goolsbee really thinks.
Well, what do they really think? I know the history of Nafta, I know the past. What’s the future?
Report thisBy DennisD, March 7 at 7:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The “Onion” would be an upgrade from our so-called “newz” bureaus.
Ross Perot was laughed at for his remarks about NAFTA in 1992, all of which turned out to be true.
The MSM tried to paint him as a crackpot or irrelevant. Sound familiar, it should. Kucinch, Edwards, Gravel and Paul all got the same treatment this year.
It’s way past time to get rid of the “corpo-ticians” (D&R;)who don’t even read the bills the lobbyists give them. They just take their money and sign on the dotted line. They are responsible for a government that is run by the lobbyists, for the corporations, to screw the people.
Report thisBy RdV, March 7 at 7:02 am #
as always.
Report thisBy Expat, March 7 at 6:58 am #
^ so how, or rather can, we get the bankrupt bastards. Hell, you remember “crime doesn’t pay”? Well they have proved crime pays so well that everyone should be a criminal. Jackpine savage; pucker up; the reckoning is upon us.
Report thisBy KISS, March 7 at 5:49 am #
Economist Austan Goolsbee was so right in saying not to worry over the political rhetoric. It is call pandering to the public. David you too have missed an opportunity to use a very very important word when talking of “ Free Trade”. The words should be “Unfair Trade”.
Report thisAnd you, David, correctly point out it was Clinton who victimized the American worker with NAFTA.
Again it is the will of Fascist Corporation-government and the pandering politician on both sides of the isle that will not make the needed changes.
By jackpine savage, March 7 at 5:21 am #
Excellent. But the CEO’s and the limited liability stockholders have made their killing. And when push comes to shove, that’s all that’s important.
Report thisBy Expat, March 7 at 5:07 am #
^ NAFTA and the verdict is in; 3 million manufacturing jobs lost in the U.S. Canada, which used to have strong labor unions doesn’t anymore thanks to the U.S. and NAFTA. For Mexican workers it’s been a disaster as well. So, we have the entire North American labor force trashed; well done, bravo. So you corporate/political bastards; what’s your encore? The sub-prime landslide into a depression!
Report thisBy jackpine savage, March 7 at 4:42 am #
The whole thing is becoming a moot point on the Canadian side. In this week’s The Economist there is an article concerning trade with Canada. Due to border security to stop the terrorist bogeymen from entering God’s Country from Canada, trade is being strangled. It has become cheaper - and easier - to have things shipped in from China, because there are fewer inspections.
While exports to the US still make up 75% of Canadian exports, they are currently working hard to diversify away from the US. Neither people nor goods can move freely across the Canadian border...free trade, my ass.
Report thisBy slancio, March 7 at 4:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Now here is where dates and coincidences get interesting:
Report thishttp://www.looktothestars.org/news/525-clinton-asks-mi ners-to-dig-deep
“Invitations have been sent out for a March 1 event to be held in Toronto, where comedian Robin Williams and musicians Elton John, Shakira, and Burton Cummings are expected to perform. The cost will range between $25,000 and $300,000 per table, and proceeds will help CGSGI assist mining communities long after the industry leaves.
“When Frank Giustra brought forward the idea of having the world’s mining sector pull together in support of alleviating poverty and building sustainable local economies in developing countries, I knew it would only succeed if the industry was serious about being actively involved,” said Mr Clinton.”
“Donations to CGSGI from mining sector companies have amounted to nearly $350 million”
Hey we’re talking REAL money here. So there’s a big meeting of Clinton mining cronies just a few days before a memo is leaked mischaracterizing a meeting between a top Oboma adviser and a Canadian government official. The release of this memo is directly responsible for the rebirth of Hillary’s campaign for President. The question that must be asked is this: did the Clinton contacts with Frank Giustra influence the Canadian government officials to leak the memo? Was there direct involvement? The way the Clinton campaign jumped all over this was too obvious to be mere coincidence.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20 080302/nafta_memo_080303/20080303
The Canadian government claims there will be an investigation:
http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=7709766
But it seems the whole mess involves the Prime Mister’s office!
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20 080302/nafta_memo_080303/20080303
There is so much smoke here I can HARDLY BREATHE! Can some real investigative journalists get on this?
By slancio, March 7 at 3:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have posted this on other sites… but I feel it is something that must be looked into.
Clinton and NAFTA-GATE memo release
Report thisRemember this name… Frank Giustra.
From The Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinto n.html?scp=2&sq=Frank+Giustra&st=nyt
“The $31.3 million donation, which was previously undisclosed, came from the Radcliffe Foundation run by Frank Giustra, a Canadian who has made millions financing mining deals around the world. Mr. Giustra has become a member of Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, joining him on global trips and lending him the use of his private MD-87 jet.
For weeks, Clinton Foundation officials had suggested that the $31.3 million contribution listed on its tax return did not come from a single donor. They then said it came from a single source, but declined to identify it. Wednesday afternoon, a representative of Mr. Giustra contacted The Times and acknowledged the Radcliffe contribution.”
And this also from The Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor. html?pagewanted=1&sq=Frank Giustra&st=nyt&scp=1
“But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.”
“Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.
The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.
Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.”
So the Clinton’s are deeply involved with an extremely wealthy and influential Canadian businessman. Deals have been made. Huge amounts of money are involved. Now what country is deeply involved in the whole NAFTA flap and the illegal release of a memo of a meeting between Obama’s economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and embassy officials? That’s right… Canada. The memo written by consulate employee Joseph DeMora and Goolsbee claims he mischaracterized the tone and content of the meeting.
http://www.canadaeast.com/rss/article/229480
“Goolsbee disputed the characterization, saying those weren’t his words.
“That’s this guy’s language,” Goolsbee said. “He’s not quoting me. I certainly did not use that phrase in any way.” “
From the same article:
“In Ottawa, Opposition parties have accused the Conservative government of leaking word of the meeting last week to CTV News in order to hurt Democrats and help Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential election this fall.
On Monday, NDP Leader Jack Layton demanded Harper fire the source of the leak, identified by an unnamed ABC source as his chief of staff Ian Brodie. “
By cyrena, March 7 at 2:17 am #
G.Anderson
It’s timely that you posted this, and of course the article is excellent as well. But, specifically this:
• “Ideally at some point someone will organize both American workers and Mexican workers as allies agains a common enemy. Instead of pitting themselves against each other, they have common cause against the same multi national corporate crooks.”
This has been my own message for quite a while now, particularly in reference to pitting themselves against each other. That has been such a disastrous reaction, because it plays right into the hands of the crooks.
But, it becomes more and more difficult with each day, because of the OVERALL economically hard times. Here in Southern Calif, which is home for me, there has ALWAYS been a large population of immigrants from Mexico, and there was never the horrific tension until the last 10 or so years, as more and more jobs are lost.
It’s fair to say I think, that back in the Clinton Era, (and NAFTA was already in place when he came in, having been structured by the 1st Bush, so Clinton just put the finishing touches to it and signed it) Mexico was the FIRST place where this outsourcing was sent. Just the work, (and the multi nationals of course). So, it took a little while before it kicked in to the point of driving so many of the small farmers up here. Still, so many manufacturing jobs were already lost, and I don’t believe that most Americans made the ‘connection’ at the time.
AND, that’s still now the biggest hurdle to getting to that ‘ideal’ position. Far too many of the most avid of the anti-immigration people are totally unaware of the facts that make it an economically based immigration, and WHY. Simply that…THEY are HERE, because WE are THERE! Most folks don’t get that. But, we’re working on it. It’s slow, but something’s gotta give, or nobody will survive.
Meantime, the ‘virtual wall’ in Texas came up in discussion earlier this evening. This supposedly invisible but electronic wall that’s been planned has been off and on, so I didn’t know the latest. But apparently, it IS in the works. It’s not really ‘visible’ but if you get close enough to this invisible contraption, it apparently ZAPS whomever it is that got too close to it. Or as the kids explained, it ‘tases’ the person, like the same as the taser guns that all police and Blackwater personnel carry these days next to their standard weapons. I honestly try to keep up with these ‘developments’ but this ‘wall’ was really cause for me to be rather ‘taken aback’. I mean, hearing about this wall just had me imagining a standard wall, not an electronic shock zapper. Guess one has to be careful hanging around in Texas.
Report thisBy G.Anderson, March 6 at 11:42 pm #
NAFTA was top down from the very beginning, there were no popular uprisings either here or south of the border demanding free trade.
The only ones who have benefited from NAFTA is the corporations, both here and in Mexico.
NAFTA has destroyed the small farmer in Mexico forcing him to come to America to support his family, and it’s destroying American Workers families here.
Ideally at some point someone will organize both American workers and Mexican workers as allies agains a common enemy. Instead of pitting themselves against each other, they have common cause against the same multi national corporate crooks.
Maybe that’s why every day the media bashes Mr. Chavez.
Report this