Hillary Weighed Political Ambition Vs Genocide, Accepted Both

Every time I think we know everything about Hillary's Bosnia lies something else seems to turn up. To be fair, this actually has less to do with her constant lies about her trip there, and more to do with her husband's overall policy of sitting on his hands while watching the unfolding genocide in Bosnia. Evidence seems to suggest that the reason Bill reneged on his campaign promise of stopping the genocide was because he didn't want to waste precious political capital on stopping the genocide in Bosnia when he needed that capital to help get Hillary's ill-fated (and ill-managed) health care pet project off the ground. (Similarly, Hillary has stated that around that same time she was also worried that NAFTA's passage might take focus off of her health care plan, although there is no evidence that she ever let those concerns get in the way of her unequivocal support for NAFTA).

The following excerpt is from Sally Bedell Smith's biography of the Clintons For Love of Politics (emphasis mine):

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

Christopher Hitchens corroborates the course of events:

I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers—Sidney Blumenthal—referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

Now the Clinton penchant for political calculation is well documented, but I must say that this takes the cake. Even worse is that her poor handling of her health care project, and her attempted credit stealing for the FMLA and SCHIP shows that all of this wasn't done out of an honest passion for fixing our broken health care system, but out of a desire to pad her resume with policy bona fides while looking ahead to a carpetbagging Senate run as a stepping stone back into the White House. Now I know that is a cynical view, but it is a view that is taken in light of her tendency to introduce legislation (on health care issues, among other things) in the Senate, and then put in absolutely no effort to fight for it to ever be heard from again, let alone passed, while at the same time bragging about introducing said legislation in order to hype her legislative prowess as well as her "sincere and deep commitment" to health care, and children, and education, and veterans, etc, etc (while never mentioning that introducing legislation is easy and means next to nothing if one doesn't put in the leg work to see that it gets off the runway).

So yes, you tell me how far she would go for her political ambitions. I know all signs (from this election to her entire political life before that) point to the fact she would say and do anything anything to get ahead.

Christopher Hitchens, never at loss for words or opinions sums it up nicely in light of her most recent exploitation of the Bosnia crisis for political gain:

It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again.

But I sure am glad she was able to support NAFTA through all this. Political capital is not without its costs.

Mythbusting Hillary: NAFTA (Video)

I've written in detail about Hillary's NAFTA lies in the past, but some people respond much better to video (just look at what it took to get her Bosnia lies exposed), so here is a video that puts together the facts, and compares them to her lies, and it even has a fun video of her praising NAFTA at the end that I hadn't actually seen before. Check it out, please digg it here, and favorite it on YouTube, spread this around so people know about her lies, lies that helped her win Ohio.


by JedReport

And please check out my Mythbusting section for a look at what else Hillary has been lying about.

Mythbusting Hillary: Hillary's NAFTA Lie Exposed

[One of the many wonderful gems in Hillary's grudgingly released [and redacted] First Lady records (thank you Freedom of Information Act) is the fact that contrary to Hillary's campaign trail claims, she did play a somewhat active role in supporting and pressing for the passage of NAFTA in the 90s (it is a bit ironic that the one time she doesn't take credit for something that happened in the 90s is the only time there is proof that she actually did something). Will the media pick up on her lies and hypocrisy surrounding NAFTA? Will they acknowledge that these lies were probably the only reason she won in Ohio? I'm not holding my breath. At least The Nation will say the obvious:]

Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy
by John Nichols

What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.

Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion--promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House--that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.

This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana--states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.

But that impression was a deliberate deception.

And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant--that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"--that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.

Update (3/21): It is quite funny how everyone who isn't an ardent Hillary supporter remembers her past attitude and actions concerning NAFTA quite differently than Hillary does:

"That's ludicrous," said Laura E. Jones, executive director of the United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel, who was there. "There was no question that everyone who spoke including the First Lady was for NAFTA, it was a rally on behalf of NAFTA to help it get passed. It's unquestionable. And there are many people out there who were there who remember the incident who work in this industry."

Julia K. Hughes, senior vice president of the same organization is likewise incredulous of the Clinton campaign's claims.

"This is such a non issue to us, because obviously it was a pro-NAFTA group and a pro-NAFTA event," says Hughes. "It was a 100 percent pro-NAFTA event. No one suggested any inklings of doubt since part of the agenda was to promote enthusiasm for passage of NAFTA."

Did that include then-First Lady Clinton?

"Absolutely. She was the highlight of the event. She was absolutely the capper to the event. It was a positive rally. I assure you if there had even been a hint of waffling from her -- because we were in the last days before NAFTA passed and it was a pretty hectic time -- we would have freaked out."

Yet she continues to tell the same lies, and the media continues to ignore her obvious lies, lies that led her to win Ohio, so she could keep pretending, with the blessing of the media, that her campaign has some chance of success. Must be because the media just hates her so darn much!

Update (3/26): Looks the the media may be taking her calls for "vetting" seriously, only they have went after Obama, came up with nothing, and now have turned to the accuser herself. Here is a clip from MSNBC mythbusting Hillary on NAFTA. I don't think this has gotten nearly enough traction however, especially given she pulled out a narrow win in Ohio because of those lies:

Hillpocrisy Attacks ("NAFTA-Gate" Edition)

I've previously written about Hillary's disingenuous attempts to try to smear Obama with a hyped up story, devoid of facts but full of hearsay, spread by the Right-wing government of Canada to try to paint Obama as a liar. As I've noted before, there are no facts to back these claims up, the Obama advisor accused of saying these contrary things has vehemently denied saying anything of the sort, and there has been widespread concern from both sides of the border that the whole thing was distorted in order to help the Republicans in November. Hillary of course went on the attack, cutting ads telling voters in Ohio that Obama was a liar (and these ads took the form of fake news reports from the AP, which is incredibly dishonest, yet no mention of it in the media, imagine that!).

Oh yeah, there is one problem though, Hillary was accused in the same report, of doing the same exact thing. Again, there is no way to verify anything, and there is much reason to be suspicious of the whole thing, but since she decided to use the opportunity to desperately attack Obama (and it apparently helped somewhat), I feel it is more than appropriate to call her on her hillpocrisy:

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.")

For the etymology of the term hillpocrisy, please see this post, and for more examples, check here.

Update: The CBC reports that the Obama camp is right in saying that the memo misrepresented what the Obama advisor said. This and much more is included in the best breakdown of the whole "NAFTA-gate non-affair I have come across...so I'm copying it all right here, but be sure to give props to the original author:

CBC Exonerates Obama: A Post-Mortem by mattw

I think it's safe to say that the turmoil surrounding the so-called "NAFTAgate" played into Hillary's strong performance tonight. On the heels of "Super Tuesday II", CBC, Canada's Public Broadcaster, has done a piece on the NAFTA scandal.

The CBC piece details the involvement of the conservative Harper government in creating a sensationalized leak, which itself had almost no resemblance to the actual memo, which itself is now being disclaimed as perhaps not accurate at all. We peel off layers of deception, and there is nothing left at all, except a successful attempt to promote bloodletting among Democrats.

Originally written and posted to myDD; I was encouraged to put it here, so I am. Hat Tip to csquared for posting the first link I saw to the CBC broadcast. I hope this diary adds something to our understanding of what happened, how, and why.

Video from CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/...

This piece details the sordid affair, that begins not with Obama contacting Canada, but nervous Canadians contacting the campaigns. Austan Goolsbee agreed to accept an invitation from Canadians, who pressed him for answers about protectionist sentiments emerging in the US Presidential election. He tried to reassure them that Obama did not want to do away with the agreement, but wanted to add labor and environmental protections.

Someone in the Harper government - Prime Minister of Canada and a member of their Conservative Party - apparently decided to leak a sensational lie that bears a very loose resemblance of the truth. A source leaked to CTV that the Obama campaign had called Michael Wilson, Canadian Ambassador to the US, and warned them that Obama was going to talk tough on NAFTA, but it would be just talk.

According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns. Michael Wilson was not involved. And, most damning, they are now admitting that the memo at the heart of the controversy "may not accurately reflect what they were told".

In other words, according to CBC, this scandal was manufactured out of whole cloth. Goolsbee said something consistent with Obama's official position - that he wanted protections added, but it wasn't going to be a fundamental change or revocation of NAFTA, and that Obama was not a protectionist. This was morphed somewhat going into the memo, and now the embassy admits they "may have misrepresented the Obama advisor". Even after the memo misrepresented Obama, the Harper government took it a step further and then leaked a completely fantastic version of the story to the press, in order to maximize the bloodletting.

In short, Chris Bowers was right. This whole thing is clever maneuvering on the part of the Harper government to bolster McCain by sowing dissent among Democrats.

A lot has been written about this scandal. The sensational misrepresentation of the original CTV story was shocking. But now CBC has cleared the air, with the final note from the embassy that they "may have misrepresented the Obama advisor". In the end, there's nothing to the story but air. It all boiled down to a memo, which was far less dramatic in content than the first story that ran, and now they are even disclaiming the accuracy of the memo.

In short, people have been duped. With the memo disclaimed, there is nothing left to support this story.

What about the denial?

Much has been made of Obama's looking right into a camera and claiming the story was "completely false". I want to address this in particular because of the timing.

2/27 11pm - CTV breaks initial story, claiming the Obama campaign called Canada to warn them he would be saying something he didn't mean. A shocking claim to a shocking level of duplicity.

2/28 - The story makes the rounds, absolutely exploding. Denials about, such as the Canadian embassy flatly denying it.

2/29 - Obama's TV interview where he unequivocally denies the story.

3/3 - Now, finally, the memo is out. Not only does the memo not even approach the level of duplicity implied by the original CTV story, but according to CBC, after the Embassy staff reviewed the notes about the meeting, they now believe they may have misrepresented Goolsbee's comments.

Given this timeline, and the drastic change in the story, it is very easy to see why Obama was comfortable with a blanket denial.  The claims of the original story bear so little resemblance to what eventually surfaced that it is unlikely Obama even connected the story to Goolsbee's meeting, given that the talk of NAFTA took up only a few minutes of that meeting - even if Obama knew of the particulars of that meeting. (Given his schedule, also not a given.)

In the end, the leak by the Harper government achieved its goal - it helped Hillary on her offensive and has helped ensure that the Democratic primary will drag on, causing Democrats to spend money fighting each other instead of John McCain, and giving McCain more time without a clear Democratic nominee, allowing him to catch up to our fundraising ability.

I don't think any of this casts any aspersion on Hillary's campaign or candidacy. She was the unwitting beneficiary, but not the cause. However, I think the eagerness of some to attack and tear down our candidates is something we - as people who want to see a Democrat in the White House - need to be cautious with. Having a spirited debate over an issue - like the difference in our candidates' health care plans - is one thing. Letting conservative forces drum up outrage with fake news stories, on the other hand, does not serve our interests. This will not be the last time we see tricks like this.

It is to the Republican advantage that we become so committed to our candidates, so myopic, so hateful of the "other side" that is keeping our candidate from their rightful nomination, that we are unwilling to use our vote or our money wisely in the general election. The Republican base is scattered. They are disorganized. They are dissatisfied with their nominee. Their last, best hope for a win relies on Democratic bloodletting reaching a historic level, leaving us too bloodied and battered to be on our game for the General Election.

It isn't fair to expect either candidate to bow out at this juncture. But I am coming to terms with the need to make a commitment to maintain a certain level of respect, so that if the "other candidate" is the winner, I am mentally and emotionally ready to take the fight where it belongs - to John McCain and the failed and irresponsible policies of George W. Bush. I firmly believe that if we put our hearts in the right place, we can make it to the convention and pick a nominee there, and still be united and ready to win.

Whatever we do, let's not let dirty tricks like the "NAFTAgate" scandal distract us from our ultimate goal.

[Of course none of this is likely to show up in that "crazy pro-Obama" media, just like they said nothing of the fact Hillary was implicated by the same memo, and just like they won't reflect in any way whatsoever about how quick Hillary was to hypocritically and shamelessly jump on a baseless Right-wing smear job in order to attack a fellow Democrat, and the eventual Democratic presidential nominee. The word "unbelievable" comes to mind. But hey, it is good that the media isn't being biased at all here..]

Update #2: Interesting Clinton-Canada connections, make of it what you will.

Hillary Takes A Page From Bush's FEMA, Fakes The News

So it turns out that the Hillary campaign has come up with yet another unethical underhanded tactic in this campaign: faking the news. Apparently there is a radio ad out in Ohio meant to sound like a news report from the Associated Press.

The fake news ad proceeds to distort the facts surrounding the hyped up factless Canada-NAFTA "controversy" in an attempt to make it sound like Obama has been deceiving voters, even though there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. The "news piece" also fails to point out the Clinton campaign was implicated in the original report for the exact same reasons (to be fair, equally without evidence). Details details. The "new document" in question is nothing more than a memo written by a low level official at the Canadian consulate in Chicago describing (erroneously according to the Obama advisor in question) a conversation with an Obama advisor concerning many things, one of which was NAFTA. The Clinton ad makes it sound like they were quoting the Obama advisor, when in fact they were just quoting the words of the low level Canadian official, which the Obama advisor in question has said in no way reflect what was actually said.

The Canadian Embassy has backed up the Obama campaign's side of the story, and Liberal leaders in the Parliament angrily accused conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper of helping to leak documents that misinterpreted Obama's position. PM Harper has since distanced himself from the memo in question. CTV, the Canadian network that originally broke the story, has also changed its story multiple times, further diminishing the credibility of the claims. Democrats in the US have accused the Right-wing Canadian government of trying to interfere in American politics in order to help the Republicans win the election. Yet despite all of that, Hillary is not only lying to voters about the story, she is now trying to make voters think these lies are coming from a trusted news source. Here is the transcript of the fake news report, with my commentary added:

This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP (deception). While Senator Obama has crisscrossed Ohio giving speeches attacking NAFTA, his top economic advisor was telling the Canadians that was all just political maneuvering (lie). A newly released document from the Canadian government (exaggeration) shows that Obama’s senior economic advisor met with the Canadian Consul General and made clear (lie) that Obama’s attack on NAFTA were just, quote, “political maneuvering,”(lie) not policy (lie). Political maneuvering, not policy (lie repeated). In fact, the document shows (lie, it actually "shows" nothing) that Obama’s advisor also assured the Canadians that these attacks against NAFTA would not continue (lie). Obama would not want to be, quote, “fundamentally changing the agreement.” (deceptive, neither of them want to "fundamentally" change the agreement, this is consistent with what Obama has been saying all along) As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada (lie). How will Ohioans decide whether they can believe Senator Obama’s words? We’ll find that out on election day. Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President. (true)

(lie by omission: Hillary was implicated as telling the Canadian government the same things:

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.")

I don't know which is worse, completely misrepresenting what amounts to hearsay in an attempt to smear a fellow Democrat and likely nominee, or resorting to faking a news report to do it. Probably the former, but only because there is little worse than backstabbing your own party out of spite and damaged pride.

Update: There has also been questions swirling around whether or not Hillary's campaign darkened Obama's image in their ads in order to make him look "blacker". Interesting. I know better than to put anything past them now. Check it out. It should also be noted that the ad itself is one giant (and hypocritical) distortion, as usual. Honestly, would we expect any less?