Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Bill Clinton paid $800,000 to support Columbia free trade agreement

Prior to the Ohio primary, the mainstream media allowed Hillary Clinton to pretend that she always opposed NAFTA. Later, records surfaced showing that she had actively campaigned in support of the passage of NAFTA.

Now, just before the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton asks us to believe that she opposes the Columbia free trade agreement. We have already heard how her chief campaign strategist was, at the same time that he was directing Clinton's campaign, was also being paid by the government of Columbia to exercise his influence and help get the free trade agreement ratified. What we had not heard until yesterday was that Bill Clinton has received more than $800,000 from a Columbian group that supports ratification and, perhaps not surprisingly, Bill Clinton has endorsed the free trade agreement.
Former President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.

In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia's business opportunities.

The group's chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions.[1]
Hopefully the political press will do its job this time around and actually look into Hillary Clinton's claims. It seems obvious to me that her credibility on the Columbia free trade agreement has been shredded.


birddog said...

I cannot believe the Pennsylvania voters and national media have not followed up on this item, which casts huge implications on Hillary Clinton's integrity on the topic of trade. Combine the obvious conflict of interest of this situation in the Clinton household with the NAFTA issue and the Bosnia fairytale, how can we be sure of anything she says?

I would think Senator Clinton would be in the hot seat with the media and the blue collar voters she's been pandering to over the last few months. But alas the media is much more concerned with Obama's ill-chosen words, personal associations and whether or not he wears a flag pin. Why the free pass for Clinton?

The Richmond Democrat said...

Well last week's debate should tell you all you need to know about media bias. The media has done everything it can to ignore Clinton's flaws and pick at Obama with trivialities.

Imagine what Ohio might have been like if the media had done its homework about Clinton's real record on NAFTA?