From: "T. Early" fenwick_island@yahoo.

In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not
have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have
happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those
whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more
wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue."


Well, here's an interesting test: Would have NAFTA been passed if Bill Clinton
had lost to GH Bush? Certainly, it had bipartisan support, as you so clearly
pointed out. Remember, Clinton kept the Bush negotiating team, so we would've
had the same treaty with either President.

Based on the points you have clarified, it seems that you agree that anyone
blaming NAFTA on Clinton simply doesn't understand the strong Republican
support for neoliberal economic policies. Even GW Bush is striving the Western
Hem Free Trade Zone, right?

I used to support the vague notion of free trade. I used to believe that
countries trading with each other were less likely to go to war. But the
evolution of neoliberal trade policies as exemplified by recent free trade
agreements seems like a race to the bottom, maximizing international corporate
profits over environmental concerns, human rights, national employment
foundations and livable wages.

In this light, I think Clinton and both Bushes are guilty of placing trade
concerns above other legitimate concerns.

Bryant