Hillary speech

[Jim Franklin]

I see now that Hillary Rodham---------gave a speech blasting the approval that a Red Chinese owned company is now in possession of the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal without mentioning the fact that it was her husband that did it.

[William Hunter]

I see now that Hillary Rodham---------gave a speech blasting the approval that a Red Chinese owned company is now in possession of the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal without mentioning the fact that it was her husband that did it.

She never saw a political lie she would not tell. She is power hungry and not a real leader.

[Bruce Carriker]

And conservatives never found a lie about the Clintons they would not embrace. I loathe being placed in the position of defending an administration I voted against twice, but I cannot stand the total lack of integrity conservatives display when dealing with anything Clinton. If Bill Clinton said, "Hey, it sure is a nice sunny day!", one of you would be on hear posting in outrage, "Did you see where Bill Clinton thinks skin cancer is a good thing!"

I know nothing about Hillary Clinton's speech, so will stay away from that one altogether. Let's just stick to Jim's lie, and put it to rest right now.

1. Bill Clinton did not give away the Panama Canal. President Jimmy Carter signed the Panama Canal Treaty in 1977, returning ownership of the canal to Panama in 1999. The United States Senate ratified the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978. Got that guys...President Carter...United States Senate. Not Clinton. He just happened to be in office when the final terms of the treaty took effect.

2. Bill Clinton did not have anything to do with awarding the operations contract to Panama Ports Company, a subsidiary of the Hutchinson Wampoa Company, which is, in fact, Chinese-owned. That contract was awarded by the Panamanian government, and Bill Clinton's ambassador to Panama protested the award of the contract at the time. After the protest, a clause was inserted in the contract that stated that if there were conflicts between the contract and the Panama Canal Treaty, the provisions of the Treaty took priority.

Should I hold my breath waiting for admission of mistruths? Probably best just to get on with my day.

[Jim Franklin]

I'll just consider the source. Blessings Bruce.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Let's just stick to Jim's lie, and put it to rest right now.

Bruce before you start throwing around such words as "lie" and giving history lessons, you might want to do a Google search for:
+clinton +panama +china

Like this one: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/032006/03022006/171363

There was a big flap about this in the late 1990's.

After you do some research, you might want to modify your use of "lie" here.

[Barbara Moulton]

Help me understand. As I understand it, Jimmy Carter signed the treaty in 1977 which set in motion the process of handing the canal over to Panamanian control.

The treaty came into force in 1999 when the canal was handed over to the Panama canal authority who made the sale to the Chinese company.

So who was actually responsible? Could the US have prevented what the Pananamian authorities were determined to do?

Not taking sides. I didn't know much about this subject until this discussion so I am just trying to find the answer. I did what Scott suggested and googled with his terms. But most of the sites that came up were sites like World Net Daily...not sources that I trust as giving me unbiased informaiton.

[Hans Deventer]

Help me understand.

Well, that is easy. Anything a Republican president has done must have been great, and anything a Democratic president has done most have been awfull. Add to that the fact that a speech by Hillary Clinton must of course have been full of lies, half lies and untruths, and you'll understand everything.
Just don't try to mix anything with facts, because THEN, it gets confusing.

See how simple it is?

[Gina Stevenson]

Found myself LOL about this one, Hans! {of course, when I've stayed up too long, that's an easy thing to find myself doing) 'Like your take on American politics ... funnnny ... yet there's enough truth in it to be less than funny ... and nearly sad, huh? :rolleyes:

Well, that is easy. Anything a Republican president has done must have been great, and anything a Democratic president has done most have been awfull. Add to that the fact that a speech by Hillary Clinton must of course have been full of lies, half lies and untruths, and you'll understand everything.
Just don't try to mix anything with facts, because THEN, it gets confusing.

See how simple it is?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Not taking sides. I didn't know much about this subject until this discussion so I am just trying to find the answer. I did what Scott suggested and googled with his terms. But most of the sites that came up were sites like World Net Daily...not sources that I trust as giving me unbiased information.

I think this is one of those deals that will be more discussed in the blogosphere than in any regular media outlet. It is really just a "gotcha" on Hillary rather than a news story.

Hillary gave a speech in which she talked about how bad it was that a Chinese company was running the Panama canal ports. http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/02/hillary-navigates-port-issue.html

Back in 1999 before the hand over was complete, the Clinton administration approved their taking control of the ports -- saying all the same things about business and security that the Bush administration is saying about the current deal.

I think that as we move toward a new U.S. Presidential election cycle that the point is going to have to be made that Hillary was not part of the Clinton administration -- she is his wife and is not responsible for everything he said or did.

As a Senator she has a track record all her own - a record that I think will keep her from being elected, but any Republican who tries to run against Bill Clinton instead of her is going to be making a mistake.

Having said all that, none of this is a big deal to me right now. I think it was a bigger deal that Bruce so casually tossed around the word "lie" when talking about what Jim said that I felt someone needed to show that Jim wasn't being duped by someone's lie and he wasn't mixing up Carter and Clinton (it seems that Bruce could be said to have done that at that point).

[Barbara Moulton]

Back in 1999 before the hand over was complete, the Clinton administration approved their taking control of the ports -- saying all the same things about business and security that the Bush administration is saying about the current deal.

I think that as we move toward a new U.S. Presidential election cycle that the point is going to have to be made that Hillary was not part of the Clinton administration -- she is his wife and is not responsible for everything he said or did.



Thanks for the explanation.

I certainly would not want to be held responsible for everything my husband says and does :)

[Bruce Carriker]

I'll just consider the source. Blessings Bruce.

After such a condescending, insulting dismissal...without any attempt to deal with the truth...how dare you close with "blessings".

If you ever did more than repeat the mistruths you hear...or perhaps start, who knows...and did something as simple as a Google search, you could find the same sources. I guess it's easier to listen to Rush Limbaugh and simply repeat what he says. That sure is simpler than thinking for yourself.

[Bruce Carriker]

Well, that is easy. Anything a Republican president has done must have been great, and anything a Democratic president has done most have been awfull. Add to that the fact that a speech by Hillary Clinton must of course have been full of lies, half lies and untruths, and you'll understand everything.
Just don't try to mix anything with facts, because THEN, it gets confusing.

See how simple it is?


Barbara,
Hans has an excellent handle on American politics, as least as that phrase applies here on NazNet.

[Jim Franklin]

In the tome by Mark Twain, "Celebrated Frog of Calavaras County," it said that "Thisyer Smiley" would switch sides just to get some controversy going or change his bet on which frog would win. Blessings on all. I have posted to the White House on three different occasions my opposition to the Bush's Administration about my geopolitical reasoning for opposing this UAE port deal with the acknowledgement that the GOP people who favor it our diplomats and administration officials who, themselves, are not up for election or re-election this fall or those who wish the president ill and to fall flat on his face and that the GOP people who are opposed to it are those who do face the electorate this fall. I do understand the reasoning that we should reward and try to maintain the congeniality with nations who try to work with us but "saving face" before international companies is not going get the votes from the general public who would not study the issue to its fullest and consider it a give away harming the president's image of being the champion of national security, protection and safety. So I oppose the deal on the basis of how the results might be far different than what the president's advisors are projecting.

[Bruce Carriker]

Help me understand. As I understand it, Jimmy Carter signed the treaty in 1977 which set in motion the process of handing the canal over to Panamanian control.

The treaty came into force in 1999 when the canal was handed over to the Panama canal authority who made the sale to the Chinese company.

So who was actually responsible? Could the US have prevented what the Pananamian authorities were determined to do?

Not taking sides. I didn't know much about this subject until this discussion so I am just trying to find the answer. I did what Scott suggested and googled with his terms. But most of the sites that came up were sites like World Net Daily...not sources that I trust as giving me unbiased informaiton.

Barbara,

President Jimmy Carter negotiated the Panama Canal Treaty in 1977. The US Senate ratified that treaty in 1978, agreeing to hand over the Panama Canal to Panama on December 31, 1999. In the intervening years, the US Panama Canal Zone was returned to Panama, as well.

It is possible that the US could have prevented the transfer. The Senate could have attempted to rescind approval, I suppose...though that would certainly have spurred a court challenge from Panama. In any event, action to block, supersede, or resicind the treaty would likely have had to being in the Republican-controlled Senate. The problem with that was they were as pro-China, pro-free trade, as those here accuse President Clinton of being. Remember, it was that same Republican Senate that approved permanent most-favored trade nation status with China, despite their dismal record on human rights and workers rights.

But if you're attempting to fix responsibilty, it probably rests with President Carter and the 100 US Senators who were serving in 1998.

The United States could have done very little about the contract to operate the ports, since it was negotiated between the port company and the Panamanian government. Even so, I doubt there was any real interest in the deal...other than some political demagoguery from the far right...because, as I've already pointed out, the US government, including the Republican Senate, WANTED better relations and more trade with China.

One thing that has not been mentioned here is that the Panama Canal Treaty guarantees US access to the Canal at all times. It includes a "use of force" provision for the US, which we can take unilaterally, if access to the Canal is threatened.

[Cindi Hammons]

Bruce,

Did you even bother to read Scott's comments clarifying that Jim was, in fact, correct in his assessment? Did you stop and think that a moderator is trying to calm you down from accusing others of telling lies?

I don't care about the political aspect of this, I just find it terrible that both sides (on this board) are so charged with dynamite that one can be attacked while actually reporting facts! I know, Bruce, you have been attacked too, I'm not choosing sides here. I voted for Clinton once (not twice) and am NOT a registered Republican. I would call myself a moderate independent, but I have to say, Bruce, I find your actions here pretty sad and petty sometimes.

If I were you, I'd certainly listen to what the moderator is gently trying to tell you, and then, maybe heed his words.

Cindi H. who really doesn't care about which "side" wins these areguments!

[Bruce Carriker]

Cindi, sorry you were offended. I haven't been called petty or sad yet today, so I appreciate your kind words. Perhaps "lie" was too strong a word. But when you deliberately omit facts so as to vilify a particular individual, what is the right word for that? Bearing false witness? And what does it say of the community that no one cares if a person is wrongly vilified, so long as their last name is Clinton? Talk about petty and sad!

Some people may honestly be so ill-informed as to believe that somehow, because Bill Clinton was president at the time, he was responsible for the Panama Canal port deal. But, Jim has posted far too many things on here, and proven to be far too lucid, for me to believe that he doesn't know that the Panamanian government...with the complicity of a joint American-Panamanian canal council; and not Bill Clinton, awarded that contract...under the terms of a treaty negotiated twenty years earlier, by a completely different administration.

This is not a defense of Bill Clinton, or his foreign policy towards China (a policy shared by both Bush administrations that sandwiched his), ignoring the gross civil rights abuses and near slave-like labor conditions of many workers. But if he's going to be vilified, then do it for things over which he actually had control and failed to act, or acted inappropriately. Don't do it...or further it...simply because his last name is Clinton.

[Cindi Hammons]

Cindi, sorry you were offended. I haven't been called petty or sad yet today, so I appreciate your kind words.

Why go searching for kinds words from others when you, yourself, shoveled out some pretty unkind blasting earlier in this thread. I was actually shocked by the acid tone and words in your comments.

I have no love or hate for the Clintons, and I agree with Scott that the US will have to grow to realize that Hillary was not part of the Clinton administration...or was she? Officially, no. But, remember their comments? Bill Clinton himself said that the American people got two for one when they elected him. It certainly muddies the water some.

Cindi H. who is honored to receive your appreciation.

[Bruce Carriker]

Who was "searching" for kind words?

[Jim Franklin]

OK friends of NazNet, when I started this thread by just reporting the facts of a news item that stated that Hillary had blasted the ownership of the Panamanian ports operation by a Red Chinese company and it included that she had not made note of the fact that like Pres. Bush could put a stop to the UAE deal that her husband could have put a stop to it then and didn't. So friend Bruce, where did I lie? If you honestly think I lied I am sorry I read that news report and posted the facts that it gave.

[Hans Deventer]

The other day I found a lovely part of Scripture regarding politics. It is from The Message so not all might agree, but still:

8 Attention, all! See the marvels of GOD!

He plants flowers and trees all over the earth,

9 Bans war from pole to pole,

breaks all the weapons across his knee.

10 "Step out of the traffic! Take a long,

loving look at me, your High God,

above politics, above everything."

Psalm 46

[Bruce Carriker]

OK friends of NazNet, when I started this thread by just reporting the facts of a news item that stated that Hillary had blasted the ownership of the Panamanian ports operation by a Red Chinese company and it included that she had not made note of the fact that like Pres. Bush could put a stop to the UAE deal that her husband could have put a stop to it then and didn't. So friend Bruce, where did I lie? If you honestly think I lied I am sorry I read that news report and posted the facts that it gave.

Panama is a sovereign nation. They are no longer a vassal state of the United States. We no longer own the Canal or the Canal Zone. The treaty in question was negotiated by the Panamanian government, with a foreign country, to operate ports in Panama. We may dislike their decision, but it was their decision to make. The President cannot stop a foreign nation from conducting its own business.

The Dubai Ports World deal was negotiated and approved by the United States government, to operate ports in the United States.

Panamanian government - Panamanian ports - no role for the President, other than to voice displeasure.

US government - US ports - President can kill deal by simplying saying, "It's not happening"

Do you honestly not see the difference? To suggest that Hillary Clinton is dishonest for blasting this deal, but not her husband's deal suggests that Clinton had the same degree of authority in the Panamanian deal as Bush did in this one. That's simply not the case.

[Jim Franklin]

Bruce, when I said I considered the source along with Blessings Bruce, I really meant it to be a gracious response to someone who I know differs often in his viewpoint from mine who had questioned my integrity. Again I say Blessings on you, Bruce.