Honesty 101
November 11, 1993
Clinton's Secret Agenda?

I recently stumbled across a so-called six-page White House document in search of White House records on Hillary Clinton's position on NAFTA. There had been a pro-NAFTA event the day before, according to ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper in his Political Punch segment of ABCNews.com.

After ABC News aired this information, the Clinton campaign - eager to push the story that Hillary had always been against NAFTA, despite the praise at the time, had David Gergen issue a "clarification" which appears below the NAFTA Meeting account.

Clinton's 1993 NAFTA Meeting

March 19, 2008 4:58 PM

One interesting event in Sen. Hillary Clinton's just-released schedules from the 1990s comes on Nov. 10 1993, when the former first lady was to serve as the closing act during a briefing on NAFTA, the trade agreement she now assails.

11:30 am -
11:45 am

NAFTA BRIEFING DROP-BY
Room 450, OEOB
CLOSED PRESS

PARTICIPANTS: Approx 120 expected to attend
(See briefing book for further info)

FORMAT:
- Alexis Herman intros HRC for brief remarks
-HRC concludes program

(pp. 1375 and 1376)

Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress.

"It wasn't a drop-by it was organized around her participation," said one attendee. "Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary's position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive if NAFTA.

That first attendee recalls that the First Lady's office in the East Wing put together "the invitation list, who was invited authorizations and all that stuff."

And what is this attendee's response to Clinton today distancing herself from NAFTA? "For people who worked hard to pass NAFTA and who support the importance of markets opening for the economy in the long term, they're very upset. A number of the women who were there are very upset. You need to have some integrity in your position. The Clintons when Bill Clinton was president took a moderate position on trade for Democrats. For her to repudiate that now seems pretty phony."

Recalls a second attendee, "they were looking for women in international trade who supported NAFTA. Senator Clinton came by at the end. And of course she asked for our support and help in passing NAFTA."

Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. "They're all saying, 'What's this all about?' We all heard it firsthand." She says Clinton isn't being honest with voters today.

- jpt

It should be noted the Clinton's release of her schedule was anything but complete. Each day begins with a page containing only the number of the day; for example, the November 10, 1993 section begins with a page containing only the number "10". When material is redacted (withheld) there is a "Withdrawal/Redaction Page" [click the link to a larger image], the top of which looks like this (page 1374):

This example (the day of the NAFTA meeting) claims two pages were blocked out for reasons of Restriction Code P6/b(6), noting that "partial phone numbers" and "DOB [Dates of Birth?]" were blocked out. It also claims "executive privilege" under P6 ("release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [a(6) of the PRA ( Presidential Records Act)]". At the bottom of this page [click link to see larger image] is an explanation of what all the "restriction codes" mean.

After the NAFTA meeting there is a private meeting held in Hillary's office from 3 - 4 pm (page 1377). What the meeting is about remains secret, marked b(6) - which means "Release would constitute a clearly nonwarranted invasion of personal privacy (b)(6) of the FOIA]." This meeting may have laid out the entire, frightening Clinton agenda she now intends to pursue if elected president in 2008.

On page 1380, for November 11, after a large 8 am breakfast, there are two large unblocked time periods (9:30 am - 12 noon and 1 - 3 pm) referred to as "Phone/Office Time." The meeting described below, although dated Nov. 11, 1993, may have taken place on Nov. 10 (see above) or on Nov. 11. during the so-called "Phone/Office Times" shown below. The White House memo calls it a "Protocol of White House Conference" - whatever exactly that means. It is unlikely that the date would have been "accidentally" typed as Nov. 11 when the meeting was actually Nov. 10, since minutes are dated as to the date of the meeting, not the date on which they were typed.

In fact, it is purportedly an outline of Hillary Clinton's entire political agenda for the Clinton administration. Copies of the actual six-page document appear below the excerpts. The contents may shock many of those Hispanics Clinton counts on for her "electoral base" during the 2008 campaign, when she describes the Catholic Church as "a dying religion ... with no power" and then goes on to discuss extortion of the church by turning the already scandalous priest-pedophile scandal into an even more fatal blow against the church.

To be honest, the document does not come from the White House or National Archives and I present it with the qualification that it may or may not be authentic. If anyone can confirm its authenticity, I would welcome that confirmation. In the meantime, the language and over-all appearance seems to follow the nature of known Clinton conversations.

This report, and the story of why Hillary Clinton refuses to release either her 2006 or 2007 tax returns, Clinton Foundation and Clinton Library donors, may provide an answer to the many Democrats who wonder why Hillary would risk the destruction of the Democrat Party in her bid for the White House. It is quite likely that she actually prefers a McCain election in the assurance that McCain would continue the policies of George W. Bush - policies even Bush's own father disagrees with. Hillary may have nothing to lose, because if Obama is elected, she could face possible criminal prosecution - along with Bush - for the allegedly criminal acts involving the offshore laundering of literally billions of dollars she cannot afford to have showing up on her tax returns.

This document could be a clever forgery, though it hasn't shown up on any of the "urban legends" sites like Snopes.com yet. It could also be an even more clever piece of disinformation (much like the George W. Bush National Guard documents that got Dan Rather "retired").

In that case, the information in the documents was true, and confirmed by the secretary who typed them - BUT the document was not the document she typed. It had been retyped on different paper by a different typewriter and contained minor discrepancies which enabled Bush to claim it was a forgery and discredit not just the document, but the information as well, with the discrediting of Dan Rather thrown in as a bonus.

It could be a trick used by the Clintons to "get the ugly part out", quickly discredit it because of something minor (perhaps a date that should have been Nov. 10 instead of Nov. 11), and give the document - and all the information it it - a quick and very deep burial ... then dismiss it all as "old, discredited allegations."

This is a very old trick used in military and civilian intelligence agencies (disinformation, false flag operation, etc., etc.) and has in recent years been adapted by the more cunning of America's political figures. Personally, I have some doubts that any of the people allege3dly present at that meeting would have committed such raw statements to paper, as direct quotes because (a) if you're familiar with corporate minutes or those of any organization, you know the minutes are much more broad and general - and boring than that, and (b) the stenographer/secretary or whoever putting this on paper would have been vetted and a known Clinton supporter ... even more reason to question the document's authenticity.

However, I have thoroughly researched the source of this document (who is known to me) and even though I regard him as a rabid fanatic, perhaps even racist and anti-Semitic, I would typically regard as a nut case, I do know that he indeed is who he said he is and that the press has conceded he is one of the most important whistleblowers in recent American history. I've even obtained a psychiatric report commissioned to determine his competence as a witness/plaintiff/defendant in court cases - and he has been ruled competent. But correct? That I cannot vouch for.

The key is finding out what happened in the closed White House meetings of Nov. 10-11, 1993, especially the two-hour closed-door meeting of Nov. 10 in Hillary's office. Can the documented whereabouts of the others supposedly in attendance be verified for that date and time by independent documentation not subject to the alteration/redaction powers of the Clintons?

"Protocol of White House Conference November 11, 1993"

Participants: The President, HRC, TFM, RN, IM and GS
[The President = Bill Clinton, HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton, TFM = Thomas Mack McLarty, RN = Roy Neel, IM = Ira Magaziner, GS = Gene Sperling, and RH = Richard Herget (not listed as being present)]

Regarding the Health Security Act:

HRC: If they will swallow NAFTA, they will certainly pass this as it stands . . . Perhaps if the alcohol and tobacco people realize we can cripple their businesses, they might see their way clear to donate substantial sums to help us secure passage of the Health Act.

Regarding the National Identity Card:

HRC: We all know this has to be done...just like total gun control. People simply do not realize what has to happen to make their lives easier and safer.

TFM: I think that if we can't get a National Health Card through, we could always turn to the INS issue and fabricate the excuse of preventing illegal aliens from taking U.S. jobs or getting free medical care.

HRC: Well, I agree with that. After all, if all the provisions of the Health Security Act are passed, as they must be...unaltered in any way...every citizen must by law be registered with the program even if they have no intentions of using its services. That must be made a law...a very important part of this program...

Regarding federally funded abortions:

HRC: ...the religious right is our worst enemy, and we should deal with them directly. Things would be a lot more pleasant without their fascistic screaming anyway.

White House Intent on Sex Education; the Catholic Church:

HRC: For me, this is a dying religion in this country. They have no power and, if we cannot arrive at a mutual agreement on this, we can proceed against them by increasing the number of priest-pederasty charges... ...And I'm sure the issue of female priests can be solved in the same way and at the same time. A package deal. The born-agains are most irritating problem. The neo-fascists here are allied with some of the religious right... If we do this a little bit at a time, the public will get the impression that all churches of the right advocate killing abortion clinic people, stockpiling deadly weapons like the Koresh nutties and eventually plan to attack or fight government agencies . . . like in Waco . We can make the connection in the public mind.

Regarding gun control and the Brady Bill:

HRC: We have to approach minorities with caution. We cannot appear to be picking on them or singling them out for punishment. I suggest we fist [sic] use records to confiscate all legally registered weapons from white citizens to show the inner city residents that the white population will be disarmed before any minorities are. Keep in mind that of the fifty-odd deaths in the Los Angeles riots, most were caused by Korean shop owners defending their property. These Koreans should merit special attention in the initial roundup.

Regarding living wills and the Health Act:

HRC: . . . Simply unplugging a dying person is the easiest and most economical way. These people are not ever going to recover, so why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case on them?

Restructuring of education policies:

HRC: ...If we have to be severe or even cruel in the furthering of this doctrine, we must realize that the end is certainly worth whatever means we have to employ.