Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 02/26/2008

Feuding over NAFTA

By Michael Dobbs

Cincinnati, Ohio, Feb. 23, 2008.

"Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you."
--Hillary Clinton news conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, Feb. 23, 2008.

Hillary Clinton made a fine show of indignation in Ohio over the weekend, accusing Barack Obama of distorting her positions on NAFTA and universal health care. Both candidates have been trying to convince Ohio voters that they would fight to protect the interests of American workers from "unfair" trade deals such as NAFTA. But neither Obama nor Clinton is being entirely honest on the NAFTA issue. They have both exaggerated their opposition to the 1993 free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada and misstated the other's position.

The Facts

During her news conference in Cincinnati, Clinton cited a mailing from the Obama campaign to Ohio voters that claimed that she thought NAFTA had been a "boon" to the U.S. economy. You can see the mailing here. By placing the word "boon" in quotation marks, the mailing implied that Clinton had actually used that expression to describe NAFTA.

This is not the case. The word "boon" appeared in a September 2006 chart published in Newsday summarizing Clinton's views on the economy, but it was the newspaper's characterization, not Clinton's. Newsday clarified what happened here.

Even though Clinton did not use the word "boon", she has spoken positively of NAFTA on several occasions, including her autobiography, Living History. Bill Clinton staked considerable political capital in persuading the Senate to ratify NAFTA, and Hillary loyally supported his efforts as First Lady. In a March 6, 1996 photo op, reported by the Associated Press, she described NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement" and said that it was "proving its worth."

A detailed list of such quotes is available here, courtesy of the Obama campaign. You can read the Clinton reply here.

There is some evidence that Hillary Clinton was less enthusiastic about NAFTA than her husband. Two of her biographers, Carl Bernstein and Sally Bedell Smith, said that she was wary about pushing NAFTA because it might interfere with her attempts to get her health plan through Congress, a much higher priority for her. According to Bedell Smith, "Hillary was really prepared to try and kill NAFTA." Bernstein says that she privately accused her husband of practicing "Republican economics."

Clinton's ambivalence about NAFTA was captured in a Jan. 5 2004 teleconference, in which she argued for a "rethinking of our trade policies, not to turn our back on trade, but to come up with a more effective 21st century trade policy." She then said the following:

I think that we have to enforce the trade rules that are inherent in both NAFTA and GATT. This administration has been very slow in filing any kind of trade claims in regard to any of our trading deals....I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada.

In September 2004, Obama took a very similar position while running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. According to a Sept. 9, 2004, Associated Press report, he said the following in a debate with his Republican rival, Alan Keyes:

Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO [World Trade Organization] and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy.
"We have competition in world trade," Obama said. "When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade."

In other words, both Obama and Clinton felt that NAFTA has benefited the U.S. economy, but they both believed that the U.S. should be more aggressive in enforcing the rules.

Both the Clinton and the Obama camps have sent out misleading mailings on the NAFTA issue, as demonstrated by my fellow fact checkers at here (Obama) and here (Clinton).

Obama, meanwhile, made a factual mistake during last week's debate from Austin, TX, when he claimed that he had talked to Ohio workers who had seen "equipment unbolted from the floors of factories and shipped to China, resulting in devastating job losses and communities completely falling apart." His spokesmen told me he was referring to a steel door plant in Niles, Ohio. Amweld Building Products president Michael Burtt told me that the two plants in question relocated not to China, but to Monterrey, Mexico, at the end of 2007. About 200 jobs were lost.

The Pinocchio Test

You would not think it from the way they have been attacking each other, but Clinton and Obama are not all that far apart on NAFTA. They both believe in free trade, but they both argue that the U.S. has got a bad deal from the way NAFTA and other trade deals have been enforced. Both candidates have used quotes selectively to slam the other. Two Pinocchios apiece.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | February 26, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Barack Obama, Candidate Watch, Economy, Other Foreign Policy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Top Ten Democratic Flip Flops
Next: Democratic Debate Feb. 26, 2008


Come on. Are you really giving Obama two Pinochio's for making a mistake about the country the machines where shipped to.
The indignation of Clinton is false. She should be honest, admit she made a mistake about Nafta, made into law by the first Clinton admin, and publicly supported by her. If she would have done that early on, there would be no dispute, because both Clinton and Obama agree on what should be done about Nafta.
Her inability to admit mistakes (like the Irak vote) is the biggest obstacle in her race to become the Democratic Nominee.

Posted by: Hebi | February 26, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse

I agree with two Pinocchios apiece.

Posted by: JakeD | February 26, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Between 1993 and 2003 or so, I've seen nothing from Clinton criticizing NAFTA. She did praise it during that time and I've seen that in both credible quotations that are not taken out of context and in video.

Bill Clinton embraced NAFTA during his '92 campaign with the condition that he would make side agreements to elevate it to his liking which he did. During the Clinton presidency, the United States lost 1,000,000 manufacturing jobs (see Dept of Labor stats). Ohio took it on the chin. It was known by the Clinton administration that manufacturing jobs were going to be lost with NAFTA but their hope was that those jobs would be replaced by service industry jobs. For the folks in Ohio, nobody thought about service industry jobs for them - partly because there were not enough to go around with a flawed NAFTA agreement.

In light of that, you'd have to be a complete idiot to continue to support NAFTA as it is now while trying to campaign in places like Ohio. So sure Hillary got on board against NAFTA in the more recent years but it was a little late in the game for those folks in places like Ohio.

The Clinton campaign seems to want us to focus on the word "boon" as a word Clinton didn't express. I accept that. But it strikes me as semantics. What the Clinton campaign don't seem to want us to notice was that although the word "boon" wasn't used by Hillary, it was Newsweek's appraisal of her position on NAFTA. And that appraisal appears to be a fair one based on the many quotations - including some from Hillary's book written some years after Bill left office.

Posted by: C Watson | February 26, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Clinton quotes Obama in a new mailer saying:
"the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement"

Here's what was actually said:
"But Democrat Obama said Keyes' ideas could lead to trade wars that would harm farmers, who are always looking for new markets willing to buy American crops. He said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the country must be more aggressive about protecting American interests. 'We don't want to set off trade wars. What we want to make sure of is that our farmers are treated fairly,' Obama said. 'The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities.'" (AP, 9/8/04)

That's the best the Clinton campaign has been able to come up with on Obama and NAFTA - a lame quote out of context that ethically should never have been done.

I'm a Canadian with no stake or vote in this campaign. I'm trying to look at it and the campaigns objectively and I've been interested enough to try to research the facts. One conclusion is that I'm surprised that the "fact checking" hasn't been able to find the above distinction between Clinton's old and new positions and a lame quote out of context attempt.

The above Clinton mailer seems to represent a pattern of bogus spin or petty "issues" with no substance coming from her campaign again and again. I don't see the same thing coming from Obama. Obama's claims, although with a sprinkling of spin, seem much more grounded in substance and fact. The media and candidates talk about voters swooning to Obama's rhetoric. They seem to overlook that Obama seems to be more grounded in providing the truth ethically and he is doing a better job backing up his claims without resorting to lame, unethical quotes out of context mailings, etc. I think the public trust and believe Obama more than they do Clinton and it's Obama's and Clinton's actions that are speaking louder than their words on this issue.

Probably the most surprising and disturbing thing for me is that much of the general US media can't seem to see the difference and are not fully informing the voters. It's like they're keeping the contest close to milk a story or don't want to tilt the campaign too much or their own political bias is drowning accurate analysis. I haven't been able to pin it down but there's truly something wrong going on here with the coverage and analysis in my humble opinion.

Posted by: C Watson | February 26, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the attempt to straddle the fence here. Obama used a quote from a news story that used the word "boon" to portray Clinton's views on NAFTA. But the fact is that the Newsday summarization was factual and accurately conveyed her views on NAFTA.

A supposed 2004 Clinton change of heart on NAFTA, coming long after it was clear that NAFTA was unpopular with the average worker, means absolutely nothing. But it does however, illustrate once again her very poor judgement - she's for the Iraq war and NAFTA in the beginning, but against them when they are politically unpopular.
Obama's position, like Hillary's new position is that NAFTA should be fixed. That is in no way a flip-flop, since he did not support its enactment in the first place. Hillary has only been elected to one office, and has completed only 1 term. She has less than half of Obama's legislative experience. So to make up for her lack of experience, she claimed her husband's as her own. She can't cherry-pick the parts of the Clinton Admin's policies for which she takes credit.

If Hillary wants to relinquish her claim on Bill's experience, then let's face it, she hasn't actually accomplished much of anything on her own in regards to public policy

Posted by: R. Patterson | February 26, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

"A supposed 2004 Clinton change of heart on NAFTA, coming long after it was clear that NAFTA was unpopular with the average worker, means absolutely nothing."

It means she is attuned to the needs of her constituents, something a Senator should be.

I'd say Obama gets the Pinocchios not just for mis-quoting Hillary with "boon", but for his claim that his and Hillary's views on free trade and NAFTA are so different. They aren't.

I saw an Obama speech where he explained his free trade views, saying he'd change things so that there would be restrictions on lead toys from China, poisonous medicines from China, etc. Are people that dumb? There already ARE regulations about such things, it's just that enforcement and oversight hasn't been great and stuff slips through. He's trying to claim that current free trade agreements allow China to ship as many lead toys to America as they wish, but he's going to change that. He really seems to count on people not understanding issues, and mindlessly nodding "yeah, sounds good to me".

Posted by: Phil | February 26, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Call it what it really is, they both have a habit of distorting facts. Hillary was gracious in the last debate. then they accuse her of being mean spirited with the fliers, I guess I would be angry to if you put out a hand to have a decent campaign then your opponent slaps you in the face with his hand wouldn't you be angry.

Posted by: jp,michigan | February 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"I saw an Obama speech where he explained his free trade views, saying he'd change things so that there would be restrictions on lead toys from China, poisonous medicines from China, etc. Are people that dumb? There already ARE regulations about such things, it's just that enforcement and oversight hasn't been great and stuff slips through. He's trying to claim that current free trade agreements allow China to ship as many lead toys to America as they wish, but he's going to change that. He really seems to count on people not understanding issues, and mindlessly nodding "yeah, sounds good to me"."

You've missed the point and inaccurately paraphrased. It isn't that there are no regulations in existence. What is in existence didn't stop it coming in the country.

"We're also going to put much tougher standards in place so that people cannot import toys with lead paint, contaminated pet food, contaminated drugs into our market. We're going to have much more vigorous enforcement of safety standards,"

and guess who said that ?

Hillary Clinton

Posted by: C Watson | February 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Make no mistake. Democrats, Republicans and corporate greed are responsible for NAFTA.They are all guilty for this travesty against the American worker and family.Facts are nothing but smoke and mirrows to politicians and executives.

Posted by: dragontailjunkie | February 26, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

fliers were mailed with blatant falsehoods about Hillary's stand on nafta

Barak knew they were lies and mailed them anyway and deflected the issue with the costume picture

here is what David Gergen who was in the White House at the time nafta was signed:

"I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly. I'm not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn't see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there's some justification for her camp saying, you know, she's never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]

where was the press with this info?

where was the press in the run up to the war?

why did this same press sell us George Bush?

tell me why I should believe anything I don't see with my own eye and hear with my own ears?

why should I trust the media?

Posted by: lndlouis | February 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I understand that Mr. Obama has given up on jobs in Ohio. He said "If we really are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that some of those jobs are not coming back." He said this to Ohio, in Cleveland. Are people so mesmerized that they do not care? Hillary are you ready to give up on "those jobs"?

Posted by: stu252 | February 26, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The jobs were lost by an incompetent government not by NAFTA. If someone who was competant was in office for the last 8 years the jobs would still be there doing something in touch with todays world and exporting it to the world.

Posted by: stu252 | February 26, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it was absurd of Obama to imply that Senator Clinton shared all of her husband's views. I never had that impression. Obama says he 'never' thought NAFTA was a good idea. He 'never' thought the war was a good idea. Easy to say when you are sitting in an obscure state senate seat voting 'present' a good deal of the time. If you never say anything, you have nothing to cover up. Now it appears he is a liar as well.

Posted by: Chicago1 | February 26, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

As I've said before, people are mistaking NAFTA and Globalization, probably because Obama does.

NAFTA is a free trade agreement between America and her neighbors, Canada and Mexico. We're not losing jobs to Canada or Mexico, who are also hurt by Globalization--we're losing jobs to China, India and other Asian countries. The people in the latter countries can work for less than Americans do and the cost of doing business there is also less.

The advantage of Globalization is that countries are rising from poverty and are offering decent paying jobs to people who used to have to leave their countries in order to find work. And Americans benefit by paying lower prices for goods.

The disadvantage is that American workers lose jobs to Asia. Hillary has the solution: You can't stop free enterprise, but don't reward companies who send jobs overseas with tax breaks. Raise their taxes and use that money to re-train American workers.

NAFTA is fine. We cannot stop Globalization, but we can find creative ways of dealing with it.

Posted by: Beatrix1 | February 26, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Neither Democratic candidate has solutions on free trade, nor do the Republicans. The most onerous free trade challenge facing America is not related to NAFTA, but to its relationship with Asia . . .

There is "balance" in the U.S./ Canada trade relationship. There is none with Mexico and none with China. Confrontation with trading partners is the easy part. The relationships are massively complex and real solutions obscure. Running off in the heat of debate isn't the solution.

Posted by: JamesRaider | February 26, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Fact Checker is a joke. The quoted excerpt from Newsday is included in the Obama mailer, so there's no reason for readers to presume "boon" is a direct quote from Clinton.

Clinton's exit strategy is becoming clear. Drum up a lame complaint about Obama's Nafta mailer, turn that into the narrative as to why she lost the campaign. She's no Bill, but she whines almost as well.

Posted by: Seytom | February 26, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

The facts about NAFTA exclude the portion of the agreement 'Origin of Nations Rule' which in fact was not adhered to by our own government under Bill Clinton. Canada and Mexico became transshipment points for Chinese goods under a NAFTA label. On the occasions that Customs did discover such illegal transshipments, the penalty was to ship those goods back to China, where in a different factory, the merely changed the label and sent it back.

Posted by: Weaver1 | February 26, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Who won the MSNBC Democratic Debate in Cleveland Ohio?


Posted by: PollM | February 26, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary came across as a bold-faced LIAR on NAFTA. Russert had her against the ropes.

She also horribly dodged the question of her tax returns. "I'm a little busy right now". That was the lamest of excuses. Can't she call her accountant?

Yes there were no decisive blows but this was to my mind Obama's best debate yet. He's never been as relaxed, comfortable, rational and articulate as on this one. He had PRESIDENT written all over him.

Unfortunately for Hillary, trying to talk over the moderator and attempting to interrupt the commercial breaks did not look dignified at all.

Posted by: alarico | February 26, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you. When Obama says he has been running a campaign since Jan when he was given the subcommittee job in the Senate, it isn't acceptable. But if she is too busy to provide a tax return, that's okay. ANother example of her hypocrisy.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 27, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton's position on NAFTA undercuts her message to Ohio voters: that she is a fighter for the middle-class worker.

Early in his presidency, Bill Clinton angered a number of unions and their supporters in Congress like Dick Gephardt because he supported NAFTA. Some consider it a primary achievement of his presidency. Hillary Clinton's role in encouraging or discouraging NAFTA then is largely unknown: Because it involved private advice to her husband and because most records from the Clinton White House are still sealed. If she opposed NAFTA, she was ineffectual in doing so. If she supported it, she has to answer criticism of its effects in places like Ohio.

Clinton certainly praised NAFTA in the past, though she has added some increased criticism of it over the years. It should be noted that Clinton's economic advisers now include Robert Rubin and R. Altman, both of whom, like Lloyd Bentsen, were proponents of NAFTA during the first Clinton Administration.

Posted by: wesfromGA | February 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Whatever the attitude of presidential candidates, many Canadians would love to see NAFTA renegotiated so that environmental regulations, labour relations rules and government oversight mandates in the U.S. could be raised to Canadian levels.
While we are at it, perhaps water and oil could be taken out of the agreement, therebye enhancing our ability to protect and preserve our resources for the long term, and the sections on lumber, over which we have been screwed for two decades despite NAFTA adjudicators agreeing that is the case, could be re-tightened to prevent the damage that has been done to our economy.
After that, we could open up the Security and Prosperity talks, so that citizens in both countries could monitor the ways in which corporations and big-money dominated government are attempting to increase their control over our lives.
Throw that into your next debate about how we should control our lives to your benefit

Posted by: Dijit | February 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Why is it the news media will only mention Alan Keyes' prior campaigns and never his current one? Could it be they don't want us to know he's running, and has been since September 2007? The latest Gallop poll showed him with support equal to Ron Paul, and yet the media and Republican Party keep him on their ignore list. Thank God for the internet!

Posted by: Katrinka Yobotz | February 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Can someone from Fack Checker check this out?

Claims that a senior official from Obama's campaign directly contacted the Canadian embassador reassuring him not to worry, his anti-NAFTA talk would be only rhetoric. Obama's campaign has not denied it but called it 'inplausible'. Canadian TV also claims that someone from Clinton's campaign indirectly made the same kind of contact. Clinton campaign flat-out denies it and invited the Canadian press to publicly name the person who allegedly made the indirect contact. It is important that the voters of Ohio get the truth, whatever it is.

Posted by: jcmdstep1 | February 28, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with NAFTA? Losing jobs to Canada and Mexico? I doubt it. Yes, a few thousand low paying factory jobs are probably lost to Mexico but you can regard it as a blessing in disguise.The more jobs lost to Mexico, the less illegal immigrants cross the border to come to the US and therefore the more jobs will be available for the American workers,especially blue collar workers.With Canada,NAFTA doesn't make that much difference since Canada,unlike Mexico has always had her industrial base running at nearly full capacity.Canada and Nafta are not the cause of Detroit's demise,it is Detroit's fault that Toyota is ahead.All Detroit has to do is shape up! So Obama and Hillary don't have to apologise for a beneficial piece of treaty like NAFTA nor have they have to defend inefficiency at GM,Ford,or Chryshler.

Posted by: AIi Baba | February 29, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

NAFTA was created not just for the US but to help the world's economy. America lived up to it's image of being #1 in economy. I think we were too arrongent to think that we could fall behind a place like China. I think the purpose of NAFTA at the time was good but corporations found loopholes and abused it. And we were preaccupied with the war in iraq that we let it slide. They are plenty of people in places like China wants American goods. We just have to find a way to build our manufacturing power back in place. If every retail stores in America alone started to carry few goods that are made in America, that will make a big difference. Start supporting a local economy and build back our community. That's something every one of us can do starting now.

Posted by: Younmi | March 1, 2008 4:15 AM | Report abuse

what democrcy is all about? And the officials in Canada and Mexico come out of their snake holes to reveal and try to smear Obama? why should he back down to what is the truth about NAFTA,being that it weakened the unions and caused job losses simple and clear. And who signed the agreement while in office Bill Clinton lifted the barriers. NAFTA eliminates the tariffs between us and our closest neighbors Mex. and Canada.Its about creating products there and sell them back to us for previous,lower wages being the attraction for outsourcing.Costing thousands of job losses moving the product out of country, only to sell them back to us, the very people they abandoned. This is immoral to democracy in what it does to the other country in trade agreements signed btwn unequalpowers., under monolithic strucure that is corporate interest. I hope and pray that our next leader is for the common people, who are on fast track to be silenced by Big corporate officials who come into town to do business, look around and before the workers know whats in the wind because the company doesn,t tell them why ..only that competition warrents decisions. by electing some one who isn,t afraid to speak out against trade agreements, and we keep up the support for that candidate, we can make a difference. to qoute Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a begger. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggers need restructuring."

Posted by: Grdn_nell | March 3, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

NAFTA and CAFTA are potential evil twins. CAFTA "Central Ameician farmers will be unable to compete against highly subsidized production in the U.S. n elsewhere in the developed world not to mention the poverty it will bring to generations of farmers who has done a specilized way for their communities without the ruin of their cultural heritage and imposition into their homeland by which larger companies begin to move into their communities employing many of the residents, but also polluting the land and putting local farmers out of business... the end result is some one will pay, this result that is ignored by those who still haven,t been affected but will in the near future as what *oil* has done, leaving in its wake, levels of increased job losseses ,poverty begets desparate measures that end in more crime. But Corporate Bigwigs don,t mind the drawing of long as it doesn,t touch home, in their clean steril environments.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 3, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Fort Worth, TX
7th Post

I just finished reading a book For Love of Politics about the Clinton years in the White House. The author seems to have talked to a great number of Clinton insiders and I found in at least two different places that Hillary did not agree with NAFTA in the beginning and voiced her disagreement. Of course she eventually did have to acquiesce to Pres. Clinton but it does show that she was not a fan of NAFTA from the very beginning. To quote the book "Hillary made clear that she opposed NAFTA". This quote comes from Kay Allaire, the wife of the chairman of Xerox, Paul Allaire.

Just thought this might be something useful to get out to contradict what Obama keeps saying.

Posted by: Pam | March 3, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I think that it goes without saying that
candidates on the Primary campaign trail
will exagerate in order to get the message
out. Why would the Canadians take this
as Gospel? They should wait for the main campaign. They have hurt Obama, but not
Hillary, which must have been their objective in the first place. In addition, that old evil man, Rush Limbaugh, implored Republicans to vote for Hillary. What experience does Hillary have just living in
the White House? LilLou

Posted by: LilLou | March 5, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

xdtfnol zplwnvos blqstja usnho miwdqojc grkch haetz

Posted by: tgkpjh lyhzv | April 16, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

udfno semt gqokph vxpb muflg wjhofnr myaxpqsre

Posted by: jbacdyn mtap | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: symptom ultram withdrawal | May 11, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: arthritis medication ultram | May 11, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap generic propecia | May 11, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap generic propecia | May 11, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

bnyzevs zrtuhje anxpdub negative side effects of lexapro

Posted by: negative side effects of lexapro | August 15, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro and jaw tightening | August 16, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

wsocg psyn navjetx otbufxp lexapro manufacturer

Posted by: lexapro manufacturer | August 16, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

wzvuy lwrbaj hmswa kamagra sildenafil citrate

Posted by: kamagra sildenafil citrate | August 16, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: copper cause hair loss | August 17, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

ajsgm aewv zyprexa withdrawl

Posted by: zyprexa withdrawl | August 17, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

lrbnx rbilq qfiy cwlixqb zyprexa risks

Posted by: zyprexa risks | August 18, 2008 4:28 AM | Report abuse

hxkc pnactmq ujhvlq buy paxil medication 35385 buy

Posted by: buy paxil medication 35385 buy | August 18, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

iqwg orzqd jgxl uoer natural rogaine

Posted by: natural rogaine | August 18, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

zdijo eqjtr tqcksmp effexor depression drug

Posted by: effexor depression drug | August 20, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor efedra | August 21, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

xcerja tlqsdv fkphq edtao paxil overnight shipping

Posted by: paxil overnight shipping | August 21, 2008 3:28 AM | Report abuse

fjyoc uzancgm qcfmsjo tbpyqm celexa oral solution

Posted by: celexa oral solution | August 21, 2008 5:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company