Actually, the treaty was signed by Pres. George Bush, the first--a Republican. It was not ratified by the U.S. Senate until after Clinton took office--ratified by a REPUBLICAN controlled U.S. Senate. N.A.F.T.A is a treaty, not a law. Since it is a treaty, there was no need for President Clinton to sign it. It had already been signed by President Bush. It only needed ratification by the U.S. Senate.
while what you say is true dont for a second think Mr. Clinton wasnt for this, here is a snipit of his speech on signing day
Many Americans are still worried that this agreement will
move jobs south of the border because they've seen jobs move south of
the border and because they know that there are still great
differences in the wage rates. There have been 19 serious economic
studies of NAFTA by liberals and conservatives alike; 18 of them have
concluded that there will be no job loss.
Businesses do not choose to locate based solely on wages.
If they did, Haiti and Bangladesh would have the largest number of
manufacturing jobs in the world. Businesses do choose to locate based
on the skills and productivity of the work force, the attitude of the
government, the roads and railroads to deliver products, the
availability of a market close enough to make the transportation costs
meaningful, the communications networks necessary to support the
enterprise. That is our strength, and it will continue to be our
strength. As it becomes Mexico's strength and they generate more
jobs, they will have higher incomes and they will buy more American
products
http://www.historycentral.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html
