So while the agreement itself does not immediately effectuate the destruction of the State's regulatory role, or U.S. sovereignty, it will be implemented gradually piecemeal pursuant the tribunal litigation. The talking points are not what is actually going to happen. They aren't prophets, and the "good intentions" don't count for a hill of beans even if they were honest. But they most likely aren't being honest...or else those "trade in services" clauses wouldn't be there.
Good point. It's getting almost comical to see CAFTA proponents constantly insist that we won't actually be required to obey any of the obligations that the agreement imposes. But then like you said, why are they there?