(Please see my more current post on the subject: http://canuckgal.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/liar-liar-obama-goolsbee-cant-backpedal-fast-enough-to-escape-nafta-gate/)

The issue isn’t about the rhetoric as much as it is about the LYING.. the subsequent LACK of integrity makes the original assertion of Obama’s rhetoric by CTV much more credible – and plausible!

Obama and his campaign have displayed a lack of integrity from the start of this whole affair:

*At the first denial, Obama upheld his stance that the meeting didn’t happen, that NAFTA wasn’t discussed.

*The sources were then named.. and Obama remained silent, perpetuating his lie.. Goolsbee refused to “Confirm or deny”.. (the old “if we ignore it, maybe it will go away” approach)

*The memo surfaced.. and Obama explained that he lied based on the information he had at the time.. Goolsbee downplayed the importance of the Canadian officials and the meeting, agreeing with most of the memo save for the part that leaves Obama with egg on his face..

OKAY – NAIVETE? This has nothing to do with Obama’s lack of experience or innocence in diplomacy as it has to do with his integrity! But if anything highlights Obama’s amateurishness, this clearly demonstrates an ineptitude to rival George W.

When Obama denied and CTV then named sources, why would Obama NOT investigate the claims and the timeline in question? If he was certain of his position, he would have no reason not to question the source of the information, especially if it was – as he claims – a smear tactic.

ONLY after CTV named sources, ONLY after they provided a timeline of the meetings, and ONLY after a copy of the memo of the meeting surfaced does Obama COMMENT and ACKNOWLEDGE his initial denial.. NOT to apologize, but to “spin” and avoid and sidestep any accountability and responsibility FOR HIS INITIAL ERRONEOUS WORDS.

OBAMA OWES CTV (and Canada) an APOLOGY..
GOOLSBEE does as well..

This must beg the question for Americans – WHEN WILL OBAMA TELL THE TRUTH??

Or – at the very least – define what you mean when you say “Conservative” and “Republican”. Both have different meanings in Canada, especially since WE DON’T HAVE a Republican party. There was one, once, based out of Quebec.. the “Parti Republicain”.. it existed between 1964 and 1971 and was never successful in any election. Not quite a majority of the population.

You are aware that same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005? Hardly what a majority “conservative” population would allow.

That is just for starters, but please, do educate me on what “most” of my countrymen (and women) believe. I enjoy laughing!

*****
From “Thomas Nephew”:

Comments

I guess I think two things about that story. No, three.

1) I agree with canuckgal that some kind of conversation happened. But I think this was Goolsbee talking informally with some Canadian schmuck who may have turned some remark like “not everything that’s said in a campaign will happen” into a “nudge nudge wink wink” comment. It was not Obama speaking about what he intends, it was Goolsbee gazing into his crystal ball for some reason. Obama shouldn’t have Goolsbee, and should consider firing him now, not for thinking his thoughts so much, but for arranging to think them out loud in front of some Canadian schmuck.

2) Cui bono? Who benefits from the leak? Specifically, did Canada benefit? It’s not clear how torpedoing a candidate who might well win the White House anyway is a good bet. I think this was some guy with his own agenda who embellished Goolsbee’s remarks and importance. It’s also not clear how Obama could have believed he would benefit from telling Goolsbee “go reassure mighty Canada that I’m just kidding”. I think this was Goolsbee’s Really Really Bad Idea.

3) I think even if you make NAFTA a higher-value issue than authorizing Iraq and/or future adventures, a vote for Obama might the strategic one. He’ll have something to prove on this issue, and I guess I don’t think he’s just been blowing smoke about it. I also think Goolsbee’s star just dimmed considerably, which seems good to me.

No, four:
4) Mmmm…. Obama Kool-Aid sure tastes good! Kidding. I think this was a case of extremely bad help, but of course I’m not sure. The meeting itself just doesn’t make sense from Obama’s own standpoint.

Posted by: Thomas Nephew | March 02, 2008 at 01:37 AM

*****

What I have to say:

1).Georges Rioux – The CONSUL GENERAL FOR CANADA in Chicago is NOT a “schmuck”..

2). The point isn’t about who benefits from what, it is about the denial, and subsequent refusal to address the discrepancies/conflicting stories.
What Canada may or may not gain in the “the leak” is beside the point – someone is lying, and it clearly isn’t CTV.
The suggestion of gain comes off more than a little weak when you consider that the story was reported by a respected Canadian news service (we’re not talking tabloids here) who can support their facts, NOT – as you so quaintly write – by “some guy with his own agenda”.
Rioux is pulling a “Goolsbee” and neither confirming nor denying anything. For some “schmuck” with his own agenda, you’d think he’d be taking advantage of his 15 minutes if it was his agenda..

3). Emotion-based, subjective reasoning here (“I think” “I guess” “might” etc.). Doesn’t sound like you are actually convinced about what you believe. Those words indicate a lack of commitment to the statements you are making.

4). Critical Thinking skills are the point here, or lack thereof, in approaching Obama’s record thus far in his campaign – fact vs. fiction, logic vs. rhetoric, etc.
But on the point of the meeting not making sense from Obama’s standpoint..??
He threatens to back out of NAFTA to get votes in Ohio, Canada hears about this and calls him on it, and a meeting with the Canadian Consulate General for Canada – the Trade Commissioner, in fact – wouldn’t make sense from an Obama standpoint? Logical fallacy at it’s finest..

Whether or not Obama instructed Goolsbee to act or speak on his behalf or not is moot – as Obama’s Chief Economic Adviser, Goolsbee DOES speak for Obama whether Obama dictates it or not. Goolsbee represents Obama when he speaks to international partners, and Goolsbee is especially experienced in the field of economics. Goolsbee is more than qualified to know Obama’s standpoint – and to speak to it – on such critical issues as international trade.

The fact is that the Obama campaign flat-out denied (as has the Canadian Embassy) that a meeting took place. This was when CTV’s sources were anonymous. After releasing the names, and after their repeated refusals to confirm or deny, Obama has continued to refuse to clarify or address this discrepancy. This IS a problem. For Obama.

As a “leader”, now would be a good time for him to show that he has leadership abilities. It’s time for him to step up to the plate.