Canuck Gal

Wasn’t It George Washington Who Said: “I Cannot Tell a Lie”?

Or So the (Fictional) Tale About the Honest President Goes..

Barack Obama has done it again. Lied, Denied, and Lied some more instead of just admitting that he stated something that wasn’t factual. Repeatedly.

Here is a TimeLine of the Denials: (Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6304) (Emphasis is mine)

Timeline: Obama Campaign Denials Of CTV/NAFTA Report

3/3/2008 8:45:38 AM

2/26/08 – CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously. [CTV, 2/27/08]

2/26/08 – “Late Wednesday, Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made. ‘Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn’t intend to keep,’ the spokesperson said.” [CTV, 2/27/08]

2/27/08 – “Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue.” [CTV, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – Goolsbee: Canada’s consul general in Chicago contacted him ‘at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.’ [ABC, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – Goolsbee: “I am not confirming or denying any meetings with anyone,’ Goolsbee told ABC News, directing queries to Bill Burton, Obama’s campaign spokesperson.” [ABC News, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – “ABC News spoke to Goolsbee, Thursday, and who denied calling the Canadian embassy in Washington, or calling Rioux, but would “neither confirm nor deny” whether he had spoke to Rioux about Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric.” [ABC News, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – CTV: “On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.” [CTV, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – CTV: “The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.” [CTV, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 – Burton: ‘The news reports on Obama’s position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy — that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy.” [TPM, 2/28/08]

2/28/08 – Burton: “It’s telling that the Clinton campaign’s closing argument is based on a story run on a Canadian television station that’s already been debunked by the Canadian Embassy.” [ABC, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 – Burton: “Again, this story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade. The only flip-flopping on NAFTA has come from Sen. Clinton, who talked about how good it was for America until she started running for President,” [ABC, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 – Sen. Obama: “The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don’t know who the sources were.” [CTV news, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 – Rice: “The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word…period.” [MSNBC, 2/28/08]

2/29/08: Sen. Obama: “Our office has said the story is not true. It’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” Anchor: “So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion.” Sen. Obama: “It did not happen.” [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 – Goolsbee: “It is a totally inaccurate story…I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.” [New York Observer, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 – Burton: ‘This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.’ [Greg Sargent, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 – Plouffe: “The story’s just not true…. No one in our campaign has said or otherwise implied that he would back away from his position on NAFTA.” [The Page, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 – Burton: “There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.” [Politico, 2/29/08]

It did not happen. Except.. there’s proof that it DID. When the proof was presented and widely distributed, here is Obama’s response to his repeated denials:

Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Mr. Obama said: “That was the information I had at the time.”

(Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303)

End of Discussion??? “It Did Not Happen”??? Oh, okay, Obama LIED, but seems to suggest that it is okay to LIE and DENY because “that was the information he had at the time”.. Hmmm.. seems to me that Obama should make sure his information is accurate before he makes any denials or statements.

And when he is caught in that lie, as is the case today – he should acknowledge it!! When you are wrong, you say you are wrong, and you apologize. This is a no-brainer for anyone with integrity, but especially more so for the leader-of-the-free-world-wannabe. This is clearly the same type of “honesty” Americans will get more of if they do elect Obama.

 

NAFTA WAS Discussed, And “Parts” of the Memo ARE Accurate and Consistent

(Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303) (emphasis mine, italics are my comments):

· “Mr. Obama said that one of his advisers had been invited by someone at the consulate to visit and discuss trade” (I guess “Trade” with Canada doesn’t include NAFTA? Bah. The careful wording emphasizes the lie. See TimeLine date 2008-02-27, where Obama’s campaign INSISTS that NO CONVERSATIONS have taken place on the NAFTA issue)

· “On NAFTA, [Mr.] Goolsbee suggested that [Mr.] Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more ‘core’ principles of the agreement.” Mr. Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Mr. Obama’s position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.

· Mr. Goolsbee said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Mr. Obama’s position, and he replied about his interest in improving labour and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Mr. Obama sounds like a protectionist.

· Mr. Goolsbee “was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political manoeuvring than policy,” the memo’s introduction said.

· “That’s a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered,” Mr. Goolsbee said of the memo’s description of “political positioning.” “A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.”

 

 

Is the Memo Inaccurate? Erroneous? (NO!)

…Goolsbee has disputed the memo’s characterization of his comments (Disputing the “characterization” of his comments doesn’t amount to an accusation of inaccuracy.. Goolsbee’s chance to clarify was last Thursday.. or Friday.. or Saturday.. This very late disagreement with the “characterization” of his comments in the memo amounts to more of the same evasive wordplay that has been evident in NAFTA-gate from Day One).

…The memo is the first evidence of any such discussion to emerge publicly (Follow the evidence..)

…On the Canadian Embassy website Thursday, the government denied that conversations took place between Canadian officials and members of any presidential campaign regarding trade. By Monday, that statement was replaced by one that apologized for any confusion DeMora’s memo may have caused (Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/03/obama-canada.html?ref=rss)

(A “non-apology” – to apologize for confusion caused does not equate to an apology for an error.. Canada is scrambling in attempts to remain neutral, but does not condemn DeMora or Rioux for any wrongdoing or for making inaccurate notes.. because the notes are accurate!)

… The adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said his comments to those officials were misinterpreted by the author, Joseph DeMora, who works for the Canadian consulate in Chicago and attended the meeting (retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080303.wobama_canada0303)

… He said he has been surprised that such a banal and trivial meeting with a low-level consulate official has created so much controversy and resulted in such an inaccurate depiction. He said he was invited to the consulate to meet the officials and get a tour (a classic logical fallacy – “attack the source of the information” – Goolsbee attempts to minimize the importance of the people and the meeting.. it only weakens his argument! Besides which, a Consul General is NOT a “low-level” official.. more on that in a bit..)

To clarify Goolsbee’s obvious personal attack – a well known logical fallacy – here is a description of it, in part, emphasis mine:

“Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.

Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim…

In general, it is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.” (retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)

… Goolsbee disputed a section that read: “Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” …”This thing about `it’s more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,’ that’s this guy’s language,” Goolsbee said of DeMora. “He’s not quoting me…”I certainly did not use that phrase in any way,” Goolsbee said. (Retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrFPkleRZmbmPtPxHBGNAPSzfUtwD8V5OLP00) (Disputing A SECTION of a 1,300 word memo and then attacking the writer of the memo. Who do you think has more credibility here? Did the memo writer get everything else about the meeting right? Because memo notes are about getting the gist of the meeting, they are not direct quotes. Did DeMora only misunderstand the NAFTA part of the meeting? If so, then when the notes were signed off by the Consul General, perhaps Rioux was also mistaken in his interpretation of Goolsbee’s comments?)

A Refreshing Breath of the Obvious:

(From Susan UnPc at noquarterusa, link below) (emphasis mine):

Here is Larry Johnson — he was Deputy Director of Counterterrorism for the U.S. State Department — on how such meetings take place and are recorded:

“Obviously the Obama advisors don’t understand a thing about foreign relations. They assume that any comment with a member of a diplomatic representative of a foreign government is somehow not noteworthy. To reiterate, a consulate (i.e., a place that issues visas and handles immigration issues for a government, in this case Canada) is a part of the Canadian Embassy. The Consul General is not the Ambassador. However, he or she would be considered number three in the Embassy pecking order (he or she is subordinate to the Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission).

In meetings like the one with Obama’s economic advisor, Goolsbee, the ConGen (shorthand for Consul General) would be accompanied by at least one note taker. The junior diplomat who wrote up the results of the meeting had to submit his report to the ConGen, who signed off on the report or cable (A cable is diplomatic speak for an official message sent back to the home government).

And why did the Canadians meet with Goolsbee? Because of his relationship with Obama. The Canadians, doing what good diplomats do, wanted to get an idea of what Obama’s stance on Nafta is because they are recognizing he could be President. This is what diplomats do.

The other day, in an update to my February 29, 2008 story, “CTV Reconfirms Obama NAFTA Story,” Larry Johnson added:

[I]t is important to help younger readers understand that Goolsbee’s conversation with the Counsel General (CONGEN in State Department speak) is a senior Canadian Embassy official. A Consulate is a place where folks go for a visa or to work on immigration problems. The Consulate is subordinate to the Embassy in Washington. Best to think of it as a branch of the Embassy. Clearly the CTV report confused Embassy with Consulate. Bottomline is the same–a senior Obama advisor told a representative of the Government of Canada (in this case, the CONGEN) to ignore Obama’s rhetoric (retrieved 2008-03-03 from: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/03/obama-nailed-on-nafta-gate/)

 

~Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!~

~ Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17

Updates:

1).  From CTV: (video) Mike Duffy and Tom Clark LAUGH at Obama..

2). From the Globe & Mail – PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) Confirms that CLINTON campaign made NO contact with Canada about NAFTA; only Obama’s made contact.