Nope, the apology is for any “inference” about Obama’s position on NAFTA that “may” have been drawn.. from a REAL memo containing notes from a REAL meeting that actually happened.

Ever received a non-apology? An “I’m sorry you feel that way?” as opposed to “I’m sorry I did something wrong?” This is a classic non-apology.

Our embassy does not – as you suggest – ADMIT to misrepresenting anything. Do your homework and go to the source of the information. Read the memo.
(http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/menu-en.asp)

As for the CBC report, wow. Huh. That information is ANCIENT! It’s about as current as the NAFTA information on Obama’s site!

Try to back up what CBC reported. The “pleading”, for example. Who exactly “pleaded” for a meeting with Goolsbee? The WILSON scenario – nice. But old and inaccurate news. It was AFTER the Wilson theory/story, and after the FIRST set of denials issued by Obama and Canada – that CTV clarified the sources of their information and named them. They stood by their story. They backed up what they reported.

THIS is when Obama was silent, despite repeated questions and demands for answers.
Obama was silent when he needed to be vocal – BEFORE the memo proving that the meeting occurred surfaced. Ditto for Goolsbee. Read my post again. Read the timeline.

Then go to Obama’s site and observe the date of the NAFTA/Canada information. It was LAST UPDATED on February 28th, 2008!!!!! No current or recent or relevant information there, Bubba.

Then – compare the OLD information with the NEW. Go straight to the source of the information (ie: read the Canadian Statement). Try to find a (current, supported, factual) source to support your contention that Obama was “slandered”.

Try to prove that Obama did NOT lie. He went from “The meeting NEVER happened” and “NAFTA was NEVER discussed” to, well, it did happen and NAFTA was discussed.

If you think that it is OKAY for Obama to make a statement prior to having all of the information, then you obviously want four years of “George W.” moments… missing WMD’s, anyone?
Just like W, Obama’s excuse for lying was that it was “based on the information he had at the time”.

CBC is reporting old information and omitting newer, relevant information. A news program? Exercising journalistic license? *Gasp!*
You won’t see CBC bringing forth “sources” to defend their story. That is the difference between CTV’s report and the sensationalist clip that you reference.

The difference between the NAFTA information on Obama’s site and Hillary’s site is that Hillary’s site contains current, up-to-date information that is objectively verifiable as accurate. Obama’s does not.

“That was the information I had at the time”. Sheesh.

you can find it here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/112926/0842/300/469572

if anyone needs an apology it’s the obama campaign. he’s been slandered.

The comment:
Mak Ossa – March 4, 2008[Edit]

Honestly, I would regard Obama’ take on NAFTA as nothing but naivity. No country could be an island in anyting including trade. The most prosperous nation in the world made it through international trade. Obama’s lack of experience must have played a role, and I suspect he only made anti-NAFTA rhetoric to please the Ohio blue-collar workers. Most of his words would not hold water when he steps into the White House.

*****
Mak,

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??

Terrible foreign policy lineup and press should do more to examine and expose them. Obamatons won’t do this, but that’s what blogs are for. Rezko story has far more legs in 12 year relationship of corrupt slumlord who trashed publicly funded rehabs, some of which were in Obama’s senate district in Illinois senate.