MyDD :: CBC explains it all.

CBC explains it all.

by JoeCoaster, Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:58:16 PM EST

The original CTV story was so totally inaccurate that Obama's denial makes sense.
The conservative Canadian government looks to have intentionally interfered in our election
The memo is now admitted to have mis-characterized what was talked about.
The Canadian government is now scrabbling to undo the damage

A little late but the Canadian media finally gets the story right. I know it won't stop the Hillary/McCain distortion fest but the truth is out there.

A nice write up is here DailyKos - mattw UPDATE I missed the original mattw MyDD posting HERE

The most interesting part of the CBC video package is the side by side comparison of Hillary and McCain's initial ~~attack~~ response. They used almost exactly the same words. Interesting...

Tags: cbc nafta (all tags)

Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

Unfortunately, Clinton and her supporters will very likely continue to repeat the false story.

I guess all those who value truth need to keep repeating what really happened and should challenge Clinton to release her tax returns, information about the Clinton library donors, and all the WH records.

What are the Clintons trying to hide?

by mainelib on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:07:22 PM EST

Re: CBC explains it all. (2.00 / 3)

You need to watch the report. They never said there was no meeting. There was a meeting. It was the details that were muddled. This is a clusterf*ck and Goolsbee started it.

If Obama would have told the truth in the beginning, none of this would have happened.

by americanincanada on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

Goolsbee was invited to tour a consulate, and NAFTA came up for 3 minutes. It is a clusterfuck, but Goolsbee didn't start it. He simply told the Canadians what Obama's position was, the same position that has been made publically. The memo turned his assurance that Obama was not blanket against trade into something more suspect. And then CTV turned that mildly disconcerting memo into a fiasco.

There is simply so little connection between a phone call (wrong) to Michael Wilson (wrong) that Obama intended to say something he didn't mean (wrong), that there's simply no reason to connect it to Goolsbee's visit, and a 3 minute conversation during which he says he did not even mention NAFTA by name.

Obama did not lie.

by mattw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

Note that the original diary was actually posted here at MyDD, and I only crossposted it to dKos after it was suggested (twice) by a commentor here.

The tone in MyDD diaries is decidedly anti-Obama. That's fine; communities form, and I think that a vigorous debate over the candidates is healthy. I respect even the most hard-core Clinton supporter, when they choose Clinton in good faith. However, I think even the most proud Hillary supporter would be unhappy to be duped by Canadian Conservatives, even if their candidate is the beneficiary.

by mattw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:09:41 PM EST

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

Sorry..I missed you original post. Nice Work! It bares repeating..

by JoeCoaster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

It does indeed, especially since it failed to make the rec list. As long as people want to continue to cite it as a point against Obama, it deserves to be said. People have enough ammo without lies.

by mattw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

rec list woes (none / 0)

After all the attention this story got your diary should have been on the list all day. It looks like all the non-partisan's have left the building.

by JoeCoaster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:52:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

CBC did not say the report was totally inaccurate. They said it was not entirely accurate as it was reported in the first story.

by americanincanada on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:12:55 PM EST

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

Inaccurate...wrong on who initiated the contact, wrong people, wrong place, wrong meeting topic, wrong...wrong...wrong...

by JoeCoaster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

Actually, they said the memo itself "may not have portrayed what Goolsbee said accurately."

The first report was inaccurate even if the memo was completely accurate. But the second report - using the memo as support, which Goolsbee denied the accuracy of - is now also labelled as "could be inaccurate" by an internal canadian investigation.

There's simply no reason to give any credence now to lie after lie after lie.

by mattw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

The memo exists on paper.

The admission (by who?) that it mischaracterizes what was talked about is not supported by any hard evidence.

You are spinning.

by foxx on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

If anyone's spinning it is the Canadian government..they are saying that after an investigation the memo does not reflect the correct impression from the meeting.

by JoeCoaster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

CBC reported that an internal Canadian embassy investigation had caused the embassy to say that the memo "may not accurately reflect what was said" by Goolsbee.

In the first place, the memo was just a staffer's interpretation of what was said, but Goolsbee said the memo mischaracterized his position. Now the embassy is saying, "Okay, yes, the staffer may have made errors in drafting said memo."

That's it. There's nothing left but air.

by mattw on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:39:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC explains it all. (none / 0)

Of course the memo exists. But where exactly is the memo about the Clinton campaign's similar meeting with Canadian officials? Harper's chief of staff conveniently didn't "leak" that memo. Or are we just going to pretend that Team Hillary didn't meet with them too?

by Progressive Witness on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sigh (2.00 / 1)

The reality is, behind the actual policy and position statements, Hillary does have positions for overall trade treaty reform and Obama does not.

In fact one thing that came out was Obama is interested in labour mobility
which is not worker protections that is a much desired GATS agenda for the corporate cheap labor lobby. They want to trade people as guest workers.

That's the real story. Obama put out false fliers over and over on Hillary on Trade and the truth is he is more of a corporate free traitor than Hillary.

CTV didn't get anything wrong here, what's wrong are Obama's real positions on trade.

Token "worker rights and environmental standards" is not going to fix anything when you have a 60:1 labor cost savings by offshore outsourcing and of course the Obama team knows that.

NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist

by Robert Oak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:14:00 PM EST

Re: sigh (1.00 / 4)

Except Hillary is not running on those distinctions is she. She ran a smear campaign based on false rumors that Obama was lying about renegotiating NAFTA. Hillary is not offering better ideas, she is offering fear and lies.

re: Obama fliers
They were based on Hillary's true attitude about NAFTA (at least until her campaign started).

by JoeCoaster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he is lying (1.00 / 2)

and your post is plain misleading. I happen to cover economic details, have you? Obviously not.

You know, I happen to really give a shit about trade, economic and labor policy and the more you smear, the more I'm going to blog back. I'm truly disgusted by you people trying to use something so critical to the US national interest and middle class as a smear campaign to try to mislead the US voter, I am outraged.

Obama have NO positions to revamp trade policy in the core agreements, NONE.

NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist

by Robert Oak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

one TR (2.00 / 1)

deserves another....care to withdraw?

Outraged? Really? Then you should be outraged by Hillary's attempt to insinuate a foreign government into our election.

There is NO difference between Hillary's and Obama's STATED trade policy....maybe you missed the last debate.

by JoeCoaster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

misinformation gets it's reward (2.00 / 1)

obviously. I went deep into this including reading Goolsbee's academic papers and did an analysis and you're plain posting misinformation. Misinformation posts get what they deserve.

Now why not go read some objective posts, which I have done and I pulled out direct quotes on both of them and did a comparison contrast. I went straight to their voting records, their websites, Senate floor amendment votes, economic advisers, their own backgrounds, and the money behind the campaigns.

I note the Obama campaign bloggers cannot get it together to do that sort of writing and I know why, Obama comes up short in an objective analysis.

Yet many economist bloggers sure can and unfortunately for Obama....they did!

Obama's Economic Advisers.

NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist

by Robert Oak on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is lying (1.00 / 2)

I see you have a sockpuppet to game the system...you must hand out unwarranted 0 all the time. You're a real blogging superstar....sad.

by JoeCoaster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is lying (none / 0)

Nope, no sock puppet, just don't like the nasty TR'ing.

by Si Ella Puede on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:33:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is lying (2.00 / 1)

OK but do you think Bob's original TR was warranted? I was trying to make that point with mine.

by JoeCoaster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.