Remember when the right-wing Canadian government tried to interfere in the U.S. presidential election by leaking an internal memo claiming that an Obama advisor had assured them that Obama's criticisms of NAFTA were just for show? It was a big deal in Canada -- a political scandal. The parliamentary opposition took the government to task for its interference, and the government had to apologize.
Now unnamed European bureaucrats are trying to do the same thing that outraged Canada's opposition. The Washington Post reported Sunday that "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran."
Nice headline, eh? Did they do a poll to find out what "Europe" thinks? No, the Post talked to "European officials" who are "are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration."
Who are these brave European bureaucrats, so eager for confrontation with Iran, so deeply invested in the shibboleth that there can be no enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil that is at the heart of the current impasse? They declined to identify themselves. The Post says that the European officials:
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be seen as interfering with U.S. politics
Have you ever noticed that when it is reported that "unnamed officials" refuse to be identified because they didn't want to appear to be doing X, it's usually because X is exactly what they are doing, and they don't want to be held accountable for it? Isn't the Washington Post telling us what's the real motivation of the "European officials" -- and, quite likely, their Cheney faction instigators in the Bush Administration -- in pitching this story to the Post?
Consider the logic of that sentence. Either the European officials are interfering in the U.S. presidential election or they aren't. The act is the same, regardless of whether they are named or not. So, what the sentence is really saying is:
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be held accountable for interfering with U.S. politics
I hope that opposition parliamentarians in the UK, France, Germany and the European Parliament will take to the floor and pound the podium. This is outrageous interference. The same European lackeys who enabled Bush and Cheney when they invaded Iraq in flagrant violation of international law are now enabling Bush and Cheney in working to undermine the prospects of a truly negotiated solution of the standoff with Iran. Now, at long last, we're having a real fight in the United States about whether the U.S. could engage in real diplomacy. Unnamed Cheneyista Eurocrats should butt out.
To inspire our European friends who support real diplomacy, here's what the Canadian opposition had to say about NAFTAmemogate, and how the Canadian government was forced to respond, as it was reported at the time:
[fighting] erupted in Parliament as [Prime Minister] Harper fended off allegations that he was interfering in the U.S. elections and trying to undermine Mr. Obama's campaign... it was Canada's leading critic of Nafta, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, who raised an ABC News report that identified Mr. Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, as the source of the leak."Canadians have become increasingly alarmed at reports that the prime minister's office has been interfering in the Democratic primaries with false accusations, trying to silence Barack Obama who simply wants to amend the Nafta," Mr. Layton told Parliament before demanding that Mr. Harper fire Mr. Brodie, "the source of the interference."
"I can only surmise that Mr. Harper wants to silence those in the U.S. Democratic race who are trying to raise issues about Nafta and, in doing so, help his Republican friends through a happy coincidence," Mr. Layton said. "Canadians would be very concerned if there were any similar attempts by Americans to influence a Canadian election."
Mr. Harper said the Canadian embassy in Washington "regretted the fact that information has come out that would imply that Senator Obama has been saying different things in public than in private. The government of Canada does not condone this and certainly regrets any implication."
It would be a very healthy thing for U.S.-European relations if those "unnamed European officials" were identified and their governments would express regret for their remarks. And it would help prevent the prospect of real diplomacy from being derailed.
But here we have a major US news outlet (Washington Post) publishing rumor or nonsense as if it were a meaningful, newsworthy event. It looks like the execs at WashPo are once again catering to the Cheney-Rove regime either for big bucks under the table or to protect themselves from some unnamed consequence which is threatened if they defy the Decider's owners. There are major carrots and seriously threatening sticks being used to drive the jackasses of corporate media down the road toward the conquest of Iran.
There is already a nominally Islamic state with nuclear weapons. The world has managed to survive and carry on nonetheless. People who are making such a hue and cry about Iran's nuclear projects are doing so to instigate and "justify" the planned attack on Iran to steal THEIR oil and unleash the next round of killing.
If it appears in the Washington Post or NY Times - it is a neocon plant.
SImilarly, there is no nation in western Europe in which Dick Cheney will be safe to travel once he leaves office. Wherever he goes, he can expect that folks eager to prosecute him for war crimes will be mere steps behind him.
I wonder when how soon the NYT will run a story with the opening "The Washinton Post reported this week, and blahdeblahdeblah."
I especially like the line about "undermining progress in Iran". What progress? It seems like it's spiriling out of control.
Or is that the actual goal?
There's the GOP's real brand: "FEAR us."
They want to bomb, bomb, bomb. Everything else, is 'off the table.'
Obama is rightly seen by European and UN diplomats as a naive foreign policy lightweight with quixotic expectations of diplomatic success; a success that confounds 28 years of failure due to a vicious, murdering jihadist regime with a nonnegotiable covenant with God irreversibly committed to building the bomb, advancing their revolution and making Islam powerful again. Moreover, to confuse things even more Obama contradicting his previous commitment to diplomacy without preconditions said in his AIPAC speech that there would be no negotiations with Tehran unless he knew before hand that America's interests would be advanced. Obama is not a transparent politician offering anything that can be identified as a coherent Obama Doctrine on foreign policy. It would appear from his numerous contradictory statements on Iraq, Iran, Israel, the Global War on Terror and security issues that Obama doesn't have a clue on what to do.
The Obama campaign is not a movement of ideas like the Reagan campaign of 28 years ago. It is mentally vacuous, a campaign of charisma, emotion and charm, nothing more. Why worry, be happy! Barack will heal your soul and make you feel good all over. Don't think, just believe. The more blind you are the better.
I think I'll wait until a proper newspaper reports this story before I take it too seriously.
As for interfering in US politics, I seem to recall (just as one example) huge behind-the-scenes support for the British Conservatives from the US Republicans during the 80s and early 90s. This stuff happens all the time...
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-hi/macdonald-obama-memo080303.wmv
– Herbert V. Prochnow
... the simple fact is THE MEMO WAS TRUE!
Now, while Goolsbee DID talk to the Canadians, the notes the Canadians took were true statements interspersed with subjective paraphrasing that completely missed the point of what Goolsbee was saying.
Not that it matters. It's now myth and urban legend, which means it will spread regardless of how many Canadian reporters fought the lie simply because the American MSM is just plain stupid.
The Brit who leaked the memo saying Bush was set on invading Iraq and "the intelligence was being fixed around the policy."
That leaker was clearly trying to interfere with American politics.
Was he a Hero or a Villain?
Yes, I remember. The memo was true and Obama lied about it.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810
"On Feb. 8, Goolsbee met with the Canadian consul general in Chicago and offered assurances that Obama's rhetoric was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," according to a Canadian memo summarizing the meeting that was obtained by Fortune. "In fact," the Canadian memo said, Goolsbee "mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off as too protectionist.""
This is YOUR GUY - Senator BARACK OBAMA himself - being quoted in Fortune Magazine:
""Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he (Obama) conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he (Obama) answered."
By his own words what was said about Goolsbee in the Canadian memo was exactly right.
"Nevertheless, Obama's tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades."
To quote a large proportion of Canadians "Harper is BushLite" Need I say more!
Quoting CNN articles seems a little misguided. They seem to be the "Most trusted name in Propaganda" reporting on domestic issues let alone international.
And how is this any different from the US supporting and causing regime change in other countries? I do not hear much outrage over that!
"He sounds like an adult" is a common comment.
As opposed to some wa rmon gering government- I can't imagine which.