ABC News Continues To Get Obama/NAFTA Story Wrong

I am watching ABC's World News Tonight. George Stephanopoulos is filling in for Charles Gibson. I say that to possibly excuse Mr. Gibson for his program continuing to propagate a story line that has now been proven to be totally false: The story line that the Obama campaign said one thing to the Canadian government while saying something else to the voters in Ohio.

This story is not true. In fact the opposite is what is true. And there have been reports to this effect since March 5th, as best as I've been able to track the reporting.

But just in case you haven't seen the proof that it was the Clinton campaign - NOT the Obama campaign - that said "Don't worry about what we're saying in Ohio" to the Canadian government, while it was the Canadian government that mis-stated the comments made by the Obama representative (which the Canadian government has now publicly admitted it did), you can watch Keith Olberman on this issue below.

So, my questions for ABC News and George Stephanopoulos is...

Where are your reporters getting their information? Last weekend's newspapers?

And -- if you have heard that it was the Clinton (not Obama) campaign that was lying to the voters of Ohio -- then why aren't you reported that story?

As recently as today, Hillary Clinton is still referring to Obama having told the people of Ohio one thing while he told the Canadians something else. I am waiting for some major news organization to stop her from scoring political points with a still uninformed voting public.

ABC NEWS: THIS LIE MUST BE STOPPED NOW.

UPDATE at about 9:25pm Eastern...

For those wanting original reporting from Canada, here is the CBC report on the Obama side of the story, which proves that the Canadian government mis-stated what his adviser told them. It's about 4:30 long... a tribute to how thorough the reporting can be on the CBC's news show.

And here is the CBC news report on the Clinton side of the story, which proves that it was the Clinton campaign that said "Don't worry" to the Canadian government. And who in the Canadian government said they had heard from the Clinton campaign? Ian Brodie, the Chief of Staff to the Canadian Prime Minister. Like I say folks, I am just the messenger of the true facts here.

And if you would rather read than watch, here is the original reporting from The Globe and Mail of Canada...

'NAFTAgate' began with remark from Harper's chief of staff

ALEXANDER PANETTA

The Canadian Press

March 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM EST

OTTAWA -- If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.

A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.

Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being "blatantly unfair" to Senator Barack Obama.

What is now a swirling Canada-U.S. controversy began on Feb. 26, when the usually circumspect Mr. Brodie was milling among droves of Canadian media on budget day in the stately old building that once housed Ottawa's train station.

Reporters were locked up there all day, examining the federal budget until they were allowed to leave once it was tabled in the House of Commons at 4 p.m.

Since the budget contained little in the way of headline-grabbing surprises, some were left with enough free time to gather around a large-screen TV to watch the latest hockey news on NHL trade deadline day.

Mr. Brodie wandered over to speak to Finance Department officials and chatted amiably with journalists -- who appreciated this rare moment of direct access to the top official in Mr. Harper's notoriously tight-lipped government.

The former university professor found himself in a room with CTV employees where he was quickly surrounded by a gaggle of reporters while other journalists were within earshot of other colleagues.

At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate -- either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.

But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.

He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.

The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race -- influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.

Mr. Obama has been pilloried by his opponents and faced the most aggressive questioning of his heretofore smooth-sailing campaign.

Clinton used the story to cast him as a double-talking hypocrite -- winking and nudging at Canadians while making contrary promises to American voters.

Republican nominee John McCain -- who proudly dubs himself a straight-talker -- has also seized on the incident to paint the Democratic front-runner as anything but.

When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.

The Obama aide has challenged the wording of the memo and says it characterized the conversation unfairly. A government official said that memo was initially e-mailed to over 120 government employees.

Mr. Harper has rebuffed opposition requests to call in the RCMP and also investigate the source of the original tip that led to the CTV report that triggered the diplomatic tempest. But a team of internal security agents has begun an investigation that will see dozens of bureaucrats and political staff questioned about their knowledge of the leak.

"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable. In fact, it may well be illegal," Mr. Harper told the House of Commons.

"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada -- and the way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign.

"Based on what (investigators) find, and based on legal advice, we will take any action that is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter."

NDP Leader Jack Layton is asking Mr. Harper to call on the Mounties to find out how the leaks occurred, and whether the Security of Information Act or any other privacy legislation was breached.

"There can be no doubt about it: the leak from within the Canadian government has had an impact now on the American elections," Mr. Layton said Wednesday.

"That is about the worst thing a country could do to another country -- to have an effect on their democratic process. . . If Mr. Harper isn't willing to call in the RCMP that confirms our suspicion that this was intentional."

Mr. Layton said Canadians would never accept Americans interfering in our elections, and we shouldn't tamper with theirs.

He said the incident is far more serious than another one last year in which the government called in the RCMP.

A temporary employee at Environment Canada was arrested in his office and marched out in handcuffs for allegedly leaking details of a government climate-change plan to the media.

Mr. Layton said that's small potatoes compared with inflicting political damage on one of the three contenders to lead the world's biggest superpower, and Canada's neighbour and largest trading partner.

"He's unwilling to treat it with the level of serious attention that he did when there was a junior bureaucrat at environment. . . He called in the RCMP on that one."

SECOND UPDATE at about 9:50pm Eastern

To the person directing me to The Washington Post's publication of tonight's AP report on this story, I will make the following observation: The story includes the follow responses from the Canadian government:

Asked about it on Thursday, (Canadian Prime Minister) Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that "Ian Brodie is alleged to have made an offhand comment about a rumor to a reporter. He does not recall saying it."

"...does not recall saying it" is not the same thing as saying "...did not say it." This is classic government speak... a non-denial denial.

Asked about it again on Friday, Buckler said Canadian officials did not discuss NAFTA with the Clinton campaign.

"The answer is no, they did not," Buckler said.

If this is true, then what are we to make of the following...

On Wednesday, the Canadian Press quoted an unidentified source as saying that Brodie made the comment about the alleged Clinton campaign overture to a crew for Canada's CTV television network during a press gathering last week to discuss Canada's budget. According to a person with knowledge of the incident, the source was a CTV journalist.

The Canadian Press story said a CTV reporter asked Brodie about remarks by Clinton and presidential rival Barack Obama that they would seek to renegotiate NAFTA.

"He said someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. ... That someone called us and told us not to worry," the journalist quoted Brodie as saying, according to the report.

Who has more to gain here by lying? The conservative Canadian government that might be said to have an interest in who wins our 2008 election? Or a reporter who was just doing his job?

The Canadian government has launched an investigation of this whole matter.

What is DEFINITELY known right now is that the Obama campaign did NOT say one thing to the Canadian government and say something else to the people of Ohio. Yet, Hillary continues to attack Barack for doing so. To the extent that she continues to say that's what he did, she is lying to the American people right now... in real time. And will continue to get away with doing so until all the major networks get the truth out there.

This will be my last update for tonight. Happy commenting everyone. But please stay on topic and please don't claim things are true when they are not.

If it turns out that the Clinton campaign did not tell the Canadian government "don't worry", I will retract that part of my story. But right now, I am much more willing to believe the CTV reporter than the spokesperson for the party which has something to gain by protecting Hillary Clinton: the Canadian government.

Comments

[quicknsilverfox]

Hillary's NAFTAgate chickens are coming home to roost.

Canadian Opposition leaders are demanding the resignation of Bill Clinton's good buddy, Ambassador Michael Wilson. It has come out that Ian Brodie leaked the information to CTV reporter David Akin that Clinton had called the Canadian embassy and told them her criticism of NAFTA was just political rhetoric. It seems Akin then turned the story over to CTV's D.C. guy, Tom Clark, who then called and interviewed Bill's buddy, Ambassador Michael Wilson in D.C. on the story. After the Clark/Wilson conversation, the CTV story presented on air morphed into something very different from what Brodie had told Akin-- it changed to it was Obama instead of Clinton who had called Wilson.

Now, PM Harper is mumbling incoherently, Wilson refuses to say what he told CTV's Tom Clark (says it was a private conversation), Ian Brodie claims he has amnesia about what he told Akin, and Joseph deMora--who recently confessed he wrote the infamous report on the Goolsbee meeting "from memory" WEEKS AFTER the event--has mysteriously left the planet...indefinitely.

Looks like Hillary's NAFTAgate might just turn into the biggest and dirtiest of all the Clinton scandals.

[WASanford]

This NAFTAGate thing amounts to a complete fizzle. The infamous memo was authored by Joseph DeMora who works at the Canadian coinsulate in Chicago. Austan Goolsbee (at least you got HIS name right) attended a meeting at that consulate to discuss free trade. Goolsbee claims his comment to Joseph DeMora was totally misunderstool. Let's grant that. This is however, one more of the things the Obama campaign has totally mishandled applying denial when the truth would have sufficed. To make matters worse, Hillary's campaign was drug into the mess by AN UNNAMED SOURCE? Do you really believe that? Do you expect me to?
Some bio on Austan Goolsbee; he earned his bachelor's degree at Yale and did his post graduate work at MIT. He's currently the Robert P Gwinn Proffessor of economics at the University of Chicago. He's also Dr. Obama's senior economic adviser.

[JonathanDS]

When this election is over and Obama is president and Hillary and Bill have become armed guerillas in the mountains with Fidel Castro trying to use revolution to overthrow the U.S. government, we'll all look back fondly on the times when Hillary's desperateness was so restrained as the good old days.

[mcfried]

CNN is still peddling the Rezko trial and Farrakhan on their website, even though the Rezko trial codefendants have ties to Clinton and no wrong doing on Obama's part. Add to that Obama has rejected and denounced Farrakhan. THEY SUCK, most trusted name in news my ass. Add to that they also still get the NAFTA story wrong. No Journalists left at at CNN, they seem to have been replaced with a a flock of parrots.

[elderly]

CNN through the "imitable" Wolf Blitzer is still peddling the story that Sadam Hussein poses an imminent threat to the U.S. through his possession of WMD and close personal contacts with Osama Bin Laden.

Wolf Blitzer is a total shill peddling the crap handed out by the malignancy known as the bush administration and is one of the major enablers of the destruction of our nation which is nearly complete and should be substantially completed by the time the war criminal crawls out of the back door of the White House.

[dadw5boys]

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT????

This is the same press the made little light of the COCAINE SMMUGGLED by REGAN/BUSH in the IRAN/ CONTRA to Americans so the could get cash to by weapons.

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SUMMGGLING DRUGS TO SELL TO AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!

And now you think this is a big news story??????????

[COwoman]

We are losing the media war. The din of the Clintonistas is really loud about media bias.

I dunno, maybe they are better at controlling the conversations on the MSM message boards. This would include newspapers, blogs that belong to MSM sites. Maybe anyone that cares about this should know that "We are the ones we are waiting for."

[mcnairbo]

The Canadians are in damage control mode and Hillary said exactly what happened. McCain was the one the said Obama called them.

[GLaB]

Unfortunately for Obama, the Memo does exist and can be read by anyone, who can then decide for themselves. Who is more likely to be lying, a stenographer recording a meeting to the best of his ability and with no apparent motive other than to get the information correct, or a politician trying desperately to COVER HIS ASS - a politician, mind you, who has already stood in front of the tv cameras and DENIED that the meeting ever took place.

As for anything Clinton's people might have said to Canada on the subject, you have the SECOND HAND account of ONE ANONYMOUS source who has his own axe to grind - a source who never even claims to have witnessed a Clinton/Canada meeting but only PARAPHRASES some official who may himself have been fabricating. This ANONYMOUS HATCHET JOB has been corroborated by NO ONE, and has been DENIED by the official named. The Canadian government has also DENIED any contact with Clinton about NAFTA.

And to top it off, we have this FROM THE VERY ARTICLE QUOTED ABOVE:

"But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp."

In other words, after an investigation into Clinton's alleged contact with Canada, CTV COULD ONLY FIND evidence of OBAMA'S contacts.

Only someone in a Dream could reach the conclusion of Brant and other Obamaniacs.

[okeydokey]

The real problem with figuring out the truth of this story is that the Harper Gov. can not be taken at their word. They out and out lied during their own campaign. They ran on a platform that they would not end the special status of the Canadian Royalty Trusts. Two weeks after being elected they reversed that policy causing a $20 Billion drop in the Canadian stock market. I wouldn't believe anything this Bush-lite group says. It doesn't comfort me that Obama is confiding anything in this bunch.

[DudeE]

Perhaps you just choose to remain willfully uninformed:

"it was the Clinton campaign - NOT the Obama campaign - that said "Don't worry about what we're saying in Ohio" to the Canadian government"

That explains why Harper's spokesperson claimed unequivocally that there was NO contact whatsoever between the Canadians and the Clinton campaign?

"a story line that has now been proven to be totally false: The story line that the Obama campaign said one thing to the Canadian government while saying something else to the voters in Ohio."

Here's the quote from the publicly available memo by the Canadians:

"...much of the rhetoric perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy...Goolsbee indicated the Senator is less interested in fundamental changes to the agreement and more looking at clarifying language..."

Tim Russert: "Will you as President say we will be out of NAFTA in six months..."
Obama: "...we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out..."

It's all there in black and white. He tells Canadians that he isn't interested in fundamental changes and the voters that he's considered threatening to opt out of the agreement.

It's one thing to try and spin it to the advantage of your candidate. It's politics. But to take it way over the top and cry 'liar liar' to those who make the most reasonable interpretation of the facts is just plain inexcuseable.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Please people, STOP quoting the memo written by the Canadian government about their meeting with Goolsbee as if that memo reflects what Goolsbee actually said.

It Does Not

That FACT would be clear to any of you who takes the time to watch the related video in my post.

The Canadian government has already apologized for mis-stating what Goolsbee said.

I can't keep coming here looking for all the times that people act as if the discredited Canadian memo was a tape recording of Goolsbee's words. You're just going to have to start being intellectually honest on your own. Okay?

[GLaB]

The memo states EXACTLY and PRECISELY what the person who wrote it heard. He was DOING HIS JOB to the best of his ability.

Are YOU calling him a liar?

[ChuckOp]

So you are willing to accept one non-denial denial, but not another? Iain Brodie says that he cannot recall which candidate he mentioned to reporters, and this denial is considered invalid. Thus it must stand that he was talking about the Clinton campaign.

On the other hand, Goolsbee meets with Canadian officials, who come away with the impression of political positioning. After the uproar the Canadian Embassy puts this on their web site:
----
Statement by the Canadian Embassy
Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 " The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect. ...
----

This statement however you believe, and then ask readers to discount the memo entirely.

Sorry, I don't buy it. The memo was written without a political agenda by an embassy employee. What motivation does he have to distort things?

Most people know that the memo is not quoting Goolsbee, because if it was, he would not only have been fired on the spot, Obama would be in much worse trouble.

What was Goolsbee doing meeting with them at all? Why did they INITIALLY (since denied) think that the anti-NAFTA talk was all just political positioning?

Furthermore, regarding Brodies off-the-cuff remark, there are three versions reported - the first that he just mentioned Obama, the second that he just mentioned Clinton, and one where he mentioned both candidates. Each version has been reported on and then later denied. Why do you choose only to believe one version?

I still think it's likely that when Brodie made his comment of reassurances, he was thinking of the memo that had been previously distributed.

[WASanford]

Yeah, but your intent was to shovel some more crap towards the Clinton campaign!! As I stated in my other post on this issure a little honesty would have gone a long way! Now you're begging us to please back off! You all look like a pack of incompent fools. If your guy does win the nomination the Republicians will make mince meat out of him!!

[Independent voter]

The main stream media is terrified of the clintons. I suspect that this happened when the clintons tried to get Schuster fired and tried to get Chris Matthews muzzled.

If this is what the clintons do when they are supposed to be playing nice-nice; one can only imagine what will happen if bill gets re-elected and the clintons are accountable to nobody.

hillary has more secrets than Cheney
hillary makes Nixon look like an honorable man

[knosiswar]

Both ABC and CNN ran the false discredited anti-Obama NAFTA lie on their web-sites all the way until tuesday morning of the primary, and declined to post the Obama campaigns denial, that was made early Monday, ubtil Tuesday. Both ABC and CNN have been skewing their web-site coverage towards Clinton.

[dijo]

That's a good reason to boycott both news channels. Lowering their ratings is about the only way to let them know that their lies are unacceptable.

[SeekerOne]

Absolutely. Boycott. I wonder how effective a petition would be? Probably not very since I heard that CNN's revenues doubled as a result of the debates and primaries. It is in their financial interests, not only be incendiary in their coverage, but to fan the flames until nothing remains of the Democratic party but cinders. The Republicans are finally loving them some CNN.

[sarainitaly]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home

PMO: Officials only got briefing from Obama campaign
The Canadian Press

March 7, 2008 at 5:04 PM EST

OTTAWA " Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.

With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.

After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for " or received " any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.

"The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler....

But Mr. Obama's campaign was further torpedoed by the leak of the diplomatic memo. Mr. Goolsbee insists the Canadian memo mischaracterized his position...."

I think we know all we need to know. Clinton did not. Obama did.

[Independent voter]

"The Clintons lie with such ease it's troubling." (Geffen)

Clintonistas worship the dark queen by propagating her lies.

[DudeE]

Poor David Geffen is still pissed at Bill Clinton for not agreeing to pardon his pet cause Leonard Peltier.

[IndyT]

The leaked Canadian memo states that Goolsbee told the Canadians exactly what Obama has been telling voters -- that he wants to re-negotiate NAFTA to make make labor and the environment core to it. Somehow the MSM always forgets to mention that.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf

"On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that 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."

And

"Again stating that he was not an expert on the agreement he suggested Obama wanted to work with Canada and Mexico to make labour and environment more core to the agreement."

[jsinclair]

It's inexcusable for ABC (and others) to keep reporting falsehoods A WEEK AFTER THEY'VE BEEN CORRECTED AT THE SOURCE.

Are they only reading email from Carville, Wolfson and Penn?

And the press wonders why Americans have no confidence in their accuracy.

[personalpolitical]

I've noticed this for a long time, ABC consistently regurgitates Hillary talking points, they have been the Clinton campaign's biggest cheerleaders in the MSM, trying to hype up every non-issue she throws at him, like the Rezko thing.. This is just the latest example, and I can't say I'm surprised.