PM Harper did NOT say it didn't happen....

[ElsewheresDaughter]

He said I will investigate whoever LEAKED it to the press"

Obama's NAFAT SHAFTA is still TRUE!!.....IT DID HAPPEN

CTV’s original reporting included assertions that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns had contacted Canadian diplomats with essentially the same message– that they were slinging rhetoric at NAFTA to win votes, not to actually change the policy. CTV downplayed the Clinton connection in its report, apparently unable to find confirmation outside of the Brodie comment. The Clinton connection to the story has mostly been lost ever since.

However, CTV reported the Obama connection in much stronger terms, and later we found out why. They obtained separate confirmation from the Chicago consulate that one of Obama’s campaign figures, economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, had met with Georges Rioux to discuss NAFTA and other issues. When the Obama campaign and Barack Obama himself gave a complete denial, the AP got the notes created by the consulate of the 40-minute discussion between Goolsbee and Rioux, complete with the NAFTA commentary.

Despite the argument from Obama supporters, this new development doesn’t change those facts. Obama’s adviser met with Rioux and downplayed the Obama campaign rhetoric to the Canadians. The question is whether Brodie mistakenly named the Clinton campaign, or whether Hillary’s team essentially performed the same hypocritical outreach as Goolsbee conducted on behalf of Obama.

It also extends the embarrassment for the Harper government, although it won’t last long. NAFTA has great importance to the Canadian economy, and the Harper government needs to ensure its long-term viability. The problems got created by the Democrats who have recklessly promised to abrogate the treaty — which a Democrat negotiated and signed.



``````````````````````````````````````````````````

The Clinton campaign denies it. "We flatly deny the report," says Clinton spokes person Phil Singer. "We did not sanction nor would we ever sanction anyone to say any such a thing. We give the Canadian government blanket immunity to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from."


I believe her


more from todays The Gazzete

t's one of those stories where, quite literally, you need to roll the videotape. More to the point, it's a story that demonstrates the power of new media platforms on the Internet.

In last Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate in Ohio, Hillary Clinton said she would renegotiate NAFTA and even invoke its six-month cancellation clause if Canada and Mexico didn't agree to reopen it. Barack Obama agreed, and even referred to the cancellation clause as "the hammer."

In the U.S. media, it was assumed both candidates were playing to the trade-union vote in a rust-belt state hard hit by industrial layoffs. There was no followup to speak of. But the next night, CTV Washington correspondent Tom Clark filed a piece saying an Obama campaign official "telephoned the ambassador to the United States" to assure him that any rhetoric about NAFTA was just that - rhetoric. "Obama," Clark said in his standup, "promised the voters that he would do what he told the embassy he would not."

And there the story would have sunk without a trace, except that by the next morning it was up on YouTube. And if the Clinton campaign didn't post it, it certainly pounced on it as doublespeak from the candidate who promised to change the ways of Washington.

On his campaign plane that day, Obama did a very dangerous thing - he walked to the back and talked to reporters, denying that anyone spoke to the embassy, or Ambassador Michael Wilson, on his behalf. And that's true - no one did.

Except, as it turned out four days later, one of his economic advisers, Austin Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, had met with Canadian consul-general Georges Rioux in Chicago on Feb. 8 and apparently gave such an assurance. This was reported in a note on Feb. 13 written by a consular official that was widely distributed by email to at least 15 people at the Department of Foreign Affairs. All of those people have forward buttons on their computers, and someone sent it to the Associated Press, whereupon all hell broke loose the day before yesterday's crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas.

It was the fifth consecutive day of incoming for Obama on NAFTA. Going back to last Wednesday, the day after the debate, the Canadian opposition parties asked no questions in the House. But the government responded on its own, sending out Trade Minister David Emerson to note that if the U.S. wanted to reopen NAFTA, Canada would put the energy chapter on the table, the one that gives the U.S. secured access to our oil and gas. Oops.

Flash forward to the Sunday- morning talk shows, and Democratic consultant Bob Shrum, who on NBC's Meet the Press tossed off a comment that they've got a "right-wing government in Canada that is trying to help" the Republicans and is "actively interfering in this campaign." For her part, Republican consultant Mary Matalin joined the fray to echo Emerson's remarks on energy.

Shrum's comments got torqued up into a Globe and Mail story about Canada being accused of interfering in the U.S. campaign, with the Conservatives taking sides with the Republicans. Up to that point, it was sheer nonsense.

But then someone at Foreign Affairs leaked a low-level memo, the kind that isn't even classified, to AP. And that can be construed as interfering in the campaign. It gave a dying story new legs, and gave fresh ammunition to the Clinton campaign in two very competitive states it desperately needed to win yesterday.

In question period Monday, Harper, quite elegantly, "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."

Obama can blame Canada. Clinton can thank YouTube.

[DJ13]

1. Harper is trying to shield his top aide from the calls he be fired

New to this game?