|
here's why 1.Obama Nailed on NAFTA-Gate <+ Must-See Timeline Update> By SusanUnPCcloseAuthor: SusanUnPC Name: Email: susanunpc@gmail.com Site: http://noquarterusa.net/About: See Authors Posts (849) on March 3, 2008 at 1:58 AM in Austan Goolsbee, Bamboozling, Barack Obama, NAFTA UPDATE: At the conclusion, there’s now a fully sourced timeline of Obama’s denials of this meeting, now obliterated by the emergence of the Canadian diplomats’ memorandum distributed widely to Canadian officials — and now in the hands not only of the A.P. but CNN’s John Roberts, who waved a copy as he reported the story on CNN’s American Morning. “Obama, you are busted.” That was Larry Johnson’s response tonight when I showed him the New York Times/A.P. story just published that confirms what the Obama camp has scurried away from: That Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee contacted officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago and assured them that they should not worry about Obama’s remarks about NAFTA. Goolsbee, reported national Canadian media giant CTV.ca, “said that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric.” The A.P. has obtained the actual memorandum produced by the Canadian consulate as a record of its meeting. (How that works, and the regular preparation of a memorandum to record such meetings, is explained by Larry Johnson below, and is a must-read to understand how diplomatic meetings are conducted.) That Canadian consulate-prepared memorandum, which Goolsbee denies is accurate, states: “Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” <…> The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 ”introductory meeting” between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux. Goolsbee ”was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,” the memo’s introduction said. ”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.” Here is Larry Johnson — he was Deputy Director of Counterterrorism for the U.S. State Department — on how such meetings take place and are recorded: Obviously the Obama advisors don’t understand a thing about foreign relations. They assume that any comment with a member of a diplomatic representative of a foreign government is somehow not noteworthy. To reiterate, a consulate (i.e., a place that issues visas and handles immigration issues for a government, in this case Canada) is a part of the Canadian Embassy. The Consul General is not the Ambassador. However, he or she would be considered number three in the Embassy pecking order (he or she is subordinate to the Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission). In meetings like the one with Obama’s economic advisor, Goolsbee, the ConGen (shorthand for Consul General) would be accompanied by at least one note taker. The junior diplomat who wrote up the results of the meeting had to submit his report to the ConGen, who signed off on the report or cable (A cable is diplomatic speak for an official message sent back to the home government). And why did the Canadians meet with Goolsbee? Because of his relationship with Obama. The Canadians, doing what good diplomats do, wanted to get an idea of what Obama’s stance on Nafta is because they are recognizing he could be President. This is what diplomats do. The other day, in an update to my February 29, 2008 story, “CTV Reconfirms Obama NAFTA Story,” Larry Johnson added: t is important to help younger readers understand that Goolsbee’s conversation with the Counsel General (CONGEN in State Department speak) is a senior Canadian Embassy official. A Consulate is a place where folks go for a visa or to work on immigration problems. The Consulate is subordinate to the Embassy in Washington. Best to think of it as a branch of the Embassy. Clearly the CTV report confused Embassy with Consulate. Bottomline is the same–a senior Obama advisor told a representative of the Government of Canada (in this case, the CONGEN) to ignore Obama’s rhetoric.
You can read all of our earlier stories on NAFTA-gate by clicking on this search-based link.
Many young Obama supporters never understood that CTV.ca is an internationally respected, first-rate national Canadian news organization that carefully vetted its original story, and issued a reconfirmation. Now, thanks to the A.P. story, we know that the memorandum “was widely distributed within the Canadian government” and was 1,300 words in length.
Here is the video of one of CTV’s television news reports:
UPDATE:
THE TIMELINE of Obama Campaign Denials of CTV/NAFTA Report:
2/26/08 – CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
2/26/08 – “Late Wednesday, Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made. ‘Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn’t intend to keep,’ the spokesperson said.”
2/27/08 – “Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue.”
2/27/08 – Goolsbee: Canada’s consul general in Chicago contacted him ‘at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.’
2/27/08 – Goolsbee: “I am not confirming or denying any meetings with anyone,’ Goolsbee told ABC News, directing queries to Bill Burton, Obama’s campaign spokesperson.”
2/27/08 – “ABC News spoke to Goolsbee, Thursday, and who denied calling the Canadian embassy in Washington, or calling Rioux, but would “neither confirm nor deny” whether he had spoke to Rioux about Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric.”
2/27/08 – CTV: “On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.”
2/27/08 – CTV: “The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.”
2/28/08 – Burton: ‘The news reports on Obama’s position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy — that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy.”
2/28/08 – Burton: “It’s telling that the Clinton campaign’s closing argument is based on a story run on a Canadian television station that’s already been debunked by the Canadian Embassy.”
2/28/08 – Burton: “Again, this story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade. The only flip-flopping on NAFTA has come from Sen. Clinton, who talked about how good it was for America until she started running for President,”
2/28/08 – Sen. Obama: “The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don’t know who the sources were.”
2/28/08 - Rice: “The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word…period.”
2/29/08: Sen. Obama: “Our office has said the story is not true. It’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” Anchor: “So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion.” Sen. Obama: “It did not happen.”
2/29/08 - Goolsbee: “It is a totally inaccurate story…I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.”
2/29/08 – Burton: ‘This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.’
2/29/08 – Plouffe: “The story’s just not true…. No one in our campaign has said or otherwise implied that he would back away from his position on NAFTA.”
2/29/08 – Burton: “There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.”
2.He’s Thin and So’s His Record
By SusanUnPCcloseAuthor: SusanUnPC Name:
Email: susanunpc@gmail.com
Site: http://noquarterusa.net/
About: See Authors Posts (849) on March 2, 2008 at 6:13 PM in Barack Obama
He’s tall, but thin. So too is his record, write the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, D.C. policy analyst Steve Clemons, and History News Network’s Rick Shenkman. (What’s their problem? They need to get high on hope.)
Barack Obama told Ellen Degeneres the other day, “Well, first of all I think I’ll just go into the Oval Office and sit at the desk and say, ‘Wow, this is really cool’.”
Yeah. It’s cool. I dig it totally.
In endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, the Chronicle board — what a bunch of unbelievers – notes:
Seven years of the Bush administration have left us so hungry for change that we will accept almost any kind offered. Senator Obama says he is the agent of that change and proclaims that we are the change we seek, the change we’ve been waiting for.
Yet change alone is not enough. George Bush changed peace into war, surpluses into deficits and the respect this country enjoyed around the world into contempt. That was not what we had waited for.
Yet Obama will also keep us waiting. His thin legislative record — so thin even his Texas spokesperson was at a loss to name a single Senate accomplishment — reveals his avoidance of controversy and hard choices, including more than a hundred votes of “present” in the Illinois Legislature when others took a stand.
The U.S. Senate subcommittee he chairs on NATO, a key ally, has never met or acted. He touts ethics reform that requires only that congressmen stand while lobbyists buy their three-martini lunches and offers a health care plan that doesn’t cover everybody . Even his speech against the war in Iraq was not followed by action in the Senate.
Promising change alone, he delivers only change lite, change borne of the easy consensus that comes from political expedience and not asking for too much. …
Why, I’d have to say that the Houston Chronicle board speaks of Barack Obama with derision. Next up:
Here’s analyst Steve Clemons, today at his estimable blog, The Washington Note, writing “Obama’s Hearing Problem“:
In December, I did some research into how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each used legislative machinery at their disposal in the Senate to get some sense of their “executive abilities”. For some reason, I expected Hillary Clinton to be too busy for things like subcommittee hearings and Obama to be drilling in and learning as much as he could because his experience in federal level legislative affairs might be perceived as weak.
I found the opposite — and discovered that Barack Obama, despite his role as Chairman of the European Subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had not held a single policy hearing during his tenure. In the Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, I found that Clinton had chaired and been actively engaged in a number of hearings during the same period.
When I discovered this, a number of Obama’s own foreign policy advisers called me — and one said, “I am as surprised as you are.”
Huh? One of his own foreign policy advisers didn’t vet his candidate? Was that adviser hopped up on the hope dope? Good lord.
Read all of “Obama’s Hearing Problem.”
Next up, there’s David Ignatius in today’s Washington Post, writing “Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder“:
strong>If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?
This is the real “Where’s the beef?” about Obama, and it still doesn’t have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.
But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it’s fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.
Obama’s argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that “yes, we can” break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.
What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.
This absence of evidence of bipartisan “hard work” is very worrisome. Obama is selling himself to millions based on the promise he can deliver. But, it’s obvious to the unbesotted that it’s speechifying designed to enrapture people just to get elected. Call me cynical but what I most see in his traits are his desires to get the “green” and to get the win. One more Ignatius quote, and this echoes what I’ve heard longtime Republican U.S. Senators say about the Obama they met in the U.S. Senate — that while they liked him, they never saw him make much of an effort at bipartisan work:
“The authentic Barack Obama? We just don’t know. The level of uncertainty is too high,” one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn’t been involved in any “transformative battles” where he might anger any of the party’s interest groups. “If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn’t going to be any bipartisanship,” this senator cautioned.
And here’s a link to Rick Shenkman’s new piece — “Obama Kool-Aid: Drink Slowly” — at History News Network. Shenkman notes:
Not even Reagan, with whom Obama is now being compared, claimed to be above politics. So when he ducked controversies or was caught playing politics — raising taxes, making peace overtures to the evil empire, and running up huge deficits — he could shrug off the charge of hypocrisy. What mattered was that his supporters believed in their hearts he hadn’t abandoned “the cause.”
Obama’s set himself a higher challenge. His cause is anti-politics. So he can’t be caught playing politics. This is a difficult situation for a politician to find himself in. For at times he will of course have to play politics.
e took credit for the legislative achievements of others in the state legislature of Illinois (including his signature bill requiring the taping of jailhouse confessions) in order to advance his state profile and make a run for the US Senate. His helpmate in the enterprise was the state president, Emil Jones, who bragged that he was going to make a US Senator! In return for Jones’s support, Obama delivered millions in earmarks to Jones’s district. …
Earmarks. Huh. Well, just stay tuned in to 0-bam-a! 0-bam-a! 0-bam-a. (And try to get that irritating drivel out of your head after you watch it.)
3.Obama’s Judgment on the Eve of Judgment Day
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry Johnson Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria. From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward. From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards. Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University’s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.See Authors Posts (587) on March 1, 2008 at 1:14 PM in Current Affairs
Although NoQuarter has made a concerted effort to focus attention on Barack Obama’s lack of experience and questionable judgment, it appears that the main steam media finally is starting to ask some questions that should have been raised months ago. Consider Barack’s stance on Afghanistan. For almost a year, Barack has been pretty clear about the policy he would pursue. During a speech in August 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Barack said:
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
He went on to say with respect to Afghanistan:
As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.
We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military — it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.
So what is the problem? I think these are sound positions. However, if Barack genuinely believed what he was saying, why did he not use his status as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on European Affairs to examine the validity of using NATO in Afghanistan?
This is not a bullshit question. The U.S. decision to turn to NATO to help us out in Afghanistan was old news by the time Barack became chairman in 2007. NATO started ramping up troops in Afghanistan in December 2005. When January 2007 rolled around Barack was in a unique position, by virtue of his chairmanship, to do a series of hearings that, for example, on the challenges facing the United States in Afghanistan and the viability of relying on NATO. But Barack says he was “too busy” running for President.
Sorry, but that is a lame excuse. Are we expected to believe that he was incapable of putting together at least one hearing that would have helped burnish his limited foreign policy credentials? This is more than a tactical mistake. For me it is a question of his judgment and his political vision. This smacks of someone who is so intellectually lazy or incurious that he failed to recognize the opportunity dropped into his lap. He wants to run for President. Foreign policy issues are a critical part of the upcoming campaign. And what does he do to bolster that part of a thin resume? Nothing.
Unfortunately, this flaw in judgment is not isolated to his failure to hold a hearing. It appears to be a consistent theme in his political life. He has more than a passing friendship with an unrepentant terrorist, William Ayers. And he goes into a questionable real estate deal with one of his political supporters and fundraisers, Tony Rezko, when Rezko is facing imminent indictment on Federal corruption charges. Folks with sound political instincts would know to avoid these kind of situations. It looks wrong and in politics perception matters.
But Barack’s problems, particularly with Rezko, go beyond a simple matter of perception. CNN identified some of the looming pitfalls:
And this Rezko problem in all likelihood will get worse for Obama in the coining weeks. Tony’s trial starts on Monday. He’s up against Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald already has sent a former Illinois Republican governor to jail on corruption charges. He also beat a massive propaganda campaign in Washington to exonerate Scooter Libby and convicted him on perjury and obstruction of justice for his role in outing Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald is not likely to fail.
Rezko does not have George Bush behind him with a tacit offer of a pardon. Rezko does not have a group of prominent Washington and political luminaries willing to make excuses for his crimes as did Scooter Libby. Rezko faces significant fines and jail time. A man under that kind of pressure will have no second thoughts about throwing other people under the bus. Senator Obama, who received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Rezko in his previous campaigns, who had a real estate deal with him, who intervened on his behalf on government matters, is very likely to get dirtied up in this trial. As the political season enters June, the American people may be asking the question, how venal is Obama?
I do not begrudge Barack his ambition. He is a shrewd politician. But I also see a consistent pattern of flawed judgment. Not holding hearings on what NATO could or should do in Afghanistan and buying property with a guy who is the target of a Federal corruption probe are radically different issues but reflect the same lack of sound judgment. Obama’s questionable judgment on these issues outweigh his 2002 opposition to the war in Iraq in my book.
Regardless of what happens in the upcoming Tuesday primaries, these issues will not go away. And as the public learns more about the real Barack Obama, the bloom on his rose is likely to fade and fade dramatically.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
