This is the largely untold story of how the Harper government, with the help of a television reporter, sought to sabotage the candidacy of Barack Obama. Many of the facts of this story are on the record, in pieces, from disparate sources. What is untold is how those pieces fit together into a coherent narrative. And it is only with this narrative that the severity, and maliciousness of this incident is revealed.
Ian Brodie was probably exhausted. "Budget day" was winding down and prime minister Stephen Harper's chief staffer had spent weeks negotiating a deal that would stave off an election challenge from the Liberal opposition. Now he was standing around chatting with reporters from CTV who were enjoying a rare bit of face time with the normally inaccessible Mr. Brodie. These were the circumstances in which an off the cuff remark would create an international crisis.
- TocqueDeville's diary :: ::
One of the reporters asked Brodie about the anti-NAFTA rhetoric emanating from the Democratic primary campaign. Naturally this was of great interest to Canadians as the US is their single biggest trading partner. This, according to the Canadian Press, is how one of the reporters present described Mr. Brodie's response:
"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."
It was a devastating blunder. When it got out that Hillary Clinton was telling Ohio voters one thing, and the Canadian embassy something else, it would be politically damaging for her campaign. But the fact that this information emerged from the Canadian embassy, albeit indirectly, violated the most fundamental canons of diplomatic confidentiality.
This is one of the elements of this story that has not been properly reported. The Harper government, and specifically the Canadian embassy in Washington, spent at least some portion of the next 24 hours in crisis mode. A diplomatic communique by one of the presidential candidates of the United States had been recklessly leaked to the press. This is virtually unheard of.
What happened next is of critical importance. We know that CTV informed their Washington bureau chief Tom Clark of Brodie's comment. We know that Clark decided to cover the story. And we know that the next day Clark called his old friend, Canadian ambassador Michael Wilson.
What we don't know is exactly what was said in that conversation. But after that phone call, a miracle occurred. Suddenly, the story was no longer about how Ian Brodie had revealed that the Clinton campaign made private assurances to the Canadian embassy to take her NAFTA rhetoric with a grain of salt, but how it was actually the Obama campaign that did.
Here are the relevant points of the CTV report:
LLOYD ROBERTSON (anchor): CTV News has learned that campaign officials for Barack Obama told Canada not to worry about criticism of NAFTA, it's only politics. And while the Clinton people showed outrage, they're uneasy, too. CTV's Washington bureau chief Tom Clark reports.
TOM CLARK: CTV News has learned [that] within the last month a senior member of the Barack Obama campaign telephoned the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson. In that call the Obama operative warned the ambassador that NAFTA would become part of the debate in the Democratic primaries and that Obama would take some heavy swings at the trade deal, but told the ambassador, don't worry, it's just campaign rhetoric. It's not serious. Canadian sources say that the message was taken as being completely authentic and representing the views of the Obama campaign. But last night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama promised the voters that he would do what his campaign privately told Canada he would not.
Somehow, the story is about Barack Obama. No mention of Ian Brodie or his remark to CTV reporters the day before. Only a fleeting, cryptic reference. Here it is:
CLARK: Sources have also told CTV that the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite her words.
Now, as you try to untangle that sentence, keep in mind that in the actual broadcast, this fleeting, and almost illegible reference to the Brodie comment was tucked into a three minute piece that focused almost entirely on Obama. Then, before the brain can even decode it, it cuts to Hillary reaffirming her position. CTV was so impressed with the wording of that sentence that they used it again the next day, word for word, in a completely separate story( Wonder why I thought Mark Penn might have been involved?). Here's the video:
The way the story was presented was my first clue that CTV was in on the smear. But it was their follow up pieces that confirmed it.
The day after the first CTV story broke, the AP's discredited reporter and reliable Obama smearer Nedra Pickler gets the scoop straight from Canadian embassy minister Roy Norton: it never happened. Here is their formal denial:
"The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA. Last night, the Canadian television network CTV falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the embassy to raise NAFTA."
So what's going on here? First Wilson gets his old pal, CTV reporter Tom Clark, to pull a switch, then he hangs him out to dry? Not quite.
It was known all along that the Canadian embassy would have to issue a denial. International protocol demanded as much. But while they were publicly denying the report, behind the scenes they were secretly feeding CTV new information to make the story stick.
Enter Austan Goolsbee. The following night, Thursday, Feb 28, CTV posts a follow up on their website under the byline, CTV.ca News Staff: Obama campaign mum on NAFTA contact with Canada
On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.
"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.
But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.
The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.
"The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama.
Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.
As would be reported later, all the embassy had on Barack Obama was a memo which may or may not have been genuine that interpreted a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, and Canada's consul-general in Chicago, Georges Rioux at a meeting (not a phone call).
The so-called DeMora memo characterized Goolsbee's characterization of Obama's statements on NAFTA as "political positioning." Yet that memo is internally inconsistent - on one hand it says Goolsbee told them Obama's NAFTA rhetoric was only positioning, but on the other it quotes Goolsbee as telling Rioux exactly the same thing Obama was saying on the stump. From the memo:
"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."
This is exactly what Obama was saying publicly. So we have a memo that claims an Obama adviser said that Obama was engaging in "political positioning" by saying publicly exactly what his adviser says he really intends to do?
This is what the embassy had come up with to feed CTV. Yet even though CTV now, a day after their initial report, had the name of Austan Goolsbee, they were still claiming there was a telephone call made - even a "timeline". This strongly suggest that when Tom Clark first contacted Michael Wilson on this story, Wilson was improvising. Otherwise, he would have fed Clark the correct details on the Goolsbee meeting from the start.
But with what we do know, it is obvious what happened here: Ian Brodie screwed up, and leaked the fact that Hillary Clinton was lying about her position on NAFTA. The Harper government and the Canadian ambassador went into damage control and decided the best way to cover Clinton's ass was to manufacture the same charge against Obama using the Goolsbee meeting as ammunition. A corrupt and complicit reporter, Tom Clark of CTV, either knowingly facilitated the cover story, or at least allowed himself to be used as an agent of it. And this whole scheme worked long enough to win Ohio for Clinton.
Another element that has not been reported is that the Canadian ambassador, Micheal Wilson, has strong ties to the Clintons. It was he, in fact, who, as Canada's Minister of Trade, actually negotiated NAFTA in the first place - right along with Mickey Kantor.
And the thing to remember about those negotiations were that far from being opponents in the deal, Wilson and Kantor were allies against the real opponents, the US congress. I've failed to find any report of Wilson and Kantor breaking open the champagne upon passage of NAFTA, but given their relationship, that would have been appropriate.
Regardless, it is striking that the person who tried to cover Clinton's ass on her NAFTA lies was the very one who actually headed the passage of NAFTA for the Canadian government.
Now, much speculation has occurred as to what the Canadians' motives were in this attack on our candidate - the most popular being that being conservatives, they wanted to help the GOP by ensuring Hillary was the candidate since the GOP fear Obama more. I find this theory implausible.
I believe the evidence clearly shows that the Harper government believed that one, Hillary would win so they didn't want to make her an enemy, and two, they recognized that Hillary is the establishment candidate who most shares their agenda on free trade. Remember, the Canadians knew all along who was really posturing on NAFTA. And it wasn't Obama.
So, in conclusion, we have a situation where Canada's prime minister, his appointed ambassador to the US, and a top Canadian television network, all conspired to divert a would be scandal for Hillary Clinton onto her Democratic opponent Barack Obama.
Now, this may be old news to you. But it is not to me. To have the government (albeit conservative government) of another country so blatantly interfere with an American election is unforgivable. I would say that if they had tried to sabotage John McCain, who I vehemently oppose.
The establishment media has forgotten all about this. I haven't. I believe it is highly probable that this cost Obama Ohio, and has harmed his campaign since.
I actually wrote most of this almost two months ago. I was waiting for some break in the case as a result of Canada's "investigation". It appears however that the Canadian parliament and Washington want to bury this story. This is unacceptable.
Update [2008-4-28 4:53:5 by TocqueDeville]: From the comments, to be sure, the vast majority of Canadian people are victims of their government as we are ours. They have my condolences. It might be good if they could spend some time demanding a real investigation.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment