Write Your Own Caption

Stealing a line from Bush, Harper was overheard saying, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
 
Related: Almost a third of Canadians think Harper is lying over Cadman affair: poll
 

Olbermann on NAFTAgate: Innuendo and Truth

On Thursday nite, Keith Olbermann had this to say about NAFTAgate:

Olbermann: For a week now, Senator Clinton has bashed Senator Obama and even possibly won votes based on the story that Obama had publicly railed against NAFTA while a memo by a Canadian diplomat claimed Obama's campaign secretly assured them his stand "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans"

First of all, the memo Olbermann refers to was only brought to the public's attention on March 3, 2008 by the AP's Nedra Pickler - the day before Tuesday's primaries. Therefore, it isn't possible for Clinton to have been railing against Obama based on that memo before that time. (As an aside, Macleans' Luiza Ch. Savage published a copy of that memo on Thursday.)

Back to Olbermann:

Olbermann: In our fourth story in the countdown, Obama's adviser denied speaking those words and now we learn that a much higher source from Canada revealed late last month that the NAFTA promises came from a very different source, the Clinton campaign. According to an unnamed source speaking to that nation's equivalent of the Associated Press, the Canadian Press, it was Clinton's campaign that contacted the Canadian government to reassure them about Clinton's anti-NAFTA rhetoric. The Canadian Press reporting that the source heard the chief of staff to Canada's prime minister say in a room full of television journalists "someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . someone called us and told us not to worry."

Olbermann then introduced his guest, Howard Fineman, and asked, "am I oversimplifying this or is this story now basically the opposite of what it seemed to be a week ago?" to which Fineman responds, "Yeah, it is 180 degrees different".

Except that it's not.

Take a look at the original CTV story:

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

That was in the same story that alleged that Obama's campaign "told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously".

That's not "180 degrees different". It's exactly the same.

Fineman then said he "think(s) it was the Clinton camp that started the conversation with the Canadians about don't worry about NAFTA".

Except that no one has proven anything like that, Fineman.

Even after Olbermann pointed out that there was, as he put it, an "obscure reference" to the Clinton side in this, Fineman stated that he thought the Obama campaign didn't know about it until Thursday. Fineman then said the Obama campaign hadn't issued a "flat denial saying the story wasn't true". That's not true. The Obama campaign definitely fumbled its reaction to this story but it has issued denials since the story broke. Here's just one of them from this week:

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.

Meanwhile, as soon as CTV news broke the story last Wednesday, their television reporter Tom Clark said the Clinton campaign was giving the Canadian government "blanket immunity" to release the name of anyone on her staff who may have been in touch with them. That's why the allegations against her were dropped so quickly. The Canadian sources haven't released anything to back up that claim. Apparently, someone must have thought the release of the memo later that week could be used against Obama and that's why the story, as it related to him, continued to have legs.

Fineman then went on to say that he thought the Obama campaign believed it "has the upper hand in the NAFTA debate" as an excuse for not responding more forcefully. In other words, never mind that a foreign government might be creating the impression that his NAFTA promises aren't true, they'll just ignore it and hope it goes away. Does Fineman really believe that's what happened or could it be that their economic adviser Goolsbee, who wasn't straight with the media as soon as his meeting with Canadian officials was revealed, has created a PR nightmare for the campaign?

Olbermann then cited the NAFTA story as another one of the Clinton campaign's recent screw ups. The fact is that there's no "there" there - not with this story. Olbermann and Fineman should have done more research before they went on the air with this in the fashion that they did. If you watch the video, you'll see a shocked and surprised Olbermann acting is if what he's reporting is proof that the Clinton campaign reassured the Canadian government on NAFTA despite the fact that his very words belie that incredulity.

Keith Olbermann has a lot of pull with Democratic and so-called "progressive" viewers, many of whom, at places like Daily Kos, (nicknamed Daily Obama because of the overwhelming support for that candidate there) now believe that he has nailed Clinton to the wall on NAFTAgate when no such thing has happened.

Olbermann is not responsible for how his viewers react to what he says, but he owes them the truth, not innuendo backed up with an overly-emotional response along with a guest who doesn't even know what he's talking about. For Olbermann to act as if he believed the unnamed source who fingered Ian Brodie (an allegation that has yet to be investigated) is either lazy journalism or biased reporting against Clinton.

I don't support either candidate and I'm no Clinton apologist. I just expect responsible journalism - not hyperbole that can be interpreted as facts. Sometimes actions speak louder than words and I believe they have in this case.

Watch the video:



Related:

Here's the latest news from Canada on this story - Government will probe 'entire' NAFTA leak: PM.

US ambassador Wilkins has since backed off from his claims of "interference" as reported in the CBC story linked to above.

"I do think the term 'interference' is a little strong. It implies some intentional act. And I've got no way of knowing whether it was unintentional or intentional, or anything of that nature. But my statement of interference was not meant to mean intentional interference by the Canadian government, and unfortunately that's the way it got played."

How lawyerly of him.
 

Canadian News Roundup

A few news stories to catch up on:

- Canada to seek clemency for Montrealer facing beheading. The Conservatives - for the death penalty before they were against it. (See this post as well.)

- I have a hard time believing that Harper is serious about taking Dion to court over the Cadman affair when he and his minions continue to talk about it in the house. It seems to be they would instead be saying that "this matter is before the courts" if they intended to go ahead with the suit. On the other hand, if it does go to court, he and his operatives will be forced to testify under oath under the threat of perjury charges. Stock up on popcorn for that case. Lastly, insinuating that their Conservative candidate Dona Cadman (who is the source of this bribery allegation) is a liar does them absolutely no favours in that riding. How can the Conservative party support an alleged liar as their candidate? They've hung her and their party out to dry. This is a no-win situation for this government and they know it. Lather. Spin. Repeat.

- Even though Harper has denied that his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, was responsible for leaking the Obama/NAFTA story to CTV, he still refuses to name the person responsible. If the opposition (and concerned Democrats) can make a case that the leak amounted to political interference (a criminal offence), there may be a role for the RCMP to check into it.

Harper announced today that "an internal security team has been called into the Foreign Affairs Department to investigate one of the leaks". That's not enough.

Mr. Harper didn't address the original leak, but said the government will use “every legal and every investigative technique necessary” to find the source of a second leak — of a private Canadian diplomatic memo — to a U.S. media outlet.

Harper is only interested in finding out who leaked the memo, saying that may be "illegal" but the fact that his government may have planted that CTV story to interfere with the US election is just as serious and must be investigated as well.

Beyond that, as has been extensively reported, the optics involved in showing that Canada's government officials can't be trusted not to reveal private communications between representatives of our country and the US (or any other country) has damaged our international reputation.

There's also concern being expressed that the leak may have influenced the outcome of the Ohio primaries on Tuesday, where Clinton was victorious over Obama, but there's absolutely no way to quantify how that story may have affected Ohio voters.

It should also be noted that the Obama campaign completely mismanaged this story from the moment it broke with its economic adviser Goolsbee asserting that he just said "hello" to Canadian representatives - a claim he had to change after it was revealed that the meeting he had with them actually lasted 40 minutes and resulted in a 1,300 word memo that the AP released details of this past week.

This story is far from being over.

Update:

CBC News video on the Obama/NAFTA story-



Update #2:

The Globe & Mail has a new story up that (according to one unnamed source) points the finger at Ian Brodie as being the source. The G&M story needs more analysis so I'll get into that in a separate post on Thursday.
 

Bombshell: Did Cheney's Office Leak the Khadr Video?

That's what Omar Khadr's defence lawyers want to know.

According to the Globe & Mail:

Lieutenant Commander Bill Kuebler said he is trying to find out how a highly secret video showing Mr. Khadr in Afghanistan was leaked to the U.S. news program 60 Minutes. The video appears to show Mr. Khadr building a bomb.

The news program aired the footage last November.

Lt.-Cmdr Kuebler, Mr. Khadr's top U.S. military lawyer, said he met with Colonel Morris Davis, the previous top prosecutor of military commissions – the body that is expected to try Mr. Khadr in Guantanamo Bay later this year – last week.

At the meeting, Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler asked the Colonel where he thought the leak may have come from. In response, Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler said, Col. Davis offered the opinion that the Vice-President's office may have been involved.

Col. Davis resigned as chief prosecutor in October of last year, saying political pressure was interfering with his job.

Khadr's lawyers claim that if the leak did come from Cheney's office, it is evidence that Khadr is being held as a political prisoner.

Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler said the prosecution had wanted to play the tape in court – in view of the media – late last year, but the request was denied by a judge. A few weeks later, 60 Minutes had the report.

So, who gave it to 60 Minutes and why?

Colonel Morris Davis is certainly no friend of Omar Khadr's. And in 2006, he had this to say about Khadr's lawyers as the chief prosecutor:

In a rare appearance before the international media, Air Force Colonel Morris Davis called sympathetic portrayals of Khadr by defence lawyers "nauseating" and suggested the 19-year-old has fabricated claims of torture at the hands of his American interrogators.

"We'll see evidence when we get into the courtroom of the smiling face of Omar Khadr as he builds bombs to kill Americans," Col. Davis said on the eve of a planned pre-trial hearing here for Khadr before a special U.S. military commission.

"It isn't a great leap to figure out why we are holding him accountable."

In December, 2007 however, he wrote this op-ed in the LA Times in which he outlined his reasons for his resignation - a litany of all things wrong with the so-called military tribunals process including the use of evidence obtained by torture.

It's highly doubtful that someone of his rank would throw out a flagrant allegation of the possible involvement of someone in Cheney's office without some inkling that it might be true. We'll have to wait to see if he debunks Kuebler's account of what was said at their meeting first. If not, where there's smoke, there may be fire once again in the vice president's cocoon.

Related:

60 Minutes - "Omar Khadr: The Youngest Terrorist?"
 

Alberta Election Results: A Predicted PC Majority Government

That prediction was made by Global News at 8:21 pm and not 10 minutes later, Stelmach made his victory thank you speech from his campaign headquarters. There is something fundamentally wrong with an electorate that absolutely refuses to attempt to change the political situation in this province, where we've been held hostage by these Conservatives for what seems like (and practically is) forever.

Now it's just a matter of watching for the gains and losses. I'll post the final numbers when they're up.

Local coverage:

CTV Calgary
CBC Calgary
QR 77 Radio
Global Calgary
Calgary Herald
Calgary Sun

Update:

Wow. Political scientist Keith Brownsey just had an angry fit on CFCN asking what CTV was thinking predicting a majority Conservative government when only a few votes were in from a handful of ridings. (We're talking single-digit vote counts here.) Quite the display of outrage! The anchors tried to rationalize their methodology but part of it is based on pre-election predictions. Hardly measurable in any solid way. Of course, everybody and their dog figured that the Cons would win, but Brownsey had a point ie. how about waiting until some actual real numbers are in?

Unofficial Results: (10:50 pm)

PC 73
LIB 8
NDP 2
WAP 0
Green 0
Other 0

2004 numbers by comparison:

PC 61
LIB 17
NDP 4
AAP 1
Others 0

Voter turnout was pathetic.

Urban ~43%
Rural ~39%

The leaders of the PC, Liberal and NDP parties all retained their seats. The WAP leader lost to the PC candidate by 39 votes.
 

Alberta Votes

It's election day here and I'll be posting the results (in a separate thread) as they come in this evening. I haven't made it out to vote yet. Just got home from the dentist's office (where she did a fabulous job!) and I'm waiting for the freezing to wear off. (If you need a referral to a good dentist in north Calgary, let me know by e-mail.)

Anyway, polls say there are ~45% undecided voters here and many Cons are not all that impressed by Fast Eddie Stelmach, so this could be interesting. Disgruntled Cons will likely just stay home instead of switching parties and our turnout is so low to begin with that there could be a shift in Alberta's political scene as a result. It may not be enough to take the majority from the Conservatives, but any gains made by the left-leaning parties is a net positive. There are also thousands of new Alberta voters who've moved here from other provinces to take advantage of the boom. That phenomenon didn't affect Conservative support during the last boom but that's no predictor of how things might turn out this time.

If you're an Albertan, get out there and vote. (Election info/polling locations here.)

We've lived under the thumb of these Cons for decades and it's long past time that that changed. Enough is enough!

Update:

The election results thread is here.
 

Quote du Jour: Memo to Obama - Canadian Soldiers are Fighting and Dying in Afghanistan

Barack Obama via the Times Online:

“You can’t have a situation where the United States and Britain are called on to do the dirty work and nobody else wants to engage in actual fire-fights with the Taliban.”

Apparently, Canadian soldiers don't count for anything.

The fact that 79 of our soldiers have died in that useless war - the latest one just this weekend - means absolutely nothing to Senator Obama. They are invisible.

This, coming from a politician who didn't even attend all of the Foreign Relations committee hearings on Afghanistan.

...since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in Afghanistan, a country he has never visited.

Obama was absent from a January 31 meeting this year, and also was not present for a hearing on Sept. 21, 2006. He did attend a March 8, 2007 hearing on a new Afghanistan strategy.

On Feb. 15, 2007, Obama also missed a committee hearing on U.S. ambassadors to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, he has the audacity to be lecturing other countries on what needs to be done while ignoring Canada's role?

And how does his campaign answer that? It changes the subject:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who acknowledged Obama has never been to Afghanistan, said Obama's missed meetings and the lack of a visit. [sic] to Afghanistan does not change the fact that Obama was right on Iraq.

How insulting.

Update:

More from Joe Wilson at HuffPo...

"Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none.
[...]
As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

The TO Star identifies the most recent Canadian casualty as 25 year-old Michael Yuki Hayakaze. May he rest in peace.

h/t marisacat
 

Pat Martin: Let the RCMP Investigate the Cadman Scandal First

Using the terms "treason" and "high crimes and misdemeanors", NDP MP Pat Martin told Craig Oliver on Sunday's Question Period that he will not introduce a motion to the ethics committee this week, as he had previously promised, to investigate the alleged $1 million bribe to now-deceased MP Chuck Cadman. Instead, Martin said that he thinks the RCMP should handle the file because any Conservatives involved in the affair who would testify before the committee would be protected by parliamentary privilege (ie. their testimony could not be used against them in a criminal prosecution). Martin left open the possibility of having the ethics committee hold hearings at a later date, following the results of the RCMP probe.

On Saturday, Peter Mackay denied any knowledge of the alleged bribe.

"I think it's sad, quite frankly, that this seems to have come up. It's very unfortunate.''

You bet it's "unfortunate" and that's just the least of it for your party, MacKay.

Related:

Liberals float theory on Cadman compensation
 

Glorifying Prince Harry and the Afghanistan War

Via The Independent - some sorely-needed truth:

So if the Army is blinkered in its lust for action, and lied to by its government, surely the media are there to point out unpleasant truths. At this point the images of Prince Harry blasting away on a machine gun seem dangerously close to propaganda. While his bravery and commitment are beyond doubt, his 10-week stint in Helmand has revealed itself as a PR recruiting stunt, cooked up by the MoD and facilitated by the media's collusion.

Rather than highlighting the appalling truths about the war in Helmand, the media, dazzled by the heroic ideal that Prince Harry so perfectly embodies, perpetuate the myth that this is a just war fit for heroes. The frenzy of coverage in Friday's papers (with the conspicuous exception of this newspaper) was facile; "Watch Prince Harry fighting in Helmand," proffered one broadsheet website.

This is war reduced to entertainment, willingly ignorant of the truth that young men like Harry, both British and Afghan, are dying violent pointless deaths in Helmand province. Outrage is the only response to this, not entertainment.

So now you want an election?

The Liberals have been handed many reasons over the past few months to call for an early election, the most recent being the Cadman scandal. The TO Star reports that "Liberal MPs are openly musing about toppling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government". Fine. But why weren't they "openly musing" about an election when they found out that the military is handing over Afghan prisoners to people who might torture them again? Why are they leaving it to groups like Amnesty International to raise the red flag inherent in such a move? What has changed in the 4 short months since the hand overs were halted?

As inviting as it may be to force the Cons into an election over the Cadman affair, investigations have yet to even begin. There is, however, much more evidence and reason to be concerned when it comes to possibly handing over Afghan citizens to be tortured in shady prisons. Why isn't that worth calling an election over?