Signs point to PMO in NAFTA leak

[Spazito]

Source: The Star

OTTAWA–Fingers are pointing at Conservatives close to Stephen Harper for leaking a diplomatic memo that badly embarrassed Barack Obama and put Canada's vital cross-border interests at risk. Multiple sources say the Canadian note questioning the Democrat frontrunner's public promise to reopen NAFTA was leaked from the Prime Minister's Office to a Republican contact before it made American headline news.

Their claims come days after an internal probe threw up its hands at finding the source. Contradicting Friday's inconclusive report, they claim the controversial memo was slipped to the son of Wisconsin Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner. Frank Sensenbrenner is well connected to Harper's inner circle and, at Ottawa's insistence, was briefly on contract with Canada's Washington embassy to work on congressional relations.

Contacted yesterday morning, Frank Sensenbrenner did not seem surprised and agreed to an afternoon interview. But he did not call at the agreed time and did not respond to repeated emails.

snip

That badly misses the point and obscures the motive. Identifying the information as more sensitive would not have stopped the leak as long as Conservatives in high places were willing to help soulmate Republicans by rolling the dice on Canada's most important relationship. Getting the diplomatic memo to the U.S. media was pivotal in amplifying a small Canadian story into big American political news. The interpretation by Canadian diplomats that Obama was speaking out of both sides of his mouth on free trade is widely believed to have damaged his prospects in the Ohio primary and distracted Democrats to Republican advantage.






Read more: http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/431367

[Ferd Berfle]

1. This remind anyone of the false Yellow Cake reports from Berlicsoni

Just asking

:shrug:

[bigbrother05]

2. Didn't it come out that an HRC insider had explicitly said they were just playing politics?

Recall stories after the Ohio primary that poked holes in the Obama "leak" but confirmed that a Clinton insider had indeed assured the Canadians that their rhetoric was campaign posturing. Think the Corporatists are backing their own, regardless of party or country.

[papau]

3. The problem is not that Obama is a liar that plans to treat "campaign promises" as meaningless?

[Peace Patriot]

4. I read the full transcript and it was nothing like the leak. The gist of it was

that Obama was not as concerned about negative impacts of "free trade" with a first world country like Canada--a statement that is consistent with a social justice position (i.e., "Free trade" mostly hurts third--and second--world countries.*) His aide was saying that, when they criticize "free trade," they DO NOT MEAN CANADA. This was very clearly the context. They were NOT saying 'we're anti-NAFTA in public, but not really.'

Clinton's statement was MUCH MORE two-faced. I don't have the source handy for either privately stated position. But I do remember, in comparing them, that Obama's position was much more defensible, and much less hypocritical, than Clinton's.

Also, there was criticism of Obama by Clinton supporters (can't recall if it came from Clinton herself)--before Clinton's contact with the Canadians came out--for having ANY private contact with foreign governments--an absurd criticism. MANY serious presidential candidates begin forming a diplomatic team and making contacts with some foreign governments before they win nomination or election. They would be derelict in their duty if they didn't. It is expected. It is common practice. And it is a practical necessity. This ADDITIONAL, non-sensical criticism alerted me to the likelihood that the whole thing was a dirty trick. When it emerged that Clinton had had a similar contact and had said something far more two-faced, the Clinton campaign quickly shut up about it, and the motives of the Canadians on the Obama leak became even more suspect.

------

*I think NAFTA is bad for everybody--and it's obviously bad for U.S. workers. It tends to weaken worker protections, and bring everybody down to the lowest level, as to salaries, benefits, etc. It is greatly harmful to labor unions. It enables global corporate predators to move their operations from any area or country where labor unions exist, or where they begin to be organized. NAFTA should be rescinded, and all trade agreements re-negotiated. It was a bad, bad policy to begin with--and one that Hillary Clinton fully supported. Obama is too centrist on this issue, in my opinion. For instance, he opposes the Colombian "free trade" deal (which has been tabled in Congress), because it contains no labor or environmental protections (and Colombia is HORRIBLE--they chainsaw union leaders and throw their body parts into mass graves, in Colombia), and he supported the Peru "free trade" agreement because it contains such provisions; however, ONLY ON PAPER. The corrupt assholes running Peru (and the global corporate predators who are their buds) can get around any such rules, and the current corrupt asshole who is president of Peru, Alan Garcia, has seen his popularity sink to 25% because U.S. "free trade" has been so bad for Peru.