* Yes, We Can. . . lie to America!

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Yes, We Can. . . lie to America!

Yes, We Can. . . lie to the American People.

Initially, they decried this as a lie, as never happening.
Now Obama's people are saying that they were not quoted accurately.
What exactly did the campaign say?

==============================

SAN ANTONIO (AP) - campaign_minute Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser said Sunday that Canadian government officials wrote an inaccurate portrayal of his private discussion on the campaign's trade policy in a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "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."

"This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.

=======================================

Sorry JeffC, but apparently the rumors were true afterall. I kind of figured they were inaccurate and used by the Clintons as a last ditch effort to smear Obama, but they now appear to be true.
That's the kind of Change America Wants.
We don't want lies from a white man, We want lies from a black man. Change, Yes We Can!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V5TRCG0&show_article=1

Richard Hobbs's blog | login to post comments

What Richard?

Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 8:48am.

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."

Obama in the debate: "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

Goolsbee said he has been surprised that such a banal and trivial meeting with a low-level consulate official has created so much controversy and resulted in such an inaccurate depiction.

Me too.

Besides that, even though Goolsbee advises Obama, he was meeting with the Canadians as a professor from the University of Chicago, not as a representative of Obama’s campaign. The article specifically says, “He was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign.”

After 8 years of Bush, this is supposed to be the big lie that disqualifies Obama?

Obama Adviser Denies Trade Remarks

------------------
McCain: 'Like Hope. But Different.'

What lies??? Cmon, Jeff

Submitted by other_side_trax on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 2:14pm.

You stated, "After 8 years of Bush, this is supposed to be the big lie that disqualifies Obama?"

Herein, you imply that that Bush has been telling lies. Please list them all for me.

But remember, a lie is a pre-meditated untruth.

So the statements about WMDs don't count. Or else you have to call EVERYONE a liar, Repubs and Dems.

Don't bother bringing up Guantanamo or the treatment of
detainess, either. Your arguments are all bluster and no fact.

If you really want to talk about LIES recommend you refer to the Clinton presidency (impeached for committing perjury). Last time I checked, perjury was a lie.

From the other side of the tracks

Other_side_trax

Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 2:54pm.

There are way too many lies for me to list them all, but if you want to you can go to the Center for Public Integrity’s web site where they have indexed 935 lies made by President Bush and his administration members. They are all in a searchable database. You can call them up by topic or date range:

False Pretenses

------------------
"President Bush talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years. Maybe a hundred, that's fine with me. I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years." John McCain

other side

Submitted by sageadvice on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 2:31pm.

Bill Clinton wasn't "impeached," he was tried and found not guilty!
there are no lies in Washington, anyway---just opinions that change often.
He did have trouble with the exact definition of "is." "Is," really means "be." I be hungry!
To say she is here is different than to say she be where!

To say sex is anything with a woman is different than to say sex be anything with a woman!

To "be" or not to "be" is different than to "is" or not to "is!"

Don't confuse with the Wizard of "Ozz."

Tried and found not guilty???

Submitted by other_side_trax on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 4:10pm.

Fact: Bill Clinton Lied. So often, so repeatedly, that for him, it became the truth.

Fact: He was impeached.

Fact: He was foung "not guilty" in a party line vote of US senators. So what.

Yeah, that's a real trial that I put faith in. After all, everyone knows Clinton never lied and OJ Simpson is INNOCENT, right?

From the other side of the tracks

Once again other

Submitted by sageadvice on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 4:20pm.

When will you get it? Impeach means to "charge," not find guilty. He was found not guilty of the charges and the impeachment!

You say you have no confidence in the charge procedure, but you also say they should have found him guilty. What difference does it make if the procedure is faulty?

Have men and women ever lied about one another, ever, before? Oh, no more than several million times!

You just don't like his party and his friends, that is all.

Sage, you doufus

Submitted by other_side_trax on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 4:29pm.

In your previous post, you claimed "Clinton was not impeached"!

REPEAT: he was impeached. he was impeached.

And the Senate, in a party line vote, VOTED him not guilty.

He was STILL IMPEACHED you doufus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The impeachment is the trial. If he had been found guilty, he would have been REMOVED from office (not impeached, you doufus)

From the other side of the tracks

Sage . . .

Submitted by other_side_trax on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 4:45pm.

"President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Paula Jones law suit. The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 50 senators voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty."

From the other side of the tracks

Just for trax: The Lies of George W. Bush