‘L.A. Times’ Refuses to Release Tape
Posted by Dirty Harry on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008
If this is the case, why did it take over a week for them to say so?
The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.
“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”
Anyone believe for a second that if Obama were the Republican we wouldn’t have already seen this tape? Good grief, there isn’t an arm of the liberal media who won’t publish every national security secret that comes there way, but this… Oh, no way.
It must truly be damning.
If you’re not going to release the tape L.A. Times, how about telling us if William Ayers was there?
Well, good. This frees John McCain to talk about this tape in the worst possible light based on the L.A. Times own reporting:
At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”
One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”
Obama sat there. Didn’t leave. Didn’t protest.
Sat.
There.
And to get ahead of the hoo-doo that he do so well — Obama was not eight years old while these reprehensible acts were happening … as he quietly sat there.
Sat.
There.
Filed in General |
A Conservative Teacheron 28 Oct 2008 at 6:56 pm 1Does it surprise you? I emailed the Times- they have someone there who answers concerns about “standards and practices,” so I sent a note there. Funny enough, I couldn’t find email addresses for any of the editors though. You know it’s a poopy paper when they have a complaint box but no email for the managers.
godzirraon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:00 pm 2Strange, but from my days in journalism school, I always thought it was the source’s name that you didn’t release… You were usually free to run with the information they provided.
Also strange that the Times was “ok’d” to write about the tape and some of its contents. I’d love to see the confidentiality agreement the source signed on to - “Yes, you can state that Obama was there, and that some Israel criticizing went on, but you can’t show the tape… Agreed?”
Woodward and Bernstein would be proud.
This scandal is in need of a good name - TimesGate just doesn’t do it.
Rashid-Obama-Ayers-Dohrn-Israel-is-a-cancer-Gate is a bit too long…
thudon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:09 pm 3We are in the last furlong…time to hammer away with this…if they will not show it then talk about it every second in every way untill they do…it’s a win win for us.
Hurfon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:13 pm 4There is nothing “reprehensible” about asserting that a Palestinian state is necessary for lasting peace, unless you consider Ariel Sharon an anti-Semitic Jew-hater.
HARRY HERE: Hurf, Shalidi called Israel a racist state. The fact that you choose to ignore that, not address it and gloss over it — tells me you are either intellectually dishonest or agree.
Liberals are welcome here, but not intellectually dishonest ones or anti-Semitic ones.
Kiton 28 Oct 2008 at 7:16 pm 5Dirty Harry,
How can you say such things about Obama?
To quote Jeff Dunham, “You racist bastard.”
whiskeyon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:21 pm 6It is reprehensible, Hurf, for Obama to sit there and endorse Khalid Shalidi’s celebration of the murder of the innocent Israeli children.
Which is exactly what happened on that tape.
Shalidi celebrated the murder of Israeli children, and called for more, as Obama clapped and applauded.
Which is EXACTLY why the LAT won’t release the tape — after all Obama’s hatred for Whites and Jews is well known.
Tommy Von 28 Oct 2008 at 7:35 pm 7I don’t believe this excuse for a second. They would have mentioned this before.
If you read Ben Smith’s blog post you will read him offer up this excuse as a solid and legitimate reason not to release the tape.
A few hours later and the LA Times gives this as the reason why they will not release the tape.
They’re disgusting. Every last one of them.
Tommy Von 28 Oct 2008 at 7:38 pm 8Not to mention the weird assertion that a source didn’t want the world to see the video tape… so they gave it to a newspaper.
Anyone else buy that logic?
Carolineon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:42 pm 9I’m with Tommy V. What I want to know is, does anyone else have a copy of that tape? The hotel? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Billon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:45 pm 10Nope. Don’t buy that logic. If it was someone on Obama’s side, why not destroy the tape or at least hide it away very securely? And if it was someone on McCain’s side, why not tell them to go ahead and show the tape?
wild billon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:48 pm 11just another sign on how the Media is in the Tank for a communist, and how the hell no one can see that is amazing, Spread the wealth…lol..let the government contol everything, including what I’m writing now will be suppressed if Barack Ole Mighty makes/gets his way in the White House…Semper Fi, bill
Johnny Ed's Babyon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:54 pm 12Hurf:
Unless you can answer truthfully that the right of return will not be a problem to Israel, don’t come here with that junk about all they want is a Palestinian state for lasting peace.
How’d that hand over of Gaza go? They really have a peaceful state there don’t they?
mjkon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:55 pm 13I wrote a letter to the LA Times about how disgraceful and cowardly this move was and I got nothing back. I suspect they got lots of letters and simply began to ignore them. Which is even more pathetic.
“There is nothing “reprehensible” about asserting that a Palestinian state is necessary for lasting peace, unless you consider Ariel Sharon an anti-Semitic Jew-hater.”
Hey, jackass, I think it’s perfectly lovely for the Palestinians to have a state. As long as they keep up their end of the bargain and keep the peace. But considering how they reacted when they took over Gaza, Bethlehem, Bethany, Jericho, Ramallah, I don’t know if it’s possible with the leadership they have. Israel and Palestine are not mutually exclusive properties, as Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dayan, and Shimon Peres believed. They CAN coexist beside each other. But the Palestinians actually have to keep up their end of the bargain and not blow up little Jews in Pizza Parlors or talk “itbach al-Yahud!” in the Mosques. Of course, you seem to be of the opinion that they can’t co-exist. Which is 18 different kinds of pathetic.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:56 pm 14tommy:
I know when I have a secret the first thing I think to do is give it to a newspaper.
I’m sure they had a good reason. Give me a couple of decades and I might come up with a reason you won’t laugh at.
mjkon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:56 pm 15Excuse me, I meant that Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres believed that both countries could exist together. Thought I worded that wrong….
laconicon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:57 pm 16Newt Gingrich has the best idea. Offer a substantial reward for a copy of the tape
laconicon 28 Oct 2008 at 7:58 pm 1775 staff to be fired at LA times, want severance pay;)
Johnny Ed's Babyon 28 Oct 2008 at 8:11 pm 18I guess hurf is done for the day here.
Axelrod has a list of other sites he has to get to today to make his quota.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 28 Oct 2008 at 8:15 pm 19O’Reilly just had a replay of Megyn Kelly ripping into Bill Burton. That women needs her own prime time show. Or just give her whatever beat will put her in the most contact with Burton.
tranquilitason 28 Oct 2008 at 8:22 pm 20Wonder how much the LA Times paid for it?
There’s got to be more evidence of this sort of participation by Obama at other events.
Gateway Pundit had this:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-documents-show-obama-was-member-of.html
maatkareon 28 Oct 2008 at 8:24 pm 21Quick reminder here: the Los Angeles Times is owned by Sam Zell, billionaire owner of the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Cubs, Tribune Company, real estate tycoon, etc., and he’s also been a big donor to many colleges, as well as several pro-Israel organizations. (Zell is Jewish, if I’m not mistaken) When he bought the Times he gutted a lot of it and fired a ton of people, causing all sorts of conniptions out here, and the quality of the paper (such as it is) did suffer, IMHO. The biggest complaint was the hometown paper is being run from Chicago. He’s donated to both parties, but I believe he leans conservative. So inquiries about the paper should probably be sent to him, in Chicago.
right hookon 28 Oct 2008 at 8:25 pm 22Something doesn’t feel right about this. Why claim they have a damaging tape, drop a few bombs about its contents and then play coy and refuse to release it? Some trolls at Redstate were dutifully posting talking points from the Huffington Post about McCain’s connections to the same group. Surely someone else has a copy of this tape… I hope so.
Supramom2000on 28 Oct 2008 at 9:20 pm 23I am posting this in several threads. Great and awesome news. And refutes Whiskey’s women in love with Obama theory.
http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccains-pollster-discusses-voter-trends.html
Good reading.
Scotton 28 Oct 2008 at 11:56 pm 24Remember the LA Times for what it was…founded by Harrison Gray Otis..the greatest Republican newspaper in the USA…along with the Chicago Tribune
Scotton 28 Oct 2008 at 11:56 pm 25Sad…
Ashleyon 29 Oct 2008 at 12:54 am 26Obama has a lot to hide.
David123456on 29 Oct 2008 at 5:50 am 27The MSM is dying. Obama is their only hope for survival. The so-called “Fairness” Doctrine promises to crush the MSM’s rivals and restore the MSM to it’s rightful place. That is the long and short of why the MSM is so desperately and shamelessly backing the Marxist this election season.
misanthropicuson 29 Oct 2008 at 7:56 pm 28The more LA Times drag their feet in this Khalidi-Obama affair, the more credence they give to the talk about the “whitey” tape - is it possible to get close to Obama without being exposed to embarrassing and probably criminal figures?
Now on a lighter tone, apropos de Grimaldi of Monaco - is he a true Grimaldi?