LA Times Refuses to Release Tape of Obama Praising Controversial Activist

[The Reaper]

No surprises here.

Do you think they might be in the tank for The One?

TR

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...sial-activist/

LA Times Refuses to Release Tape of Obama Praising Controversial Activist

Video of farewell party for alleged PLO worker shows Obama toasting 'friend and dinner companion' with questionable past.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape that it says shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who was an alleged mouthpiece for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was a designated terrorist group in the 1970s and '80s.

According an LA Times article written by Peter Wallsten in April, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, who from 1976 to1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO.

Click here to read the original LA Times story: 'Palestinians See a Friend in Barack Obama.'

In the article -- based on the videotape obtained by the Times -- Wallsten said Obama addressed an audience during a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, who was Obama's colleague at the University of Chicago, before his departure for Columbia University in New York. Obama said his many talks with Khalidi and his wife Mona stood as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

Khalidi is currently the Edward Said professor of Arab Studies at Columbia. A pro-Palestinian activist, he has been a fierce critic of American foreign policy and of Israel, which he has accused of establishing an "apartheid system" of government. The PLO advocate helped facilitate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the early '90s, but he has denied he was ever an employee of the group, contradicting accounts in the New York Times and Washington Times.

The LA Times told FOXNews.com that it won't reveal how it obtained the tape of Khalidi's farewell party, nor will the newspaper release it. Spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan said the paper is not interested in revisiting the story. "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she said.

The newspaper reported Tuesday evening in a story on its Web site that the tape was from a confidential source.

"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," the Times' editor, Russ Stanton, said. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

In recent months Obama has distanced himself from the man the Times says he once called a friend. "He is not one of my advisers. He's not one of my foreign policy people," Obama said at a campaign event in May. "He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

But on the tape, according to the Times, Obama said in his toast that he hoped his relationship with Khalidi would continue even after the professor left Chicago. "It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table ... [but around] this entire world."

A number of Web sites have accused the Times of purposely suppressing the tape of the event -- which former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn reportedly attended.

Sullivan said she would not give details of what else may be on the tape, adding that anyone interested in the video should read the newspaper's report, which was its final account.

"This is a story that we reported on six months ago, so any suggestion that we're suppressing the tape is absurd -- we're the ones that brought the existence of the tape to light," Sullivan said.

The Los Angeles Times endorsed Obama for president on October 19.

[Red Flag 1]

TR,

I have to wondrer why the LA Times said anything at all? Truely in the tank would suggest you destroy the evidence and say nothing.

Perhaps there is a small ember of journalism still in the print media.

Time now for a real principled journalist to step up to the plate, make a deal and break open this story!

My $.02.


RF 1

[Defender968]

Not surprised at all, it's funny I made the statement last night to my folks that I believe there could be three independently taken videos of BHO executing a 4 year old child with a handgun, while smoking a joint, with a male prostitute on his arm holding a Koran and the MSM would simply ignore it and/or discredit the people who took the videos, they are just that far in the tank for him, it's disgusting.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Red Flag 1

TR,

I have to wondrer why the LA Times said anything at all? Truely in the tank would suggest you destroy the evidence and say nothing.

Perhaps there is a small ember of journalism still in the print media.

Time now for a real principled journalist to step up to the plate, make a deal and break open this story!

My $.02.


RF 1

Red Flag 1 you have more faith than I do, it sounds like the LA Times was covering their A$$ to me, here is what I mean. If a couple of folks knew about the tape then the Times would have to do something with it, because 2 people can keep a secret only if one of them is dead. So if a couple of folks knew about the tape at least, let's say Joe Q Video holder, the Reporter he told, and that Reporters boss something has to give, if the Times does nothing, they know that is a potentially large liability for them, and there is a better than 50/50 chance that it's going to come out eventually. So to negate that liability they do a minimalist story and put it on a back page in small print, with the caveat that they "agreed" not to release the tape, for confidentiality reasons. This allows them to keep their journalistic "integrity" while not hurting their chosen one.

The big question is why would anyone give that tape to a news organization if they did not want it to be released? If the person who took it/had it was a BHO supporter they'd have taken it home and burned it. If they were not a BHO supporter but not a McCain supporter and had half a brain in their head they'd realize that the tape would be worth $$$ to an unbiased media outlet (if one exists), or the McCain campaign. If the tape holder was a McCain supporter he'd have sold it directly to the McCain campaign made a few bucks, helped the cause, and made sure the info came out.

My guess is the person who had it was probably not a supporter of either campaign and/or they were probably an amateur that didn't' realize what they were getting into. Let me paint a picture for you, Joe Q Video holder comes forward to a large media outlet they are familiar with expecting to get paid for his video and here's how it goes down.

Joe Q Video holder. "Hey Mr. LA Times Reporter I've got a tape of Senator/Presidential frontrunner BHO toasting a terrorist while sitting with unrepentant Domestic terrorist Bill Ayres what are you willing to give me for it" LA Times Reporter, "Well why don't we meet in a couple of days and let me see it and then we'll talk money" Mr. Reporter then tells his boss, who in turn calls a connection in the DNC and lets them know what they've stumbled onto, in the mean time they dig up any and all dirt on Joe Q Video holder like they did on Joe the plumber, then the meet happens, but instead of just Mr. Reporter, it's 1 step removed DNC thug for deniability reasons holding whatever they've found on Joe and or who's ready to hurt Joe if need be, and Mr. Reporter. Now the conversation goes down this way, Mr. Reporter "Ok Joe show me what you've got" while DNC thug looks menacing in the background. Joe shows tape, Reporter says I'll take it but there's a catch, DNC thug steps forward (bad cop) and has photos or physically intimidates Joe and says bad things happen to people who release this kind of tape, bad things......I wouldn't do it if I were you... or if..... Reporter steps in (good cop) and says "I'll tell you what, we'll break the story but not release the tape and we'll protect your identity that way everyone wins." DNC thug looks menacing, but shrugs in grudging agreement. Joe, who's not too bright feels relieved, he's bringing it forward but not getting screwed now, but he still wants to get paid, so he says that would be great how much do I get for it, Reporter gives Joe a couple thousand dollars and says if you don't say anything you'll safe and good to go. Joe takes the money but is still scared about whatever the DNC thug did/said so he stays hidden. LA Times reporter gets a boost from his boss who gets a boost from DNC thugs bosses and or his LA Times bosses, tape gets put in a safe just in case things get bad if they're smart, or gets handed over to DNC thug if they're not, and we get to where we are today.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but my gut tells me this is likely how it went down, as there are too many angles that just don’t meet up otherwise. Just my .02

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Red Flag 1

TR,

I have to wondrer why the LA Times said anything at all? Truely in the tank would suggest you destroy the evidence and say nothing.

If anything was learned during the Clinton administration is that you want to get out in front of the story and control how it is told. The story was going to get out there eventually so the Times did a puff piece on it, and then hoped it would go away or wouldn't be discovered until after the election. Now they can claim that they aren't biased because they did report it. It is a very shallow and cynical approach to their job.

The only silver lining in all of this is that the press has finally revealed its true nature to a public that willingly had turned a blind eye to their shannigans and as a result they probably will never regain the public's trust. I hope 4 or 8 years of Obama was worth destroying their industry. Good for them.

[Sigaba]

If I recall correctly, the Los Angeles Times also told its reporters not to post comments regarding the then-breaking story of Senator Edwards's affair. In that case as well as this one, I don't understand the logic. The paper has a reputation for being one of the better broadsheets but this decision is another example of why I only use the paper for the box scores of NBA games.

If it is all right to discuss at length the alleged influence of "neo-conservative" academics such as the late Leo Strauss on policymakers then why not demonstrate an equivalent amount of rigor by exploring the impact of far left of center scholars on politicians and policy?

[afchic]

Either way, I think this turns out good for McCain. If it isn't released, people have to begin to wonder why. I am not talking about the die hard Obama fanatics, as has already been stated, no matter what he does these people don't care. I am talking about the very small percentage of people who haven't made up their mind yet. This might cause them to pause, and actually think about do they really want an Obama Presidency if these are the people he hangs out with.

Gentlemen, call me an optimist, but I think this is the Clinton's October surprise. Anyone care to place a bet that in fact this video does get released prior to Nov 4 and it is damning.

No chance of him wiggling out of this one, because it is on video. The news organizatins may come to realize they backed the wrong pony, and have to do something to regain a shread of credibility, and turn on the messiah in the last couple of days of the election.

I know, I may be living in fantasy land, but a girl can always hope.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by afchic

Either way, I think this turns out good for McCain. If it isn't released, people have to begin to wonder why. I am not talking about the die hard Obama fanatics, as has already been stated, no matter what he does these people don't care. I am talking about the very small percentage of people who haven't made up their mind yet. This might cause them to pause, and actually think about do they really want an Obama Presidency if these are the people he hangs out with.

Gentlemen, call me an optimist, but I think this is the Clinton's October surprise. Anyone care to place a bet that in fact this video does get released prior to Nov 4 and it is damning.

No chance of him wiggling out of this one, because it is on video. The news organizatins may come to realize they backed the wrong pony, and have to do something to regain a shread of credibility, and turn on the messiah in the last couple of days of the election.

I know, I may be living in fantasy land, but a girl can always hope.

I share your hopes, but suspect that they will slow roll it till after the election.

TR

[Sigaba]

The Los Angeles Times apparently had no issues publicizing the content an audio tape of Gov. Schwarzenegger.

Every news outlet has a bias but should that bias take precedence over a consistency of standards and practices?

[Richard]

It amazes me that someone could become Commander-in-Chief with such a long history of association with organizations and individuals who would preclude my obtaining the necessary security clearance to perform my military duties.

Richard's $.02

[HQ6]

Two things bother me on this issue. First, if it was McCain associating with domestic terrorists organizations, the MSM would crucify him. Second, NO ONE is carrying this story other than FoxNews. Libs seem to think FoxNews is SO biased, but the truth is that Fox is just the only new organization that dares to questions Obama the Great

Same thing about Palin's clothes... MSM seems to forget to millions spent on Obama's victory bash.

[stuW]

Obama's association with Khalidi isn't new, and the toast doesn't surprise me. His views on Israel appear to have changed quickly since deciding to run - beginning with his appearance at AIPAC. I'd say this story would impact that community (many Jews), but I'd say the info has already hit them.

My mother 6 months ago couldn't stop sending me emails that Obama was a Muslim and loved Palestinians. It might start those emails up again, but I honestly can't see this being a high impact story. I frankly don't think people outside of that community care enough, but I could be mistaken.

stu

[Richard]

Richard's $02

[Sigaba]

For me, this story is an example of the media's collective complicity in the dynamic that allows Senator Obama to not answer direct questions with straight answers.

Many media outlets, especially the New York Times, did some hand wringing for not being more diligent during the debate over Iraq's WMDs.

Their solution seems to be to challenge every position, policy, and comment of the Bush administration and the GOP but not to hold Democrats or Senator Obama to that same standard.

Why is one set of rules all right for one group and not for the other?

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

If I recall correctly, the Los Angeles Times also told its reporters not to post comments regarding the then-breaking story of Senator Edwards's affair. In that case as well as this one, I don't understand the logic. The paper has a reputation for being one of the better broadsheets but this decision is another example of why I only use the paper for the box scores of NBA games.

If it is all right to discuss at length the alleged influence of "neo-conservative" academics such as the late Leo Strauss on policymakers then why not demonstrate an equivalent amount of rigor by exploring the impact of far left of center scholars on politicians and policy?

Sigaba,

Your've finally got your avatar and it's pretty cool...

GB TFS