12 Comments

The Khalidi tape will not determine the election but it might have a lot to do with the future of the Times. What is annoying is the failure of people like Sean Hannity to recognize the difference between the Obama dinner and McCain’s willingness to support the Palestinians in 1998 when people still had hopes that the Palestinians would accept a solution along the lines of the Oslo accords. I’m afraid the people who are supposed to explain McCain’s positions are not very well informed. I feel like I did in 1976 when Ford blew the question about Poland in the debate with Carter.

The LA Times is lying in such an over-the-top fashion about “protecting a source” here that it’s laughable.

Let’s try to reconstruct the scenario they’re asking us to buy into here.

1). Someone who does not want what is on that video exposed to the public gave the video to a newspaper. Seems a VERY poor way keep something from being exposed if you have sole position of it and could have just NOT given it to a newspaper to begin with.

2). Someone who provided a video to a print publication stipulated that it be written about but not aired–as if videos are something we often see in our newspapers. (Asking for such a thing, it should be pointed out, would mean that the source anticipated that the contents of the video are extremely newsworthy, which in turn forces us to wonder yet again why they’d give it to a newspaper if they wanted it kept private.)

But for the sake of argument, let’s posit that 1 and 2 are accurate portrayals of what really occurred. Where does that leave us?

First, let’s be clear: anonymity of the source is obviously not at issue here. The LAT could easily release the video without releasing the name of who gave it to them. Someone (those in the Obama campaign or associated with the event, for instance) might know whose possession the video was in, and then publicize it in reaction to the airing of the video–but that would be THEIR doing, not the LA Times’, and can be no factor in any agreement made between the LA Times and its source.

Hence, whatever agreement the LAT entered into regarding the video, if they in fact entered into any such agreement, concerned keeping its CONTENTS private and beyond public scrutiny.

This is remarkable–and is actually the most disturbing of possible scenarios. To keep something potentially damaging to a public figure out of circulation, you give it to the LA Times and DICTATE to them exactly what they can and cannot do with it. And the LA Times, an ostensible news organization, agrees to be bound by such an agreement and dutifully publicizes a version of the event which adheres to unusually stringent limitations demanded by the video’s source. The only honorable thing to do in response to such demands would be to walk.

Thus, there are two and only two possibilities here–and either leads to the same conclusion.

1). The LAT is lying about having an agreement with a source.

2). The LAT is telling the truth–and is willing to frame and disseminate news stories according to the dictates of its sources, omitting and disseminating exactly what they’re told.

In either case, the LAT would be (and hence is) willfully complicit in offering distorted versions of “the news” to protect and benefit a candidate for the presidency of the United States. They deserve nothing but scorn.

The blogger at Gateway Pundit broke this story. Wallsten told him essentially that he was not going to release the video because he was through w/ the story. It appears that it was only after the story got hot that the Times claimed their reason for not releasing the it was to protect their agreement with their source. See below http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/confirmed-msm-holds-video-of-barack.html

“On Wednesday I talked with Peter Wallsten from the Los Angeles Times about the article on Obama and Khalidi:

Wallston was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate.

Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story.

I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video. He also would not comment on his source for the video. Wallston also said he did not know if Khalidi’s good friend Bill Ayers was at the event or not.”

Why ‘protect’ a source if there is nothing on the tape?

If the reporter doesn’t know who is on the tape, how can he determine that the tape is considered ‘dangerous’ to the source?

Why compound the scrutiny on the LA Times’ actions (or non-actions) by hiding behind a ‘confidentiality agreement’ with an anonymous source?

This sounds more like the Times is trying to protect Obama by hiding behind the First Amendment. Therefore what is in the ‘public interest’ is determined only by the MSM and the particular candidate they are aligned with.

But Hermie, look on the bright side. Let’s say the election goes the O man’s way and, oh I don’t know, maybe the tape is released and it shocks the nation in greater force than the Watergrate crisis, Obama steps down and we inaugurate President-Elect Joe Biden on Jan 21.

“Obama steps down and we inaugurate President-Elect Joe Biden on Jan 21.”

Barack Obama will not likely step down, but he will be hugely unpopular. His poll numbers will be in the low thirties before even the first day in office. There will be no “honeymoon period.” The American public will be furious for being conned by the MSP (main street propagandists). It will bankrupt many of them.

My above comments are premised on the possibility that Obama wins on election Day. However, I still believe John McCain, in spite of his politically correct self, is going to capture the White House. It all comes down to turn out.

Unfortunately, Obama could toast to the memory of Yasser Arafat, while shaking hands with Osama Bin laden, while saying ‘Death to Israel…Death to the Jews’; and people like Sarah Silverman and Steven Spielburg would still defend him, while Chris Matthews gets another thrill up his leg.

Rove is the source.

It would be nice if there were something really damning on the video, but Obama supporters (not just the ones in the MSM, but the rest, too) are so wilfully ignorant of reality that it wouldn’t matter.

Obama’s anti-Israel stance is hidden in plain sight. He’s in the grievance business, and what group has been the western world’s main outlet for grievances since the crucifixion of Christ?

Scott

Here’s what Juan Cole says about McCain’s attack on Rashid Khalidi…

“Much of the assault on Khalidi comes from the American loony Zionist Right, which quietly supports illegal Zionist colonies in the West Bank and the ethnic cleansing of the remaining Palestinians. They have been tireless advocates of miring the US in wars in Iraq and Iran to ensure that their dreams of ethnic cleansing are unopposed. They are a tiny, cranky but well-funded group that has actively harassed anyone who disagrees with them (at one point, cued by Daniel Pipes, they cyberstalked Khalidi and clogged his email mailbox with spam for weeks at a time). All opinion polling shows that most American Jews are politically liberal, overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and support trading land for peace to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Khalidi is their political ally in any serious peace process, which many have recognized.”

(source: http://juancole.com/ scroll down to Oct 30 blog entry.)

Sorry to say, but Roger L. Simon is included in the group criticized by Juan Cole.

Oh, no, Nevada. Juan Cole has attacked me. Sacré bleu… but it’s not all bad. He said we were “well-funded.” Where’s my check?

Maybe it went to KEITH OBERMAN, Roger. I wonder if he will declare it . In any case the Jewish people are well aware of “ethnic cleansing”, that was a well
known Nazi Regime that used it to try and destroy them, not something used by the Jews. It is the Arab countries that are the wealthy in the world, yet
how many of these countries are willing to support the Palestinians. It was the Jewish settlers that left an area of homes and thriving hothouses growing food and were willing to help these same Palestinians to continue the business, yet there hatrid led them to destroy homes and potential self financialopportunity. You cannot say Khalidi is a political ally of the Jewish people when he continues to blame the Jews for all the problems of the Palestinian people, preaching hate is non productive. What amazes me is that such a tiny country and people have achieved so much by hard work , strong education of all its people, have surpassed there surounding countries, in what they have contributed to the world around them. Why does Khalidi not return to his native country and start educating the children of the Palestinian people, why is he unwilling to educate them to a more peaceful way of life.One other question, why does the media insist on refering to Sen. Obama, as does he as an African American, is he not born of an American mother from America and an African born father. I believe the birth mother is the first origin of birth, is he that ashamed of being first an American, then by this standard we all need to consider placing him in the White House as President.