Transterrestrial Musings




Defend Free Speech!


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay




Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« An Interesting Thought Experiment | Main | A Duty To Not Vote »

Prove Me Wrong, LA Times

OK, since we're apparently free to use our imagination, here's what I think happened at that party.

There are PLO and Hamas flags decorating the room, along with Che and Mao posters. Khalidi, Ayers and Obama are slapping each others' backs, raising their glasses and toasting the upcoming destruction of the racist Zionist entity, all the while laughing at the thought of the final Final Solution. Obama says, "You know, when I take over, the first thing I'll do is withdraw all aid from those fascist kikes, and I'll give the Palis a couple nukes." Then he turns to Ayers, and asks him if he's come up with any fresh schemes for mass murder of the millions of recalcitrant capitalists, so that they can be implemented in the first one hundred days. After dessert, they get out an American flag, crumple it up on the floor, and jump up and down on it, shouting "Death to Capitalism, Death to America."

No?

That's not how it went down? Well, prove me wrong, LA Times. Show the tape.

[Late morning update]

Doug Ross writes that he has gotten a tip from a person who claims to have viewed it:

Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."


It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha's why they will not even let a transcript get out.

Yes, don't want to have a little controversy disturb an upcoming coronation.

 
 

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Prove Me Wrong, LA Times.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10593

37 Comments

Bruce Rheinstein wrote:

I picture the LA Times releasing a highly edited version of the tape, a day or two before the election, as proof that there is nothing newsworthy about it.

Todd wrote:

Great, now the tape, destined for the obama presidential library, will seem tame by comparison, no matter how harsh it is. ;-)

Bah. By this time, the tape has been scrubbed of anything incriminating about Obama, kind of like the Annenberg record at UIC.

John Nolte wrote:

Rand: I have a serious as a heart attack offer of $150,000 for a copy of that tape.

http://dirtyharrysplace.com/?p=5296

j wrote:

Be very careful circulating rumours. If they are false it will obscure what is already known to be true about the meeting.

K T Cat wrote:

What makes you think they care about you? They're looking death square in the face in the form of business failure at the LA Times. They're counting on becoming a ward of the state should Obama win.

Like they care about your opinion. Ha!

Anna wrote:

From Doug Ross' blog, a supposed tip from LA on what's supposed to be on the tape:

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha's why they will not even let a transcript get out.

Anonymous wrote:

prove wrong?

you made the assertion
you have to prove it
not the la times


MORON

Rand Simberg wrote:

you made the assertion
you have to prove it

I can't prove it, Anonymous Moron. The LA Times refuses to release the evidence. So all I can do is speculate. They're the only ones in a position to prove, or disprove it.

NancyGee wrote:

I wonder how much advertising the LA Times has lost this week on account of their refusal to give up this tape. Someone with an "in" at the LAT should ask the advertising people there that question.

Question for professional journalists: would a newspaper on life support continue to run last week's ads just to fill up space and to camouflage how many advertisers have pulled their ads and fled screaming for the hills?

Question #2: would that be illegal in that if the advertisers have pulled their ads, then the Times should be prohibited from using their names in vain?

II wrote:

Demonizing Khalidi?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi

I mean what do you want, that a serious academic and scholar who happens to be of Palestinian origin should agree 100% with Israeli policies?

His positions don't seem much different from those of a significant (minority) school of Jewish thought not just here in the US but in Israel.

To call him a terrorist is ridiculous. By that token every Arab American that passes muster must be a 100% supporter of every Israeli policy. Is that what McCain-Palin wants?

Any small Arab American support for McCain will vaporize if this is where he is going. And didn't a committee chaired by McCain fund some of Khalidi's research ?

Jim wrote:

Be careful what you wish for. If an incendiary tape is released, and Obama wins anyway, that builds a mandate for a pro-Palestinian foreign policy (not that I'd expect Obama to pursue such a policy, but it would give him more political running room to do so).

Similarly, when McCain calls Obama the most liberal Democratic candidate to ever be nominated for the presidency, and a socialist, that makes the election a referendum on liberalism and socialism. Does the right really want to live with the results of such a referendum?

If I was a Republican or conservative or libertarian right now I'd be trying to minimize the implications of this election, rather than exaggerating the differences between the candidates.

Dan wrote:

"Be careful what you wish for. If an incendiary tape is released, and Obama wins anyway, that builds a mandate for a pro-Palestinian foreign policy"

Awesome! A pro Pallie foreign policy just accelerates the eventual war that's been kicked down the road for decades.

Maybe the region can finally get closure.

Just thinking back wrote:

I wonder if the tape is 18 minutes long. Can you see the same rigorous pursuit?

Rand Simberg wrote:

His positions don't seem much different from those of a significant (minority) school of Jewish thought not just here in the US but in Israel.

Then Obama shouldn't mind having the video shown, right?

jasperjava wrote:

There's nearly zero chance of anything controversial on that tape. If there were, don't you think that one of the attendees would have talked about it since Obama rose to national prominence?

Obama is strongly pro-Israel. Like many Americans (and Israelis), this is not incompatible with sympathy towards the Palestinians. Being in favor of a two-state lasting peace doesn't make you anti-Israel.

The way that innocuous statements about taxes have been transformed into a Marxist call for class struggle, I'm sure that mild expressions of solidarity with the Palestinians will be twisted into support for suicide bombers.

pookie wrote:

Nearly Zero chance of anything controversial? To Who? Why would you choose this word, controversial?
The tape, unedited, would speak for itself. The only controversy here is the suppression, and witholding of the tape. I see this as being symbolic of Obamas entire candidacy.

Shubber Ali wrote:

How about this trade:

Obama gets the LA Times to release the video, and McCain turns over his medical records.

jay77 wrote:

Jasperjava

if Obama did say Israel is guilty of genocide, I dont think he could be called pro-israel. Or an accurate thinker, as well.

Korla Pundit wrote:

>How about this trade: Obama gets the LA Times to release the video, and McCain turns over his medical records.

Doy-Hickey! It's Obama who refuses to release his medical records. McCain did allow the media full access to his records: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEFD7133EF935A35751C1A96F958260

Obama won't release anything: his college transcripts, his medical records, his complete donor list, the name of his former drug dealer (why is his admitted coke use never discussed, while Bush was constantly falsely accused of snorting the stuff). He tried to suppress the Annenberg Challenge records. He whitewashed all possible traces of his Marxist past off the web: his membership in the New Party, his relationships with various enemies foreign and domestic. All of it goes down the memory hole, and any that are exposed get thrown under the bus. "Not the ___ I know!"

For somebody who has written more autobiographies than anybody I know, he is the most blank page ever written.


Leland wrote:

I say careful what you wish for in another vain... The way for LAT to play this is to refuse to release it for a few days. People speculate the worst of it, and as j suggested, then they release it and it seems tame. Further, they can even release an edited version suggesting it is the entire tape. By the time it gets sorted out, the election is over.

The real issue is at pookie states. It is not what Obama said or did not say; it is the LAT's refusal to provide the entire facts as they know it. That's basic journalism. The only arguement for withholding the tape would be cost of distribution, but we know that can be done cheaply, and they could easily turn a profit (they desperately need).

johngalt wrote:

Shubber Ali wrote:
"How about this trade:

Obama gets the LA Times to release the video, and McCain turns over his medical records."

DEAL! Where do we sign?

Pookie wrote:

Korla Pundit, You Nailed it. Leland, I see your point. The enhanced speculation is negated however
by the attempt to run for cover, doubly, First via
the exposure of possesion and again via refusal
to present the tape. How appropriate that we are in the season of the "mask" immediately prior to the election. Unfotunately when the costume comes off after this party, the reality of an Obama presidency would be the real horror show.

II wrote:

Rand said: Then Obama shouldn't mind having the video shown, right?

No.

Because all you need to do is show a picture of Khalidi with Obama at the party and write the words terrorist sympathizer in your dirty bomb Ad. That's how you guys win elections. It's hardly ever about facts. It's always innuendo.

After all, Max Cleland wasn't patriotic enough for you, how could Obama ever be?

Rand Simberg wrote:

That's how you guys win elections.

What "guy" do you fantasize that I am, Anonymous Moron? A non-Democrat?

Pookie wrote:

II, regarding innuendo and facts, even a picture of Dan Rather standing next to an old typewriter wouldnt make that statement true.

BobDD wrote:

Somebody still pulling the ol' Max Cleland switcheroo? Wow, is that one stale!

Anonymous wrote:

Your best hope these days is for someone to assassinate Obama.

You clearly are doing your little bit to motivate the event.

Obama has repeated, over and over again, his unconditional support for Israel.

Yet you and Joe Wurzelwhatever, the new McCain campaign spokesman, want to promote the idea that electing him would be death for Israel.

No matter that Jews are everywhere in his campaign and among his foremost supporters.

Disgusting.


Rand Simberg wrote:

Your best hope these days is for someone to assassinate Obama.

You clearly are doing your little bit to motivate the event.

Great.

Now we not only have Anonymous Morons, but Anonymous Lunatics.

Jim C. wrote:

II wrote, Demonizing Khalidi?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi

I mean what do you want, that a serious academic and scholar who happens to be of Palestinian origin should agree 100% with Israeli policies?

II, wikipedia is not a completely reliable source, and even less so on controversial subjects like this.

Besides, Ayers is considered a "serious academic and scholar".

Anonymous wrote:

Khalidi Tape: The L.A. Times Is on Firm Journalistic Ground

By Bill Sammon
Deputy Managing Editor, Washington Bureau, FOX News Channel

Iím no cheerleader for The Los Angeles Times and Iíd like to see their videotape of Barack Obama praising a PLO activist as much as the next guy, but as far as I can tell, the newspaper is on firm journalistic ground in refusing to make the tape public.

To me, itís pretty simple. Reporter Peter Wallsten made an agreement with a source to refrain from publicly disclosing the tape. Unless that source lets Wallsten off the hook, the reporter is journalistically bound to abide by the agreement, regardless of how much heat his newspaper takes from pundits on TV.

Indeed, Wallsten has little choice in the matter. If he were to cave in to mounting public demands for the tape, no self-respecting source would ever give him another shred of information. Nor should they.

inmypajamas wrote:

"Wallsten has little choice in the matter"

Well, maybe, if he is actually telling the truth about his source. And I say just possibly maybe because most journalists live for exposure and the "big story". I'm supposed to believe that this reporter is forgoing both to protect his source? Right.

Joe Melnick wrote:

You know, I'd love to see Obama's medical records. He's a 20+ year smoker and all we've seen is a one-page letter from his doctor. McCain submitted about 1000 pages! Granted, that raises questions of its own but transparency is not one of them. Less than a week to go and nobody knows who Obama is!

If the LA Times can release irrelevant video of Arnold to screw up his election chances, surely they can release a transcript of a video that may offer needed insight into this blank slate of a candidate. Is he sharing drinks and laughs with the guy in his neighborhood he barely knows? A harmless enough activity apart from the odious company he keeps, but it would prove him to be a liar as well. You wouldn't need to disclose the source and it wasn't a private event with an expectation of privacy.

Karl Hallowell wrote:

II, you wrote:

To call him a terrorist is ridiculous. By that token every Arab American that passes muster must be a 100% supporter of every Israeli policy. Is that what McCain-Palin wants?

You seem to be the only one wanting to do so. The only place "terrorist" is used is by you in describing Khalidi. I wonder how you can live with the disappointment that someone somewhere is not living down to your cartoonish expectations.

Anonymous wrote:

inmypajamas wrote: "I'm supposed to believe that this reporter is forgoing both to protect his source?"

Yep, no reporter'd ever do anything like that, nor go to jail to protect a source. Certainly not Judith Miller.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Yep, no reporter'd ever do anything like that, nor go to jail to protect a source.

Apples and eggs, Anonymous Moron.

No one is asking the LA Times to reveal the source. They're just asking them to release the video. Anyway, the story sounds like bullshit. Why would a source give a video to a newspaper, but ask them not to release it?

Andy Freeman wrote:

> Your best hope these days is for someone to assassinate Obama.

I thought that the left liked him....

After all, assassination is a largely leftist tactic in the US.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
 

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on October 29, 2008 6:53 AM.

An Interesting Thought Experiment was the previous entry in this blog.

A Duty To Not Vote is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1