If you hadn’t heard by now The LA Times is holding a video that shows Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who are completely and utterly hostile towards Israel. The tape apparently shows Obama giving a toast to former PLO operatives.
Some damning stuff right?
Well, the LA Times refuses to release the tape.
O’Reilly had a segment about this refusal by the LA Times:
Andrew McCarthy asks if there was a tape depicting McCain toasting terrorists, would the LA Times hold the tape?
Come on:
Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor … who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.
Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.
Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?
Do we really have to ask?
Holy cow, they would be doing backflips at their good fortune on getting such a tape. It would be front page news from coast to coast.
But it involves Obama and we get a story about the tape, but no tape produced.
The blatant bias is unconscionable….

See author page
Ummmm….that seems like a rhetorical question but only the MSM attempt to obfuscate the obvious. Question: Why don’t we have term limits? Answer: Because those who are directly and negatively affected by term limits will never put the matter on the ballot and allow the populace to vote on the matter. Thus the MSM will (and have) repressed every single negative fact about Obama as they have been able to do. The MSM is in the tank for Obama so why expect them to publish something that may cut into the Obama vote?
And also, since we now are informed this morning on Drudge that Michelle (My Belle) shops at J Crew and orders online, the mystery of that flowery piece of crap she wore to that debate and walked across stage doing her best Josephine Baker imitation is now put to rest.
**** ALERT ****
Please make this a main thread…
Ohio’s Head of Job and Family Services Approved a Child-Support Search on Joe Wurzelbacher Immediately After Third Debate;
Her Excuse? “Oh, We Always Do That”
Confirmed: Max Donor to Obama
Update: Yes, Helen Jones-Kelley (two e’s in Kelley) just happens to be a maximum $2300 contributor to Barack Obama.
http://minx.cc/?post=276707
According to Gateway Pundit earlier this month,
Here’s the Times piece:
The LA Times doesn’t have a tape. Peter Wallsten may have a tape. It’s his call, not the LA Times, if it even exists…
@Fit fit:
Those darned facts keep getting in the way of your story:
Wouldn’t it be nice for FoxNews to state that they have discovered a video of McCain, but feel it would be misinterpreted and so are not releasing it? The uproar would be deafening ! Then FoxNews could ask ‘Your concern about this video seems valid, so why are you not concerned with the LA Times video???’
seriously, I bet fit fit would read that again and manage to look over those words. This is serious crap, why would you look something like this completely over, even if there wasn’t a tape? Oh yeah, 8 is enough. And John voted with bush 90% of the time. Good points. Talking points is all they have. Nothing in terms of real politics. Funny, my wife and I seriously considered getting our passports ready before the election.
I think it was Mike or Aye that posted some pics from zombietime.com. I had never seen the site before so I started to browse through. Very interesting. I stumbled upon the “The ‘Walk for Life’ March and Counter-Demonstration” link. Not sure if it will show up, but it is here:
http://www.zombietime.com/walk_for_life/
use caution if you are at work as the left nuts do not care who they offend with their signs and demonstrations.
Anyway, I found the following quote that sums up the complete liberal thought process in this country [expletives contained from quote]. It seems that even the ‘moderate’ liberals are more along the lines of ‘moderate’ islam… doesn’t exist.
Quote:
When one young anarchist expressed infuriated incomprehension that the Christians could be allowed to display their messages, a friendly but stern policeman patiently explained to him the definition of “free speech.” The anarchist retorted, “But who the hell do they think they are, saying that shit here?”
priceless…
Aye,
Yeah I read that part. Still doesn’t mean there’s a tape with anything interesting on it.
In case you didn’t notice, Wallsten the guy who broke the story. If he produced such an incriminating story, I doubt he has any interest in protecting Obama. Probably another “Whitey tape”.
@Fit fit:
So now we’ve gone from “there is no tape” to “a tape with nothing interesting” on it.
Keep spinning.
Did anyone bother to read the LA Times article that Wordsmith diligently posted at #3? If Khalidi really is a “terror monger” and Jew basher,” there is enough to inculpate Barrack Obama in that article. What more do you expect to find in this videotape, the existence of which is suspect?
Khalidi a “terror monger? A “Jew basher”? Because someones supports Palestinians does not make him a supporter of terrorism. Just as criticizing Israel does not make one anti-Semitic. This is a canard and a calumny designed to smear and stifle those who take those positions.
The following is transcript of a discussion between Daniel Pipes and Mr. Khalidi on Scarborough Country. You’ll learn that Mr. Khalidi unequivocably renounces the killing of innocent civilians as an acceptable mode of struggle, either for the Palestinians or the Israelis.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1234
Dave (not) Noble,
I read your link. What a farce! Khalidi spinning and lying just like Obama does all the time. But he sure didn’t fool Daniel Pipes who knows that Khalidi hates Israel. Dave, your are a joke and your ar not a bit “noble”. This interview was not a conversation between Pipes and Khalidi, it was one between Khalidi and Scarborough. Pipes only said one or two sentences, but he sure did defeat that antisemite.
Just for you Dave:
Tomorrow-Oct- 5-Daniel Pipes on Khalidi and Obama…what they don’t want you to know…
http://thesilentmajority.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/tomorrow-oct-5-daniel-pipes-on-khalidi-and-obamawhat-they-dont-want-you-to-know/
N.B.: Note that the article you have linked, Dave, was done in August, 2003… mine is in October, 2008.
I find it very interesting that the righties complain about MSM bias as often as you do.
Yet, when the fairness doctrine is brought up to re-enact you complain and whine about it…
What do you really want? you want to have it your way in both cases.
I suppose you could always just watch Fox Noise and be satisfied.
It would take one of your mentality to go from the 4th branch of power behaving badly to government mandates, Sky55110/RAP.
Is the media behaving badly? Yes. Hear from a multi-generational journalist who eloquently states his embarrassment of today’s “dumbed down American” journalist grads.
Does that mean when we decry the media – who is charged with educating American’s with the facts in order to place a wise vote – that we advocate the fairness doctrine?
Absolutely not.
Are you new here? Or just that unbelievably clueless?
Nice try, Craig. The difference between my article and yours is that mine contains Khailidi’s own words and yours is what Daniel Pipes says Khalidi believes. In a court of law that’s called hearsay testimony. In this case from a biased witness. Daniel Pipes is a man of strong opinions. He had his chance to confront Khalidi in the Scarborough interview. Instead he smears Khalidi behind his back.
Give me an example of an anti-Semitic remark by Rashid Khalidi.
By the way you win the weakest rhetorical move award:
YOU: He supports terrorism.
ME: Know he doesn’t. Here’s what he actually thinks about terrorism.
YOU: Yeah, but he’s lying.