LA Times Suppressing Obama's Tribute to an Anti-Israel, PLO Operative

FranchiseBlade · Oct 29, 2008

giddyup said:

I thought the US wasn't a Christian nation anymore?
Click to expand...

Anymore? It never was.

gifford1967 · Oct 29, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

Uh-oh....

Good grief, what is Michelle wearing? Did she steal a piece of orange astroturf from UT's baseball stadium?

And with that little nugget, I will bid you a

GOOD NIGHT
Click to expand...

tj is pissing himself in frustration that Obama is already innoculated from the latest wingtard smear because, funnily enough, McCain helped to send this guy hundreds of thousands of dollars. Bummer that.

All in all this must be a bewildering time for our little teejster. The slimy tactics that have served the Republicans so well for election cycle after election cycle are losing steam. Nothing they do seems to have any impact.

El_Conquistador · Oct 29, 2008

This is a RUMOR circulating the blogosphere, and will remain so until the LA Times releases the tape, but here are two excerpts from Baraq Obama from the tape:

"Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine"

"...genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

POWERFUL

JuanValdez · Oct 29, 2008

ling ling said:

By itself, probably nothing really.

But... he's another guy in the neighborhood.

Obama "An acorn does not fall far from the tree"

Perhaps he and his neighbors are from the same tree.
Click to expand...

I hope so. I took a class from Khalidi and he was advisor on my junior project. He's good company for Obama to keep. Wait... did I just kill my presidential aspirations?

DaDakota · Oct 29, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

"...genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."
Click to expand...

Oh, man, you have officially turned into a:

DD

farrisdabis · Oct 29, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

This is a RUMOR circulating the blogosphere, and will remain so until the LA Times releases the tape, but here are two excerpts from Baraq Obama from the tape:

"Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine"

"...genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

POWERFUL
Click to expand...

I don't see what's so "POWERFUL" about those quotes. They're not exactly false. It's obvious there is a genocide taking place there

FranchiseBlade · Oct 29, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

This is a RUMOR circulating the blogosphere,
POWERFUL
Click to expand...

If you have proof post it. Otherwise it's against the rules to peddle unsubstantiated rules on this bbs.

Let's clean it up TJ.

El_Conquistador · Oct 29, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

Good grief, what is Michelle wearing? Did she steal a piece of orange astroturf from UT's baseball stadium?
Click to expand...

Excuse me friends, I would like to amend the above statement. I now believe that Michelle Obama is not wearing a piece of UT astroturf, but rather she has stolen Reverend Wright's commemorative 2003 Red River Shootout Dashiki and attempted to make a hideous blouse out of it.

MORE TO COME

percicles · Oct 29, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

Excuse me friends, I would like to amend the above statement. I now believe that Michelle Obama is not wearing a piece of UT astroturf, but rather she has stolen Reverend Wright's commemorative 2003 Red River Shootout Dashiki and attempted to make a hideous blouse out of it.

MORE TO COME
Click to expand...

durvasa · Oct 29, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

This is a RUMOR circulating the blogosphere, and will remain so until the LA Times releases the tape, but here are two excerpts from Baraq Obama from the tape:

"Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine"

"...genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

POWERFUL
Click to expand...

Interesting tactic. Make up stuff or take quotes out of context to force the video to be shown.

But even if the quotes are true, the first one is perfectly reasonable, and the second one can be argued. Imagine that the roles were reversed, and it was a Palestine country that was occupying and preventing viable statehood for Israel. Suppose it was a more militarily advanced Palestine that forced Israelis into relocation camp. Charges of genocide would be widespread and mainstream.

rimrocker · Oct 29, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

This is a RUMOR circulating the blogosphere, and will remain so until the LA Times releases the tape, but here are two excerpts from Baraq Obama from the tape:

"Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine"

"...genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

POWERFUL
Click to expand...

If they haven't released the tape, how do you know what's on it?

Do you even know that there is a tape?

What blogosphere is this circulating in? (Can you give us some links?)

Your first statement is illogical: there is a rumor about a tape and the rumors will stay rumors until the tape is a fact? That 's the same as me saying:

There is a rumor on a basketball BBS that McCain and Palin have a sex tape.

Some excepts include...

Palin: "John McCain served ... me!"

McCain: "Governor Palin took on all the old boys in Alaska... and laid a pipeline."

Folks, this is clearly a degenerate, immoral ticket and this rumor will not go away until they come clean about nominee-on-nominee sexcapades.
Click to expand...

mc mark · Oct 29, 2008

rimrocker said:

If they haven't released the tape, how do you know what's on it?

Do you even know that there is a tape?

What blogosphere is this circulating in? (Can you give us some links?)

Your first statement is illogical: there is a rumor about a tape and the rumors will stay rumors until the tape is a fact? That 's the same as me saying:
Click to expand...

Sounds like the same MO TJ used for the "Michelle hates Whitey tape"

rimrocker · Oct 29, 2008

OK, here's the LA Times response to the blogosphere rumor (sounds like there is a tape):

McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video
The Times says its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video, which shows Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. The story first appeared in April.
By a Times staff writer
October 29, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

John McCain's presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist.

The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."

The Times on Tuesday 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."

Jamie Gold, the newspaper's readers' representative, said in a statement: "More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite -- the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."

The original article said that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans in Chicago and his presence at Palestinian community events had led some to think he was sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint on Middle East politics. Obama publicly expresses a pro-Israel viewpoint that pleases many Jewish leaders.

In reporting on Obama's presence at the dinner for Khalidi, the article noted that some speakers expressed anger at Israel and at U.S. foreign policy, but that Obama in his comments called for finding common ground.

It said that Khalidi in the 1970s often spoke to reporters on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi later lived near Obama while teaching at the University of Chicago. He is now a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University in New York.
Click to expand...

So, the LATimes brought the event to light and reported the story.

Now, I seem to recall a recent election where a story was withheld that seemed a wee bit more important than Obama calling for common ground. what was that? Oh yes...

The Public Editor
Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing
By BYRON CALAME
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/opinion/13pubed.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

THE NEW YORK TIMES’S Dec. 16 article that disclosed the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping has led to an important public debate about the once-secret program. And the decision to write about the program in the face of White House pressure deserved even more praise than I gave it in a January column, which focused on the paper’s inadequate explanation of why it had “delayed publication for a year.”

The article, written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, has been honored with a Pulitzer and other journalistic prizes. But contradictory post-publication comments by Times editors and others about just how long the article was held have left me increasingly concerned about one key question: Did The Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election?

In my January column, in which I refused to rely on anonymous sources, I noted that I was left “puzzled” by the election question. But I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election. This revelation confirms what anonymous sources had told other publications such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Observer in December.

A number of readers critical of the Bush administration have remained particularly suspicious of the article’s assertion that the publication delay dated back only “a year” to Dec. 16, 2004. They contend that pre-election disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping could have changed the outcome of the election.

Since the Times article appeared, I have grown increasingly intrigued by changes in the way the delay has been described in the paper and in comments by Mr. Keller. A background paragraph in a follow-up article on Dec. 31 said, “The administration first learned that The New York Times had obtained information about the secret eavesdropping program more than a year ago.” Mr. Keller also began using the “more than a year” language.

My decision to take another look at the extent of the delay came after reading Mr. Keller’s response to an online question in April during “Talk to the Newsroom,” a feature on nytimes.com. Eric Sullivan, from Waunakee, Wis., commented: “I’d like to know why you sat on the N.S.A. story. You probably changed the course of an election and likely history to come.”

Mr. Keller’s rather matter-of-fact acceptance of Mr. Sullivan’s presumptions caught my eye: “Whether publishing earlier would have influenced the 2004 election is, I think, hard to say. Judging from the public reaction to the N.S.A. eavesdropping reflected in various polls, one could ask whether earlier disclosure might have helped President Bush more than hurt.”

Mr. Keller, who wouldn’t answer any questions for my January column, recently agreed to an interview about the delay, although he saw it as “old business.” But he had some new things to say about the delay and the election.

Internal discussions about drafts of the article had been “dragging on for weeks” before the Nov. 2 election, Mr. Keller acknowledged. That process had included talks with the Bush administration. He said a fresh draft was the subject of internal deliberations “less than a week” before the election.

“The climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election,” Mr. Keller said. The pre-election discussions included Jill Abramson, a managing editor; Philip Taubman, the chief of the Washington bureau; Rebecca Corbett, the editor handling the story, and often Mr. Risen. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, was briefed, but Mr. Keller said the final decision to hold the story was his.

Mr. Keller declined to explain in detail his pre-election decision to hold the article, citing obligations to preserve the confidentiality of sources. He has repeatedly indicated that a major reason for the publication delays was the administration’s claim that everyone involved was satisfied with the program’s legality. Later, he has said, it became clear that questions about the program’s legality “loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.”

But last week Mr. Keller e-mailed me a description of how that picture had changed by December 2005, and it cast some new light on the pre-election situation for me. It implied that the paper’s pre-election sources hadn’t been sufficiently “well-placed and credible” to convince him that questions about the program’s legality and oversight were serious enough to make it “responsible to publish.” But by December, he wrote, “We now had some new people who could in no way be characterized as disgruntled bureaucrats or war-on-terror doves saying we should publish. That was a big deal.”

Holding a fresh draft of the story just days before the election also was an issue of fairness, Mr. Keller said. I agree that candidates affected by a negative article deserve to have time — several days to a week — to get their response disseminated before voters head to the polls.

So why did the Dec. 16 article say The Times had “delayed publication for a year,” specifically ruling out the possibility that the story had been held prior to the Nov. 2 election? “It was probably inelegant wording,” Mr. Keller said, who added later, “I don’t know what was in my head at the time.”

Were the wording and the sensitivity of the election-day timing issue discussed internally? “I don’t remember,” Mr. Keller said in an interview. He does remember discussing that “I wanted to own up to holding it.” And The Times does deserve credit for disclosing that it had held the story.

It was more than inelegant, however, to report flatly that the delay had lasted “a year.” Characterizing it as “more than a year,” as Mr. Keller and others later did, would have been technically accurate. But that phrase would have represented a fuzziness that Times readers shouldn’t have to put up with when a hotly contested presidential election is involved.

Given the importance of this otherwise outstanding article on warrantless eavesdropping — and now the confirmation of pre-election decisions to delay publication — The Times owes it to readers to set the official record straight.
Click to expand...

Lil Pun · Oct 29, 2008

Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide replied, "Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama."
Click to expand...

LOL!

Behad · Oct 29, 2008

durvasa said:

Interesting tactic. Make up stuff or take quotes out of context to force the video to be shown.
Click to expand...

It didn't work for the birth certificate scandal.

Trader_Idiot, never in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined that I actually look forward to your next post. I simply cannot wait till you say something more stupid than before. Keep up the good work. I've never laughed so hard in my life.

mc mark · Oct 29, 2008

Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide replied, "Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama."
Click to expand...

Nothing more needs to be said about the desperation spewing from the mccain meltdown.

dandorotik · Oct 30, 2008

Trader_Jorge said:

Friends, I just received a text message that I had been waiting for.

Brace yourselves for what is going to drop in the next 33 hours.

RKWABD BO HO HO
Click to expand...

33 hours has come and gone- and there is nothing.

I will make a BOLD prediction. McCain has until 12 PM on Friday to release any type of news on Obama that will make an impact on voters' decisions. 12 PM, Friday. You heard it here first, FRIENDS. After 12 PM, people will be leaving work early for the Halloween weekend, or they will be too busy at work to check the news before the Halloween weekend.

The Halloween weekend, as I have said before, KILLED any chance of the McCain campaign dropping an O-bomb on the Obama campaign. But he still has a glimmer of hope. 27 hours, 32 minutes. That is it. After that, his campaign is officially DEAD if it is not already.

27 HOURS, 32 MINUTES.

T_J: YWAIAOTOTBWYCT, ANYASTBUIYF. YHFM. GH.

mc mark · Oct 30, 2008

Behad · Oct 30, 2008

CRAP! Did I miss it? I changed my sig and everything, then forgot about the big explosion.

I guess I was just too busy living the American dream to notice.

El_Conquistador · Oct 30, 2008

Well, no surprise here, given some of Obama's radical friends...

First exit poll of actual American votes from Israel shows big McCain win [Tom Gross]

Within the last hour, the first exit poll of 817 Americans in Israel, who attended U.S. election voting events in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on Tuesday evening to vote by absentee ballot, has been released.

A startling 76 percent of those polled said that they had voted for John McCain. This contrasts sharply with pre-election polls of American Jews in the U.S., which indicate a strong preference for Obama.

The exit poll findings of American voters in Israel are all the more surprising because less than one in four were registered Republicans, and 46% of registered Democrats living in Israel said they had crossed party lines to vote McCain. By contrast, the Republican crossover to Obama was minimal – just 2%.

The votes are significant as almost half of the 42,000 registered U.S. voters living in Israel come from key swing states including Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, Israel had the third-largest group of American voters abroad, after Canada and Britain.

The exit poll was commissioned by Votefromisrael.org, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting voter registration and participation amongst American citizens living in Israel.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjAwMzA2ZGY5ZTVmNTAwNTBkMTc3Y2YxZDRmMTk0NDc=

Forums

LA Times Suppressing Obama's Tribute to an Anti-Israel, PLO Operative

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

gifford1967 Member
Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

JuanValdez Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

farrisdabis Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

percicles Member

durvasa Member

rimrocker Member

mc mark Member

rimrocker Member

Lil Pun Member

Behad Member

mc mark Member

dandorotik Member

mc mark Member

Behad Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

LA Times Suppressing Obama's Tribute to an Anti-Israel, PLO Operative

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

gifford1967 Member Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

JuanValdez Member

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

farrisdabis Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

percicles Member

durvasa Member

rimrocker Member

mc mark Member

rimrocker Member

Lil Pun Member

Behad Member

mc mark Member

dandorotik Member

mc mark Member

Behad Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

Share This Page

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

gifford1967 Member
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member