Skip to comments.The truth behind the 'Khalidi video' and why it's not for sale (LA Times admits there's a video)
Posted on 09/21/2012 2:25:30 PM PDT by tobyhill
In the final desperate days of campaign 2008, as their shot at the White House slipped away, John McCain and Sarah Palin railed against the Los Angeles Times. The Republicans insisted the newspaper had a secret video that would prove Barack Obama consorted with leftists. Ever since, it has become an article of faith in outposts of the political right that the hidden Khalidi video includes absolute proof that the 44th president has a warm embrace for radicals and those who hate the state of Israel.
The latest resurrection of the Khalidi video mythology came this week courtesy of Breitbart.com. The website on Thursday offered a $100,000 reward for a copy of the Khalidi tape which the right-wing site speculates will lay bare the ugly back story of Obamas disdain of Israel, his sacrifice of Free Speech, and his effusive support of Mideast radicals.
Such fantastical thinking is rife not just on Breitbart.com but across the conservative Interwebs. On the website of Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, for example, one woman ranted on the certainty that this lone video would expose this Muslim traitor who will do anything to hide his true identity and plans to further destroy America!
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
So the LA Times is saying, “We’re not showing the video because it would help Obama.” They are saying America got a better story from the reporter that did see the video and reported at how well Obama plays both sides of the fence.
My BS meter is pegged!!!!
Free the prisoner video!
The LA Slimes won’t release the video because Obama goes on and on about his hatred for Israel..it would ruin his support amongst the Jewish Community that is why they won’t release it
LA Times writer Peter Wallsten wrote about Barack Obamas close association with former Palestinian operative Rashid Khalidi back in April.
Wallsten discussed a dinner held back in 2003 in honor of Khalidi, a critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights.
Barack Obama has denied his close association with Khalidi, too.
According to Wallsten the evening not surprisingly turned into a classic Jew-bash:
During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, then you will never see a day of peace.
One speaker likened Zionist settlers on the West Bank to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been blinded by ideology.
Is Rainey calling Peter Wallsten a liar?
Important companion piece for perspective.
“To be clear: No reporter at The Times or any other self-respecting journalism outlet is going to sell out an agreement with a source. Not for $100,000. Not for $5 million. Not for any amount.
Anyone that did would have their money. And a reputation worth exactly one plug nickel.”
Translation: Okay, we got the tape. We just do whatever Obama tells us, so back off.
Lawyers have what we call the Best Evidence Rule. Basically, if a party has source material, it must produce it rather than rely on second-hand versions/ representations OF it.
If the video didn’t HURT OBAMA, it would already be on the internet (with a big fat LA Times watermark across the middle).
But it does hurt Obama, so we get these windy, wordy essays about why it won’t be released.
Free the Khalidi Tape!
This affair shows how inept the GOP and the fallacy of conservatives to disdain litigation as a political weapon. Obama and his Chicago Dem thugs were able to get the Chicago Tribune to sue and a state judge to unseal divorce records of the GOP Senate candidate Ryan when Obama ran. Ruling to unseal was based on the right for the public voters right to know about the candidates. However Dems can seal their records and the public have no right to know??!!! GOP, conservatives if you want to win, we better have a legion of smart lawyers also!!!
Prince Zero states that Israel is a vestige of colonialism and has no right to exist because it's an outright theft of Muslim lands.
Exact same situation, but instead the video is of Mitt Romney at a celebratory dinner for David Duke. Tell me we wouldn't have seen that by now.
.....Naw .. This means it's for sale ..... the price just hasn't been reached yet .... Anybody running for office got a few extra bucks to spend???
The LAT, supposedly an unbiased purveyor of information, officially and publicly endorsed Obama in 2008 (and in violation of their own policy) only to hide a video that may very well sink Obama’s candidacy—
The LAT crossed the line by endorsing Bama, they have waived their right to stand on the “publisher/source”
File suit to compel disclosure.
A reputation worth a “plug nickel” would be an increase for most journalists.
Simply ask Sam Zell what he wants out of an incoming Romney Administration.
I’m sure something can be worked out.
Newspapers endorse candidates all the time. LAT doesn’t? (I don’t read the paper, so I really don’t know.)
Why do we need to post a video of khalidi when the oictures of obama and odinga are so easy to get.
If the public had seen that in 2008 we would be running McCain for re-election
LA Times Portrays Right Wing Media as Bitter and Angry
By Rusty Weiss | November 09, 2008 | 23:31
In what can only be described as delusional, Los Angeles Times writer James Rainey attempted to castigate the right wing media as a bitter and resentful group of shameless journalists - attributes that can only describe the liberal media’s behavior for at least eight years now.
The title itself, Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger,’ demonstrates that Rainey will not be pulling any punches with his article. But why is he focusing on the reaction of conservative talk show hosts less than one week after Obama’s election? Did he forget the liberal media’s - nay, the mainstream media’s - chronic case of misplaced anger since election night of 2000?
The answer, of course, is no. Rainey’s employer, the LA Times, has been one of the biggest offenders of liberal media ignorance in quite some time. After all, The Times has produced rants that read like a rap sheet of bias.
An examination of the piece follows...
Rainey’s conservative radio bashing dives head first with paragraph one:
You have to give Rush Limbaugh a perverse kind of credit. At least when he is demonizing Barack Obama, fabricating Obama policies, blaming Obama for single-handedly causing the recession and the stock market crash, he doesn’t pretend to be fair.
The LAT has a policy of NOT endorsing presidential candidates, they even said so when they endorsed Obama in 2008.
The only other time in history the Times endorsed a candidate for president??.....wait for it......
Richard Milhous Nixon, 1968