JohnRgt

Khalidi and Obama and the LA Times

8 posts in this topic

Obama and Khalidi had a relationship when the latter taught at the University of Chicago. Though Obama has been downplaying yet another association during this campaign, the two were close enough for the Obamas to be frequent dinner guests at the Khalidis, for the Khalidis to babysit the Obama kids, and for Obama to praise Khalidi at a party given to mark Khalidi leaving Chicago to accept a position at Columbia University that was packed with people who want "change".

From NRO.com:

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Apparently, the Los Angeles Times has a video tape of the evening but, surprisingly, refuses to release it. All the paper did was publish a sanitized piece on the evening.

From the same NRO.com piece:

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)

Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)

I get that associating with people of influence is necessary to develop a political career and that, given the current culture, the influential tend to be evil. But sooner or later Obama will have to return favors. Given the associations he chose to fuel his rise, his debts, even if only partially repaid, will cost us dearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LA Times won't release it because they made a promise to a source. Better to not ruin one's credibility in order to appease the Conservative blogosphere.

Also, McCain's Khalidi Connection.

Funny how things work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LA Times won't release it because they made a promise to a source. Better to not ruin one's credibility in order to appease the Conservative blogosphere.

Also, McCain's Khalidi Connection.

Funny how things work out.

The claim sounds less than credible to my ears. The LATimes could easily transcribe the entire video, release it, and still protect their source.

Setting aside the fact that the Conservative blogosphere is nowhere near as bratty or fanatsy-driven as the Left's, there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting that video released.

Call me cynical, but if this were video of Palin sighting the exact scripture she thought justified drilling in ANWR, or McCain toasting/roasting an abortion clinic bomber's spokesman, the video would be on youtube ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LA Times won't release it because they made a promise to a source. Better to not ruin one's credibility in order to appease the Conservative blogosphere.

Also, McCain's Khalidi Connection.

Funny how things work out.

The claim sounds less than credible to my ears. The LATimes could easily transcribe the entire video, release it, and still protect their source.

I've been thinking along the same lines. Since when does protecting a journalistic source require not releasing the information the source provided? As long as the source's anonymity is preserved, what's the excuse for not releasing the video? Is the source on the video, making him worry that someone will either (1) associate him with Khalidi or (2) figure out he's the source and issue a fatwa (Islamist) or try to dig up dirt (Obamist) against him? That's not necessarily a good enough reason for withholding the video because (1) if the source was worried about that, why did he give the video to the Times and (2) technology makes it possible to obscure the identities of everyone in the video who is irrelevant to the issue, which is Obama and/or Ayers being present at this event.

Setting aside the fact that the Conservative blogosphere is nowhere near as bratty or fanatsy-driven as the Left's, there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting that video released.

Call me cynical, but if this were video of Palin sighting the exact scripture she thought justified drilling in ANWR, or McCain toasting/roasting an abortion clinic bomber's spokesman, the video would be on youtube ASAP.

As it should be. Rational Ryan's "Funny how things work out" suggests that members of this forum are in the tank for McCain and wouldn't want similarly incriminating info about him to come to light, despite the many, many statements by those members that they are about as disgusted with McCain as Obama. I can't speak with certainty about anyone but myself, but I most definitely do want info like that about any presidential candidate to be circulated far and wide. The article he links to about McCain being chair of an organization that donated money to Khalidi is good to know about, though unsurprising given Republican support for, among other things, foreign aid that ends up supporting Palestinian terrorists. So McCain still sucks, too.

The point is: the video should be released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LA Times won't release it because they made a promise to a source. Better to not ruin one's credibility in order to appease the Conservative blogosphere.

Also, McCain's Khalidi Connection.

Funny how things work out.

The claim sounds less than credible to my ears. The LATimes could easily transcribe the entire video, release it, and still protect their source.

Setting aside the fact that the Conservative blogosphere is nowhere near as bratty or fanatsy-driven as the Left's, there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting that video released.

Call me cynical, but if this were video of Palin sighting the exact scripture she thought justified drilling in ANWR, or McCain toasting/roasting an abortion clinic bomber's spokesman, the video would be on youtube ASAP.

The LA Times came up with the excuse of not revealing a source only very recently. Previous refusals did not mention it. Consequently there is widespread doubt that this is the actual motive, especially in the context of the well-established media political agenda and dishonesty. It also does not explain how showing a video of a gathering that has already been identified and described in an LA Times article would "reveal a source" that the article does not. This naturally raises the question of what the LA Times left out of its article that it doesn't want us to know. That is a pattern in the MSM protection of Obama's background from public knowledge.

We do know that Obama has recurring close intellectual and political relations with and sympathies for the likes of Khalidi in the progressive New Left and Palistinian terrorists. Objections to the suppression of this pattern is not a matter of "appeasing the Conservative blogosphere", as snidely put by "Rational Ryan", nor do such sneers based on Democrat talking points address the issues.

The strained insinuation of an equivalent relation between McCain and Khalidi casually inserted in the MSM article as "news" and referred to by Ryan echoes another Democrat talking point now widely used to divert attention away from Obama's relations and undermine objections to them. The International Republican Institute (IRI), unlike Khalidi and Obama, is not pro-Palistinian and there is no evidence to the contrary. The IRI describes its funding of the Palistinian polling here. Ironically, the Left has a conspiratorial view of IRI in exactly the opposite terms than its current insinuations apply.

We have previously discussed here on the Forum the assault on concepts by the Left in its strategic use of package deals, anti-concepts, etc. (such as "tax cuts" for redistribution and "investment" for government spending). This controversy over "associations" is another example. The Democrats constantly object to what they call "guilt by association" without regard for the nature and purpose of Obama's associations and what he is guilty of. They want you to think that "associations" are nothing but random contingencies with no causal relations. Now they claim that an "association" of McCain is no different than Obama's, in order to establish some kind of "logical" equivalency as an empty "debating point", while dishonestly suppressing that McCain's association means the opposite of Obama's. In political "talking points" words are used only to undermine understanding in order to manipulate people. This is a direct assault on the necessity of rational thought for any individual to make decisions. That such an assault can only result in rule by force is fully consistent with the thugs in the progressive left and their agenda for raw power. Dishonest verbal manipulations are the essence of Obama's alleged 'intellectuality'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as the source's anonymity is preserved, what's the excuse for not releasing the video? Is the source on the video, making him worry that someone will either (1) associate him with Khalidi or (2) figure out he's the source and issue a fatwa (Islamist) or try to dig up dirt (Obamist) against him? That's not necessarily a good enough reason for withholding the video because (1) if the source was worried about that, why did he give the video to the Times and (2) technology makes it possible to obscure the identities of everyone in the video who is irrelevant to the issue, which is Obama and/or Ayers being present at this event.

I'd bet that the angle at which the video was shot and a few visual clues could reveal the source.

Also, given what Joe the Plumber is going through after asking a presidential candidate who walked up to his driveway a simple question, along with other, countless examples of this sort of retaliation, I can understand the source insisting on anonymity.

Call me cynical, but if this were video of Palin sighting the exact scripture she thought justified drilling in ANWR, or McCain toasting/roasting an abortion clinic bomber's spokesman, the video would be on youtube ASAP.

As it should be. The point is: the video should be released.

I should've made clear that I suspect that if the LATimes had promised anonymity to the source of video that compromised either McCain or Palin, they would've found a way to release the video -- even if it compromised the source's anonymity. Of course all they need to do is release a transcription. They know that. They won't. The reason seem very clear to me. (I'd love to be wrong on this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd bet that the angle at which the video was shot and a few visual clues could reveal the source.

Also, given what Joe the Plumber is going through after asking a presidential candidate who walked up to his driveway a simple question, along with other, countless examples of this sort of retaliation, I can understand the source insisting on anonymity.

I should've made clear that I suspect that if the LATimes had promised anonymity to the source of video that compromised either McCain or Palin, they would've found a way to release the video -- even if it compromised the source's anonymity. Of course all they need to do is release a transcription. They know that. They won't. The reason seem very clear to me. (I'd love to be wrong on this.)

Agreed on all points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites