Guest Aloysius Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Spec, I'd be curious as to what qualifies a person to be considered "shady". Being critical of Israel? Being an Arab? Palestinian? A professor at UChicago? It just seems like we're being told Khalidi is bad because, well, he's bad! He's made some semi-controversial comments in the past, but they're pretty tame compared to most of the stuff said re: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And if this "shady" principle were to be applied to people on both sides of the I-P conflict, then both Obama & McCain would have a lot to answer for. So this all seems pretty flimsy to me. The only thing tying it all together is that Obama's involved & right-wingers are trying to smear him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Also, can anyone tell me what is wrong with Barack Obama going to a farewell dinner for a fellow colleague at the University of Chicago, even if that colleague's opinions on Israeli/Palestinian issues differs from his? This is supposed to scare me? Scare you? Or have you guys all fallen for bullshit again? Given your track record, I'm guessing you've fallen for bullshit again. Falling for bullshit?????? That's rich in the light of the hero worship from your guys. But: Again Fox and the NYT are quite different. Fox is the opposite of CNN which enjoys some respct here no? But: The NYT is supposed to be "fair and balanced" but they're not. As for the story? Hey if it's so benign why not show it? Just some old pals right? The reason it's news and should draw more attention is despite the kid gloves treatment your guy gets, his associates and supporters are among the scum of the earth. You know it I know it and Axlerod knows it. That's why the "real" media puts the kibosh on it. And you? I recall you squealing about an endorsement from Hagee (who seems to agree with you regarding Catholics) who has a tiny fraction of the relationship as these bums do with your boy. (lest you think I'm in awe of your impartiality) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Fox is the opposite of CNN Technically, you're right, but that's not what you're arguing. What I think you meant was "counterpart," not opposite. At which point I'll disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 As for the story? Hey if it's so benign why not show it?Just some old pals right? The LA Times already explained why: they received the tape on the condition it wouldn't be publicly released. But I bet you have a better reason... The reason it's news and should draw more attention is despite the kid gloves treatment your guy gets, his associates and supporters are among the scum of the earth.As I've said before, I'm disgusted by the Bill Ayers of the world. But Rashid Khalidi is "the scum of the earth"? That's ridiculous. A few friends of mine at Columbia ended up enrolling in one of his classes. These are pretty hardcore pro-Israel types, yet they loved the guy. They said he was a brilliant lecturer and allowed all viewpoints a fair hearing in class. In other words, there's a reason Columbia recruited him away from UChicago, and it's not because he's a piece of garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Scum of the earth? Who the hell are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Scum of the earth? Who the hell are you talking about? You. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I'm not so worried about the shadiness of the tape, but moreso the whole "sending a tape to a major news outlet to keep it a secret" notion. WTF am I missing here? I'm pretty Pro-Israel, but I believe there has to be a better way of resolving conflict between them & Palestine. At least more parties should be actively involved (as you said, Al). Air-striking entire neighborhoods has not been an effective measure of retaliation against bus bombings. And the problem (for me at least) is in the marketing/appearance of those tactics. Palestine can merely write off the suicide bombings as work of the fringe Hamas (even though they now have a government presence) and Israel's full scale retaliations get the knock of being state/military sponsored. Something needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Fox is the opposite of CNN Technically, you're right, but that's not what you're arguing. What I think you meant was "counterpart," not opposite. At which point I'll disagree. Ahhhhh the quibble. Opposite in one is somewhat right and one is somewhat left. But whatever ya want. And Alo I figure the PLO are among the scum of the earth. Imagine if it were a kindly old ex spokesman for the Klan. And Leg. No kidding ...Who the hell rats out Obama and insists it not be shown? Fear of the goon squad? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 So Fox News is somewhat Right? That's like saying Richard Simmons is somewhat gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I'm not so worried about the shadiness of the tape, but moreso the whole "sending a tape to a major news outlet to keep it a secret" notion. WTF am I missing here?Well, if you wanted to tar Obama without embarrassing anyone else who was at that dinner meeting, I imagine you'd set those parameters. You give them the tape to prove Obama was there, but you'd condition it on making sure the actual video didn't get out. If the video had come out in April, I doubt there would have been significant damage. There would have been time for people to realize how insignificant this is, as well as time for friends & associates of Khalidi to defend his reputation as an activist and a scholar. But the McCain campaign is pushing this right before the election because it 1. ties Obama to a Palestinian 2. allows for the appearance of a cover-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I'm not so worried about the shadiness of the tape, but moreso the whole "sending a tape to a major news outlet to keep it a secret" notion. WTF am I missing here?Well, if you wanted to tar Obama without embarrassing anyone else who was at that dinner meeting, I imagine you'd set those parameters. You give them the tape to prove Obama was there, but you'd condition it on making sure the actual video didn't get out. If the video had come out in April, I doubt there would have been significant damage. There would have been time for people to realize how insignificant this is, as well as time for friends & associates of Khalidi to defend his reputation as an activist and a scholar. But the McCain campaign is pushing this right before the election because it 1. ties Obama to a Palestinian 2. allows for the appearance of a cover-up. The only way that scenario plays is if McCain guest stars on the tape too. Otherwise (for me at least) it's just another example of Obama re-establishing the Mendoza line for his character judgement abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Oh, for God's sake. Back to the subject at hand, can someone explain to me what the problem is? The LA Times can't release the tape. The rules of journalism prohibit it. But everyone knows what's on the tape, because it was in the stories. And there's nothing strange about being seen with this man, who is a respected scholar and authority on the Arab World. McCain himself has ties to this man and his work. What is the problem here? Can anyone explain what the issue is here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Experts affirm: Ayers wrote Obama's memoirScientific analyses independently find radical's mark on 'Dreams From My Father' © 2008 WorldNetDaily Can we now strike this piece of crap "news source" from the record once and for all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Daniel Larison has a good post on the subject: It seems that the only reason why anyone suspects that there is something “damaging” (i.e., something not reflexively “pro-Israel”) on the tape is that the Times won’t release it because of an agreement it made with its source(s), but if the Times were to break its agreement with the source(s) and release the tape it would then presumably be accused of violating ethical standards in order to vindicate its preferred candidate. This is a very odd case of a newspaper being accused of “suppressing” evidence after having published a report on the very thing it is supposedly suppressing. Had it acquired the tape and never reported on it, that would be one thing, but it did just the opposite. What is most bizarre about all of this is that from everything we do know about what Obama said, his remarks about Khalidi clearly implied that he didn’t agree with his colleague, which is why in classic Obama fashion he applauded Khalidi for challenging him and making him face his own biases. Presumably, if the Times had always been trying to follow the directive, “do and say nothing that hurts Obama,” it would never have reported on statements made at the party by other attendees. As it is, these other statements don’t count for much, and they have nothing to do with Obama’s views on Israel and Palestine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 The most the LA Times can do at this point is to ask the source of the tape for permission to release it. Only then could they do so. But come on, fellas. This one isn't all that hard to understand. The McCain camp is not trying to appeal to your better angels here. This is complete nonsense. McCain gave money to this man's organization, then they send out Sarah Palin to suggest that he's some sort of radical? This guy?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si4n4Og1OZY Yeah, he seems crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 But the McCain campaign is pushing this right before the election because it 1. ties Obama to a Palestinian Again. 2. allows for the appearance of a cover-up. Yep. The only way that scenario plays is if McCain guest stars on the tape too. Ya don't think that woulda been prominent in the LAT story?? Nobody said they werem't allowed to write it. Otherwise (for me at least) it's just another example of Obama re-establishing the Mendoza line for his character judgement abilities. No doubt. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.