Interestingly, that sole Obama remark, as reported by Wallsten, contains an ellipsis in the middle. After the then-state senator says the Khalidis had given him “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases” comes a strategically placed dot-dot-dot. We don’t know what those blind spots and biases were and what he might have thought of them. Or how he might have changed. That, in Wallsten’s or some Times editors’ judgment, was best left on the tape.
So what are we to think? We have an administration that not only ascribes most of the Middle East blame to Israel, but also has banned “Islamism” and all related words, even “Islam” and “jihad,” from our national security documents. They’re completely gone. Indeed, even the Fort Hood massacre, so clearly inspired by Islamic extremism, has now been shifted into the comfortable category of the lone, angry killer.
It’s interesting to compare this to NBC’s recent journalistic malpractice, in which they elided some words in the middle of a quote to create the false narrative that George Zimmerman was motivated by race in his suspicion of Trayvon Martin. Except in this case, it’s the reverse — to remove potentially damaging comments to show that the president is an “unbiased” “moderate.”
What, indeed, is the LA Times hiding? If they are unwilling to show the tape, they could at least provide the complete quote. They haven’t claimed that a promise to a source prevents them from doing so, though now that I’ve made the request, perhaps that will be their next excuse. At which point, we can safely consign them to the same ill repute in which NBC should reside, even if it does not in the minds of its fellow “journalists.”
You can write all the letters requesting the tape that you want. It is not coming out without some serious embarassment. Maybe not even then. NBC didnt’ apologize to Zimmerman for their propaganda against him.
When ten brave conservatives, or ONE Republican Senator, decides to handcuff themselves to the doors of the LA Times we might see the tape. Until then this is all just smoke and mirrors.
The other way, of course, is to start offering serious rewards for this sort of thing.
Any dollar spent getting, say, his college transcripts is plausibly better spent than a dollar on just another ad regurgitating stuff people already know.
The thing is, there’s so -much- information that’s still unavailable, it’s hard to know which items might be true turning points. This tape could well be one.
This issue needs to explode on the internet, talk radio, cable news. It can happen if people do it.
Then people need to chain themselves to the doors of the LA times. Then let’s demand see Obama’s transcripts and college application. It’s time to start playing rough with this Alinskyite.
Whatever is on the tape, we may safely assume that it is not favorable to Obama, or it would have been released.
The LA Times is in bankruptcy. Someone ought to take an offer to the judge.
That is interesting. Maybe the new Breitbart could by the IP.
Given what we know about the comfortable way Obama exposed himself, his wife and kids to the hate-filled ravings of Jeremiah Wright week after week, you can rest assured that what Obama said was both anti-Semitic and deeply heartfelt.
Shall we have a contest to fill in the ellipsis?
“consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. [Rashid challenges you to a higher plane where we can together envision a final solution to the problems of the Palestinian people.] It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
At what point does this become treason?
Good question.
Unfortunately for us out here in ‘flyover’ Ken, not ONE (R) can find a spine, some testicles, a couple feet of gut and a mic to ask the question.
It was a nice coincidence that a trumped up race controversy showed up at the same time Obama is trying to rally the base, distract from his record, and stoke racial animosity.
– Attack SCOTUS “Unelected…Unprecedented…”
– Look over there!!! “White Hispanic Racist Assassinates Poor Black Victim”
– Attack Oil Companies “We Can’t Drill Our Way Out of This”
– Look over there!!! “Republican War on Women”
– Attack House of Representatives “Social Darwinism”
– Look over there!!! “Global Warming”
It’s going to be a looong campaign….
Seven months from today. Damn, I wish it were tomorrow.
As someone not directly involved in American politics, although the question of who becomes President next time certainly will affect my country, I have one question. If Obama loses, and assuming it isn’t possible for him to stall for months because of a similar situation to the Bush/Gore election, how much damage can he do before the next President’s inauguration? After all, as I understand it, Obama will still be President until January 20th next year.
On a related subject, why does the phenomenon of a “lame-duck” President still exist at all? I am aware of the fact that the delay is in the Constitution, and also aware of the reason – which no longer applies. How difficult would it be for the Constitution to be amended to say something like “the new President will be inaugurated and take office as soon as any dispute about the election result is settled”? And would there be any real problems with that?
In the UK, the changeover of head of state is theoretically instantaneous. Next time, it will be “The Queen is dead. Long live the King!” (Long may this be delayed, but after all Queen Elizabeth II is 86.) And even our changeovers of head of government are within 24 hours. (Normally, anyway.)