So this is excuse/explanation number 5?

I wonder...if the tape is released in the next couple of days (I know, I'm dreaming)...would NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN all run with it? Would they make it a priority to show Obama's lies about defending Israel?

/I didn't think so

They're losing subscribers, and LGF is gaining them! Nuff said.

I am with Pat Cadel in why not release a transcript? Protecting the source is not working for me.

At this point I believe it might actually help McCain to have them just keep it hush-hush. One more in the tank media type move that might just tick off some voters.

Translated:

Now shut up, you sheep. And don't question the judgment of your ba-ba-ba-betters.

No wonder they support Obama. They learned their arrogance from The Master.

re: #1 astronmr20

So this is excuse/explanation number 5?

Yeah. If you're keeping score at home, it's:

LA Times excuses: 5
Obama campaign's lowered income levels susceptible to tax raises*: 4
($250K, $200K, $150K, $120K)

Again, I get the image of a cat scratching busily in a litter box.

HuffPo? Alan Dershowitz? Seriously?

From the comment section;

Who cares about the stupid tape? Obama supports Israel, but doesn't show utter contempt for the Palestinians like Republicans often do. He had dinner with some prominent Arabs. Get over it. Muslims are not our enemies, and stoking subtle religious and racial fear is not the answer.

What the Fuck?

I can agree with the LA Times about not releasing a copy of the tape since they agreed not to.

But obviously the person who provided the tape to the reporter wanted the information on the tape to be publicized. That's why people give things to reporters.

So the LA Times could describe the contents of the tape and release a transcript if they wanted to. They've already partially did that in April.

The only thing stopping them now is politics.

re: #7 buzzsawmonkey

"LATimes" looks, at first glance, like "Latrine."

You laugh, but it smashes the spiders and that is important.

re: #11 astronmr20

From the comment section;
Who cares about the stupid tape? Obama supports Israel, but doesn't show utter contempt for the Palestinians like Republicans often do. He had dinner with some prominent Arabs. Get over it. Muslims are not our enemies, and stoking subtle religious and racial fear is not the answer.
What the Fuck?

Yea... "I'll keeeel you" is subtle.

re: #9 MandyManners

Again, I get the image of a cat scratching busily in a litter box.

Arethusa's cat wants to know if you just insulted her and cat-kind? ;-)

In case you didn't recognize it, that's the obituary for the LA Times.

Can anyone think of a reason that a tape would be handed to a major newspaper on condition that said tape not be released? That must be one helluva movie!

Blah-dee-blah-blah-blah! They've been refining their excuse for the inexcusable for days now.

F*ck off, LA Times! You've shown your character and it's of the lowest caliber.

Note also that only those people are quoted in this article who support the LAT stance, and who are -surprise, surprise - all in the tank for B0 ...

Citing not one journalist or writer who disagrees, but only vox populi shows quite clearly how much the LAT values the opinion of their readers ...

All the news that's fit to hide.

In less than 10 years the LA Times will cease to exist. Could be sooner. But LGF and many others will be stronger than ever.

It's OK.

It is just the PLO who controls the tape, and now can play it anytime Obama goes wide of their interests if he gets elected on Tuesday.

They can join the long line of other people who hold missing pieces of his past.

That man will have a very short leash. And the American people won't be holding it.

Just imagine if we had a free press that looked into the background of Presidential candidates so that none of this kind of information could be held against them in office.

lol, local radio person says "He's going to rob from the people who vote for him. Oh the irony!"

Also, just food for thought, you know how the most terrifying movies are the ones that you do not see the act but hear it? "Signs" and movies like that are very suspense filled because the viewer is left on his/her own to have their imaginations conjure up terrifying versions of what may be happening.

This tape could be played out like this. We and others can conjure up our own versions of what we think was said and applauded. Sometimes that is more damaging than what was actually said. Just thinking something positive.

McCain/Palin '08! WE WILL DEFEAT MARXISM!

This article is pretty long this time, but doesn't really SAY anything.

As one of the commenters posted, they only need to weather the storm for a few more days.

Journalism has been on life support for some time now.
The L.A. Times just pulled the plug.

re: #21 JammieWearingFool

In less than 10 years the LA Times will cease to exist. Could be sooner. But LGF and many others will be stronger than ever.

They'll be web-only within 3.

Election 2008

Surveillance camera to protect your McCain/Palin lawn sign: $875

Solvent to remove the graffiti "Racist" from your automobile: $89

Therapy To Get Over The "Guilt" of Not Voting for The "Historical One" : $225/hour

Watching the LA Times pull all of their editors off of news stories to respond to 128,000 requests for the tape release: priceless

re: #18 Russkilitlover

Blah-dee-blah-blah-blah! They've been refining their excuse for the inexcusable for days now. F*ck off, LA Times! You've shown your character and it's of the lowest caliber.

So what. The LA Times has the right not to listen to it's readers. The La Times can suppress any video it wants to. The LA Times can support and help any candidate it feels like and the LA Times doesn't have to listen to a bunch of conservatives wanking off on a blog.

Oh, and we don't have to buy the LA Times anymore.

/

I just voted!

All things considered, the Times sitting on the video is a definite aid to the McCain campaign. The Times is between a rock and a hard place. From a tactical point of view, it should NOT have put out Wellsten's article in the first place. Now things are worse for the Times' bambi.

LA Times: We're Right, You're Wrong

/bottom line, you ain't getting the tape, if it even still exists, feel free to waste your time

re: #29 Walter L. Newton

wanking off on a blog

Pretty sure that would get you the stick.

/

re: #22 karmic_inquisitor

I just of somethiing. Can anyone here access Arab t.v. and see if this was shown in the Middle East anywhere?

/sorry if this idea was already brought up.

re: #15 arethusa

Arethusa's cat wants to know if you just insulted her and cat-kind? ;-)

Only if I lined the litter box with the rag.

re: #19 yma o hyd

Note also that only those people are quoted in this article who support the LAT stance, and who are -surprise, surprise - all in the tank for B0 ...

Citing not one journalist or writer who disagrees, but only vox populi shows quite clearly how much the LAT values the opinion of their readers ...

I very much fear that this is what we will get with a BO presidency. It has already begun with any critical reporters being tossed from the BO aura. The media will swarm protectively around him and only a smattering of intrepid bloggers (LGF, Zombietime, and a few others) will ever get out what is really going on behind BO White House doors.

Los Angeles Times: Quislings

Excellent clouds.

One of the reasons there are security clearance checks on people who will have access to classified information is to find out if there is anything in their background that could be used as blackmail and influence their decisions ...It seems to me that there are many things in Senator Government's background that could be used to blackmail him ... this tape is just one more example ..Who will blackmail him with other things from his past? ...Senator Government must be defeated ..

LA Times is not releasing the tape for fear they won't get a seat in the White House press room. Just ask those that got kicked off his plane.

re: #34 x-wing

perhaps MEMRI would have something.

re: #8 arethusa

Yeah. If you're keeping score at home, it's:

LA Times excuses: 5
Obama campaign's lowered income levels susceptible to tax raises*: 4
($250K, $200K, $150K, $120K)

Now $120? Do you have a link for the new figure arethusa? I know Biden through out the $150.

This reminds me of the excuses CNN gave for covering up knowledge of Saddam Hussains actions.

"If we told the truth we would no longer be allowed to stay there and report"

At this point the fight is more important than the tape. The drive-by media is more irrelevant every day.

re: #24 freeus

Also, just food for thought, you know how the most terrifying movies are the ones that you do not see the act but hear it? "Signs" and movies like that are very suspense filled because the viewer is left on his/her own to have their imaginations conjure up terrifying versions of what may be happening.

This tape could be played out like this. We and others can conjure up our own versions of what we think was said and applauded. Sometimes that is more damaging than what was actually said. Just thinking something positive.

McCain/Palin '08! WE WILL DEFEAT MARXISM!

You beat me to the punch.

Speculation can be much more damaging.

Is there video of Obama praying in Arabic?
Is there video of Obama saying "death to the Jews"?
How about video of Obama saying "death to America"?
Does he admit he's a Communist?
Does he admit he's born in Africa?

I could go on.

re: #28 ornery elephant

Therapy To Get Over The "Guilt" of Not Voting for The "Historical One" : $225$00.00/hour

May I fix that for you?

re: #30 astronmr20

I just voted!

How did you do that? You were just on the previous thread!

Since you are making the announcement, I have to ask - Did you hold your nose and vote for Liddy?

re: #36 Russkilitlover

I very much fear that this is what we will get with a BO presidency. It has already begun with any critical reporters being tossed from the BO aura. The media will swarm protectively around him and only a smattering of intrepid bloggers (LGF, Zombietime, and a few others) will ever get out what is really going on behind BO White House doors.

If BO can be so cavalier to kick three major media outlets off of his campaign in the last few days of it, it would be not stretch of the imagination that he would deny some media outlets access to the White House Press Room.

Speaking of hamsters, gotta' go clean out Pete's cage.

bbl

re: #9 MandyManners

Again, I get the image of a cat scratching busily in a litter box.

I see a Dead skunk in the Middle of Road. And it stinks to high heaven, too.

/ I see dead newspapers

Is it safe to assume now that the quote from Doug Ross' source is accurate?

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

I think the ball is in the L.A. Times' court - whether or not they actually release the tape - to convince people that Obama did NOT say these things...

OT Anyone care to guess which candidate this union is supporting?
National union imposes PAC fundraising quota on union affiliates and workers, fines those that do not comply

Washington, DC (October 23, 2008) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation will file a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking it to investigate a campaign fundraising scheme adopted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at its convention this summer.

The union and its officers appear to be violating federal labor law and the Federal Election Campaign Act by imposing financial penalties on local affiliates who fail to meet Political Action Committee (PAC) fundraising targets. On June 3, delegates to the SEIU convention approved Constitutional Amendment #317 in time to take effect for this year’s federal elections.

(snip)

re: #47 Walter L. Newton

If BO can be so cavalier to kick three major media outlets off of his campaign in the last few days of it, it would be not stretch of the imagination that he would deny some media outlets access to the White House Press Room.

The door to information is being slammed in our faces. Not sure I care for that, actually.

re: #48 MandyManners

Speaking of hamsters, gotta' go clean out Pete's cage.

bbl

It was an internal dialogue.

A transcript would not reveal camera angles or people at the next table that could be used to identify the person who shot the video.

re: #36 Russkilitlover

I very much fear that this is what we will get with a BO presidency. It has already begun with any critical reporters being tossed from the BO aura. The media will swarm protectively around him and only a smattering of intrepid bloggers (LGF, Zombietime, and a few others) will ever get out what is really going on behind BO White House doors.

You are right.
The msm will turn into one gigantic propaganda machine for B), doesn't matter if they all keep their 'brand' names.

Dissenters, if there are any, will be harrassed and smeared.

And I don't think that dissenting blogs will survive for very long under a B0 administration.

re: #41 jorline

Now $120? Do you have a link for the new figure arethusa? I know Biden through out the $150.

/Richardson: Under Obama Those That Make 120K Get Tax Cut

By this time next year, perhaps the LA Times will be reduced to a weekly printing of grocery ads and garage sale announcements.

Who could ever believe anything else that they print?

re: #12 KingKenrod

I can agree with the LA Times about not releasing a copy of the tape since they agreed not to.

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't believe they're telling the truth about the so-called "agreement." It took them three days to come up with that excuse.

wanking off on a blog

Every time you do that, G-d kills a lolcat.

re: #42 jbolty

This reminds me of the excuses CNN gave for covering up knowledge of Saddam Hussains actions.

or the Joe Wilson 'evidence' that Saddam never tried to buy yellowcake?

or Dan Rather's 'fake but accurate' reporting?

re: #41 jorline

Now $120? Do you have a link for the new figure arethusa? I know Biden through out the $150.

Yes, here - note that it's Bill Richardson this time, not Biden.

Money quote: "What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those."

I know I made this point earlier, but does anyone else have a problem with the LA TIMES being concerned about the safety of source of the video, yet doesn't pause to consider the consequences of publishing highly classified security measures used to fight terror to the detriment of EVERY ONE'S security?

This is bogus:

"Indeed, [Peter] Wallsten has little choice in the matter. If he were to cave in to mounting public demands for the tape, no self-respecting source would ever give him another shred of information. Nor should they."

Anonymous sourcing is important to protect leakers of sensitive information.

But the LAT is saying there's nothing sensitive about the tape. They reported on it, and they consider it a done deal. Why not release it?

Answer: they're afraid the GOP will make political hay of it.

That's not a reason that has anything to do with journalistic integrity or protecting sources.

Off to my sister's so the younger one can go trick or treating with her cousins. We don't live in a neighborhood, so it works out well!

re: #42 jbolty

This reminds me of the excuses CNN gave for covering up knowledge of Saddam Hussains actions. "If we told the truth we would no longer be allowed to stay there and report"
At this point the fight is more important than the tape. The drive-by media is more irrelevant every day.

Wrong-o. Since the majority of the poplulation gets their info from the drive-by media, what the drive-by media does is more relevant than ever.

We shouldn't loose track of the fact that we, who use the internet and blogs etc. for various points of views are a vangard, not the norm.

The peons still drink from the drive-by well, and that's VERY IMPORTANT to realize.

Those bombarding the paper saw it as if the issues were diametrically opposed -- "informing the public" vs. "protecting a source."

Did she just accuse me of terrorizing the L.A. Times?

re: #12 KingKenrod

I can agree with the LA Times about not releasing a copy of the tape since they agreed not to.

But obviously the person who provided the tape to the reporter wanted the information on the tape to be publicized. That's why people give things to reporters.

So the LA Times could describe the contents of the tape and release a transcript if they wanted to. They've already partially did that in April.

The only thing stopping them now is politics.

What group of people have mastered manipulating media outlets by giving them limited, exclusive access to fresh but incomplete information on a conditional basis?

If you answer "Palestinian terror groups" then you get a gold star.

If the "Biden Crisis" comes early to Obama and it involves Israel, it may destroy his presidency. But the prospect doesn't bother him - he has BS'd his way to this point in his life and figures he can get out of any jam with his mouth.

How many such people have Middle East politics chewed up and spit out?

re: #61 arethusa

Yes, here - note that it's Bill Richardson this time, not Biden.

Money quote: "What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those."

Wow! The slide from $250,000 to $120,000 took, what, about a week?

re: #53 MandyManners

It was an internal dialogue.

What's THAT in hamster-ese?
/... am I REALLY sure I want to know?!?!

The "Readers' Representative" Journal article doesn't address a couple of points:
- Their previous reporting on the event could have been done without a videotape. Why did the source give them the tape?
- Did their source-protection agreement extend to a transcript of said tape?

re: #50 politicalinsomniac

Is it safe to assume now that the quote from Doug Ross' source is accurate?

I think the ball is in the L.A. Times' court - whether or not they actually release the tape - to convince people that Obama did NOT say these things...

That's exactly what I'm telling people is on the tape.

Obama said, "Israel has no G-d-given right to 'Palestine' " and "Israel is committing genocide against the 'Palestinian people' "

The editor of the April story, Aaron Zitner, who works in The Times' Washington, D.C., bureau, noted that the paper would have preferred to be able to post the video but could not get the source to agree.

But when the US Government asks not to publish highly classified security programs.....?

re: #58 Charles

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't believe they're telling the truth about the so-called "agreement." It took them three days to come up with that excuse.

In my letter to the LA Times "readers rep." I aksed what " “put their source in jeopardy” meant?

professional peril?
physical harm?

Just what did it mean?

crickets

re: #68 Russkilitlover

Wow! The slide from $250,000 to $120,000 took, what, about a week?

Yeah - I should say, I can understand making verbal slips of 200K or 150K when you mean 250K, but 120K?

If the video was about McCain, the journalist and his source would be labelled"WHISTLE BLOWERS" by the same people.

re: #49 Conservative in Liberal Hands

I see a Dead skunk in the Middle of Road. And it stinks to high heaven, too.

/ I see dead newspapers

Dead skunk.

professional peril?
physical harm?

Just what did it mean?

crickets

Don't ask! It's far too perilous.

re: #58 Charles

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't believe they're telling the truth about the so-called "agreement." It took them three days to come up with that excuse.

But if it is true the implications are even more troubling IMO. PLO fingerprints on an extortion tape against Obama. Israel is screwed.

re: #71 littleoldlady

That's exactly what I'm telling people is on the tape.

Obama said, "Israel has no G-d-given right to 'Palestine' " and "Israel is committing genocide against the 'Palestinian people' "

We really don't know what's on it. Albeit, it's certainly not good for Obama for sure, but we don't know what the words are and who said them.. who he is shaking hands with, hugging, or clapping for.

We can guess, but we don't know.

re: #58 Charles

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't believe they're telling the truth about the so-called "agreement." It took them three days to come up with that excuse.

Which means what for the story....

1. There is no tape - the entire original story from April was fabricated, or

2. There is no tape - the entire original story from April was fake, but accurate, or

3. There is a tape, but it would piss off a lot of people and damn our boy, Barak,

4. 8-ball is fuzzy. Please try again later.

re: #73 sattv4u2

In my letter to the LA Times "readers rep." I aksed what " “put their source in jeopardy” meant?

professional peril?
physical harm?

Just what did it mean?

crickets

One of the more sinister interpretations is that the anonymous donor gave the LATimes the tape as life insurance: as long as he's left alone, the Times keeps the tape under wraps.

I fail to understand the rationale of the owners of the LA Times - The Tribune Companies and Sam Zell. One would think that given Mr. Zell's stated desire to sell assets to cover his costs - Cubs and other broadcast entities - he would be trying to improve the financial value of the LA Times - nor depreciate it, so the he could SELL THE PAPER.

I wonder who's in control in La-la land...

re: #70 jaunte

The "Readers' Representative" Journal article doesn't address a couple of points:
- Their previous reporting on the event could have been done without a videotape. Why did the source give them the tape?
- Did their source-protection agreement extend to a transcript of said tape?

What source protection agreement? If there had really been one, they would have mentioned it from the start rather than taking days to come up with that story.

re: #56 Killian Bundy

/Richardson: Under Obama Those That Make 120K Get Tax Cut

Thanks for the link...is Richardson under the bus now?

bbl. I'm the judge for the Halloween costume contest down the street.

/they only ask old people without young children. ;-)

re: #58 Charles

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't believe they're telling the truth about the so-called "agreement." It took them three days to come up with that excuse.

Like Kerry with Christmas in Cambodia. His last excuse for no corroboration: It was a secret mission.

Like Kerry with the so-called botched "you end up in Iraq" joke. Days later he released the transcript.

re: #34 x-wing

I just of somethiing. Can anyone here access Arab t.v. and see if this was shown in the Middle East anywhere?

/sorry if this idea was already brought up.

Check the Blockbuster Videos in Gaza. If they don't have this video maybe they have an Obama section with other great material.
//

re: #74 arethusa

Translation: " Any useful idiots who believe we aren't going to tax the $^*+ out of every working American are in for a big surprise. Giggle, snicker."

"Put their source in jeopardy"

lol

as if they're counting on this guy/gal for future damaging disclosures about The One™

give me a f***** break

re: #83 wolfie

Yup. It's the best they could come up with after three days. Doesn't say much for their thinking.

re: #76 jorline

Thanks!

How can the source of the tape be protected as a 'whistle blower' when there is nothing incriminating on there?

More lies. Next they will say they returned the 'tape'. Like it isn't in a computer file and a backup disc already. No, they only have the old Super 8 and the Times doesn't own a Bell and Howell projector anyway, so you can't see the tape.

i wonder why they are so desperate to get obama elected. they are losing ad revenue, subscriptions, and news stand sales. what is in it for the msm to prostrate themselves like this? it is down right vulgar and pathetic.
what are they getting from the O? besides made to look like fools.
what has he promised them, the fairness doctrine? money?

BREAKING NEWS:

L.A. Times says their dog ate the video.

re: #94 nyc redneck

Rainbows and unicorns.

Ah....you don't give something to a NEWSPAPER and expect privacy.

I'm curious. What % of the American people do you think have even heard about this tape, the setting of it and its possible implications?

1%? 5%?

At [Link: israelmatzav.blogspot.com...] here is what is claimed OHB said.

“Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

While I believe that the LAT has made a promise to the source to not release the tape, I do think that they are screwed no matter which way they take it. To release it is to breach their agreement and no source will trust them for a long time, to not release it reinforces the widespread and justified belief in their bias towards the Dems. Kind of a win-win for our side. Although, I would love to see what is on that tape, especially if it is damaging to The One.

Well, even if the limit holds at 120K (fat chance) I guess I'd still get a payoff under this ginned-up plan. But that'd just make me into one of those guys trying to stand on someone else's shoulders to keep from drowning. And I'm not going down that way. The only spreading the Ø plan does is spreading the loss. Because we all lose.

AP Poll: "1 in 7 voters still persuadable:"

[Link: www.breitbart.com...]

Proof that polls are bullshit.

re: #100 CyanSnowHawk

While I believe that the LAT has made a promise to the source to not release the tape, I do think that they are screwed no matter which way they take it. To release it is to breach their agreement and no source will trust them for a long time, to not release it reinforces the widespread and justified belief in their bias towards the Dems. Kind of a win-win for our side. Although, I would love to see what is on that tape, especially if it is damaging to The One.

There was no agreement.

Have any of the remaining journalist/disciples who were given roses and allowed to stay on the His chariot even brought this up to Him?

This is the last ACORN for most with the drive by media.

I don't think it's a good idea to make this the defining issue a few days' out.

Obama is still totally inexperienced.

What experience he has is totally hard, extremist left.

He would be in the driver's seat of One Party rule.

Is that what Americans want, really? No checks at all. With that kind of inexperience running the show?

Inexperience that has XYZABCDEFG bad, questionable connections?

Inexperience that has made such reckless promises? Ventured such reckless interpretations of the US Constitution?

If you are an undecided adult reading this, you can't in good conscience vote for such radical inexperience with such seedy and reckless associations.

The only sensible vote is for the guy who won't push hard right but will enact sensible reforms and defend US interests while preserving the creativity and resilience of the free market.

Like it or not, that's John McCain.

See you at the polls, chief.

Nuance: Merci Beaucoup.

re: #94 nyc redneck

The usual whorish reasons.Invites to all the swell parties at the White House for starters, globetrotting with the POTUS, exclusive interviews and scoops, maybe even a job with the WH press corp.

I get the feeling that this tape, which they defend so hard, has been taken off them by someone from the B0 campaign - bought off/threats whatever - and that they now have to defend their position come hell or high water.
They cannot say that they have let the tape go to B0, they must stick to their 'story'.

Well, its only a few more days for them to hang in there - and if B0 wins, the rewards will be great!

Don't let it happen - don't let B0 win ...

Hmmmm, methinks there ought to be, well, thousands of comments over at the LA Times page. No?

Ah, the "nuance" tack! Can't the LA Times then just find a "nuanced" solution like posting the audio-only?

No agreement. All BS. Reporter said he saw tape and even asked for its release. That was when story hit the fan. Reporter is now good company man, taken off the field and reporting what the editorial page writers tell him.

I choose to believe that the tape shows 0 with his hand placed casually on Wm. Ayers' shoulder.

But calls and e-mails like this from Michael Piekutowski started coming in late Wednesday morning, and also are coming in by the hundreds still: "If you were to release this source, it would scare off other sources on whistle-blowing stories.... Please maintain your integrity."

What, like all those Sarah Palin's clothese stories? Integrity? Snort.

I won't have to work at putting gas in my car. I won't have to 'work' at paying off my mortgage.

The previous thread had the word 'worry' repoaced for work.

Listening carefully, I think work is correct.

Still not as damning as I won't have to pay my mortgage, but not having work is much worse than not having to worry.

re: #110 SurferDoc

Hmmmm, methinks there ought to be, well, thousands of comments over at the LA Times page. No?

there are just a few. I wrote one but it has not posted yet. I think they only post them manually, or limit the postings. A lot of online publications do this.

re: #61 arethusa

Yes, here - note that it's Bill Richardson this time, not Biden.

Money quote: "What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those."

Thanks...Obama Kool-Aid drinkers are in for an April surprise.

I'm handing out candy this evening, but the guy who's really in costume, asking for stuff from me, and implying me I'm an a**hole for making my own damn choice about giving it to him, is Barack Obama.

Take a hike.

re: #113 elevenbravo1969

and a big sloppy kiss planted by the Obama on Jerry Wright's , er, cheek.

Either way, it comes down to the LA Times possessing an entire story but choosing what parts they wish for us little people to know.

If the Times wishes to keep its so-called promise to this anonymous source yet still tell the whole story, they need only type up a transcript and release that, or write an alternative article with greater detail of what exactly occurred.

This they still refuse to do. To me, this is what sticks in my craw, and causes me to believe that there is more going on here then their on-second-thought excuse of "we are keeping our promise".

I guess keeping ones promise doesn't extend to the "folks", when news organizations promise to be unbiased, and report the whole story.

So I just had a teacher in who just voted for Obama, here in Red State Kansas. And her husband and kids are all pro McCain. She actually believes him. Wanted to know what I thought. Told her I thought I couldn't trust her in a voting booth. I guess we'll see.

New York Times from July 1, 2006

When Do We Publish a Secret?

...Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.

In recent years our papers have brought you a great deal of information the White House never intended for you to know — classified secrets about the questionable intelligence that led the country to war in Iraq, about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, about the transfer of suspects to countries that are not squeamish about using torture, about eavesdropping without warrants.

As Robert G. Kaiser, associate editor of The Washington Post, asked recently in the pages of that newspaper: "You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America's name, shouldn't Americans understand how it is being waged?"

Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat.

How do we, as editors, reconcile the obligation to inform with the instinct to protect?

OK.

GOtta go.

Got to get out of this tall, dark and handsome man costume I wore to work today.

re: #116 astronmr20

When you say "they only post them manually," do you mean they get chubby little monks to transcribe them?

/

Maybe they're all getting high and chanting Koranic suras while stomping on US and Israeli flags, the point is, Obama is a wacko inexperienced sheister who is listening to all kinds of bad people. This is the POTUS?

I don't think so.

re: #122 HelloDare

Lying hypocrites.

(please refrain from posting for 3 seconds so I can finally leave)

I just left a comment on the LA Times web site about the article. I'll post it here as well, since I'm quite sure the moderator will never allow it to be published over there:

----------

You don't seem to grasp the issue here. In this article and various other responses to the uproar, you keep repeating the mantra, "But we already described the contents of the tape. The public doesn't need to actually view it -- WE viewed it, and reported what we saw to you. Isn't that good enough?"

No! It is not good enough. And you know why? WE NO LONGER TRUST YOU.

That's right. We think you're lying. We think the tape shows more than simply what was described in the original article. And that you are intentionally misrepresenting it to us.

Gone are the days when journalists had some magical imprimatur of reliability and impartiality. The public tolerates being spoon-fed information by you simply because we have no other choice; despite the media's waning influence, to a certain degree have you still a monopoly on primary sources of news. We the public would PREFER to see the data raw, and not filtered through the eyes, perceptions and biases of writers and editors and newscasters whom we are quite sure are using their position of power to distort information to their own political whims.

I realize full well that you will never release the video -- or at least until after the election, when it will be deemed safely irrelevant. You may get your man elected president, but your credibility with the public will be forever destroyed.

You may be able to continue obtaining supposedly top-secret information from supposedly top-secret sources, but no one will care anymore because no one will be reading your newspaper -- since they no longer trust what you have to say.

re: #110 SurferDoc

Hmmmm, methinks there ought to be, well, thousands of comments over at the LA Times page. No?

It's probably like when I tried to send a fax to Zell the other day: "Message not delivered, machine busy or turned off." I mean, once you get out of the business of reporting the news and serving the truth, who are you accountable to, really? No one.

re: #122 HelloDare

Heh.

re: #123 Ben Hur

cross dressing is forbidden.

Just sent to the Latrines:

Good afternoon.

I sincerely hope that you realize the page at [Link: latimesblogs.latimes.com...] has basically just become the obituary of the LA Times. If you were a patient in a hospital, the blood bank would have shut you off from the amount of subscribers you're hemorrhaging. Not only has your paper completely shown to be unworthy of the phrase "Journalistic Integrity" but it's barely sufficient for killing spiders or drying windshields. Bill Plaschke was the only reason anyone would even considering subscribing anymore but, now that he's on Around The Horn, even that reason doesn't exist.

I truly hope that the columnists and editors have sufficiently updated their resumes. Come 5 November, the LA Times might just as well cease to exist... and who knows, perhaps we're lucky enough that it does exactly that.

re: #122 HelloDare

When do we publish a secret? Uhh, when it damages the country or a Republican would cover it.

re: #127 zombie

UP-ding!

Yeah, zombie, that's it. If they really want to be "media" and present both sides, well, present the raw data. That's the fairest approach of all, and the most transparent.

:-)

This whole stonewall belies their real agenda, which is not to act as a "medium" at all, but to filter.

F**** them.

Funny: Mapes and Dan were given the TANG documents on the condition they release the false documents:

BUT:

The L.A. Times is given an authentic video on the condition they not release the true document:

How convenient...

re: #84 jorline

250k -200k-150k-120k- soon will be honest and US$21,027family of four, US$10,787s next single.
they tax anything that moves.

re: #122 HelloDare

New York Times from July 1, 2006

When Do We Publish a Secret?

...Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.

In recent years our papers have brought you a great deal of information the White House never intended for you to know — classified secrets about the questionable intelligence that led the country to war in Iraq, about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, about the transfer of suspects to countries that are not squeamish about using torture, about eavesdropping without warrants.

As Robert G. Kaiser, associate editor of The Washington Post, asked recently in the pages of that newspaper: "You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America's name, shouldn't Americans understand how it is being waged?"

Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat.

How do we, as editors, reconcile the obligation to inform with the instinct to protect?

Hey, I guess the L.A. Times tape didn't pass the N.Y. Slime MSM litmus test of, "Only if it will put our boys in harms way, and help discredit America, will we release it."

*SPIT*

I certainly appreciate learning from Zombie and Charles, and am going home now.

I just ran into Alanis Morrisette hiking in Chautauqua park here in Boulder.
Seriously.

Gotta go ,Lizards.
Have a nice Halloween!

Seeya tomorrow - and KBO!

re: #139 FrogMarch
isn't it ironic. sorry couldn't help myself.

My bobbling alien antennae are starting to make me feel downright silly.

(non seq.)

re: #140 yma o hyd

Gotta go ,Lizards.
Have a nice Halloween!

Seeya tomorrow - and KBO!

bye yma...see you soon.

re: #139 FrogMarch

I just ran into Alanis Morrisette hiking in Chautauqua park here in Boulder.
Seriously.

Crazy!

re: #137 Oh no...Sand People!

Hey, I guess the L.A. Times tape didn't pass the N.Y. Slime MSM litmus test of, "Only if it will put our boys in harms way, and help discredit America, will we release it."

*SPIT*

Excellent. Great post. Timely.

What a bunch of scumbags.

Happy All Hallow's Eve

Remember the dead and what they've given you.

"The people have a right to know!"
The noble grand excuse declaimed by journalists in defense of publishing details about military installations, deployments, strikes, weaponry, strategy, weaknesses, troop strength, morale, failures, special operations, sensitive negotiations. If it costs our lives, our soldiers' lives, if it brings defeat and the slaughter of innocents as repercussions---so be it. "The people have a right to know!" Unless knowing would discredit Democrat reality, Democrat actions, Democrat Presidents and Nominees. "The end justifies the means!"
TRUMPS integrity, truth, loyalty, patriotism, hell--even simple professional pride.

We need a public prize award for the enemies of America, similar to the Pulitzer or Nobel. One category: The Leni Riefenstahl Award for Propaganda

re: #80 DeafDog

Hey! I have one of those! We call it our 'Oracle'. It knows shit, so to speak.

re: #115 DeafDog

I won't have to work at putting gas in my car. I won't have to 'work' at paying off my mortgage.

The previous thread had the word 'worry' repoaced for work.

Listening carefully, I think work is correct.

Still not as damning as I won't have to pay my mortgage, but not having work is much worse than not having to worry.

I listened very carefully - its WORK not worry (both times)!

re: #139 FrogMarch

I just ran into Alanis Morrisette hiking in Chautauqua park here in Boulder.
Seriously.

Hmm.. That's ironic.

re: #124 wolfie

When you say "they only post them manually," do you mean they get chubby little monks to transcribe them?

/

That image is really tickling me, somehow!

re: #136 willowone

Soon it will be you show up to work and the government sends you a monthly stipend of what they think you deserve.

re: #146 godfrey

Happy All Hallow's Eve

Remember the dead and what they've given you.

Yeah, free Democrat votes.

/

OT
From HillBuzz -- here's why THIS woman's voting for her Messiah

I posted a challenge there to release a transcrript, saying their credibility is at stake.

re: #144 zombie

Hey, Undead One! Isn't this a special day for you? :D

Zombie makes an excellent point. For decades newspapers all had their own editorial slant and their own opinions and that was ok. Now though, the actual "facts" are in question. I don't think they can ever recover from it.

I recall Rush commenting on some story in the NY times a few years ago and commenting " That's quite a story, I wonder if it's true"

re: #127 zombie

zombie, I'd have dinged you up but my dinger is malfunctioning. Did you see your news breaker Prairie being attributed to you over on Breitbart?

re: #146 godfrey

Happy All Hallow's Eve

Remember the dead and what they've given you.

Their votes to the next President?/

re: #136 willowone

250k -200k-150k-120k- soon will be honest and US$21,027family of four, US$10,787s next single.
they tax anything that moves.

And did I mention that they're thinking before deductions, not after. I almost said "Gross not Net", but the whole thought of BHO stealing getting elected being anointed taking the Presidency is GROSS!

re: #146 godfrey

Happy All Hallow's Eve

Remember the dead and what they've given you.

Is that kind of a backhanded slap at our beloved un-dead zombie?

Jake Tapper's article "Obama Claus", where he dissects BHO's campaign promises from just one speech today in Sarasota, FL.
[Link: blogs.abcnews.com...]

Is ABC going of the reservation? Surely not. Or is Tapper the token investigative journalist for the MSM?

re: #158 Daisy

zombie, I'd have dinged you up but my dinger is malfunctioning. Sorry if this is seriously repetitive - Did you see your news breaker Prairie being attributed to you over on Breitbart?

Here's the Breitbart link: [Link: www.breitbart.tv...]

Zombie, Charles and everyone else -

Happy Halloween and good night!

Remember this story that the L. A. Times broke with the NYT.

U.S. Secretly Tracks Global Bank Data

By Greg Miller and Josh Meyer
June 23, 2006 in print edition A-1

The U.S. government, without the knowledge of many banks and their customers, has engaged for years in a secret effort to track terrorist financing by accessing a vast database of confidential information on transfers of money between banks worldwide.

The program, run by the Treasury Department, is considered a potent weapon in the war on terrorism because of its ability to clandestinely monitor financial transactions and map terrorist webs.

It is part of an arsenal of aggressive measures the government has adopted since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that yield new intelligence, but also circumvent traditional safeguards against abuse and raise concerns about intrusions on privacy.

Under this effort, Treasury routinely acquires information about bank transfers from the world’s largest financial communication network, which is run by a consortium of financial institutions called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT.

The SWIFT network carries up to 12.7 million messages a day containing instructions on many of the international transfers of money between banks. The messages typically include the names and account numbers of bank customers – from U.S. citizens to major corporations – who are sending or receiving funds.

re: #141 willowone

isn't it ironic. sorry couldn't help myself.

It was totally her! I noticed a small tattoo on her forearm. Sure enough - I looked on-line and she has a small tattoo on her forearm. woot!
She looked very approachable - but we didn't want to bother her.

at first I thought - no way - it just looks like her. But then my hiking buddy reminded me that she is in town.

re: #136 willowone

I have not read Obama's tax plan but what I have heard makes it sound much more like what Clinton did. Very specific credits for very specific people. i.e. credit for paying college tuition, or an electric car, or solar panels etc. but only if your income is below $X, a slightly different break for those between $X and $Y and nothing for those above $Y. Although if you get these it is helpful to you, rate decreases are much much better and are helpful for everyone. I think the nature of these breaks makes it very tough to say who will or will not get a break thus the range of income levels discussed. In a sense McCain's $5000 healthcare break falls into the same type of break being specific but it would also apply to a very large percentage of the population so it is not as targeted.

Wow, what's up with Fox News lately? Agreeing with the LA Times on protecting sources? Cavuto calling out John McCain on his economic policy? That other anchor arguing with Joe the Plumber about Obama's stance on Israel?

I used to think they were the last unbiased news source, but now I'm not so sure.

PIMF:

"...going OFF the...."

re: #167 Fredlike

Well, Bill did say the other day he wasn't smart enough to think these through on his own.

The LA Times seems to have kidnapped our nations clear understanding on how to best vote, for the nations future.

I do NOT believe the First Amendment gives the LA Times, that "right".

re: #163 Daisy

Here's the Breitbart link: [Link: www.breitbart.tv...]

Thanks!

re: #111 BLBfootballs

Ah, the "nuance" tack! Can't the LA Times then just find a "nuanced" solution like posting the audio-only?

I've made two so far and haven't seen a one yet.

re: #144 zombie

Crazy!

It was! She looks like a Boulder gal all the way. For some odd reason it made my Halloween. Better go dig out jagged little pill...

The LA Times seems confident if we just read the original story about the videotaped gathering we would no longer be so critical of the stance of the LA Times. If the original story is so benign, and yes I've read it now, why not release so official synopsis, some certified transcript, if you don't wish to release the tape itself? If it is benign, to release the content of that meeting would sure embarrass all the critics of the Times. So is it benign as you say? Please embarrass us all by telling what happened—surely you can release that information without giving away your source's identity.

re: #115 DeafDog

Just to be fair....the woman at the Obama rally said she "won't hafta" worry about putting gas in tank....she "won't hafta" worry about paying her mortgage. If she helps him (Onama) he'll help her.

James Taranto thinks that Andrew McCarthy and I are both full of crap. He believes the LA Times.

re: #176 ps2

Just to be fair....the woman at the Obama rally said she "won't hafta" worry about putting gas in tank....she "won't hafta" worry about paying her mortgage. If she helps him (Onama) he'll help her.

Only problem is it won't be Obama helping her it will be my tax dollars probably. Obama is stingy with his money.

I believe the LA Times, too. I believe the LA Times is covering up for damaging statements made by their favored candidate.

re: #168 Fred72

Wow, what's up with Fox News lately? Agreeing with the LA Times on protecting sources? Cavuto calling out John McCain on his economic policy? That other anchor arguing with Joe the Plumber about Obama's stance on Israel?

I used to think they were the last unbiased news source, but now I'm not so sure.

I think they are suffering under the open scorn and ridicule of their peers, of the powerful in Washington, D.C., the glitterati and intellectual snobs

I'm still grateful for their presence on the airwaves, and if they are being a bit scrupulous to "hit both sides" I'll put up with it. If it were not for Fox and C Span NONE of us would have access to the full spectrum of reality--except for the internet and ideological magazines.

If there truly is justice in this world, the LALALALALA Times will go tits-up for good...very, very soon.

You know full well if this were about Palin or McCain, they'd be spooging in their shorts with orgasmic anticipation to ensure the people's "right to know"...

What a bunch of fuckwads.

If the argument goes back to confidentiality a good case for disclosure can be made from medical ethics.
Medics are usually very cautious about releasing confidential information (for ethical and disciplinary reasons), but if a physician thinks his patient is going to harm or has harmed others he has a duty of disclosure. For example, a man who thinks he's still safe to drive after a stroke, despite being warned by his doctor that he is not might have to be taken off the road. The information was confidential but to save life, the physician has a duty to inform the regulatory authorities.

If Obama applauded a poetess who's words were tantamount to inciting terrorism or at least minimising it, the LA Times has an overriding duty of disclosure.

re: #177 Charles

James Taranto thinks that Andrew McCarthy and I are full of crap. He believes the LA Times.

One possibility is that the videotape exposes the source in some way that could harm or inconvenience him if it were made public. Perhaps the source is pictured in the video and does not want it known (by his boss, spouse, or who knows who else) that he was present at the event. Or maybe the source shot the video, the video makes his identity obvious, and the source does not want the organizers of the event to blame him for exposing them.

Bullshit...I still ask why would the informant provide the LAT with the tape in the first place? If I shot video of something and was fearful of it getting out I sure as hell wouldn't give it to the press.

(Charles Johnson relays an email one of his readers says he received from a Times corporate spokesman saying that releasing the recording "might put the source of the tape in jeopardy." Johnson seems to view this claim with skepticism--and hey, it's not as if the people on the tape are a bunch of terrorists or anything.)

Like you don't check and double check. What's with the smart-ass comment at the end of the quote? Doesn't the WSJ want to know?

//putting my hands over my eyes so I don't see the boogeyman.

re: #74 arethusa

Yeah - I should say, I can understand making verbal slips of 200K or 150K when you mean 250K, but 120K?

It's gotcha accounting.

This is a seminal moment - mostly for LAT, but as it is a proxy for the MSM for the essential integrity of print

Zombie said it so well in his email to LAT - bravo.

Charles has LAT dead to rights in their inability to come up with an excuse they can stick to after three days of massaging the message.

Bravo all lizards!

For this, they chop down trees?

re: #38 JacksonTn

Excellent point. Claudia Rosett has a cogent analysis, including the observation that Obama himself should be the person with the greatest interest in disclosing this sort of information before he gets into office: Obama and the Potential Blackmail Factor.

I suspect that some of the confusion here arises due to a difference in interpreting the meaning of the terms "confidential" vs "anonymous." In medical ethics, in fields of research, in lawyer/client relationships, etc., there are confidentiality agreements. what this means is that the "professional" will not go public with the information. So, if you're a patient with condition X, living in a small town, and you discuss your (let's say, rare but embarrassing) condition with your physician (in confidence), it means your "condition" is not going to suddenly become the talk of the town. As in someone discovering and disclaiming: "Someone in town has Disease X! How shocking!" Then, there's anonymity, which means that one's identity will not be divulged (this is a separate issue). A breach of anonymity would mean someone could run about and exclaim: "Mr. X has a disease!" In the case of the videotape being given to a reporter...well, by the very act of releasing a videotape to be viewed by a reporter so that said reporter can then file a story, this means the infomation is NOT confidential. The information on the tape is "going public"...obviously. How could one insist on "confidentiality" (no releasing that info to the public now!) when you're handing it over to be published in a newspaper? Expectations of having information remain "confidential", while simultaneously expecting said info to become published in a newspaper is an outright contradiction. Clearly what the source expects is not "confidentiality", but anonymity. So the source's name will not be revealed. This is a different issue, with different remedies, etc.

Why do I always read the comments after these things? Most of the readers are asking for the tape in a nice, well-reasoned way. But the others. Hoo! What morons! They're buying this 'danger to the source' BS hook, line and sinker.

What is the danger to the source? If it was reported fully then why would anyone care what was on the tape. It seems like it must be pretty innocuous based on the reporting so far.

Unless it's not.

And that's the question, right?

re: #177 Charles

James Taranto thinks that Andrew McCarthy and I are both full of crap. He believes the LA Times.

Some of Taranto's comments are tongue-in-cheek and he agrees that the LAT should release a transcript. That trumps all of their arguments.

Play chess to win!

LA times, anyone who believes there is a blue dress is a moron. We are right all the time.

/LAtimeout

[Link: www.bizzyblog.com...]

shows ZERO only contributed 0.4% to charity while making $250K a year in 2002. That is why Aunt and Cousin are still living in Slums.

ZERO's charity donation chart should be discussed on FOX news and Rush.

Just to clarify my chess comment, imagine how this would have played out if the idea of releasing a transcript has been in the original request (maybe as a fall-back position -- "if you can't release the tape, at least release a transcript"). The LAT wouldn't have had room to change their ground a bunch of times and stall.

We complain about press bias but then always seem to be surprised and befuddled when it happens. Had we expected the LAT to stonewall, we would have not made it so easy for them. Now we are reduced to trying to gain the maximum impact, post election, from their stonewalling.

When will we ever learn?

LA TIMES Hiding Barry's MACACA Moment from American Public!

The tape is a non-issue; a mere distraction - another false rumor. Geraldo Rivera.

# 34 x-wing,
I just (thought) of somethiing. Can anyone here access Arab t.v. and see if this was shown in the Middle East anywhere?

/sorry if this idea was already brought up.

X-wing has a good idea here. Does anybody know how to research Arab media databases? What about MEMRI, have they been made aware.

/ will copy this to other threads. I don't have comp skills to look for this type of info

I just hope all those people which subscribe to the LA Times and the advertisers would cancel their subscriptions and contracts and list this as the reason.

If I worked at the LAT I would be updating my resume and job searching right about now. Something tells me massive layoffs are in the future.

Since the LA Times really doesn't seem to care what the public thinks about their continually printing a newspaper that is nothing more than a leftist propaganda rag, anyone who still believes in objective journalism needs to work to sink this paper as soon as possible.

re: #76 jorline

I love that reference. I used it months ago in a LGF post saying: "roll up the windows and close your nose". Alas, I can't remember or find thru LGF search the actual post.

If BroBoma (Election fraud investigations/impeachment be upon him/Acorn) wins, this song will be our new lament.

If his proposed National Service Corps (NuvoBrownshirts) is launched to remove our 100 Million plus civilian owned arms, there'll be dead skunks and stink everywhere! The shilling MSM will probably be the first to go, by popular demand, how fitting?

Clean house, as Thomas Jefferson said, "the tree of liberty... requires the blood of patriots and tyrants." The US Constitution, as is, will be defended by those it serves against those that will defile it, both foreign and domestic.

But first - GO VOTE!

re: #88 vagabond trader

Which will bring on the biggest tax revolt in US history!

re: #117 jorline

Yep, w/ Brobama having this new plausible deniability!

"Hey, Biden and Richardson clarified that number just before 11/4, right, so big deal, it's done man, get over it and pay up, ya know - fairness and all. Um, ah, and by the way, the constitution was just written by a bunch of rich White guys over 200 years ago who owned slaves, so really, it's just an old piece of paper anyway that's very faulty." I am a constitutional lawyer, ya know. Next.

re: #63 godfrey

This is bogus:

Anonymous sourcing is important to protect leakers of sensitive information.

But the LAT is saying there's nothing sensitive about the tape. They reported on it, and they consider it a done deal. Why not release it?

Answer: they're afraid the GOP will make political hay of it.

That's not a reason that has anything to do with journalistic integrity or protecting sources.

Or - there is no tape, and they're covering up a Jason Blair moment, while doing their best to ensnare the Right in wild speculation along the way. They staked a central point of their story on the fact that what was said was shown on this tape. I'm guessing they made it up, to add credence to their report and also to blunt charges of plagiarism raised by Debbie Schlussel.

The media has learned that anonymous sources - the formerly preferred method of lying to the public - don't carry much weight these days. Videos, apparently, are going to become the new anonymous source.

There were, apparently, a lot of people at this event. Yet after all this time and all this attention, not a single one of them has come forward to either confirm or deny the speculation or reported events. Nor have any of their acquaintances. It takes a mind-bogglingly gigantic conspiracy to produce this kind of silence, of the sort that people are simply incapable of.

I would demand that Wallsten back up his story with something more than the assertion that there is a tape, somewhere, that no one can ever see that provides the evidence. How about quotes from actual, named attendees?

An examination of other Wallsten articles might be fruitful. Jason Blair shoveled hundreds of falsified articles under the noses of the NYT editorial staff, largely because he was telling the stories they wanted to hear. Let's see if Wallsten's work is filled with anonymous, unsubstantiated sources; let's see if his named sources, if any, confirm what he has written.

And let's see if the LAT enjoys being accused of flat-out lying and cover-up.

It looks like they have cherry-picked through the comments and deleted the rest since mine about them stealing the original story from Debbie Schlussel is gone. Gee, and I wonder why people don't believe them.

Here is a wild guess . . .

It has been widely reported that the keep-it-a-secret item is that Obama said in effect "Down with Israel. Up with Palestine."

But would that change the voting decision of any decisive number of people? I am inclined to doubt it.

Maybe the keep-it-a-secret item is something else entirely -- Something that would rile a lot of voters not much moved by the subject of Israel?

If so, the LAT and the Obamatons have good reason to let the public GO ON THINKING MISTAKENLY that the secret pertains to Israel.

Maybe, then, the real secret is . . . [fill in whatever you think would be the worst one].