L.A. Times Still Refusing to Release Video of Obama’s Party With Radical Islamists

The L.A. Times persists in hiding from the public a 2003 video of Barack Obama attending a party for radical Islamist activist Rashid Khalidi, a video that supposedly features extreme anti-Semitic rhetoric. Yet, with criticism stinging, the Times has issued a rather feeble reason for keeping that important video secret from the American people.

They are “keeping a promise,” we are told, to protect a “confidential source.”

This is what L.A. Times VP for communications Nancy Sullivan told The Blaze this week.

In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported first, and in explicit detail about the dinner event and the tape of it. More than six months later, just days before the November 2008 election, the McCain Campaign demanded the public release of the tape. As we stated then, The Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided for review by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not publish the tape itself. The Times keeps its promises to sources and nothing has changed in that regard.

Amusingly, Sullivan also said that as far as she knew, The Blaze was the only ones asking about the tape.

Obviously Sullivan is uninformed. The folks at Breitbart have offered $100,000 for a copy of that video. Are we really expected to believe Sullivan hasn’t heard of this offer?

Not only that, but The Blaze story is chock full of voices scolding the Times for its recalcitrance.

But, let’s review Sullivan’s tenuous reasons for continuing the news blackout of this important video of a sitting president.

Firstly, Sullivan claims that her paper already published “explicit detail about the dinner event.” OK, fine. So, why is the video withheld if it really isn’t protecting any actual information? If the Times already told us all about the video, then why not release it? What could the paper be protecting at this point?

Secondly, the claim that they are protecting their source is a bit odd as it seems more like they are protecting information, not the identity of a source. And if the Times is claiming they don’t want to violate any “privilege” they already did that by publishing all that “explicit detail about the dinner event.”

But it is clear that the Times is not interested in keep private video private and only interested in keeping video of Obama under wraps. This week the paper has been all over the video tape of Romney’s private meeting where he discussed the “47 percent” of America that hews to the Democrat Party. That meeting was supposed to be closed to the public, yet the Times has reported about that video for days.

In the past the L.A. Times has claimed that its duty is to “publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.” But in the case of President Obama it seems that they want to protect him from those very readers who now can’t get the proper “information” with which to make those “informed decisions.”

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 22, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Asshats, Barack Obama, Big government, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Dumbasses, Islam, Islamic Fascism, Israel, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    Funny how the sealed divorce proceedings of obama’s opponents mysteriously become unsealed and the press has no interest and never reports on how it happened, but are very willing to report the contents, yet they are fiercely protective of the won’s dirty laundry. Come on LAT, surprise us and show us that obama is not the anti-Semitic supporter of terrorist causes that we think he is.

    • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

      Damn you, Seven of Nine!!!

  • Pingback: Romney releases tax returns!!!! - Page 4 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    I never heard of this guy Rashid Khalidi, so I looked him up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi

    He’s a Yale grad and a professor at Columbia, born in the USA.

    No sign he’s an “Islamist” at all, but a Palestinian nationalist, not particularly “radical.” Critical of Palestinian leadership. Been on the Charlie Rose Show, that hotbed of radicalism.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/full-transcript-of-interview-with-palestinian-professor-rashid-khalidi-1.399632

    I guess Warner thinks that the mention of an Arabic name will cause y’all to start drooling and barking, like Pavlov’s Dog at the sound of the bell.

    Can anyone here make an argument for Romney, or does he suck that bad?
    .

    • Brucehenry

      Answers to your last two questions: No, and yes.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        Warner can’t even make a good argument against Obama, even though there are many; it’s all bullshit trivialities and red herrings from him.

        • SCSIwuzzy

          By your definition, if it doesn’t include bashing the Jews or the Catholics no argument against Obama is a good argument.

    • jim_m

      Sure. And Yassir Arafat was only a palestinian nationalist and not a terrorist. Ever!

      Nice papering over the fact that Khalidi was Arafat’s (the terrorist) mouthpiece. That his wife worked for Arafat’s press agency. Khalidi went to Columbia to take an endowed chair named for Edward Sayyid, the terrorism apologist.

      The event in question was filled with left wing domestic terrorists and sponsored by the rabidly anti-Israel Arab American Action Group. It is highly likely that in an vent filled with people who have taken the position that the USA is a terrorist nation for supporting Israel that obama may just have said some things that he would regret becoming public. Things that the mainstream of America would find very disturbing. It would be interesting to know how many defamatory things were said by others abou the US that he declined to challenge and supported by his silence.

      To you useful idiots Khalidi is just a university professor. To the rest of the world he is a supporter and associate of terrorists and complicit in their actions.

      • Brucehenry

        By “the rest of the world” you mean you and your fellow paranoid nutbars. By “you useful idiots” you mean everyone else.

        Look, behind you! Who’s that guy in the dark sunglasses? FBI?

        • jim_m

          Arafat was a terrorist. You deny that? You are going to stake out he position that nothing unseemly would have been said in an event filled with people who think that Israel is a terrorist state and that the US is a terrorist state for supporting them? Fool

          • Brucehenry

            Arafat, sure. Khalidi, not so much.

            And is a politician forbidden to attend events where “something unseemly” might be said? You think “something unseemly” has never been uttered at Tea Party events? Not comparing the events, you understand, just mocking your assertion that no politician should venture where “something unseemly” may be expressed.

            Also, it kinda depends on what one finds “unseemly” don’t it? For instance, I think saying 47% of Americans are freeloaders is unseemly.

          • jim_m

            The point was not that the room was filled with terrorists but that it was filled with supporters of terrorists. What they said and what obama did or did not say would be revealing.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            So should we call the Tea Party the American Taliban since they push so hard to make the US into a corporate state? There’s more terrorism from right wing fundamentalists than there are from Muslims. Maybe the FBI should crack down on them a little more.

          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            Jim, I read that story that the L.A. Times published in April 2008. It appears to me that you are reading into the story something that is not there.

            A support of Palestinian causes doesn’t equal an act of terrorism. Have Islamic terrorists supported Palestinian causes? Yes.
            Have all people supporting Palestinian causes committed acts of terrorism? No.

          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            Jim, I read that story that the L.A. Times published in April 2008. It appears to me that you are reading into the story something that is not there.

            A support of Palestinian causes doesn’t equal an act of terrorism. Have Islamic terrorists supported Palestinian causes? Yes.
            Have all people supporting Palestinian causes committed acts of terrorism? No.

          • r.a.

            Good points, David.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        Romney’s gotta really suck if all you can do is recycle things from the 2008 campaign.

        Let’s go through the whole cycle – Rev. Wright, Bill Ayres, birth certificate – and wind up the campaign on Nov 5 by bringing back Ashley Todd to claim that she was attacked by Obama supporters – again!

        The LA Times can have good reasons for not releasing the video. Journalism is like intelligence work – you have to protect sources and methods.

        • jim_m

          And GAry Johnson is sooooooo great that you continue to lie about supporting him but never, ever bother to say anything about him because you probably would have to go online to look up what he actually believes. Your position is not a position, it’s a pose.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Vote for Gary Johnson.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            In oth words, you are voting for Obama. Nice try.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            No, I am voting for Gary Johnson.

          • jim_m

            Yeah too bad you only ever advocate for obama and against Romney. If you were really for Johnson you would advocate against both obama and Romney and for him. You never mention him except when someone else calls you out on it. That is why it is so obviously a pose.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            I’ve written a lot of comments saying why they’re both worthless. They’ve both disqualified themselves.

            That does not mean I have to agree with the bullshit Warner spews.

            Johnson was excluded from the GOP debates for bullshit reasons while a clown like Cain was on the stage. The whole process was rigged by the Rep establishment for Romney’s benefit. How’s that working out for them?

            I have no illusions Gary Johnson can win, only that he can provide the base for future dissent from the war and police state.
            The USA is fucked either way with Obama or Romney, not much I can do if most Americans are lemmings.

          • retired.military


            while a clown like Cain was on the stag”

            Racist

        • arcman46

          The reason why things have to be “recycled” from the 2008 campaign is because the media was complicit in not vetting the man that we have as President, and insisted on protecting him at all costs. Had a proper vetting occurred it would be unlikely that Obama would have ever been elected.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, then, how come we all knew about this Khalidi thing in 2008?

          • jim_m

            Yes we did. ave we seen the tape? Nope. Do we know what was said? Nope. Why does the LAT feel that they need to conceal the information? What does obama say that could be so damaging?

            The point is that the media is complicit in covering over whatever was said and what positions were taken and what promises were made.

            Why does the MSM feel that they are allowed to know these things but that the public is not competent to know them?

          • Brucehenry

            The LAT is free, under the First Amendment, to publish or not publish whatever they wish. Don’t like the editorial decisions of the LAT? Don’t buy the paper.

          • jim_m

            Yes they are absolutely free to do as they wish. But this is news. If they choose to withhold it hey are no longer a news paper but instead they have made themselves a propaganda outlet for a political party and political activists pushing an agenda.

            They claim that they are in business to inform the pubic, but what they are really doing is spinning the news to promote their ideology. Their claim of being a news outlet is false as they are not interested in the news, but only in disseminating information that promotes their ideology.

            Being a news outlet is not determining what he public has a right to know. It is reporting what is news. Half my family are journalists and they would find the idea of concealing news to be repugnant.

          • retired.military

            LA Times is too interested in whether Obama wheres Boxers or Briefs and whether Romney still beats his wife.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            And the same paper should take the heat for their choices. That is Jim’s and Warner’s right as well.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes of course you are right that every action has consequences and Jim and Warner can draw their own halfbaked wildass conclusions if they wish. I’m just enjoying pointing out that their conclusions are indeed halfbaked and wildass.

            Like all their thinking.

          • retired.military

            So why have first admendment protections for a free press. If they are going to take sides take away first admendment protections for them and leave it place for folks who actually report news and are unbiased.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            The LA Times says the tape was provided by a source under condition of confidentiality that it not be released.

            It’s not hard to see why this might be necessary to protect a source.

            Suppose you were invited to a party where a political figure was attending. You are among a group of people on the invitation list, which is limited. Perhaps you’re a member of a community, Arabs, Greeks, Peruvians, HO train hobbyists, or in your case jim, the nutball community.

            You take a video of the party. Years later, the political figure becomes prominent and nationally newsworthy. The video becomes significant.

            You have a friend that is a journo, or maybe you just want the thrill of being a news source, or maybe they pay you.

            But the video and audio would, if shown, reveal you as the source. You are afraid that this will be seen as betraying the nutball community and you won’t be invited to their parties anymore.

            If the LA Times releases the video, you’ll be outed as a “spy” for news organizations. Nobody will trust you anymore. So you impose the condition that the video not be released.

            Just like with intelligence organizations, journos have to protect sources and even go to jail to do so.

          • jim_m

            Then why take a tape that you cannot publish? Why conceal the info and not release even partial transcripts?

            Yes journalists protect sources. This was not about protecting e identity of the source. This was about protecting obama. There are any number of ways you could release the information without exposing the source. The LAT chose to conceal the information in order to protect a political figure.

            There is no way to spin this as anything other than protecting obama.

          • Carl

            Publishing the tape or providing a transcript is not part of reporting on the issue/event.

            Why should they release it? Just because right wing idiotic assholes are pretending there is some big conspiracy? The LAT should ignore the bullshit conspiracy theorists.

            Reason they shouldn’t release it? They are protecting the identity of their source.

            There’s nothing to compel the LAT to release the tape of a transcript and obvious reasons not to, reasons that don’t require a tin foil hat to see.

            Occam’s Razor applies. Convoluted conspiracies never turn out to be true.

            And the right wing’s record on these kinds of attacks (Obama’s birth certificate — arrest Eric Holder for FAST AND FURIOUS!#!$% etc) is dismal. These right wing conspiracy theories are always just bullshit in the end.

          • jim_m

            I have already explained the reasons that they should release it. I have explained how they could release the content without releasing the tape. I have explained that in withholding the tape they cease to be about delivering news and become a propaganda outlet and only a propaganda outlet.

            I have never heard anyone say to arrest Holder. I have heard calls for his resignation. To conflate Gunwalker with the birther thing is nuts. We have evidence that the ATF illegally delivered guns to drug cartels. We have evidence that those guns were used to murder hundreds of people. We have evidence that Holder and obama knew about it and that Holder probably perjured himself in his testimony.

            I know that the lives f brown skinned foreigners mean little to a leftist, but they were still human beings and had rights even if you don’t recognize that.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            Arrest Holder!! Worst AG ever!!

          • Carl

            Nice spew. “brown skinned foreigners?” – Your baseless attack on a back President and a black AG, and you project by calling me a racist?

            Pretending there is some viable reason to release this tape because you hate the black president so much is the reality.

            The myth? That there is some sinister conspiracy at work here when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there are political motives behind that.

            The motive. Hate.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            If you’re the LA Times, you take the tape because it objectively shows the story. It’s not “hearsay.” It’s a more reliable source then someone telling you, “Obama said this , , ”

            Your point about a transcript is valid, though.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Who gives a tape to the press with the promise that the press never does anything with it?
            Protecting a source is about reporting, not hiding, events.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            The paper wrote a story based on the tape.

          • jim_m

            The paper wrote a story disclosing only its spin on the tape. IT did not disclose what happened and there is reason to suspect that they would not disclose anything harmful to obama.

          • retired.military


            The LA Times says the tape was provided by a source under condition of confidentiality that it not be released.”
            Lets see. someone gives a newspaper a tape and says “You cant release this”

            Am I wrong or did Chico just say the most moronic thing ever.

          • Brucehenry

            You’re wrong, and so is Jim below.

            The tape is proof TO THE NEWSPAPER that the source is telling the truth. The newspaper is under no obligation to release the tape. They report the info contained in the tape and reveal that they know it’s true because it is in their possession. The reader of the newspaper can choose to believe the story or not, but the newspaper is confident that their source is being factual because they have the tape.

            Just as a newspaper may report something based on sources they choose/agree to keep anonymous, they may report based on a tape they choose not to show you. There is nothing improper about it, and nothing particularly unusual, either.

          • retired.military

            Bruce

            Sorry I am not buying it. Also I have a question. if the tape was about Bush and this was 2004 do you think they would have released it?

            To quote Biden “3 words”
            Bush National Guard papers.

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            CNN had no problem using Stevens Journal.
            Free press!

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            CNN had no problem using Stevens Journal.
            Free press!

        • SCSIwuzzy

          By that measure Obama must really suck, because he blames everything on Bush, who has been out of office for 3+ years, and on Republicans that have only controlled one half of the legislature for less than 2.

        • retired.military


          Romney’s gotta really suck if all you can do is recycle things from the 2008 campaign.”

          Spoken by someone who voted for Obama who is still trying to run against Bush.

      • r.a.

        “Nice papering over the fact that Khalidi was Arafat’s (the terrorist)
        mouthpiece. That his wife worked for Arafat’s press agency. Khalidi
        went to Columbia to take an endowed chair named for Edward Sayyid, the
        terrorism apologist.”

        I have seen the articles about his supposed links to the PLO, but things look a bit hazy. Khaldidi denies any connection to the PLO. But you seem quite convinced that these connections are verified and true. So do you have some concrete proof that I have not yet seen? To me, these claims about Khalidi look a little dubious, and a bit like a smear campaign.

        Also, what makes you call Said a “terrorism apologist”?

        “It is highly likely that in an vent filled with people who have taken
        the position that the USA is a terrorist nation for supporting Israel
        that obama may just have said some things that he would regret becoming
        public.”

        It’s highly likely that we don’t know what was said, and that this is all speculation.

        “To you useful idiots Khalidi is just a university professor. To the rest
        of the world he is a supporter and associate of terrorists and
        complicit in their actions.”

        So what proof do you have that this guy is a supporter and associate of terrorists? That’s a pretty big charge you’re making there, and I’d like to see some concrete evidence. Not reports about what “could be” or insinuations about what “might have been the case,” but actual evidence. You’re making this charge, so prove it.

        • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885
          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            [This entry has been edited.]

            Discover the Networks is a is an anti-liberal partisan website. I wouldn’t use it alone as proof. I would also use the aforementioned 2008 L.A. Times article, which says that, during the 1970s, Khalidi ” often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.” So, it does appear that Khalidi has had sympathy to causes supported by terrorists.

          • Brucehenry

            Discover the Networks is a fever swamp.

          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            I don’t know if it’s a fever swamp. I just know that it alone isn’t proof of anything. As I say in my above reply (which I have edited), the L.A. Times supports the claim that Khalidid did speak on behalf of the PLO back during the 1970s.

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            I’ve posted a series of links in a reply above. Daniel Pipes has written on Khalidi a number of times. Please have a look.

          • r.a.

            David, that 2008 is referring to an article by Tom Friedman in 1982 that suggested Khalidi spoke on behalf of the PLO. Khalidi denied this connection. So, overall, things are looking a bit murky, and I think some folks are jumping the gun a bit with the whole “radical Islamist” charge.

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            Discover the Networks has its uses despite your objections. I take all sites with a grain of salt, thanks for the concern.

        • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885
      • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

        The event in question was filled with left wing domestic terrorists . . .

        Here are excerpts from that aforementioned L.A. Time article published in April of 2008:

        It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

        Nowhere does the L.A. Times story say that the event was filled with terrorists.

        Also,

        In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago’s large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

        Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama’s current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years.

        So, President Obama doesn’t necessarily agree with Khalidi’s beliefs about the state of Israel.

    • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

      He was a member of the PLO, nice try though. Wikipedia, really?

      http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1347

      • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

        The L.A. Times did report that, during the 1970s, Khalidi “often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.”

      • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

        The L.A. Times did report that, during the 1970s, Khalidi “often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization.”

    • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

      He was a member of the PLO, nice try though. Wikipedia, really?

      http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1347

  • Carl

    “Secondly, the claim that they are protecting their source is a bit odd as it seems more like they are protecting information, not the identity of a source.”

    You have x-ray vision?

    Mental telepathy?

    You’ve presented no evidence that they aren’t protecting the identity of a source. You have no evidence or you would have presented.

    So it “seem more they are protecting information, not the identity of the source” is just another right wing lie. You have no evidence, and you present NOTHING to support your wild ass claim.

    • retired.military

      You have presented no evidence that you are not an idiot. In fact you continually prove it with every post.

  • Jwb10001

    So the standard issue left line on this is this guy is no terrorist and we’re just recycling BS, if that’s the case why does the identity of the person providing the tape need to be protected?

  • r.a.

    Warner wrote: “The L.A. Times persists in hiding from the public a 2003 video of Barack Obama attending a party for radical Islamist activist Rashid Khalidi…”

    Ok, so based upon what do you make this claim that Khalidi is a “radical Islamist activist”? Any evidence? Or are you just repeating rumors?

    • Brucehenry

      Answers to your questions in your second paragraph:
      1. Nothin’
      2.Nope
      3.Yep

      • r.a.

        What? No evidence? Say it ain’t so!

        What a shocker that Warner has broken lose from the constraints of evidence-based argumentation. A real shocker.

    • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

      Khalidi himself is a former PLO operative — he used to teach in Beirut on behalf of the PLO. Yeah, I’d say that the guy is a pretty radical islamist.

      Feel free to look it up:
      http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1347

      • r.a.

        Hi Lady Liberty,

        The link you provided recycles the same couple of references that are on other sites (Tom Friedman’s article, the use of the term “we” in reference to the PLO, etc). None of it is exactly conclusive. Is this everything that you (and Warner) are using for your “the guy is a pretty radical Islamist” argument? Looks a little flimsy–and it appears that you are just passing around rumors, not much more.

        PS: Nowhere on your link does it say or even suggest that Khalidi used to “teach in Beruit on behalf of the PLO.” Where did you get that idea from?

        • Brucehenry

          LL thinks that because she found a webpage on the trusty Internet that confirms and reconfirms her paranoia, the case is PROVEN!

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            Bruce, do you think you can post without insults or is that out of the realm of possibility?

          • Brucehenry

            I wouldn’t call that an insult, exactly — more like snark. But I’ll try, for your sake, to be more civil. To you. Can’t promise anything regarding WTH.

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            I appreciate that – as our first conversations were overly argumentative on both sides; which was not my usual style. I think we can be respectful of differing opinions without being caustic, no?
            I can’t promise anything with regard to Chico though ;)

          • Brucehenry

            Ryan’s reply, below, to your Daniel Pipes link is very civil and reasonable. Did it change your mind or make you rethink anything? No? What a surprise.

            Wizbang’s comment section, as long as I’ve been visiting, has always been lively and full of both snark and insults. Most folks don’t really get their feelings hurt until things go way too far — like the time I was called “pro-infanticide.” I’ve gone too far myself a couple of times. But hearing that others think one is an “idiot” or “paranoid” or a “fool” is NOT going too far, IMO.

            Comments like mine are no more or less likely to change minds around here than Ryan’s are. Don’t take anything personally.

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            I haven’t read it yet, but thank you for answering in advance for me? ( I cannot locate the comment you speak of, copy/paste?)

            I don’t take it personally, however right off the bat you decide to take me to the woodshed as ‘paranoid’. You don’t help your argument by being combative right out of the gate. Just sayin’.

          • Carl

            If you were serious you’d call on the foul-mouthed conservative commenters to clean up their act too – rather than singling out a liberal and picking on him.

            My guess is that you’re not seriously trying to clean up language around here.

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            My response was for one person attack me personally. I’ve not insulted anyone but instead provided links for further reading.

            I’m not here to babysit other conservatives and what they say nor have I made any claims about people cleaning up their language other than the above. I would suggest you calm down.

        • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

          Khalidi was Arafat’s go-to boy. That’s pretty much well known; he was a PLO mouthpiece and taught at the university in Beirut.

          Middle of the page on that link:
          “Khalidi was born in New York in 1950, the son of a Palestinian father and a Lebanese mother. He earned a B.A. from Yale University
          in 1970 and a Ph.D. from Oxford in 1974. During the Seventies, Khalidi
          taught for a brief time at a university in Beirut, where he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat’s
          Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Prior to joining the Columbia
          faculty, Khalidi was a professor at the University of Chicago, where he
          served as Director of both the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the
          Center for International Studies.”

          Also worth reading:
          http://www.danielpipes.org/20/under-siege-plo-decisionmaking-during-the-1982-war

          http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/06/the-us-governments-poor-record-on-islamists

          http://www.danielpipes.org/1234/rashid-khalidis-appointment-at-columbia-university

          http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/172641/obamaayerskhalidi-connection-andrew-c-mccarthy

          • r.a.

            “Khalidi was Arafat’s go-to boy. That’s pretty much well known; he was a PLO mouthpiece and taught at the university in Beirut.”

            You’re not getting the point of what I am saying. You are just repeating the same vague information. Just because it’s on more than one website does not make it true. From what I can tell, Khalidi is very vested and outspoken and certainly leans toward supporting the Palestinian cause. Not really a surprise, considering where he was born and hisbackground. Now, there is a big difference between expressing certain political opinions (which you might not agree with), and being either a “PLO mouthpiece” or a “radical Islamist” as you claim here. I think you are making a big leap with some of your charges–and I also think that you are simply repeating information you have heard rather than stepping back and thinking through all of this a little more carefully. I encourage you to look deeper in this and to think for yourself rather than just repeating what you are hearing or reacting automatically based upon what Daniel Pipes or anyone else says.

            “Middle of the page on that link…”

            Yes, LL, I read the whole link carefully. This is not proof–it’s just more recycling of the same claim about Khalidi and the PLO. There is no actual proof here–do you not get this? Just because some website suggests that Khalidi “spoke on behalf of the PLO” does not make it true. This is the same assertion that’s being made on other sites, and it all comes back to the same source (Friedman’s 1982 article). Khalidi denies this connection–so to me it’s an open question. I’d prefer to see more evidence one way or another…especially before people start painting him as some radical, anti-American Islamist or whatever.

            “Also worth reading…”

            Thanks for the links. I read through them all. None of them have convinced me that Khalidi is some radical Islamist who is a terrorist sympathizer. I am not sure how you can read all of the info about this guy and come away with that conclusion- unless you are just parroting what Pipes and Sarah Palin and others have said about him. Did you read the interview with Pipes and Khalidi? It’s interesting. Clearly, Pipes and Khalidi do not agree and do not like one another. The interview itself is a bit of an interrogation, which is not the best way to generate some sort of dialog or understanding among people with different perspectives. Khalidi is a bit on the defensive,a and he and Pipes aren’t exactly “communicating” all that well with one another. Of course, this happens a lot with really complex and heated issues like this. But take the time to read
            it. I don’t really think Khaldidi comes across as some radical Islamist as you and Warner seem to believe. Now, I can understand if you DISAGREE with what he’s saying, or what he thinks–great. No problem. But I think it’s deplorable to start painting someone as a “radical Islamist” or terrorist sympathizer just because he/she does not share your worldview or political opinions. Just my opinion.

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            Thank you for considering them. I do not share the view this is recycled information nor that Khalidi was unrelated to the PLO.

            ” I am not sure how you can read all of the info about this guy and come
            away with that conclusion- unless you are just parroting what Pipes and
            Sarah Palin and others have said about him”

            I’ve not mentioned Palin once. That’s a weird reference?
            Pipes is the most knowledgeable man I can think of off the top of my head when it comes to knowing who is who in the middle east both current and past. Perhaps reading more of his writing would be helpful.

            By the way, I’ve not painted him as a radical islamist in the sense of running into markets with bombs strapped to oneself; if one needs lines drawn for them between being chummy with Yassir Arafat and being associated with the PLO … then of course you are not going to see him as a radical.

          • r.a.

            “I do not share the view this is recycled information nor that Khalidi was unrelated to the PLO”

            The information is indeed recycled because the same couple of sources have been passed around through all of the sites you mention–it’s the same couple of sources again and again, and none of them are exactly very definitive. Most of it comes back to Friedman’s 1982 article. So yes, this is recycled information.

            As for Khalidi’s involvement with the PLO, my point is that the evidence is scant, and I’d rather not jump to conclusions. I have not argued that he is “unrelated to the PLO.” I have argued that the evidence is unclear, and basically I do not know. There’s a very important difference.

            “I’ve not mentioned Palin once. That’s a weird reference?”

            Sorry, that seemed to come out of the blue. Palin was one of the more well known folks in the GOP who was making this “radical Islamist” charge against Khalidi in 2008:

            http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-29/politics/campaign.wrap_1_palestinian-professor-rashid-khalidi-sarah-palin?_s=PM:POLITICS

            “Pipes is the most knowledgeable man I can think of off the top of my
            head when it comes to knowing who is who in the middle east both current
            and past. Perhaps reading more of his writing would be helpful”

            Ok, but Pipes should not be treated as the end all be all of ME history. Read more. Sure, Pipes knows his ME politics and histories…but he also has his personal politics. Sometimes he lets that take over way too much. But hey, everyone has their take on certain issues, whether they make this explicit or not. Pipes has his points, but he also has his moments when he goes overboard–although he has cooled down he rhetoric in the past few years. Right after 9/11 was when his “analysis” was the most slanted. I have read more than my fair share of his work, trust me. It’s always a good idea to read across some of the different political perspectives, IMO. Don’t just read from one side or one political perspective. Open things up. Read Pipes, definitely. But balance out Pipes with John Esposito, or Edward Said. Read Bernard Lewis’s histories of the Middle East, but also look for others who are coming from different points of view. Read some political science about the region, maybe some anthropology. Broaden things a bit. I’d even suggest reading what this Khalidi guy has to say…considering all of the attention he’s getting. Anyway, here’s a good book on ME history/politics that I have read:

            http://www.amazon.com/The-Modern-Middle-East-Political/dp/0520267753/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

            Also, if you’re interested in reading more about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this is a good book with an interesting approach:

            http://www.amazon.com/Coffins-Our-Shoulders-Experience-Palestinian/dp/B005IUV87G/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348680430&sr=1-1&keywords=coffins+on+our+shoulders

            “By the way, I’ve not painted him as a radical islamist in the sense of running into markets with bombs strapped to oneself…”

            I don’t really think YOU have painted him as anything. You’re just repeating what you have heard others say about him from what I can tell. My argument is that it’s a good idea to look deeper into things, rather than just making huge assumptions and taking rumors or vague evidence as “the truth.” Find out more.

            “…if one needs lines drawn for them between being chummy with Yassir
            Arafat and being associated with the PLO … then of course you are not
            going to see him as a radical.”

            The whole question here is how “chummy” he really was with Arafat or the PLO, and what his politics are all about. That relationship is quite unclear…yet you are acting as if there is some definitive proof out there. There really is not–just rumors and vague evidence. Some people are painting him as a terrorist sympathizer, and I think that’s a pretty serious charge. So we may as well actually read (more than a couple links online, and more than Daniel Pipes) and figure out what’s what. In the interview you linked to, he said over and over again that he thinks attacks against civilians are wrong. Browsing through what he has written, he does not seem to be making “radical Islamist” arguments, although he is certainly critical of US policies in many ways–but there is a huge difference between the former and the latter. Being critical of or disagreeing with US policies does not automatically make someone a “radical,” or a “terrorist sympathizer.” I encourage you to look deeper into these kinds of issues. I think it matters.

            Thanks for the discussion and take care.

          • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

            Points all well taken; I do not think the relationship between Khalidi and Arafat is in any way unclear.
            I am also not parroting talking points; the references via Pipes I left were support positions for things I actually saw going on — yes, I am unfortunately old enough to remember Arafat & the history that went down around him from my own experience. It is not a giant leap to think Khalidi a radical when you look at the bulk of his work, his associations and obvious PLO sympathies & connections.

            I would suggest trolling YouTube to see some of his interviews and speeches, btw. His anti-Israel/pro-Palestine opinions are not even remotely muted or hidden.

            One point you might want to reconsider:
            “But balance out Pipes with John Esposito, or Edward Said.”

            You do realize Khalidi is an Edward Said mentored scholar? Not a great balancing source there.

            I appreciate your conversing with me. I think we both have food for thought to walk away with.

    • http://ladyliberty1885.wordpress.com/ LadyLiberty1885

      Khalidi himself is a former PLO operative — he used to teach in Beirut on behalf of the PLO. Yeah, I’d say that the guy is a pretty radical islamist.

      Feel free to look it up:
      http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1347

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    I have a couple of questions. Does the L.A. Times actually own the aforementioned video?
    If the newspaper doesn’t, then can the newspaper lawfully show the video to the public without permission from the video’s owner? I am wondering if there could be a copyright issue involved in this issue.

  • Pingback: Obvious media BIAS for Obama says study.