The LA Times Suppresses Obama's Khalidi Bash Tape

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/1...

"Khalidi says he was never employed by the PLO; he has been a harsh critic of Palestinian suicide bombings and a longtime supporter of a two-state solution, and he has never been an adviser to Obama. As for Obama's past statements, at least in Chicago, being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian is not a contradiction in terms."

Rhashid Khalidi is definitly connected to the PLO as evidenced by the report."

Rhashid Khalidi has denied being connected in anyway to the PLO...so your evidence that he is, is because Fox News says so? Show me anything, a quote, a letter, anything that demonstrates his connection to the PLO. Just because Hannity says so doesn't make it so.

"I wrote that part of the description. What I meant by it was (and it's so sad that I have to explain this to you), but it's a newsworthy story that almost all of the mainstream pro-democrat media outlets (tv and print) are ignoring."

Just one of the many example why people like Khalidi justify Palestinian terrorism as self defence.

That and the slow methodical taking over of Palestinian land: 0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 18,147 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967.

He knows a terrorist ergo Obama is a terrorist?

And the definition of terrorist is so flimsy when a government controls it. If i speak out against the establishment I'm a terrorist. So Gratz folks, you're all in the same boat as Obama.

This thing makes a huge deal out of talking with people of different mind sets. I'm ecstatic that our potential leader is actually willing to listen to different view points, no matter how fundamentalist or absolutely insane they may or may not be.

First of all, I wasn't implying that Obama was, as YOU put it F-ing a donkey. I simply used that example to put this in a context that might get people to put it into perspective.

Secondly, think about this for a second......The source wants to sink Obama but doesn't want to be revealed as you say. So, he goes to the Times, gives them the tape under promise of anonymity. The Times is all too happy to agree because now they have secured the ONLY known copy thereby keeping it out of the public. They go ahead and write a fluff piece on it to cover why they have have it and then hold on to it for dear life. The "source" can't now come out and tell the world who he/she is and get the word out. Just like that, voila, the Times covers Obama's ass quite nicely.

I stand, but i don't pledge because even if i respect this country, i don't believe in it or it's theocracy.

Think about what you're saying for a minute.

Let's imagine this was a tape of Obama and several other's f*cking a donkey as you so eloquently suggested.

What if one of those others was anti-Obama? He would want everyone to know that Obama f*cked a donkey but wouldn't want anyone to know that he did. Thus, he tells the reporter from the LA Times to describe what Obama does on the tape, but won't let him release it completely.