Sweet Jesus!

Translation (taking them at their word):
Barak Obama's FRIENDS are sufficiently DEADLY and DANGEROUS, that someone who videotapes them is in MORTAL DANGER!!

We're entering into Salman Rushdie territory here!

And people want to elect Obama Thug-in-Chief???

Actually, the source is probably the "election ringmaster", so that would be accurate. The timing is more what they are concerned with, not the actual release of the tape.

The LASlimes just wrote a killer ad for McCain. Just quote them 24 hours a day for the next 5 days. Hussein O's associates are killers, speak of them and lose your head, and we thought the democrat slime balls who went after 'Joe the Plumber' were bad.

Yo, dawgs. See yo, we gots ways a makin sho ya'll ain't doin no talkin or or nuttin, yu hear me biatchs?

Fine, release the tape without the name being disclosed. There was more than a handful of people in attendance, or

release the transcript.

If, and that is a big if, the LA Times does in fact have an agreement and isn't lying:

In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment does not protect the media from breach-of-contract claims by sources with whom it makes confidentiality agreements.

They do have a legal reason not to reveal.

Bloggers at LGF are indicating that Gary Weitman, spokesman for the Times' parent company Tribune is saying various things in emails to the bloggers including:

To break that agreement might put the source of the tape in jeopardy.

Now if he really said it, I don't EVER want to see that tape if I am John McCain and want to blow this whole thing up. Weitman just ran his mouth at the wrong time. I feel like going up to Weitman and saying "Here's your sign."

I wonder if the "jeopardy" might be that someone would have to, you know, fish into the source's child support records, tax payments licenses, immigration status and so on . . .?

The LAT could be talking about the legal form of jeopardy, such as breaking some sort of agreement related to the videotaping itself.

Anywho, I've got a smart plan right here that would either get the tape released or at the least make BHO look bad. It involves this site and others encouraging their readers to go out and ask BHO to call for the tape's release.

Based on almost two years' experience trying to get people to go ask BHO a question, I'm not expecting much but maybe I'll be wrong.

But, isn't in the National interest that Federal authorities immediately investigate how and why a journalist, and possibly his organization, can be threatened, or even blackmailed?

This stinks at any level, for any of the reasons offered.

The LA Times would hide a video of a school girl getting gang-raped to protect a source, Or an agenda.

Kim

Get off your bike , would you please!

What about Reagan? He was friendly with Saddam H as was Donald Rumsfeld when Iraq was fighting the Eye ranians! I believe also, that Bush Senior helped arm the Mudjahadeen when Bin Laden was with them!

Politicians will get into bed with whom ever it suits them at the time, even the devil.

Obama has some seriously dubious friends as does McCain. So please stop feigning shock and horror and being so self righteous. If the boot were on the other foot, you would be castigating the world and its mother for wanting the tape to be released as it would be a matter o national security.

Maybe you should stick to writing about Moms and babies!

Obama bin lying has been paling around with terrorists for a long time. He can only be elected if the MSM ignores and even suppresses the extent of his associations. Not too many years ago no one could have predicted the extent to which the MSM would become an arm of Obama bin lying's campaign.

I simply don't understand why someone would give a tape to a newspaper and then say they can't release it. For what other purpose would someone give information in any form to a newspaper? Then the newspaper reports what is on the tape. I mean, think about it; they have a tape, they admit they have it, they report what's on it then refuse to release it based on protecting the source's well being AFTER they say what's on it? Do you not think that the source is already in danger? How many tapes are there that show Obama giving praise to a highly controversial figure like Khalidi that anyone could be confused as to who it might be already?

Or is it that the LA Times has been threatened with something and NOT the individual?

This is something of a pseudo controversy...

Indeed, the McCain-Khalidi connections are more substantial than the phony Obama-Khalidi connections McCarthy (of the National Review) gussies up for his article. The Republican party's congressionally funded international-networking organization, the International Republican Institute-long and ably chaired by John McCain and headed by McCain's close friend, the capable Lorne Craner-has taken an interest in West Bank matters. IRI funded an ambitious project, called the Palestine Center, that Khalidi helped to support. Khalidi served on the Center's board of directors. The goal of that project, shared by Khalidi and McCain, was the promotion ofcivic consciousness and engagement and the development of democratic values in the West Bank. Of course, McCarthy is not interested in looking too closely into the facts, because they would not serve his shrill partisan objectives.

Most of these 'dangerous people that Obama befriended' are distinguished professors from distinguished universities e.g. Khalidi heads up the Middle Eastern Studies Department at Columbia University. Is this the type of America that Wizbang wants where everyone is afraid to not to seek out academics or 'rub up against them' because they may not have the same conventional thinking? I`m starting also to wonder whether anyone with a substantial college degree or post-graduate degree is automatically considered suspect on this site.

Oyster: The tape was given to the LA Times because that way, they could ensure that it will NOT be released. The LA Times is owned by the Chicago Tribune. They worked to get the release of divorce and child custody records of Obama's opponents for both the primary and general elections when he ran for US Senate.
They have a vested interest in ensuring that this tape is hidden until after the election.

The Times is using the First Amendment to WITHHOLD information that the public has the right to know.

Doesn't the LA Times statement admit that Obama and his wife were dining with still-active terrorists?

Wait, they're saying that I want them to NOT release the video in order to protect their ability to RELEASE the video?

I thought the Twilight Zone marathon wasn't until New Year's Eve, not Halloween.

The more we keep talking about this tape, the more it keeps the pressure on The Los Angeles Times. Something very bad is in this tape which is why they don't want to release it.

Even letting people know that this tape exists and that The Los Angeles Times won't release it, casts great suspicion and doubt on Obama.

Obama gets scarier and scarier as each day passes!

I hope and pray that McCain wins.

I just came across this at pajamasmedia.com. There's an interesting comment starting at comment #12, that says that the source of this tape may be Ali Abunimah who is the founder of the Arab Action Network. Interesting stuff.

Here's the link:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/this-is-the-khalidi-obama-embraced/2/

"Most of these 'dangerous people that Obama befriended' are distinguished professors from distinguished universities..."

Right. And Bill Ayers is "mainstream" and "respectable", so is Khalidi, so is Jeremiah Wright, so WAS Rezko, and so on, and so on.

All we have to do is loosen up the definitions of what is respectable, acceptable, mainstream and distinguished.

If this tape involved national security secrets, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would all have heard the tape so many times we could quote it from memory. But since it appears to reflect badly on The One(TM), it's a sacred relic.

Don't waste my time telling me that the LA Times has any respect for confidentiality, because they don't have any.

I do believe that the L.A. Times and their history is at risk as it is. They have a publisher that is a loon and I wouldn't give them a nickel for a paper anyhow!

For some "actual facts" : www.zombietime.com

L.A. Times, right! This a a whack-o newspaper that has diminishing subscribers and here is yet just another reason why!

It is not that obama has one questionable friend/mentor...he has a list of them. He gives me an air of being so sinister and totally untrust worthy.

And our free press is no longer that...just a publicity agent. Decent people left and right (no extremes please) must take this country back.

"Pals around with terrorists" is an accurate description.

"Pals around with terrorists" yes, is an accurate description of.... John McCain.

During the late 1990s, the Senator supported and reportedly helped arm an organization (the KLA) that, while eventually tolerated by the U.S. foreign policy establishment, was accused of terrorist activities and allegedly had ties to al Qaeda....(and)

Earlier it was reported that the Arizona Republican had a served on the board of a far-right conservative organization that had supplied arms to paramilitary organizations in Latin America.

re- the previous link, 'McCain Was Strong Supporter Of Group Accused Of Terrorist Activities".

Two can play this game.