Why am I not surprised? F
Compare to 2 events:
1. Chicago Tribune suing and winning to open Jack Ryan's sealed divorce papers thereby allowing Obama to run virtually unopposed.
2. Trent Lott's one sentence comment at farewell party that cost him his chairmanship.
The judge in Ryan's case found all that private stuff to be of "public interest" even tho it has been sealed. But tape of a presidential cnadidate present with an admitted former bomber of public buildings? Nah!
Can anyone sue the Times and force them to release?
The LA Times has a long and dishonorable history of selective reporting. Long after California began to spin out of control under the governorship of Gray Davis, the LA Times was still shilling for him, still presenting him as a model of rectitude and efficiency. A late slime from the LA Times on her Republican opponent gave us Barbara Boxer, Senator. The LA Times venerates Di Fi all the while she votes for massive amounts that benefit her husband's various businesses. I wouldn't have it in my house for fish wrap.
This problem is EASY to solve. All we have to do is convince the LA Times that the Obama tape contains top-secret military information which will clearly put troops in danger. It will be released minutes later and played across all major networks.
Sounds eerily familiar,Peterike.
Great minds think alike, etc...
What I can't understand is if they were not going to release the tape why did they even mention having it? Something fishy here.
Commenting by HaloScan
