Daniel Larison has a great post on this nonsense:
It seems that the only reason why anyone suspects that there is something “damaging” (i.e., something not reflexively “pro-Israel”) on the tape is that the Times won’t release it because of an agreement it made with its source(s), but if the Times were to break its agreement with the source(s) and release the tape it would then presumably be accused of violating ethical standards in order to vindicate its preferred candidate. This is a very odd case of a newspaper being accused of “suppressing” evidence after having published a report on the very thing it is supposedly suppressing. Had it acquired the tape and never reported on it, that would be one thing, but it did just the opposite. What is most bizarre about all of this is that from everything we do know about what Obama said, his remarks about Khalidi clearly implied that he didn’t agree with his colleague, which is why in classic Obama fashion he applauded Khalidi for challenging him and making him face his own biases. Presumably, if the Times had always been trying to follow the directive, “do and say nothing that hurts Obama,” it would never have reported on statements made at the party by other attendees. As it is, these other statements don’t count for much, and they have nothing to do with Obama’s views on Israel and Palestine. Perhaps Joe the Plumber can return to worrying about incipient socialism and leave foreign policy to others.
Might I also add that it seems we’re a pretty sick society where a person can be seriously accused of the being acquainted with someone (an Arab someone!) whose views on Israel are unpopular as if it were a hanging offense. Do I agree with all the opinions of everyone I’ve ever said something nice about? I’m not a libertarian, but I still think taking a class with Robert Nozick was a worthwhile experience and I have nothing but good things to say about the man.