Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Surprise! Stories Noting Obama-Blagojevich Meetings Disappear Down Memory Hole

Now you see it!

(Click to enlarge)
Now you don't.

We noted another story from November 8 earlier.

(Click to enlarge)

It no longer exists.

Now that's change you can believe in.

A cover-up even more amateurish than all those blog posts that disappeared from Obama's website.

Only now we have the media complicit in the whitewash.

Change!

Just imagine the howls if a media outlet published a story potentially damaging to George W. Bush and a month later it disappeared.

Screen shots via Gateway Pundit.

Update: Doug Ross notes even the cached versions are disappearing.

Thanks to Instapundit for the link!

Oh, and if you had any doubt the media wouldn't go to any lengths to help carry water for The Messiah, this should put that to rest:

Obama’s Effort on Ethics Bill Had Role in Governor’s Fall
In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama’s rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.
So Obama possesses such mystical powers, an innocuous phone call of three months ago greased the skids for his pal Blagojovich.

Sure. That's credible.
That is right. Barack Obama -- a man mired in the swamp of Chicago Machine politics, wholehearted supporter of Rod Blagojevich, close friend of convicted criminal Tony Rezko (center for the pay to play scandal that led to the arrest of Blogojevich), close pal of the Stroger political machine, ally of State Senate President Emil Jones, Junior (who has his own ethical problems), pals with state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (dogged by ties to the "mob", and with a history of suspicious loans made by his family-run bank) -- gets credited by the New York Times for "intervening" on an Ethics Bill that "indirectly" led to the case against the Governor.
And tomorrow, he shall make the sun rise.

Update: By the way, since a reader asked, KHQA is a CBS affiliate based in Hannibal, Missouri. You can email them at khqa@khqa.com.

Update: A commenter notes:
Keep in mind that many outlets are notorious for deleting stories after a few weeks, resulting in the ubiquitous dead link from a blog.

Locate a few control stories from the same time period. If they're still online, *then* pull out the big guns.
Cover Me, Porkins 12.10.08 - 10:04 pm
Nice try.

From November 5.

From November 8.

Kaboom!

While we here again, here are 7 Blago questions for Obama. And why is Change.gov, which promised openness, honesty, transparency and 31 flavors of Koolaid now removing questions about Obama's buddy Blagojevich?
On a campaign web site, a candidate and his staff would understandably rid themselves of anything embarrassing so that the candidate didn’t have to answer for it. Obama stopped being a candidate on November 4th, and became the President-Elect. We know this, because Obama has a government website and a big sign that says ‘OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT’ with his faux seal at every press conference.

In other words, it’s time for accountability. If Obama doesn’t want to answer tough questions, he should stop trolling for them on official government websites. And since we’re all paying for it, nobody should be able to force those questions off of an official government website.
Thanks again to Jim at Gateway Pundit for the screen shots, as I was having problems uploading the first image.

Thanks also to Kate at Small Dead Animals for the links.

Update: The fun continues. As Doug Ross notes, the Chicago Tribune also reported on an Obama-Blagojevich meeting.

David Axelrod, KHQA and now the venerable Chicago Tribune all independently reported that Governor Blagojevich and Barack Obama held discussions regarding his Senate replacement. That now makes four different sources (KHQA had two articles on the topic) that referenced one or more meetings that Obama said never took place. Who would you believe: me or your lying eyes?

No comments: