Thursday, April 16, 2020

AOC speaks out but Tulsi's silent

About yesterday's "Awful Bernie, brave AOC and Krystal Ball," an e-mail noted that while AOC has spoken out regarding Tara Reade's statements that Joe Biden assaulted her, Tulsi Gabbard has said nothing.

It's a good point.  See the video below.




He thinks Tulsi should speak out in support of Tara.  I agree with him.

But I don't believe that she'll speak out.

She supposedly cares about ending endless wars but she stood on the debate stage with Joe Biden and refused to call Joe out twice. 

So I don't see her calling Joe out on this.  She's scared.  She's trash.  She's a huge disappointment and betrayal.  I lost all respect for her.  I have no use for her and I don't expect her to say one word in defense of Tara Reade.

I don't expect Elizabeth Warren to say anything either.  She's another fake ass. 



Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 
Wednesday, April 15, 2020.  Fake asses like Michelle Goldberg who attack Tara Reade were never feminists to begin with.  Ask Michelle when she ever wrote one word about Abeer?


Starting in the US where so many feel they know so much.  Damon Linker, for example.  Who?  Exactly.  He's a 'professor.'  Like everything else about him, that credit is inflated.  He's a "Visiting Associate Professor."  Can you get more removed from a professor?  No, not really without stamping him with a date for leaving the university.  He's also a former speech writer for Rudy G -- which demonstrates that he's never had any ethics or real talent.  At THE WEEK, he scribbles a series of lies including that Tara "Reade's accusation against Biden is flimsier than Blasey Ford's."  No, it's not.

Dr. Blasey Ford could never establish -- with witnesses -- her time with Kavanaugh.  Tara's employment for then-Senator Joe Biden is an established fact with even those still on Joe's payroll (his campaign now, not his Senate office) aware that she worked in the office.  I have not had anyone from Tara's camp call me up and say, "You won't believe what they're threatening me with if I don't agree to repeat their lies."  I can't say the same for Dr. Blasey Ford's camp.  Dr. Blasey Ford's tale started off in the supreme realm and then, as other voices were added, became this fantasy world of gang rapes.  Now that's not on Blasey Ford herself but as a criminal pretending to be a fair and concerned attorney raked up the drama, this did effect Blasey Ford's story as well.

Tara Reade didn't originally detail every incident between herself and Joe Biden?  I believe anyone who knows anything about assault is aware that happens.  I believe we saw it in testimony against Harvey Weinstein at his trial.  B-b-b-ut sometimes she said nice things about Joe!!!!  Didn't Harvey's attorney use the same tactic to try to discredit the witnesses against him?

Here's the ignorant 'professor' Linker:


As I wrote at the time of the Kavanaugh hearings, we knew nothing for certain about what, if anything, happened between the nominee and Blasey Ford when they were in high school. I found the latter to be a credible witness. When paired with Kavanaugh's bizarre, unhinged, wildly defensive, and dishonest response to her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I concluded that, on balance, the best option was for his nomination to be withdrawn and for the president to nominate an alternative conservative jurist to the high court in his place. But I never for a moment supposed that I knew for certain that Kavanaugh had done what Blasey Ford accused him of doing.

Withdraw his nomination?  Oh, that was fair of you.  (That's sarcasm.)  You didn't know what was going on.  But you found Blasey Ford to be a credible witness?  I didn't.  But if you thought Kananaugh should have withdrawn since we'd never know for sure, that should be your same outlook with Joe Biden.  And Joe has harassed women.  Invading their space, grabbing them from behind, rubbing his nose against their nose, sniffing their hair . . .   UPOLITICS notes, "Reade is one of seven women who came forward who came forward last year to accuse Biden of inappropriate touching, kissing, hugging or other unwanted behavior."  If Linker doesn't get that this is assault and inappropriate, I have a feeling the college may need to order him to attend a seminar on harassment.

Little Dick Linker isn't fit to write about assault.  Doubt me?  His article has nothing to do with assault.  It's all about how mean Republicans are saying this and that.  Those would be the same Republicans he used to work with, remember.  Republicans aren't the story.  Tara Reade says Joe Biden assaulted her and Joe Biden has refused to publicly respond.  He's hidden behind press releases and campaign staffers -- and female staffers at that, like Kate Bedingfield.  That's reality.  The press has allowed him to get away with that.  That's also reality.

Micro Penis Linker goes to town on Tara Reade to defend Joe Biden and yet Joe himself can't say a word.  It's all so very interesting.  Like the loony astroturf one Biden supporter keeps getting printed as "letters to the editor."  We see you, Genevieve, you're not fooling anyone.  We saw your racism when you advocated for Joe on behalf of his praise for and his work with segregationists.  We know you're a liar, we know you're a racist.  We don't really need to hear from you and your state outlets should stop printing your letters since a careful review of them indicates you will lie about anything.

Emily Larsen (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) note, "Through three fully public interviews and other reports from those who interviewed the woman, Tara Reade, her description of harassment in Biden’s office and sexual assault by Biden is substantively consistent. Her brother and two unnamed friends say they remember hearing about either the assault or harassment at the time. Two interns confirm that she was abruptly removed from supervising them."

Scott Morefiled (THE DAILY CALLER) notes:

Fox News anchor Howard Kurtz criticized the lack of media enthusiasm for covering someone who has accused former Vice President Joe Biden of sexual assault.
Appearing on Fox News’ “Special Report” with Bret Baier,” the “Media Buzz” anchor then called out several major media outlets for making “no on air mention” of former Senate staffer Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against her former boss.
[. . .]
While The Washington Post interviewed Reade last year, the outlet “did not run a story until Monday” after The New York Times ran theirs “19 days after she went public,” Kurtz noted.

The Fox News host quoted Times executive executive editor Dean Baquet as saying Kavanaugh was treated differently because “he was already in a public forum in a large way.” But with Biden, then a Democratic front-runner, they weren’t “in a heated race with the clock ticking.”

Actually, they were in "a heated race" -- the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  As for Kavanaugh being "already in a public forum in a large way" -- Joe Biden's adult life has been a non-stop public forum.  He was sworn in as a US Senator in January of 1973.  He only left the Senate when he became Vice President (January 2009 through January 2017).  He's been officially running for the Democratic Partys presidential nomination since April 2019.

We're noting Howie for two reasons -- first, he's a media critic of many decades, second, he was the media critic for THE WASHINGTON POST -- and he was the only one to take on THE POST's failure in the lead up to the Iraq War.

Dan MacLaughlin (THE NATIONAL REVIEW) offers strong criticism of THE NEW YORK TIMES efforts to ignore the story until Easter Sunday:

When Biden entered the presidential race in April 2019, he was faced with a flurry of accusations by various women he’d interacted with over the years. The charges had a common thread: Biden has long been too free with his hands, with physical contact such as hugging and kissing and touching and smelling women’s hair, without regard for their personal space or consent. When the Times editorial board met with Biden in January, it asked him no questions about any of this, but it did press him over not being sufficiently aggressive in supporting Anita Hill’s sexual-harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas in 1991.
Tara Reade was one of the women who accused Biden in early 2019, but at the time, she did not accuse Biden of sexually assaulting her by penetrating her with his hands under her skirt, as she has now. Biden has never been asked personally to respond to Reade’s allegation. The Times assigned multiple reporters to the story but printed his campaign’s formal denials without addressing whether it had asked Biden himself to comment. Its report expressed no concerns that there has been inadequate investigation of the charge.
Smith started off by asking Baquet why it took until April 12 for the Times to even mention the allegations, which were made in a podcast interview on March 25 and reported at National Review and elsewhere within days:
Lots of people covered it as breaking news at the time. And I just thought that nobody other than The Intercept was actually doing the reporting to help people figure out what to make of it. . . . Mainly I thought that what The New York Times could offer and should try to offer was the reporting to help people understand what to make of a fairly serious allegation against a guy who had been a vice president of the United States and was knocking on the door of being his party’s nominee. Look, I get the argument. Just do a short, straightforward news story. But I’m not sure that doing this sort of straightforward news story would have helped the reader understand. Have all the information he or she needs to think about what to make of this thing.
So much for “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” This does not pass the laugh-out-loud test. Does any sentient being believe that the Times would have waited more than two weeks to even mention such an allegation against a Republican or conservative figure, while it tried to figure out how to tell its readers what “he or she needs to think about what to make of this thing”? Recall its wall-to-wall instant coverage of the Trump “Access Hollywood” tape, which by the next day had a full news analysis by Maggie Haberman asking why Trump had not apologized yet.

In Kavanaugh’s case, on September 14, 2018, before Christine Blasey Ford had even put her name to a public allegation against Kavanaugh, the Times published a 31-paragraph story on the then-anonymous charge. 

Last night, in "F**k you, Michelle Goldberg and the anti-woman pony you rode in on," we addressed NYT columnist Michelle Goldberg's nonsense.  One more thing that needs to be noted? Michelle wrote this:


The truth is, if Blasey had been so inconsistent in telling her story, feminists might still have believed her, but they likely wouldn’t have made her a cause célèbre, and Democrats on Capitol Hill never would have invited her to testify publicly. Advocates for victims of sexual harassment and assault would worry that using such an ambiguous case as a political weapon would undermine their cause.

In other words, Michelle, you only support women who already have support.  That's not feminism.  But you know what it is?  It's listening to the screams of a woman and doing nothing.  If Michelle had heard Kitty Genovese scream as she was stabbed, Michelle would have let the woman die without even calling the police because there was no polling data and she wasn't sure which way the press would lean on the stabbing of Kitty Genovese.

In Michelle's distorted and disgusting mind, feminists should only step up to defend women if they are already being defended by the MSM and can be used to advance a cause.

That's not justice and it's certainly not feminism.

Michelle Goldberg's not a feminist.  She's a bitchy woman with a bad wig -- I hope it's a wig, no human hair has ever looked like that.  She's a bitchy woman who attacked the peace movement in 2002 because it wasn't up to her high White and vanilla standards.  Like most trash, she knows she's worthless so she tries to run with a pack while pretending she's brave.  There's nothing brave or feminist about Michelle Goldberg.  She's a well-off White woman telling tales of comfort that sometimes focus for a second or two on women so people pretend she's a feminist.

A real feminist would be writing about what's happening to women in Iraq, for example.  But Michelle's not a real feminist.





Back to Goldberg, if you don't get how stupid Michelle is, read this column where she endorses Tom Ricks' false claim that counter-insurgency efforts weren't in place in Iraq and she endorses counter-insurgency -- a war on a nation's own people.  We've long covered the illegal and inhumane counter-insurgency efforts by the US government in Iraq.  Michelle doesn't know a damn thing about any thing -- not even how to pick out a wig that fits her head.

But if you're still not getting how Michelle is not a feminist, one word: Abeer.

The rape and killing of 14 year old Iraqi girl Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi by US soldiers // Thread:

Here's the thread discussing the gang-rape and murder of Abeer and the murder of her parents and kid sister.



We covered that story repeatedly, over and over.  Michelle Goldberg was never bothered enough by the gang-rape of a teenage girl to cover the story.

We're going to end with "War Criminal Steven D. Green dies in prison" from February 18, 2014 -- in full:

War Criminal Steven D. Green is dead.  AP's Brett Barrouquere, who has long covered Green, reports  the 28-year-old Green was found dead in his Arizona prison cell on Saturday and that, currently, the operating belief is that it was a case of suicide.



Steven D. Green



May 7, 2009 Steven D. Green (pictured above) was convicted for his crimes in the  March 12, 2006 gang-rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, the murder of her parents and the murder of her five-year-old sister while Green was serving in Iraq. Green was found to have killed all four, to have participated in the gang-rape of Abeer and to have been the ringleader of the conspiracy to commit the crimes and the conspiracy to cover them up. May 21, 2009, the federal jury deadlocked on the death penalty.

Alsumaria explained, "An ex-US soldier was found guilty for raping an Iraqi girl and killing her family in 2006 while he might face death sentence.  . . . Eye witnesses have reported that Green shot dead the girl’s family in a bedroom while two other soldiers were raping her. Then, Green raped her in his turn and put a pillow on her face before shooting her. The soldiers set the body afire to cover their crime traces."

Evan Bright reported on the verdict:


As the jury entered the court room, Green(red sweater vest) let out a large sigh, not of relief, but seemingly of anxiety, knowing the weight of the words to come. As Judge Thomas Russell stated "The court will now publish the verdict," Green interlaced his fingers and clasped them over his chin. Russell read the verdict flatly and absolutely. Green went from looking down at each "guilty" to eyeing the jury. His shoulders dropped as he was convicted of count #11, aggravated sexual abuse, realizing what this means. A paralegal at the defense table consoled Green by patting him on his back, even herself breaking down crying at the end of the verdicts.
After Russell finished reading the verdicts, he begged questions of the respective attorneys. Wendelsdorf, intending to ensure the absolution of the verdict, requested the jury be polled. Honorable Judge Russell asked each juror if they agreed with these verdicts, receiving a simple-but-sufficient yes from all jurors. Green watched the jury flatly.


From the September 4th, 2009 snapshot:


Turning to the United States and what may be the only accountability for the crimes in Iraq.  May 7th Steven D. Green (pictured above) was convicted for his crimes in March 12, 2006 gang-rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, the murder of her parents and the murder of her five-year-old sister while Green was serving in Iraq. Green was found to have killed all four, to have participated in the gang-rape of Abeer and to have been the ringleader of the conspiracy to commit the crimes and the conspiracy to cover them up. May 21st, the federal jury deadlocked on the death penalty and instead kicking in sentence to life in prison. Today, Green stood before US District Judge Thomas B. Russell for sentencing. Kim Landers (Australia's ABC) quotes Judge Russell telling Green his actions were "horrifying and inexcusable."  Not noted in any of the links in this snapshot (it comes from a friend present in the court), Steven Dale Green has dropped his efforts to appear waif-ish in a coltish Julia Roberts circa the 1990s manner.  Green showed up a good twenty pounds heavier than he appeared when on trial, back when the defense emphasized his 'lanky' image by dressing him in oversized clothes.  Having been found guilty last spring, there was apparently no concern that he appear frail anymore. 
Italy's AGI reports, "Green was recognised as the leader of a group of five soldiers who committed the massacre on September 12 2006 at the Mahmudiyah check point in the south of Baghdad. The story inspired the 2007 masterpiece by Brian De Palma 'Redacted'."  BBC adds, "Judge Thomas Russell confirmed Green would serve five consecutive life sentences with no chance of parole."  Deborah Yetter (Courier-Journal) explains, "Friday's federal court hearing was devoted mostly to discussion of technical issues related to Green's sentencing report, although it did not change Green's sentence. He was convicted in May of raping and murdering Abeer al-Janabi, 14, and murdering her parents, Kassem and Fakhriya, and her sister, Hadeel, 6, at their home outside Baghdad."
Green was tried in civilian court because he had already been discharged before the War Crimes were discovered.  Following the gang-rape and murders, US soldiers attempted to set fire to Abeer's body to destroy the evidence and attempted to blame the crimes on "insurgents."  In real time, when the bodies were discovered, the New York Times was among the outlets that ran with "insurgents."  Green didn't decide he wanted to be in the military on his own.  It was only after his most recent arrest -- after a long string of juvenile arrests -- while sitting in jail and fearing what sentence he would face, that Green decided the US Army was just the place he wanted to be.  Had he been imprisoned instead or had the US military followed rules and guidelines, Green wouldn't have gotten in on a waiver.  Somehow his history was supposed to translate into "He's the victim!!!!"  As if he (and the others) didn't know rape was a crime, as if he (and the others) didn't know that murder was considered wrong.  Green attempted to climb up on the cross again today.  AP's Brett Barrouguere quotes the 'victim' Green insisting at today's hearing, "You can act like I'm a sociopath.  You can act like I'm a sex offender or whatever.  If I had not joined the Army, if I had not gone to Iraq, I would not have got caught up in anything."  Climb down the cross, drama queen.  Your entire life was about leading up to a moment like that.  You are a sociopath.  You stalked a 14-year-old Iraqi girl while you were stationed at a checkpoint in her neighborhood.  You made her uncomfortable and nervous, you stroked her face.  She ran to her parents who made arrangements for her to go live with others just to get her away from you, the man the army put there to protect her and the rest of the neighborhood.  You are one sick f**k and you deserve what you got.  Green play drama queen and insist "you can act like I'm a sex offender" -- he took part in and organized a gang-rape of a 14-year-old girl.  That's a sex offender.  In fact, "sex offender" is a mild term for what Green is.
Steven D. Green made the decision to sign up for the US military.  He was facing criminal punishment for his latest crimes, but he made the decision.  Once in the military, despite his long history of arrests, he didn't see it as a chance to get a fresh start.  He saw it as a passport for even more crimes.  What he did was disgusting and vile and it is War Crimes and by doing that he disgraced himself and the US military.  His refusal to take accountability today just demonstrates the realities all along which was Green did what he wanted and Green has no remorse.  He sullied the name of the US military, he sullied the name of the US.  As a member of the army, it was his job to follow the rules and the laws and he didn't do so.  And, as a result, a retaliation kidnapping of US soldiers took place in the spring of 2006 and those soldiers were strung up and gutted.  That should weigh heavily on Steven D. Green but there's no appearance that he's ever thought of anyone but himself.  He wants to act as if the problem was the US military which requires that you then argue that anyone serving in Iraq could have and would have done what he did.  That is not reality.  He does not represent the average soldier and he needs to step down from the cross already.
 AFP notes, "During closing arguments at his sentencing, Green was described alternately as 'criminal and perverse' and deserving of the death penalty, and as a 'broken warrior" whose life should be spared'."  Brett Barrouquere (AP) has been covering the story for years now.  He notes that Patrick Bouldin (defense) attempted to paint Green as the victim as well by annoucing that Green wanted to take responsibility "twice" before but that Assistant US Attorney Marisa Ford explained that was right before jury selection began and in the midst of jury selection.  In other words, when confronted with the reality that he would be going to trial, Steven D. Green had a panic moment and attempted to make a deal with the prosecution.  (The offer was twice rejected because the 'life in prison' offer included the defense wanting Green to have possible parole.)  Steve Robrahn, Andrew Stern and Paul Simao (Reuters) quote US Brig Gen Rodney Johnson ("Commanding General of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command") stating, "We sincerely hope that today's sentencing helps to bring the loved ones of this Iraqi family some semblance of closure and comfort after this horrific and senseless act."


Green went into the military to avoid criminal charges on another issue.  He was one of many that the military lowered the standards for.

May 28, 2009, the family of Abeer gave their statements to the court before leaving to return to Iraq. WHAS11 (text and video) reported on the court proceedings:


Gary Roedemeier: Crimes were horrific. A band of soldiers convicted of planning an attack against an Iraqi girl and her family.

Melissa Swan: The only soldier tried in civilian court is Steven Green. The Fort Campbell soldier was in federal court in Louisville this morning, facing the victims' family and WHAS's Renee Murphy was in that courtroom this morning. She joins us live with the information and also more on that heart wrenching scene of when these family members faced the man who killed their family.


Renee Murphy: I mean, they came face to face with the killer. Once again, the only thing different about this time was that they were able to speak with him and they had an exchange of dialogue and the family is here from Iraq and they got to ask Steven Green all the questions they wanted answered. They looked each other in the eye. Green appeared calm and casual in court. The victims' family, though, outraged, emotional and distraught. Now cameras were not allowed in the courtroom so we can't show video of today's hearing but here's an account of what happened. (Video begins] This is a cousin of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl raped and killed by Steven Green. He and other family members in this SUV were able to confront Green in federal court this morning. Their words were stinging and came from sheer grief. Former Fort Campbell soldier Steven Green was convicted of killing an Iraqi mother, father and their young daughter. He then raped their 14-year-old daughter, shot her in the head and set her body on fire. Today the victim's family was able to give an impact statement at the federal court house the young sons of the victims asked Green why he killed their father. an aunt told the court that "wounds are still eating at our heart" and probably the most compelling statements were from the girls' grandmother who sobbed from the stand and demanded an explanation from Green. Green apologized to the family saying that he did evil things but he is not an evil person. He says that he was drunk the night of the crimes in 2006 and he was following the orders of his commanding officers. In his statement, Green said if it would bring these people back to life I would do everything I could to make them execute me. His statement goes on to say, "Before I went to Iraq, I never thought I would intentionally kill a civilian. When I was in Iraq, something happened to me that I can only explain by saying I lost my mind. I stopped seeing Iraqis as good and bad, as men, women and children. I started seeing them all as one, and evil, and less than human." Green didn't act alone. His codefendants were court-martialed and received lesser sentences. Green will be formally sentenced to life in prison in September. [End of videotape.] The answers that Green gave were not good enough for some of the family members. at one point today, the grandmother of the young girls who were killed left the podium and started walking towards Green as he sat at the defendant's table shouting "Why!" She was forcibly then escorted to the back of the court room by US Marshalls. She then fell to the ground and buried her face in her hands and began to cry again. The family pleaded with the court for the death sentence for Green. but you can see Green's entire statement to the court on our website whas11.com and coming up tonight at six o'clock, we're going to hear from Green's attorneys.


Steven D. Green was convicted of War Crimes.

Others should have been as well.  The fact that others were not does not make Green any less of a War Criminal.

He killed an entire family and Abeer could hear her parents and sister being killed in the other room as she was gang-raped.  Then Green came in and took his turn in the gang-rape before killing her.  14-years-old and she's gang-raped as she hears her family killed and then she's killed herself at the end of it.

At which point, Green attempted to set Abeer's body on fire to destroy the evidence.

It was originally reported as an act of 'terrorism' and blamed on Iraqis.


It was only after Iraqis retaliated on US service members




The following sites updated:

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Awful Bernie, brave AOC and Krystal Ball

Yesterday I noted that I was impressed with Briahna Joy Gray who was candidate Bernie Sanders' press secretary.  I'm more impressed now.  She Tweeted:

With the utmost respect for Bernie Sanders, who is an incredible human being & a genuine inspiration, I don't endorse Joe Biden. I supported Bernie Sanders because he backed ideas like #MedicareForAll, cancelling ALL student debt, & a wealth tax. Biden supports none of those.

I don't endorse him either.

I don't plan to vote for him.

He's a rapist.  He's a rapist. 


That's all there is to it. 

I will not vote for Joe. 

THE HILL reports:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday addressed a sexual assault allegation against former vice president and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by a former Senate staffer, saying it was “legitimate to talk about.”
Ocasio-Cortez was asked about the allegation during an online forum hosted by The Wing, a women’s network and community space, by a questioner who said she was strongly opposed to President Trump’s reelection but said she also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women,” citing the allegation by former staffer Tara Reade.
"I think it's legitimate to talk about these things,” Ocasio-Cortez responded, according to CBS News. “And if we want, if we again want to have integrity, you can't say, you know — both believe women, support all of this, until it inconveniences you, until it inconveniences us."

And I'll end with this Tweet from Krystal Ball:

I know the media will never understand this but this moment right now, with Bernie trashing his own supporters is exactly why he lost. He was more committed to maintaining power for Dems than claiming it for his own movement.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Tuesday, April 14, 2020.  NYT gets an examination and more.


Easter Sunday, THE NEW YORK TIMES covered Tara Reade's allegation that Joe Biden assaulted her.  They were quickly followed by THE WASHINGTON POST and AP.   On RISING, Krystal Ball took on the coverage of THE TIMES.





Emily Jashinsky (THE FEDERALIST) compares and contrasts the way THE TIMES covers women who claim assault:


When The New York Times finally published an investigation into Reade’s account, it was in the form of a meta-story headlined: “Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden.” The Times’ original Ford story was straight news, headlined, “Kavanaugh’s Nomination in Turmoil as Accuser Says He Assaulted Her Decades Ago.” The paper’s story on absurd gang rape allegations made by Julie Swetnick against Kavanaugh was headlined, “Julie Swetnick Is Third Woman to Accuse Brett Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct.”
The Times story on Reade is appropriately rigorous, but tellingly involves a higher standard of skepticism than the one applied to Ford. The headline is Example One, framing the story as an examination rather than a report.
By the story’s third paragraph, the Times noted, “In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women. Two office interns who worked directly with Ms. Reade said they were unaware of the allegation or any treatment that troubled her.” Oddly enough, the next sentence mentioned, “Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable,” despite reporting no pattern of “similar” behavior by Biden.
Later, the Times added, “No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.” That, of course, depends on how “misconduct” is defined. The word would seem to include unwanted “kissing, hugging or touching.”
The Times was less insistent on Kavanaugh’s character testimonies. The original Times story on Ford included brief mention of a letter from 65 female classmates of Kavanaugh testifying to his character, along with a quote from the justice’s good friend, Mark Judge, whom Ford counted as a witness, denying her account and defending Kavanaugh. (The paper’s story on Swetnick’s allegation was better, although it probably should never have been published.)

The Times contextualized Ford’s allegation by placing it within the framework of a Democratic narrative about “Kavanaugh’s truthfulness,” writing, “Ms. Ford’s account comes as Democrats are already raising questions about Judge Kavanaugh’s truthfulness during his confirmation hearings this month. They have accused him of dissembling on a range of issues from his time in the George W. Bush White House, including a breach of secret Democratic files on judicial nominations and discussions about detainee policy and torture.”
But, again, the paper dubiously emphasized that Biden allegedly has no “pattern of sexual misconduct.” Why frame Kavanaugh’s denial with news that Democrats are raising concerns about his honesty and not frame Biden’s denial in the context of the allegations of inappropriate touching? Those allegations are mentioned twice in the story, and briefly. The Washington Post’s story on Reade went into much greater detail on them.
This is how media bias works. Sometimes it’s outright, but often it’s done more subtly through framing. While I would hardly call this contrast subtle, it’s certainly true the Times emphasized different elements of the story to frame Reade’s allegation more skeptically, starting right away with the headline. It’s about what you include and what you leave out.


Joe Biden can't speak publicly about the allegations but he can whine to NYT about them noting his pattern of harassment and getting it pulled from the article.  Nando notes:


"The Biden campaign didn't like it so we deleted the sentence" is basically what Dean Baquet, Editor of the New York Times, is saying here


Ryan Grim also notes the shameful deletion.

Shameful is also racist Amanda Marcotte who we've already dealt with weeks ago.  She's now trying to pimp her bad scribbles by doing an interview.  Where does she go?

POD SAVE AMERICA.

A feminist outlet?  No.  A sexist and shameful outlet.  They have three hosts.  Here's Jon Favreau showing how he treats female politicians when around his friends.

jon favreau



Jon did not get fired from Barack's 2008 campaign for that photo.  He's a pig who got away with being a pig which means he continues to be a pig.  Any program that would choose to have someone like that as a host will never be a program that addresses women's issues seriously.

I'm not remembering Amanda Marcotte calling the above photo out.  But then a faux feminist wouldn't call it out.


She's clearly aware of the photo which is how she knew POD SAVE AMERICA was just the place to go to attack a woman with anti-feminist language.


Katie Halper covers the trashing Amanda took part in with the thread below:


I'm listening to
's
interview with
and annotating the errors and/ or distortions in real time. #1. Reade didn't work for Biden "for a few months" as Marcotte claims but for 9 months. (1/?)

#2. I interviewed Reade on my own podcast, the Katie Halper Show. (2/?)

#3. Also, she worked for him not just "in 1993" but in 1992 and 1993. (3/?)

 #4. Marcotte says, "her discussing that didn't really rise to anyone's attention. It was covered in a local newspaper in California." In fact, it was covered by
, , ,& , not surprisingly, Right Wing outlets like (4/?)
It's just kind of incredible something so disprovable would be said. #5. She says Reade made an allegation that "Biden pushed her up against a wall and digitally penetrated her. That's kind of the sum of it. There's not a whole lot more to the accusation." In fact, there is (5/?)

"a whole lot more of it," namely, that he said to her "come on man! I thought you liked me." That he then said to her, when she looked upset, "You're nothing to me." That she was retaliated against, something which
piece basically confirmed when 2 interns recalled (6/?)


she was abruptly removed of her duties. #7. Then, tho neither Marcotte nor Vietor has quoted a single word Tara said or played a clip from my interview/
's or
's interview w/ Tara, Vietor reads a long statement from Biden campaign. OK. but back to (7/?)

actual errors and mis-representations, as opposed to bias. I won't count that one. So, back to #7. Marcotte outrageously says "She claimed that she complained about it to multiple people. I got a hold of 2 of them and they said no." Who did Marcotte get a hold of? It sure (8/?)

as hell wasn't the people Tara said she told bc Marcotte complains that she wasn't able to reach them. She should ask the several other reporters who somehow did reach them. Imagine if someone told me they told people about an incident, told me the people they had told, I (9/?)


tried to reach them and then reached out to other random people whose identities I didn't even disclose and then tried to suggest the person who said this wasn't on the up and up? #11. Marcotte says Reade didn't tell the whole story of what happened to her bc she "got (10/?)

scared." Kind of weird to omit that she was upset bc she was almost immediately smeared as a Russian agent. Especially weird bc Marcotte repeats these smears in her piece. (11/?)

#12. Marcotte says Reade told her she complained to her supervisors about the harassment "so that I felt like precluded a paper trail. And we didn't really talk about a paper trail." If Marcotte listened to my interview with Reade, which she would have if she cared about (12/?)

her subject, she would've learned that Reade told me she both spoke to people and filed a paper in an office. #13. Vietor takes the time to quote the NY Times, which said, "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." Somehow, neither Marcotte nor Vietor (13/?)

followed this story enough to know that the Times, embarrassingly enough,stealth edited piece, which originally read, "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." (14/?)

Anyone paying attention to this story saw the side by side screenshots of how the Times rewrote it. #14 Vietor says he spoke to journalists who were working on the story for a year. Those journalists STOPPED working on this story until Grim wrote his piece & I interviewed (15/?)

her. In fact, some of the places that spoke to Tara last year have assigned new reporters to the story. That's how not working on her story the reporters were. Some reporters were "mad" that Tara hadn't told them everything & some felt guilty they had stopped working on it (16/?)


Vietor asks Marcotte "can you tell us why it took so long" to cover this story. This is the question everyone is asking but they're not actually asking it. They're offering it so people like Marcotte can say "it totally makes sense that they didn't cover it." She & others (17/?)

are trying to justify media's silence bc it's been so deafening people have to be given an answer. Marcotte answers that the reason she was able to cover this story more quickly than the major outlets was "perversely bc Salon doesn't have a lot of resources. It's just me (18/?)

and my editors. I don't have a research assistant. And what I quickly released after talking to Tara, after talking to the folks at Times Up, and the Biden campaign, it became pretty clear that the chances of us finding out what happened to her especially with our limited (19/?)

resources were pretty low..." Pause here. This framing of Salon being a scrappy operation with Marcotte doing all the phone calls herself, as she says during this Pod Save interview, is pretty different from how the piece is presented in her actual article at Salon where (20/?)


she refers to "Salon" in 3rd person. So, in the sub-headline (right above the correction Marcotte had to issue) it reads, "Salon untangles fact from fiction in the politicized fall-out," not "I untangle." The piece determines "in light of these details, Salon concludes..." (21/?)

as if she's working with the investigative reporting team featured in Spotlight. This isn't really a mistake in the way the other things, so we don't have to count it. So, we're back at #14. So #14. Marcotte claims that given the limited resources at Salon, she refocused (22/?)

on "how much I could debunk the conspiracy theories that Biden supporters and Sanders supporters were pushing." As Krystal Ball points out. Marcotte uses false equivalencies when it comes to conspiracy theories. She equates the claim that "Time's Up refuse[d] to help... (23/?)

Reade as a political favor to Biden," with the claim that Reade is a Russian agent and with the claim that Reade is a woman in a Dr. Phil video she is absolutely not. Marcotte doesn't debunk the claim abt Times Up. She misrepresents them. They told Reade & Grim on the (24/?)

record that they wouldn't take on Reade bc she was accusing Biden. Marcotte claimed it had something to do with Reade's support of Bernie (who, by the way, she didn't initially support. She supported Warren and then went with the guy who wasn't her alleged sexual assaulter (25/?)


) which just contradicts what TimesUp said so either Times Up is wrong and Marcotte is right or Times Up is lying or Marcotte is. #15. Marcotte claims that WaPo & NY Times, though they have more resources than she does, kept hitting their heads up with the fact that "it's (26/?)


very difficult to figure out what happened in 1993 between Reade and BIden and I think what happened is that they spent more & more time trying to get all the facts in order & do all the interviews... to see if there was anything that could tell us the truth one way or (27/?)

another. And that just takes time. It's a lot of hurry up and wait. You file a FOIA request, you make phone calls. You ask everyone that you can find." There are two issues here. To be fair, I will count them as one. #15a. Marcotte, NY Times, & WaPo have a demonstrable (28/?)

double standard when it comes to truth between Reade and Biden and truth between Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh. (To be clear, Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court & is an odious person on a political & personal level while Biden is not a monster through & through (29/?)

as even Reade acknowledges.) #15B If the Times or WaPo or anyone else actually filed a FOIA, they were certainly not waiting to hear back before reporting on this. They clearly didn't produce any documents through FOIA, or they would have mentioned them, and the average (30/?)

FOIA request takes several months and in the middle of a pandemic, more. So that's no excuse. #16. If this were about responsible and thorough journalism, the NY Times and WaPo and anyone else would have asked the one question that anyone interested in the truth would ask (31/?)


which is DO YOU DENY THAT, AS THE TWO THEN INTERNS HAVE SAID, READE WAS STRIPPED OF HER DUTIES ABRUPTLY? If they say no, we don't deny that, then you ask WHY WAS SHE STRIPPED OF HER DUTIES? If they say why, you report that. If they don't deny it or don't respond or say no (32/?)

comment, you report that. #17. Marcotte then asks Vietor, "Does that make sense?" to which he responds (after a few moments) "yeah that makes total sense. I think that just speaks to how challenging it is to figure out anything that happened a long time ago. The challenge (33?/?)

of reporting generally, takes a lot of time. People were being conscientious." I don't even know what to say about this except that it sounds like it comes from a Mayor Pete speech and, again, this isn't conscientious reporting. This is agenda-driven reporting or people (24/?)

would be asking Biden campaign things like "why isn't Biden denying this himself?" and "why was she stripped of her duties?" But then, the moment we've all been waiting for.. AND NOW I HAVE TO PAUSE TO EAT DINNER. I'M SORRY. THE AUDIO I WAS LISTENING TO WAS 20 MINUTES (25/?)

LONG. BUT I STILL HAVE 6 MINUTES. FOR NOW, YOU CAN ENJOY THE 16 THINGS I'VE FOUND SO FAR.

#18. The moment we've all been waiting for... Vietor says, just like everyone else except the Krassenstein brothers because they don't get that red-baiting is embarrassing, that he, of course, doesn't care about Reade's Russia statements but then spends tons of time on them...


One thing Katie forgets in the above is that NEWSWEEK covered Tara's story with a March 27 article by Chantal Da Silva.  Liar Marcotte claims only a southern California newspaper covered the story.  But in addition to the outlets Katie Halper notes, NEWSWEEK reported on it.  Over 18 days ago, they reported on it, not on Easter Sunday.


Turning to Iraq and the topic of Malak Hayder al-Zubiedi.  Two English language outlets in the Middle East covered the story yesterday afternoon.  Linah Alsaafin (ALJAZEERA) notes:

The alleged burning and abuse of a young Iraqi woman at the hands of her husband and his family has caused outrage on social media, with activists and commentators calling for laws to protect women from domestic violence.
Videos circulated of Malak Haider al-Zubaidi, 20, bedridden in a hospital in the holy city of Najaf and screaming in pain, her face swollen from burns and her entire body bandaged.
Al-Mayahli, a police officer, wrote on his Facebook page that al-Zubeidi has a mental illness and had set herself on fire.
"She burned herself with petrol and accused me and my family," he wrote. "There are sponsored accounts that are posting these lies just to slander my family."
Activists reacted with scorn to his words, and some shared an unverified statement from his family, saying that as sons of an important colonel in the army, the law cannot touch them.



Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) adds:

Campaigners have been pressuring the government since 2011 to pass a draft law to prevent violence against women and to change the penal code, Iraqi women’s rights activist Suhaila Al Assam told The National.

“A parliamentary session was held on it a few years ago but parliamentarians have blocked its passing as they say it goes against Islamic beliefs,” Ms Al Assam said.
She said what had happened to Ms Al Zubaidi was a crime against women and the perpetrators must be held accountable.
“This is due to negligence from the government,” Ms Al Assam said.
She said politicians should show responsibility by passing laws to protect women from domestic abuse.
Measures to control the spread of the coronavirus also have a devastating impact on Iraqi families, Ms Al Assam said.
“Iraq’s deteriorating economic situation along with the current lockdown has meant that many people are out of jobs, without money and are sitting at home,” she said.
But this “should not lead to men conducting criminal acts such as killing or raping their wives”.

Ms Al Assam said the Iraqi Women’s Association, of which she is a member, would persist in its battle to ensure that victims received justice.

Riham Darwish (ALBAWABA) notes, "Concerns have risen worldwide regarding a spike in domestic violent attacks against women in several countries, where the outbreak of COVID-19 has hindered police ability to protect vulnerable members of the society."





RT reports on the ongoing Iraq War.



The following sites updated: