Wednesday, April 8, 2020

It's not my job to vote for a rapist

Amen to this:

Biden has been inappropriately touching women and young girls for years. It is unfortunate he never answered for his behavior until now and yet it seems he still isn’t being questioned on it or reprimanded for it.

It's not my job to vote for a rapist.  If the DNC wanted my vote, they could have earned it.  They didn't want my vote.  Going with Joe Biden made that clear.

This is on them.  It's not my job to vote for a rapist.

The corporate media wanted Joe.  Let them vote for him.  They're silent about Tara Reade as Mint Press News notes:

What makes their silence more notable is that many of these outlets present themselves as allies of the #MeToo movement. Indeed, only last month, while celebrating the conviction of Harvey Weinstein, The New York Times editorial board bemoaned “how difficult it can be to bring abusers to justice, particularly when they are wealthy and powerful,” decrying the “basic mistrust of women alleging sexual assault.” The Washington Post’s editorial board behaved similarly, stating that “we hope the bravery of these women coming forward to tell their stories under terrifying circumstances — and the fact that they were believed — will empower others who have been victimized.” But not this time, apparently.

A sad, pathetic idiot is trying to drum up support for Joe Biden:

Even if Tara Reade is telling the truth... wouldn’t you want the rapist with better policies over the serial rapist with bad policies? Rape is bad. Trump is worst.

 Uh, Chaddie, you're the worst.  And it should read: "Rape is bad. Trump is worse." 

I won't vote for a rapist, you idiot. 

I won't vote for Joe. 

You need to get over the idea that you control other people.  And you might want to notice how many people are saying right now that they will not vote for Joe.  He doesn't have the support Hillary did in 2016.  Hillary wasn't an idiot who couldn't string together a sentence. 

Joe will lose if he's the candidate.  And don't come crying to me after because you made the decisiont to go with a senile idiot who assaults women.

Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, April 8, 2020.  The hypocrite that is Alyssa Milano, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talks Iraq, and more.

Starting in the United States with the allegations against Joe Biden.  Baby Jane Hudson herself, Alyssa Milano, stuck her nose in it to defend Joe Biden and no one believes her.  She is the portrait of hypocrisy.  And people are noticing it.

Farron Cousins (RING OF FIRE).

Krystal Ball.

Some are surprised that Alyssa Milano is rushing to attack Tara Reade -- that was an attack -- and claiming that she (Alyssa) and Times Up engaged in a smear campaign against Tara -- that's what she's saying.  Why be surprised?

Whore's gotta whore, right?  That's all she is and all she ever was.

Rose McGowan has long called Alyssa out.  We've long called her out here.  Yes, I know Illeana Douglas.  But I wouldn't have been silent regardless.  Alyssa was.  She didn't want to speak out against Leslie Moonves because, at the time, she was trying to get her pilot sold to THE CW.  It didn't get sold.  And she never spoke out against Leslie Moonves.  Just like she stayed silent on Harvey Weinstein and then, after he was disgraced, she was offering defenses of his wife.  Remember that?  Maybe not.

Do you remember Lucy Flores?  She went public in April about Joe's inappropriate actions.  Did Alyssa call Joe out then?  Nope.  She rushed to defend Joe.  That's not the Joe she knows.  We called her nonsense out in the April 2, 2019 snapshot.

Whore's gotta whore and that's all you need to know about Alyssa Milano.

Robby Soave (REASON) observes:

Milano also explained that she would be remaining quiet about the accusation in part because "the mainstream media would be jumping all over this…if they found more evidence." The implication being that the failure of mainstream media to do reporting on the Reade allegation means that it ought to be doubted and dismissed.
This speaks to the power of silence: The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and other media outlets generally trusted by moderates and liberals have all refused to cover Reade's story. Indeed, thus far they have essentially pretended that it does not exist, declining to acknowledge Reade in the most basic way and refusing to question Biden about it, even in interviews with the candidate. This mainstream media blackout has evidently provided cover to people like Milano, allowing them to ignore an inconvenient political development.
Yet it's difficult to see the media's treatment of this story as anything other than blatant hypocrisy because there's nothing novel about the Biden accusation when compared to the Kavanaugh accusation. At the time of Milano's tweet in support of Ford, there was no evidence of Kavanaugh's guilt beyond what Ford had claimed in her statements (and little corroborating evidence of Ford's claims ever materialized, given how long ago the incident had unfolded). The Reade allegation is at exactly the same stage: She is speaking up about what happened to her, and asking to be believed. But this time, Milano—who attended an anti-Kavanaugh rally while draped in a banner that read, quite literally, "believe women"—thinks it's not enough.

At COMMON DREAMS, Anthony Zenkus takes on the hatchet job Amanda Racist Marcotte did last week:

Despite the veracity with which news outlets jumped on the Blasey-Ford allegations, the media has been slow to acknowledge Reade’s story. Amanda Marcotte, in her March 31 piece in Salon, tries to present a case for the media’s hesitation, but ends up using the excuses of Reade’s detractors to muddy the waters and lessen the impact these allegations should have. Marcotte subtly points out that Reade only worked for Biden “briefly,” as if that’s somehow a factor in likelihood or severity of an assault. She points out that there were no witnesses, which is true; perpetrators rarely violate victims in front of others, although Biden’s personal boundary issues are available in numerous instances for anyone to see. Marcotte claims Reade’s story has “changed over time.” It has not. Details have been included now that Reade wasn’t comfortable including in the past. 
Finally, Marcotte slams Reade for tweeting a post supportive of Russia. Why would this matter? Anyone can get raped, even people who like countries Marcotte and others find distasteful. Questioning from a place of understanding is one thing, feeding into rape-culture narrative is another. It is imperative to understand the difference. 
It is important to understand why the term rape applies here. According to the Department of Justice in their expanded definition of rape, penetration of the body by anything, including fingers or an object, meets the standard. This is what Joe Biden has been accused of. It is serious, and it is disturbing. 

Yes, Tara Reade took decades to tell her whole story to the public. Yes, we are in the middle of a contentious primary season and a presidential election with much on the line. And, yes, allegations of sexual assault or rape against the current leader in the Democratic primaries are inconvenient. But rape is even more inconvenient. I have learned this from the courageous survivors I have known throughout my professional career and in my personal life. It happens when you least expect it. It is intrusive, disruptive and life altering. Survivors do not get to choose when they are violated, but they do get to choose when and how they come forward.

Over at THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, Alexander Sammon warns that while the corporate media may be happy to ignore the rape allegation, were Joe to be the party's nominee, you can be sure Donald Trump will not ignore the allegation:

[. . .] the current approach of the Biden camp and its Democratic operatives, to issue one statement and place the burden on the media to do their invalidating for them, is an extremely short-sighted and ill-advised approach. Whether the Biden campaign likes it or not, Reade’s allegation is certain to factor into the general election, where Trump is likely to harp on it repeatedly, muddying the waters and giving the media something else to fixate on besides his tragic pandemic preparation mistakes that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. The Biden campaign’s lack of a proactive or meaningful response could look like political malpractice in the not-too-distant future.

This was not Reade’s first public accusation regarding Biden’s conduct toward female colleagues. Last year, several women came forward publicly to say Joe Biden had kissed or touched them in ways that made them uncomfortable—Reade was among them. But the highest-profile accuser at that point was Lucy Flores, a former candidate for lieutenant governor of Nevada, who catalogued in a March 2019 essay for The Cut that Biden had behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner toward her at a campaign event in 2014. Biden eventually cut a video expressing a newfound appreciation for personal space (though Flores herself didn’t see it as an apology).

She didn't see it as an apology because it wasn't an apology.  See that April 4, 2019 snapshot:

In the two minute video, he speaks a lot about himself and offers a hell of a lot of justifications.

He does not, however, manage to utter the words "I'm sorry" or "I made a mistake and I apologize."

I find the video to be utter crap.  Joe needs a better team if they think that was gong to cut it.  It's not going to.

And what happened one day after his 'apology'?  He made it clear how fake it was.

 Apr 5
The message that Joe Biden’s comments sent women and girls today was that if you set boundaries and speak out when you’re uncomfortable, men will turn it into a joke.

Oh, it was all so funny.

Lucy didn't see it as an apology because it wasn't an apology.  He never apologized and then less than 24 hours later, he was on stage in front a group of mainly men and making jokes about it.

Turning to Iraq, Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) reports:

The US and Iraq will hold “strategic” talks in June to review their military and economic relations, as tensions escalate between Washington and Tehran.

The dialogue will centre on the future of US troops stationed in the country after a series of attacks by Iranian-backed armed groups on US troops in Iraq.

From US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's press briefing yesterday:

SECRETARY POMPEO: Finally, one announcement with respect to Iraq.
As a force for good in the nation and as Iraq’s closest friend, the United States has proposed a Strategic Dialogue with the Government of Iraq to be held in middle of June.
With the global COVID-19 pandemic ranging and plummeting all revenues, threatening an Iraqi economic collapse, it’s important that our two governments work together to stop any reversal of the gains we’ve made in our efforts to defeat ISIS and stabilize the country.

The Strategic Dialogue will be led by my Under Secretary for Political Affairs David Hale.  And all strategic issues between our two countries will be on the agenda, including the future presence of the United States forces in that country, and how best to support an independent and sovereign Iraq.

MS ORTAGUS:  Nadia, go ahead.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Nadia Bilbassy with Al Arabiya Television.  Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Hi, good to see you.

QUESTION:  I have two questions.  On Iran first, despite your effort to dry up money that Iran is spending on its proxies, Hizballah emerged as the party in Lebanon now that provided services and helping people during this crisis with corona.  How do you counter this message?
And on Iraq, Kata’ib Hizballah threatened that they are not going to – they are going to veto, actually, any nominated prime minister of Iraq.  Do you take this threat seriously?  Do they have any weight on deciding who’s going to be the prime minister?

SECRETARY POMPEO:  So all the voices in Iraq will have some weight on who will be the next prime minister.  I hope the most important voice there isn’t Kata’ib Hizballah, it isn’t AAH, it’s not terrorists.  I hope it’s the Iraqi people who have the ultimate say.  What we’ve said consistently about the Iraqi political process is very simple:  A leader who is put forward, who’s prepared to engage in the reforms, that will build out a sovereign, independent Iraq on behalf of the Iraqi people and move away from the old sectarian model that ended up with terror and corruption – any leader that’s put forward that will do that, the United States is happy to support.  And that’s the gold standard; it’s what we need.  It’s what, frankly, the Iraqi people need.  It’s why we want to have the strategic dialogue, is that we want to begin to engage, to take down violence, to take down risks, to take down the threat from a resurgence of terror there.
That’s the – when you talk about who will decide who the next leader is, our mission has been – is to make sure that that next leader is reflected in what it is you see the people who were protesting before the virus broke out, the people who were protesting all across Iraq, demanding – a different political path forward.  So I’m sure the Kata’ib Hizballah folks will try to have their say.  I am hopeful that it will be the Iraqi people who will ultimately decide who the next leader will be.

QUESTION:  On Iran, sir, and Hizballah?

SECRETARY POMPEO:  Yeah.  We were in a big hole.  The previous administration gave the Iranians a whole lot of money, and we have done remarkable work to deny the regime the resources they need to continue to carry out their terror campaign.  You describe a situation in Lebanon, I think, or perhaps in Syria where Hizballah’s operating.  I can tell you this:  Hizballah has fewer dollars today to engage in nefarious activity than they did when President Trump took office, and they will continue to have fewer dollars tomorrow until they fundamentally get the Iranian regime to change its model, the model that says we’re going to use resources – resources that could right now be going for the Iranian people to help take care of them when they’re in a health crisis themself, right – we’re going to use those resources to take weaponry into Iraq, to underwrite Hizballah and Lebanon and threaten Israel, all of the things that the Iranians have engaged in for so long, even in this crisis the Iranian regime hasn’t ceased doing, that’s most unfortunate.  It’s unfortunate for the people of Lebanon, it’s unfortunate for the people of Syria, it’s unfortunate for the people of Iraq – you referred to Kata’ib Hizballah before this – and it’s really unfortunate for the people of Iran.

We hope that the people of Iran one day will get a regime with a change in outlook, a change which says, “No, we want to respect what the Iranian people truly want.”  And when they do that, that’ll be a fantastic thing, and we will reduce the threat that Iran will ever chase a nuclear weapon in the way that they were on a path toward chasing under the previous administration.

Jason Ditz (ANTIWAR.COM) observes, "That talks are being planned may suggest the US believes the current Iraqi interim government will not push the issue too much, though anti-government protesters have wanted all foreign troops out, particularly US and Iranian, and they’ll likely object if the talks don’t address this in a serious way."  Ditz would do well to stick to facts.  A "unanimous" vote in Parliament back in January?  The Kurds and Sunnis boycotted that session.  Just because the vote was what you wanted -- I want that too -- doesn't mean we pretend it was the vote of Parliament.  It was back in January, you need to provide context or just leave it out.

The following sites updated:

No comments: