Like Maria Said Paz: 2019-12-08

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Meyer trashes her own reputation

With the revelation by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz that the FBI not only relied entirely on the discredited dossier gathered by Christopher Steele for their FISA application to conduct surveillance on Carter Page but that the primary sub-source of that dossier cast doubt upon the claims that President Trump colluded with the Russians in the 2016 election, a liberal narrative has finally been buried.

So will the many mainstream media outlets who were hyping the validity of the Steele dossier now apologize? If so, The New Yorker magazine should be at the front of the apology line since they strongly hyped that dossier in both print and even in a video podcast in which their editor, David Remnick, bonded with James Comey in validating the now discredited dossier.

In fact, Remnick even led off his questioning of Comey by noting that their own Jane Mayer wrote on March 5, 2018 a "very comprehensive piece" in the New Yorker about "Christopher Steele, The Man Behind The Trump Dossier."

Use the link to read more. An Iraq War veteran I treat asked me if I would note that and I said I would. I have no problem noting NEWSBUSTERS. It is on the right and I'm on the left, yes. But it is a media monitor and I don't really have a problem with it.

I'll be honest, prior to being online, I wouldn't have noted it. I had this image of it as this monster, to be honest. C.I. helped change that. She will note them and that's why I'm familiar with them. There are times I agree with their interpretation of a media moment and there are times I disagree. That's how I am with FAIR, on the left, as well.

So, having actually been exposed to the site and seeing what they do, I have no problem with them at all.

I also think the above should be highlighted for another reason: Jane Mayer is destroying whatever's left of her reputation. That's a point I've made here many times. Starting with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, Jane has traded in reporter for whore. She's lied, she's wasted everyone's time with nutty conspiracies and just, generaly, disgraced herself.

If that's what she wants, go for it, Jane. But grasp that it also discredits her earlier work -- some of which I found solid.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, December 13, 2019. Joe Biden suffers serious shrinkage as the corporate media continues to ignore Joe's biggest problem in Iowa (the caucus itself), Tiny Pete has some donors demanding their money back, and much more.

Starting in the US where the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues.

‏ @Elaineplaywrite

I can personally attest to this about Joe Biden. He connects with people through his authenticity, his genuine concern and a wonderful, heartfelt compassion! #Biden2020

HailStateForever @PamChas2

Replying to @CesarBeTweeting @JoeBiden @YvannaCancela

That is what I love about him!  He is also humble and you can just feel this connection with him.  That’s a missing character trait in so many of our politicians.  It’s one of the most important leadership traits for strong leaders.

1 reply5 retweets14 likes

For me, it was the leather fringe vest that Joe wore which put him ahead of both Bobby Sherman and Davy Jones on the dreamy scale. Just looking at the glossy photos of him and those pale blue eyes, I knew he was so sensitive and I said to myself, "Girl, you already missed out on Paul now that he's married Linda. You can't lose out on Joe too."

Thank you to Elaine and Pam above for their worthless contributions since, in fact, we're speaking about a politician hoping to become President of the United States and not some guy on the cover of TIGER BEAT. If we promise to give you the huge color poster of Joe shirtless in this month's issue of TIGER BEAT, ladies, will you promise to leave the public square so that adults can discuss the policies and proposals and voting records and actions of those who want to be president instead of serving up your useless crap? Thanks.

Jordan‏Verified account @JordanChariton 12 hours ago

OF COURSE Hunter Biden's drug possession charge was swept under the rug as @JoeBiden was pushing to jail black boys for the same thing 

23 replies169 retweets470 likes

Jordan, I believe that's "men." African-American men. But regardless of wording, that's the reality. Hunter Biden's drug addiction is long, long, long. It dates back to Joe in the Senate. The whole time Joe was pushing policies that punished African-Americans (men and women) at a higher rate than White Anglos, his own son was doing drugs and Joe knew it. Slap the headline "The Joe You Don't Know!" on it and maybe Pam and Elaine will read it.

Jordan's referring to this report by Alana Goodman and Joseph Simonson (WASHINGTON EXAMINER):

Joe Biden’s son Hunter was arrested on Jersey Shore drug charges in 1988 and had his record expunged at a time when his father was pushing for the incarceration of drug offenders drawn disproportionately from minority groups.

Congressional records reveal that Hunter Biden, now 49, was arrested in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, where the Biden family has often holidayed over the years, in June 1988. Hunter Biden, then 18, had just graduated from the prestigious Archmere Academy prep school, which his father had also attended. The former vice president and his wife Jill have often been spotted on trips to Stone Harbor.
The arrest has not previously been reported. Republicans have recently highlighted Hunter Biden's drug abuse, questioning why it was not taken into account when the lobbyist was appointed to a $50,000-a-month post on the board of the Ukraine oil company Burisma in 2014, when his father, as vice president, was the Obama administration's lead official on Ukraine.

A year after the arrest, Joe Biden gave a speech in which he said the federal government needed to “hold every drug user accountable" because, "If there were no drug users, there would be no appetite for drugs, there would be no market for them." He neglected to mention the drug use in his own family.

Joe is such a hypocrite. But he's worse than a hypocrite. The hypocrite across the streets just trashes you while he's doing the same thing. Joe went beyond trashing with words, he actively sought and promoted and supported policies that came down hard on others for doing the same thing that Princess Hunter did -- the same thing that Princess Hunter, because of who his father was, got away with doing.

"As a Biden." Remember that? These last months we've heard that over and over. Joe vouching for himself and insisting he's telling the truth "as a Biden." That family's name is mud and Joe and Hunter are responsible for that.

‏ @smromaih

Replying to @AndyOstroy @JoeBiden

Joe Biden is the WORST Democrat running. He is senile from the "Silent Generation" one cannot legitimately say to him "ok Boomer". He spews BS and we laugh, call them gaffes, 'coz it's Joe. His past record, policies are bad, racist. Joe is a hypocrite, has no business running.

War Hawk Joe is preparing for a loss of Iowa and New Hampshire. His campaign has insisted that, if it happens, it doesn't matter. He's got South Carolina sewn up, they insist. But, as we've demonstrated this week, this same time in 2007, polls said Hillary Clinton had South Carolina sewn up. Then Barack won Iowa and, oops, Hillary's support vanished in South Carolina.

It was mid-month December 2007. Hillary Clinton was the front runner in the national polls. As for South Carolina? CNN put her at 42% to Barack's 34%, SURVEY USA put her at 44% to Barack's 40%, CBS NEWS put her at 34% to Barack's 35%.

January 26, the vote finally took place -- no ranked choice voting options, by the way.

And all the polls that had Hillary with a lead or within 1% of Barack?

Wrong.

Hillary only got 26.5% of the vote. 55.4% of it went to Barack.

Get it?

South Carolina will decide after Iowa. After New Hampshire. The results of both states prior will cast all the candidates in a certain light. Should Joe lose Iowa, he will be seen as a loser. Should he lose both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be the ultimate loser.

That's the reality. And, oops, Joe's already losing some support in South Carolina. David Sherfinski (WASHINGTON TIMES) reports:

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s Democratic opponents are eating into his lead in Mr. Biden’s “firewall” state of South Carolina, according to a Post and Courier-Change Research poll released on Thursday.
Mr. Biden was the top choice of 27% of likely Democratic primary voters, followed by Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont at 20% and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 19%, according to the poll.

It’s the first time since February that Mr. Biden hasn’t had a double-digit lead in the state in Post and Courier-Change polls.

Woops. And Andy Shain (POST AND COURIER) notes it as well:

Joe Biden might need to check his firewall.
The former vice president’s lead in South Carolina keeps shrinking in Post and Courier-Change Research polls as the 2020 Democratic presidential primary gets closer — and even after a key competitor for Palmetto State votes, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, dropped out of the race.
The latest poll released Thursday shows Biden with just a 7 percentage point lead among likely voters in the South’s first primary, the first time he has not held a double-digit advantage in seven Post and Courier-Change Research surveys taken since February.

Poor Joe. Suffering from shrinkage. And at his age.

7% is no real lead. It's just beyond the margin of error. Joe's struggling and people still get honest about that.

Here's some honesty they're not offering. Iowa?

It was pointless of Joe and his malarkey to waste time there in the last weeks. His supporters are predominately elderly. In a primary, that doesn't really matter. In a caucus state? In 2008, we were in Iowa for the caucus and the one we were at went on until well past midnight. During that time, we saw tons of people walk out. They were tired, they were disgusted in some cases.

Guess what?

No young people walked out (teens to mid-twenties). That's where Joe is weakest in support.

Start telling the truth in the media. Stop wasting our time with b.s. headlines about how "Joe's ahead!" in whatever state . . . if you use ranked choice voting when, in fact, the state doesn't use ranked choice voting.

Reality: No campaign is weaker in Iowa than Joe Biden's. And that nonsense tour was a waste of time. While he was on the ground there, others were in South Carolina ensuring that his support erodes.

If you're not getting how big Joe's decline in South Carolina is, FITS NEWS offers, "Biden is currently drawing the support of 27 percent of likely South Carolina Democratic primary voters, per the survey – his worst mark since pollsters began tracking the race. Just last month, a CBS News/ YouGuv survey showed Biden backed by 45 percent of South Carolina Democrats."

Shrinkage. Did someone say Tiny Pete? Joe Biden's personal Mini-Me is also having problems. Julia Conley (COMMON DREAMS) reports:

Though they initially viewed South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg as an intriguing and progressive newcomer when he began his presidential campaign early this year, the #RefundPete hashtag began trending Thursday morning on social media as a growing number of former donors started requesting their donations back in the wake of recent revelations about the 2020 Democratic candidate.
Kristen Hill, a volunteer community leader for the presidential primary campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in North Carolina, was one of the first voters to kick off the viral hashtag #RefundPete.
"If Pete Buttigieg fooled you into thinking he was a progressive at the beginning of his campaign and you donated what he thinks is pocket change, you can ask for a refund by emailing your receipt to info@peteforamerica.com," Hill tweeted.

In October, Buttigieg criticized his progressive opponents, Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for running their campaigns on "pocket change" by accepting mostly small donations of under $200.
Buttigieg has raised 52% of his $50 million campaign dollars through large contributions, and has so far been outraised by both Sanders and Warren.
"Just got my refund from Pete's campaign," wrote one social media user as the #RefundPete hashtag took off. "It was just pocket change so he won't miss it."

Another shared the email they sent to the campaign as the hashtag took off.

People want their money back.

I want my money back
I'm down here drowning in your fat
You got me on my knees
Praying for everything you lack
I ain't afraid of you
I'm just a victim of your fears
You cower in your tower
Praying that I'll disappear
I got another plan
One that requires me to stand
On the stage or in the street
Don't need no microphone or beat
And when you hear this song
If you ain't dead sing along
Bang and strum to these here drums
Till you get where you belong

I got a list of demands
Written on the palm of my hands
I ball my fist, you're gonna
Know where I stand
I'm living hand to mouth
You wanna be somebody? See somebody?
Try and free somebody?
"List of Demands (Reparations)" -- The Kills

In Iraq, the protests continue. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq has released a new report which notes:

On December 8, Iraqi judicial authorities said that 2,626 protesters who had been arrested during protests since October 1 have been released through December 8. The statement added that 181 protesters remain in custody pending the conclusion of investigations into their respective charges.
On December 8, unknown gunmen on a motorcycle assassinated activists Fahim al-Taie in central Karbala. Assassins have targeted a number of other activists in recent days. Activists Ehab al-Wazni and Muhannad al-Ka’bi both survived attempts on their lives in Karbala in which militants used silenced weapons and a sticky IED, respectively. Another activist, Basim al-Zubeidi also survived an attack by gunmen in Maysan province. On December 10, activist Ali al-Lami was found dead with bullet wounds to his head about 12 hours after he went missing in Baghdad. Activists and protesters are also facing threats of kidnappings and forced disappearances. On December 11, social media posts said that two young Iraqi activists, Omar al-Amiri and Salman al-Mansouri, went missing that day while on their way to purchase new tents for the protest site near Tahrir Square. On December 11, AFP published a report describing the kidnapping and beating ordeals that to which several protesters were subjected last week as part of what appears to be a systematic campaign of intimidation. Some of these activists were later released alive, while at least one activist was killed by her captors.
On December 9, the office of the Iraqi Human Rights Commission in Dhi-Qar released statistics on the deaths and injuries among protesters in the province between October 1 and December 3. The report found that 88 of the 94 protesters who died in the province were killed by live bullets. The report also found that 71 of those killed were between 16 and 29 years old. In addition to the deaths, there were 1,648 recorded injuries and 600 detentions among protesters during the same period.
On December 11, the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) published a new report on Iraq’s ongoing demonstration covering the period from November 5 to December 8. The report shows that at least 170 people were killed and 2,264 more were injured during that period. The document says that “UNAMI continued to receive credible allegations of deliberate killings, abduction and arbitrary detention carried out by unknown armed men described as: ‘militia’, ‘unknown third parties’, ‘armed entities’, ‘outlaws’ and ‘spoilers’.” The report also highlights the fact that the Iraqi government is refusing to allow UNAMI to access hospitals that are receiving demonstrations casualties whether to review their data on casualties or to speak with admitted patients.
On December 12, Iraq’s Ministry of Migration reported that it has assisted 65 Iraqi refugees in returning home from Turkey. The ministry routinely helps Iraqi refugees return home through the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration program, which had supported the return of at least 232 refugees in October and November.

At what point are we going to demand that our candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination offer some comment on what's going on in Iraq right now? Thus far, only Bernie Sanders has taken the time to note the protests.

‏ @integrity_UK

This week’s #Iraq headlines:
•  Protests intensify during two-year anniversary of victory over #ISIS

• Disputes in Parliament over electoral law amendments

• Mob lynching in #Wathba Square stirs public opinion

For details click link below:
bit.ly/2qPDBgr pic.twitter.com/7m0SSKqAAC

The following sites updated:

Friday, December 13, 2019

Yes, there was wrongdoing on the part of the FBI

This is from Jonathan Turley's latest column at THE HILL and it's on the report issued by the Inspector General:

From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier. Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama. So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians? Meanwhile, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an “operational contact” gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported it to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed. Worse yet, Horowitz found that investigators and the Justice Department concluded there was no probable cause on Page to support its FISA investigation. That is when there was an intervention from the top of the FBI, ordering investigators to look at the Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign instead.

Who told investigators to turn to the dossier? Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabeAndrew George McCabeMcCabe: Being accused of treason by Trump 'quite honestly terrifying'Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of usFox's Chris Wallace: IG report headline is 'It didn't find the things that Bill Barr and Donald Trump alleged'MORE. He was fired over his conduct in the investigation after earlier internal investigations. Horowitz contradicts the media claim that the dossier was just a small part of the case presented to the FISA court. He finds that it was essential to seeking FISA warrants. Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself. Surprisingly little effort was made to fully investigate the dossier when McCabe directed investigators to it, yet investigators soon learned that critical facts reported to the FISA court were false. FISA judges were told that a Yahoo News article was an independent corroboration of the Steele dossier, but Horowitz confirms that Steele was the source of that article. Therefore, Steele was used to corroborate Steele on allegations that were later deemed unfounded.

So, yes, there was wrong doing. That wrong doing is on the government's part. The question for me, what responsibility do people like David Corn bear. The 'journalist' has an awful track record. He is among the liars/whores who attacked Gary Webb's reporting. It was mob-like behavior that railroaded Webb out of journalism and eventually Gary would take his own life. That is on David Corn's hands and he never takes responsibility.

Corn Nuts, as he was long ago nicknamed, exhibited mob-like behavior on the hysteria over Russia as well. He's not much of a reporter. He's more of an instigator, a trouble-maker, who goes after anyone that makes the intel community nervous. That is the thread that runs through his stenography.

His 'reporting' does not hold up. It has been exposed as wrong. I'd also argue there was malice on Corn Nuts' part. So what responsibility should he take? I typed "should." I know he won't take any responsibility because he never does. Never. But I do believe he owes the public an apology. So does his outlet MOTHER JONES but that rag ran into gutter the minute those two women took over. Remember, they are the ones who okayed the article attacking a rape victim and defending the war industry.

Speaking of embarrassments, Aung San Suu Kyi. Today on MORNING EDITION (NPR), they noted the disgraced Nobel winner:

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

Aung San Suu Kyi is appearing in court - Nobel Prize recipient, former democracy icon, now at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. She is defending the actions of her country, Myanmar - in particular, the actions of Myanmar's military - against charges of genocide. This is the same military that kept her under house arrest for more than a decade. They let her out. But now she is part of the government and on their side.

This relates to Myanmar's crackdown on the Muslim minority Rohingya community in 2017. Reporter Michael Sullivan is following this story from Bangkok. He joins us via Skype. Hi there, Michael.

MICHAEL SULLIVAN, BYLINE: Hi, Steve.

INSKEEP: Does Aung San Suu Kyi admit to any wrongdoing?

SULLIVAN: Nope. She says there was no genocide and that Gambia had it all wrong. Here she is opening Myanmar's defense yesterday.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

AUNG SAN SUU KYI: The Gambia has placed before the court an incomplete and misleading factual picture of the situation in Myanmar.

INSKEEP: I guess we better explain. The Gambia is named here because why?

SULLIVAN: Because Gambia is the country that actually filed the petition to the court.

INSKEEP: OK. So what else does Aung San Suu Kyi say to defend against that charge?

SULLIVAN: Well, she said that Myanmar security forces had simply responded to coordinated attacks by Rohingya insurgents on some 30 Myanmar security posts and that the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya who fled were trying to get away from that fighting, not the military.

Now, Steve, I've been to these refugee camps the Rohingya fled to in Bangladesh. That's not the story I heard. And that's not what the court heard when Gambia made its presentation on Tuesday with stories of murder, of mass rape, of whole villages being destroyed - stories that have been documented by numerous rights groups and by satellite photos as well.

INSKEEP: OK. So she doesn't admit this is genocide.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been an embarrassment and yet another face of corruption.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, December 12, 2019. As protests continue in Iraq, no one does more damage to Joe Biden's campaign than . . . Joe Biden.

Starting in the US where the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues and where gaffe prone Joe Biden continues to destroy his own campaign.

l

Link to headline article

If Biden Is Too Old to Serve Two Terms, He Shouldn’t Run Biden is telling aides he won’t run for reelection in 2024. If that’s true, nominating him would be the opposite of pragmatic.

Intelligencer

Dec 11, 2019

What are we talking about?

Ryan Lizza (POLITICO) reported yesterday:

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he will serve only a single term.

While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicate that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.

So, follow this, we're going through a bruising primary season and it's so Joe can serve for one term? As the report resulted in various negative reactions, Joe's campaign attempted to dismiss the rumor. THE WEEK notes:

His deputy campaign manager and communications director, Kate Bedingfield, responded to the report by saying "this is not a conversation our campaign is having and not something VP Biden is thinking about."
[Senator Chris] Coons, who has endorsed Biden, also responded by saying "just the opposite" is true and that Biden "has made it clear to me that he is ready and able and willing to serve two terms if necessary," per CBS News' Alan He.

Coons shares pillow talk but it does nothing to end the talk. So Joe himself was sent out to speak. David Gardner (EVENING STANDARD) quotes Joe stating, "I don’t have plans on one term." Igor Derysh (SALON) points out Joe "told The Associated Press in October that he would also not commit to running for a second term." William Goldschlag and Dan Janison (NEWSDAY) observe, "There's a strong argument against any presidential candidate saying such a thing out loud. A new president who said four years but no more would be a lame duck on Day One, instantly hemorrhaging the political capital to pursue an agenda." Jordan Weissmann (SLATE) argues:

For starters, if Biden thinks there’s a chance he simply won’t be able to handle the job in five or six years, he should realize there’s a chance he won’t be able to do it in two or three either. Being president is hard; it tends to age politicians rapidly, and Biden shouldn’t gamble on his ability to fill the role.

But beyond all that, serving as a one-term president will vastly diminish his powers in office and possibly set back Democratic policy priorities. It’s not a fix for anything.

One of the most important parts about being a first-term president is running for reelection. It gives you leverage over your party on Capitol Hill, since lawmakers want to help you nab that second term or at least don’t want to piss off primary voters by denying you legislative wins and undermining your chances. Plus, you can do more in eight years than four. You get more time to appoint judges. You can implement legislation that takes a while to get up and running. (The Affordable Care Act’s exchanges didn’t even start selling insurance until Obama’s second go-round.) And even if the opposition takes over Congress, you can still use the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to push change. (Donald Trump, for instance, is cutting food stamps at the moment by administrative fiat.)

It's not a good day to be Joe Biden -- but is there ever a good day to be Joe? Cleve R. Wootson Jr. (WASHINGTON POST) points out, "An October AP-NORC poll found a 69 percent majority of Americans said it was 'inappropriate' for Hunter Biden to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was vice president." Wootson also notes that Joe attempted to defend Hunter's actions in an interview by insisting, "Look, the American public knows me."

Do they? Keith Griffith (DAILY MAIL) notes:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden paid his female staffers less on average than men over several decades, a new analysis finds.

In his 35 years in the Senate, Biden paid full-time female staffers on average just 67 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts, according to an analysis of Senate records by the Washington Free Beacon.

The biggest gap came in 1983 and 1984, when women in Biden's Senate office made less than half of what men made, on average — just 44 cents on the dollar.

A spokesperson for Biden's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from DailyMail.com.

And yet some self-appointed 'spokerwomen' vouch for Joe on behalf of other women. Speak for yourself and stop trying to act as though you're leading a movement. Joe's treatment of Anita Hill is just the tip of the iceberg on a long anti-woman bias.

Joe as president means the world will be in a lot worse shape after four years of Biden. Jake Johnson (COMMON DREAMS) explains:

Former Vice President Joe Biden must ditch his industry-friendly, "middle-of-the-road" climate policy in favor of an agenda that completely rejects fossil fuels if he wishes to be taken seriously as an environmental leader in the 2020 Democratic presidential race.
That's the message of a petition launched Wednesday by 350 Action. The group charges Biden's centrist approach to the climate emergency "won't cut it anymore" and demands that he "do better."
"Vice President Joe Biden has dragged his feet in responding to the urgency of the climate and environmental crises across the country," Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, 350 Action's North America director, said in a statement. "Stunningly, we've watched a strident Biden attend fundraisers hosted by fossil fuel power brokers and rub shoulders with dirty fuel magnates."
O'Laughlin said Biden's climate plan, which leaves the door open to new fossil fuel development, pales in comparison to the sweeping environmental platforms of leading 2020 contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
350 Action's climate scorecard gives Biden "unknowns" on two of its three criteria: Support for the Green New Deal and opposition to fossil fuel drilling. The group also noted that Biden "has supported demonstrably false solutions like 'carbon capture.'"

"The other 2020 frontrunners, Senators Sanders and Warren, have plans for the people," said O'Laughlin. "They have pursued the gold standard of climate leadership with real commitment to make polluters pay for a just transition and the Green New Deal. We deserve better than Joe Biden's silence in the face of crisis."

Norman Solomon (COMMON DREAMS) surveys the field of candidates and explains:

From three different vectors, the oligarchy is on the march to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. Pete Buttigieg has made big gains. A timeworn ally of corporate power, Joe Biden, is on a campaign for his last hurrah. And Michael Bloomberg is swooping down from plutocratic heights.
Those three men are a team of rivals—each fiercely competitive for an individual triumph, yet arrayed against common ideological foes named Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The obvious differences between Buttigieg, Biden and Bloomberg are apt to distract from their underlying political similarities. Fundamentally, they’re all aligned with the nation’s economic power structure—two as corporate servants, one as a corporate master.

For Buttigieg, the gaps between current rhetoric and career realities are now gaping. On Tuesday, hours after the collapse of the “nondisclosure agreement” that had concealed key information about his work for McKinsey & Company, the New York Times concluded that “the most politically troubling element of his client list” might be what he did a dozen years ago for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan—“a health care firm that at the time was in the process of reducing its work force.”
The newspaper reported that “his work appeared to come at about the same time the insurer announced that it would cut up to 1,000 jobs—or nearly 10 percent of its work force—and request rate increases.”
This year, Buttigieg’s vaguely progressive rhetoric has become more and more unreliable, most notably with his U-turn away from supporting Medicare for All. Meanwhile, wealthy donors have flocked to him. Forbes reports that 39 billionaires have donated to the Buttigieg campaign, thus providing ultra-elite seals of approval. (Meanwhile, Biden has 44 billionaire donors and Warren has six. Forbes couldn’t find any billionaires who’ve donated to Sanders; he did receive one contribution from a billionaire’s spouse—though that donation was later returned.)

Not surprisingly, the political orientations of the leading candidates match up with the spread of average donations. The latest figures reflect candidates’ proximity to the class interests of donors, with wealthier ones naturally tending to give more sizable amounts. Nearly two-thirds (64.9 percent) of Biden’s donations were upwards of $200 each, while such donations accounted for a bit more than half (52.5 percent) of the contributions to Buttigieg. Compare those numbers to 29.6 percent for Elizabeth Warren and 24.9 percent for Bernie Sanders.

Rebecca Traister surveys the media landscape for how it portrays the candidates.

‏ @rtraister

I wrote about Morning Joe, Steve Schmidt, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, which candidates get tagged as dishonest, which ones get anointed as straight-talkers and how it doesn’t actually correspond to their truth-telling history: 

8 replies58 retweets172 likes

At THE CUT, she offers:

The week before the last Democratic primary debate of 2019, a panel of pundits on MSNBC’s Morning Joe gathered to make an explicit critique of one of the candidates. Citing a “whiff of fraudulence,” political writer John Heilemann talked with host Joe Scarborough, former Missouri senator Claire McCaskill, and former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt about the perception that there’s something dishonest and untrustworthy about Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Is this woman who she says she is?” asked Heilemann, citing controversies over her claims of Native American heritage, her consulting work on bankruptcy, and her recent assertion that her children attended public schools when in fact her younger son Alex also was enrolled in private schools, as not being about those issues, but rather reflecting the larger concern of voters: “Is she a phony? Is she a fraud?”

“I’m not saying she’s any of those things!” Heilemann made sure to say.

Then came Schmidt, who said those things. Claiming that Warren has a “tremendous talent for self-righteousness and hypocrisy,” Schmidt said that “over and over again she has misrepresented herself” and argued that he was just telling hard truths: “Why is it that Elizabeth Warren checked the box as a Native American on the Harvard Law School application? I know why she checked the box; she was trying to game the system.”

In fact, extensive reporting has shown that Warren did not identify as Native American through the hiring process at Harvard, though the law school, then under sharp criticism for not hiring women of color, later claimed her as one.

There are extremely valid criticisms to be made around Warren’s handling of her past claims of Native American ancestry; none of them are about whether she was qualified to teach at Harvard Law School on the merits. But the most compelling thing about the Morning Joe critique wasn’t the bevy of specific charges against Warren, some of which were false and some of which, including her answer on her son’s schooling, are rooted in real unforced errors. Warren, like scores of presidential candidates before her and alongside her, has a decent but imperfect record of accuracy when it comes to how she’s told her own story.

What’s really fascinating is whose imperfect record gets cast as fatally phony and whose does not — to whom perceptions of untrustworthiness stick and to whom they do not and to what end. Who gets called to correct the record and who permits lies to get repeated? It’s not always just the candidates.

While the media was nailing Elizabeth Warren to the cross, they were giving many other candidates a pass. Here's Rebecca on how Joe got waived through without questioning:

Take Joe Biden, who left the 1988 Democratic primary after being charged with plagiarism both on the campaign trail and back in law school, as well as with inflating his own academic record: Biden had claimed to have graduated in the top half of his law-school class, when in fact he graduated 76th out of 85 students. In 1987, when pressed by a reporter on his academic record, Biden had angrily responded, “I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do” (an exchange he would recall in a later memoir as “so stupid,” yet repeated just last week with a voter who asked him about his son Hunter’s work in Ukraine). Back then, Biden told the New York Times, “I exaggerate when I’m angry, but I’ve never gone around telling people things that aren’t true about me.” But, just as a point of fact, he had told people — lots of people! — things that weren’t true about himself, not just about his school years, but in borrowing details about the life of the British politician whose speeches he’d plagiarized.

Early in this campaign season, Biden’s campaign was again found to have lifted language; his climate and education plans initially included phrases taken from other publications without attribution. He’s also been caught out telling a false story about traveling to Afghanistan to award a Navy Captain a Silver Star, apparently a conflation of several different events. Back in 2007, he claimed to have been “shot at” in Iraq; this was not true. Anita Hill has recalled that back when he was in charge of Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Biden initially assured her that she would be able to testify first, but that after negotiations with Republican colleagues, Thomas had been permitted to go first. “I leave you to say whether he lied or not,” Hill said to a New York Times reporter earlier this year.

Yet despite his career-long penchant for exaggeration and misleading recollection, Biden gets regularly presented by the mainstream political media as a man of deep integrity, a trustworthy guy; he’s currently on his “no-malarkey” campaign tour.

A similar advantage seems to have been accrued by Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has been pushing the view of Elizabeth Warren as deceptive — the same view expressed vocally by the Morning Joe panel on Tuesday — for months. In October, Buttigieg said that his opponent has been more “forthcoming about the number of selfies she’s taken” than about how she planned to pay for Medicare for All (Warren has since released her detailed plan on how to pay for Medicare for All), and his campaign has recently hit her hard with the suggestion that she’s hiding something regarding the bankruptcy expert’s past work as a “corporate lawyer.” But Buttigieg has significantly changed his positions, including on Medicare for All, during his time on the campaign trail, and until pressed by the Warren campaign, had not permitted press into his fundraisers, released his list of donors, or the list of clients he’d worked for as a McKinsey consultant, a lot of which he did this week. Buttigieg also recently rolled out a list of black supporters in South Carolina, some of whom had never in fact endorsed him, and felt they had been misled by his campaign.

We included Tiny Pete. The whole column has to be read.

In Iraq, the protests continue.

‏ @NicolaiofArabia

Discussing #Iraq protests (32 mins 30 sec in): youtube.com/watch?v=AHA7kw…

#GCC #Baghdad #Arabspring #Adelabdulalmahdi @indusdotnews @ayza_omar

‏ @ArabWeekly

About an hour after gunmen began attacking a protest encampment in Iraq’s capital at the weekend, Mustafa — who had slept there for weeks — went offline. 

Andrew Stroehlein‏Verified account @astroehlein 37 minutes ago

As protests in Iraq enter their 3rd month, the numbers of arrests, abductions & killings of protesters continue to rise. 

Security forces should be protecting the demonstrators. 

Instead, some security forces are the ones doing the killing. 
bit.ly/2EcT3pM

3 retweets4 likes

Human Rights Watch's Belkis Wille writes:

As protests in Iraq enter their third month, the numbers of arrests, abductions, and killings of protesters continue to rise. But instead of protecting the demonstrators mostly peacefully protesting on Iraq’s streets, some security forces are the ones attacking and killing them. Prime Minister Adil Abd Al-Mahdi had promised in a letter to Human Rights Watch that security forces would no longer use live ammunition against protesters, before announcing his own resignation on November 29. But killings and abductions of protesters have continued.
Since the beginning of these protests, Human Rights Watch has also documented unidentified armed men attacking protesters while the state security forces apparently stand by. Last week alone, these unidentified actors abducted one protester in Baghdad and opened fire on another in Karbala, killing him.
Early on December 6, Zaid Mohammed Abd Ali, 23, a photographer who attended the protests daily in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, was abducted from outside his house, his brother said. The family’s CCTV camera footage from that morning shows four men, one with a gun, get out of a car and grab Ali as he was arriving home. They hit him, put him in the car, and drove away. The family went straight to the police, but officers said they needed to wait 24 hours after the incident before they could open a missing persons complaint. The police opened a complaint the next day and told Ali’s family they are reviewing the CCTV footage but have provided no other information on their supposed investigation.
On December 8, a gunman on the back of a motorcycle shot and killed Fahem al-Tai, 53, a protester in Karbala. Timestamped footage from a street camera showed the entire attack unfold. Human Rights Watch reviewed the footage and spoke to a friend who was with al-Tai at the time of the attack. He said the police had not yet contacted him, despite his presence at the scene.
Reports emerged on December 11 of another two activists – one a well-known environmentalist – who have gone missing.

The Iraqi government needs to start protecting its citizens, by ending its own security force’s unlawful violence against protesters, and taking effective action against the groups now attacking them. This means taking urgent action to find anyone abducted by these groups, and arresting and prosecuting anyone responsible for murder and other crimes. Otherwise, the death toll will continue to climb, and Iraq’s next prime minister and cabinet will face a Herculean task in restoring the rule of law.

The following sites updated:

Music

The Deceptive Ease Of Cole Porter: In-Depth With Harry Connick, Jr.

2 hours ago

Socialist Worker (Britain)

Jeremy Corbyn calls for redistributing wealth and power at final campaign rally

5 hours ago

Dissident Voice

The Art of Doublespeak: Bellingcat and Mind Control

6 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends

Clint Eastwood's new film and the controversy

7 hours ago