Thursday, October 29, 2020. Let's talk about that 'truthful' press.
Starting in the US where the final days of the presidential election loom. Joe Biden is the Democratic Party's presidential nominee -- making the party's theme song "Old Man . . . Senile"? He knows he's running for something -- the presidency or maybe the Senate, he's not sure which. And he knows he's running against Donald Trump . . . or maybe George? He's so confused in public that he's even stood on stage at an event and mixed up his own sister and his own wife. Hopefully, should he ever be put in charge of the launch codes, he'll have it more together than he does currently. A caretaker presidency? Is that what the party's proposing?
At any rate, his lousy memory may give him that "plausible deniability" that his brother Jim Biden believes will protect him. Brooke Singman (FOX NEWS) reports:
Joe Biden and his presidential campaign are staying mum after Hunter Biden’s former business associate went public to say he met twice in the past with the former vice president -- despite past statements from Biden on the campaign trail that he had no involvement with or discussions about his family's overseas business ventures.
That associate, Tony Bobulinski, gave an interview on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Tuesday and detailed his alleged meetings with the former vice president—one of which took place on May 2, 2017, according to text messages first reported by Fox News last week.
Those messages indicated that the meeting did, in fact, take place. Bobulinski claimed Tuesday that it was Hunter Biden and Jim Biden, the brother of the former vice president, who had pushed the meeting.
“They were sort of wining and dining me and presenting the strength of the Biden family to get me engaged,” he said.
The Biden campaign declined to comment on the meeting Biden allegedly had with Bobulinski. Biden himself has not yet directly addressed Bobulinski's claims on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."
The media is a pack of whores and liars and that's nothing new. Why, oh why, a drive-by e-mail to the public account wonders, why can't I be nice about the press like the great Meryl Streep?
Unlike Meryl, the press has nothing on me. She's got that genteel reputation that they've built for her that's a complete falsehood. She benefits from their lies so she lies for them. I'm not accusing her of anything criminal, to be clear, but the press has long made a point to hush-up her sexual affairs. Pets of the press know to not to bite the hands that feed them.
The press is a damn liar. That's the bulk of the press and it's nothing new. We could go over the Iraq War -- and how Meryl's praise of the press (when she was promoting a film about the press) ignored that history -- and how they collectively and intentionally lied. They refused to offer dissenting voices and they ran a crackdown on dissent that even included trashing Sheryl Crow. A critic trashed Sheryl on orders of the editor. The critic wrote that Christian Aguilera should have been nominated because her album was superior. Whatever the merits of that album (considered one of Christina's worst) it would not have been nominated for a Grammy that year because it came out after -- after -- the eligibility period. I met that critic who wanted to interview me for something else. I had already said no but I did speak to the critic because I wanted to know why the hell they wrote those lies. I already knew because a columnist at the same publication had already told me (I'm friends with the columnist, we've highlighted him here many times). But I wanted to see if the critic had the guts to get honest. The critic got honest. The Grammy piece was intended to be a hit job on Sheryl to discredit her because she was opposed to the Iraq War. Need another example? Jane Fonda's return to comedy with MONSTER-IN-LAW -- I have the e-mails on that, the e-mails where three different papers planned how they would knock the film -- planned this before it was released and before anyone had seen it -- because Jane might become "a powerful voice against the Iraq War the way she was with Vietnam."
Take Tom Cruise. Sumner Redstone was doing poorly with stockholders and it was about to get worse. To save his own ass, he went after Tom Cruise trying to blame him and destroy him. As noted when this was going down, I don't like Tom. I was wary of Nicole when she was married to Tom. (I like Nicole now.) I am friends with Paula Wagner but that's not why I defended Tom. I defended him because a corporation wanted him trashed and the whorish press was yet again doing big business' bidding. They did the same thing with Marilyn Monroe.
I'm glad FOX is no more as a film studio.
Marilyn Monroe killed herself because her career was over. I dictate that right now and I know confusion abounds. Younger people are going, "Huh? Her career wasn't over." Because they know reality. But reality was hidden by the press until the mid 80s. They ran with the lie that her career was over. She'd been fired from SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE. Getting older and no career prospects, she took her own life!
Except she was signed for other films and FOX had rehired her for SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE. She was the lamb they slaughtered -- with the help of the press -- when FOX was in deep trouble (the CLEOPTATRA over-runs).
The press lies all the time. A friend is gay and is always just about to come out, always just about to. The current excuse he offers it the pandemic. Who knows, when films are being shown again, who will have a career and who won't? So he's going to wait.
In the meantime? He's yet again portrayed as a ladies' man. This is a man who started taking viagra in his twenties and was telling the press that (until I asked him if he realized what he was confessing to). This is a man whom everyone pretty much knows is gay. But the press continues the lie. They're part of it.
They lie about the little things, they lie about the big things. Even when they're not given direct orders, they know what the policies are.
Jonathan Chait's the latest example of a liar. Ruth's "Jonathan Chait is a liar" notes that Jonathan's lying about the Hunter Biden e-mails. He tells you that TIME reported on the e-mails and told you that the e-mails THE NEW YORK POST published a report about were first shopped in Ukraine. No. No, TIME didn't say that.
We went over that a week ago when TIME published that bad report. Third paragraph of that awful 'report:'
The two people who said they were approached with Hunter Biden’s alleged emails last year did not know whether any of them were real and they declined to identify who was behind the offers, the first of which came in late May 2019 and the second in mid-September 2019. The two people said they could not confirm whether any of the material presented to them was the same as that which has been recently published in the U.S.
There have been several fishy aspects to the accusations, however. For one, incriminating information supposedly located on a Hunter Biden laptop left in a Delaware computer shop had in fact been circulating in Ukraine well before it was reportedly turned over to Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer. Over the weekend, Time reported that the Hunter Biden emails and photos were being shopped in Kiev last fall by somebody who “wanted to sell it to Republican allies of President Trump.”
TIME reported no such thing, you just saw what they reported. Jonathan Chait is a liar. He was an Iraq War cheerleader so he's also a disgusting piece of trash. A functioning society would have flushed him down the drain but NEW YORK MAGAZINE employs him. That tells you all you need to know about the press in the United States. There is no accountability and, as long as you whore, they will pay you.
The editorial board of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL argues, "Joe Biden is asking voters to elect him on the strength of his character, honesty and judgment. Which is why Mr. Biden owes a response to new allegations about his son Hunter's business deals." Yes, it's a conservative editorial board. That doesn't mean the issues raised don't need to be addressed. We could note the comments of the Senate Committee but its chair is a Republican so some will dismiss those comments. But what the editorial board is stating should not be controversial in the least.
Elsewhere in the world of madness, Katie Bo Williams (DEFENSE ONE) writes of Bully Boy Bush's talk of training Iraqi forces in 2004 and how it would mean this and that:
It’s the same buoyant progress report that dozens of American generals have delivered for 16 years. Now, there is constant and ongoing pressure from President Donald Trump — and the American public — to “end the forever wars” by bringing troops home from places like Afghanistan and Iraq. As Trump is directing the United States drawdown its military presence in Iraq — and reportedly weighing closing its sprawling embassy in Baghdad if Iraq doesn’t do more to stop security threats from Iran — it’s not clear what standard Iraqi security forces would need to meet to satisfy the terms laid out by Bush, McKenzie, and a host of presidents and other officials in between.
They have been trained and re-trained. There is no improvement. There will not be because there is no reason to fight or secure. The government does not represent the people. That's why so many military forces flee in battle to this day. The Iraqi government is a false creation that repeatedly has the US and Iran coming together to select whatever coward fled Iraq under Saddam to now be the prime minister. They aren't qualified, they aren't wanted and they aren't leaders.
That's why the security forces are not giving it their all. They have no investment in preserving a government that does not represent them.
Joe Biden overturned election results in 2010 -- nullified them with The Erbil Agreement. And maybe that was a good thing -- maybe it made clear to the Iraqi people that they really did not have a say in their government. Maybe it kept them from becoming deluded about the so-called promise of democracy?
The following sites updated: