I neither believe nor disbelieve Reade, and I'm a believer in the presumption of innocence (even outside of court) and due process. Accordingly, I didn't hold her allegation against Biden. However, as usual the problem are the inconsistencies and double standards. Many on the Left (Democrats and political media figures) held Christine Blasey Ford out as a hero and considered it an outrage to call her claim into question, when it had bigger problems than Reade's. Personally, I think it's fair game to call BS on the problems with both.
Exactly. Chrissy Ford was far more of a liar Lies about how she couldn't fly because she was afraid of it - though she'd flown overseas within the past 10 years. Lies about why she waited to bring this issue up (only when K was nominated at the SC, but I guess the DC Court of Appeals is OK to sit on)? Lies about who was paying for all of it - her travel, the consultants and lawyers. Lies all about when her alleged feel up occurred. Lies about who she told it to. Differences - Chrissy Ford was both who the Media wanted to believe and use to destroy a Republican, and also she was a Party Member in Good Standing, being a psychologist at a college. Hard to be more of a party member than that.
In a vacuum, why not believe Hitler? Why not presume his honesty? Obviously the answer is that the Brits likely had intelligence about what his real plans were, and even if they didn't, he had written a friggin' book about it. That should have overcome the presumption. I'm not aware of much evidence to overcome the presumption that Biden hadn't sexually assaulted anyone. It isn't as though he had written a book about it or celebrated it to Billy Bush.
Nevertheless, I saw a documentary a while back that made the case not so much that Chamberlain was right but that his decision wasn't as crazy as it seems in retrospect. First, the public in the UK wasn't sold on going to war at the time of the Munich Agreement, so it was questionable whether it was politically feasible. In fact, some members of the royal family were pretty chummy with several of the Nazi leaders and weren't interested in war with them. Second, the UK wasn't military prepared for war but needed more time, which the Munich Agreement gave them. In fact, near the end of the war, Hitler believed that he got played by Chamberlain - not because he ceded land but because it delayed his efforts, which gave the UK and Stalin the opportunity to build their militaries further and shortened the time when Germany didn't have to deal with the US on the Western Front. That very well could have been decisive.
Churchill was right It's starting to feel like re-litigating the end of Mack Brown's tenure. I can't get away from the historical revisionists
Is there no one in US media who is still honest? What happened to all those people who used to yell, "Speak truth to power?" Where did they go?
What 50+ year old child has their parents do their taxes? Charlie Kirk may be sharing the details of his taxes with his parents but that can't be the norm.
I'm not buying that. Hitler wasn't planning on going to war either. He wasn't even planning on going to war with England and France over Poland - he thought (not without reason) that they were all bluster. Since Germany was rearming faster than anyone else in Europe, waiting for all-out war helped Germany more than anyone else. Chamberlain's position is more understandable than he's given credit for though. Did any of us want to go to war over the Crimea?
He wasn't planning on war with the West and justifiability assumed the West was unwilling to fight after the repeated appeasement, but he definitely was planning on war with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. That was the basis of the lebensraum agenda. I see your point about Germany rearming, but they had been rearming for several years ahead of the Allies (especially Britain and the USSR, and of course, the US wasn't even much of a factor yet). By the time of the Anschluss (before the Munich Agreement), they were ready for war with their Eastern neighbors, and the Allies were not. The only reason the war didn't start then is that the Austrians welcomed Hitler with open arms. No reason to start a war when the people are throwing roses and cheering at your tanks and troops and giving you a massive rally in Vienna. However, Hitler was planning for war on Czechoslovakia by the spring of 1938 and to start it in the fall. The Munich Agreement delayed all that, which gave the Allies a chance to accelerate their rearming and preparations for war. If the Agreement hadn't taken place, war would have broken out sooner. That means the invasions of Poland and ultimately the Soviet Union would likely have come sooner, which would have meant a less armed USSR and more time to fight before the brutal winter of 1941 set in and before the United States entered the war and created a much bigger second front for the Axis to fight. At least, that is what the documentary suggested was Hitler's rationale for why the Agreement was so bad for Germany. I agree. At the time, the question in the West was, "Why die for Danzig (Poland)?" Motivation to fight Germany to defend Poland was weak. It didn't really pick up until people realized that Hitler wasn't going to stop with Poland and started attacking the West. It's easy to call Chamberlain an idiot now, but how many of us would have done better if actually in his shoes at the time?
Today is December 18, 11 days after Axios reported that a Chinese spy named Fang Fang had “close ties” with Rep Fartwell, who still sits on the House Intelligence Committee. The New York Times STILL has not reported on the Fartwell news.
The seems to happen to the NYT a lot You would think they would eventually do something about it, but they never do
Truer headline: How some men can overlook woman being office prostitutes who trade sex for favors, and still ask them to marry them.
