hotair--2020-01-09--David Frum: Soleimani deserved to die but it's Trump's fault Iran shot down that jet (Update)

I confess I did not see this twist coming .
After the report earlier today that Iran is believed to have shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet killing 176 people , I expected someone on the left , probably Michael Moore , to blame Trump anyway .
What I did not expect was that this tortured explanation would become so widespread it ’ s hard to keep track of all the people making this argument .
Writing at the Atlantic , Frum opens by putting the blame on President Trump : No American paid a price for President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Qassem Soleimani .
But it looks like 176 other people did , including 63 Canadian citizens and many more Iranian nationals en route to Canada… Now the harrowing stories of the lost—students returning to university in Canada , newlyweds , children—are filling Canadian media , and will soon claim the attention of the world .
He then admits that Iran is actually to blame , not only for shooting down the plane but for creating the conditions that led to the apparent accident : And then comes the turn in which all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Trump : In the first relief that Iranian retaliation had not done more damage , the president accepted accolades for his leadership .
You just can not admit that Trump was right for once became a pro-administration talking point .
Yet now we are confronted with the full measure of the damage , the toll—however unintended—of open hostilities .
Trump , of course , disclaims all responsibility , as he habitually does .
He ’ s always been a credit-grabber and a responsibility-dodger .
“ It was flying in a pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters this morning about the downed airplane .
Trump is right .
The airport shouldn ’ t have been open on a night when Iran knew it was retaliating against the United States with missiles .
Given what happened , Iran was clearly was concerned about a US response .
So why allow the airport to remain open as if nothing else were happening ?
The next day , after the Iranian missile strike and the crash , but before the two were shown to be connected , airlines stopped flying over Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why didn ’ t Iran take that same precaution ?
Nor is it true that US action against Soleimani led to this tragic incident .
What if , instead of killing Soleimani , Trump had carried out some other strike in response to the Iranian led attack on the US Embassy in Iraq .
Say , for instance , that he had fired additional missiles at Kataib Hezbollah camps , killing more members of the Iranian backed militia .
Might Iran still have responded with a missile attack on the nearest bases where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , couldn ’ t the same accident have happened .
The point is that this really isn ’ t about the specific actions taken by the US so much as the fact that the US responded to the Iranian provocation at our embassy at all .
Here ’ s Frum ’ s conclusion : I think some in the media and on the left were so eager for Trump to pay a price for the strike on Soleimani that they couldn ’ t quite come down from the anticipation of it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be future victims from his decision .
Iranian threats to extract bloody vengeance were eagerly repeated in the US media .
And then the Iranian missile response was a kind of disappointment , a face-saving maneuver with no victims for which the American president could be blamed .
But the moment the downed airliner could be connected to the Iranian attack , even as an accident , the media suddenly had the story it had been anticipating .
To be clear , I don ’ t think Iran is done retaliating .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there will be real victims at some point , either dead or kidnapped , in response to the killing of Soleimani .
But we ’ re not there yet .
What many on the left are doing today is a disgusting display and one that suggests Trump Derangement Syndrome is very real .
In any case , the US didn ’ t cause this tragedy , Iran did .
Iran was responsible in an immediate sense , it was responsible ( as Frum admits ) in the sense that it instigated the escalating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was responsible in the sense that it failed to take reasonable precautions knowing what was happening in its airspace that night .
And yet the desire to blame Trump at every turn is so compelling that Frum ( and many others ) are trying to lay this at Trump ’ s feet .
Update : This goes to the point I was making about Iran leaving its airport open while conducting a missile strike .
The US issued a no-fly order over Iran hours before the passenger plane was shot down :

I confess I did not see this twist coming. After the report earlier today that Iran is believed to have shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet killing 176 people, I expected someone on the left, probably Michael Moore, to blame Trump anyway. What I did not expect was that this tortured explanation would become so widespread it’s hard to keep track of all the people making this argument. Writing at the Atlantic, Frum opens by putting the blame on President Trump:
No American paid a price for President Donald Trump’s decision to kill Iran’s Qassem Soleimani. But it looks like 176 other people did, including 63 Canadian citizens and many more Iranian nationals en route to Canada… Now the harrowing stories of the lost—students returning to university in Canada, newlyweds, children—are filling Canadian media, and will soon claim the attention of the world.
He then admits that Iran is actually to blame, not only for shooting down the plane but for creating the conditions that led to the apparent accident:
These stories point an accusatory finger, first, at the Iranian government. Iranian military authorities apparently fired at a plane cleared to fly in their airspace that had lifted off only minutes before from the Tehran airport. It was the Iranian authorities, too, who set in motion the cycle of attack and response that culminated with the destruction of a civilian airliner.
And then comes the turn in which all of this is still somehow the fault of President Trump:
In the first relief that Iranian retaliation had not done more damage, the president accepted accolades for his leadership. You just cannot admit that Trump was right for once became a pro-administration talking point. Yet now we are confronted with the full measure of the damage, the toll—however unintended—of open hostilities. Trump, of course, disclaims all responsibility, as he habitually does. He’s always been a credit-grabber and a responsibility-dodger. “It was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood,” the president told reporters this morning about the downed airplane.
Trump is right. The airport shouldn’t have been open on a night when Iran knew it was retaliating against the United States with missiles. Given what happened, Iran was clearly was concerned about a US response. So why allow the airport to remain open as if nothing else were happening? The next day, after the Iranian missile strike and the crash, but before the two were shown to be connected, airlines stopped flying over Iranian and Iraqi airspace as a precaution. Why didn’t Iran take that same precaution?
Nor is it true that US action against Soleimani led to this tragic incident. What if, instead of killing Soleimani, Trump had carried out some other strike in response to the Iranian led attack on the US Embassy in Iraq. Say, for instance, that he had fired additional missiles at Kataib Hezbollah camps, killing more members of the Iranian backed militia. Might Iran still have responded with a missile attack on the nearest bases where US soldiers are stationed? And if so, couldn’t the same accident have happened. The point is that this really isn’t about the specific actions taken by the US so much as the fact that the US responded to the Iranian provocation at our embassy at all. Here’s Frum’s conclusion:
Soleimani abundantly deserved to die a violent death. The 176 innocents he took with him did not. President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama both flinched from doing justice to Soleimani, because they asked, “And what will happen next?” Trump did not ask that question. Families over half the world are now grieving a consequence that Trump’s ego forbade him to imagine or ponder.
I think some in the media and on the left were so eager for Trump to pay a price for the strike on Soleimani that they couldn’t quite come down from the anticipation of it. The media kept warning us that there would be future victims from his decision. Iranian threats to extract bloody vengeance were eagerly repeated in the US media. And then the Iranian missile response was a kind of disappointment, a face-saving maneuver with no victims for which the American president could be blamed. But the moment the downed airliner could be connected to the Iranian attack, even as an accident, the media suddenly had the story it had been anticipating.
To be clear, I don’t think Iran is done retaliating. I think it’s very possible there will be real victims at some point, either dead or kidnapped, in response to the killing of Soleimani. But we’re not there yet. What many on the left are doing today is a disgusting display and one that suggests Trump Derangement Syndrome is very real.
In any case, the US didn’t cause this tragedy, Iran did. Iran was responsible in an immediate sense, it was responsible (as Frum admits) in the sense that it instigated the escalating attacks in the first place, and it was responsible in the sense that it failed to take reasonable precautions knowing what was happening in its airspace that night. And yet the desire to blame Trump at every turn is so compelling that Frum (and many others) are trying to lay this at Trump’s feet.
Update: This goes to the point I was making about Iran leaving its airport open while conducting a missile strike. The US issued a no-fly order over Iran hours before the passenger plane was shot down:


hotair--2020-01-09--Trump hints: We'll stop Bolton from testifying at the impeachment trial

It made me laugh while watching this to see how committed he was to selling the point about executive privilege .
It ’ s not for my benefit that Bolton ’ s testimony must be blocked , he insists , it ’ s to preserve the legitimacy of executive privilege claims by future presidents .
A fine , principled claim .
…and poles apart from his usual perspective , which is to maximize his personal interest at all times .
That ’ s what got him impeached in the first place , in fact , the suspicion that he used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to make trouble for his likely election opponent .
If we could guarantee for him that his successors would still be able to invoke executive privilege going forward if Bolton testified , undoubtedly he ’ d still want Bolton not to testify .
Anyway .
Normally this is where I ’ d point to some precedent as a clue for how the Bolton saga will play out but I don ’ t think there ’ s any historical guidance for a situation in which a top advisor is willing to testify at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hellbent on hushing him up .
Trump wants “ absolute immunity ” for his top advisors , i.e .
they don ’ t even need to show up to a congressional hearing when subpoenaed , but that ’ s an extreme assertion of privilege .
Normally the advisor would show up and privilege would be claimed on a question-by-question basis , with Bolton barred from answering any questions regarding things Trump has said to him in confidence relating to national security .
Any communications outside that narrow band might ( emphasis : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s statement of a few days ago made it sound like he ’ ll show if the Senate calls him , so “ absolute immunity ” won ’ t cut it for Trump here .
Presumably what he says in the clip about asserting privilege means he ’ s going to have his lawyers object question-by-question if Bolton testifies .
Which raises a thorny question : Who ’ ll rule on those objections ?
John Roberts ?
Will the Senate vote on whether to sustain or overrule the objection to each question when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What would Susan Collins and Cory Gardner do in that situation , wanting to show voters in their home states that they ’ re being diligent about giving the evidence a fair hearing ?
I think Trump ’ s answer here is aimed at providing them with a reason not to call Bolton in the first place .
Right now , with Bolton telling the world he ’ s ready to testify , Collins and Gardner are in a jam .
They don ’ t want to hear from him in case he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they ’ re short on excuses for not calling him at the moment .
The best they can do is follow Marco Rubio ’ s lead and claim that the Senate is stuck rendering its verdict based on the evidence gathered by the House , which of course didn ’ t include Bolton ’ s testimony .
But that ’ s just not true : The trial really is a trial , not an appellate hearing at which the judges are bound by the factual record produced by the lower court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gather facts and now here comes Bolton offering facts .
They have to call him if they want to make any pretense that they ’ re trying to get to the truth of what happened with Ukraine .
Unless , that is , Trump has made clear in advance that he ’ ll fight Bolton ’ s testimony doggedly .
In that case there could be a delay while the president and the Senate battle in court over whether Bolton can be compelled to testify .
Or , if Bolton averts that by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , there could be a long delay during the trial itself as the Senate is forced to rule on the many objections made by Trump ’ s lawyers to questions asked of him on executive privilege grounds .
Could Collins and Gardner get away with telling their constituents that it ’ s not worth calling Bolton in the first place because the president intends to be a pain in the ass about allowing his testimony ?
I don ’ t know if that excuse will sell , but it does have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for failing to call Bolton onto Trump .
Speaking of the trial , House Republicans are leaning on POTUS to let Jim Jordan , Doug Collins , and John Ratcliffe join his defense team .
Trump loves the idea , Senate Republicans hate it .
I have to say , I think Trump ’ s instincts are correct in this case : But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) and his fellow GOP senators have expressed concerns to Trump that a House-led defense could offend moderates , including Sens .
Susan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Alaska ) .
Trump , they argue , has already won the backing of the GOP base , so he and his team need to focus on ensuring Republican unity on an acquittal .
McConnell , who discussed the trial with the president at the White House on Wednesday , has been advising Trump and his legal team not to think of the trial as a “ made-for-TV-type House setting , ” said one individual familiar with the leader ’ s thinking , “ but rather one where ultimately your audience is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who are actually listening to the arguments here.
” … “ One thing I ’ m not eager to do is re-create the circuslike atmosphere of the House — that ’ s not what we ’ re going to do here , if we can avoid it , ” said Sen. John Cornyn ( R-Tex . )
, a McConnell ally .
“ So I think it seems obvious to me that if the president picks a team that does not include House members , that we ’ d be more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution calls for.
” There are two different rationales there , one the idea that the Senate is more “ dignified ” than the House ( sort of , but less so than it used to be ) and the other that histrionics from the likes of Jordan might alienate moderates like Susan Collins , or at the very least make her eventual acquittal vote more irritating to center-left voters back home .
I don ’ t buy it .
The fact is that the trial is “ made for TV ” this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the book would have been wise of Trump if he faced a genuine risk of removal , but since the verdict is assured in this case he might as well turn the trial into a pageant .
Would a swing voter in Maine who ’ s largely unfamiliar with the Ukraine matter and is tuning into the trial to see what it ’ s all about be more or less likely to view the charges against Trump sympathetically if Jordan and Ratcliffe are on TV visibly enraged , doing their “ this whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shtick ?
I think that could work for Trump .
What McConnell ’ s worried about , I assume , is Jordan et al .
wanting to call Hunter Biden or the whistleblower to the stand and send the proceedings off on a tangent .
Trump could make a deal with him — in return for House bombthrowers being added to the defense team to grandstand , he ’ ll agree not to try to call any defense witnesses .
That ’ s the price of letting the Senate turn a bit more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks .

It made me laugh while watching this to see how committed he was to selling the point about executive privilege. It’s not for my benefit that Bolton’s testimony must be blocked, he insists, it’s to preserve the legitimacy of executive privilege claims by future presidents. A fine, principled claim.
…and poles apart from his usual perspective, which is to maximize his personal interest at all times. That’s what got him impeached in the first place, in fact, the suspicion that he used military aid to shake down the Ukrainian government to make trouble for his likely election opponent. If we could guarantee for him that his successors would still be able to invoke executive privilege going forward if Bolton testified, undoubtedly he’d still want Bolton not to testify.
Anyway. Normally this is where I’d point to some precedent as a clue for how the Bolton saga will play out but I don’t think there’s any historical guidance for a situation in which a top advisor is willing to testify at an impeachment trial and the White House is hellbent on hushing him up.
President Trump on John Bolton saying he would testify at an impeachment trial: "I always got along with him. He didn't get along with some of our people, but that's really going to be up to the Senate. … We have to protect presidential privilege" https://t.co/cGTlkybR0c pic.twitter.com/DsLyWtrUH7 — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 9, 2020
Trump wants “absolute immunity” for his top advisors, i.e. they don’t even need to show up to a congressional hearing when subpoenaed, but that’s an extreme assertion of privilege. Normally the advisor would show up and privilege would be claimed on a question-by-question basis, with Bolton barred from answering any questions regarding things Trump has said to him in confidence relating to national security. Any communications outside that narrow band might (emphasis: might) be admitted. Bolton’s statement of a few days ago made it sound like he’ll show if the Senate calls him, so “absolute immunity” won’t cut it for Trump here. Presumably what he says in the clip about asserting privilege means he’s going to have his lawyers object question-by-question if Bolton testifies.
Which raises a thorny question: Who’ll rule on those objections? John Roberts? Will the Senate vote on whether to sustain or overrule the objection to each question when there could be dozens or hundreds? What would Susan Collins and Cory Gardner do in that situation, wanting to show voters in their home states that they’re being diligent about giving the evidence a fair hearing?
I think Trump’s answer here is aimed at providing them with a reason not to call Bolton in the first place. Right now, with Bolton telling the world he’s ready to testify, Collins and Gardner are in a jam. They don’t want to hear from him in case he has something incriminating to say about Trump but they’re short on excuses for not calling him at the moment. The best they can do is follow Marco Rubio’s lead and claim that the Senate is stuck rendering its verdict based on the evidence gathered by the House, which of course didn’t include Bolton’s testimony. But that’s just not true: The trial really is a trial, not an appellate hearing at which the judges are bound by the factual record produced by the lower court. The point of a trial is to gather facts and now here comes Bolton offering facts. They have to call him if they want to make any pretense that they’re trying to get to the truth of what happened with Ukraine.
Unless, that is, Trump has made clear in advance that he’ll fight Bolton’s testimony doggedly. In that case there could be a delay while the president and the Senate battle in court over whether Bolton can be compelled to testify. Or, if Bolton averts that by deciding to show up without a court order, there could be a long delay during the trial itself as the Senate is forced to rule on the many objections made by Trump’s lawyers to questions asked of him on executive privilege grounds. Could Collins and Gardner get away with telling their constituents that it’s not worth calling Bolton in the first place because the president intends to be a pain in the ass about allowing his testimony? I don’t know if that excuse will sell, but it does have the virtue of offloading (some) responsibility for failing to call Bolton onto Trump.
Speaking of the trial, House Republicans are leaning on POTUS to let Jim Jordan, Doug Collins, and John Ratcliffe join his defense team. Trump loves the idea, Senate Republicans hate it. I have to say, I think Trump’s instincts are correct in this case:
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his fellow GOP senators have expressed concerns to Trump that a House-led defense could offend moderates, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Trump, they argue, has already won the backing of the GOP base, so he and his team need to focus on ensuring Republican unity on an acquittal. McConnell, who discussed the trial with the president at the White House on Wednesday, has been advising Trump and his legal team not to think of the trial as a “made-for-TV-type House setting,” said one individual familiar with the leader’s thinking, “but rather one where ultimately your audience is senators in the middle on both sides, who are actually listening to the arguments here.”… “One thing I’m not eager to do is re-create the circuslike atmosphere of the House — that’s not what we’re going to do here, if we can avoid it,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a McConnell ally. “So I think it seems obvious to me that if the president picks a team that does not include House members, that we’d be more likely to have the dignified process that the Constitution calls for.”
There are two different rationales there, one the idea that the Senate is more “dignified” than the House (sort of, but less so than it used to be) and the other that histrionics from the likes of Jordan might alienate moderates like Susan Collins, or at the very least make her eventual acquittal vote more irritating to center-left voters back home. I don’t buy it. The fact is that the trial is “made for TV” this year. Playing it safe and by the book would have been wise of Trump if he faced a genuine risk of removal, but since the verdict is assured in this case he might as well turn the trial into a pageant. Would a swing voter in Maine who’s largely unfamiliar with the Ukraine matter and is tuning into the trial to see what it’s all about be more or less likely to view the charges against Trump sympathetically if Jordan and Ratcliffe are on TV visibly enraged, doing their “this whole damned system is out of order” shtick? I think that could work for Trump. What McConnell’s worried about, I assume, is Jordan et al. wanting to call Hunter Biden or the whistleblower to the stand and send the proceedings off on a tangent. Trump could make a deal with him — in return for House bombthrowers being added to the defense team to grandstand, he’ll agree not to try to call any defense witnesses. That’s the price of letting the Senate turn a bit more “circus-like” for the next few weeks.


hotair--2020-01-09--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Iran's Vincennes, Pelosi extends, War Powers trends, USMCA wends, royal

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Iran's Vincennes, Pelosi extends, War Powers trends, USMCA wends, royal family odds and ends, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
The apparent shootdown by Iran of a commercial airliner in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our hot topics .
We ’ ll also talk about the latest on impeachment , the most recent FUBAR on Jeffrey Epstein , Nancy Pelosi ’ s dilemma , and the possible big win for Trump on trade this week .
• What are the broader strategic implications of the strike on Qassem Soleimani ?
Heritage Foundation senior fellow Col. John “ JV ” Venable joins us to discuss the strike operation , the risks that follow , and the deterrent factor that might mitigate them .
We might also discuss the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the time .
Be sure to read Heritage ’ s report on Iran ’ s cruise missiles , and how Heritage suggests we boost the deterrent against the Iranians .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown @ @

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-01-09--Matthews: Soleimani's death was just like Elvis' and Princess Diana's for Iranians, or something

Give NBC credit for allowing Parnaz Foroutan the opportunity to challenge the media ’ s embrace of Iranian propaganda — including at NBC .
Just one day after running it , however , it became evident that MSNBC ’ s Chris Matthews didn ’ t bother to read it .
Earlier today , Matthews compared Qassem Soleimani ’ s death to that of Elvis Presley and Princess Diana in terms of cultural impact in Iran : Why yes , these are quite similar inasmuch as Elvis and Diana spent their brief time on Earth [ checks notes ] conducting terror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of people , and killing thousands of dissenters in the US and UK .
Matthews makes the very errors that Foroutan decried in her op-ed for Matthews ’ s network .
He assumed that public displays of support for the regime and grief for a death within it occurs in the exact same context as it does in liberal democracies .
Foroutan ’ s family fled Iran in 1983 when she was just six years old , but she recalls very clearly how the mullahs enforced “ public opinion ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissent .
They did so with lethal force , and everyone in Iran quickly learned the lesson or eventually and suddenly reached room temperature .
Foroutan apparently assumed that Western media understood how dictatorships like the Iranian theocracy operate .
While watching coverage of the public demonstrations of grief over their chief enforcer Qassem Soleimani , Foroutan couldn ’ t believe her eyes : Here ’ s a case in point from NBC ’ s Tehran office , and it ’ s not the only one this week from the network : MSNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Iranian casualty figures too , before finally backing away from them as it became clear that they were false .
Those are the easy-to-reveal moments , however .
Foroutan marvels over the way that American networks bought into the regime ’ s talking points about Soleimani ’ s “ revered ” status , and even more so , wonders why they didn ’ t even bother to look for dissenters or ex-pats who could have addressed the issue : Say that the satellite images were accurate , and a million people willingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mourn .
Iran has 83 million people .
Who will give voice to the other millions who did not take to the streets ?
The press has quoted the threats of Soleimani ’ s daughter .
The press has written extensively about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei ’ s teary displays and promises of retribution .
Random supporters in the funerary crowd were quoted demanding blood for blood .
But what of the others , the millions of others , who are silenced by fear ?
Who are watching this one-sided narrative that depicts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police state they have been enduring for decades ?
Who will speak for them ?
Unfortunately , this is a chronic failing of American media , and not just in relation to Iran .
The coverage of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain suffered from the same kind of ideological blindness , only occasionally pierced by events such as the Solidarity movement in Poland .
Until almost the moment the Soviet system collapsed , American media portrayed it as a reasonable and functional alternative , and even occasionally superior in outcomes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They would cite “ public opinion surveys ” to bolster these claims without much note to the fact that the public wasn ’ t allowed to have opinions other than those approved by the government .
Nor did that chronic failing change much after getting pantsed by the fall of the Berlin Wall .
The reporting from the interregnum in the Iraq wars was routinely awful , and CNN later had to admit that they slanted the news in Saddam Hussein ’ s favor to maintain their access to Baghdad .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to claim that the Cuban health-care system is superior to the US .
They routinely portrayed Venezuela as a success story for a “ new ” style of socialism from Hugo Chavez , even while its economy was collapsing .
And so on .
The answer to Foroutan ’ s question , therefore , is depressingly obvious .
If anyone speaks for the repressed Iranian people , it ’ s not going to be the American media , especially while it perceives Donald Trump to be the greater evil .

Give NBC credit for allowing Parnaz Foroutan the opportunity to challenge the media’s embrace of Iranian propaganda — including at NBC. Just one day after running it, however, it became evident that MSNBC’s Chris Matthews didn’t bother to read it. Earlier today, Matthews compared Qassem Soleimani’s death to that of Elvis Presley and Princess Diana in terms of cultural impact in Iran:
Chris Matthews: Soleimani killing on par with deaths of Elvis, Princess Diana pic.twitter.com/Z089Sx3pjl — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 9, 2020
Why yes, these are quite similar inasmuch as Elvis and Diana spent their brief time on Earth [checks notes] conducting terror campaigns across vast regions, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, and killing thousands of dissenters in the US and UK.
Matthews makes the very errors that Foroutan decried in her op-ed for Matthews’s network. He assumed that public displays of support for the regime and grief for a death within it occurs in the exact same context as it does in liberal democracies. Foroutan’s family fled Iran in 1983 when she was just six years old, but she recalls very clearly how the mullahs enforced “public opinion” and made sure to quash any hint of dissent. They did so with lethal force, and everyone in Iran quickly learned the lesson or eventually and suddenly reached room temperature.
Foroutan apparently assumed that Western media understood how dictatorships like the Iranian theocracy operate. While watching coverage of the public demonstrations of grief over their chief enforcer Qassem Soleimani, Foroutan couldn’t believe her eyes:
Here’s a case in point from NBC’s Tehran office, and it’s not the only one this week from the network:
NBC's Tehran Bureau Chief @aliarouzi has deleted this tweet that claims to show footage from last night's attacks. In fact, video is from Aramco oil fields in KSA. This comes on heels of Ali gong on MSNBC last night & falsely claiming 30 US troops killed in missile attacks. pic.twitter.com/ogPlQy72kI — Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) January 8, 2020
MSNBC spent quite a bit of time operating with Iranian casualty figures too, before finally backing away from them as it became clear that they were false. Those are the easy-to-reveal moments, however. Foroutan marvels over the way that American networks bought into the regime’s talking points about Soleimani’s “revered” status, and even more so, wonders why they didn’t even bother to look for dissenters or ex-pats who could have addressed the issue:
Say that the satellite images were accurate, and a million people willingly came to show their grief, to mourn. Iran has 83 million people. Who will give voice to the other millions who did not take to the streets? The press has quoted the threats of Soleimani’s daughter. The press has written extensively about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s teary displays and promises of retribution. Random supporters in the funerary crowd were quoted demanding blood for blood. But what of the others, the millions of others, who are silenced by fear? Who are watching this one-sided narrative that depicts complete support of a corrupt, murderous police state they have been enduring for decades? Who will speak for them?
Unfortunately, this is a chronic failing of American media, and not just in relation to Iran. The coverage of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain suffered from the same kind of ideological blindness, only occasionally pierced by events such as the Solidarity movement in Poland. Until almost the moment the Soviet system collapsed, American media portrayed it as a reasonable and functional alternative, and even occasionally superior in outcomes, in comparison to Western capitalism and democracy. They would cite “public opinion surveys” to bolster these claims without much note to the fact that the public wasn’t allowed to have opinions other than those approved by the government.
Nor did that chronic failing change much after getting pantsed by the fall of the Berlin Wall. The reporting from the interregnum in the Iraq wars was routinely awful, and CNN later had to admit that they slanted the news in Saddam Hussein’s favor to maintain their access to Baghdad. The media still likes to use Castro-generated data to claim that the Cuban health-care system is superior to the US. They routinely portrayed Venezuela as a success story for a “new” style of socialism from Hugo Chavez, even while its economy was collapsing. And so on.
The answer to Foroutan’s question, therefore, is depressingly obvious. If anyone speaks for the repressed Iranian people, it’s not going to be the American media, especially while it perceives Donald Trump to be the greater evil.


hotair--2020-01-09--House of Commons passes Brexit bill

House of Commons passes Brexit bill

Elections have consequences and today the House of Commons voted to pass a withdrawal bill which sets up Brexit by the end of this month .
From the BBC : The Commons voted 330 to 231 in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and it will now pass to the House of Lords for further scrutiny next week… The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 January… The latest vote gives approval to the 11-month transition period after 31 January , in which the UK will cease to be an EU member but will continue to follow its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The purpose of the transition period is to give time for the UK and EU to negotiate their future relationship , including a trade deal .
The bill will go to the House of Lords but they can ’ t stop it , only delay it .
And given the blowout results of last month ’ s election , they probably won ’ t try .
Boris Johnson ’ s successful campaign was focused on the message that he would “ get Brexit done ” and now he has .
At least he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The negotiations with the EU are yet to come .
Yesterday Johnson met with EU President Ursula Von der Leyen .
Johnson and Von der Leyen attended the same school so they have something in common .
But the Guardian reports that beneath the friendly chatter there is a clear disagreement over the Brexit timeline : The consensus was that both sides remained committed Europeans .
And for the next three months , at least , before the negotiating positions are set , and the talks start in earnest , this is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay .
But the faultlines are clear .
Von der Leyen said the 11 months between the UK ’ s exit and the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 was not long enough to reach a comprehensive deal covering all aspects of the future relationship .
She suggested the prime minister might reconsider his rejection of an extension .
In reality , there is little doubt in Brussels that the prime minister will stick to his guns .
According to the NY Times , the experts doubt a deal can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that ’ s the view Johnson appears set to challenge .
Based on the track record of previous negotiations , most experts have concluded it will be all but impossible to negotiate and sign a comprehensive trade agreement by the end of the year .
Still , the optimists hope for an agreement on the most basic issue : a tariff-free trade deal .
Other areas , like aviation , could be postponed until later , using contingency plans developed to keep planes flying had Britain withdrawn without any agreement at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply allow some major industries , like car manufacturing , to sign up to European regulations .
Brexit must get done because the people voted for it , twice if you count the last election .
Here ’ s video of Johnson greeting Von der Leyen .
Below that is the moment when the withdrawal bill finally passed .

Elections have consequences and today the House of Commons voted to pass a withdrawal bill which sets up Brexit by the end of this month. From the BBC:
The Commons voted 330 to 231 in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and it will now pass to the House of Lords for further scrutiny next week… The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 January… The latest vote gives approval to the 11-month transition period after 31 January, in which the UK will cease to be an EU member but will continue to follow its rules and contribute to its budget. The purpose of the transition period is to give time for the UK and EU to negotiate their future relationship, including a trade deal.
The bill will go to the House of Lords but they can’t stop it, only delay it. And given the blowout results of last month’s election, they probably won’t try. Boris Johnson’s successful campaign was focused on the message that he would “get Brexit done” and now he has. At least he’s gotten through the vote. The negotiations with the EU are yet to come.
Yesterday Johnson met with EU President Ursula Von der Leyen. Johnson and Von der Leyen attended the same school so they have something in common. But the Guardian reports that beneath the friendly chatter there is a clear disagreement over the Brexit timeline:
The consensus was that both sides remained committed Europeans. And for the next three months, at least, before the negotiating positions are set, and the talks start in earnest, this is how both sides want the mood music to stay. But the faultlines are clear. Von der Leyen said the 11 months between the UK’s exit and the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 was not long enough to reach a comprehensive deal covering all aspects of the future relationship. She suggested the prime minister might reconsider his rejection of an extension. In reality, there is little doubt in Brussels that the prime minister will stick to his guns.
According to the NY Times, the experts doubt a deal can be completed by the end of 2020 but that’s the view Johnson appears set to challenge.
Based on the track record of previous negotiations, most experts have concluded it will be all but impossible to negotiate and sign a comprehensive trade agreement by the end of the year. Still, the optimists hope for an agreement on the most basic issue: a tariff-free trade deal. Other areas, like aviation, could be postponed until later, using contingency plans developed to keep planes flying had Britain withdrawn without any agreement at all last year. And the government could simply allow some major industries, like car manufacturing, to sign up to European regulations.
Brexit must get done because the people voted for it, twice if you count the last election. Here’s video of Johnson greeting Von der Leyen. Below that is the moment when the withdrawal bill finally passed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDN0q0aqYnM


hotair--2020-01-09--Feds: The video from Epstein's first suicide attempt has, er ... killed itself

First prosecutors had it , then they didn ’ t .
Then federal officials claimed it had been found .
Today , however , prosecutors told a federal judge that the video of the area in which Jeffrey Epstein was held during his first suicide attempt no longer exists .
When ordered to produce it pursuant to a motion from Epstein ’ s cellmate , it turns out that officials saved the wrong video .
Or so they say … In the latest screw up in Jeffrey Epstein ’ s death case , federal officials revealed Thursday that video of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his first suicide attempt was accidentally destroyed .
The surveillance footage was requested by Epstein ’ s cellmate , accused killer ex-cop Nicholas Tartaglione , who is hoping it will show he “ acted appropriately ” and earn him a break at sentencing .
Last month , federal prosecutors said the video had been found .
But in a letter to the judge on Thursday , they said it turns out that staff at the Metropolitan Correctional Center “ inadvertently preserved video from the wrong tier , ” and the video from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How in the world is this possible ?
Supposedly , MCC personnel didn ’ t keep accurate records of Tartaglione ’ s cell assignments , leading them to preserve the wrong clip : The letter claims MCC staff were misled by a computer system that wrongly listed Tartaglione as being housed in a different cell during those dates — and therefore kept the footage from outside that incorrect cell .
Prosecutors say they realized the mistake after the facility turned over footage on Jan. 3 .
“ After reviewing the video , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contained on the preserved video was for the correct date and time , but captured a different tier than the one where Cell-1 was , ” reads the letter , referring to the cell shared by Tartaglione and Epstein .
To make matters worse , the MCC ’ s backup system hasn ’ t been working properly , meaning the video is gone for good .
Well , ain ’ t that an interesting series of coinky-dinks .
The MCC staff didn ’ t know how their own computers work .
They didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure they had the right camera view .
The back-up system was malfunctioning .
And , recall , they inadvertently forgot to place a cellmate in Epstein ’ s cell after he returned from suicide watch after this incident , too .
Let ’ s also not forget that somehow prosecutors only discovered this now , rather than when they claimed to have found the correct footage .
No one bothered to check on the accuracy of that claim at the time , by , say , watching the video and double-checking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Granted , this video is from Epstein ’ s alleged first attempt at suicide , not the later successful alleged attempt .
Reportedly the FBI has that video and it shows no one going in or out of the cell until his body was discovered , but then again , the feds reportedly had this video , too .
Add this to the “ perfect storm of screw-ups ” surrounding Epstein ’ s incarceration and the questions arising from his autopsies , and it starts looking more and more suspicious .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Epstein case look incompetent and dishonest .
The suspicions surrounding Esptein ’ s suicide won ’ t just kill themselves .
William Barr and the Department of Justice need to start providing a lot more answers .

First prosecutors had it, then they didn’t. Then federal officials claimed it had been found. Today, however, prosecutors told a federal judge that the video of the area in which Jeffrey Epstein was held during his first suicide attempt no longer exists. When ordered to produce it pursuant to a motion from Epstein’s cellmate, it turns out that officials saved the wrong video.
Or so they say …
In the latest screw up in Jeffrey Epstein’s death case, federal officials revealed Thursday that video of the cell where the pedophile reportedly made his first suicide attempt was accidentally destroyed. The surveillance footage was requested by Epstein’s cellmate, accused killer ex-cop Nicholas Tartaglione, who is hoping it will show he “acted appropriately” and earn him a break at sentencing. Last month, federal prosecutors said the video had been found. But in a letter to the judge on Thursday, they said it turns out that staff at the Metropolitan Correctional Center “inadvertently preserved video from the wrong tier,” and the video from the correct one “no longer exists.”
How in the world is this possible? Supposedly, MCC personnel didn’t keep accurate records of Tartaglione’s cell assignments, leading them to preserve the wrong clip:
The letter claims MCC staff were misled by a computer system that wrongly listed Tartaglione as being housed in a different cell during those dates — and therefore kept the footage from outside that incorrect cell. Prosecutors say they realized the mistake after the facility turned over footage on Jan. 3. “After reviewing the video, it appeared to the Government that the footage contained on the preserved video was for the correct date and time, but captured a different tier than the one where Cell-1 was,” reads the letter, referring to the cell shared by Tartaglione and Epstein. To make matters worse, the MCC’s backup system hasn’t been working properly, meaning the video is gone for good.
Well, ain’t that an interesting series of coinky-dinks. The MCC staff didn’t know how their own computers work. They didn’t check the video to make sure they had the right camera view. The back-up system was malfunctioning. And, recall, they inadvertently forgot to place a cellmate in Epstein’s cell after he returned from suicide watch after this incident, too.
Let’s also not forget that somehow prosecutors only discovered this now, rather than when they claimed to have found the correct footage. No one bothered to check on the accuracy of that claim at the time, by, say, watching the video and double-checking the assignments? Come on, man.
Granted, this video is from Epstein’s alleged first attempt at suicide, not the later successful alleged attempt. Reportedly the FBI has that video and it shows no one going in or out of the cell until his body was discovered, but then again, the feds reportedly had this video, too. Add this to the “perfect storm of screw-ups” surrounding Epstein’s incarceration and the questions arising from his autopsies, and it starts looking more and more suspicious. At the very least, it makes everyone involved in the Epstein case look incompetent and dishonest.
The suspicions surrounding Esptein’s suicide won’t just kill themselves. William Barr and the Department of Justice need to start providing a lot more answers.


hotair--2020-01-09--Washington Post: A Republican altered a photo of Nancy Pelosi!

Rep. Elise Stefanik ( R-N.Y. ) tweeted a petition and fundraising appeal that included what appeared to be an altered photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , drawing a retweet Thursday morning from President Trump .
The tweet marks the second time this week that a House Republican has tweeted a photo that appears to have been manipulated… The tweet shows a close-up , red-tinted photo of Pelosi , with the lines in the House speaker ’ s face exaggerated due to the image ’ s unnaturally high contrast .
If you follow the link there ’ s a fuller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site : That ’ s clearly tinted and the contrast is ramped up but it ’ s a real photo .
In fact , I was able to find the original in a couple minutes : And by playing with the contrast and color in Photoshop I produced this from the original photo in 10 minutes .
Not exactly right , but it ’ s in the ballpark : So that ’ s where this came from but the bigger question is whether or not this is at all newsworthy .
The answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least it wasn ’ t newsworthy when Pelosi herself did it .
Stephen Miller quickly found an altered photo of Mitch McConnell in Pelosi ’ s timeline : And these photos of President Trump appear to have been similarly altered .
You can see every wrinkle in his face because the contrast has been ramped up .
In this one Trump ’ s face is yellow and there are magenta blotches in his hair and on his collar : Is Brett Kavanaugh usually this pink ?
Notice the off-angle stripes across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of filter : They really went all out with this next one .
President Trump as a pink zebra : Rep. Mark Sanford with added contrast and a filter for tint : Pretty sure this image of Paul Ryan has been altered .
Maybe the Post can check .
And if the Washington Post is concerned about manipulated images of political figures , they might want to ask Pelosi about this ( she posted this clip twice ) : I guess the Post reporter wasn ’ t aware of all these altered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when she wrote a story about a GOP Rep. altering a photo of Pelosi .
In fact , Pelosi has a much higher profile and nearly twice as many followers as Stefanik on Twitter , so why didn ’ t the Post notice ?
I guess you could say there ’ s a high contrast in how the Post responds to Democrats vs. Republicans .
Maybe Jeff Bezos or someone working for him should take an interest in that .

Breaking news from the Washington Post:
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) tweeted a petition and fundraising appeal that included what appeared to be an altered photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, drawing a retweet Thursday morning from President Trump.
The tweet marks the second time this week that a House Republican has tweeted a photo that appears to have been manipulated… The tweet shows a close-up, red-tinted photo of Pelosi, with the lines in the House speaker’s face exaggerated due to the image’s unnaturally high contrast.
Here’s the nefarious tweet:
Dems obsessed w/ impeachment but won't send articles to the Senate. Why? It's bc they don't want a trial that will EXPOSE Schiff's illegal COORDINATION with the Whistleblower. SIGN & DONATE to #PressurePelosi to send the articles! https://t.co/g0D2tl9Px3 🚨https://t.co/w13xEv1sC9 — Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) January 8, 2020
If you follow the link there’s a fuller version of the same photo at the site:
That’s clearly tinted and the contrast is ramped up but it’s a real photo. In fact, I was able to find the original in a couple minutes:
And by playing with the contrast and color in Photoshop I produced this from the original photo in 10 minutes. Not exactly right, but it’s in the ballpark:
So that’s where this came from but the bigger question is whether or not this is at all newsworthy. The answer to that question appears to be no, at least it wasn’t newsworthy when Pelosi herself did it. Stephen Miller quickly found an altered photo of Mitch McConnell in Pelosi’s timeline:
The House has taken action to protect women from domestic violence, defend our health care from Trump’s attacks, guarantee equal pay for equal work, and much more. It's time Mitch McConnell act for the American people rather listen to Donald Trump and special interest wallets. pic.twitter.com/sYxgSEgnFY — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) May 7, 2019
And these photos of President Trump appear to have been similarly altered. You can see every wrinkle in his face because the contrast has been ramped up.
We would be delinquent in our duties if we failed to #DefendOurDemocracy and Constitution. This is about patriotism. This is about the future of our country. pic.twitter.com/O1EVzBkdk8 — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) December 10, 2019
In this one Trump’s face is yellow and there are magenta blotches in his hair and on his collar:
He endangered our national security. He betrayed his oath of office by undermining our elections. And he abused his power. The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery. No one is above the law. pic.twitter.com/TjBRINfNnY — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) November 16, 2019
Is Brett Kavanaugh usually this pink? Notice the off-angle stripes across his face which were added through some sort of filter:
FACT: Judge Kavanaugh will threaten Roe v. Wade, health care, reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, environmental protections, and so many more of our priorities. #StopKavanaugh pic.twitter.com/SZXNTwsgm2 — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) October 2, 2018
They really went all out with this next one. President Trump as a pink zebra:
The gross #CultureOfCorruption runs deep among Republicans in Washington. Robert Mueller's investigation is critical and should be completed without GOP meddling. Add your name if you agree! 👇https://t.co/4XsCHFsiuG pic.twitter.com/otr3YXHmIU — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) August 22, 2018
Here’s one of Sen. Corker:
Republicans were well-aware of the devastating consequences of the #GOPTaxScam. But it didn't stop them because donors issued their ultimatum: force it through or never "call again" assuring "financial contributions would stop." And then, there's the Corker Kickback. pic.twitter.com/en3itPQluG — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) April 11, 2018
Rep. Mark Sanford with added contrast and a filter for tint:
Republican Rep. Mark Sanford confirms what we've been underscoring: his Republican colleagues have been *deliberately lying* to American voters about the #GOPTaxScam; it punishes the middle class and benefits the top 1% and corporations shipping jobs overseas. pic.twitter.com/s8eAQv3q71 — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) December 5, 2017
Pretty sure this image of Paul Ryan has been altered. Maybe the Post can check.
We should be working to provide Americans with a better future, #ABetterDeal instead of forcing an unpopular, deficit-exploding #GOPTaxScam that raises taxes and obliterates Medicare and health care. pic.twitter.com/yfMDOsZ0CC — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) November 29, 2017
Sec. Betsy DeVos got similar treatment:
Want to know to benefits from the #GOPTaxScam? Betsy DeVos! Denounce it. ⏩ https://t.co/oQ9nd6kv9d pic.twitter.com/OlZC8ZgkIq — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) November 7, 2017
And if the Washington Post is concerned about manipulated images of political figures, they might want to ask Pelosi about this (she posted this clip twice):
What Republicans did *was not* tax reform. It was a tax scam, a massive con job that is robbing from our future and threatening Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. #GOPTaxScam pic.twitter.com/8oALlGuVYi — Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) February 28, 2018
I guess the Post reporter wasn’t aware of all these altered images on Pelosi’s own account when she wrote a story about a GOP Rep. altering a photo of Pelosi. In fact, Pelosi has a much higher profile and nearly twice as many followers as Stefanik on Twitter, so why didn’t the Post notice? I guess you could say there’s a high contrast in how the Post responds to Democrats vs. Republicans. Maybe Jeff Bezos or someone working for him should take an interest in that.


hotair--2020-01-09--Breaking: Pentagon, Iraqi officials tell Newsweek, CBS: Iran shot down the Uk

Breaking: Pentagon, Iraqi officials tell Newsweek, CBS: Iran shot down the Ukraine flight

The mystery surrounding Ukrainian International Flight 752 turns out to be not so mysterious after all .
Both Newsweek and CBS now report that US and Iraqi officials have evidence that the Iranians mistakenly targeted the flight with anti-aircraft fire during their missile attack on American positions in Iraq .
Their assessment is not just based on the photos , but also on comms intel that shows Iranian military forces lighting up the flight on its radar before it burst into flames : The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek .
Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 , a Boeing 737–800 en route from Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airpot to Kyiv ’ s Boryspil International Airport , stopped transmitting data Tuesday just minutes after takeoff and not long after Iran launched missiles at military bases housing U.S. and allied forces in neighboring Iraq .
The aircraft is believed to have been struck by a Russia-built Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile system , known to NATO as Gauntlet , the three officials told Newsweek .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was accidental .
Iran ’ s anti-aircraft were likely active following the country ’ s missile attack , which came in response to the U.S. killing last week of Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani , sources said .
The Tor or Gauntlet system is also known as the SA-15 , a vehicle-based artillery system that has an operational range of 500 kilometers and altitude reach of 20,000 feet .
The system has its own radar operation , which US forces noticed at the time .
CBS News also reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launches just prior to seeing the plane burst into flames : The debris had been rumored to include remains of a Tor missile , but it ’ s the verified pictures from the crash site that raises questions .
Some of the pieces on the ground have tell-tale holes through them that strongly suggest a missile strike .
As CBS notes , they look a lot like the wreckage from the July 2014 shootdown of the Malaysia Air flight over Ukraine by a Russian anti-aircraft system : Iran remains very quiet about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn over the black boxes to Boeing for an independent look at the data .
As I noted earlier this morning , Tehran might find itself in the same position as the USS Vincennes thirty-two years ago , having made the only casualties of its strike on US forces these civilians over Iranian territory .
Don ’ t expect them to rush to admit that , nor to admit it at all — not without a lot of pressure to do so .

The mystery surrounding Ukrainian International Flight 752 turns out to be not so mysterious after all. Both Newsweek and CBS now report that US and Iraqi officials have evidence that the Iranians mistakenly targeted the flight with anti-aircraft fire during their missile attack on American positions in Iraq. Their assessment is not just based on the photos, but also on comms intel that shows Iranian military forces lighting up the flight on its radar before it burst into flames:
The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile system, a Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek. Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, a Boeing 737–800 en route from Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airpot to Kyiv’s Boryspil International Airport, stopped transmitting data Tuesday just minutes after takeoff and not long after Iran launched missiles at military bases housing U.S. and allied forces in neighboring Iraq. The aircraft is believed to have been struck by a Russia-built Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile system, known to NATO as Gauntlet, the three officials told Newsweek. Two Pentagon officials assess that the incident was accidental. Iran’s anti-aircraft were likely active following the country’s missile attack, which came in response to the U.S. killing last week of Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani, sources said.
The Tor or Gauntlet system is also known as the SA-15, a vehicle-based artillery system that has an operational range of 500 kilometers and altitude reach of 20,000 feet. The system has its own radar operation, which US forces noticed at the time. CBS News also reports that US satellites picked up two missile launches just prior to seeing the plane burst into flames:
NEW: "CBS News has learned U.S. officials are confident that Iran shot down a Ukrainian jetliner in the hours after the Iranian missile attack on U.S. targets. 176 people were killed, including at least 63 Canadians." https://t.co/BLBUKzzbO6 pic.twitter.com/EHENM9HgqM — CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) January 9, 2020
.@cbsnews: US officials are confident Ukrainian Flt 752 was shot down by Iran. US intelligence picked up signals of the radar being turned on & satellite detected infrared blips of 2 missile launches, probably SA-15s, followed shortly by another infrared blip of an explosion. — Kris Van Cleave (@krisvancleave) January 9, 2020
The debris had been rumored to include remains of a Tor missile, but it’s the verified pictures from the crash site that raises questions. Some of the pieces on the ground have tell-tale holes through them that strongly suggest a missile strike. As CBS notes, they look a lot like the wreckage from the July 2014 shootdown of the Malaysia Air flight over Ukraine by a Russian anti-aircraft system:
Iran remains very quiet about the crash, but is still refusing to turn over the black boxes to Boeing for an independent look at the data. As I noted earlier this morning, Tehran might find itself in the same position as the USS Vincennes thirty-two years ago, having made the only casualties of its strike on US forces these civilians over Iranian territory. Don’t expect them to rush to admit that, nor to admit it at all — not without a lot of pressure to do so.


hotair--2020-01-09--Top House Dem: It's time to send over the articles of impeachment. Wait, forget what I just said.

Sweet fancy Moses .
Commissars under Stalin weren ’ t as quick to erase criticism of the Leader as Adam Smith was here .
Smith isn ’ t any ol ’ congressman , he ’ s the chairman of Armed Services Committee .
He ’ s been a member of Pelosi ’ s caucus for more than 20 years .
It ’ s unfathomable that he ’ d go on national television and casually undermine her position on whether to hold the articles of impeachment .
He must have been under the impression — like a lot of other people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Pelosi really is on the verge of finally ending this charade and starting the trial , in which case it was no big deal for him to endorse doing so .
Surprise : It was a big deal .
Within three hours after he made those comments on CNN , the principal had sent him to detention .
I don ’ t know why she ’ d continue to delay when even Senate Democrats are admitting that she ’ s beat .
It ’ s a matter of pure face-saving at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to capitulate at a moment when her own side is shouting at her , “ YOU LOST.
” The AP asked her this morning when she ’ s planning to finally hand this off to the Senate and she offered an uncharacteristically Trumpy answer : “ Same thing I ’ ve said before , ” Pelosi told The Associated Press as she entered the Capitol .
“ We ’ d like to see how we ’ re going to proceed , and then we ’ ll know who to send [ as impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my members , especially those on the committees , to do justice to their work.
” Asked later as she headed for a morning meeting if she had any concerns about losing support from Democrats for her strategy , she said : “ No.
” Pelosi told reporters , “ I know exactly when ” she plans to send the impeachment articles over , but , “ I won ’ t be telling you right now.″ A secret plan , huh ?
Well , in fairness to her , she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe not as crafty as she ’ s cracked up to be : John Dean ?
And on what planet would it be a good outcome for Democrats if all of their vulnerable incumbents had to take a toxic vote in the House but the GOP ’ s vulnerable incumbents in the Senate never had to ?
Said Twitter pal Peter Cook of the Dean tidbit , “ Between this and Donald Trump ’ s love of Fox News talking heads , it ’ s time to ask an important question : is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News and CNN ?
” You shouldn ’ t make fun , Pete .
One of those Fox talking heads might have spared us from nuclear-carpet-bombing Iran .
Pelosi admitted in her presser this morning that she ’ ll be sending the articles over “ soon.
” Lindsey Graham predicted yesterday that the Senate would take the trial up next week , which seems realistic .
Best guess : Pelosi will transmit the articles on Wednesday morning , following Tuesday night ’ s Democratic 2020 primary debate in Iowa .
If she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules might require Bernie , Warren , and Klobuchar to stay put in Washington .
Then , if Sanders and Warren end up underperforming in the early states , the left will blame Pelosi for having sabotaged their chances by pulling a move with the impeachment timing which she knew would force them to miss the debate .
They ’ re going to resume hearing witnesses in the House *after* the Senate trial has started ?
What ?
All I can think is that they ’ re timing that to capitalize on Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bolton implied that he had to make up his own mind about whether to testify before the Senate because the trial will necessarily be over quickly , within a matter of weeks ; the same wasn ’ t true with the House impeachment inquiry , which could have gone on indefinitely .
In that case , he preferred to have a court decide whether he needed to testify or not .
By waiting for the Senate trial to begin before calling Bolton , Dems could be trying to leverage the Senate ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Impeachment will be over soon , they ’ ll tell Bolton .
We need to hear from you ASAP , without court intervention .
What will he say ?

Sweet fancy Moses. Commissars under Stalin weren’t as quick to erase criticism of the Leader as Adam Smith was here.
Smith isn’t any ol’ congressman, he’s the chairman of Armed Services Committee. He’s been a member of Pelosi’s caucus for more than 20 years. It’s unfathomable that he’d go on national television and casually undermine her position on whether to hold the articles of impeachment.
He must have been under the impression — like a lot of other people in Congress right now, apparently — that Pelosi really is on the verge of finally ending this charade and starting the trial, in which case it was no big deal for him to endorse doing so.
JUST NOW: Democratic Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, @RepAdamSmith, says "it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate…" pic.twitter.com/ohN0b9pIbw — Alli Hedges Maser (@AllisonLHedges) January 9, 2020
Surprise: It was a big deal. Within three hours after he made those comments on CNN, the principal had sent him to detention.
I am concerned that Senator McConnell won’t have a fair trial and I am with the Speaker that we should do everything we can to ensure he does. Ultimately, I do want the articles sent to the Senate for the very simple reason that I want the impeachment process to go forward. — Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) January 9, 2020
I don’t know why she’d continue to delay when even Senate Democrats are admitting that she’s beat. It’s a matter of pure face-saving at this point, I imagine, not wanting to capitulate at a moment when her own side is shouting at her, “YOU LOST.” The AP asked her this morning when she’s planning to finally hand this off to the Senate and she offered an uncharacteristically Trumpy answer:
“Same thing I’ve said before,” Pelosi told The Associated Press as she entered the Capitol. “We’d like to see how we’re going to proceed, and then we’ll know who to send [as impeachment managers]. I have an obligation to my members, especially those on the committees, to do justice to their work.” Asked later as she headed for a morning meeting if she had any concerns about losing support from Democrats for her strategy, she said: “No.” Pelosi told reporters, “I know exactly when” she plans to send the impeachment articles over, but, “I won’t be telling you right now.″
A secret plan, huh? Well, in fairness to her, she’s always been a crafty strategist.
Although maybe not as crafty as she’s cracked up to be:
In new @TIME profile: Speaker Pelosi got idea to withhold impeachment articles from watching John Dean on CNN. https://t.co/0GuN6o9h9o pic.twitter.com/2llM9dhEdp — Byron York (@ByronYork) January 9, 2020
John Dean? And on what planet would it be a good outcome for Democrats if all of their vulnerable incumbents had to take a toxic vote in the House but the GOP’s vulnerable incumbents in the Senate never had to?
Said Twitter pal Peter Cook of the Dean tidbit, “Between this and Donald Trump’s love of Fox News talking heads, it’s time to ask an important question: is American politics just a proxy war between Fox News and CNN?” You shouldn’t make fun, Pete. One of those Fox talking heads might have spared us from nuclear-carpet-bombing Iran.
Pelosi admitted in her presser this morning that she’ll be sending the articles over “soon.” Lindsey Graham predicted yesterday that the Senate would take the trial up next week, which seems realistic. Best guess: Pelosi will transmit the articles on Wednesday morning, following Tuesday night’s Democratic 2020 primary debate in Iowa. If she sends them over before then, Senate rules might require Bernie, Warren, and Klobuchar to stay put in Washington. Then, if Sanders and Warren end up underperforming in the early states, the left will blame Pelosi for having sabotaged their chances by pulling a move with the impeachment timing which she knew would force them to miss the debate.
One more curveball:
Fox is told it's possible Hse Dems could subpoena Bolton once Senate trial starts. If Bolton appears before Hse, Dems could argue he should be a witness in a Senate trial — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 9, 2020
They’re going to resume hearing witnesses in the House *after* the Senate trial has started? What?
All I can think is that they’re timing that to capitalize on Bolton’s own statement earlier this week. Bolton implied that he had to make up his own mind about whether to testify before the Senate because the trial will necessarily be over quickly, within a matter of weeks; the same wasn’t true with the House impeachment inquiry, which could have gone on indefinitely. In that case, he preferred to have a court decide whether he needed to testify or not. By waiting for the Senate trial to begin before calling Bolton, Dems could be trying to leverage the Senate’s time horizon for their own ends. Impeachment will be over soon, they’ll tell Bolton. We need to hear from you ASAP, without court intervention. What will he say?


hotair--2020-01-09--Ivanka Trump's invitation to keynote tech convention bashed...by other women

Consumer Electronics Show 2020 ( CES ) is underway in Las Vegas .
The invitation extended to one keynote speaker ignited criticism .
Women in the technology sector are upset that Ivanka Trump was invited to participate as a speaker .
The other women turned on her because she isn ’ t known to be a technological whiz .
Frankly , I think it is the standard backlash because of her last name .
If she was Chelsea Clinton , for example , I don ’ t think we ’ d hear any complaints at all .
The problem with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mixed reporting is out about the reception she received by the CES show attendees and the criticism her appearance created .
There is no question that the technology industry is a male-dominated sector .
Women in the field have been pushing for more female inclusion as speakers at this annual event .
It ’ s the nation ’ s largest consumer electronics show and the exposure can not be overstated .
Ivanka Trump is not a tech CEO , though , so the decision to invite her to be in the spotlight was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have a legitimate claim to the publicity .
She doesn ’ t have personal experience in developing software or creating ground-breaking technology but she was able to to speak to work the Trump administration has done and continues to do – thanks in part to her leadership – with tech companies to retrain workers with new skills .
Her critics included a video game developer who is running for Congress as a Democrat .
Oh .
A Democrat criticizing Ivanka because she is a part of her father ’ s administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know .
Ivanka Trump doesn ’ t count as increasing a female presence .
The annual CES tech gathering in Las Vegas has long taken criticism over diversity issues .
In recent years , CES organizers have invited more women to speak and sought to curb some of the show ’ s more sexist aspects , such as scantily clad “ booth babes ” hired to draw attention of the mostly male attendees .
But for critics and activists who have long pushed for broader recognition of the less-heralded women who found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the inclusion of President Donald Trump ’ s daughter , who is also a White House adviser , sent the wrong message .
“ Ivanka is not a woman in tech , ” tweeted Brianna Wu , a video game developer who is running for Congress in Massachusetts as a Democrat .
“ She ’ s not a CEO .
She has no background .
It ’ s a lazy attempt to emulate diversity , but like all emulation it ’ s not quite the real thing.
” There was even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invitation to speak – # boycottCES .
Keep in mind that Ivanka is a successful businesswoman with her own companies and is now an adviser to the President of the United States ( yes , her dad ) so she is hardly unaccomplished .
She ’ s been very active in working on initiatives that support working people and their families .
Perhaps the women who spoke out against Ivanka felt entitled to speaking themselves .
Whatever happened to the mantra that women must support other women ?
Ivanka Trump is “ taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been saying for so long , ‘ Hey , we are being overlooked , ’ ” said Rachel Sklar , a tech commentator and founder of a professional network for women .
“ The whole category of women being overlooked are still being overlooked.
” “ Clearly they are not putting much effort into finding women in tech who can speak , ” said Carolina Milanesi , an analyst with Creative Strategies , who is at CES .
Last year , CES caused an uproar when it revoked an innovation award presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CES reversed its decision and has allowed sex tech into the show for a one-year trial .
Conference organizers also brought in an official “ equality partner , ” The Female Quotient , to help ensure gender diversity .
“ Was there nobody else available ?
Seriously ?
” asked Ti Chang , co-founder of the wearable vibrator company Crave .
Chang said Trump ’ s experience running a clothing brand is a bad fit for CES and its focus on innovation and technology .
“ I don ’ t understand , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know what their rationale was.
” Those vibrators aren ’ t going to sell themselves .
Who had sex tech on their scorecard ?
What happens in Vegas , stays in Vegas .
Gary Shapiro , president of CES organizer Consumer Technology Association , had a 40-minute conversational-style of an interview with Ivanka .
It was a relaxed and informative presentation by Ivanka Trump as far as I could tell from watching the YouTube video .
Shapiro mentioned he met Ivanka in Washington as he participated in an event .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chapter to his book , in the just-released paperback version , due to Ivanka ’ s questions to him about blue-collar workers who feel left behind in a world of technological advancements .
She said that just as President Trump focused on forgotten men and women during his campaign , she does the same in trying to find solutions to employment needs in today ’ s jobs market .
Innovation is a net job producer .
The challenge is focusing on how technological changes ( advancements ) cause disruptions in the workforce and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ivanka stated that government jobs training programs don ’ t work , generally speaking , but the private sector can team up with community colleges or technical programs to provide successful training .
For example , apprenticeships can be offered to allow workers to re-train or learn other skills in the workplace .
She created and chairs the National Council for the American Worker comprised of fourteen federal agencies .
It is a vehicle to combine efforts to create a national workforce strategy – a blueprint for job training .
One focus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scope of the trades industry .
Companies are committing to creating apprenticeships to train in technological fields , like cybersecurity , or in health care .
Shapiro noted that recently Jamie Dimon said of today ’ s workforce , “ It ’ s not about degrees anymore , it ’ s about skills.
” Despite the criticism before she even spoke , the audience who actually listened to her responded positively to her .
That ’ s the disconnect with this story .
People wanted to hear from her because the room was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
While the publicity before the convention focused on the discontented women , the real story is the successes coming from Ivanka ’ s efforts to help the working class .
She was able to tout the booming economy and the low unemployment rate in all categories , thanks to the Trump administration ’ s policies .
She wasn ’ t the only Trump administration member invited – Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao and Secretary of Energy Dan Bouillette are speakers .
Government officials are invited every year .
The advance criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s impossible to read about it and not acknowledge that it has more to do with Ivanka ’ s participation in the Trump administration than anything else .

Consumer Electronics Show 2020 (CES) is underway in Las Vegas. The invitation extended to one keynote speaker ignited criticism. Women in the technology sector are upset that Ivanka Trump was invited to participate as a speaker. The other women turned on her because she isn’t known to be a technological whiz.
Frankly, I think it is the standard backlash because of her last name. If she was Chelsea Clinton, for example, I don’t think we’d hear any complaints at all. The problem with this story, though, is that mixed reporting is out about the reception she received by the CES show attendees and the criticism her appearance created.
There is no question that the technology industry is a male-dominated sector. Women in the field have been pushing for more female inclusion as speakers at this annual event. It’s the nation’s largest consumer electronics show and the exposure cannot be overstated. Ivanka Trump is not a tech CEO, though, so the decision to invite her to be in the spotlight was seen as a slight to women who may have a legitimate claim to the publicity. She doesn’t have personal experience in developing software or creating ground-breaking technology but she was able to to speak to work the Trump administration has done and continues to do – thanks in part to her leadership – with tech companies to retrain workers with new skills. Her critics included a video game developer who is running for Congress as a Democrat. Oh. A Democrat criticizing Ivanka because she is a part of her father’s administration. She’s not good enough, you know. Ivanka Trump doesn’t count as increasing a female presence.
The annual CES tech gathering in Las Vegas has long taken criticism over diversity issues. In recent years, CES organizers have invited more women to speak and sought to curb some of the show’s more sexist aspects, such as scantily clad “booth babes” hired to draw attention of the mostly male attendees. But for critics and activists who have long pushed for broader recognition of the less-heralded women who found startups and take on difficult technical challenges, the inclusion of President Donald Trump’s daughter, who is also a White House adviser, sent the wrong message. “Ivanka is not a woman in tech,” tweeted Brianna Wu, a video game developer who is running for Congress in Massachusetts as a Democrat. “She’s not a CEO. She has no background. It’s a lazy attempt to emulate diversity, but like all emulation it’s not quite the real thing.”
There was even a hashtag created to protest Ivanka’s invitation to speak – #boycottCES. Keep in mind that Ivanka is a successful businesswoman with her own companies and is now an adviser to the President of the United States (yes, her dad) so she is hardly unaccomplished. She’s been very active in working on initiatives that support working people and their families.
Perhaps the women who spoke out against Ivanka felt entitled to speaking themselves. Whatever happened to the mantra that women must support other women?
Ivanka Trump is “taking this slot at this conference where women have been saying for so long, ‘Hey, we are being overlooked,’” said Rachel Sklar, a tech commentator and founder of a professional network for women. “The whole category of women being overlooked are still being overlooked.” “Clearly they are not putting much effort into finding women in tech who can speak,” said Carolina Milanesi, an analyst with Creative Strategies, who is at CES. Last year, CES caused an uproar when it revoked an innovation award presented to a female-led sex device company. CES reversed its decision and has allowed sex tech into the show for a one-year trial. Conference organizers also brought in an official “equality partner,” The Female Quotient, to help ensure gender diversity. “Was there nobody else available? Seriously?” asked Ti Chang, co-founder of the wearable vibrator company Crave. Chang said Trump’s experience running a clothing brand is a bad fit for CES and its focus on innovation and technology. “I don’t understand,” she said. “I would love to know what their rationale was.”
Those vibrators aren’t going to sell themselves. Who had sex tech on their scorecard? What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
Gary Shapiro, president of CES organizer Consumer Technology Association, had a 40-minute conversational-style of an interview with Ivanka. It was a relaxed and informative presentation by Ivanka Trump as far as I could tell from watching the YouTube video. Shapiro mentioned he met Ivanka in Washington as he participated in an event. As a matter of fact, he added a chapter to his book, in the just-released paperback version, due to Ivanka’s questions to him about blue-collar workers who feel left behind in a world of technological advancements.
She said that just as President Trump focused on forgotten men and women during his campaign, she does the same in trying to find solutions to employment needs in today’s jobs market. Innovation is a net job producer. The challenge is focusing on how technological changes (advancements) cause disruptions in the workforce and preparing in advance for those changes. Ivanka stated that government jobs training programs don’t work, generally speaking, but the private sector can team up with community colleges or technical programs to provide successful training. For example, apprenticeships can be offered to allow workers to re-train or learn other skills in the workplace.
She created and chairs the National Council for the American Worker comprised of fourteen federal agencies. It is a vehicle to combine efforts to create a national workforce strategy – a blueprint for job training. One focus is on apprenticeships for industries outside the traditional scope of the trades industry. Companies are committing to creating apprenticeships to train in technological fields, like cybersecurity, or in health care. Shapiro noted that recently Jamie Dimon said of today’s workforce, “It’s not about degrees anymore, it’s about skills.”
Despite the criticism before she even spoke, the audience who actually listened to her responded positively to her. That’s the disconnect with this story. People wanted to hear from her because the room was full. Decisionmakers and consumers alike were there. While the publicity before the convention focused on the discontented women, the real story is the successes coming from Ivanka’s efforts to help the working class. She was able to tout the booming economy and the low unemployment rate in all categories, thanks to the Trump administration’s policies. She wasn’t the only Trump administration member invited – Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao and Secretary of Energy Dan Bouillette are speakers. Government officials are invited every year.
The advance criticism was petty and unnecessary. It’s impossible to read about it and not acknowledge that it has more to do with Ivanka’s participation in the Trump administration than anything else.


hotair--2020-01-09--More states move to stop boys from competing as girls in sports

Since this issue doesn ’ t appear to be going away any time soon and the federal government doesn ’ t seem inclined to deal with it , a number of states are attempting to take matters into their own hands this year .
The subject at hand is transgender students who “ identify ” as females competing in girls ’ high school sports .
It ’ s a topic we ’ ve discussed here often , but solutions that would prevent the utter implosion of competitive women ’ s sports have been hard to come by .
That may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 , however .
As the Wall Street Journal reports , multiple states are working to pass legislation restricting girls ’ high school sports to actual girls .
The protests will be loud and frequent , but at least somebody is trying to do something .
More statehouses are wading into the contentious debate over the participation of transgender athletes in men ’ s and women ’ s sports .
In recent weeks , Republican legislators in at least five states have drafted measures aimed at preventing athletes from competing in categories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say they are specifically concerned about female athletes facing unfair competition .
The bills—introduced or prefiled in New Hampshire , Washington , Georgia , Tennessee and Missouri—reflect growing attention around the issue of whether transgender-rights protections are leading to unfair competition in women ’ s sports .
Policies regulating the eligibility of transgender high-school athletes are usually set by school associations and vary .
In about a third of states , transgender students can freely compete on teams of the gender they identify with , according to transathlete.com , which tracks athletics policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see New Hampshire and Washington on the list , but apparently they ’ ve been keeping an eye on the news and want to head these problems off at the pass .
Georgia , Tennessee and Missouri should have less trouble passing their laws , but they will then have to survive the inevitable court challenges to come .
I ’ m not exactly sure why the restrictions have to go in both directions .
If a girl wants to compete against the boys , particularly in cases where smaller schools may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some sports , I don ’ t see the harm in letting them try .
In fact , it can cause an entirely different set of problems if you forbid them .
The clearest example of that would be Mack Beggs from Texas .
She was “ transitioning ” to become a boy in eleventh grade and taking testosterone supplements .
Because of state laws already in place , she had to compete in the girls ’ division despite having asked to be allowed to compete against the boys .
She easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a row .
I don ’ t know if Beggs would have been able to compete at the top level against the boys , but that ’ s really not the issue here .
The point is that it ’ s just as unfair to make the rest of the girls compete against a female classmate who is bulking up on testosterone as it is to make them compete against a boy .
For only one of many examples of the latter , look no further than Connecticut .
Two boys “ identifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track and field events for two years running , resulting in a lawsuit brought by the parents of some of the actual girls who were shut out .
Assuming any or all of these pending state-level bills are passed , they will end up on a direct collision course with the federal government if the Democrats retake control of the Senate and the White House and pass the Equality Act .
That would codify the ability of these gender-bending competitors to cross the line all across the nation .
And that would basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s sports as we know it today .
As a reminder , consistent polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose allowing transgender girls to compete against actual girls in sporting events while less than one-third support the idea .
And yet somehow the practice continues to proliferate .
None of this touches on the question of whether or not doctors who distort the bodies of children with foreign hormones or postpone the natural onset of puberty using drugs should be prosecuted , but that ’ s a debate for another day .

Since this issue doesn’t appear to be going away any time soon and the federal government doesn’t seem inclined to deal with it, a number of states are attempting to take matters into their own hands this year. The subject at hand is transgender students who “identify” as females competing in girls’ high school sports. It’s a topic we’ve discussed here often, but solutions that would prevent the utter implosion of competitive women’s sports have been hard to come by.
That may be changing in at least some locations in 2020, however. As the Wall Street Journal reports, multiple states are working to pass legislation restricting girls’ high school sports to actual girls. The protests will be loud and frequent, but at least somebody is trying to do something.
More statehouses are wading into the contentious debate over the participation of transgender athletes in men’s and women’s sports. In recent weeks, Republican legislators in at least five states have drafted measures aimed at preventing athletes from competing in categories different than their biological sex. Lawmakers say they are specifically concerned about female athletes facing unfair competition. The bills—introduced or prefiled in New Hampshire, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee and Missouri—reflect growing attention around the issue of whether transgender-rights protections are leading to unfair competition in women’s sports. Policies regulating the eligibility of transgender high-school athletes are usually set by school associations and vary. In about a third of states, transgender students can freely compete on teams of the gender they identify with, according to transathlete.com, which tracks athletics policies nationwide.
I was a little surprised to see New Hampshire and Washington on the list, but apparently they’ve been keeping an eye on the news and want to head these problems off at the pass. Georgia, Tennessee and Missouri should have less trouble passing their laws, but they will then have to survive the inevitable court challenges to come.
I’m not exactly sure why the restrictions have to go in both directions. If a girl wants to compete against the boys, particularly in cases where smaller schools may not have a competitive program for girls in some sports, I don’t see the harm in letting them try. In fact, it can cause an entirely different set of problems if you forbid them. The clearest example of that would be Mack Beggs from Texas. She was “transitioning” to become a boy in eleventh grade and taking testosterone supplements. Because of state laws already in place, she had to compete in the girls’ division despite having asked to be allowed to compete against the boys. She easily won the state championship two years in a row.
I don’t know if Beggs would have been able to compete at the top level against the boys, but that’s really not the issue here. The point is that it’s just as unfair to make the rest of the girls compete against a female classmate who is bulking up on testosterone as it is to make them compete against a boy. For only one of many examples of the latter, look no further than Connecticut. Two boys “identifying” as girls swept the competition in track and field events for two years running, resulting in a lawsuit brought by the parents of some of the actual girls who were shut out.
Assuming any or all of these pending state-level bills are passed, they will end up on a direct collision course with the federal government if the Democrats retake control of the Senate and the White House and pass the Equality Act. That would codify the ability of these gender-bending competitors to cross the line all across the nation. And that would basically spell the end of competitive women’s sports as we know it today.
As a reminder, consistent polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose allowing transgender girls to compete against actual girls in sporting events while less than one-third support the idea. And yet somehow the practice continues to proliferate. None of this touches on the question of whether or not doctors who distort the bodies of children with foreign hormones or postpone the natural onset of puberty using drugs should be prosecuted, but that’s a debate for another day.