I think to understand Bengazi, you have to break it down into four completely different and in large part separate issues.

Issue I. Background: What we now know is that the Bengazi attack was a preplanned al Qaeda attack timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of 9/11. Bengazi was known to be an extremely dangerous place. Ambassador Stevens had sent cables stating his fear that the security situation was highly dangerous and eroding. Both the British and the Red Cross viewed the city as too dangerous to operate in and pulled out. There is some evidence that intelligence caught wind of something being planned--the information might not have been complete enough to be actionable, but it was enough to raise the threat-level. In light of all of this, instead of increasing the security forces in Bengazi and the protection details around the embassy, and instead of following the Brits and the Red Cross and pulling US personnel out, the State Department ordered the security of the embassy handed over to local Libyan forces and removed much of the US-based protective forces. This reduced the security of the embassy and put its protection into the uncertain hands of local Libyan forces. The attack followed.

The Issue: Here, the issue is how the attack came to happen, and how the embassy was so poorly protected in the first place. Why were Ambassador Steven's warnings ignored? Why was the security so poor in a place that everyone seemed to agree was highly dangerous? Why was the embassy served up for attack on a silver platter? What in the &^$$ was the State Department thinking? And who was the highest level State Department official who as in on that bone-headed decision--a decision which got our ambassador and three others killed.

Issue II. Background: On the night of 9/11/2012, our embassy came under a prolonged attack over the course of many hours. During the lengthy battle, which ebbed and flowed and moved to a second location, no help was ordered for the embassy personnel--they were completely on their own. This despite the fact that there were forces nearby which could have been on site within a few hours.

The Issue: Why did help never come? Was sending help ever debated? If so by whom? If not, why not? Was there anyone advocating for helping? Was there someone advocating letting our embassy burn and exposing our embassy personnel to a high risk of death. Who was the highest ranking official in on that decision?

Issue III. Background: Once the embassy fell, there was the apparent coverup by the White House. Instead of admitting this was an al Qaeda operation timed to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary, they blamed a video and its maker.

The Issue: How was that decision made? Who made it? Who knew the talking points were bogus and yet went in front of the American people to push their version of the story.

As a corollary to this one is the fact that Hilary told a father of one of the fallen at Bengazi that they'd take care of it by throwing the filmmaker in jail. That on its own is a serious issue. They scapegoated the movie maker and threw him in jail to provide cover for the real story.

Issue IV. Background: For the last year and a half, the media has allowed themselves to be played by the White House. Instead of pressing for answers, they tried to suppress and ridicule anyone who actually felt that there was a real issue here. I'm sure everyone in Washington and in the Washington press corps knew exactly what had happened and knew how the White House was spinning. They weren't being fooled, they were willingly playing along.

The Issue: How corrupt is the national media? And how can democracy survive such a pet and tame news corps?

Those these four issues overlap and interlock, they each need to be considered independently and in depth.

So the insurance companies, which are so evil that we should abolish them entirely and bring in single-payer, are actually so completely trustworthy that we can run Obamacare solely on the honor system.

Health plans will estimate how much they are owed, and submit that estimate to the government. Once the system is built, the government and insurers can reconcile the payments made with the plan data to "true up" payments, he said.

In addition, was that paragraph simply in serious need of editing, or was the phraseology actually intentional? I don't think my health plan, or any health plan, is capable of independent thought. A health plan is a contract, a series of agreed-upon words which bind the insurer and insured in a money-for-services exchange. You can print off your health plan and read it. If it suddenly came to life in my hands and engaged me in a conversation about my premiums and government subsidies, I would be more than a little freaked. On the other hand, the phrasing might have been intentional; after all, most Americans like their health plan, they'd like to keep their health plan; but those nasty, money-grubbing, insurance companies are another matter entirely. Sock it to them, I say!

An editor should have rephrased it:

Insurance companies will estimate how much they are owed, and submit that estimate to the government....

 But I think people's negative reactions to that sentence would be much stronger than the original.So, why was one phrase chosen over the other? Inadvertently?  or intentionally?

Shhhh...everything's fine...go back to sleep...

After Osama was killed, a massive amount of information about the operation was given to the press. Some of it was leaked and some of it was given freely. Throughout it all, and when hearing any story spilling details, I kept wanting to scream: Shut the f--- up!

Much of the info, I suspect was coming out of the White House, who were clearly crowing over the operation. They should have known better.

Some of it was coming from military and intelligence sources, who really should have known better.

The more detailed the information, the more dangerous the leakers were making it for the brave men who carried out the operation. Did the country have to know it was "Seal Team 6"? Did we have to see media packages about the team, their training, where they were trained, and almost their names, faces, birthdays, and social security numbers?

Someone right at the beginning needed to stand up and clearly state that, to protect the men who carried out this mission, little to no information would be released. Make it clear this was being done to protect the men who had so ably carried out this mission. Give each member of the team a Medal of Honor that they could keep in a drawer. Believe me, they, more than anyone, would have understood the reason behind the lack of public recognition.

Instead, we got way too much information, and a few months later a helicopter carrying that same team goes down, and 20 members of the team are dead. There is a fairly high chance that the helo was shot down by the Taliban, that they had intelligence from within our Afghan allies of who was on the copter and where to find it, and that the Taliban were very intentionally trying to get revenge by turning Seal Team 6 into a bloodbath.

If people in the loop of information about Osama's death had just shut the f--- up, those amazing, brave, and talented men might be alive today.

Loose lips sink ships and bring down helicopters too.

Mussette Wade, 37, hoped to buy Minnesota Lottery tickets at a Minneapolis gas station. But the state shutdown prevented her from doing that. "I usually buy scratch-offs once a week when I get paid," she said. "It's just something I leisurely do."

How stupid are science reporters? How about this from MSNBC:

"The images show that refrozen ice makes up 24 percent of an area known as Dome A, a 13,800-foot-high plateau roughly the size of California. Much of the sheet and refrozen ice lies atop an underground mountain range."

What is this, Jules Verne? Journey to the Center of the Earth? How can you have an UNDERGROUND mountain range???

I love this on Instapundit today

AT AMAZON, a sale on typewriters. They still make those? As with VCRs, I’m tempted to buy a couple just to hoard against the day when they don’t . . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Ben Samuels doesn’t like that manual typewriter link: “Geebus, Glenn – did you read the reviews??? They say it’s a worthless piece of Chinese crap. You’d have been better off giving readers the link to a used Selectric.”

I replied: “I didn’t think anyone would actually buy one. I mean, good God. Maybe after an EMP attack you’d want a manual typewriter, except how much typing would you actually do?”

MORE: The inevitable followup email:

I know somebody who knows a guy who can get you a great deal on a sturdy 40 year old model that can handle superscripting.

Courage,
Dan Rather

Heh. (Via Brian Gates.)

Isn't it interesting that in this article by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (about friends on Facebook breaking up over the Wisconsin situation), they couldn't find a single person who had problems with insulting or nasty things said by the union side? All of the problems mentioned are with the rudeness and nastiness of the Walker side.

Wow is this piece from Reuters idiotic. The headline and lede:

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

(Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

Note the conflation of sales and income (a pet peeve of my Dad's, as I recall.) Reading the article, we see that in the 8-year period studied, 57% of corporations paid no income taxes in at least one year. First of all, how does that get translated into "most"? Wouldn't "most" mean at least 50% each year?

But, more important, couldn't this mean that 57% of corporations don't make any money in 1 or more of 8 years? Note that 57%/8 = 7%. Is it reasonable to think that about 7% of corporations make no money in a given year? Seems reasonable to me.

Of course the article doesn't give us any details. It's just an anti-corporate hit piece, and giving details would likely spoil the fun.

Have you ever gotten the impression that Matt Drudge (who is supposedly a Democrat) doesn't like Obama much? Here are the 4 photos of the president that Drudge had up on his site today. Quite flattering, don't you think? (Click to enlarge)



I don't think he ever gave BushII this kind of treatment.

After 9 years and Condit's fall, Levy trial begins.

Yes, that's right. Someone else is standing trial for her murder. I wonder if FoxNews, and Bill O'Reilly in particular, will make a big deal about the trial? After spending countless hours harping on Condit--with O'Reilly being the biggest offender--perhaps they should do a little equal time reporting on this other suspect.

The worst part is, O'Reilly, who led the rampage against Condit, now decries how evil the press were when they jumped to conclusions. I know he gets his hair and makeup done by someone else, but you'd think he'd occassionaly look in the mirror.

NPR this morning managed to do a piece on prison rape without mentioning inmate-on-inmate rape of men in prison.

The story highlighted a case of a woman raped by a guard, stated that guard-on-inmate rape is serious problem, mentioned juvenile rape in prisons, but never male rape.

The Justice Department's own studies suggest that more than 60,000 prisoners report sexual assaults each year. Another study found that 12 percent of juveniles in custody fall victim to rape. Too often, guards are the ones committing the crimes.

No where do the mention that most of those 60,000 are men, or that the number counted is probably a fraction of the actual numbers.

The story was done because a legislated deadline is approaching for reforms of the penal system with an eye to reducing rape. That law was passed several years ago. At that time the NYTimes did the opposite story. In theirs, they focused exclusively on the rape of male inmates.

Will someone please give Radley Balko a Pulitzer!

Update 4/13/10: Well, I guess not. Boo.

What a silly opinion:

BBC 'should learn from HBO and commission edgy shows like The Wire'

The BBC should learn from the US network HBO and commission more risk-taking dramas like The Wire and The Sopranos, a leading media industry figure has argued.

How about learning the lesson that privately-funded companies are perfectly capable of making high-quality television without ripping money out of everyone's hands with a heavy-handed tax, aka "license fee"?

As a regular watcher of documentary television, such as the Discovery Channel (is there anything else on TV worth watching?) I figure I've known for at least a dozen years that the pyramids in Egypt weren't built by slaves. It was probably decades ago that they found the living-quarters of the builders, which clearly showed them to be free craftsmen and not slaves.

Of course:

Films and media have long depicted slaves toiling away in the desert to build the mammoth pyramids only to meet a miserable death at the end of their efforts.

But we don't actually look to films for our facts, do we?

Well, maybe Reuters reporters do:

New tombs found in Giza support the view that the Great Pyramids were built by free workers and not slaves, as widely believed, Egypt's chief archaeologist said on Sunday.

Films and media have long depicted slaves toiling away in the desert to build the mammoth pyramids only to meet a miserable death at the end of their efforts.

"These tombs were built beside the king's pyramid, which indicates that these people were not by any means slaves," Zahi Hawass, the chief archaeologist heading the Egyptian excavation team, said in a statement.

"If they were slaves, they would not have been able to build their tombs beside their king's."

Wow! Alert the media! Especially credulous reporters...of course at the bottom of the story is this:

"The first discovery of workers' tombs in 1990"

You know, it used to be that reporters had beats, and they would at least be slightly familiar with the subject they were reporting on. Apparently, that type of reporting has suffered from budget cuts.

I read about Balloon Boy on the net, without seeing any video. But once I saw the video, it was clear to me that there was no way a 45 pound 6 year old boy was inside that balloon

In the video you can see the balloon isn't even bottom heavy:

Googling around, I see others thought the same. Another good point

Aside from the lack of sufficient lift, just look at the photo! It is obvious from the shape of the balloon that it is not carrying much weight; else it would be pulled into a classic teardrop shape.

Seriously, it's not even convex. The media, I suppose, was more interested in drama than bursting everyone's bubble here. Odd though that there wasn't someone pointing out how ridiculous this hoax was while it was happening.

Speaking of O'Reilly... why do I tune in? I usually end up watching very little of it. Basically, I listen to his intro bit, then tune out unless there is Bernie Goldberg or a few other segments like "Is it Legal?" which I enjoy. Perhaps it's just force of habit. There isn't anything else worth watching at that time slot either.

Ann says: His body-language segment is idiotic. I can't stand watching him, and usually go do something else...in fact, I haven't been able to stand him since his summer of the shark a couple years ago, when he overhyped shark attacks.

Seems that Marc Lamont Hill has been fired by Fox News:

Mediaite has confirmed Marc Lamont Hill has been fired from Fox News Channel. The liberal commentator was a regular on the network, most recently appearing as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor one week ago, according to TV Eyes.

I've seen him many times on O'Reilly. I don't remember ever agreeing with him, and usually found his arguments to be eye-roll inducing. Still, this firing seems rather odd. Fox should have some lefties on board. I'm not sure that Mr Hill was the best available, but he was willing to go on O'Reilly. I bet a guy like that is not easy to find.

This is my nomination for the most underreported story of the day:

Christian Science Monitor

The USS New York?

Many New Yorkers profess ignorance. Is it a cruise ship? What do we need it for? Will it be a target?

Those are just some of the questions a handful of New Yorkers asked about the Navy warship which was launched Tuesday at Northrup Grumman's shipyard in Avondale, La.

The amphibious assault vessel was built with 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. The ship, which can carry up to 800 Marines, is on its way to New York where it will be formally commissioned in early November.

While holding a door at a New York apartment building, doorman Christopher Elter admitted he had not heard of the ship.

A Google search lists USA Today and the CSM reporting the story, then moves out of the country for the Guardian, AFP and Canada's National Post. The AP had a story, and some papers ran it, but for the most part, it went unmentioned.

I read about it in the Daily Telegraph from the UK.

Michael Barone today:

"But I have to say that I am still stunned by the conduct that filmmaker James O'Keefe and his sidekick Hannah Giles"

This is really ticking me off. Barone is not alone in naming this dynamic duo like this--like it's O'Keefe's game and Giles is along for the ride. In fact it was pretty much the opposite. The idea was Giles's and she went to him with the idea. It would be more accurate to call him the sidekick.

I guess when you dress up like a ho, you just can't get the respect you deserve.

Barone should have been more precise in his phrasing.

It must be tough these days to be a reporter. You want to do all you can to support President Obama, but sometimes that means holding your tongue, biting your lip, and suppressing all of your journalistic instincts. Case in point, this amusing article in the Washington Post about Michelle Obama's trip to a farmers' market:

Cowbells were rung. Somebody put a lei of marigolds around Obama's neck. The first lady picked up a straw basket and headed for the "Farm at Sunnyside" tent, where she loaded up with organic Asian pears, cherry tomatoes, multicolored potatoes, free-range eggs and, yes, two bunches of Tuscan kale...

There's nothing like the simple pleasures of a farm stand to return us to our agrarian roots.

So far so good, the author is keeping it together. The author's instincts for a good story can't be fully suppressed, however. In this case, it's a clear "Let them eat cake!" moment:

The first lady said the market would particularly appeal to federal employees in nearby buildings to "pick up some good stuff for dinner." Yet even they might think twice about spending $3 for a pint of potatoes when potatoes are on sale for 40 cents a pound at Giant. They could get nearly five dozen eggs at Giant for the $5 Obama spent for her dozen.

Imagine if you will a Republican first lady out there in a middle of a recession paying $3 for a pint of potatoes and 5 times the normal price for eggs! Twenty dollars a pound for kale is also mentioned.

I suspect the reporter misses those good old days, when he would have torn into this story like a hungry dog on a piece of red meat.