New York Times Takes a Stab at Benghazi, Finds No Link to Al Qaeda, Renews Link to YouTube Video

ben who?ReasonThe New York Times has looked into it and decided it couldn’t find any evidence Al Qaeda was involved in the 2012 attack on the US mission in Benghazi in which the US ambassador to Libya and three others were killed.

From Voice of America:

A leading U.S. newspaper says American intelligence efforts in Libya that fixated on al-Qaida likely contributed to the killing of the American ambassador to Libya in 2012. 

The New York Times reported Saturday it could not find any evidence, after months of investigation, that al-Qaida or any other international terrorist groups had any role in the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. 

The newspaper said the "fixation" on al-Qaida possibly distracted intelligence experts from "more imminent threats," including local anti-Western militia leaders such as Ahmed Abu Khattala, and the angry reaction to an American-made video denigrating Islam. 

Some Republican and Democrat lawmakers in the House dispute the conclusion, and suggest US intelligence has concluded otherwise. The renewed assertions about a low budget YouTube video have also been contradicted by top US officials on the ground in Libya, and remain a distraction to what happened.

Watch Reason TV’s Three Reasons Benghazi Still Matters below:

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Hardly anyone watched the videos before the attack.

    How can you have a popular uprising against something that was unknown?

  • Brian D||

    All of Libya's militants crowded around a single computer at the same time and watched the video once, maybe twice. Then they went a-murderin'.

    /Hillarity

  • ||

    That zero heads rolled over this debacle is perfectly fitting with the abjectly incompetent Obama administration. No heads are rolling over the Obamacare website either; what a surprise.

  • cavalier973||

    It's up to voters to make heads roll in the upcomin'

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Didn't some low-level workers get canned?

  • ||

    Obama is still waiting to hear back from a team of experts so he knows whose ass to kick.

  • cavalier973||

    He'll find out when it's reported in a NYT headline.

  • Libertarius||

    This video theory is transparently rationalistic. Not only is it arbitrary on its face, but you also have to ask yourself how many Libyans have access to high-speed internet service, and of that marginal minority, how many just happened to watch it and come to the same decision to attack the embassy on 9/11.

  • Rich||

    Word gets around at the mosque, the original high-speed internet.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    All it takes is one non-Luddite at the Mosque to spread the word.

  • hot steaming pile of Bo||

    I'm of the opinion that this is the spike in Hillary's presidential aspirations.

    All it tkaes is a montage of the dead Americans with her repeating her catchphrase over and over.

    Scene of dead ambassador

    "what difference at this point, does it make"

    That statement is trouble.

  • Rich||

    "Hillary 2016: WDATPDIM?"

  • Andrew S.||

    Hillary 2016: We're fucked anyways, may as well bring the end quicker

  • hot steaming pile of Bo||

    Hillary 2016: because it's her fucking turn you misogynist assholes

  • Rich||

    Hillary 2016: Even Bill calls her at 3AM.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Hey, there's a nice bumper sticke.

    Hillary 2016: Booty Calls.

  • ||

    What the hell is a nitch?

  • hot steaming pile of Bo||

    Are you retarded?

  • hot steaming pile of Bo||

    I ask, becasue your posts are always

    1) bad

    2) socially inept well beyond the norm for even aspies.

    The preceding is a perfect example, you actually had not only the time, but the desire to spell check a bs link in my screen name.

    What the fuck is wrong with your life that not only do you have time to do that, but you have the desire, and the willingness to follow up on it with a post?

    So, I have to ask, are you retarded?

  • ||

    Lol. You took the time to post twice AND email me the same response about faux-correcting the spelling of the joke link in your joke handle and you call me an aspie?

    Yep, I'm definitely the retard in this scenario breh.

  • hot steaming pile of Bo||

    "Yep, I'm definitely the retard in this scenario breh."

    It's big of you to admit that.

    "You took the time to post twice AND email me the same response about faux-correcting the spelling of the joke link in your joke handle"

    And you took time to come back here, as well as respond to those emails you sad aspie reject.

  • Almanian!||

    You never wanna go full retard, NYT. Never.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The NYT went full retard when Stalin was still killing Ukrainians. They never came back.

    -jcr

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And I wouldn't be surprised if they tried resurrecting the reputation of Duranty at some point in the future.

  • ||

    We have seen the past... and it worked!

  • ||

    This and Fast and Furious are the perfect scandals for today's DC. The administration's crookedness is utterly transparent, the lies they tell to cover it up are so preposterous that it's clear they don't give a shit if any of the peasants believe them or not, and the vermin in the lapdog press fall all over themselves to repeat the lies. Here's to each and every one of them getting brain cancer.

  • ||

    Well, the politicians have achieved what every one of their ilk desires: they are no longer held to account for anything, whether it is failure, illegality, violation of the Constitution, or overreach of their powers. The Obamacare website rollout, Fast and Furious, Benghazi; each one of these should have been grounds for resignations at the least and prosecution at best. Yet nothing--absolutely nothing--happens instead.

    The politicians don't have to follow the rules that the proles do, and they're not even afraid of shoving that in the proles' faces any more, because nothing happens and their TEAM will back them up regardless.

  • John||

    Four people died in Bengazi, thousands of guns were sold to Mexican drug gangs, an entire unit of the IRS waged political war against the President's political enemies, and not a single person has been fired much less sent to jail.

    The chief counsel of the IRS answered "I can't remember" 80 fucking times before Congress and the media, outside a few right wing echo chambers even bothered to report it. A political appointee at the IRS went before Congress and basically said "fuck you" 80 times and he hasn't even been vilified in the media for it much less fired or sent to jail.

    Yeah, this administration is totally unaccountable to anyone. They could murder people for sport on the White House lawn and the media would report any attempt to investigate it as just another partisan fight and an example of why Washington doesn't work. That is why I don't believe all of the kooky right wing conspiracy theories about Obama planning to take over or whatever. If he planned to do that, he already would have done it. It is not like the media would bother to report it much less do anything to stop it.

  • ||

    They never take over in the middle, they always take over when it looks like they are losing power.

    So sometime in December of '14.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They could murder people for sport

    Not on the WH lawn, but I'd say that drone killings of innocent people on their way to a wedding, or the infamous "double tap" drone strikes on rescue workers after an initial attack are sport murders.

    Obama is a reckless sociopath who thinks nothing of killing innocent people, and the media praises him for it.

    We live in a sick world.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Yet all I seem to see on TV is Will Ferrell mocking Bush.

  • Derpetologist||

    The purpose of propaganda in totalitarian societies is not to inform or persuade but to humiliate. The less the propaganda conforms to reality, the better. When people forced to listen to and repeat things that are clearly false, their will to resist is neutered.

    I forgot who said the above. I paraphrased.

  • ||

    If Orwell didn't say that, then whoever did was ripping him off.

  • Ted S.||

    I would have guessed Solzhenitsyn.

  • Boisfeuras||

    "In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
    – Theodore Dalrymple, "Our Culture, What's Left Of It", FrontPage Magazine, August 31, 2005

  • Derpetologist||

    You win the kewpie doll!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Now I'm down the rabbit hole reading Dalrymple.

    Never heard of him before, fascinating guy.

  • PapayaSF||

    He's good. More of a conservative than a libertarian, though, I think.

  • pmains||

    Yup. He was on the anti-legalization side in a debate with Nick Gillespie.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Well sure racist would say that.

    / progrard

  • Derpetologist||

    The purpose of propaganda in totalitarian societies is not to inform or persuade but to humiliate. The less the propaganda conforms to reality, the better. When people forced to listen to and repeat things that are clearly false, their will to resist is neutered.

    I forgot who said the above. I paraphrased.

  • Derpetologist||

    Damn you, squirrels!

  • ||

    *Ctrl-F double murder*

    *No results found*

    What a surprising omission. Reilly must have accidentally cut out that paragraph. Oops.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • cavalier973||

    You know who else repeated a lie enough times until it was believed?

  • ||

    The "no evidence of Al Qaeda" claim really depends on what you think "Al Qaeda" was in 2012, or ever was. Is it a loose coalition of home-grown affinity groups, or a tightly controlled group of hard core nuts that take direct orders from Bin Laden (or whoever is in charge now)?

    The attack was carried out by a local group that supposedly had some links to Al Qaeda. Depending on your definition of Al Qaeda, that could either mean "Al Qaeda did it!" or "Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it!"

  • cavalier973||

    Sounds like someone has been reading The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory by Jesse Walker.

  • John||

    Hazel, you have the talking points right. "They only had links to Al quada but were not Al quada so no one lied" is going to be the hook that the various trolls in the media and on here hang their trolling on.

  • cavalier973||

    Meh. Nothing I hates worse than a hung troll. Disgusting.

  • John||

    Hang is the proper word there. The talking points would not be "hanged" on the hook. They will be "hung" on them. This is in the future tense not the past tense.

    So for once that tired, pedantic talking point is not applicable.

  • cavalier973||

    Hang is the proper word there.

    What?
    Let's see...

    "Nothing I hates worse than a hang troll."

    No, sir. I like my phraseology better.

  • John||

    I mean they will "hang the talking points" just like they would "hang a picture".

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So will the talking points be "well" hung?

  • ||

    Hehe

  • ||

    Except I seem to recall just a few years ago everyone in progressive circles being eager to say that Al Qaeda was a loose-knit organization with no real structure, in order to explain why it made no sense to blame Bin Laden for the attacks or invade Afghanistan.

  • PapayaSF||

    Good point.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    The New York Times reported Saturday it could not find any evidence, after months of investigation, that al-Qaida or any other international terrorist groups had any role in the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

    NYT investigation? They sent someone to Libya to look into this? And didn't find anything?

    I'm convinced.

    Top cover for Hillary.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    NYT investigation?

    They investigated thoroughly - they talked to key experts. Two in fact - Hilary and Obama. That's all they needed.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Here's to each and every one of them getting brain cancer.

    A real libertarian would never say such a thing, you TEAM RED apologist!

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    Threads need MOAR Bo; I've thoroughly enjoyed his pedantic ramblings over the past few days. The Reason commentariat has been requesting a higher-quality troll over the last few years and the editor has finally obliged our requests.

  • John||

    Your right. We bitched about shreek, so they sent us someone who could do something besides masturbate and throw shit.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Not so sure Bo fits that description. He may masturbate and throw shit a little more elegantly than Shreek, but it's still shit and jizz.

  • ||

    On the walls it's a mess, on a canvas it's art.

  • Irish||

    Not so sure Bo fits that description. He may masturbate and throw shit a little more elegantly than Shreek, but it's still shit and jizz.

    Bo is a master. The reason I say this is because he can turn ANY THREAD into a ridiculous pissing contest that goes on for hundreds of comments.

    Tony and Shrike need to be provided with material and even then it's hit or miss. Bo can take the most boring thread and somehow manipulate people into talking to him for hours.

  • cavalier973||

    So...what you're saying is that Bo is the master baiter?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Were the people who killed Stevens wearing al quaeda uniforms? Were they flying al quaeda flags?

    NO. Therefor, NOT AL QUAEDA. Just let this fake scandal die, so we can get on with the important freespending bipartisan Do-Somethingism the country so desperately needs.

  • John||

    Look, the NYT called the Al Quada press office and asked them "did you guys do this?" and the office said no.

    What the hell else do you want you racist tea bagging bastard?

  • John||

    Also read the entire article and notice that never once does the NYT ever ask just where the hell Obama was or what he was doing while all of this was going on. An American ambassador was murdered and the President said "you guys take care of this I am going to a fundraiser". In fairness Obama has such a low IQ it is doubtful he would have done anything had he been there but further fuck things up. But still, he could have at least stayed around to get the adults coffee or something.

  • seguin||

    Come on, he was busy hanging with Jay-Z and Beyonce...how do you expect him to do both at the same time?

  • cavalier973||

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I honestly don't believe anything anymore. The number of reversals on these types of things over my lifetime is staggering.

    eggs are bad
    red meat is bad
    coffee is bad
    booze (wine) is bad
    chocolate is bad
    sitting too close to teh teevee is bad...

    I heard a reversal the other day that said sugar doesn't make kids hyper. Chocolate, however, does.

    EVERYONE is full of shit. I just quit worrying about it.

  • Ted S.||

    EVERYONE is full of shit.

    Except for people preparing to have a colonoscopy tomorrow.

    (Thankfully, I'm not in that group.)

  • cavalier973||

    *chuckles, then looks around in an embarrassed manner*

  • William of Purple||

    +1 barium shot

  • CatoTheElder||

    Don't eat butter, which is full of unsaturated fats. Eat healthy margarine instead.

    Trans-fat KILLS. BAN TRANS-FAT!!!

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    When I was growing up my mother used to make us a drink consisting of Marsala, eggs and I think some pure vanilla extract as part of our breakfast. It was delicious.

    Now? No one does that as far as I know anymore. People would look in horror at such things.

    Apparently raw eggs are bad especially mixed with wine.

  • seguin||

    Butter is bad! No, wait, margarine is bad! No, wait, butter is bad!

    ^This is why I don't take the BUT SCIENCE!!1! argument seriously when people talk about banning things.

  • RishJoMo||

    lol, Al Qeada is nothing more than a bunch of washed up has beens.

    www.BeinAnon.tk

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fake scandal alert!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Asshole alert.

  • Derpetologist||

    To the tune of "Don't stop believin'!"

    ♫ He was just 3rd rate fool

    ♫ Shillin' his best for Team Blue-ue

    ♫ He's got to be mentally impair-erd

    ♫ Bullshit he spews

    ♫ ♫

    ♫ Tryin' distort the news

    ♫ Tirelessly derping awaaaaaay

    ♫ Don't Stop! Deceivin'!

    ♫ You'll convert us yet!

    ♫ Don't stop! Deceivin'! Oh noooooo!

  • ||

    No kidding. It's not like he fired US attorneys, who are at-will employees of the president.

  • cavalier973||

    Where have you been? You know there's a guy named Bo something or other who is threatening to replace you as favored troll.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|12.29.13 @ 8:04PM|#
    'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!'

  • JeremyR||

    Whether or not it was the video (it wasn't, but there were riots in places after the youtube video was brought up as an excuse), the real culprit was Islamism.

    Until we realize it's a cultural battle and not a military or intelligence one, we're going to keep losing.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Until we realize it's a cultural battle and not a military or intelligence one not our job to police the world, we're going to keep losing.

    FIFY

  • PapayaSF||

    Are we allowed to police the US?

  • William of Purple||

    Nobody needs protection from terrorists

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "The New York Times reported Saturday it could not find any evidence, after months of investigation, that al-Qaida...had any role in the attack..."

    Yeah, I'm sure it was an exhaustive investigation. They asked Hilary Clinton if Al Quaeda was involved. She said "Nope". They asked Susan Rice if Al Quaeda was involved. She said "Nope". They asked Barack Obama if Al Quaeda was involved. He said "Nope". After answering "Nope", each and every one of them told them it was the Youtube video. What more do you guys need?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    They are going to need a little more than "we say so".

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the intelligence community acknowledge that it was AQ?

    Is the NYTs calling out the spooks on this?

  • Sevo||

    "Is the NYTs calling out the spooks on this?"

    If the story gets buried by the NYT and others, does anyone hear the tree fall?
    I mean there's a sales tax added to medical insurance and no one heard that:
    "Beginning in 2014, the health reform law imposes a new sales tax on health insurance that will increase the cost of health care coverage. The amount of the tax will be $8 billion in 2014, increasing to $14.3 billion in 2018, and increased based on premium trend thereafter. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the health insurance tax will exceed $100 billion over the next ten years."
    http://www.ahip.org/Issues/Premium-Tax.aspx

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the intelligence community acknowledge that it was AQ?"

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did. But, it's not like I think the spooks will be terribly bothered if the public narrative goes back to the "out-of-control protest" spiel. My guess is that the truth wouldn't exactly be favorable for them, either.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Am I missing some inside joke here, or can no Reason commenter spell al-Qaeda? An acceptable alternate spelling is al-Qaida, but anything with a "u" is just wrong.

  • ||

    How about El-Kaida?

  • Derpetologist||

    Owl Gay Duh?

  • Jordan||

    Speaking of fake scandals (hurr durr), here's some more horrible shit about the NSA

    "If a target person, agency or company orders a new computer or related accessories, for example, TAO can divert the shipping delivery to its own secret workshops" the report says. "The NSA calls this method interdiction. At these so-called 'load stations', agents carefully open the package in order to load malware onto the electronics, or even install hardware components that can provide backdoor access for the intelligence agencies. All subsequent steps can then be conducted from the comfort of a remote computer."P

    Not one of the companies whose gear was being hijacked said they were aware of the NSA's actions. P

    A second Der Spiegel report blows the lid on a "catalogue" that NSA agents have access to, from which they can order spy gear that costs up to $250,000.

    They've also tapped the undersea fiber cables.

  • Derpetologist||

    Is there anything in that catalog that will help them find out if a rogue contractor is making a clean get-away with all their secrets?

  • Sevo||

    Or if a IT contractor is screwing the taxpayer for the O'care web site?

  • Derpetologist||

    Or if 2 militant Chechens are planning a terrorist attack?

    Or if a bunch of Libyan militants are planning an attack?

  • Sevo||

    Or if color TV is now common?

  • Derpetologist||

    Or if disco is still alive and well?

  • MJGreen||

    At these so-called 'load stations', agents carefully open the package in order to load malware onto the electronics, or even install hardware components that can provide backdoor access for the intelligence agencies.

    Jesus Fucking Christ.

  • Bam!||

    They've been doing stuff like that since forever. They used to bug copy machines en-route from the factory, then have a fake maintenance worker come to "service" the machine, removing the stored copies of all scanned documents.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They've been doing stuff like that since forever. They used to bug copy machines en-route from the factory, then have a fake maintenance worker come to "service" the machine, removing the stored copies of all scanned documents.

    Yeah. In Soviet embassies.

    This is different. This is saying that if they suspect I'm a domestic terrorist, they can have my new MacBook Air diverted to them so they can make spying on me easier.

  • Jordan||

    Moar:

    A document viewed by SPIEGEL resembling a product catalog reveals that an NSA division called ANT has burrowed its way into nearly all the security architecture made by the major players in the industry -- including American global market leader Cisco and its Chinese competitor Huawei, but also producers of mass-market goods, such as US computer-maker Dell.

    [...]

    Another program attacks the firmware in hard drives manufactured by Western Digital, Seagate, Maxtor and Samsung, all of which, with the exception of latter, are American companies.
  • PapayaSF||

    This isn't necessarily horrible shit, IMO. Assuming the targets are really individually-identified bad guys, that's just what the NSA should be doing. If it's Sally Jones' MacBook, then no.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Am I missing some inside joke here, or can no Reason commenter spell al-Qaeda?

    Too lazy.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    al-Queda.

    There.

    I just did.

    Or.

    al-Quesadillas.

  • William of Purple||

    they better be pork

  • ||

    Oregon man high on meth fights off 12 cops in a bar while masturbating

    After allegedly stiffing the locksmith, Frey wandered over to Brook's Market and refused to leave, officials said. An employee at the market had to eventually escort the alleged suspect off of the property, who then made his way to Iggy's Bar & Grill.

    That's when Frey's behavior allegedly took a turn for the vulgar, Marion County officials said.

    A bartender told authorities that Frey exposed his genitals and started masturbating at the bar, officials said. By the time a Marion County deputy arrived on scene, Frey had moved from the bar to the bathroom, but reportedly had not stopped pleasuring himself.

    Frey allegedly resisted arrest, forcing the deputy to zap the suspect with a Taser multiple times, officials said. The Taser had no effect on Frey, who then allegedly starting fighting with the deputy, officials said.

    At least 15 police officers from Salem, Keizer and Marion County rushed to the bar and were eventually able to take the suspect into custody, officials said.

    Frey was later charged with public indecency, resisting arrest and theft.

    He sure had a hard-on for those cops!

  • Jordan||

    Don't get between a man and his vinegar strokes.

  • ||

    Great headline or greatest headline?

  • ||

    I was going to say he single-handedly fought them off while masturbating, but that would be redundant.

  • Sevo||

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Great headline. Greatest headline would read "Oregon man high on meth beats off 12 cops in a bar while masturbating".

  • Ted S.||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bo can take the most boring thread and somehow manipulate people into talking to him for hours.

    Don't forget, if you decline to engage and recite your catechism to his satisfaction, you are definitionally unserious. Bow down before Grand Inquisitor Bo, libertarian theologian.

  • Ted S.||

    I'm sorry I'm unserious. I just scroll past the John/Bo (New MNG) walls of text.

    On the bright side, at least I can thread properly. :-p

  • Generic Stranger||

    TLPB threads for no man.

  • RannedPall||

    And if anything moves, kill it.

  • ||

    Shouldn't I be the Grand Inquisitor of Seriousness?

  • ||

    South Carolina man comes home on Christmas Eve without beer, angry wife than stabs him with a ceramic squirrel

    The woman, Helen Ann Williams, 44, of an address on Clifton Street in North Charleston, was in the Charleston County jail on $10,000 cash bond, jail records showed Friday. She faces a hearing in Charleston County Circuit Court in April on a felony charge of domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature.

    According to the police report, Williams' 41-year-old husband set out to buy some beer late Tuesday night, but he returned home empty-handed because the stores were closed.

    That enraged Williams, according to the report, and as her husband set about making himself a sandwich, she picked up the ceramic squirrel and conked him over the head with it. Then she stabbed him in the chest with it, the report said.

    The man fled to a neighbor's home to call 911, and when officers arrived shortly after midnight — on Christmas Day by now — they found him covered in blood with cuts on his shoulder and face, according to the report. When he took off his shirt, they found a big gash in his chest, it said.

    I realize it isn't his fault since the stores were close, but um, look at that woman. C'mon on man, you should have a stockpile of alcohol for emergencies.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    at least I can thread properly.

    Throw off your shackles, Comrade!

  • William of Purple||

    how about them cowboys

  • Ted S.||

    How about the Packers. :-)

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Damn. Saw that.

  • Irish||

    I have found the greatest article the Guardian has ever printed.

    How can we use computer games to overthrow capitalism?

    The challenge is to design a game where instead of being a badass in LA, you can be a goodass on a communal farm

    What I am proposing is something different. What if, just as in an Occupy camp, where they try to "live despite capitalism", you could live "despite" the property forms and voracious market economics of a computer game?

    Next year, Skyrim itself goes multiplayer. Designers promise the mythical world of Tamriel will offer a choice of three warring alliances, nine ethnicities and unlimited face tattoos. The proposed economics look like a version of 18th-century mercantilism: conquer a castle, set up your trading post there, exploit need and scarcity.

    As a fan of the game, I'd like the opportunity to do something radically different: #OccupyTamriel anyone?

    One guy gets it:

    Same_Sex_Farage
    06 December 2013 8:41pm

    89
    Ever played Tropico, Paul?

    It's a strategy game where you get to play a tinpot dictator on a banana republic. Should be right up your street.
  • William of Purple||

    Skyrim is going multiplayer? Do I need to make a super character before this happens?

  • Jordan||

    It's not Skyrim. It's the Elder Scrolls Online. Looks pretty much like any other generic MMO.

  • William of Purple||

    ok thanks!

  • ||

    The challenge is to design a game where instead of being a badass in LA, you can be a goodass on a communal farm

    POL POT: Year Zero.

    (Rated E for Everyone Joins Or Will Be Shot)

  • Warrren||

    Cool, I'm going to play a Khemer rogue.

  • Jordan||

    This is brilliant.

  • seguin||

    Too good.

  • Derpetologist||

    Tropico is a fun game and it is possible to make a reasonably happy island with a communist policy.

    Going the Mugabe route can be lots of fun.

  • cavalier973||

    Tropico provides an excellent lesson on trade. The game is set up to be a mercantilist's dream island. You can export anything produced on your island, but you cannot import anything (except, interestingly, labor).

    The result is that you spend several game years building up, say, your cigar industry, and are pulling in tons of money, but your people are starving, because everyone is working either growing tobacco or crafting cigars. That pile of money sitting in your treasury is worthless, because you can't use it to buy food from foreign nations. You wind up having to divert labor to growing food, which means your island is less productive than it could be.

    Awesome music, though.

  • Derpetologist||

    I never thought of that part. Although even if you had no workers growing food, that would only free up another 20 to 40 workers.

    The thing that pissed me off the most is the requirement for generals.

  • cavalier973||

    With an island population of 200, 40 people pickin' tobacco instead of pineapples can be a real boost to the national economy.

    The thing that bugged me is the absence of taxes. (I know, I know). The game is not fully simulationist, but the ability to raise and lower income taxes (or tariffs) would better reflect the political realities of governance.

    Also, even though there is a "capitalist" faction, there is no true capitalism on your island. You, as the government, control everything. You even have the ability to read your citizen's thoughts. NSA? Pah! What a bunch of pikers.

  • William of Purple||

    Scenario: Worker Chet decides instead of doing his share of the work, he decides his time would be better spent contemplating the sound of a butterfly wing. Dinner time comes, do you let him eat?

  • Warrren||

    Given how stupid these people are how is it they have so much power?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Numbers.

  • Derpetologist||

    A vast and sophisticated propaganda machine.

  • ||

    They don't. They give it all to sociopaths like Obama.

  • Malkavian||

    Information goods undermine economic systems based on scarcity. Free, collaboratively made products, like Wikipedia potentially, kill commercial products in their market.

    Haha, is this why Wikipedia trolls me for a portion of my for-profit earned paycheck? I'm sure bulk of their editors have for-profit day jobs, and whatever the non-profit people get, they pull it straight out of the pockets of the for-profit people (rich donors and corporations).

    Open source is great, but the idea that you can run an entire economy as a non-profit is not just idiotic, it's suicidal. Hell, even North Korean Marxists care about profit - they just think profit must belong to the State. But even they don't plant rice just to break even. This non-profit idiocy is rich, western liberal delusion. I wish they stopped with it already.

  • ||

    Open source is great, but the idea that you can run an entire economy as a non-profit is not just idiotic, it's suicidal.

    It goes beyond that, though. A lot of development on major FOSS projects is funded or performed by for-profit companies.

  • Andrew S.||

    As an aside, Tropico is awesome.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Ever played Tropico, Paul?"
    Not sure that applies. It appears the author in question envisions a situation where they aren't the supreme executive, meaning the game will be as boring as watching paint dry.

  • cavalier973||

    If the Occupy folk really wanted to "live despite capitalism", then they need to head on over to North Korea.

  • ||

    What if, just as in an Occupy camp, where they try to "live despite capitalism", you could live "despite" the property forms and voracious market economics of a computer game?

    Wouldn't the players just abandon the game and start playing in the capitalist sand box?

    My experience with minecraft strongly suggests this would be the reaction of the players.

  • ||

    One would think that in the first sentence of this article, where the words referencing the conclusion of the New York Times are linked, that that link would point toward the New York Times. Instead, it links to a 24/7 snippet, which then links to Voice of America. This article, in fact, contains exactly zero links to outside sources.

    Well done, Reason. You've out-click-throughed yourself this time.

  • Ted S.||

    People actually read the articles and don't start commenting willy-nilly?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Biiiitch and moaaaan!

    Jesus Christ, ya got the best comments from the best commentariat in the world, and you want outside sources too?

    Some people are never fucking satisfied.

  • cavalier973||

    I'm sure it's not personal; it's business.

  • William of Purple||

    naïve:

    We believe that people are basically good and often benefit from a simple reminder. We offer these messages in an effort to promote good values, good role models and a better life.
  • The Late P Brooks||

    What if, just as in an Occupy camp, where they try to "live despite capitalism", you could live "despite" the property forms and voracious market economics of a computer game?

    What if you got paid one million dollars every time a monkey flew out of your ass?

  • William of Purple||

    I'd have 3 million dollars?

    /don't ask

  • Warrren||

    I'd only have $250,000. And yeah, don't ask.

  • Derpetologist||

    The best example of an anti-capitalist game is this 3rd world farmer sim:

    http://www.3rdworldfarmer.com/

  • Warrren||

    Yeah, for profit endeavors tend to be a lot more difficult without property rights, secure contracts and no protection from the corrupt and bloodthirsty.

  • Malkavian||

    I survived for 21 years... Civil wars did me in. Then again, i know nothing about farming.

  • Derpetologist||

    I won the game and got the highest score since 2011! I credit this to my time in the Peace Corps. You win the game when you build the clinic.

  • Derpetologist||

    My bad- you win when you buy all the projects. The key is to build a well as soon as possible, plant all the crops you can, pump out babies, and keep everyone in good health.

  • ||

  • William of Purple||

    Name 35 movies released in 2004

  • ||

    I would, but I'm distracted by Keira Knightley's breasts on that 'King Arthur' poster.

  • William of Purple||

    that's asking a lot of that corset.

  • Jordan||

    Those are photoshopped in, sadly. She was pretty pissed about it.

  • ||

    Fuck. Just fuck. I am getting a hopeless feeling. I think Warty nailed it.

    "This and Fast and Furious are the perfect scandals for today's DC. The administration's crookedness is utterly transparent, the lies they tell to cover it up are so preposterous that it's clear they don't give a shit if any of the peasants believe them or not, and the vermin in the lapdog press fall all over themselves to repeat the lies. Here's to each and every one of them getting brain cancer."

    No one pays attention because you cant hear anything over the incessant screaming for a world socialist paradise.

    Can we just get a divorce already? Let us go our way and they can go theirs.

  • Derpetologist||

    Calm down. It was far worse during the bad old days of FDR.

  • Derpetologist||

    Perhaps Don't Panic is a better choice of words. Not trying to be snippy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Great point. We are much better off than we used to be.

  • cavalier973||

    Can we just get a divorce already?

    Feeling that curious desire to enslave and oppress minorities? Eh, "Suthenboy"?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Can we just get a divorce already? Let us go our way and they can go theirs.

    Nope. They need productive folks to pay for their unproductive world.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    EXACTLY!

  • ||

    Atheism: An Intellectual Luxury for the 1%

    Soon I saw my atheism for what it is: an intellectual belief most accessible to those who have done well.

    I look back at my 16-year-old self and see Preacher Man and his listeners differently. I look at the fragile women praying and see a mother working a minimum wage custodial job, trying to raise three children alone. Her children’s father off drunk somewhere. I look at the teenager fingering a small cross and see a young woman, abused by a father addicted to whatever, trying to find some moments of peace. I see Preacher Man himself, living in a beat up shack without electricity, desperate to stay clean, desperate to make sense of a world that has given him little.

    They found hope where they could.

    I want to go back to that 16-year-old self and tell him to shut up with the “see how clever I am attitude”. I want to tell him to appreciate how easy he had it, with a path out. A path to riches.

    I also see Richard Dawkins differently. I see him as a grown up version of that 16-year-old kid, proud of being smart, unable to understand why anyone would believe or think differently from himself. I see a person so removed from humanity and so removed from the ambiguity of life that he finds himself judging those who think differently.

    Looks like he's found a way to piss of believers AND atheists alike.

  • Sevo||

    Sorta like the idjits who claim to have 'outgrown' libertarianism, I'm gonna say this guy wasn't an atheist (other than he denied the standard J-C 'god').
    He's just defined his fantasies differently over the years, never quite coming to terms with the need to be an individual moral agent in order to be an adult.

  • William of Purple||

    If there's no moral agent, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no way to differentiate between good and evil. Then there is no such thing as evil.
    What again is morality?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    morality = not infringing on the rights of others

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    To invoke Nock, libertarianism is, and was never meant to be, a social philosophy, but a political one. It is silly of you to conflate the two. I seriously doubt you live like that.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You don't know the first thing about how I live my life you little snot nosed, wet behind the ears, arrogant little cunt.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I understand you characteristically not having an actual response other than emotional anger, but more importantly, I thought you filtered me?

    I am also curious, why are you so angry at me? I did not violate your rights ;)

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Because you are a detestable, know it all, child who thinks he's intelligent because he made it into law school. A person who has absolutely nothing to bring to an intelligent conversation, because he has ZERO life experience and ZERO redeeming social qualities. So to compensate for his inadequacies, argues minutia having no bearing upon anything relevant, but allows him to hear himself talk, and feel he's important.

    In actuality, you do nothing but make an ass of yourself. And the sad part is, you've been told exactly this by nearly every respectable commenter here, and yet you continue to repeat the same unacceptable behavior patterns over and over, just like the child you are. You are, without question an impudent little boy with inadequacy issues.

    Grow up, shut the fuck up, listen more than talk, and fucking learn something.

  • ||

    A person who has absolutely nothing to bring to an intelligent conversation... So to compensate for his inadequacies, argues minutia having no bearing upon anything relevant, but allows him to hear himself talk, and feel he's important.

    Got senior partner written all over him. That's if he can resist the call of politics.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Bo - you implied Francisco actively, knowingly, and hypocritically infringes of the rights of others.

    In doing so - exactly what response were you expecting?

    & since in situations like this, where one claims traits on another with zero knowledge, the one asserting hypocrisy is usually projecting, I have one more question if you don't mind:

    Who's rights do you infringe upon consistently? & if you stopped, when and why? God?

  • Sevo||

    William of Purple|12.29.13 @ 10:28PM|#
    "If there's no moral agent, there's no moral law."
    True.

    "If there's no moral law, there's no way to differentiate between good and evil. Then there is no such thing as evil."
    OK.

    "What again is morality?"
    Uh, I'm willing to answer that question, but I'm quite sure you have some silly subtext in mind.
    So why don't you just go ahead and demonstrate your bleever fantasies so those of us who aren't bleevers can point to the obvious fallacies and laugh at you.
    I'm happy to do so; you are amusing.

  • ||

    Yes, Sevo will demonstrate his cunning wit and unparalleled command of logic by disagreeing with you while calling you names. You will be crushed breh. CRUSHED.

  • hot steaming pile of Bo||

    Jesus christ stop posting.

  • Derpetologist||

    Objective morality does not exist. Objective language does no exist either. Both are merely tools that let people cooperate.

    Because the goals are the same, you see a lot of overlap in the structure of languages and the structure of moral systems.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Objective morality does not exist?

    So we can expect you to never make any moral claims that the rest of us should take seriously then?

  • Derpetologist||

    Objective weight does not exist either, but that doesn't make it impossible to say that a hippo weighs more than a person. Whatever unit you use, the answer is the same.

    The only sane way to deal with moral conundrums is to phrase them in testable ways. For example, it's useless to say the death penalty is immoral. It's better to ask "does the death penalty lead to desired goal X?"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Okay, but how do we judge competing 'desired goals?'

  • Derpetologist||

    Phrase it as a testable question. Examples:

    -Does prohibition lead to less crime?

    -Do free markets lead to greater prosperity?

    etc.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I see, but what how do we judge whether we should want less crime or greater prosperity?

  • Sevo||

    Derpetologist|12.29.13 @ 11:37PM|#
    "Objective weight does not exist either,"

    I'm sure there's a bit of sophistry that would justify this claim; let's see it.

  • Derpetologist||

    Objective weight does not exist in the sense that units of measurement are arbitrary. You could build scales according to any unit of weight you want.

  • Irish||

    I see him as a grown up version of that 16-year-old kid, proud of being smart, unable to understand why anyone would believe or think differently from himself.

    So now you're smug about not being as smug as Richard Dawkins. Progressives are so smug that they've actually managed to become metasmug.

  • Derpetologist||

    So he felt guilty about smarting off to a preacher and writes this article as repentance?

    Interesting how the only explanation for poverty this rational thinker can muster is to quote a slogan from a Mandela puff piece.

    Here's an idea perfesser- if Mandela was surprised by the collapse of socialism , maybe socialists don't know what they're talking about.

  • ||

    I look at the fragile women praying and see a mother working a minimum wage custodial job, trying to raise three children alone. Her children’s father off drunk somewhere.

    Next thing you're going to tell me is that the welfare state has made situations like the one quoted above more common by subsidizing it!

  • Derpetologist||

    He never explains how exactly capitalism causes men to get drunk and abandon their families in greater numbers or otherwise promotes poor choices.

  • Irish||

    In fairness, if we had a totally socialist society, there would be no alcohol because of massive grain shortages and people wouldn't be able to abandon their families since their government supplied mule is the only form of transportation and it's prone to bouts of malnutrition.

  • Derpetologist||

    If we had a totally socialist society, anyone who could would be drunk all the time.

  • Irish||

    On what? Where would the booze come from?

  • ||

    I'm sure even in the old Eastern Bloc people could make their own stills.

    I mean you'd have to live in a Stalinist shithole like North Korea for no one to have that ability.

  • Derpetologist||

    The party members and other nomenklatura would have booze. And they would be partying like it's 1917.

  • GILMORE||

    is linking to the actual NYT article entirely verboten...?

    http://www.nytimes.com/project.....#/?chapt=0

    The entire piece stinks of bullshit from the very first lines, which seek to 'frame' all the evidence in the context of an extremely narrow version of reality.

    for instance - they start with this =

    "A boyish-looking American diplomat was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libya’s most formidable militias....It was Sept. 9, 2012"

    This gives the impression (along with later paragraphs) of a nascent/undeveloped relationship with the local militias.

    They don't mention until "chapter 3" that Ambassador Stevens was the principal liaison to the Libyan opposition groups during the 2011 overthrow of Qaddafi.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....04199.html

    Nor do they mention that he'd worked in that region for a number of years. That he knew the players, and was an important go-between.

    What does a 'liason' DO for these groups? Money, guns.

    nowhere in the piece was there any investigation of the CIA's "weapons buyback program" in Beghazi, which was the only US activity in the city, and which stevens was apparently connected to.

    What was that about? Money, guns.

    We learn later than weapons were shipped out of Benghazi to Turkey, to be delivered to Syrian rebels. Total Coincidence. No mention in NYT piece.

    You don't have to be fucking Columbo to see the threads here.

  • Sevo||

    I wish it was surprising, but it isn't. The NYT is doing nothing other than providing cover and excuses for mainstream dems.
    The only 'investigation' involved 'investigated' how best to provide excuses.
    Pathetic but predictable.

  • Warrren||

    They're the paper of broken record.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Brilliant

  • GILMORE||

    they do mention the CIA weapons program, but only in one sentence, and that only to lead into its 'other roles', which apparently was "too focused on Al Q"

    "In addition to buying up weapons spilled out during the revolt, the team was assigned to gather intelligence about anti-Western terrorists and the big militia leaders. But there were hundreds of small brigades, affiliations were fluid and overlapping, and the agents often found themselves turning to Mr. Stevens for advice because he seemed to know the militia leaders better than any other American expert.

    These weapons that "Spilled out"... unmentioned is that some were spilled out by the US and NATO, and others were captured from Qaddafi's regime. and that they were a priority for the CIA. This is glided over sans comment, as is the reason for a Turkish consuls visit to the Benghazi compound on that day, one described in the piece as already highly tense with security concerns. Yes, exactly the type of time and place you want to have a diplomatic meeting.

    Don't get me started on the 'improvised' attack on the CIA complex. Or the utter lack of comment on any communications back and forth from these positions and US support elements. Over 7+ hours.

  • ||

    I hesitate to call this a 'good' football game because the Cowboys are so inept and the Eagles aren't much better.

    But it is entertaining.

  • William of Purple||

    Kyle Orton is a joke.

  • ||

    And yet he still almost won. Barring an utter meltdown in crunch time (which, to be fair, he is inexplicably good at) Romo would have shredded this Eagles defense and won the game.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is hard to believe this was the same Eagles team we saw last Monday night, or perhaps Dallas' defense is that much better than Chicago's?

  • Invisible Finger||

    This is the perfect post from an idiot.

  • Sevo||

    The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc|12.29.13 @ 11:25PM|#
    "And yet he still almost won."

    Somebody has to. Did you see the 9ers stumble through 3 quarters?

  • Grumpy Old Timer||

    And so the 2016 Hillary campaign has begun.

  • GILMORE||

    (cue charge of the media Uruk-hai)

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Let me ask something about all of this: what is supposed to be the libertarian angle to Benghazi? I understand why conservatives and Republicans who define themselves as for anything that makes Democrats look bad are so focused on it, but why should libertarians be so exercised by it? The critical narrative seems to be that this was incompetently handled and as a result several Americans died. But as libertarians we expect that government action will be almost inherently clunky, poorly responsive, and unable to pull off miraculous saves. Are libertarians supposed to be outraged that we did not launch an effective international rescue mission in a time frame of half a day?

    I realize there will be the usual 'oh, carrying water for the Democrats' charge. So let me contextualize what I am saying: I felt the same way about all the hullabaloo about the Bush administration's 'failures' regarding Katrina. I understand why Democrats felt the need to make 'hay' over Katrina, but what libertarian would say 'oh, I really expected the federal government to be able to quickly, effectively respond to this crisis, the Bush administration must be especially incompetent to not have done so.'

    It seems to me the only libertarian view of Benghazi is: what in the world were we sending any American into that mess to begin with?

  • Derpetologist||

    Several high-ranking officials including Obama blamed it all on a video, whereas the intelligence agencies blamed it on AQ.

    This makes sense since having another AQ attack right before the election would have crippled Obama's chances. He touted himself as the Slayer of Osama, remember?

    The fact that the slain had pleaded for help for months did not help. Nor did Hilary's famous shoulder-shrugging about the incident.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I tend to go with the general, almost inherent tendency towards government incompetency rather than conspiracy when possible.

    It was known within a week, well within the election, that the video was an unlikely excuse, so it seems odd that their offering it was some masterful plan to win the election. The video had inspired violence in the area, our government officials tend to be incompetent and disengaged, so I just do not see the scandal in them offering it initially as the reason for the attack.

    I grant you the fact about the slain asking for, and not receiving, effective help, but really, do we not always assume that in government situations? Every agency hyperbolically asks for more resources, and the central command nearly always judges it poorly.

  • GILMORE||

    Bo, just shut up and do some reading.

    http://www.businessinsider.com.....azi-2013-8

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Can I ask you to point out what you think is important in that article?

  • Derpetologist||

    My response to Bo is: Watergate

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    With Watergate a President claimed no association with a break in, and that association was later shown to be true.

    In this case though it seems we have an administration saying the attack was due to X when it was due to Y. Do we not expect governments to 'get it wrong,' especially in the short term?

  • ||

    Nixon merely misspoke about his association with the Watergate break-in.

    Wow. That was easy. It's almost like there's a conclusion in the premise.

  • hot steaming pile of Bo||

    My god you suck at posting.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    For me - I'm angry for the blaming of the video at all.

    Not that most Americans seem to care what Obama does anymore, but for now we still have a strong 1st Amendment and mostly a societal belief in Freedom of Speech.

    Therefore, even if this tripe were completely true, our government should still rightly blame the actual participants, not some book, movie, blog, or other form of speech as speech does not kill people.

    But since the administration didn't want to answer a whole bunch of other questions about being unprepared, failing at weapons supply, and the like - they had to quickly settle on something which could make this entire incident look both spontaneous and surprising as though any prevention was impossible.

    As usual - their original incompetence isn't near as bad as their immoral cover-up and direct attack of a basic freedom most Americans hold dear.

    After all, the liberals don't just talk about book banning right, they also talk about any actions which might stifle free speech through its implications.

    Don't believe the administration's actions could well result in the stifling of free speech?

    Then answer this - what's more restricting on free speech then telling the entire world that certain subjects, if not done to conform to a specific worldview, could be responsible for the deaths of innocent people?

    But "what difference at this point does it make?"

  • GILMORE||

    " what is supposed to be the libertarian angle to Benghazi? "

    Why do you assume there must be some ideological "angle" to anything - much less this story, which has many layers of cover-up and obfuscation involved with it?

    I would hope the libertarian desire would be for a complete understanding of the truth, without any 'angle' to be used as a political punching bag at all. No TEAM BLUE vs TEAM RED bullshit at all, which is apparently a universe outside your conception.

    I've read a great deal about the events that happened, and what frustrates me the most is that the majority of the reporting has been 'stories ABOUT a story' rather than any real documentary-level pursuit of truth.

    The facts that I've seen which are most compelling lead me to conclude that this was a case of blowback writ large. The people involved were all doing shady deals together in one way or another. And the dirty deals went wrong. And the politicians washed their hands of it. And the sitting president lied his ass off and his cabinet went along with the program because it was an election. And they sacrificed Petraeus over it, and they continue to threaten anyone connected to it. And to this day everyone keeps digging a deeper memory hole to throw the details into. With help from the NYT, writing a multi-1000 word piece that fails to discuss anything actually 'questionable'

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "The facts that I've seen which are most compelling lead me to conclude that this was a case of blowback writ large. The people involved were all doing shady deals together in one way or another. And the dirty deals went wrong."

    Agreed.

    "And the sitting president lied his ass off and his cabinet went along with the program because it was an election."

    But why make this lie which was easily correctable before the election? Within a week, and well before the election, that narrative was questionable.

    It just seems easier for me as a libertarian to assume they were incompetently wrong about everything.

  • GILMORE||

    "as a libertarian"

    please. you need to wipe the TEAM BLUE jizz off your face before you start with that malarkey.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you have any comment I have ever made contrary to the NAP, please produce it.

  • GILMORE||

    A douchebag wrapped in the NAP is still a douchebag

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So you have none. Noted.

  • ||

    You really don't see that a lot of your posts = "But Team Red is worse", do you?

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|12.30.13 @ 12:34AM|#

    So you have none. Noted"

    Lawyer, asshole? but I repeat myself.

  • GILMORE||

    "'But why make this lie which was easily correctable before the election? Within a week, and well before the election, that narrative was questionable.""

    have you never heard the one about Big Lies being a lot more effective than little ones?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That was a bit before our current press environment. If I recall correctly within about a week the administration had to backtrack on their initial claim.

  • GILMORE||

    And "what difference, at this point, does it make?"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Non-responsive.

  • Jerryskids||


    It's not that hard to do a google search.

    Even after his SoS called it a terrorist attack, Obama refused to admit it was what it was - until debate time when he was suddenly informed that he had always called it a terrorist act.

    My own suspicion has always been that it wasn't weapons involved in Benghazi, it was freeing alleged terrorists being extraordinarily renditioned by the CIA in contradiction to the official line that Obama had put an end to such black ops.

  • DK||

    But why make this lie which was easily correctable before the election?

    It just seems easier for me as a libertarian to assume they were incompetently wrong about everything.

    You answered your own question.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Okay, but we are supposed to be especially outraged by government officials acting incompetently?

  • DK||

    Now you're just trolling. Both GILMORE and Francisco d Anconia have explained the reason for the outrage.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I answered them, and I ask you, why would libertarians, who assume incompetence on government actions, be especially outraged by this example?

  • GILMORE||

    What's the lawyerly term for being willfully obtuse as a debate strategy?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not being willfully obtuse, unless you assume that of everyone who does not automatically agree with your claims. Can you attempt an answer of my question now?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • DK||

    A lack of candor toward the tribunal?

    Ah, perhaps a picaresque lawyer. Except, in this case, a bocaraesque lawyer.

  • cavalier973||

    It just seems easier for me as a libertarian to assume they were incompetently wrong about everything.

    One can expect incompetence and still be angry about it.

    I think it's more a situation of being angry that Obama's incompetence is so blatant, and yet he seems to be getting away with it. In fact, it may not necessarily be anger at Obama himself, or his administration, but frustration with his obtuse, fawning supporters who refuse to see reality.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    And the sitting president lied his ass off and his cabinet went along with the program because it was an election.

    And continued to lie for 10 days after the truth was known.

    I'm personally doubtful a rescue could have been mounted in such a small window, BUT I've been assured a SF team was just off the coast and the timeframe was within their response window.

    I'll cut slack for no rescue attempt...fog of war and all that. What I won't cut slack for is a sitting president fabricating a story for political purposes.

    He's a pig!

  • cavalier973||

    The 49ers were just off the coast of Libya at the time?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Might have been the Browns. That would make more sense.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Why do you assume there must be some ideological "angle" to anything - much less this story, which has many layers of cover-up and obfuscation involved with it?

    Bo is the Great Pope of Libertarianism. This incident will be integrated into His Gospel.

  • OldMexican||

    Let me ask something about all of this: what is supposed to be the libertarian angle to Benghazi?


    That Benghazi is the direct result of the meddling by the state department on someone else's affairs.

    but why should libertarians be so exercised by it?


    I just don't like to be lied to.

    Do you?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Browsing Steam for some games, I game across
    EURO TRUCK SIMULATOR 2.

    There's even a Let's Play series on Youtube!

  • ||

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Did anyone notice recent New York Times and Washington Post stories about this year being 'pivotal' for gay marriage battles in the court? A few days ago I offered up a tentative, admittedly conspiratorial, theory that Obama nominated judges have decided to thrust the gay marriage debate forward to shunt off ACA issues from the front pages. Of course, I can not prove this, but it is very interesting to me that the federal judges in both the Ohio and Utah cases were not just Democrat Party appointees, but Obama appointees. And now two main papers somewhat friendly to liberal causes run with this story...I am a supporter of gay marriage (and opponent of ACA), but the timing simply strikes me as suspicious.

  • ||

    but the timing simply strikes me as suspicious.

    Obama opposed gay marriage for the first 4 years he was in office.

    You are an idiot.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    At least 10 people have been killed and 10 others injured in an explosion on a trolleybus in the Russian city of Volgograd, Russian media report.
  • Irish||

    I would not want to live in Volgograd right now.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    They didn't pull this shit when the city was named Stalingrad.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Stalingrad = St. Petersburg

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    that's Leningrad. My bad

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Heh. You were too quick for my fingers, damn you!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No, that city was named after the bald one.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    I had a math teacher who looked like Lenin.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Did he add up the total scores of the class and just give everyone the average?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    No, he a tough marker however.

  • ||

    Wasn't there like many Stalingrads?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yup.

  • Irish||

    I would not want to live in Volgograd right now.

  • juris imprudent||

    Someone needs to reset the squirrels.

  • cavalier973||

    Mr Krugman takes the Republicans to task for believing that if unemployment benefits were more limited, more of the unemployed would find work from the sheer necessity to do so. This, he says, is fallacy. He writes:

    Ask yourself how, exactly, ending unemployment benefits would create more jobs. It’s true that some of the currently unemployed, finding themselves even more desperate than before, might snatchaway jobs from those who already have them.

    Now this passage seems to me to indicate that the model of an economy in the author’s mind is that of a static zero-sum game, in which one man’s job is another man’s unemployment and vice versa: the view of an economy that fueled the two disastrous totalitarianisms of the Twentieth Century, communism and Nazism.

    From Dr. Dalrymple.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    How accurate is this list:

    From ‘toque’ to ‘mickey,’ ten Canadianisms that leave other English speakers utterly confused

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, here in southern NH, "toque" is definitely known and used; however one side of my town is chock full of French-Canadians and their decendants.

    I had no idea "Homo Milk" was a Canadianism! As a kid, my family would by milk at the supermarket and on the cap the word "HOMO" was printed. It was hilarious! I've noticed that they've stopped doing that maybe 15 years ago or so?

    Pablum I knew, and again, I had no idea it was a Canadianism.

    "Pencil Crayon" I remember seeing on boxes as a kid, but I always thought it was just the French for "colored pencil". A lot of products on store shelves here have English/French bilingual labels, I guess because of our proximity to Canada.

  • Sidd Finch||

    I'm disappointed to learn that Canada, at least in some times and places, has milk jugs.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So, I'm assuming "homogenized" then?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • ||

    English/French bilingual labels are fairly common in Florida as well*, leading me to believe that expanding trade and the desirability of reaching the Canadian market has made it made it so that it is cheaper to use a kind of universal labeling. I suspect that, especially for smaller producers, it's simply cheaper to use a single label rather than try to guess how much of each product will be shipped where.

    *Actually English/Spanish/French trilingual labels are fairly common in Florida also, for the same reasons as above.

  • Sidd Finch||

    I knew about Robertson screws because a guy I grew up with screwed in his new subwoofers with those after his old ones were stolen. The next would-be thieves just stabbed them.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Now That's Canadian!

  • Sidd Finch||

    [puts down drink. puts on thinkin' cap]

    If that happened in Canada the thieves would have Robertson screwdrivers, eh?

  • Generic Stranger||

    My family uses Robertson screws fairly often, since they're much less likely to strip. The fact that the bit for them doesn't come standard in any tool kit here in the US can be a bit of a pain though.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Holy shit. Outside of the liquor measurements, every single one of these phrases was common in the US in the 70's and early 80's.

  • cavalier973||

    B546 would ban Missouri from taking any action that would “compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.” That means the state would be banned by law from operating a health care exchange for the federal government.
    The bill also proposes suspending the licenses of insurers who accept federal subsidies which result in the “imposition of penalties contrary to the public policy” set forth in the legislation. Since it is unlikely that any insurer would then accept a subsidy, not a single employer in the state could be hit with the employer-mandate penalties those subsidies trigger.
  • cavalier973||

    Based on the long-standing principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, the legislation is on strong legal grounds. In four major cases from 1842 to 2012, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government cannot “commandeer” states, requiring them to enforce or expend resources to participate in federal law or regulatory programs.
  • Michael S. Langston||

    That's cool and all... but I live in MO and I seriously doubt this has any chances of passing.

    But let's hope - I would think if it does and survives initial legal challenges, other states with larger R majorities will follow suit very soon thereafter.

    But when a majority vote for a dead man knowing his wife will replace him, should be forever assumed to be lacking the mental capabilities required to do the right thing should that thing coincide with anything R's might also want.

    & for those who think the joke was on Ashcroft, like Marher and others who joked incessantly about a man so worthless he lost an election to a dead man, please ask yourself this:

    In what reality does this make sense - I mean name any normal job, and ask any married employee and/or their management, that if if that employee "got hit by a bus tomorrow" would their first choice of replacement be the employee's spouse?

    Assuming they don't work for the same company or whatever - the answer will always be an emphatic no. & not just no, anyone who has ever managed people/groups/etc successfully and answered this question openly would be more likely to come reply with something close to "Why in the hell would we ever do that?"

    But it's the New America, and I'm in the minority - as most people seem to think the joke was and still in on Ashcroft, while I see the joke firmly on the voters.

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) This is, as GILMORE put it, bullshit. It reeks of looking under a few rocks, leaving the ones with flies and putrresence all round them unturned, and then declaring 'no body'.

    2) So what? Okay, lets say there's no AQ affiliate. The US admin still lied for 10 days. They did not help secure the embassy in the months beforehand despite repeat requests and they probably could have deployed assets to help out during the attack but didn't....partly because no one in the US admin was doing their jobs.

    The only arrows the Shriekers have are the one about the guy who claimed to be on the ground during the attack but wasn't. This doesn't make the Benghazi Incident any less of an outrage.

  • juris imprudent||

    Hillary is getting the rehab treatment. This surely isn't for the benefit of Obama.

  • ||

    Can't help but agree with Gilmore on this.

    The real story is how the people who executed the attack were the same people the US funded and armed to overthrow Ghadaffi. And maybe that they used the same weapons the US armed them with. Or that those weapons fell into the hands of said al-Qaeda affiliate, whatever Al Qaeda means these days. And that's why Stevens was in Banghazi in the first place. They were trying to recover those weapons.

    Of course, this shit is all classified but it's also leaked a bit.
    I think part of the frustration of Republicans is that those on the intelligence committee know full well that that's what happened, but it's all classified so they can't talk about it. They have to rely on keeping the story in the media so stuff will leak and people will connect the dots.

    Clinton let US weapons fall into the hands of Islamic extremists, and they were used to kill a US ambassador.
    The details of whether that affiliate can be called "Al Qaeda" are tangential.

    Maybe the attackers whipped up a local mod to aid in the attack by spreading stories about the video and other supposed things (killing a Lybian). DOes it matter? What matters is the underlying story about US weapons going astray and getting into the wrong hands.

  • GILMORE||

    From what I have gathered, its not an issue of "US Weapons going astray" so much as SA-7 man-portable rocket launchers being shifted from one theatre of operations (Libya) to another (Syria) in a way that gave plausible deniability to the US/NATO.

    We supplied 'stingers' (generic term) to some jihadist groups, and they also supplied themselves out of Qaddafis arsenels. 20,000 or so were claimed to be missing. Which justified the $40m 'buyback' budget Clinton authorized in the country.

    http://en.ria.ru/world/20111019/167846284.html

    We have a long history of giving stingers to jihadists and then buying them back from them. my belief is that in this case we were also facilitating their transfer to Syria via Turkey with assistance from other regional allied intelligence services (read: Saudis)

    Why did some of the rebel groups turn on the Americans after all the guns and money and assistance etc?

    What irks me most about reportage surrounding the Benghazi attacks is that they seem largely perfectly satisfied with the idea that people attack American intelligence agencies, "Just because". 'They hates our freedoms'. 'We insulted their prophet'. The story being that the attackers are completely uncomplicated individuals driven entirely by emotion. And they attack 'spontaneously', too. Good thing Mahmoud happened to have a trunk full of mortar rounds when he coincidentally drove by our highly-coordinated assault on a defended CIA installation.

  • GILMORE||

    (contd)

    The idea that - just maybe! - some other regional powers may have known about said weapons transfers, and opposed them? INCONCEIVABLE.

    Its not like Syria or Iran has ever had *any* experience funding quran-beating psychos to do dirty work for them. As I have said earlier - the 'Rent a Jihadist' game is something Americans are comparative newcomers to in the region. The other ME countries are old hats at War-by-proxy. US and Saudi money can certainly buy an army to overthrow regional dictators, but its unlikely it can ever effectively control the loyalties of said groups. If there's any speck of truth in the NYT hokum, its the idea that Stevens was a bit naïve about his own ability to hobnob and rub elbows with such a variety of competing interests.

    It is *unquestioned* that we were palling up with various radical islamist groups and giving them guns and money to act in our interests. Why the NYT thinks that it makes any difference whether any of them were 'al Qaeda affiliated' seems to me entirely a plot device of their own invention (or, rather, something they can fixate on to find some kind of exculpatory narrative for the administration). Its a sideplot designed to steer away from more banal matters of what CIA was busy with in the region. =

  • GILMORE||

    (contd)

    ... one thing which they (CIA) may have been involved with at the time was the snatch of Iranian 'aid workers' presumed to be intelligence.

    http://www.dawn.com/news/73887.....d-in-libya

    While there was a story about these guys potentially 'being held' in a US-controlled facility, I think that's completely besides the point and irrelevant. More likely is that US proxies snatched these guys, and that Iranian proxies decided to show what happens when you start taking the gloves off closer to their own backyard.

    other relevant details ignored by the media include the fact that JSOC was still conducting some operations in the region which targeted unfriendly jihadi elements. Basically zapping guys by hand when drones were inconvenient. Guys at SOFREP wrote a book mentioning some of this ...

    http://www.amazon.com/Benghazi.....B00AHCRRJS

    in Brandon's words (paraphrased), he points out that CIA was trying to cuddle up with some nasty groups at the very same time JSOC was selectively zapping some of their more unsavory members. This sort of 'have your cake and execute it too'-attitude is certainly a possible contributor to the subsequent blowback.

    That the NYT can manage to write thousands of words about this topic and studiously avoid even mentioning areas that others have uncovered in great detail is a new achievement of journalistic propaganda.

  • Jerryskids||

    As others have pointed out, the NYT is simply cleaning up Hillary's CV. The 2016 campaign is started.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement