Free Republic

How can The New York Times claim, with a straight face, “The 2012 attacks in Benghazi have been investigated by seven different congressional committees: the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. These panels interviewed dozens of witnesses, reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents, conducted multiple classified interviews and briefings, and held multiple public hearings. These committees, in addition to the independent Accountability Review Board, have issued nine reports on the attacks.”

Has anyone pointed out that the “nine prior investigations” concluded that more investigation was necessary? As I read the reports below, we know that Report #1 was a whitewash. Reports 2, 6, 7 and 9, and arguably 8, contemplated more investigation, which is why Gowdy’s committee was created. Report #5 was Elijah Cummings’ report, and he has taken it off his website. The remaining three reports claim to be dispositive, but only with respect to a limited purview. And none of these committee even had the necessary emails.

The question is, why can’t journalists do this themselves? It took me about an hour to go this far.

1. The Accountability Review Board Report has already been shown to be a whitewash. Further, like all the reports that came after it, it did not examine or even obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails or Ambassador Stephens’ emails.

2. The BIPARTISAN Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that: “It is our intent that the findings and recommendations outlined in this report will facilitate and inform other reviews, especially those conducted by congressional committees with specific jurisdiction over the State Department.”

3. The BIPARTISAN House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence stated that it focused only on the “activities of the Intelligence Community” and had a dissenting report from the Republicans and a dissenting report from the Democrats.

4. BIPARTISAN Lieberman-Collins Senate Report was issued in December 2012 — barely three months after the attack, and noted “We are cognizant that the Congressionally-mandated Accountability Review Board (ARB) of the Department of State has now issued its important and constructive report and that other Congressional committees are investigating the Benghazi attack as well. Each makes significant contributions to our collective understanding of what transpired and what we must do going forward.”

5. The Staff Report to the House Oversight Committee Ranking Member (the Democrat report) has been removed from the Committee’s website

6. The Five Chairmen report concluded: “These preliminary findings illustrate the need for continued examination...”

7. Staff Report to the House Armed Services Committee contained the following self-assessment: “It [the report] is not, however, meant to be an exhaustive catalog or evaluation of every point or detail contained in this material.” The Committee was only concerned with “determin[ing] what preparations the U.S. military had made for the possibility of an attack in Libya, and what arrangements have subsequently been put into place to minimize the possibility of a similar recurrence.” The Chairman concluded “This report should be considered one component of continuing comprehensive Benghazi-related oversight underway in the U.S. House of Representatives. In keeping with the committee’s jurisdiction, this document addresses only the activities and actions of personnel in DOD.”

8. Staff Report to the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman concluded: “In its oversight capacity, the Committee on Foreign Affairs will remain focused on pressing for the accountability needed to make State Department personnel serving overseas safer.”

9. Staff Report to the House Oversight Committee Chairman concluded: “The gaps in the ARB’s work are particularly troubling because the Obama Administration has repeatedly touted the ARB report as the final word on failures by the State Department that contributed to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi. The limitations inherent in the ARB’s mandate and the weaknesses in the ARB’s methodology show that a more thorough investigation is necessary.”

“What kind of image do we present to the rest of the country?” Brokaw asked. “Are we doing their business, or are we just a group of narcissists who are mostly interested in elevating our own profiles?

I assume that this question will be posted on Wikipedia as the quintessential example of a rhetorical question.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/white-house-correspondents-partiers-say-tom-brokaws-got-it-wrong-90698.html#ixzz2Rh028efK

Of course there is no effective way to respond to an editorial by The Grey Lady. She is right on all issues of policy, and those of us who disagree are just too benighted to know it. Kristof and Androes in this article both acknowledge that his friend is sick with Stage 4 prostate cancer because he "blew it". But his conclusion is strange -- that Obamacare will somehow save money and lives. All the evidence is that in a free market, it will do neither.

This is a very sad case, and as the story relates, Androes is now paying $1,400 for an ambulance ride when he did not pay "a few hundred dollars" for an early diagnosis. So I am not sure Androes will ever pay for anything unless he deems it to be "fair." He even says he would have bought health insurance if he thought it was "fair."

What does he mean by that? This is the difference between supporters of Obamacare and supporters of the free market. Are the costs of groceries or energy "fair?" Just because I don't think the cost of gas is fair does not mean that I run my car until it is out of gas. And Kristof thinks Androes is "innately prudent?"

Health insurance is currently fair by one measure, since it costs what the insurance companies have to spend, less administrative costs, less a return to their shareholders. The logic of Kristof and Androes is haunting in its stupidity, lack of logic, and lack of economic understanding -- but that's what Harvard has been producing for the last 30 years or so.

Kristof and Androes think that health insurance costs will be more fair if the "return to the shareholders" in the current system is replaced with a government bureaucracy -- which has never proved less costly than free market alternatives. Overall costs will rise because (1) more people will be accessing the system, (2) government bureaucracies are inefficient, nothing you can do about that, and (3) the fact that people perceive it as a bargain (hence, what Androes calls fair), means that people will use more health services than they would in a free market. Androes is really saying that he would not have bought health insurance unless he thought it was "more than fair".

There is nothing in Obamacare make insurance more fair to society as a whole. Sure, there may be some "damned fools" like Androes who will go to a doctor earlier if they think it is fair -- that is, if they think it will cost someone else more than their share of the health care costs. And maybe the insurance company shareholders will get screwed and not get any dividends any more. (Athough most of those shareholders are pension funds that are seeking a constant return for other old age expenses, so nationalizing that income stream will have other consequences.) But that savings will be more than offset by the cost to society of a new government insurance agency coupled with a down payment of 16,000 new IRS agents. Taxes of high net worth individuals will go up, and some people think that is always fair. But as the return to health care professionals decreases, there will be fewer health care professionals.

The economic logic of this article is baffling, yet it is worth studying because it represents the logic of The New York Times -- and graduates of Harvard. And that alone should scare the daylights out of citizens who can think and take care of themselves without a government subsidy.

The interview was a joke, and was scripted on Democrat talking points — there is no need to be talking about contraception, but we should be talking about the Constitution — BIG TIME. The original hearing that Ms. Fluke was not invited to speak at was about the Constitutional underpinnings of the Obama regulations on the conscience clause as applied, to be sure, to Catholics only. But the Democrats had to hold their own mock “hearing” to make this issue an issue that would give Chris Wallace the cover for his questions. They are undermining the Constitution, guys, little by little, by using ever means at their disposal. And when Rush makes a point by being absurd, the entire Republican “establishment” is ready to throw him under the bus. I will never use a sponsor that drops Rush because of this matter.

Chris Wallace tried to snare Rick Santorum with a run-on question that cannot be characterized as "fair or balanced." In a question that should have been about personal beliefs -- if that is important -- or objections on grounds of conscience or personal belief -- which has never been an issue in America until this week -- or something else, Wallace associated all the evils of the world -- objections to contraception, those evil Republican legislators, and Rush Limbaugh -- in a sandbag question. Then he proceeded with other "gotcha" questions -- "You supported this in 2001, but said you didn't later, and yet your website said in 2006 ..." My goodness, can no one rid of this opinionated blowhard who keeps trying to be relevant and presents himself as "fair and balanced?" This is the same Wallace who used the word "flake" to refer to Michelle Bachmann. He keeps at it, and yet tries to make the right think he is "balanced." He is about as unbalanced -- in at least two ways -- as any host out there.

The New YOrk Times, continuing its attacks on civilization generally, has a kicker in the print edition of this story that reinforces the notion that spending cuts for military spending don't cost as much as say, spending cuts in education and transportation.

When is the Grey Lady going to get a clue that she can't expect to be taken seriously in the future if she keeps making statements that are belied by the facts? The article notes the SERIOUS R&D developments that can be traced to military spending, but does not record the societal benefits of having a trained workforce, of industrial spending, of how historically military spending has helped, how the military spending has created a network of cell towers in Afghanistan, etc. This is a joke of an article.

Look at the “Buy America” provisions. This is so much more stringent than the 1935 Buy America Act — it is the same provision as the original stimulus bill — and caused much confusion in its implementation.

Creating a bankruptcy law for states is a terrible idea. It would expunge the debt to US citizens, but ultimately make the US government responsible for the state debt. The US has refused to be responsible for state debt since the early days of the republic.

The States incurred these obligations. Let's say Illinois incurred an obligation to an American citizen who bought a general obligation bond and a Chinese agency purchased Illinois debt. If the US passes a law giving Illinois the right to default on its debt through a "bankruptcy," the US citizen may be out. He may have a claim under the Constitution because the Federal government has assisted the State in impairing its contract, and he might even win. But he might lose, because the courts might hold that Congress has the power under the bankruptcy clause to establish the rights of the person under the agreement -- even if it deprives him of the right he thought he had when he lent the money to Illinois.

On the other hand, the Chinese agency has a better chance of getting its money back. It can claim its contract is impaired in the US courts, or make a claim under international law to its government, who can make a claim for redress to the US government. China can claim, as the US claimed after 1949, that the property held by its citizens in the US was expropriated, and demand prompt, adequate and effective compensation, as we did after 1949. Why would we favor such a result?

Interesting to see a NY Times correspondent use the term "Give me a break." And particularly being critical of the rule of law in Russia. But the tragedy of this article is that they are being critical of a foreign state that violates the rule of law, brings up trumped-up charges, sets up a dummy corporation to take over the assets, and shove the prior company into bankruptcy. Have they never heard of GM? AIG? Lehman? Somewhere between Eliot Spitzer, Andrew Cuomo and Barack Obama, we have destroyed the rule of law in our own country in just the last few years.

In the GM case, the bondholders had a deal, or GM could have declared bankruptcy. Instead, Barack Obama's negotiator forced the bondholders to accept less to give the unions more. There was no mediation, arbitration, judge or bankruptcy judge. There was just a thug sent from Obama to enforce the payback to the unions. It is not clear whether this story will ever be vinidcated in court.

In the case of AIG, a personal vendetta by Eliot Spitzer against Hank Greenberg tore up the rule of law, and destroyed the mortgage default insurance market. Greenberg has been vindicated in court. But after he lost control, lesser brains destroyed his vision by taking on excessive risk. Then the Feds stepped in the devour the carcass. Maybe it was aggressive, but it could have been better handled in a bankruptcy court -- or any process invoking the rule of law -- than the government suddenly expropriating 79.9% of the stock. Could AIG issue the stock? Did Delaware law allow it? Is it is a violation of the anti-takeover statute of Delaware, the listing company requirements of the New York Stock Exchange, or the SEC's rules? Who cares? What the thugs in Washington want, they get. Who can bring the lawsuit on behalf of the stockholders, who suddenly found their stock worth 20% of its former value?

Lehman is denied access to the Fed window, forcing it to declare bankruptcy, and a week later Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns get protection from the government. Any question that Goldman wanted Lehman gone?

Forget worrying about Yukos. Any investor who puts money in Russia knows what the risks are. The real problem is that we have destroyed the rule of law underpinning the greatest investment-based economy the world has ever known. It seems likely that 2011 and 2012 will reap the whirlwind as investors understand that nothing is safe from this Administration.

No one wants Senator Byrd to die, but after many years of pretending to support the U.S. Constitution, Senator Byrd has finally achieved what he came to Washington to do -- deliver the final death blow to the Constitution and the principle of limited government. This massive nationalization of the free market -- now 16%, soon to be 30%, of the U.S. economy, will require a revolution to undo -- and one that will replace the weak document that Senator Byrd pretended to defend for so long.

It really depends on whether the runner is a wise Latina. You see, the fielder really is the establishment here. The runner is just trying to get ahead and stopped by “the man.” If the runner intends to get to third base, who are we to stop her?

This is very sad. The first stem-U-and-me-from spending bill destroyed private investment. Any more from this Congress will do the same.

It’s not just that it is political payback for things that don’t work. The only figures I’ve seen show that there is a NEGATIVE economic stimulus for every dollar spent — so it is making things worse. But in addition, by preventing the economy from getting to “market clearing” levels, we are precluding any investment — including investment from foreign sovereigns who might yet be persuaded to by our debt.

I don’t think this will blow up in their faces. But if you set out to destroy the Constitution, you’d better finish it off. If they create new powers — such as prosecution of past Administrations — then they’d better make sure that we are a one-party state from this point on. Which is the goal.

That way they don’t have to worry about someone other than Fred Barnes pointing out their corruption.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/695beqni.asp

How embarrassing for Bruce Weber, Tim Tschida and NY Times. Bruce Weber has clearly not read Roe v. Wade, and doesn't even understand the debate over why it is an example of judical activism -- or even more, that it is very difficult to apply. Roe v. Wade is the poster child (so to speak) for why judicial activism is a poor mode of governance for a democracy -- the courts are not the most appropriate vehicle for making new laws.

Yet, after reading this article, one is left with the conclusion that judges MUST make law -- that's what they do -- and that it is silly to uphold a Solomonic ideal of the judge as an independent arbiter. The article concludes that the judge-umpire analogy is "unfair" - a great word for the fair-minded media. And this article will probably be cited by the cognoscenti in DC this week as they refer to it to show that "we don't want just umpires." And the media will probably think they are sounding as erudite as Bill Buckley when they screech, "But is it FAIR for our judges to be just umpires?" And it will sound great on Court TV and CNN to those who long ago stopped thinking for themselves -- like the writers and editors at NY Times.

Of course, in one sense you can't really blame the editors of NY Times and the rest of the media for pitching this fight as an even fight. They do not read the cases, and even the ABA has adopted a resolution supporting "the holding in Roe v. Wade -- whatever that holding was, or what's left of it. They want authoritarian statists for judges for the same reason the ABA does -- it transfers power to a black robed guy or gal that we can trust. Very sad, the desire to be ruled by a strongman reaching into the US.

OK, maybe it's not fair to say Tim Tschida should be embarrassed. He's an umpire; not a law student. He gets his understanding of Roe v. Wade from the media. But the NY Times, the media, the ABA, and those who know better should be embarrassed for continuing to promote this myth.

Michelle Bachman is saying she will not answer the Census questions because of the involvement of ACORN. How is it that the Congress cannot fund civil servants to take the Census, as we have in the past? Why do we need ACORN's help at all? And why hasn't ACORN been debarred from these types of activities, given the numerous violations of Federal crimes involving voting?

Our post 9/11 world really goes back to Leon Klinghoffer; it’s just that we have been too slow to respond to the growing desire and ability of radical Muslim groups to export terrorism from their own people.

Iraq has been a difficult way to respond, but it was a response. There were 14 grounds the UN Security Council laid out for authorizing the use of force against Iraq. WMD was only one of them. Hussein was shooting at our planes, paying $25K bounties to the families of every suicide bomber in Israel, etc. Maybe we should have dealt with Iran first, but that seems more tractable, particularly given the pro-Western stance of many of its people. Afghanistan and Pakistan are pro-Western governments, so it will be a long hard slog to stabilize them against a well-financed insurgency. But it was better to have a strategy than none in a post 9-11 world.

The Republican Party is not afraid to be the party of ideas in this world — whether on foreign or domestic issues. The Democrats are using the same tactics and ideas they used in the 70s, or even the 30s (read: The Forgotten Man- uncanny). They are bereft of ideas, and it is too bad, because we need all Americans united in the world we face.

Palin is right in looking at the details of the “Stem-You-and-Me” package. It includes lots of mandates. Even if it didn’t, the Feds are making it clear that once a State is hooked on the money, the Feds can change the rules. At least the Republican leaders can still think for themselves (except maybe some of those who have been on the gravy train too long themselves).

Sotomayor’s comments reflect a milieu where things like what she said can be said — and not appear insensitive or hateful. The media is in this milieu, so they can’t see the hatefulness in these words.

Bankers are moving with their feet to companies that are not regulated by Uncle Sam. This will cause an even more rapid migration of the financial services industry to London, Shanghai, Moscow and even Paris -- places where the rule of law still prevails. And Geithner and Obama still think they will get private investors to co-invest with the US government, when we no longer stand for the rule of law, much less the Constitutional right to property rights? This is ridiculous, and I am sorry that I will have to feel his pain with the President, but there will be more pain unless they get rid of this team.

Well, at least one other. James Haas, rounding out the top three bonus recipients, gave $500 to Dodd in 1998. Poling’s donations appear twice on 11/21/2006. Not clear if that is a double payment totaling $4,200, but the general counsel of AIG clearly felt that there was some benefit to large donations. (I wonder if it showed up in the calculations for his bonus?)
The problem is that AIG has a lot of insurance subsidiaries who also have donors giving, and a site like OpenSecrets.org won't be able to pull up all the connections to Dodd and AIG.