Most recent updates are the bottom.

Today's much delayed White House briefing.

Carney just blamed the CIA. That'l end well.

He also said that everything the public knows was provided by the administration. Given the need for whistleblowers to come forward, I'm calling bullshit.

He's also saying the talking points were based on what the CIA said. The CIA said an al Qaeda related group was involved, Rice said it was a protest over a video.

Also, it's the Republicans fault. He actually brought up Romney's statement.

He just said none of the talking points were changed because of a worry about Congress. Rice's email said she was worried about the way Congress might use it.

Carney is a willing liar, he's just not a very good one.

Reminder: The head of the US mission in Libya after Amb. Stevens death said the YouTube video was not an issue in Libya. And yet, somehow that became the talking point.

CNN is sticking it to Carney that the changes we've seen in the talking point wasn't a "stylistic change". Carney is acting as if State Department isn't part of the administration.

Jon Karl now hitting Carney over the removal of references to prior attacks in Benghazi. Surprisingly, Carney places responsibility on the CIA.

Now it's all a partisan distraction.

I'm going to slow down on the updates, it's just the same lies over and over again.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:47 AM | Comments (433)
Post contains 259 words, total size 1 kb.

Bound to be a doozy. We've got Benghazi and the IRS thing and the White House just pissed off all the reporters.

Live video is starting now (3:33).

I can't transcribe/discuss like Ace usually does, but if you're interested.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:32 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

If you're partial to these sorts of things, here's 17 minutes taken from various tracks of Hans Zimmer's 'Man of Steel' soundtrack.

It comes out June 11th. I'm really looking forward to it. I still frequently listen to Zimmer's 'The Dark Knight' and, less frequently, 'Dark Knight Rises.' It's time for a new one.

You better believe the cobs have more content on the way. But for now, this is an open thread.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:49 AM | Comments (165)
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

After suffering years of sub-par temperatures, ocean levels and hurricanes, tornadoes have joined the club * this year.

While admitting that cool temps are the likely culprit, the article does reassure the faith of its flock:

Weather Underground meteorologist Jeff Masters said. "The extraordinary contrast underscores the crazy fluctuations we've seen in Northern Hemisphere jet stream patterns during the past three years," he said. "Call it 'weather whiplash' of the tornado variety."

It goes without saying that "Crazy" and unpredictable weather is an historical anomaly. That is as obvious a proof of their models' ironclad Oven Earth prognostications as any statistical swerve to those halcyon days of the 1900's where the weather was marginally cooler and less whiplashy (Serealy, Guys, we all know that if no Doppler radar existed to witness a remote tornado, then the tornado never existed).

[ahem]

Look, they are Sciency-tists, man. Back Off.

* It's a very secret club. Members greet each other by pulling out a stuffed animal that looks like an amalgamation of a man, a bear and a pig, and mime violating it. **

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:15 AM | Comments (189)
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action.”—Ian Fleming's “Gold Finger”

I was reminded of this quote yesterday when I saw a spate of articles musing on the relationship between conservatives, the federal government and the “common good”.

First, there was Peter Wehner at Commentary arguing that conservatives have become too focused on individualism and less concerned about the “common good”.

The emphasis one hears these days has to do almost solely with liberty, which of course is vital. But there is also the trap of hyper-individualism. What’s missing, I think, is an appropriate appreciation–or at least a public appreciation–for community, social solidarity, and the common good; for the obligations and attachments we have to each other and the role institutions play in forming those attachments.

As I noted at my little blog

Wehner never points to any examples of conservatives retreating from the community. Does he think conservatives are eschewing participation in churches or other religious communities? Have they stopped participating in their childrenÂ’s schools, Little Leagues, or Scouting programs? Have conservatives abandoned volunteer groups or charities? Are there no conservatives who serve as volunteer firefighters? Or on the local school board?

We are never told by Wehner how conservatives actually have demonstrated a lack of “an appropriate appreciation” for the “common good”. It is simply asserted.

There is one hint as to what Wehner maybe referring to. He speaks of, “the role institutions play in forming those attachments”. Whener never identifies what “institutions” he is taking about but having already identified a number of communal “institutions” I think conservatives are very much attached to, I’d say it’s fair to infer the institution that dare not speak its name is “government”.

Ok, thatÂ’s just happenstance.

But lo and behold! Coincidently Matt Lewis publishes a piece the same day entitled, “A conservative defense of government".

While most conservatives concede that we need some social safety net, they are mostly worried about the out-of-control growth of the redistributive state. And yet, too seldom is that distinction made. Instead, the criticism is usually directed at "government."
When it comes to government, a lot of conservatives are probably too obsessed with size. Grover Norquist famously wants to shrink government to such a small size that you can drown it in a bathtub.

But I'm not sure most Americans want that. And trying to force it via draconian cuts doesn't work, especially if they don't address the specific problem, such as the need for entitlement reform. "You can't make a fat man skinny by tightening his belt," observed John Maynard Keynes.

Whether you're a conservative who cares about preserving law and order, or a free marketer who appreciates the importance the rule of law plays in providing confidence and incentives to entrepreneurs, you're a fan of government. Stop pretending otherwise.

As Philip Klein pointed out LewisÂ’ column is a crime against straw men. (Coincidentally, thatÂ’s the same charge I made against Wehner).

Why the sudden respect from the right for government and the role it plays in America? Well, that’s where the 3rd piece comes in. It turns out the night before these posts show up, Paul Ryan gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute entitled “Conservatism and Community”.

And there we find our “enemy action”. The pro-government wing of the GOP is laying out its markers in the battle for the future of the party and the conservative movement.

Of the three pieces, I like RyanÂ’s the best (though in the end the supposed policies he wants to institute to restrain government will lock in place a lot of the big government we already have). He comes at it from the perspective of a politician who wants to convince moderates and liberals of the righteousness of the conservative case.

Wehner is a part of George W. Bush’s big government/”Compassionate Conservatism” group whose only interest in fighting liberals is over which kinds of big government programs we have, not whether or not we should have them.

Lewis strikes me mostly as someone who wants to climb the media food-chain and the easiest way for a conservative to do that is to be the “reasonable conservative” that MSM bookers will bring on to bash actual conservatives.

Make no mistake, there’s a war being fought for direction of the party and the movement. What we saw yesterday is simply one of the many attacks the activist government wing of the GOP/conservative movement are launching in response to the Cruz/Rand Paul “fight to shrink the government” wing.

As IÂ’ve said before, the activist wing makes the most political sense if youÂ’re worried about the 2014, 2016 or any election in the next decade or two. But if youÂ’re interested in challenging and trying to change the underlying big government assumptions of the bi-partisan governing and media classes youÂ’re going to have to take a longer term view of things.

As Ronald Reagan put it, itÂ’s a time for choosing.

Added: A couple of people have pointed to this speech by Mike Lee to say it's along the lines of Ryan's speech. I want to think about it a bit more but I don't agree.

Yes, they have a similar focus and underpinning but Ryan comes off much more as a technocrat who wants to make government work better. As I said in the post, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Ryan's point of view but I think it concedes too much ground to the status quo.

Maybe the biggest difference between Ryan and Lee is just tone but A-I don't think so (Lee voted against the Ryan budget because it grew the size of government) and B- even if it is, tone and emphasis are important things. Lee has the better of both over Ryan.

Keep in mind there are some very big differences between Ryan's plan and Rand Paul's approach (one of them is that Paul's isn't even remotely possible in the current political climate because it aggressively reduces government).

Posted by: DrewM at 09:28 AM | Comments (165)
Post contains 1006 words, total size 7 kb.

Wow. What a week. Benghazi. IRS. So much out there for journalists to sink their teeth into and yet, they avoid it like the plague. Of course they parrot the IRS talking points that there wasn't any political bias in their wayward investigations.

approximately 75 of the 300 groups that were filed for further review were simply filed because they had the names "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.

"They did pick the cases by names and that's absolutely inappropriate and not the way we should do things," she said, though stressing it was done as a "shortcut," not out of "political bias."

But don't worry, they are only "rogue, low level" agents that did this. Nobody in position of authority knew. Does anyone in position of authority know anything in this administration? more...

Posted by: CDR M at 06:02 PM | Comments (790)
Post contains 858 words, total size 7 kb.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews.

Lerner said the practice, initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati, was wrong and she apologized while speaking at a conference in Washington.

I think the most amazing part of this story isn't that conservative groups were singled out. It isn't that the IRS even apologized. It's that about 50 journalists on twitter all just said the equivalent of "Wow, I can't belive that. I'd never even heard about that."

Iowahawk was talking about Benghazi when he wrote this, but it's one of those universal truths:

There's a lot unanswered questions here, not that I expect any journalists to show more than passing interest.

(1) When did the IRS malfeasance occur and when did it become public?
(2) Has anyone been disciplined for the IRS malfeasance. What are their names? What was the discipline?
(3) How did it happen that "low-level staffers" could cause such trouble?
(4) Why did no "high-level staffers" put a stop to it?
(5) How can this be prevented in the future?
(6) Which groups, specifically, were targeted?
(7) How much did the inappropriate targeting cost the groups?
( Are these the same staffers that are going to be working on Obamacare implementation?

That's a start. Oh, and, not to go all conspiracy theory on your asses, but isn't it nice that this story dropped on a Friday? Sooner than you think it'll just be old news.

Update: Glenn Greenwald (yes, that Gleen Grenwald) had a nice catch on Twitter. Last year, the NYTimes editorial board praised the IRS for targeting Tea Party groups:

These groups, which already have 501(c)(4) status, should be as thoroughly investigated as any Tea Party chapter applying for that tax exempt status. So should two other blatant offenders: the conservative American Action Network, a “social welfare” claimant reported by the Center for Public Integrity to have spent more than 80 percent of its expenditures on the 2010 elections; and Americans Elect, a third-party effort enjoying “social welfare” secrecy as it secures ballot space across the nation.

At the moment, the IRS press office is telling folks who call that they have no information about the targeting or even the apology.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:30 AM | Comments (252)
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

After yet another glaring example of either ignoring or being ignorant of the code as written, the press has brought out the long knives to demand transparency from the ruling elite.

Ben what? No, I'm talking baseball.

Ben Ghazi? Who is he?
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:50 AM | Comments (133)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Via National Review's Morning Jolt email newsletter.

"When it became clear last fall that the CIA's now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

Here's the kicker: "In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned . . ."

Yes, I'd be "concerned" if I were a politically ambitious Secratery of State about the truth getting out about how my department absolutely fell down on the job of providing adequate security to the Benghazi facility and that directly led to the death of four Americans.

These incompetent sons of bitches got people killed and all they cared about was saving their sorry ass reputations.

Added: Democrats are working to get reporters to smear Benghazi whistleblowers. Amazingly, some are reporting on that and not doing Obama's dirty work.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:24 AM | Comments (217)
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

From the looks of it, it could fly. I'll give them that much.

...Defence Minister General Ahmad Vahidi was quoted as saying the Epic, which can fly at high altitudes, is a "stealth aircraft that cannot be detected by enemies."...

Given the slab side fuselage, upright'ish vertical stabs, and dangly (apparently non retracting) landing gear, Iranian claims of stealthiness are HIGHLY suspect...although its radar profile would be somewhat less than Mt. Fuji.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:47 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.