Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
My news and social media filters are ensure I see news from Libya. I click on stories about Libya, so I’m served up news from Libya. But usually the stories come from British or European news agencies, not American ones. For example, I just checked Google news under the obvious search term (Libya), and found the following items. The first ran yesterday in the New York Times’ blog section:
But note the sources of all the subsequent items:
Isis weapons seized in Libya by Brigade 166 (The Independent)
When I keep scrolling through the results, I see very little American coverage. There’s an occasional item in Huffpo, a Wall Street Journal item here and there. But basically, it looks to me as if Libya has just dropped off the news. Not so if I use the term Benghazi. Click on that and see what I mean.
This seems strange to me. Surely there’s an even bigger concern here than the Benghazi scandal; to wit, whether or not Congress declared it, the United States went to war. Seems to me we might be curious about the outcome of such a serious decision.
This is probably one reason we have no news coverage (last reported in January, in the New Yorker):
The violence has killed off the local media that flourished after the overthrow of Qaddafi. After four decades of censorship, there were suddenly more than a hundred newspapers, magazines, and journals. Now those publications have disappeared, and all foreign human-rights groups have had to leave the country. Nearly no foreign journalists go to Libya. This week, in response to the kidnapping of two Tunisian reporters, a group of Libyan civil-society organizations and activists issued a statement about the severity of the violence against journalists. “In the past year alone fourteen journalists were assassinated” and “dozens more kidnapped and remain missing,” they said.
Hilary Clinton is being pilloried for deleting e-mails from her server, but there’s an even more obvious scandal here, isn’t there? The Secretary of State favored a very significant US military intervention. An unwise use of the military is far more scandalous in any normal hierarchy of moral and political priorities.
Can anyone say this sounds like a desirable outcome? Why do you think there’s now so little concern about whether she was right to back the intervention itself?