er bombing the tunnel network, number one, we can count the number of deaths because they're still in the tunnels, right? Do you think it's only 100 people have died after the tunnel network got bombed? Was the tunnel network so lame that there were only a few dozen people in it? I feel like they got a lot more deaths than this but who knows, right? It's going to be hard to count people who are pre-buried. So the beauty of bombing the terrorists in the tunnels is that you don't have to have a funeral with a body. There's no photograph of the body. There's just bombs and then that's all you know. They're pre-buried.

So then there's additional story that says that maybe Israel used the foreign press and lied to them. This is the allegation, that Israel directly and repeatedly lied to entities like the New York Times so that they would report there was going to be a ground invasion. At the same time, reportedly — I don't know how reliable this is — but reportedly Israel was telling Israeli media sources, "No, there's totally not going to be a ground invasion." Now I don't know if this is true. Is it true that they really told the local media no ground invasion at the same time they were telling the New York Times and others, "Oh, totally ground invasion"? No, no. But what is the net effect of that? Well the net effect of that is to make the press that is not already owned by presumably the Israeli secret service or whatever, it makes any independent press in another country less credible. Less credible. Because if you knew that the main press in the United States had gotten a story this big about an Israeli invasion and gotten it wrong, what are you going to think the next time they have a story about Israel? You're going to think, "Well this is the same one who got that last story wrong."

So Israel is taking out the media. They're taking out any media in terms of credibility and they're taking out a building of the media which feels like a warning as well, even if the real target was some other asset in the building.

Glenn Greenwald has a good Substack article on Liz Cheney and says that she lied about her role in spreading the discredited CIA Russian bounty story. Now the dispute is that Cheney was asked about it and said that she had only talked about it as an "if," as in if it's true then we should act a certain way and if it's true then Trump is doing the wrong stuff. If it's true. Now her claim is that she always talked about it in the conditional, "if it's true." Glenn Greenwald objects to that characterization with lots of examples of things she said. But when I look at exactly the things she said it's really carefully chosen. For example some of her words were about "it is reported." If somebody says "it has been reported," does that sound like "if" to you? Does that sound like "if it's true"? If somebody says "it has been reported," well I think if I interpret Glenn Greenwald correctly, and I might not be, but if I do he's saying that that's more of a direct statement that it's true because you're mentioning the report. You're not using the word "if." But it's really kind of gray in my opinion because it's really careful wording to