One would hope that the lessons of Iraq might inform more of the coverage of Syria. But that’s not always the case. Over the course of the past week, the White House and various officials have been adamant that they have evidence that shows the Syrian government was responsible for the horrific attack last week that likely killed hundreds, and very well could have been a chemical or gas attack of some sort.
But too many journalists were treating what the government said it knew as if it was already actual evidence. On NBC Nightly News (8/27/13), Andrea Mitchell reported that “officials tell NBC News they have intelligence intercepts tying the attack to the regime, plus physical evidence.”
And on NPR‘s All Things Considered (8/27/13), Mara Liasson reported:
We now hear that U.S. intelligence officials are getting ready to release some intercepted communications that they believe will be even more evidence that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who ordered this chemical attack.
What Liasson is “hearing” is so convincing that she apparently considers it “even more evidence” that Assad is responsible–though no evidence had been made public.
On NBC Nightly News (8/29/13), Chuck Todd explained:
The White House believes the case against Assad is clear-cut. And here’s why. NBC News has learned one of the key pieces of evidence that the U.S. has to prove Assad’s regime was behind the chemical attack is an intercepted communication that says Assad’s brother–a commander of the Syrian Republican guard–personally ordered the attack. That’s why, Lester, the president is so confident about where he stands on this.
This is curious when compared to more critical takes, like a report from the New York Times the same day (8/29/13):
American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground.
The Times went on to characterize the intelligence that would be made public as more like a “modest news release.” This proved to be an accurate description of the sketchy supporting document that accompanied Secretary of State John Kerry’s presentation on Friday.
An Associated Press story that day (8/29/13) reported:
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was “undeniable” a chemical weapons attack had occurred and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report.
But so much of the coverage treats the case as basically closed. Here’s how ABC anchor Diane Sawyer opened her World News broadcast on August 27:
The clock is ticking on US military action in Syria. The White House says a decision is near and US warships are in position. And the rest of the world is also joining the debate about what kind of action and exactly when. The goal, to stop a man using brutal chemical weapons 5,000 miles away.
It is, of course, entirely possible that the Syrian regime carried out these horrific attacks. But journalism should stick to the facts that are known, and refrain from treating government claims as if they are facts.
Ten years ago, the intelligence shared by the Bush administration convinced many in the media that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was based on intercepted phone calls, satellite imagery and the like. It turned out to be completely wrong.
That doesn’t mean the government isn’t telling the truth this time around. But journalists would be better off starting from the premise that the Iraq lesson provides a cautionary tale.
If you’re against intervention in Syria, that’s fine, but can we please stop pretending like al-Assad didn’t use chemical weapons? Who the fuck else used them? The rebels? They’re going to risk alienating themselves by attacking the very people they claim to be fighting for? Instead of, say, launching those chemical weapons on the presidential palace in Damascus?
Really Matthew? And explain the strategy Assad was keying in on using them when he was already winning the civil war? He was hoping his military targets would get hit by cruise missiles?
On the other hand (and I can’t believe you really haven’t thought about this…but maybe some of us understand military strategy a bit better than you do), “why would the rebels do it?” Well, because they ARE losing the civil war and they’re desperate for direct intervention by the west to help them push back and possibly put them in power. The rebels would have all the reasons to do it…I can’t think of one reason Assad would. So can you please stop telling other people to “stop” pointing out the obvious problems with the official narrative?
Sawyer’s words — carefully and shrewdly scripted by some shadowy PR puppet that has close ties to the Hill — are quite telling.
“The clock is ticking on US military action in Syria…”
Right off the bat, the metaphor suggests “we are running out of time and better act quickly, otherwise more blood will be on the hands of US for not acting.”
“… The White House says a decision is near and US warships are in position.”
This further suggests or assumes military action is unequivocally immanent; the question now is, just how much military action? Again, this completely glosses the fact that the UN and British PM have voted down any military action, and that less than 1 out of every 10 Americans supports military action. There is zero domestic, international nor coalition coordination and yet our military warships are in position?! Yet this context is ignored by ABC.
“…And the rest of the world is also joining the debate about what kind of action and exactly when.”
Apparently ABC has licked their finger and held it up to gauge the wind of the stale, neutral space found inside agitprop imaginarium of bloated elitists that wish to police the world with gaseous promises of peace (puns fully intended, if over exerted). There is no debate to be had here, Diane, because no facts have been brought to the table; only a pinky swearing Secretary of State.
Jack Y, you’ve been listening to too much Alex Jones. You’re not being a free-thinking radical liberal by opposing any form of US intervention, you’re just defending secular fascism under the guise of Arab nationalism.
Who’s Alex Jones?
And you still didn’t answer my questions Matthew…I answered yours. What motivation would Assad have? Instead you toss out guilt by association instead (with a dash of shoot the messenger)…shows you have a weak argument. How am I defending either of those things by saying it’s not a national defense issue? I could easily just say “you’re defending al Qaeda” too…but that would be just as lame as your attempt at a reply.
Matthew
A VERY INCOMPLETE HISTORY OF US GOVERNMENT VERACITY
Tonkin Gulf – Viet Nam.
Preemies in incubators thrown on floor in Kuwait – 1st Gulf war and continuous bombing of Iraq until:
“Slam dunk evidence” of WMDs brings us Gulf War II.
Meanwhile, Iran offers to deliver Osama bin Laden, US turns down the offer. Taliban offers to deliver him to US if US furnishes proof that he was involved in the unfortunate events in downtown Manhattan. US prefers to go to war with Afghanistan.
(Men associated with rebel forces were busted in Turkey with 41/2 lbs. of sarin.)
If you believe ANYTHING the government tells you about an upcoming war, please consult me first about toll bridges in your area that can be bought for just pennies on the dollar.
That doesn’t mean the government isn’t telling the truth this time around. But journalists would be better off starting from the premise that the Iraq lesson provides a cautionary tale. – The Ariticle
That presupposes the real issue at hand is a full and informed debate in the first place, not “obfuscation”. There is no money (They think) in selling facts. You can’t get people worked up for the two minute hate if they have nothing to hate on.
My only question is, “who fucking cares if Assad used them?” We are not the world policeman and we need to stop trying to be. We have more than enough work over here to deal with. Let the UN take care of this.
Jack Y, No you didn’t answer my question. Why would rebels use chemical weapons on civilians instead of al-Assad. The US long ago said they aren’t putting boots on the ground or enforcing a no-fly zone. It’s not like these limited strikes on Syrian military installations are suddenly going to turn the tide of war in the rebels favor. Assad still has air superiority. Cratering his runways might ground his jets but helicopter gunships don’t need runways. As for why Assad would do it? He’s been doing it for months and getting away with it. Le Monde documented this in May (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1089jc_guerre-chimique-a-damas_news#from=embediframe). Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes claimed so in June (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/13/191395435/report-u-s-europe-conclude-syria-used-chemical-weapons). al-Assad miscalculated and thought he could continue to use chemical weapons with impunity. I agree with you that this is not a national defense issue, but to do nothing would be a complete moral failure on the world’s part. I remember when the civil war began people feared that the death toll could rise to 10,000 much like the number of people massacred during Hafez al-Assad’s crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Hama back in the 80s. The death toll is now more 100,000. How many more should die at the hands of this regime. After Obama bombs Syria he should also bomb Egyptian army barracks for slaughtering people merely for protesting a military coup
@Mathew
UN determined that the “rebels” were responsible for the chemical fracas in April…the US govt has been terrorizing its sheep for 10 years with bold, positive, unequivocal assertions that “Al Qaeda ” have a “chemical weaposns capability”..thats who the most avctive and heavily US supported Syrian “rebels” are – Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra terrorists.
These christian killing, church burning, liver eating Saudi financed al Qaeda affiliated death squads are foreign invaders trying to bamboozle the Americans into a rescue of their failed military campaign to force Sharia law down the throats of an unwilling Syrian population. When it is demonstrated that they are responsible for the chemical attack will Obama strike out at them? Don’t bet on it.
Yeah, much of that “intelligence” comes from Israel, if that tells you anything. what’s frustrating is it make zero sense that Assad would have ordered this attack, because a) he well knows it’s our “red line,” and b) our flippin weapons inspectors were THERE at the time! I understand we’ll be using some new missiles fresh off Raytheon’s assembly line. It’s all becoming clear now.
This is just another cover up by the administration. They are hiding the fact that their needless attack on an ally Libya let loose to the Mooslim Brother hood Thousands of chemical weapons and now they are being used.
Until the administration releases the Intel on what they have, and that’s the so called classified, Obama should be impeached if he fires 1 missile
Silly humans.
Funny that if Johnny Lind Walker were in Syria today and fighting to defend the Assad government from defeat by the AQ- backed rebels, he would be, in any US court, indicted for terrorism. Why? Because he would be fighting to defend the internationally recognized government of Syria against overthrow by Islamic extremists. Our disconnected policies and splayed efforts would be laughable and hilarious all at once, were their consequences not so sad for so many people.
Thanks and kudos to Clarence and Jack Y!
John Wolfe: You mean like they arrested a US vet for fighting alongside the rebels?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/eric-harroun-who-fought-with-syrian-rebels-loses-a-court-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The rebels would use the weapons to get foreign support…I already said that and it’s not overly complicated. If you are in a desperate situation, as it appears they are, it becomes even more likely they would and less likely Assad would for a variety of reasons.
Nobody claims the state is responsible for all those deaths…as you implied. You’re right, Assad is a horrible Dictator…since when does the US care about that though? So there are obviously other reasons “we care” about that in Syria. Right? So pretty much any “moral authority” we claim to have is gone at that point anyway…so to say it would be a “moral failure” is a premise based on a fallacy to begin with…that the US government cares enough about human rights for it to be a primary reason for military action, and that we have any certifiable proof of who did it in the first place. “Deputy National Security Advisers” can claim a lot of things…because there’s no consequence if they are “wrong”. What some hawk claims is of no significance of course…or have you forgot all the moral platitudes about human rights and moral responsibilities from former this and that from the State Dept. to the Joint Chiefs to politicians…etc. etc. prior to the WMB in Iraq fiasco? I haven’t. There are many different videos out there reporting it was the rebels using it here…so why does one French article matter more than the others. Are the French unable to produce propaganda?
Hell, the one link that site the “official” we are supposed to have faith in also then quotes our esteemed moral authority John McCain saying Arizona Sen. John McCain, speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, said that he believes the decision to provide military support to the Syrian opposition “is not enough.”
“I applaud the president’s decision, and I appreciate it,” McCain said. “But the president of the United States ought to understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground — the balance of power.”
“Syrian butchers have used chemical weapons, which we all know is a red line,” McCain said, reiterating his call for imposing a no-fly zone over Syria and for airstrikes to “take out Assad’s air assets.”
Now I’m really convinced…lol.
I think there’s more evidence that the Saudis supplied these weapons to the rebels, who mishandled them, and inadvertently used them on the victims. There is more than one reason British Parliament refused to join the US in military intervention…
Padramellyrn good God but we agree…..Im wondering why it is a done deal that we act ,even IF Assad admits he did it.This is what the UN was designed for.And if they vote to go, I think we should by all means contribute.But where is it written that we are all the worlds first responders?Certainly I can name other horror stories in this world that we are completely blind to.Africa comes to mind.This does prove one of my sayings though.The UN is as useless as tits on a bull.
When in the past 50 years has a US administration, Democrat or Republican, told the complete truth before military action? This is every bit as fishy as Iraq was.
And Matthew, asking a rhetorical question isn’t proof.
Something off the cuff here as it were but this Assad character looks like my old science teacher in high school.Mr Stainiak.Mr Stain(as we called him)was evil himself.There is a point here.This milktoast does not look like the Hitler John Kerry portrays him to be.Or seemed to be when Kerry and his wife dined with him on several occasions back slapping and having a gay old time.And you wonder why we are a laughing stock.Why our enemies don’t respect us.and our friends fear….FOR US!!