Excuse Me, WHAT?
From the AP's coverage of the Baghdad press conference 'revealing' the government's evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq:
Since when are the American people not entitled to know who is telling them 'facts'? Have these alleged 'experts', these 'senior military officials', forgotten who is paying their salaries?
Frankly, if a man isn't willing to even give me his name, it casts quite a bit of doubt on everything he does say. That seems such a natural response that it makes me wonder if, perhaps, it wasn't the intention behind their refusal to be identified by name. Is it possible that, in some way, the trio wanted to cast doubt on their own presentation? Or is it merely that they don't want to be easily identified later?
One also has to question the legitimacy of revealing this material for the first time at a press conference in Baghdad. Surely if the administration has, as the article claims, spent weeks on preparation and revision of this presentation, it had time to arrange for it to be held in Washington, perhaps at a Congressional hearing? Why, in weeks of preparation couldn't they have shown their material to outside experts, and had them present to corroborate their assertions? Ones who would even be willing to give their names to the public?
This is all the more curious in light of the acknowledgement that the presentation was heavily revised "after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month." One can only imagine how amateurish the original must have seemed for this to be an improvement.
I have to admit to another disappointment that at least four major news organizations participated in this exercise, keeping the briefers anonymous. In addition to the AP, the Washington Post, AFP and Reuters each carried the story. Given the track record of this administration is manipulating the public through leaks, restricting information and misleading background briefings, it's far past time for major news organizations to stop playing along. The entire point of this exercise is for the press to be there; the press should dictate its terms, and set a high standard to inform the public. The Washington Post describes the ground rules:
The administration is not behaving the way an honest, responsible government of a democratic nation and world leader should behave. They are providing allegations, while denying us the most elementary elements of actual proof, including their names. They are releasing these allegations in far-flung places like Seville and Baghdad, tossing them to reporters instead of reporting to the people's elected representatives in Washington. And even now, when thousands have died following a remarkably similar media campaign leading up to the invasion of Iraq (now thoroughly discredited to our nation's everlasting shame) they make no acknowledgment of an increased burden of proof. There is no effort to bolster their case with external sources, not even a contemptuous "The British government has learned ... "
It seems possible that Iran may be doing some, or all, of the things that are being alleged (though recent reports from the British haven't revealed it.) But the behavior of the administration since the State of the Union couldn't be designed better to convince me of exactly the opposite. This long-delayed presentation just makes it worse.
Three senior military officials who explained the display said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.What kind of a comedy show are we talking about here? This is the Government of the friggin' United States, holding an event to present 'evidence' of acts by another government associated with the deaths of American soldiers, and the people doing the presentation are not even willing to give their names?
The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of arming the Hezbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon. The officials said the EFP weapon was first tested there. (emphasis mine.)
Since when are the American people not entitled to know who is telling them 'facts'? Have these alleged 'experts', these 'senior military officials', forgotten who is paying their salaries?
Frankly, if a man isn't willing to even give me his name, it casts quite a bit of doubt on everything he does say. That seems such a natural response that it makes me wonder if, perhaps, it wasn't the intention behind their refusal to be identified by name. Is it possible that, in some way, the trio wanted to cast doubt on their own presentation? Or is it merely that they don't want to be easily identified later?
One also has to question the legitimacy of revealing this material for the first time at a press conference in Baghdad. Surely if the administration has, as the article claims, spent weeks on preparation and revision of this presentation, it had time to arrange for it to be held in Washington, perhaps at a Congressional hearing? Why, in weeks of preparation couldn't they have shown their material to outside experts, and had them present to corroborate their assertions? Ones who would even be willing to give their names to the public?
This is all the more curious in light of the acknowledgement that the presentation was heavily revised "after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month." One can only imagine how amateurish the original must have seemed for this to be an improvement.
I have to admit to another disappointment that at least four major news organizations participated in this exercise, keeping the briefers anonymous. In addition to the AP, the Washington Post, AFP and Reuters each carried the story. Given the track record of this administration is manipulating the public through leaks, restricting information and misleading background briefings, it's far past time for major news organizations to stop playing along. The entire point of this exercise is for the press to be there; the press should dictate its terms, and set a high standard to inform the public. The Washington Post describes the ground rules:
The officials said they would speak only on the condition of anonymity, so the explosives expert and the analyst, who would normally not speak to the news media, could provide information directly. The analyst's exact title and full name were not revealed to reporters. The officials released a PowerPoint presentation including photographs of the weaponry, but did not allow media representatives to record, photograph or videotape the briefing or the materials on display.Why should we have to put up with that crap? This isn't 2002. It's time for the press to start saying, "Sorry, that's not good enough. We're leaving, and taking our press access with us, until you are ready to come clean with names, and let us record and videotape anything you show us. You want to get this information in front of millions of people in the US and the world? Stop playing games."
The administration is not behaving the way an honest, responsible government of a democratic nation and world leader should behave. They are providing allegations, while denying us the most elementary elements of actual proof, including their names. They are releasing these allegations in far-flung places like Seville and Baghdad, tossing them to reporters instead of reporting to the people's elected representatives in Washington. And even now, when thousands have died following a remarkably similar media campaign leading up to the invasion of Iraq (now thoroughly discredited to our nation's everlasting shame) they make no acknowledgment of an increased burden of proof. There is no effort to bolster their case with external sources, not even a contemptuous "The British government has learned ... "
It seems possible that Iran may be doing some, or all, of the things that are being alleged (though recent reports from the British haven't revealed it.) But the behavior of the administration since the State of the Union couldn't be designed better to convince me of exactly the opposite. This long-delayed presentation just makes it worse.
posted by Paul at 9:06 PM |
|
email this
