President Joe Biden speaks during a meeting with the Presidents’ Advisory Council on Science and Technology at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex
Highlight
- US President Biden’s administration asked for evidence to support claims of national security
- His administration said: You have to trust us on that.
- In a recent poll on Biden’s transparency, 66% said they have “some doubts and objections.”
When US President Biden’s administration was asked last week for evidence to support dramatic claims about the evolution of national security, it protested with a simple counter-argument: You have to trust us on that.
No, they will not state what prompted them to say that they knew that Russia was plotting a false flag operation on the pretext of invading Ukraine. No, they would not explain their belief that civilian casualties were caused by a suicide bombing rather than by US special forces during a raid in Syria.
The administration’s response took a particularly caustic turn as the spokesperson suggested that journalists were buying into foreign propaganda by asking such questions.
The lack of transparency stifled an already depleted stock of credibility in Washington, a vital resource reduced over decades by examples of lies, lies and mistakes on everything from extramarital affairs to Iraq’s lack of weapons of mass destruction. Gone.
The exchanges were also a sign of the Biden administration’s growing skepticism when it comes to intelligence and military matters, especially after officials failed to predict how quickly the Afghan government would fall to the Taliban last year and initially the US in Kabul. Missile attack was defended. Several civilians were killed but no terrorists were killed in a “religious strike” before the Pentagon confirmed the action.
“This administration has made statements in the past that have not been proven accurate,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. “Kabul was not safe. Drone attack killed civilians. The press is doing its job when it asks, ‘How do you know that?'”
The latest investigation struck a nerve, resulting in thorny talks with White House press secretary Jen Psaki and State Department spokesman Ned Price, also amid a generally contentious relationship between the government and the press.
Jamieson described the reactions, which included allegations that journalists were being described as “completely unfair”.
“These are cases in which the role of journalists is even more consequential because the cases” – the use of deadly force by the US military and a possible war in Europe – “are very important,” she said.
The first exchange took place on Thursday in Air Force One en route to New York as Saki took questions about the US special forces raid in Syria that resulted in the death of Islamic State leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Quraishi.
US officials said al-Quraishi killed himself and his family with a suicide bomb, but NPR’s Ayesha Rasco said that “there may be people who doubt the events that happened and what happened to civilians.” happened.”
Psaki asked whether the reporter was suggesting that “ISIS is providing accurate information” as opposed to the US military.
“I mean, America hasn’t always been straightforward about what happens to civilians,” Rasco replied.
Asked about his comments, Psaki said on Friday that “we welcome tough questions and investigations in good faith.”
She said officials were committed to providing as many details as possible about the raids in Syria and that she was relying on “the first reports from our elite troops” to describe the incident.
Price similarly disputed a reporter at a State Department briefing on Thursday when US officials said Russia was preparing a “false flag” operation as a preparatory action to invade Ukraine. The alleged plan included a staged explosion and cast actors to portray people mourning the dead.
Read also | Russia-Ukraine conflict: what Moscow wants, the interests of the West | Explained
“Where’s the Unclassified Information?” asked Matthew Lee of the Associated Press.
“I just delivered it,” Price said.
“No, you made too many allegations,” replied Lee.
Price said US officials need to protect “sources and methods.” After a tumultuous controversy back and forth, Price said that if journalists “want to find solace in the information being provided by the Russians, this is for you.”
He later withdrew his comments.
Jim Himes, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the administration hopes to prevent Russia from following a false flag plot by publicly airing the allegations.
“It’s not really a question of winning over the public,” said Himes, D-Conn. “It’s about changing Vladimir Putin’s behavior.”
Richard Stengel, a former Time magazine editor and once a senior State Department official, said the government often has to make difficult decisions between sensitive information and the need to be transparent.
“There is a cost benefit analysis,” he said. “That’s the decision they’re making every day.”
But there have long been concerns that the scales have shifted too far toward privacy. Even Biden’s director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, said the government classified too much information.
In a January 5 letter to Sens Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jerry Moran, R-Kahn, Haines noted that “loopholes in the current classification system undermine our national security by disrupting important democratic objectives as well. Our ability to share information in a timely manner.”
He said it “erodes our citizens’ core confidence in their own government,” especially as “the amount of classified material produced continues to rise rapidly.”
Politicians have regularly promised to restore confidence in Washington, but this has remained a rarity since the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. Soon after, President Jimmy Carter won office by telling voters “I will never lie.” He was voted out after one term.
Scandals have tainted subsequent administrations, from secretly funding Contra in Nicaragua by selling arms to Iran under President Ronald Reagan to covering up ties with White House interns to President Bill Clinton.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush claimed that the US needed to invade Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, but no such weapon was found and American troops killed Wrestled with the rebellion.
President Donald Trump regularly misrepresented basic facts about his administration throughout his term and continued to spread lies about the last election.
Biden had promised to restore truth to Washington after defeating Trump, but a year after taking office, confidence appears to be in short supply. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan not only undermined the credibility of his administration, Americans angered by shifting public health guidance during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
According to a CNN/SSRS poll conducted in December, only 34% of Americans said Biden is “a leader you can trust.” Another 66% said they had “some doubts and objections.”
Read also | US, Russia to try more diplomacy amid tensions over Ukraine
,