Of course, in the specific case of the Syrian chemical attack, the U.S. government may have it right; U.S. intelligence agencies may have jumped to the correct conclusion based on questionable evidence; sometimes hastily reached judgments are correct. Maybe, U.S. officials withheld their information because they knew it could be picked apart, though they truly believed it was on target.
The Obama administration may have concluded that it was smarter, P.R.-wise, to simply assert the findings with a feigned certitude while hiding the unconvincing evidence so a credible threat of war could be mounted against the Assad regime.
However, concealing shaky evidence to induce a public consensus is not ideally how a democracy should work, especially on a question as weighty as war or peace. And it is not how an independent press corps is supposed to work, accepting evidence-free assertions from the government as fact, rather than joining in demands for the maximum possible exposure of the evidence.
If, as some expect, the United Nations inspectors next week side with the U.S. government in pointing the finger at the Assad regime for the Aug. 21 attack, more and more ridicule will be heaped on those of us who pointed out that the Obama administration was withholding its proof.
Indeed, the chest-thumping by those who clambered onto the bandwagon for war has already begun. They might be called the "See-We-Were-Right-to-Be-Credulous" contingent. But some of us will still want to see whatever evidence the UN inspectors and the U.S. intelligence agencies have collected.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
