The Biden administration doesn’t like being asked legitimate questions to provide evidence for their claims:
Top White House and State Department officials tried to shut down reporters’ questions on Thursday about the veracity of Biden administration claims on Russia and Syria.
The reporters were asking for some proof to back up the administration claim that the Russian government was preparing to stage a false flag incident to provide a pretext for military action and a separate claim that the ISIS leader killed in a U.S. special forces raid had blown himself up along with his wife and two children. The White House press secretary and State Department spokesman didn’t offer any evidence to corroborate the claims, and by the end of their exchanges with reporters each one had suggested that questioning these claims implied a preference for information provided by Russia and ISIS. Ned Price, the State Department spokesman, said, “If you doubt the credibility of the US government, of the British government, of other governments and want to find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.” These exchanges came in the same week that Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, attacked Josh Hawley for “parroting Russian talking points” when he questioned the wisdom of continuing to support Ukrainian membership in NATO.
The dismissive and insulting responses to legitimate questions have been widely mocked and criticized, but they point to a troubling pattern in how the Biden administration is responding to criticism and basic journalistic inquiries. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that official claims about the false flag plan and the special forces raid are entirely accurate (quite an assumption given our government’s track record over the decades), the administration has not done its credibility any favors by blowing off requests for evidence and then accusing the journalists asking the questions of some sort of disloyalty. The Politicoreport summed it up this way:
When it comes to matters of war, the Biden administration’s current stance is “trust us” – and if you disagree, you’re Vladimir Putin’s or ISIS’ talking puppet.
Read the rest of the article at Eunomia
Daniel Larison is a weekly columnist for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.
Of course, this is SOP for any administration. This was just a particularly egregious example. What is interesting is that no one mentions the similar Russian warning about US mercenaries preparing a “false flag” chemical attack in Ukraine that Russia made last December. Presumably that was dismissed as “Russian propaganda” by just about everyone.
And maybe it was. But given the pattern of US claims over the last three months, it looks considerably more likely that the entire crisis is a CIA psyops. And that makes it more likely that Russia’s warning is true than the administration’s similar warning.
Incredibly but wearily, the Democratic liberal defense of the American war complex aggression to expand global dominance continues. This ‘false flag’ scenario was devised so Ukrainian Bandera and Svoboda gangs can attack and kill Russian Ukrainian citizens. No matter what evidence will be provided that mass murders took place in Eastern Ukraine, the victims will be declared crisis actors by Democratic liberals, mimicking their Republican conspiracy peers.
Ned Price, the State Department spokesman, said, “If you doubt the credibility of the US government, of the British government, of other governments and want to find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.
Well Ned, there was that strike in Afghanistan….
“The US military framed the threat posed by the car as imminent, and defended the drone attack as a “righteous strike.” Officials said the military believed the car was being packed with explosives for an attack.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-us-drone-strike-the-military-called-righteous-mistakenly-targeted-an-aid-worker-and-killed-10-afghan-civilians-including-7-kids-a-report-says/ar-AAOjsD8