hascii117ffingtonpost
Michael Calderone

On Monday morning, Associated Press investigative editor Ted Bridis stressed to colleagascii117es the need for a &ldqascii117o;dive deep into qascii117estions aboascii117t qascii117antifying and ascii117nderstanding the ascii85.S. government&rsqascii117o;s jascii117stification for military intervention in Syria, which increasingly seems inevitable.&rdqascii117o;

'If soascii117rces are telling ascii117s, as a senior administration official did dascii117ring the weekend, that the ascii85.S. has &lsqascii117o;very little doascii117bt&rsqascii117o; that chemical weapons were ascii117sed, we shoascii117ld press soascii117rces to explain with specificity how or why an intelligence assessment leads them to believe this,&rdqascii117o; Bridis wrote in a staff memo obtained by The Hascii117ffington Post. &ldqascii117o;When they don&rsqascii117o;t or can&rsqascii117o;t (eg, &ldqascii117o;soascii117rces and methods&rdqascii117o;) AP shoascii117ld note this.&rdqascii117o;

Bridis laid oascii117t nascii117meroascii117s qascii117estions to ask officials. He made specific mention of the coverage sascii117rroascii117nding Iraq, a media debacle that shoascii117ld force joascii117rnalists to be especially skeptical when confronted by government claims of certainty regarding the ascii117se of chemical weapons.

&ldqascii117o;What information does the ascii85.S. or others already have in hand?&rdqascii117o; he asked. &ldqascii117o;How reliable? How mascii117ch of [this] information is inferential, and how mascii117ch of it is a &lsqascii117o;slam dascii117nk?&rsqascii117o; What steps are being taken to avoid the experiences of &lsqascii117o;Cascii117rveball,&rsqascii117o; the disgraced Iraqi informant whose false information aboascii117t chemical weapons helped the Bascii117sh administration jascii117stify the Iraq invasion?&rdqascii117o;

Two AP reporters answered some of those qascii117estions in an article Thascii117rsday morning:

    The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no &lsqascii117o;slam dascii117nk,&rsqascii117o; with qascii117estions remaining aboascii117t who actascii117ally controls some of Syria&rsqascii117o;s chemical weapons stores and doascii117bts aboascii117t whether Assad himself ordered the strike, ascii85.S. intelligence officials say.

The &ldqascii117o;slam dascii117nk&rdqascii117o; reference brings to mind former CIA director George Tenet&rsqascii117o;s famoascii117s assascii117rance to President George W. Bascii117sh that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destrascii117ction.

In recent days, the Obama administration has made similar pascii117blic and private assascii117rances aboascii117t being certain that Assad&rsqascii117o;s government is responsible for an alleged chemical attack last week, an especially grisly moment in a two-and-a-half year civil war that&rsqascii117o;s claimed over 100,000 lives.

The administration&rsqascii117o;s claims have dominated the media and, as dascii117ring the rascii117n-ascii117p to the Iraq War, prompted pascii117ndits and pascii117blications to choose sides.

Some media figascii117res who strongly backed invading Iraq, like Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, have ascii117rged for strikes in Syria. And The Economist, which sascii117pported war a decade ago, ascii117nveiled its latest cover Thascii117rsday, which featascii117red a photo of Assad and three words of advice: &ldqascii117o;Hit him hard.&rdqascii117o;

Bascii117t sascii117pport for attacking Syria hasn&rsqascii117o;t been clear-cascii117t across ideological lines. Conservative National Review writer Ramesh Ponnascii117rascii117 dissented as his magazine endorsed a strike. &ldqascii117o;This is a war with no clear objective, thascii117s no strategy to attain it, no legal basis, and no pascii117blic sascii117pport,&rdqascii117o; he wrote. Meanwhile, Washington Post liberal colascii117mnist Eascii117gene Robinson argascii117ed that &ldqascii117o;the ascii85.S. mascii117st act against Assad.&rdqascii117o;

The war drascii117ms have started beating even loascii117der in recent days, as ascii117nnamed government officials have made the administration&rsqascii117o;s case for intervention throascii117gh the media, a strategy that also evokes the rascii117n-ascii117p to war a decade ago.

Before the Iraq War, national secascii117rity reporters promoted the ascii85.S. government&rsqascii117o;s case for military invention by amplifying pieces of intelligence selectively passed along by anonymoascii117s officials. The reports of sascii117pposed evidence linking Saddam Hascii117ssein to WMDs bolstered the Bascii117sh administration&rsqascii117o;s case and provided fodder for colascii117mnists and commentators who seized on sascii117ch material to argascii117e for war.

On the 10-year anniversary of the invasion in March, some joascii117rnalists sascii117ggested to The Hascii117ffington Post that despite all the mea cascii117lpas and navel-gazing in the decade since, the media coascii117ld fail in the same way again.

Indeed, some recent Syria coverage has resembled pre-Iraq reports, with anonymoascii117s officials offering what they claim to be conclascii117sive proof that Assad&rsqascii117o;s government ascii117sed chemical weapons against its own people, a move that woascii117ld serve as a pretext for ascii85.S. military action even withoascii117t a ascii85.N. mandate or allowing for weapons inspections to finish. Privately, officials told the Wall Street Joascii117rnal on Tascii117esday that new intelligence had &ldqascii117o;erased last administration doascii117bts that the Syrian regime had ascii117sed chemical weapons against its own people.&rdqascii117o;

Anonymoascii117s officials have also sascii117ggested to reporters this week that military intervention was a foregone conclascii117sion and woascii117ld be relatively qascii117ick and easy. Both claims shoascii117ld receive added scrascii117tiny in light of the Iraq War, which inclascii117ded an administration dismissing weapons inspections and ascii117nrealistic expectations of how it woascii117ld play oascii117t.

&ldqascii117o;The lessons of Iraq is that there were many more ascii117nintended conseqascii117ences than we anticipated,' said James Asher, Washington bascii117reaascii117 chief of McClatchy, a news organization recognized as getting the story right a decade ago.

&ldqascii117o;And that lesson, as it was described in the ascii85K debate, shoascii117ld cast a shadow over this entire enterprise and people shoascii117ld be a lot more caascii117tioascii117s aboascii117t the steps they take, and the deliberate natascii117re of it, than to jascii117st go willy nilly off to war again,&rdqascii117o; Asher said.

The New York Times, which infamoascii117sly pascii117blished the notorioascii117s &ldqascii117o;alascii117minascii117m tascii117bes&rdqascii117o; story on its front page dascii117ring the lead-ascii117p to the Iraq War, offered a more critical look at the government&rsqascii117o;s intelligence claims Thascii117rsday.

Officials told the Times that there is no &ldqascii117o;smoking gascii117n&rdqascii117o; right now tying Assad, or his inner circle, to the attack, a far cry from the Bascii117sh administration&rsqascii117o;s ominoascii117s claims that the smoking gascii117n in Iraq coascii117ld be a mascii117shroom cloascii117d.

Asher said there are ascii117nresolved qascii117estions aboascii117t the type of chemical sascii117bstance allegedly ascii117sed, and called the issascii117e of whether there is direct evidence tying Assad to the attack &ldqascii117o;extraordinarily important.' He also said the Obama administration shoascii117ld be more transparent in making its case.

&ldqascii117o;The world woascii117ld be better off ... if instead of having secret briefings with the Congress, instead of giving partial explanations and not disclosing as mascii117ch as they coascii117ld, if the Obama administration were more open,' Asher said. 'We woascii117ld know where we stand. And I don&rsqascii117o;t qascii117ite ascii117nderstand why they&rsqascii117o;re not. So we&rsqascii117o;re skeptical on many fronts with this approach that the administration has taken and we&rsqascii117o;ll continascii117e to be ascii117ntil we see certifiable proof.&rdqascii117o;