These are the same jokers who rated it true when Kerry claimed him and obama got all of the checmical weapons out of syria, now they had to change their ruling because everyone knows that was a joke. Of course those of us who were not naieve didnt think that a dictator who was willing to gas his own citizens was actually going to tell the truth about getting rid of his checmical weapons, but hey they must be right this time, because Iran has proven them selves to be so reliable.
Didn't Obama claim all the Chemical weapons were removed from Syria?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
They rated it mostly true after verifying it with a Nobel prize winning organization and other experts.When they found out everyone might be wrong they did the responsible thing and removed their rating.
Iran might not be reliable but they did not get nuclear weapons under Obama.Iran getting nuclear weapons is not even a priority right now for Trump or for years to come because of Obama.Obama got Iran to sign a contract with the major world powers that they will not build nukes.Of course Iran can break the deal but it likely wont be years from now and The US will be justified in taking action and should have help because Iran would be breaking a contract with multiple nations.
Politifact is lying...
1. Iran got uranium from Russia.
2. Russia got Uranium from Hillary and Obama.
3. Russia paid Hillary 150 million.
4. Iran's nuke program gets go ahead in 2027 by part of Obama's deal.
1. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/db5a8d6cad764c208322939ed84a0d49
Iran is to receive a huge shipment of natural uranium from Russia to compensate it for exporting tons of reactor coolant, diplomats say, in a move approved by the outgoing U.S. administration and other governments seeking to keep Tehran committed to a landmark nuclear pact.
Two senior diplomats said the transfer recently approved by the U.S. and five other world powers that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran foresees delivery of 116 metric tons (nearly 130 tons) of natural uranium.
more at the link...
2 and 3 are shown here. Its a disgusting betrayal of American and makes the world far less safe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ll-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime
Kremlin-crazed Trumpophobes snored as Hillary and Bill made Russia great again.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ll-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime
4.
Search Results
Secret document reveals key Iran nuclear constraints will ease in 10 ...
www.timesofisrael.com › Israel & the Region
Jul 18, 2016 - In January 2027, Tehran can start installing thousands of advanced ... Iran insists it is not interested in nuclear weapons, and the pact is being ...
Obama approved giving Iran 116 metric tons of uranium as a 'thank ...
www.theblaze.com/.../obama-approved-giving-iran-116-metric-tons-of-uranium-as-a-th...
Jan 10, 2017 - The shipment is the first since the Iran deal was implemented in July 2015. ..... arsenal toIran… just in case one of their Muslim Ayatollahs gets a limpy with ... Iran's realization of going nuke has been planned right down to the ...
Secret add-on to Iran deal reportedly allows stepped-up nukes ...
www.jpost.com/.../Secret-add-on-to-Iran-deal-reportedly-allows-stepped-up-nukes-pr...
Secret add-on to Iran deal reportedly allows stepped-up nukes production by 2027. ByJTA. July 19, 2016 01:23. The document was given to the AP by an ...
Obama's Secret Backdoor Deal Giving Iran Nukes - Daily Wire
www.dailywire.com/news/7620/bombshell-michael-qazvini
Jul 19, 2016 - Bombshell: Obama's Secret Backdoor Deal Giving Iran Nukes: Everything You Need To Know ... It says that as of January 2027 — 11 years after the deal was implemented — Iran will ... Here's what it gets downright scary.
Unexpected Treason: Barack Hussein Obama - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1483581683
James McCormack - 2016 - History
Hamid Baeidinejad, Iranian foreign ministry official, July 2015. ... “All Nuke Inspectors Require Approval From Iran's Intelligence Agency,” that Sayyed ... of the nuclear deal ... as of January 2027 – 11 years after the deal was implemented – Iran ...
1. Iran got uranium from Russia.
2. Russia got Uranium from Hillary and Obama.
3. Russia paid Hillary 150 million.
4. Iran's nuke program gets go ahead in 2027 by part of Obama's deal.
1. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/db5a8d6cad764c208322939ed84a0d49
Iran is to receive a huge shipment of natural uranium from Russia to compensate it for exporting tons of reactor coolant, diplomats say, in a move approved by the outgoing U.S. administration and other governments seeking to keep Tehran committed to a landmark nuclear pact.
Two senior diplomats said the transfer recently approved by the U.S. and five other world powers that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran foresees delivery of 116 metric tons (nearly 130 tons) of natural uranium.
more at the link...
2 and 3 are shown here. Its a disgusting betrayal of American and makes the world far less safe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ll-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime
Kremlin-crazed Trumpophobes snored as Hillary and Bill made Russia great again.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ll-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime
4.
Search Results
Secret document reveals key Iran nuclear constraints will ease in 10 ...
www.timesofisrael.com › Israel & the Region
Jul 18, 2016 - In January 2027, Tehran can start installing thousands of advanced ... Iran insists it is not interested in nuclear weapons, and the pact is being ...
Obama approved giving Iran 116 metric tons of uranium as a 'thank ...
www.theblaze.com/.../obama-approved-giving-iran-116-metric-tons-of-uranium-as-a-th...
Jan 10, 2017 - The shipment is the first since the Iran deal was implemented in July 2015. ..... arsenal toIran… just in case one of their Muslim Ayatollahs gets a limpy with ... Iran's realization of going nuke has been planned right down to the ...
Secret add-on to Iran deal reportedly allows stepped-up nukes ...
www.jpost.com/.../Secret-add-on-to-Iran-deal-reportedly-allows-stepped-up-nukes-pr...
Secret add-on to Iran deal reportedly allows stepped-up nukes production by 2027. ByJTA. July 19, 2016 01:23. The document was given to the AP by an ...
Obama's Secret Backdoor Deal Giving Iran Nukes - Daily Wire
www.dailywire.com/news/7620/bombshell-michael-qazvini
Jul 19, 2016 - Bombshell: Obama's Secret Backdoor Deal Giving Iran Nukes: Everything You Need To Know ... It says that as of January 2027 — 11 years after the deal was implemented — Iran will ... Here's what it gets downright scary.
Unexpected Treason: Barack Hussein Obama - Google Books Result
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1483581683
James McCormack - 2016 - History
Hamid Baeidinejad, Iranian foreign ministry official, July 2015. ... “All Nuke Inspectors Require Approval From Iran's Intelligence Agency,” that Sayyed ... of the nuclear deal ... as of January 2027 – 11 years after the deal was implemented – Iran ...
1.Hilliary didn't have the power to approve the uranium deal on her own,9 agencies had to approve
- Department of the Treasury (chair)
- Department of Justice
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense
- Department of State
- Department of Energy
- Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
- Office of Science & Technology Policy
2.The uranium is still here and can't be exported.
3.Iran's nuke program does not get the go ahead in 2027.Part of the deal is that Iran had to agree to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that they signed in 1974.If Iran starts building nukes in 2027 they are in violation of the contract.If Iran starts building nukes in 2027 not only has Obama prevented Iran from getting nukes on his watch but 2 terms after his presidency as well,pretty dam good.
Last edited:
I just read 2 of these articles and what they say is true,in 2027 Iran is allowed to get more centrifuges etc and they would have a faster break out time to make nukes,BUT THE DEAL DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO MAKE NUKES.Your article doesn't say that the nuclear deal gives them permission to make nuclear weapons.If Iran makes nukes they would be in violation of the deal they made with The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China and Germany.
If you are arguing that the deal relaxes inspections etc in 2027 where they could violate the agreement and build nukes faster I agree.If you are arguing that the deal gives Iran permission to build nuclear weapons in 2027 that is false.
Last edited:
Evidence suggests Obama administration knew Syria cheated on WMD deal
By Rick Moran
There has been confirmation from UN investigators that the gas used to kill dozens of Syrian civilians in Idib province last week was sarin - a weapon that President Obama and his administration assured us did not exist in Syria's arsenal following the deal with the Russians that supposedly removed "100%" of Syria's chemical stockpiles.
Was the naive Obama fooled by President Putin and Bashar Assad? Or was the Obama administration fully aware that their boasts that claimed Syria had no chemical weapons a lie?
Evidence suggests it was the latter. Sean Keeley of The American Interestquotes National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster when the Trump aide spoke to reporters following the US strike:
And the one thing that I will tell you though, there was an effort to minimize – to minimize risk to third-country nationals at that airport – I think you read Russians from that – but that – and we took great pains to try to avoid that. […] And then there were also measures put in place to avoid hitting what we believe is a storage of sarin gas, so that that would not be ignited and cause a hazard to civilians or anyone else.
Keeley points out the obvious and cites other evidence of the Obama administration's knowledge that their empty boasts about getting rid of Assad's chemical weapons was false:
If this strike was arranged to avoid hitting sarin storage facilities, the question arises: did the Obama Administration know that such depots still existed after its “historic” deal that supposedly removed all Syria’s chemical weapons?
The signs point to yes. In Congressional testimony last February, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged “gaps and inconsistencies in Syria’s declaration,” validating reports that Syria was still hiding banned chemicals at undisclosed locations. And on its way out the door in January of this year, the Obama Treasury quietly introduced new sanctions against Syrian officials involved in chemical warfare. Buried in the language sanctioning a particular official was a telling admission: “As of 2016, Abbas has continued operating at locations in Syria associated with chemical warfare-related missions.”
Whether or not the Obama Administration knew of this particular sarin facility, then, they clearly knew that Syrians were still clinging to their stockpiles at several locations. They knew what Adam Garfinkle has been saying all along: that Obama’s deal to remove chemical weapons was not a historic diplomatic triumph but an unenforcable sham that the Syrians and Russians never intended to comply with.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration looked the American people in the eye and lied:
Daily Caller:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry stated in 2014 that the Obama administration “got 100 percent of the declared chemical weapons out of Syria.” Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice commented in January that the president and his team were “able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
At the time, fact-checking site Poltifact reported that the administration’s comments were “mostly true;” however, the site has since re-evaluated its assessment. “Either Syria never fulling complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses.”
Politifact cites converting "non-lethal chemicals" into weapons. That may have been true with chlorine gas, that President Assad employed several times over the last 3 years. But there are no dual uses for sarin gas, which has been banned by several chemical weapons treatires.
This particular aspect of the Obama administration is not being highlighted by anyone outside of conservative media. The media just doesn't seem interested in the fact that the former president used his "triumph" of "soft power" to remove Assad's chemical stockpiles as a demonstration of his superior wisdom while it actually revealed him to be a naive fool.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...istration_knew_syria_cheated_on_wmd_deal.html
By Rick Moran
There has been confirmation from UN investigators that the gas used to kill dozens of Syrian civilians in Idib province last week was sarin - a weapon that President Obama and his administration assured us did not exist in Syria's arsenal following the deal with the Russians that supposedly removed "100%" of Syria's chemical stockpiles.
Was the naive Obama fooled by President Putin and Bashar Assad? Or was the Obama administration fully aware that their boasts that claimed Syria had no chemical weapons a lie?
Evidence suggests it was the latter. Sean Keeley of The American Interestquotes National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster when the Trump aide spoke to reporters following the US strike:
And the one thing that I will tell you though, there was an effort to minimize – to minimize risk to third-country nationals at that airport – I think you read Russians from that – but that – and we took great pains to try to avoid that. […] And then there were also measures put in place to avoid hitting what we believe is a storage of sarin gas, so that that would not be ignited and cause a hazard to civilians or anyone else.
Keeley points out the obvious and cites other evidence of the Obama administration's knowledge that their empty boasts about getting rid of Assad's chemical weapons was false:
If this strike was arranged to avoid hitting sarin storage facilities, the question arises: did the Obama Administration know that such depots still existed after its “historic” deal that supposedly removed all Syria’s chemical weapons?
The signs point to yes. In Congressional testimony last February, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged “gaps and inconsistencies in Syria’s declaration,” validating reports that Syria was still hiding banned chemicals at undisclosed locations. And on its way out the door in January of this year, the Obama Treasury quietly introduced new sanctions against Syrian officials involved in chemical warfare. Buried in the language sanctioning a particular official was a telling admission: “As of 2016, Abbas has continued operating at locations in Syria associated with chemical warfare-related missions.”
Whether or not the Obama Administration knew of this particular sarin facility, then, they clearly knew that Syrians were still clinging to their stockpiles at several locations. They knew what Adam Garfinkle has been saying all along: that Obama’s deal to remove chemical weapons was not a historic diplomatic triumph but an unenforcable sham that the Syrians and Russians never intended to comply with.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration looked the American people in the eye and lied:
Daily Caller:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry stated in 2014 that the Obama administration “got 100 percent of the declared chemical weapons out of Syria.” Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice commented in January that the president and his team were “able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
At the time, fact-checking site Poltifact reported that the administration’s comments were “mostly true;” however, the site has since re-evaluated its assessment. “Either Syria never fulling complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses.”
Politifact cites converting "non-lethal chemicals" into weapons. That may have been true with chlorine gas, that President Assad employed several times over the last 3 years. But there are no dual uses for sarin gas, which has been banned by several chemical weapons treatires.
This particular aspect of the Obama administration is not being highlighted by anyone outside of conservative media. The media just doesn't seem interested in the fact that the former president used his "triumph" of "soft power" to remove Assad's chemical stockpiles as a demonstration of his superior wisdom while it actually revealed him to be a naive fool.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...istration_knew_syria_cheated_on_wmd_deal.html
Give the guy a break. It's not easy working for the "Pay-Per-Post-Propaganda" campaign.
So, The Obama Administration Knew Syria Didn’t Hand Over All Its Chemical Weapons, But Lied To Us Anyway?
4/10/2017 12:45:00 PM - Matt Vespa
Life comes at you fast. That’s all I can say right now about the Obama administration’s disastrous Syrian policy that did nothing to stop bloodshed or hold any one accountable for that matter because it probably would have led to a military decision that President Obama didn’t want to make. In 2014, the administration celebrated its landmark accomplishment of removing Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpile without military strikes. Russia helped us with these negotiations, which were a total failure since chemical weapons were used against the town of Khan Shaykhun located in the Idlib Province last week. The attack killed at least 80 people, including women and children. The government of President Bashar al-Assad reportedly carried out the attack, prompting President Trump to launch a military strike, hopefully signaling the start of a clean up of this mess the Obama White House left behind. Many are weary that it might suck us into another war in the Middle East. Still, pundits and politicians from across the spectrum have applauded the Trump administration for taking action. Now, it’s a question about strategy, but I digress.
Apparently, even as the Obama administration and its allies were peddling the notion that “100 percent” of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles were removed and destroyed, some officials now admit that they knew some were still left in the country, as evidenced by the latest attack (via Washington Examiner) [emphasis mine]:
A former Obama official acknowledged Sunday that the U.S. "always knew" an agreement with Syrian President Bashar Assad did not clear all chemical weapons out of Syria, despite the fact that the administration touted the deal as an unequivocal success at the time.
"We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration," Tony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state and former deputy national security adviser under Barack Obama, told the New York Times.
John Kerry, then Obama's secretary of state, and Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, had both touted a 2013 agreement with Russia, Syria and the U.S. that was designed to rid the Assad regime of its chemical weapons stockpile. Kerry said in 2014 that they deal had resulted in Syria purging "100 percent" of its chemical agents.
Follow
Department of State
✔@StateDept
.@JohnKerry: Today the last 8% of declared chemical weapons were removed from #Syria. Great work done by all involved http://go.usa.gov/9N7H
8:32 PM - 23 Jun 2014
View image on Twitter
Follow
White House Archived
✔@ObamaWhiteHouse
President Obama on eliminating the Syrian regime's “most lethal declared chemical weapons” → http://go.wh.gov/ZRP2X8
3:14 PM - 18 Aug 2014
So, while Kerry, the then-face of American foreign policy and our chief diplomat said that the stockpile had been removed, his deputy admits that they knew that wasn’t the case. In keeping with the administration’s record post-Benghazi, is this another lie from the Obama administration? It’s not the first time. We all remember when then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who eventually became national security adviser to Obama, said that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to an offensive YouTube video. It was eventually found out to be a well-planned terrorist attack by al-Qaeda affiliates, which the administration knew hours after the assault. Now, U.S. intelligence agencies say that Assad may not have turned over all his weapons. Gee—you think!
For God’s sake, only a member of the Neville Chamberlain School Of Foreign Affairs would think this agreement would be, you know, actually honored by a dictator. And Assad is a dictator. We also did this in tandem with the Russians, now public enemy number one, who had invaded and annexed Crimea from Ukraine that same year. The Obama administration called the action an “uncontested arrival,” and said the action was done out of weakness. Can we cue the laugh track?
It seems that even Obama officials knew this Syrian chemical weapons disarmament wasn’t going to be fully complied with, but went on television stating otherwise.
We got “100 percent” of the chemical weapons out they said.
"We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration," they said.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...nt-handover-all-its-chemical-weapons-n2311294
4/10/2017 12:45:00 PM - Matt Vespa
Life comes at you fast. That’s all I can say right now about the Obama administration’s disastrous Syrian policy that did nothing to stop bloodshed or hold any one accountable for that matter because it probably would have led to a military decision that President Obama didn’t want to make. In 2014, the administration celebrated its landmark accomplishment of removing Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpile without military strikes. Russia helped us with these negotiations, which were a total failure since chemical weapons were used against the town of Khan Shaykhun located in the Idlib Province last week. The attack killed at least 80 people, including women and children. The government of President Bashar al-Assad reportedly carried out the attack, prompting President Trump to launch a military strike, hopefully signaling the start of a clean up of this mess the Obama White House left behind. Many are weary that it might suck us into another war in the Middle East. Still, pundits and politicians from across the spectrum have applauded the Trump administration for taking action. Now, it’s a question about strategy, but I digress.
Apparently, even as the Obama administration and its allies were peddling the notion that “100 percent” of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles were removed and destroyed, some officials now admit that they knew some were still left in the country, as evidenced by the latest attack (via Washington Examiner) [emphasis mine]:
A former Obama official acknowledged Sunday that the U.S. "always knew" an agreement with Syrian President Bashar Assad did not clear all chemical weapons out of Syria, despite the fact that the administration touted the deal as an unequivocal success at the time.
"We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration," Tony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state and former deputy national security adviser under Barack Obama, told the New York Times.
John Kerry, then Obama's secretary of state, and Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, had both touted a 2013 agreement with Russia, Syria and the U.S. that was designed to rid the Assad regime of its chemical weapons stockpile. Kerry said in 2014 that they deal had resulted in Syria purging "100 percent" of its chemical agents.
Follow
Department of State ✔@StateDept
.@JohnKerry: Today the last 8% of declared chemical weapons were removed from #Syria. Great work done by all involved http://go.usa.gov/9N7H
8:32 PM - 23 Jun 2014
View image on Twitter
Follow
White House Archived ✔@ObamaWhiteHouse
President Obama on eliminating the Syrian regime's “most lethal declared chemical weapons” → http://go.wh.gov/ZRP2X8
3:14 PM - 18 Aug 2014
So, while Kerry, the then-face of American foreign policy and our chief diplomat said that the stockpile had been removed, his deputy admits that they knew that wasn’t the case. In keeping with the administration’s record post-Benghazi, is this another lie from the Obama administration? It’s not the first time. We all remember when then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who eventually became national security adviser to Obama, said that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to an offensive YouTube video. It was eventually found out to be a well-planned terrorist attack by al-Qaeda affiliates, which the administration knew hours after the assault. Now, U.S. intelligence agencies say that Assad may not have turned over all his weapons. Gee—you think!
For God’s sake, only a member of the Neville Chamberlain School Of Foreign Affairs would think this agreement would be, you know, actually honored by a dictator. And Assad is a dictator. We also did this in tandem with the Russians, now public enemy number one, who had invaded and annexed Crimea from Ukraine that same year. The Obama administration called the action an “uncontested arrival,” and said the action was done out of weakness. Can we cue the laugh track?
It seems that even Obama officials knew this Syrian chemical weapons disarmament wasn’t going to be fully complied with, but went on television stating otherwise.
We got “100 percent” of the chemical weapons out they said.
"We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration," they said.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...nt-handover-all-its-chemical-weapons-n2311294
The Rice Controversy: Is The Media Proving Trump Correct?
Below is my recent column in The Hill Newspaper on the Rice controversy. Media spins for Rice continue including MSNBC “AM Joy” host Joy Reid describing the softball interview with Andrea Mitchell as a type of “Government for Dummies” lecture: “She was on with our own Andrea Mitchell yesterday trying to explain how government works, for those that don’t know.” Of course, unmasking political opponents (if the allegations are proven to be true), would not be how the government is supposed work. Nor is alleged lying about knowing nothing about the unmasking in prior interviews — a curious conflict with Reid’s take that Rice was trying to explain how government works. This was Rice’s second or third explanation.
The controversy occurs after the Washington Post gave Rice a retroactive “Four Pinnochios” for her claim that the Obama Administration got rid of all chemical weapons in Syria. (That is not the first time that Rice has been accused of false statements on national security issues, as discussed below). None of this seems to matter in the coverage of the most recent controversy involving Rice. It appears that Trump is the temptation that many journalists simply cannot resist. It is a Faustian bargain: media is so intent on pursuing Trump that they have lost any sense of their own navigational beacons of objectivity and neutrality.
There is a common expression in the media that there are “some facts too good to check.” It is used in jest to reflect how you sometimes hate to give up a great story for the real facts. That tension was well on display this week as media seemed to tie itself into knots to avoid admitting that there are legitimate questions raised by the “unmasking” allegations surrounding the actions of Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
For weeks, the media has hammered President Trump over his sensational tweets accusing President Obama of “wiretapping” Trump Tower. The media was right to demand proof and to castigate the administration for a less than forthcoming response to the controversy.
Then came the disclosure that Susan Rice had repeatedly asked for the unmasking of the protected identities of Trump associates who were intercepted by American intelligence in the course of lawful surveillance. By any objective measure, that should be a major story. Rice may have an explanation but, at least on its face, it would confirm the interception of Trump aides by the Obama administration.
Instead of acknowledging that this is a serious development, the immediate response of the media was to actively debunk the story and portray it as facially invalid. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo responded to the story with the following: “All right, President Trump, right-wing media types [are] peddling a fake scandal.” CNN anchor Don Lemon called the story a “diversion” and refused to discuss it so “not insult your intelligence.”
In the meantime, NBC had Andrea Mitchell interview Rice. One would think that any interview would begin where Rice had left the controversy just last month in an interview on PBS Newshour. Rice was asked about the allegations of unmasking raised by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and responded with a categorical denial: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”
It would seem a rather newsworthy place to start, right? Yet, in the segment, Mitchell asked nary a single question on the prior statement. Not one. Instead, she spent time discussing the “politicized” investigation of the House Intelligence Committee and outrage over Trump’s tweets. She never got around to noting that Rice was saying something diametrically at odds to her prior statement on this very controversy.
She was not alone. ABC News ran an interview with Rice and again never mentioned to the viewers that she said the opposite on a national news program just weeks ago.
Instead, the media actively sought to focus on aspects of Rice’s statement that could still be supported. Media insisted that that was no proof that Rice leaked the information. Indeed, Rice said that she has never — ever — leaked anything as a high-ranking government official. If so, she would be in one of the smallest groups of Washington (that could be a difficult question under oath in a future hearing). The threshold question is whether Trump aides were indeed subject to surveillance and were indeed unmasked. Alternatively, the media hit on the fact that such surveillance is legal. Of course, the use of lawful surveillance in an abusive way could still be abusive and, yes, newsworthy.
The media also did not pursue the question of how the unmasked transcripts might have been shared with officials like former National Intelligence chief James Clapper, who also said that he had no knowledge of such unmasking. Clapper and Rice would seem to warrant such added probing. After all, Clapper lied about his knowledge of one of the most massive secret surveillance programs in history and later explained that he simply chose “the least untruthful” answer to give the Senate.
For her part, Rice has been repeatedly criticized for past false statements. The most glaring was her repeated public statements in 2012, that the Benghazi terror attacks were spontaneous responses to a “hateful” Internet video. Later it was shown that the administration already knew the Benghazi attacks were the result of terrorism and unnamed administration officials criticized Rice for misrepresenting the facts. Rice later said that she did “regret that the information I was provided was wrong. That doesn’t make me a liar.” That is correct but it also does not make Rice the most reliable source. So why run a story and not lead (or even mention) a prior conflicting question?
A more serious question is raised by the other ignored aspect of this story. For years, many of us have criticized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows surveillance without meeting the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The law is filled with nice sounding protections that are practically meaningless. That includes the rule that Americans incidentally intercepted on surveillance of foreign targets must have their identities “masked.”
U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (Section 18) only allows unmasking of the identity of U.S persons when it is essential to national security. The question is why the identity of Trump aides satisfied this standard if there was no evidence (as has been reported) of collusion. Nevertheless, this intent standard is difficult to violate absent a confession or incriminating statement.
Objectively, a reporter might want to ask Rice how privacy is protected when she can just routinely unmask names without any serious review or need for explanation. That concern would seem particularly great when these are the names of Republican operatives on a campaign criticizing your administration. Indeed, Rice herself was a common target of such criticism by Trump aides.
I happen to share the anger in the media over the treatment of the press by this president. However, journalistic ethics require reporters to transcend such anger and maintain objectivity. It often means acknowledging facts that favor someone who has shown little respect for the press. That is the point of the joke. No matter how much we might prefer blissful ignorance, there are no facts too good to check.
Reporters are now so committed to refuting Trump that they are refuting actual stories. The loss of objectivity in the response to the Rice story reflects a broader problem of the press focusing so hard on Trump that it is losing sight of its own bearings. The irony is that Trump was wrong about the media but many in the media seem to be working hard to prove him right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/04/10/the-rice-controversy-is-the-media-proving-trump-correct/
Below is my recent column in The Hill Newspaper on the Rice controversy. Media spins for Rice continue including MSNBC “AM Joy” host Joy Reid describing the softball interview with Andrea Mitchell as a type of “Government for Dummies” lecture: “She was on with our own Andrea Mitchell yesterday trying to explain how government works, for those that don’t know.” Of course, unmasking political opponents (if the allegations are proven to be true), would not be how the government is supposed work. Nor is alleged lying about knowing nothing about the unmasking in prior interviews — a curious conflict with Reid’s take that Rice was trying to explain how government works. This was Rice’s second or third explanation.
The controversy occurs after the Washington Post gave Rice a retroactive “Four Pinnochios” for her claim that the Obama Administration got rid of all chemical weapons in Syria. (That is not the first time that Rice has been accused of false statements on national security issues, as discussed below). None of this seems to matter in the coverage of the most recent controversy involving Rice. It appears that Trump is the temptation that many journalists simply cannot resist. It is a Faustian bargain: media is so intent on pursuing Trump that they have lost any sense of their own navigational beacons of objectivity and neutrality.
There is a common expression in the media that there are “some facts too good to check.” It is used in jest to reflect how you sometimes hate to give up a great story for the real facts. That tension was well on display this week as media seemed to tie itself into knots to avoid admitting that there are legitimate questions raised by the “unmasking” allegations surrounding the actions of Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
For weeks, the media has hammered President Trump over his sensational tweets accusing President Obama of “wiretapping” Trump Tower. The media was right to demand proof and to castigate the administration for a less than forthcoming response to the controversy.
Then came the disclosure that Susan Rice had repeatedly asked for the unmasking of the protected identities of Trump associates who were intercepted by American intelligence in the course of lawful surveillance. By any objective measure, that should be a major story. Rice may have an explanation but, at least on its face, it would confirm the interception of Trump aides by the Obama administration.
Instead of acknowledging that this is a serious development, the immediate response of the media was to actively debunk the story and portray it as facially invalid. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo responded to the story with the following: “All right, President Trump, right-wing media types [are] peddling a fake scandal.” CNN anchor Don Lemon called the story a “diversion” and refused to discuss it so “not insult your intelligence.”
In the meantime, NBC had Andrea Mitchell interview Rice. One would think that any interview would begin where Rice had left the controversy just last month in an interview on PBS Newshour. Rice was asked about the allegations of unmasking raised by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and responded with a categorical denial: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”
It would seem a rather newsworthy place to start, right? Yet, in the segment, Mitchell asked nary a single question on the prior statement. Not one. Instead, she spent time discussing the “politicized” investigation of the House Intelligence Committee and outrage over Trump’s tweets. She never got around to noting that Rice was saying something diametrically at odds to her prior statement on this very controversy.
She was not alone. ABC News ran an interview with Rice and again never mentioned to the viewers that she said the opposite on a national news program just weeks ago.
Instead, the media actively sought to focus on aspects of Rice’s statement that could still be supported. Media insisted that that was no proof that Rice leaked the information. Indeed, Rice said that she has never — ever — leaked anything as a high-ranking government official. If so, she would be in one of the smallest groups of Washington (that could be a difficult question under oath in a future hearing). The threshold question is whether Trump aides were indeed subject to surveillance and were indeed unmasked. Alternatively, the media hit on the fact that such surveillance is legal. Of course, the use of lawful surveillance in an abusive way could still be abusive and, yes, newsworthy.
The media also did not pursue the question of how the unmasked transcripts might have been shared with officials like former National Intelligence chief James Clapper, who also said that he had no knowledge of such unmasking. Clapper and Rice would seem to warrant such added probing. After all, Clapper lied about his knowledge of one of the most massive secret surveillance programs in history and later explained that he simply chose “the least untruthful” answer to give the Senate.
For her part, Rice has been repeatedly criticized for past false statements. The most glaring was her repeated public statements in 2012, that the Benghazi terror attacks were spontaneous responses to a “hateful” Internet video. Later it was shown that the administration already knew the Benghazi attacks were the result of terrorism and unnamed administration officials criticized Rice for misrepresenting the facts. Rice later said that she did “regret that the information I was provided was wrong. That doesn’t make me a liar.” That is correct but it also does not make Rice the most reliable source. So why run a story and not lead (or even mention) a prior conflicting question?
A more serious question is raised by the other ignored aspect of this story. For years, many of us have criticized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows surveillance without meeting the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The law is filled with nice sounding protections that are practically meaningless. That includes the rule that Americans incidentally intercepted on surveillance of foreign targets must have their identities “masked.”
U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (Section 18) only allows unmasking of the identity of U.S persons when it is essential to national security. The question is why the identity of Trump aides satisfied this standard if there was no evidence (as has been reported) of collusion. Nevertheless, this intent standard is difficult to violate absent a confession or incriminating statement.
Objectively, a reporter might want to ask Rice how privacy is protected when she can just routinely unmask names without any serious review or need for explanation. That concern would seem particularly great when these are the names of Republican operatives on a campaign criticizing your administration. Indeed, Rice herself was a common target of such criticism by Trump aides.
I happen to share the anger in the media over the treatment of the press by this president. However, journalistic ethics require reporters to transcend such anger and maintain objectivity. It often means acknowledging facts that favor someone who has shown little respect for the press. That is the point of the joke. No matter how much we might prefer blissful ignorance, there are no facts too good to check.
Reporters are now so committed to refuting Trump that they are refuting actual stories. The loss of objectivity in the response to the Rice story reflects a broader problem of the press focusing so hard on Trump that it is losing sight of its own bearings. The irony is that Trump was wrong about the media but many in the media seem to be working hard to prove him right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/04/10/the-rice-controversy-is-the-media-proving-trump-correct/