On Syria-Who Are We Going To Believe? NYT or McClatchy

[kpete]

History Repeats? 'NYT' Boosts, But McClatchy Questions, Claims of Syria's Use of Chemicals
Greg Mitchell on May 8, 2013 - 12:03 PM ET

The New York Times, as it did in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, seems to be promoting (if a little less strenuously) some kind of dramatic US intervention in Syria, based on WMDs. Once again we’ve seen overheated front-page news stories, based on slim evidence, and columns by Thomas Friedman, Bill Keller and others. And, again as in 2003, the newspaper’s editorials express caution.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174182/nyt-and-keller-promote-us-attack-syria-iraq-wmd-re-visited

Bill Keller, the self-derided “reluctant hawk” on invading Iraq in 2003, returns with a column today stating right in its headline, “Syria Is Not Iraq,” and urging Obama and all of us to finally “get over Iraq.” He boasts that he has

Also in a replay, reporters for McClatchy’s DC bureau are expressing sensible skepticism (back in the day the outfit was still owned by Knight Ridder) about evidence of WMDs, in this case, the Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical agents against the rebels.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174234/history-repeats-nyt-boosts-mcclatchy-questions-claims-syrias-use-chemicals#

On Monday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-NJ, alluded to chemical weapons as he proposed a measure to provide limited arms to the rebels, asserting that Assad’s regime “has crossed a red line that forces us to consider all options.”

That assertion, however, appears far less certain than it did only a week ago. British, French and Israeli experts who expressed more confidence in their assessment than the Obama administration had in its judgment have in recent days qualified their positions, said Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence analyst now with the Arms Control Association, a private organization that provides analysis of weapons issues. “That should make everyone suspicious,” he said. “And the reality may be lot more complicated.”

Thielmann added, “Do you really risk going to war without knowing who has used what and in what circumstances?”

Existing evidence casts more doubt on claims of chemical weapons use than it does to help build a case that one or both sides of the conflict have employed them.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/07/5399801/syrian-chemical-weapons-use-still.html