NYT: Media fed talk of Syrian plots to assassinate Lebanese leaders

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/10syria.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

The administration official volunteered the information about what he said was a "Syrian hit list" on the condition that he not be identified by name or agency. A spokesman for the official, asked why the official would not make the assertions more openly, said it was because of the diplomatic sensitivities involved as well as the usual reluctance to discuss intelligence matters openly.

It was clear that the official's statements, which were offered to reporters from at least two news organizations, were a deliberate signal of the Bush administration's continuing displeasure with the Syrian government's role in Lebanon.

He said that information about the threat had been disseminated to governments in the Middle East and Europe and that "we thought it would be useful to make this public as a deterrent to the Syrians."

But intelligence officials said they could not immediately substantiate the reliability of the information cited by the administration official. A State Department official said that word of a "hit list" had been "circulating among the Lebanese" but that no one in the administration had actually seen such a list and that its existence could not be independently verified.

______________________________

Sounds like some at the New York Times are finally learning to be wary of information spoon fed to them by officials in the Bush administration--unlike Judith Miller and her infamous source "Curveball."

[acmavm]

1. Well, that just says to me that they're making stuff up as usual. Another

day, same old tired story.

[SpiralHawk]

2. Hallmarks of BushCo propaganda: anonymity

They hide everything.

[LightningFlash]

3. Another pathetic anonymous source, distraction....

Being paid for and peddled to get us into a war with Syria. It's just stupid now.

[Supersedeas]

4. just more of Professor Condi's version of Bush Diplomacy???

[leveymg]

5. See yesterday's report about BushCo "regime change" decision. Syria Next?

Almost a decade ago, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser laid out the Syria regime change plan for then Israeli PM Netanyahu. The 1996 "Clean Break" paper laid out preemptive attacks in this order: Iraq, then Syria, with Iran to follow. This one's been in the works for a long time.

After setbacks in Iraq, and problems with the run-up to the bomb Iran campaign, are the neocons back at work with their original blueprint?

Syria regime change report and thread yesterday at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1534954&mesg_id=1534954

[annabanana]

6. Well.. "Cheers" to the NYT!!

Their caveats are a big. deal.
They are letting us know that the admin is trying to plant a story. And they are letting us know that nothing in the "leak" can be independently verified!

(for the kids: This is what newspapers are SUPPOSED to do, and most of them USED to do it.)

A refreshing breeze wafts through this article.

[LionInWinter]

7. The Washington Post has the same story

from a "senior administration official".

U.S. Wary Of Syria Targeting Lebanese
Alleged Hit List Aims At Regaining Control

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060901699.html

[flpoljunkie]

8. Thanks for the link.

[annabanana]

10. BUT without the caveats....BIG DIFFERENCE

They just feed the lead out bald, without any attempt to be able to verify it independently, or saying that they can or cannot.

The story here is whether or not a media outlet is interested in reclaiming it's integrity!!

edit: So far, The NY Times is, and WaPo is NOT.

[annabanana]

9. KICK for visibility... (this is good info)..n/t

[annabanana]

11. kick for the weekenders. . . . . . n/t