Dispatching with the #fakenews smear of the Trump administration does #NeverTrump leader David French in National Review:
Journalists spread the Reuters report far and wide, but anyone with the slightest experience in complex special operations missions should have been instantly skeptical. The anonymous attacks on Trump look a lot more like ass-covering than whistle-blowing. Absent truly extraordinary circumstances not outlined in the report, these officials seem to be relying on reporters’ ignorance and willingness to believe anything about Trump to cover to deflect criticism of a dangerous operation that turned out to be even more dangerous than anticipated. That happens in war. It happened all the time when I was in Iraq……don’t believe claims that Trump botched the raid in Yemen. He didn’t plan the operation, and we don’t want him planning operations. We want presidents to rely on professionals. But those same professionals will tell you that war is terrible by its very nature, and no president can guarantee victory without cost.
Scathing Purple Musings takes creative blogging licence – as it is – with French’s piece. Whet appears above is his second paragraph and his last. It’s a worthy read is French dissects the Reuter’s piece and includes the responsible journalism that came from CNN and the New York Times. He further offers:
As the Times makes clear, there were “months of detailed planning” that took place under Obama, and the Department of Defense had conducted a legal review that Trump approved. Oh, and it turns out that Trump approved the raid at a dinner attended not just by General Mattis, but also by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the vice president, and his national security adviser (a man who has enormous experience with special forces operations).
And about the beginning of the #FakeNews chain, this in French’s lede:
On Twitter, many journalists are rapidly reaching the point of maximum credulity — they’ll immediately believe virtually anything negative about Donald Trump, not matter how thinly-sourced or implausible. Take the kerfuffle that erupted last night in response to this Reuters report where unnamed defense officials blamed the losses in last weekend’s Yemen raid on, you guessed it, Trump: “U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations. As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.”
Looks as if someone – either in the military and intel community – had a Reuter’s reporter on speed dial. Ayesha Rascoe identifies herself on her twitter page as a White House correspondent for Reuters, someone who would have contacts in both communities. Her page doesn’t reveal herself a partisan; indeed they convey the integrity of a responsible, professional journalist. Her’s was not a hit piece. In fact her story in no way infers any sort of blame on the Trump administration. That came later from the editors and hack journalists from the likes of The Huffington Post, The Hill, and Salon all of whom hijacked Rascoe’s honest reporting and twisted it into a hit piece.