TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @brikeilarcnn
@brikeilarcnn - Brianna Keilar
Twice in one day, top Biden administration officials suggested that reporters who are asking legitimate questions are siding with enemies of America. They're not. They're doing their jobs. #RollTheTape https://t.co/WTI21J5gFq
Video Transcript AI Summary
State Department spokesperson and a reporter clash over lack of evidence for Russian propaganda claims. Another exchange questions US military's assessment of civilian casualties in Syria raid. Administration admits mistake in drone strike that killed civilians. Journalists must ask questions to hold officials accountable and protect civilians, reflecting American values.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So twice in one day, top administration officials have suggested that reporters who are asking legitimate questions are siding with enemies of America. At yesterday's state department briefing, this heated exchange between state department spokesperson Ned Price and the AP's Matt Lee, who, by the way, has covered the last eight secretaries of state.
Speaker 1: It's an action that you say that they have taken, but you have shown no evidence to to to confirm that. And I'm gonna get to the next question here, which is what is the evidence that they I mean, this is like crisis actors, really. This is like Alex Jones territory you're getting into then. What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?
Speaker 2: Matt, this is derived, from information known to the US government, intelligence information that we have declassified. I think you have Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, where where is it? Where where is this information?
Speaker 2: It is intelligence information that we have declassified.
Speaker 1: Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information?
Speaker 2: I just delivered it.
Speaker 1: No. You made a series of allegations and statement.
Speaker 2: Would you like us to print out the topper? Because you will see a transcript of this briefing that you can print out for yourself. That's not
Speaker 1: evidence, Ned. That's you saying it. That's not evidence. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: What would you like, Matt?
Speaker 1: I I would like to see some proof that you that that that that that you can show that that
Speaker 2: that
Speaker 1: that that shows that that that shows that the Russians are doing it. Ned, I've been doing this for a while.
Speaker 2: I know. That was my pleasure. You you have you you have been doing this for quite a while. You know that when we declassify intelligence information, we do so in in a means we do so we do so with an eye to protecting possible methods.
Speaker 1: Not gonna fall. I I remember a lot of things. So where where where is the declassified information other than you coming out here and saying?
Speaker 2: Matt, I'm sorry you don't like the format, but we have de
Speaker 1: classified format. It's the content.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry you don't like the content. I'm sorry you I'm sorry you are doubting the information that is in the possession of the US government.
Speaker 1: But you don't have any any evidence to back it up other than what you're saying. It's like you're saying we think we we have information. The Russians may do this, but you won't tell us what the information is.
Speaker 2: And then when that is the idea behind deterrence, Matt. That is the idea behind deterrence. It is our hope that the Russians don't go forward with this.
Speaker 1: You say, I just gave it to you. But that's not what
Speaker 2: You you seem not to understand you seem not to understand the idea of deterrence.
Speaker 1: We are trying to observe. The Russians
Speaker 2: are moving forward with this type of activity. That is why we're making it public today. If the Russians don't go forward with this, that is not, ipso facto, an indication that they never had plans to do so.
Speaker 1: But But then it's unprovable. My my god. What is the evidence that you have that suggests that that the Russians are even planning this?
Speaker 3: Matt, you're not.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not saying that they're not, but you just come out and say this and expect us just to to to believe it without you showing a shred of evidence that it's actually true other than when I asked or when anyone else asked what's the information? You said, well, I just gave it to you, which was just you making a statement.
Speaker 2: Matt, you said yourself, you've been in this business for quite a long time. You know that when we make information, intelligence information public, we do so, in a in a way that protects sensitive sources and methods. You also know that we do so, we declassify information only when we're confident in that information. If you doubt the the credibility of the US government, of the British government, of other governments and wanna, you know, find, solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is, that is for you to do. I know that.
Speaker 0: Alright. Let's be clear. That was the state department spokesman suggesting that an American reporter is siding with Russian propaganda, finding comfort with Russian propaganda. He's not. He's asking a question.
It is our job as journalists to ask questions and to verify claims. You heard that reporter clearly explaining why. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and more recently, whether Kabul would fall to the Taliban. This was president Biden in July.
Speaker 1: Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?
Speaker 3: No. It is not. Because you have the Afghan troops at 300,000 well equipped as well as equipped as any army in the world and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable, but the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.
Speaker 0: It happened less than a month later. Kabul fell. So, yes, it is important to question claims and intelligence. The other exchange yesterday over a reporter just doing their job, asking about the raid in Syria that killed the leader of ISIS. NPR reporter Ayesha Roscoe questioned White House press secretary Jen Psaki onboard Air Force 1.
Speaker 4: I mean, I know the US has put out a statement that the the that the you know, they've detonated the bomb themselves. But will the US provide any evidence? Because there may be people that are skeptical of the events that took place and what happened to the civilians.
Speaker 5: Skeptical of the US military's assessment when they went and took out an ISIS terror the leader of ISIS Yeah. That they are not providing accurate information and ISIS is providing accurate information? Well, not
Speaker 4: ISIS, but, I mean, the US has not always been, straightforward about what happens with civilians. And, I mean, that is a fact.
Speaker 1: Well, as
Speaker 5: you know, there's an extensive process that the Department of Defense undergoes. The president made clear from the beginning at every point in this process that doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties was his priority and his preference.
Speaker 0: She went on to say it's a fact. Right? That information has not always been correct when it comes to civilians. Following the ISIS k attack at the airport in Kabul, you'll remember it killed 13 service members. The US targeted what it thought was ISIS k with a drone strike in Kabul on August 29th.
Now that strike killed 10 civilians, including 7 children.
Speaker 6: Were there others killed? Yes. There are others killed. Who they are? We don't know.
We'll try to sort through all that. But we believe that the procedures at this point, I don't want to influence the outcome of an investigation. But at this point, we think that the procedures were correctly followed, and it was a righteous strike.
Speaker 0: The administration insisted that the intelligence was good.
Speaker 6: We had very good intelligence, that ISIS k was preparing, a specific type vehicle, at a specific type location. We monitored that through various means, and all of the engagement criteria were being met. We went through the same level of rigor that we've done
Speaker 0: for years. The administration explained that civilian casualties, appeared to be because of explosives that were carried by the purported terrorist.
Speaker 6: Explosions. Because there were secondary explosions, there's a reasonable conclusion to be made that there was explosives in that vehicle.
Speaker 0: It turned out that was wrong. The administration later admitted it had made a horrible mistake. So when we look at the failures of journalism, many times the failures are questions that were not asked. That is why reporters question officials because government officials have been wrong. It happens a lot, and this administration specifically has been wrong.
As you see, they're dead wrong in the recent past when talking about civilian casualties. It is entirely plausible that the leader of ISIS did blow himself up and killed people doing so. His predecessor, al Baghdadi, did. He killed 2 of his own children when he did it. Just last week, the US defense secretary, though, ordered top Pentagon officials to come up with a plan to protect civilians.
Secretary Lloyd Austin called it, quote, a strategic and moral imperative. He said that efforts to mitigate and respond to civilian harm are a diff a direct reflection of US values. So, yes, journalists will keep asking questions, hopefully undeterred by these suggestions. To do so is not siding with America's enemies. It is, as secretary Austin himself said, a moral imperative and a reflection of US values, not Russian values, not ISIS values, American values.