'Shut Up,' They Explained

The Biden administration doesn’t like being asked legitimate questions to provide evidence for their claims.

The Biden administration doesn’t like being asked legitimate questions to provide evidence for their claims:

Top White House and State Department officials tried to shut down reporters’ questions on Thursday about the veracity of Biden administration claims on Russia and Syria.

The reporters were asking for some proof to back up the administration claim that the Russian government was preparing to stage a false flag incident to provide a pretext for military action and a separate claim that the ISIS leader killed in a U.S. special forces raid had blown himself up along with his wife and two children. The White House press secretary and State Department spokesman didn’t offer any evidence to corroborate the claims, and by the end of their exchanges with reporters each one had suggested that questioning these claims implied a preference for information provided by Russia and ISIS. Ned Price, the State Department spokesman, said, “If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government, of the British government, of other governments and want to find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.” These exchanges came in the same week that Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, attacked Josh Hawley for “parroting Russian talking points” when he questioned the wisdom of continuing to support Ukrainian membership in NATO.

The dismissive and insulting responses to legitimate questions have been widely mocked and criticized, but they point to a troubling pattern in how the Biden administration is responding to criticism and basic journalistic inquiries. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that official claims about the false flag plan and the special forces raid are entirely accurate (quite an assumption given our government’s track record over the decades), the administration has not done its credibility any favors by blowing off requests for evidence and then accusing the journalists asking the questions of some sort of disloyalty. The Politico report summed it up this way:

When it comes to matters of war, the Biden administration’s current stance is “trust us” — and if you disagree, you’re Vladimir Putin's or ISIS’ talking puppet.

The way that Psaki and Price reacted to basic questions about evidence betrayed disrespect for the responsibility of journalists to demand transparency and accountability from our government. Price’s crack about “finding solace” in Russian information was Pompeo-like in its contempt for the questioner. At a time when public confidence in our political institutions is already quite low, there is nothing more likely to inspire suspicion than for government officials to say, “Just trust us.”

The reaction to Hawley was no better. I don’t think much of Hawley or his foreign policy opportunism, but the questions he sent to Secretary Blinken were reasonable and appropriate questions that the administration should take seriously and answer. Defaulting to the usual smear that Hawley is taking the Kremlin’s side is a pathetic and unworthy way to respond, but that is what the Biden White House chose to do. If it reminds people of the worst parts of the Iraq war debate, that is because we are seeing some of the same dangerous conformism that has plagued our foreign policy debates for decades. It has often been the case that supporters of a given policy or a war have denounced critics and skeptics for being on the side of, or in the employ of, another government, and they do that to stifle debate and because the supporters’ arguments are usually quite weak and flimsy on their own.