W. Thomas Smith, Jr. -- The Saga Continues

You may recall my interview with W. Thomas Smith, Jr. last week -- TMR Exclusive: W. Thomas Smith, Jr. Goes On The Record! At the time I was of the opinion that Mr.Smith had done nothing wrong and at most had failed to differentiate between what sources had told him and what he physically saw (which by the way is exactly what MSM reporters did in Baghdad while reporting how bad the war was going from their hotel rooms!).

Since that interview there have been two articles backing up Mr. Smiths claims with little or no coverage (shocker!!!) by anyone in the MSM or New Media and it seems as though the forces on the left who were driving this story as a counter to deflect criticism for Scott Beauchamp are achieving their goals.

One of the articles I mentioned entitled “Smith is a hero” was sent to me yesterday as I was working to secure the reprint rights for another piece co-written by the same author Tom Harb. As I was successful I'd like to share that piece, in its entirety, with you now:

Much more after the jump

American Mercenaries of Hezbollah
By John Hajjar,
U.S. director for the World Council of the Cedars Revolution
and
Tom Harb,
Secretary General of the International Lebanese Committee for UN Security Council Resolution 1559

[This article first appeared December 3, 2007 at FamilySecurityMatters.org.]

Back in September, a reporter for National Review Online and former Marine, W. Thomas Smith Jr. landed in Beirut and began a three-week journey to report about the deeper end of Hezbollah’s deployment. Smith wasn’t the only American or European journalist who had crossed the psychological-warfare defense lines of Hezbollah and filed stories about the real situation, but he was the first reporter who is now under heavy fire from Hezbollah propagandists and their American mercenaries for having “penetrated” the second line of defense of Iranian propaganda in Lebanon.

The first line is when a journalist asks for Hezbollah’s permission to cover the organization but fails to follow the party line in his or her stories. The punishment is usually not to be granted another permission to walk in Hezbollah’s zones. But to those who come closer to the organization’s buildings, observe closely their urban movements, and never ask for any permission, the punishment is capital. Top dogs are unleashed against such journalists for the “kill” -- the moral, professional and political kill. Smith is today in the cross hair of the “mercenaries” who in turn deliver the blows from Hezbollah’s propagandists.

It was a matter of, “Smith reported too much: Let’s get him.”

So who is doing the attacking?

The “mob”

Leading the charge is Thomas B. Edsall from The Huffington Post. Edsall enlists Michael Prothero and Chris Allbritton, two journalists who have no real Middle East training but who at least went to Lebanon, and filed articles from there.

But readers would be amazed to learn who these writers are, and at whose service are their pens. This is precisely where readers will begin to understand that the attacks on Smith are in fact at the “service” of Hezbollah. Edsall – eager to score points on his political enemies in American politics (Bush and the conservatives) and in a rush to settle some scores with The National Review -- hastily hired two members of Hezbollah’s media mob who are all over the Internet defending the Iranian-funded militia. Instead of succeeding in nailing some sort of “victory” over Smith’s daring reporting, Edsall has opened a Pandora’s box on himself, Mrs. Huffington, and on the hidden media mercenaries, now fully exposed to the readers’ scrutiny on aiding Hezbollah against its victims.

Why the attack?

Edsall wrote that “there is a growing dispute over the veracity of reporting from Lebanon by former Marine W. Thomas Smith, Jr. who is posting reports on his blog, The Tank, published by the conservative website, National Review Online (NRO).”

So here is the truth: NRO is a conservative web site, thus "it needs to be" attacked.

In his article, he wrote that he “contacted” the above-mentioned journalists, not the other way around. So we are to understand Edsall read Smith’s articles. He decided they were wrong –although he lacks the expertise to challenge that unless he has experts advising him - and thus decided to open a “file.” But my question is why did Edsall open fire first and on what grounds? Who contacted him and asked him to begin this action? He claims he contacted “experts” and asked them to check these reports. But who asked him to check the reports? Or was it that someone asked the reporters to contact him and run a story on Smith? And where is that mysterious monitoring desk? Is it in the U.S. or based in some quarters in southern Beirut?

Edsall goes on to say: “Smith is a supporter of the war in Iraq, and is affiliated with two politically conservative organizations.” How telling this is: Edsall is prosecuting Smith because Smith is a supporter of the War in Iraq and belongs to conservative organizations.

Edsall writes: “At question are two reports filed by Smith on The Tank -- reports which appear to be designed to bolster support for the ongoing presence of U.S troops in the Mideast.” So the issue is simple: regardless of their content, Smith’s blogs and articles are to be discredited because their author seems to encourage support for the ongoing presence of US troops in the Middle East. While any reasonable reader can’t see how reporting on Hezbollah in Beirut’s suburbs is connected to bolster US troops in Iraq, a seasoned analyst would immediately understand that the motive behind Edsall’s article is to weaken US presence in the region by discrediting those journalists who are exposing Hezbollah. The latter is an Iranian-backed organization, and Tehran’s first priority is to get US troops out of Iraq. A simple deduction process would tell any commonsense reader that Edsall is either playing the cards of the Iranian regime and Hezbollah, or he has been manipulated by pro-Hezbollah media who are aiding the propaganda of Hezbollah.

So called points of contention:

Edsall presents three points of contention:

1) Smith's September 29 report that between 4,000-5,000 Hezbollah gunmen had "deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in an unsettling 'show of force.'

Research: Smith was reporting about the presence of thousands of Hezbollah militants who cross from the southern suburbs to East Beirut. After checking, we know these movements have been occurring for months, as hundreds –sometimes thousands - of Hezbollah supporters walk (and travel on motorcycles) from their neighborhoods to downtown Beirut to visit or replace the hundreds of militants who are camping in front of Prime Minister’s building. If these moves were not exciting for journalists Prothero and Allbritton, that is their problem. Not so for Smith who – according to his account - got this information from neighborhood watch teams in the East sector and from NGOs. It would have been more useful for Edsall to invite these witnesses to write about Hezbollah’s moves on Beirut’s streets instead of subcontracting two media sympathizers of Hezbollah to ratify these stories.

Then Edsall adds:

2) September 25 report that "some 200-plus heavily armed Hezbollah militiamen" occupied a "sprawling Hezbollah tent city" near the Lebanese parliament.

Edsall must be joking. Which part of this statement is he worried about? Is he rejecting the fact that 200 Hezbollah militiamen occupy downtown Beirut or is it that they may be armed? Well, first, he needs to spend more time watching CNN, the BBC, or al Jazeera to actually “see” that there is a tent city in Beirut, and that the occupiers were way more than 200 persons in September and October. Smith actually underreported. There are hundreds and sometimes more than a thousand present in that part of downtown. And when the Hezbollah coalition holds rallies, tens-of-thousands appear on TV. As to weapons, Edsall might read more reports on Lebanon and understand that Hezbollah is a militia that owns 20,000 missiles, and that its leaders have openly threatened to take the city center of Beirut. Hence, the militants who occupied downtown Beirut are armed and their weapons are hidden in their tents and in different locations. If journalists boast otherwise, they need to go there along with NGO and UN observers and enter these tents. Short of such investigative reporting, attacking Smith for daring to state the obvious, is an insult to common sense and to the Lebanese People who have been suffering from violence for too long.

Then Edsall claims:

3) In addition, Smith's critics contend that Smith's self-reported exploits – if true - endanger the press corps in the troubled region.

From all accusations this one is certainly the most ridiculous and uncovers the degree of collaboration between the accusers and the Hezbollah propaganda machine. For if a courageous American journalist goes freely wherever he wishes and was successful in reaching very close to Hezbollah’s military positions and writes about it, he should be treated as a hero by the press corps: not as badly as the crowd at the Huffington Post and their associates have done.

And if Prothero and Allbritton spend their time in Beirut cozying up to Hezbollah’s media department and filing stories in defense of the Iranian-funded militia, that is their choice, but not the choice of independent-minded US journalists who take risks to inform their readers about the real situation on the ground. Prothero and Allbriton do not represent the press corps nor do they represent professional journalism. They are friends of Hezbollah …

The accusers

Edsall wrote that he contacted four “well-regarded Middle East reporters,” who made accusations against Smith's journalism. Let’s review whom Edsall contacted for his campaign:

1) Mitchell Prothero, who is said to have reported for Fortune, the Washington Times, and Slate. Now, who is Prothero?

Answer: Prothero is a rabid anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-Lebanese journalist who was obviously assigned by Hezbollah the task of promoting the Iranian-funded organization as of Summer 2006. In an article published in Salon on July 20, 2006, titled "Killing a nation, one airstrike at a time: From Beirut to the Beqaa Valley to the south, Israel is methodically smashing Lebanon into the dust. A report from the ground," he promotes Hezbollah as a resistance movement and rails against the Lebanese population in general and the Christians in East Beirut in particular.

Prothero, writing with the style of his veteran Libanophobes of the 1980s, didn't understand that Christians, Sunnis, and Druze have come together against Hezbollah, or maybe he understood, but the Iranian Petrodollars were in action. On May 26, 2005, Prothero wrote a piece for the Washington Times (strangely) titled "Hezbollah warns against disarmament" in which he undermined the Cedars Revolution. Yet, he has the conservative newspaper in his CV to mislead readers about his neutrality.

Prothero has been accused in “letters to the editor” of being a staunch defender of Hezbollah and by pro-Jihadist readers as an advocate for their cause in Lebanon.

On July 28, 2006, Prothero wrote a piece for Salon to smash the "hiding among civilians myth" promoted by Israel.

He has been spending months in Beirut, according to Lebanese observers, living a good life.

Michael Totten, who spent weeks in Lebanon covering the conflict, exposes Prothero's bias. Lebanese and Western sources said they will be very happy to report to American readers what Prothero's "good life" is in Lebanon. All they need are visas and tickets to travel to Washington and hold a press conference at the National Press Club. Obviously, Prothero has neither Middle East studies training nor language skills to serve as an expert on the region or on Lebanon.

2) The second accuser is Chris Allbritton, who “has reported from the Middle East since 2002 for Time, Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Times, and the Newark Star-Ledger.

Allbritton is another anti-Bush, anti-Israel, anti-Lebanese journalist and Hezbollah-Jihadists sympathizer. No need for hyper-research. Just Google him and here you go:

Allbritton has written many pieces and has his opinions well-shaped. He attacks presidential candidates because they expose Islamist terrorism. He praises Syria as a serious player in the Middle East. He criticizes the Kurds in Iraq, and sees Iran as a partner for stabilization.

Writing for the San Francisco Chronicle on July 28, 2006, Allbritton said "87 percent of Lebanese said they support Hezbollah in its fight against Israel."

But the Lebanese majority in parliament has criticized Hezbollah for igniting a war without any authorization. It took some research to realize that the so-called Beirut Center for Research and Information he quoted is a Hezbollah front.

Oddly as Allbritton accuses Smith of lying about weapons being distributed in Beirut he wrote this:

The old weapons have been taken out, dusted and oiled up, and new weapons have been bought in alarming quantities," said Omar Nashabe, who writes on security issues for the opposition Al-Akhbar. "They are ready to burn the country again." Even private citizens are getting in on the action. In downtown Beirut this week, two armed drivers argued over the right of way on one of Beirut's many narrow streets. The argument ended with one of them shot dead. Hezbollah is preparing for something. Last weekend, the group staged a massive military exercise on both sides of the Litani River, south of which the group is not supposed to wander while armed. So, the fighters didn't carry weapons when they cross the river. Both Israeli military observers and members of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) watched the exercise, which was personally overseen by Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

So Allbritton denies Smith the right to "talk about it," because perhaps he wants to talk "about it"?

Writing in the Columbia Journalism Review under the title "Lifting the Cover of the Hezbollah PR Effort" on July 27, 2006, Paul McLeary describes how Albritton admitted that Hezbollah controls the journalists in Beirut, but omitted to state how he (Albritton) and the Hezbollah media guys are friendly. Last but not least, see whose sites link with him: Electronic Intifada, the pro-Jihadist website, antiwar, and none other than the chief apologist for Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and other terrorists, Juan Cole. So the bottom line is this witness from Beirut is nothing more than a "friend" to Hezbollah.

3) A third “accuser” is presented as a “reporter for a major U.S. magazine, who did not want his name used because he did not want to become involved in a journalistic controversy.” Yet an anonymous source would be used in an attempt to destroy Smith’s credibility and crush his message?

4) Even more incredible is Edsall’s reckless attempt to convince his readers with yet a fourth “accuser,” also anonymous.

Let’s follow the arguments just to understand these serious propaganda tactics:

Prothero writes: "In his [Smith's] wildly entertaining postings, he describes kidnap attempts, an armed incursion into Christian East Beirut by 5,000 armed Hezbollah fighters that was missed by every journalist in town, he also notes the presence of 200 armed Hezbollah fighters in downtown Beirut 'laying siege' to the prime ministers office, recounts high-speed car chases and 'armed recon operations' where he drives around south Beirut taking pictures of Hezbollah installations, while carrying weapons. In a word, this is all insane."

Prothero wants US readers to be convinced that all this chaos doesn’t exist and everything is just great in Lebanon. Obviously, while even CNN and al Jazeera show the downtown siege to Seniora’s offices, Prothero prefers the company of a nice Aoun press secretary to chat about the General’s future. He doesn’t need to be careful as he drives around Hezbollah’s buildings as he enters them accompanied with Hezbollah militia escort. He has no need for weapons as his Hezbollah bodyguards have very advanced ones. So why would Prothero care?

Allbritton said Smith is a “fabulist.” He quotes him saying “4,000 Hezbollah gunmen took over East Beirut at the end of September.”

Obviously that didn’t happen: a military invasion of the city didn’t happen, yet. Nor did Smith say or suggest that anyone “took over” East Beirut.

Allbritton misquoted Smith – got his facts wrong -- nor did he explain what Hezbollah was doing.

What he has done in fact has been to cover up preemptively for what Hezbollah has threatened to do. It is odd that Smith reported that thousands of Hezbollah had been walking throughout Beirut, and Allbritton didn’t even notice. But odder is that Allbritton has been describing left and right that militiamen have been seen all over the city. Go figure.

Edsall unleashes his “secret journalist testimony.”

He writes on the behalf of the “third musketeer”: "Mr. Smith also says that 4,000 armed Hezbollah fighters took up positions in East Beirut one day this fall in a 'show of force'. This would have been a major international news event and possibly the start of the next Lebanese civil war. In January, unarmed opposition supporters led by Hezbollah shut down roads in Beirut, and the event sparked riots and led the news all over the world. And yet, Mr. Smith is the only journalist in Lebanon to have found this story, as far as I know. So why, with such a major scoop in his hands, does Smith devote just a few lines in a blog post to it? Because it never happened."

Edsall (or his ghost writer) misquotes Smith and creates a second story. There was no half-division of Hezbollah taking over Beirut for one day. Smith never said so. There were Hezbollah militants walking around the city. Smith might have been more specific in his description, but Edsall and his crowd must stop fabricating new ones. True, there was no Hezbollah division marching in Beirut – Smith never suggested there was -- but what Hezbollah’s friends refuse to report to their readers in the US is that a militia has indeed deployed in downtown. Smith’s military slang description of what took place in late September angered Hezbollah, because it probably preempted their real plans already visible on the streets.

Edsall then unleashes his second unnamed phantom from the “region” who allegedly emailed:

“This guy is hilarious. Armed Hezbollah at the Serail? He must be mistaking the Lebanese army at the gates - those 200 in the tents are some middle class Hezbollees - who now come once a week to have a smoke with their friends and get away from their wives."

Now that, dear readers, is a Hezbollah operative’s talk. All Western and Lebanese security reporting estimates the occupiers in downtown at about a thousand. Counterterrorism experts out of the region estimate the capacity of the downtown camp to mobilize and seize the Prime Minister’s offices at 6 hours, with one brigade from Hezbollah taking downtown. But the media friends of Hezbollah, especially the unnamed sources cited by the Huffington writer, wants the world to believe otherwise. Of course, they don’t want their foes to be ready for the confrontation.

Why Are The Pro-Hezbollah people offended?

Edsall says the four musketeers were frustrated that Smith snatched a Hezbollah flag.

Well, that shows their feeling for Hezbollah…so what?

Allbritton wrote that “by openly bragging about how he conducts 'reconnaissance' on Hezbollah 'strongholds' and describing what weapons he's carrying, he's making it difficult for every journalist here to do his or her job. We're all under suspicion anyway, and his public cowboying doesn't help at all."

Oh please, a cowboy snatching a flag from Nasrallah will make lives more difficult to journalists who are living in Lebanon and whose passports are already with the organization? Who are we kidding here? And what job are these Hezbollah accredited journalists doing? Defending Hezbollah’s image? Hiding information about the organization? Where is the reporting about the Iranian Pasdaran walking around in Nabartieh, Tyre, Baalbeck and the 20,000 missiles? Why aren’t these American journalists visiting the Syrian-Lebanese borders – like Smith courageously did - and reporting from there? Where is their investigative work on the assassination of many Lebanese legislators? All their job seems to be is to rail against the Cedars Revolution and praise the achievements of Hezbollah, warning about its disarming.

“Demonization” of Smith

The bottom line is crystal clear: There is a lynch mob out to demonize Smith for having dared to play “cowboy” in Beirut and snatch a flag from the terrorists. Edsall, Prothero and Allbritton are to be condemned for what they wrote and ought to apologize to Smith for trying to destroy him and his reputation.

Otherwise the bloggers and readers will expose their work. Smith is a hero who had the courage to write about things which are taboo to write about in Lebanon. Perhaps he could abandon slang descriptions, especially as the vultures are circling.

Conclusion

Let it be understood that journalists can and should explore all published pieces for their veracity and credibility. Smith’s pieces are no exception. But to have writers tear him apart in defense of Hezbollah is neither acceptable nor professional. Today’s journalists stationed in Lebanon – unlike in the 1980s and the 1990s - must realize that they don’t have an open field in disinformation. For every citizen today can be and is a journalist. With the internet, YouTube and blogging, no more big boys can impose a party line anymore. Cartels are broken even for the mainstream media. You have your blog and I have mine. You mess with me and I’ll mess with you, and cyberspace has no limit.

So it’s best not to play with the truth: you won’t get away with it.

Reading the headlines over the past two days, it's starting to look as though Mr. Smith (as I suspected) might have been right all along!

Another political murder in Lebanon, another dashed hope for peace

Men questioned over Lebanon blast

Bush warns against Syrian interference in Lebanon

Also it's good to see Mr. Smith Back on the horse They Killed General Hajj by W. Thomas Smith Jr. also at Townhall.com

So the saga continues...