A Wall Street Journal op-ed cited this week by both Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has drawn scrutiny for not disclosing writer Elizabeth O'Bagy's ties to a Syrian rebel advocacy group. On Thursday, The Daily Caller examined O'Bagy's role as political director for the Syria Emergency Task Force, a group that has lobbied the White House and Congress to support the rebels. O'Bagy told The Daily Caller that she is not a salaried employee, but serves as a paid contractor. Journalist Laura Rozen questioned Friday why the Journal op-ed -- which was published a week ago online and in Saturday's print edition -- did not identify O'Bagy's affiliation with the group. The Huffington Post contacted the Journal on Friday and was told the paper would not comment on op-ed's lack of disclosure. But shortly thereafter, a clarification was added to the piece: "In addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O'Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition."

Certainly this raises questions about why the Wall Street Journal didn't disclose O'Bagy's affiliation (questions that led to embarrassing display of sniping on Twitter among foreign policy journalists), but the issue here seems like it goes beyond the sort of thing appropriate for an op-ed page ethics panel. Specifically: Why did John McCain and John Kerry treat the words of a spokeswoman for rebels (who works for a group funded by American and British governments) as if they were spoken without an agenda?

O'Bagy's affiliation doesn't make her wrong, but it does provide a reason to skeptical of her assessment—and to be skeptical of McCain and Kerry for citing her oped as evidence in favor of attacking Syria.

On the one hand, if McCain and Kerry didn't know she was aligned with rebels, it makes them appear to be easily manipulated dilettantes who don't know as much as they claim about the situation at hand. Bolstering that theory: When Kerry cited O'Bagy (video at top of post) not only mispronounced her name, but misspelled it as B-A-G-L-Y. I guess that's in the ballpark of what her name really is, but it suggests he actually has no clue who she was, even though he was citing her op-ed as if it were a carefully vetted intelligence document.

On the other hand, it's possible that McCain and/or Kerry were aware of O'Bagy's ties, and yet chose not disclose them, a scenario which would be equally alarming, albeit in a different way.

I can't claim to be an expert on Syrian rebels, but it's pretty clear there's at least good reason to doubt that they are in fact the shining examples of moderation that McCain and Kerry made them out to be. If McCain and Kerry want to win the argument that the rebels are worth helping, they're going to need to do better than they've done so far.

Email your member of the House of Representatives, letting him or her know your opinion about a military strike on Syria—whatever your opinion may be.