Somebody will eventually bring up this Seymour Hersh piece (The Gray Zone), so I might as well post a link to it now – and note for the record that when Hersh is prepared to risk his career by naming his sources, I’ll be prepared to listen to his theories with an open mind. I get so sick of whispers from the shadows.
(pause)
Ahh, who am I kidding? In my opinion Hersh is an aging hack justly afraid that if he publishes his sources the public would twig right away to the fact that this article was a typical Dizzy City smearjob ‘supported’ by the allegations of people that you wouldn’t trust to walk your dog properly. That’s my operating theory – and I’ll note right now how easy it would be to prove me wrong: Hersh can do that handily by publishing his sources. Let’s decide for ourselves, shall we?
Moe
UPDATE: Hellblazer and The Glittering Eye both have their own observations on the matter; it’s not coincidental that both are also being moved from Backscratch to Regulars.
Is it my imagination or are we seeing a rising number of books and articles that present highly inflammatory claims as fact citing various unnamed or untraceable sources? These books or articles in turn become a sort of cottage industry for proponents of one position or another.
Talk about echo chambers. This particular type of journalism reflects a world in which unsupportable claim becomes unimpeachable fact in one quick step.
I’ve recently been trying to check the authoritativeness of a chap named Adel Darwish, author of Unholy Babylon. This book appears to be either the primary or sole source for the claim that Saddam Hussein was trained and equipped by the CIA. And it’s hugely cited by the press as authoritative. This claim has been very energetically denied by other journalists who appear to equally or even more authoritative.
Right. . . So I can assume you’ll apply this high standard to *every* reporter? Geesh. This is a time honored tradition in reporting, with damn good reasons. I agree it would be far better if everyone would speak out in the open. But this is a complete fantasy world and everyone knows that.
Hmmm. I seem to remember something big regarding Nixon and anonymous sources. I’m sure you’re standards would have served us well in that era.
Right. . . So I can assume you’ll apply this high standard to *every* reporter?
Sure.
The real problem as I mentioned above is authoritativeness. When a journalist with no first-hand knowledge of his own quotes an unnamed or untraceable source—who may also have no first-hand knowledge, how can determine how reliable the information is?
what axe does the journalist have to grind? Are they fair-minded? Have they been caught lying in the past?
That’s one of the problems that Robert Woodward has right now. When you rely on unnamed sources and you’ve been caught lying once it calls into question everything you’ve ever written or will write.
Well, luckily we just don’t have your word on it. We can just go to the Columbia Journalism Review for a nice, long piece about Sy’s career. Or we can check out the latest piece comparing Woodward’s and Sy’s careers.
Seems to me the past is a pretty decent predictor of behavior (Bayesian algorithms aren’t used because they don’t work). And Sy’s past is pretty stellar in this regard.
Unless you have some information that the CJR doesn’t have. . .
Well, O.K., Hersh could start a blog and through his posts and a rambunctious comments section we could arrive at hard, cold facticity.
Or, he could get a little show on Fox and be cited by blogs. Even closer.
Or, he could change his name to Drudge, use the real Drudge as his source, and thus be doubly fact-driven.
I suppose it could be true that everything he writes is false and the Iraq caper is nothing but a little sexual humiliation as a means to a flat tax.
“Seems to me the past is a pretty decent predictor of behavior (Bayesian algorithms aren’t used because they don’t work). ”
I thought that you looked familar. Let me repeat, with additional scorn: Hersh does not have the right to be trusted without verification, despite your steadfast refusal to admit it.
Moe
John, Seymour Hersh has made an allegation that, if true, would result in at least Rumsfeld being removed from his position – and very possibly result in Bush’s defeat in November, if not his actual impeachment. This is, in other words, very, very serious – so I am demanding that we be told who gave him the information that he used to make that allegation. If he declines, then it is my position that this allegation should be treated as any other anonymous accusation; which is to say, that it be ignored.
Well, now Newsweek is piling on. And this time with real memos and sources.
I assume y’all are going to start slamming John Barry, Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff as well?
Seems like Sy was right again.
Tsk, tsk, Hal. Another set of unnamed sources allegating that Rumsfeld was personally involved? Do you even read these things before you post them?
Uh, internal government memos obtained by Newsweek? Hello? What? Are we to believe that Newsweek is making this up?
Hirsh’s article by and in an of itself says the abuse was not systemic. He talks about an isolated situtaion, in one location, limited time frame where prisoners were held for a short (72 hour) period using techniques garned from Afghanistan.
He does move the approval upto the WH to Dr. Rice (who advised the President), which I believe was the sole intention of the article from the very beginning. I have to assume Hirsh had already expected Rummy’s resignation.
Let’s see the text and find out. Plus the author and recipients, of course.
Moe, you’re ideals are admirable, but look, if Hersh identifies his sources I don’t think we’ll be seeing too many more Hersh pieces.
Whaddya say you and I co-sign a letter to the White House (copies to the State Department, Defense Department, and branches of the military) requesting that the sources (and their sources) go public with their facts. Then we get to bypass Hersh completely.
Surely, we’ll have sources speaking into microphones on the steps of impressive-looking buildings all over Washington D.C.
By the way, partisan that I am, I don’t want to see the Bush Administration and its supporters go into full anti-impeachment mode. I exempt you and some others from this judgement, but I’m afraid the response from this White House and their true believers would be catastrophic for the country.
“your” ideals ..
or… “you are ideal” .. no, that’s going too far.
I agree with John’s assertion that Moe’s ideals are admirable. I wish we lived in a world where it wasn’t necessary to get information out via anonymous sources that we need. But applying utopian ideals – selectively, I might add – is a rather poor way to operate in the world.
Pardon me for forgetting, but wasn’t one of the members of this blog a journalism student? I could be confusing this with another group blog. . .
Hal:
Please don’t take this question as being snarky—it isn’t. When I ask a question it’s because I genuinely want to know the answer. How do you determine what journalists word you take without supporting facts? Seymour Hersh alone? Are there others? How did you identify them?
Please note that I am apologizing, both here and at OTB, for my own nastier comments to Hal as being both unfair and intemperate; the entire thing snowballed in fairly typical internet fashion, but that’s no excuse. I’m also sorry for subjecting all y’all to them, too,
I don’t thnk this thing is going away, Moe. Obviously, there is a cadre of angry JAG lawyers who are going around telling the same story to every media outlet that will listen. So far, Hersh, NEWSWEEK, ABC, CBS, Salon, the Globe, the Times, and the Post, as far as I can tell.
BTW, Moe, I’ve never seen twig used in that sense before. My word a day.
Not taking it snarkly 🙂 I don’t take any journalist’s word without supporting facts. I’m not saying that Hersh is god and we should bow before his mighty pen. When interesting and unexpected information comes out, you first look at the history of the source.
Hersh, as a journalist, has a long career one can search and lots of people commenting on it and criticizing him (in the formal sense of the term). So if the journalist is – say – Judith Miller, who has a long and recent history of being a tool of their anonymous sources, I tend to discount the information. If it’s someone who has a long history of breaking stories that turn out to be completely true, then I tend to think the information is likely correct.
Until you have more sources you trust, you can’t really be sure. But we live in an uncertain world. It kind of freaks me out as an anti-war person to be saying this given the fact that we went to war on the argument that “we can’t wait until we’re sure”, but we live in a world where we can never be sure.
But rather than attack Hersh’s information on his past record, the information is attacked merely because it’s unsourced – oh, and that Hersh guy is a political hack. Fair enough, as it means we need to find out about this. But anonymous sources don’t – in any way – prove the information is false.
I hadn’t argued that Hersh’s accusations were correct. Until I saw the Newsweek article, Sy was the only “source”. After Newsweek piled on, I figure that they’d have to be pretty big idiots to stick their neck out that far. Claiming you have memos when you don’t is a pretty big risk.
Still could be a load of horse pucky, but it doesn’t look likely. We’ll see.
Moe, you didn’t need to do that. We all get hot under the collar and times being what they are, we all have a lot to get hot under the collar about. I apologize for my part in the entertainment.
Hal:
That’s an excellent answer. Thank you.
I’m reflexively skeptical of journalists. It might have something to do with the fact that many, many years ago my Dad was a newspaperman. He was close friends with pretty nearly every editor of pretty nearly every paper in St. Louis. I used to go to their hangouts and have lunch with them.
Dave and asdf, what you say about a journalist who mixes facts with supposition in and out of each paragraph which is what Hirsch has done in this article. Thus, even I agree that WH authorized the use of armed predators to takeout known terroritsts and there is nothing new to this.
No time line, mixing fact with fiction in order to blur and mislead, carve-in carve-out and to what end. Poor journalism combined with no story.
The Newsweek story is similarly structure. You might imply that the purpose was to educate the reader but to facilitate regime change at home.
If you have proof of systemic abuse, a clear and concise news story shouldn’t be all that hard to put together. I continue to wait with baited breath.
Dave and asdf, what you say about a journalist who mixes facts with supposition in and out of each paragraph which is what Hirsch has done in this article. Thus, even I agree that WH authorized the use of armed predators to takeout known terroritsts and there is nothing new to this.
No time line, mixing fact with fiction in order to blur and mislead, carve-in carve-out and to what end. Poor journalism combined with no story.
The Newsweek story is similarly structure. You might imply that the purpose was not to educate the reader but to facilitate regime change at home.
If you have proof of systemic abuse, a clear and concise news story shouldn’t be all that hard to put together. I continue to wait with baited breath.
What’s important here? The facts about Pentagon policy, or the integrity of Hersh’s and Newsweek’s sources?
I think the public good is served if anonymously sourced material raises the issue visibility enough so that there’s motivation for fact-verifiers (e.g. Congress or prosecutors or other journalists) get on the story and sort it out. Deep throat was important not for the facts, but for the incentive it provided to get the whole story.
We shouldn’t as an electorate drum the rascals out of office based on anonymous articles, but if those articles lead to clear offenses being revealed, so be it.
That said, I also support the comments below.
Hal said:
“I wish we lived in a world where it wasn’t necessary to get information out via anonymous sources that we need. But applying utopian ideals – selectively, I might add – is a rather poor way to operate in the world.”
asdf said:
“I don’t thnk this thing is going away, Moe. Obviously, there is a cadre of angry JAG lawyers who are going around telling the same story to every media outlet that will listen.”
Hal said:
“But anonymous sources don’t – in any way – prove the information is false.
Jim, well I question whether information from anonymous sources support Hirsh’s segue into the current abuse scandal. That is:
-Were the Abu Ghraib guard’s operating under SAP guidance; one of the guards says they were not.
-Did the SAP guidelines authorize sexual abuse? That is, is the sexual abuse of detainees systemic (one would expect similar cases of abuse in both Gitmo and Afghanistan if it was).
-Finally, we know from the 9-11 commission that the Bush Admin took the gloves off in going after OBL and AQ. So what was Hirsch’s point in revisiting that history, other than trying to creat a link Abu Ghraib prison? The sole purpose of objective of the piece as constructed.
Memos, Timmy.
Memos.
fixed?
Those JAG lawyers you mentioned praktike had no problem publicly contesting the tribunals, at least that is how the NYT’s article read.
I’m a little slow this afternoon, Timbo.
What are you getting at?
Timmy: MEMOS AND ORDERS
“Two days after the Yoo memo circulated, the State Department’s chief legal adviser, William Howard Taft IV, fired a memo to Yoo calling his analysis “seriously flawed.””
“By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had “requested that you reconsider that decision.””
“When Powell read the Gonzales memo, he “hit the roof,” says a State source. Desperately seeking to change Bush’s mind, Powell fired off his own blistering response the next day, Jan. 26, and sought an immediate meeting with the president.”
Newsweek
“Toward the end of 2002, orders came down the political chain at DOD that the Geneva Conventions were to be reinterpreted to allow tougher methods of interrogation. “There was almost a revolt” by the service judge advocates general, or JAGs, the top military lawyers who had originally allied with Powell against the new rules, says a knowledgeable source.”
Newsweek
(emphasis added)
The news about the memo is new? That is detainees in Gitmo and Afghanistan are not POWs.
The stress techniques are news?
I missed where the SAP techniques encompass sexual abuse. Maybe you can help.
The fact that State and DoD might disagree on a subject is news. Is that what you are getting at?
Is this the kinda thing you were looking for?
@The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was “The Arab Mind,” a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996. The book includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression. “The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,” Patai wrote.
“Homosexual activity, “or any indication of homosexual leanings, as with all other expressions of sexuality, is never given any publicity. These are private affairs and remain in private.” The Patai book, an academic told me, was “the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.” In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged—“one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.”
The government consultant said that there may have been a serious goal, in the beginning, behind the sexual humiliation and the posed photographs. It was thought that some prisoners would do anything—including spying on their associates—to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends. The government consultant said, “I was told that the purpose of the photographs was to create an army of informants, people you could insert back in the population.” The idea was that they would be motivated by fear of exposure, and gather information about pending insurgency action, the consultant said. If so, it wasn’t effective; the insurgency continued to grow.”
From Hersh’s article. Or does that not count because it’s anonymously sourced?
Mark, well thank you for repeating what I already read.
We know Major General Geoffrey Miller brought stress techniques from Gitmo and the procedures you described weren’t apparent in the mix (sleep, diet and pain).
Hirsch, notes the interest (they may have talk about a whole host issues unique to the Arab culture) but it doesn’t tie out to a widespread use scenario, not yet at least, which is the case in point.
Moe
If the source were named you would most likely say:
Yes, but
*They have an ax to grind
*They have a book deal
*They’re trying to get a book deal
*They once spoke to a person in the Clinton administration
I’m sure you could come up with others if any of those didn’t work.
see: Clarke; O’Neil; Wilson et al.
Credibility
Like Moe Lane, I generally take Seymour Hersh’s journalism with a huge grain of salt—and immediately suspected a fresh round of “inside the beltway” fingerpointing as the source. Now, however, I’m not so sure. And, clearly…
Being skeptical is the right attitude, IMO, but I’m hearing too many strains of Nixon-era attacks on Deep Throat to be comfortable with the current dismissals.
“If the source were named you would most likely say:”
Thanks for letting me know; and here all this time I thought that I had free will and self awareness. Silly me.
Timmy, reread the last paragraph of the quoted passage. Isn’t that the kind of link you’re looking for?
all this time I thought that I had free will and self awareness
If you truly had self-awareness, you would know that you have no free will.
Hey, Timmy, if you’re comfortable that you’re government is doing this stuff, I guess I can’t convince you otherwise.
I, however, choose to believe in this quaint notion called the “rule of law.”
Call me crazy.
“If you truly had self-awareness, you would know that you have no free will.”
This is one of those quantum mechanics things, isn’t it.
“If you truly had self-awareness, you would know that you have no free will.”
I think this means, if you had read access to your programming and registers etc. you’d realize you have no free will.
Mark, I read the last paragraph but thank you for pointing it once again.
Asdf, yes the rule of law but Hirsch never raises that issue, we are still stuck on the sex and systemic abuse. Put that to rest and we can discuss the rest.
Speaking an old hack myself (11 years as a columnist and who knows how many freelance articles over the years), I know plenty of sources would dry up if they were named…and most newspapers would be only half as thick if every source had to be named.
It’s an attractive idea, in a way: No more quotes from “sources high in the administration.” But it’s not very realistic.
Granted that strong assertions demand strong proof. We do seem to be getting corroboration of Hersh from various sources, and he’s as vulnerable as the Mirror in the UK to evidence that he’s been gulled.
What’s more interesting to me is that he appears to be a willing agent in a silent coup: the CIA and the military against the Department of Defense. I suppose it’s more agreeable than Abrams tanks surrounding the Capitol and knocking down the gates of the White House, but the outcome could be just as dramatic–the overthrow of the Bush government next November, on the basis of leaked confidential information.
Seems to me that those DoD employees who have been quoted publicly at variance w/ the preznit and his plan, have very publicly been shown the door, from Shinseki on down. I think you have to factor that in the mix of anonymous sources used by Hersch. And if memory serves, I don’t ever recall Hersch ever being shown to have exaggerated or lied using anonymous sources before.
rhc
Oh, and one more comment. josh marshall made the point that if you look at the DoD denial of the Hersh story and carefully analyze it, it can be seen to actually be a non-denial denial. So, there you have it. Check it out.
rhc
I think this means, if you had read access to your programming and registers etc. you’d realize you have no free will.
Thanks, rilkefan, this is indeed what I had in mind (to the extent that I had anything in mind).
Corroboration of Hirsh on which topics, even I acknowledge that Hirsh pulls facts which are widely held.
The premise of Hirsh’s article is?
I think this means, if you had read access to your programming and registers etc. you’d realize you have no free will.
Only if you don’t have write access, too. Speaking for myself, most of my registers are write only, so the whole question is moot.
I almost feel sorry for folks like Timmy who are reduced to stuffing their fingers in their ears while screaming “unsubstantiated” as loudly as possible.
I’d ask Moe and Slarti, for starters, one question: Has Sy Hersch been wrong about any of this so far?
Only if you don’t have write access, too.
Doesn’t matter — at any given point, you will only write what your programming and current state determine that you should write. Self-modifying is not the same thing as unconstrained.
Doesn’t matter — at any given point, you will only write what your programming and current state determine that you should write.
I knew you’d say that.
Oh, JKC:
I’m not ignoring you, I’m just not engaging in strenuous mental activity today. Sort of the way Jesurgislac is all the time.
:p
I knew you’d say that.
You did? That must mean… could it be?… you’re my… my Programmer!!!! All glory, laud, and pizza to you!! And you must have been debugging me just then!! So I’m not just a bit of throwaway code or prototype — you really do care!
So I’m not just a bit of throwaway code or prototype — you really do care!
Yes, I do, stalwart code fragment. At least until this assignment’s handed in. May your function never be handed a pointer cast as a double.
Josh Marshall catches the Pentagon in a sneaky bit of revisioning of their ‘non-denial’ denial.
from TPM:
(May 17, 2004 — 02:37 PM EDT // link // print)
Hmmm. I noted last night that the DOD Statement from Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita about Sy Hersh’s article in The New Yorker was a classic non-denial denial. The statement posted at the Pentagon website is dated May 15th, 2004.
This afternoon I got an email from TPM reader MM, pointing to parts of the statement which seemed more specific and definitive than I’d let on. I didn’t remember those parts of the statement. So I went back and read it again. And when I did I realized that the statement had changed.
Yet, it’s not listed as a new statement. It still carries the same May 15th, 2004 date, implying that the current version of the statement at the DOD website is the one that ran originally.
Specifically, the revised version adds a new first sentence and a new final sentence, both of which appear to go further in denying Hersh’s claims than did the original.
Now, I didn’t copy the original. But GlobalSecurity.org did copy it. So you can compare the original archived at their website and the new embroidered version, both carrying the same post date.
— Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com catches the Pentagon in a bit of surreptitious revisioning of their ‘non-denial’ denial:
(May 17, 2004 — 02:37 PM EDT // link // print)
Hmmm. I noted last night that the DOD Statement from Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita about Sy Hersh’s article in The New Yorker was a classic non-denial denial. The statement posted at the Pentagon website is dated May 15th, 2004.
This afternoon I got an email from TPM reader MM, pointing to parts of the statement which seemed more specific and definitive than I’d let on. I didn’t remember those parts of the statement. So I went back and read it again. And when I did I realized that the statement had changed.
Yet, it’s not listed as a new statement. It still carries the same May 15th, 2004 date, implying that the current version of the statement at the DOD website is the one that ran originally.
Specifically, the revised version adds a new first sentence and a new final sentence, both of which appear to go further in denying Hersh’s claims than did the original.
Now, I didn’t copy the original. But GlobalSecurity.org did copy it. So you can compare the original archived at their website and the new embroidered version, both carrying the same post date.
— Josh Marshall
Operation Brutal Sucker Punch*
The battle for Seymour Hersh’s honor continues to tumble in the Blogosphere. Over at The Glittering Eye, the ocular one has a post responding to some of the comments I made over the weekend that winded their way through various…
Operation Brutal Sucker Punch*
The battle for Seymour Hersh’s honor continues to tumble in the Blogosphere. Over at The Glittering Eye, the ocular one has a post responding to some of the comments I made over the weekend that winded their way through various…
Moe, I agree that unsourced quotes are something it’s necessary to take very skeptically, and they can, and often are, used entirely irresponsibly.
But they can also be, and sometimes are, used entirely responsibly, and sometimes they’re the only way to make a story proceed up until a point where it is fully verified, or isn’t.
I’m unclear why you’re so hepped up against Hersh, whose record is about as good as it gets, and is extraordinary. But you’re certainly entitled to be skeptical. I make only two points just now.
One is that the story is being supported by lots of other reputable reports, and it’s fitting into a very consistent pattern with lots of provable evidence, unpleasant as the entire picture is, and much as I understand any urge to not want it to be true.
The other point is that while not every investigative reporting event is Watergate — the opposite, of course, is true — it happens that you’re also making all the same arguments used to “prove” the unbelievability of Watergate. This demonstrates nothing, of course, except a suggestion that caution is indicated all around.
(This is going to be the last time I discuss this, barring new details, of course.)
“I’m unclear why you’re so hepped up against Hersh, whose record is about as good as it gets, and is extraordinary.”
Because I do not trust him; hence, the title of this post. We’re talking about an allegation that, if true, would be grounds for criminal proceedings at the Cabinet level, at least. Hersh doesn’t have the mojo to convince me to support that on his unsupported say-so. Nobody does. I want hard evidence. If I could require hard evidence, I’d do that, too.
But, as you said, this story has certainly been taken up, so I guess we’ll see about the status of that hard evidence any time now.
What’s with this habit of quoting Josh Marshall, as if he knows something we don’t, or is smarter than we are somehow? If you think it’s a non-denial denial, aren’t you capable of saying so yourself?
Every once in a while he has a scoop, and he’s good at developing talking points and so forth, but he’s not really that much more in the know, frankly, than I am.
Ever since I got into this whole blogging thing, I’ve realized just how thin the punditry stuff is. Take, for instance, this Jack Shafer story about Judy Miller. Be sure to read the underlying Knight-Ridder story as well.
Notice any added value? Neither did I.
“Hersh doesn’t have the mojo to convince me to support that on his unsupported say-so. Nobody does. I want hard evidence.”
I certainly would not support the syllogism “Sy Hersh says thus; therefore the SecDef should be fired on his sayso,” or anything close, either.
I support “Sy Hersh, who has a very consistent record of being correct, has put forth an important, credible, story, that must be further thoroughly investigated, and we’ll proceed from there.”
I know you said you didn’t want to talk about it any more, but I have no intention of trying to browbeat you about any aspect of this. I’d just be better educated as to your POV if you might give a few sentences, or even one or two, as to what is the basis of your so strong lack of trust in Hersh. What stories do you have in mind as his having failed upon?
The thing about Hirsh’s case, esentially, is that it rests on legal interpretations that were disputed within the administration and are now being disputed publicly. As such, I think the Pentagon will be able to contain this thing.
And to be honest, I don’t really have too much of a problem with roving assassination squads and “fear up harsh” of a few actual terrorists (so far it’s apparently < 20 or so). The problem, in my view, is when you try to apply these techniques to a nation building exercise; it's simply incompatible with what we're trying to accomplish.
Hersh. Seymour Hersh.
“And to be honest, I don’t really have too much of a problem with roving assassination squads and “fear up harsh” of a few actual terrorists (so far it’s apparently < 20 or so)." Unfortunately, Iraqis are angry at the treatment of thousands of Iraqis, possibly more, not just twenty or so.
Which is how we get to: “The problem, in my view, is when you try to apply these techniques to a nation building exercise; it’s simply incompatible with what we’re trying to accomplish.”
Hey, if you’re gonna be pedantic, at least understand my comments correctly. I’m talking about Copper Green, which I don’t really have a problem with. What I do have a problem with is applying Copper Green to Iraq.
Hersh
Hersh
Hersh
Hersh
Hersh
Hersh
Hersh
“What’s with this habit of quoting Josh Marshall, as if he knows something we don’t, or is smarter than we are somehow? If you think it’s a non-denial denial, aren’t you capable of saying so yourself?”
So quotes someone well known who agrees with him, so what?
“Every once in a while he has a scoop, and he’s good at developing talking points and so forth, but he’s not really that much more in the know, frankly, than I am.”
So you’re really in the know? You’re a reporter? You spend all your time developing sources? People send you reports from Iraq?
More bad news for the chain of command: Sanchez’s deputies were aware of the Abu Ghraib situation in November. And the Army responded by trying to limit Red Cross access.
not really that much more in the know
I think it’s a fairly qualified statement there.
And I don’t think his friends emails are all that different from, say, what’s reported in the Washington Post.
I think Michael Totten was pretty sensible here, by the way. I know you may not want to read more on the topic, Moe, but I commend it to you.
Here is a sourced story for you, Moe, with a picture of Sgt. Samuel Provance, to boot.
Hal must’ve been joking when he posted the following: “Well, luckily we just don’t have your word on it. We can just go to the Columbia Journalism Review for a nice, long piece about Sy’s career. Or we can check out the latest piece comparing Woodward’s and Sy’s careers”
Hmmm, why not go to that other group of biased losers, the Pulitizer panel of pin-heads and ask them what they think about Hersh?
The answer will be just as dishonest since its not based on FACTS, ATTRIBUTABLE FACTS, but feelings (can you hear Streisand wailing in the background?) sans logic…
Hal must’ve been joking when he posted the following: “Well, luckily we just don’t have your word on it. We can just go to the Columbia Journalism Review for a nice, long piece about Sy’s career. Or we can check out the latest piece comparing Woodward’s and Sy’s careers”
Hmmm, why not go to that other group of biased losers, the Pulitizer panel of pin-heads and ask them what they think about Hersh?
The answer will be just as dishonest since its not based on FACTS, ATTRIBUTABLE FACTS, but feelings (can you hear Streisand wailing in the background?) sans logic…