by definition, merely one conspiracy theory that has to compete with all the others, good, bad, and indifferent.

Hersh's theory is far better than the government's version -- and more plausible than the movie version -- even if it's sourcing is also not entirely satisfactory.

Thank you, G_j. Your posts are always full of useful information.

though I couldn't hold a candle to all the great stuff you post. Glad we're still here.

other groundbreaking stories. Filled with information, a few 'anonymous' sources, necessary to any investigative journalist, but also filled with quotes from named sources.

Not to mention his report on the issue corroborated another report from 2011, though apparently he used different sources.

I certainly am no longer surprised when official stories turn out to be just that, stories.

No one who has been around for the past decade or so, should be.

The personal attacks on the messengers are getting old. Generally I take them to mean there really is some truth to this in light of the enormous effort to take the focus off the subject matter and place on the messenger.

since he cobbled together that infamous claim about the US Army massacring civilians at My Lai.

Oh--You think that actually happened? Talk to Colin Powell about that. His career advanced rapidly after he heroically worked to cover up debunk that story. Surely our government wouldn't encourage a sycophantic liar, now, would they?

story on My Lai aired a few weeks ago..

It appeared to me that it was fairly honest in depiction of those events, although it could probably be argued that a soft brush might have been applied to some facts in certain respects. But given that it was PBS, I gave them a pass because they actually covered those events in detail I had not been familiar with before, and the brutality was laid bare.

back then, war crimes and killing/massacre of civilians were frowned upon.

Republicans don't like his message, because they prefer an apocryphal America in which stalwart and virtuous warriors protect us from those who hate our freedom, and Hersh's article pokes holes in that fantasy.

Democrats don't like his message, because it reflects poorly on the Pentagon and therefore upon their hero, Obama.

Hmmmmm..I thought this was a democratic board, This place is going to shit


Hobo

basis of investigative journalism.

We're being asked to trust not only Hersh, but also career spooks in the US MIC and also the Pakistani ISI.

With no supporting evidence, emails, documents etc.

But it may be worth a look:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/11/former-professor-reported-basics-hershs-bin-laden-story-2011-seemingly-different-sources/

Another would be her current profession: "fiction writer."

Note also that she's claiming Hersh plagiarized her work--he did not acknowledge her post on it, which makes one wonder how thorough his research was (he didn't Google?).

"makes one wonder" How many times have I seen that phrase used by rightwing idiot pundits when they got nuthin'? Hersch says in his article that there had been an array of reports raising questions. Not identifying all of them raises doubts about the thoroughness of his research? Please, spare us.

If you want to make a serious case that he plagiarized something or that his research wasn't thorough, please do so. Otherwise you look like you are once again just carrying Obama's water.

Someone wrote a blog post making some of the exact same allegations Hersh did--FOUR YEARS BEFORE HERSH DID.

This story received enough publicity that it was discussed at DU.

In fact, yours truly, Geek Tragedy, heard about this report as I discussed it here at DU at the time Hillhouse made her claims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x320103

Seymour Hersh, ace investigative reporter, failed to learn about Hillhouse's well-publicized claims in four fucking years of work on his own story?

Glenn Greenwald found about about her claims within 24 hours of Hersh's story coming out. But Hersh never learned about them?

How is it that I--an Internet nobody--and my fellow Internet nobodies at DU learned about this author's story just by clicking on a DU link while Hersh failed to learn about her claims, ever?

The blanket "array of reports" throwaway line doesn't let him off the hook. This was someone else making much the same charge.

Moreover, he didn't contact her to see if she could help put him in contact with her sources. Which means either he was unaware of her report, or he decided to not even send her an email seeing if she could arrange a meeting with her sources.

There are two conclusions to draw, neither favorable to Hersh.

Either he blatantly ripped off her story, or he has the fact-checking skills/motivation of Judy Miller.

Hersch's story is all about the claims that are being made by various insiders about what happened vis-à-vis the killing of Osama. The fact that those sources make the same claims that someone else's sources made doesn't mean he plagiarized anything. You seem to lack a basic understanding of what counts as plagiarism in journalism.

of what constitutes an "insider."

Also, if he didn't plagiarize then he never knew about Hillhouse's story. Which is malpractice.

that would count as plagiarism if he knew about Hillhouse's story.

that Hersch plagiarized her story. She said that if the story is fiction then it is plagiarized. But she doesn't believe that the story is fiction. She thinks it is true. She also says that if the story is true then Hersch's story is unoriginal. But who cares? Breaking a story is great, but there is nothing wrong with finding new sources to support a story that someone else broke. that is not plagiarism (obviously).

without giving proper credit?

Hillhouse, for one:

That is different from accusing him of plagiarism, but you won't admit that you are wrong.

the official story was released.

Why didn't the Pakistani military respond more quickly to the raid. The raid would not have been that fast?

That's just one question.

I saw an interview with Hersch on the Real News Network. May be on DU. He seemed nervous.

He may not yet have told the whole story if he knows it.
It makes no sense to me that the Seals would have found bin Laden and then killed him without someone interrogating him. That makes no sense.

On edit: Unless Bin Laden was so ill or injured that he could not communicate. Possible. Also possible that Bin Laden was killed earlier and the whole story is a fabrication to bring closure to the American people.

Our government sometimes lies to us because we don't want to face reality, so it is easier to make up a dramatic story. Just a thought.

But it makes no sense that the US would just kill bin Laden if he was healthy enough to talk -- not because of a promise to Pakistan or anyone else.

So it may be that we do not know the whole story yet.

anonymous sources to leak shit, attack others, push a narrative, etc. on a daily basis. I don't know if Hersh's latest report is accurate in any way, but they're being hypocritical.

otherwise, well...... you should know the drill, eh..

into predicting an imminent attack on Iran, I have been more wary of accepting his claims at face value. Seems like some sort of supporting evidence would help. The official version has the downed helicopter to support it.

thanks

So Hersh was able to get someone in the middle east to make up a bunch of kook anti-American conspiracy theories for him. And a handful of kooks here choose to believe him. All it shows is how divorced from reality they are.



To quote Carl Sagan, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Why do you ask?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

I'm also grateful for Seymour Hersh. He will always be one of the good guys in my book. I wish we had more journalists willing to go "off the rails".

And he is that. A screeching, metal bending, glass shattering, tragic, train wreck.

It's sad.

The thing with bin Laden is it doesn't matter exactly what happened to him because "OBL" was essentially a PR function to begin with to borrow a phrase from John Kerry. Obama pulled the plug on OBL and ended it, full stop. The fictional filigree is about as relevant as JFK's mistresses and makes about as much difference in the big scheme.

What a bizarre attitude some here hold. I suspect that hersch is completely correct, as usual, that the administration and the press dramatized the situation (not a big deal IMO), and of course the usual du suspects are foaming at the mouth because someone is "attacking" the president.

He's off the rails because his story is a dozen layers of imaginary bullshit stacked on one fact that had already been reported...

Seriously--Where the fuck was all this defense when Hersh wrote the Syria story? I don't see any emoprogs standing up for that one...Why is Hersh believable now when he wasn't believable two years ago??