The criticism of Sy Hersh is because of his shoddy reporting

[Godhumor]

Not because he is challenging the official story.

His opus is based entirely off two sources--one anonymous and one who retired in the 1990s who claims to know people who would be familiar with the situation. That is it; in ten thousand words he never once shows a desire to independently confirm the claims made.

And, boy, do those claims require verification. Being told that there was no fire fight, there were not five people killed and that the mission was solely to execute Bin Laden with the approval of a country knowingly harboring him should require a bit more investigation than an interview.

There is a reason major news agencies are floating rebuttals of the article point by point. There is a reason that trusted progressive voices like Rude Pundit and Wonkette are eviscerating the article. There is a reason Hersh was forced to post this at a new website when the New Yorker, his usual stomping ground, refused to publish the piece.

It has nothing to do with who Hersh is or who he is challenging. It is entirely because his story is, for all practical purposes, unsourced, bordering on conspiracy theory and does not meet the definition of investigative journalism.

It is a remarkably poor piece that has damaged Hersh's legacy, because he did not do his due diligence. He deserves all of the criticism coming towards him, because, frankly, he didn't do his job.

[zappaman]

1. Apparently, if you once backed up claims and exposed government malfeasance...

You will never ever be wrong again.
Even when you write such garbage the magazine, the New Yorker, that carried many of your articles, passes because of shoddy reporting.

[KittyWampus]

4. I wonder if Hersh was fed misinformation from a formerly reliable REPUBLICAN source-

there is going to be a big push now to rehabilitate Bush and atrocities so Jeb can run.

Discredit Hersh and his info on Abu Grahib by trashing his reputation now.

Remember what was done to Rather?

They fed him information that was right but used bogus paper source. So people focused on the bogus paper and not the true information it contained.

Or maybe it's payback. Deliberately harm Hersh.

Although there were other reports Hersh has done that seemed way off.

[zappaman]

5. I don't think this discredits him on Abu Grahib at all.

I think he jumped the shark when he started going on about the illuminati.

Who knows?
Maybe he has dementia setting in.
Happened with my uncle when he was 62.

[okaawhatever]

2. Not to mention his one named source has said that he never said what Hersh said he

did.

[KittyWampus]

3. I'd hate to think his sources were Republicans. Setting him up. Like Dan Rather.

To discredit his former work. To help try and rehabilitate Bush. So his brother can run for POTUS.

Hopefully Hersh wouldn't be desperate enough for attention he'd allow himself to be used as such a tool.

But some of his earlier stuff wasn't up to snuff either.

[Maedhros]

6. Well, the White House did just confirm one part of Hersh's story -

that the Pakistani Government knew where Bin Laden was and tipped of the United States to his whereabouts.

[FlatBaroque]

8. party pooper

[Unvanguard]

10. They didn't confirm either of those things.

Some anonymous US officials told NBC that elements of Pakistani intelligence may have known about Bin Laden's whereabouts, and there's a story (not confirmed by anyone on the record) that the US received a tip-off from someone involved in Pakistani intelligence. That's not the same as the Pakistani government knowing (the Pakistani government contains multiple factions often working at cross purposes) and it's not the same as the US being tipped off by the Pakistani government, any more than normal intelligence work means that the government you're spying on is tipping you off when you get information from them.

Still less does it even approach corroboration of the big claim, which is that the US and Pakistan coordinated the killing of Bin Laden after he had been detained by the Pakistanis, and that the details of the raid's aftermath (e.g., that Bin Laden's corpse was intact and he was buried at sea) were made up.

[Maedhros]

11. That's some mighty-fine hair splitting, there. [n/t]

[Unvanguard]

12. No, it is a difference of huge magnitude

"Elements of Pakistani intelligence probably knew where Bin Laden was, and the US eventually was tipped off about this" is really quite different from "The Pakistani government knew where Bin Laden was, and decided to give him up to the US." And, as I said, it is even more radically different from the actual story Hersh presents, where (unlike in the NBC article) it wasn't that people within ISI were working with al-Qaeda, but rather that the Pakistani government detained Bin Laden and then sold him to the US in return for aid.

All of these differences matter. Here, they span the distance from "plausible though unverified" to "total nonsense."

[Maedhros]

13. Pakistani Intelligence is not part of the Pakistani Government?

You're trying too hard.

/bye.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. K & R

[jeff47]

9. It's probably partially true and partially false.

Like almost every story.

A whole lot of his story is designed to make Pakistan look good. "No really, our air defenses aren't that bad. Don't get any ideas, India!"

It is likely that the written orders were "capture or kill", but there were probably hints given to the SEAL team that the latter would be preferable. So like a cop saying "He was reaching for his waistband!", the soldiers were probably looking for an excuse to fire even if capture was possible.

But parts of it sound like crap. What's the point of throwing little bits of bin Laden's body out of the helicopter? Are we going to argue that the SEALs became Islamic scholars in their spare time and thus knew it was desecration of the corpse, but decided to go with a relatively minor form desecration?