The many problems with Seymour Hersh's Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory

[babylonsister]

The many problems with Seymour Hersh's Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory

Updated by Max Fisher on May 11, 2015, 8:45 a.m. ET @Max_Fisher [e-mail]


On Sunday, the legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh finally released a story that he has been rumored to have been working on for years: the truth about the killing of Osama bin Laden. According to Hersh's 10,000-word story in the London Review of Books, the official history of bin Laden's death — in which the US tracked him to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan; killed him in a secret raid that infuriated Pakistan; and then buried him at sea — is a lie.

Hersh's story is amazing to read, alleging a vast American-Pakistani conspiracy to stage the raid and even to fake high-level diplomatic incidents as a sort of cover. But his allegations are largely supported only by two sources, neither of whom has direct knowledge of what happened, both of whom are retired, and one of whom is anonymous. The story is riven with internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

The story simply does not hold up to scrutiny — and, sadly, is in line with Hersh's recent turn away from the investigative reporting that made him famous into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

A decade ago, Hersh was one of the most respected investigative journalists on the planet, having broken major stories from the 1969 My Lai massacre to the 2004 Abu Ghraib scandal. But more recently, his reports have become less and less credible. He's claimed that much of the US special forces is controlled by secret members of Opus Dei, that the US military flew Iranian terrorists to Nevada for training, and that the 2014 chemical weapons attack in Syria was a "false flag" staged by the government of Turkey. Those reports have had little proof and, rather than being borne out by subsequent investigations, have been either unsubstantiated or outright debunked. A close reading of Hersh's bin Laden story suggests it is likely to suffer the same fate.

more...

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bin-laden

[zappaman]

1. Kick and rc.

Sad to see a once great journalist go off the deep end.

[NuclearDem]

5. That seems to be an unfortunately common phenomenon these days.

Woodward, Parry, and Hersh now.

[Orrex]

2. Glad to see that someone is keeping track of Opus Dei

Maybe next Hersh will confront the evil of chemtrails.

[JaneyVee]

3. Up next from Hersh: Operation Texas Takeover!

[freshwest]

6. Do you think he can travel down there? Lot of heat, mosquitoes, people who read his books, OC mobs,

And besides, Alex Jones has the Texas CT franchise in his pocket. Hersh may get himself cites on Infowars, but he's nothing next to Glenn and the rest of the gang. Don't forget Louie -Lu- Eye either.

[Thinkingabout]

27. Now that Abbott looks like the ass he made of himself he has gone into hiding on giving

an apology, he's our strong LEADER,huh

[freshwest]

4. Yeah, but Hollywood ain't what it used to be. Gotta indulge those fantasies somewhere! n/t

[SidDithers]

7. DU rec...nt

Sid

[trumad]

8. I've read more than my fair share of how they got Osama.

It all comes back to the Zero Dark Thirty scenario.

Hersh's massive conspiracy theory is bunk in mho.

[sabrina 1]

67. Did you read Hersh's report? Which parts of it, there are a lot, lots of names mentioned

lots of facts that we already know, eg, how FOIA requests were consistently denied etc. So what part of the report is 'bunk' as you call it?

[trumad]

78. Them knowing about it before they said they knew about it.

because some guy wanted the 25 mill. I call BS.

[sabrina 1]

89. Who 'knowing about it'? There were a lot of references to different people

who knew about it? Not just the guy (another Curveball maybe?) who wanted the $25 mil.

I didn't really see much in Hersh's report that other reputable people have not suggested, though with far less detail, and a lot fewer names.

So the hysteria to try to paint him as a CT, thanks Cass Sunstein AGAIN, is what I don't get.

You have no clue what actually happened, and neither do I.

So I'll read what is available, assess the credibility of those who are talking, and assume that some day we will know all the facts. So far, between the Vox writer's most biased interpretation of Hersh's report and the actual report, I'm wondering why that writer was so determined to try to discredit that report rather than offer something that actually disproves anything in the report. SUCH AS, their OWN interview, you know like journalists are supposed to do, with some of the people Hersh NAMED in his report.

[EX500rider]

97. "So what part of the report is 'bunk' as you call it?"

How about all of it?

• Unreliable sources. Much of Hersh's article is based on the claims of unnamed intelligence officials in the US and Pakistan, none of whom were directly involved in the operation. The only named source, Asad Durrani, served in the Pakistani military intelligence more than two decades ago and says only that "former colleagues" of his back up Hersh's claims. Durrani was later contacted by CNN's Bergen, and he would only say that Hersh's account was "plausible".

• Contradictory claims. Hersh disregards the fact that two of the Navy Seals involved in the attack on Bin Laden's compound have come out with details of the raid that directly contradict his account. Bergen, who visited the compound after the operation, writes that there was clear evidence of a protracted fire fight, as the location was "littered almost everywhere with broken glass and several areas of it were sprayed with bullet holes".

• Unrealistic conclusions. Why would the Saudis support a man who wanted to overthrow the Saudi monarchy? Why, if US support for Pakistan was part of the bargain, did US-Pakistani relations deteriorate in the years after the raid? If the US and Pakistan were co-operating, was a staged raid really the simplest possible way to ensure that Bin Laden was killed?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32698016

As is often the case with conspiracy theories, perhaps the sharpest criticism of Mr Hersh's narrative is that it relies on a large cast of characters operating effectively while maintaining universal secrecy. Vox's Fischer accuses Hersh - who won a Pulitzer in 1970 for exposing the My Lai massacre of Vietnamese civilians at the hands of US soldiers - of producing a growing number of difficult-to-believe exposes based on tenuous evidence.
In the last three years, for example, he has penned pieces alleging the George W Bush administration trained Iranian militants in Nevada and that Turkey was behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

[whatchamacallit]

9. Here, let people read Seymour's story and decide for themselves

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

[Dr Hobbitstein]

10. Make sure to tighten the foil before reading!

[whatchamacallit]

12. No need, but I'd advise you to remove your funnel before reflexively rejecting it

[Dr Hobbitstein]

75. Nice self-poitrait...

I thought your funnel went the other way, however.

[whatchamacallit]

85. That's you, pal n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

88. Cool story! n/t

[MADem]

17. And if ya need a lawyer? Better Call Saul!!!!

[billhicks76]

70. Coincidence Theorists

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

The word on other progressive websites is that all the apologists that are going haywire labeling Hersch a Tin Foil Hat wearer are the same forces that supported the Iraq War...corporate interests. They refuse to believe that governments lie or cover things up and the irony here is that the piece doesn't claim any big conspiracy theory...just minor variations on the official story concocted to protect certain diplomatic aspects in the political realm. Me think thou protest too much.

[vi5]

87. A point of clarification...

They don't refuse to believe that government lie or cover things up.....they only refuse to believe that when it's a Democrat in office.

Curious how many of these same folks were trumpeting the same writers expose's of Bush era bullshit?

[geek tragedy]

103. You mean the stuff for which Hersh provided evidence, corroboration, and multiple sources?

The stuff for which he followed professional reporters' standards?

[MADem]

101. I think the Iraq War was the biggest clusterfuck that any Commander in Chief has visited upon our

nation and the world, EVER. I think it will reverberate for at least a generation, maybe more. People continue to die from that pisspoor decision.

That's what I think of the Iraq War.

So, this dramatic "word" that you are hearing on "other progressive (?) websites" notwithstanding, I could hardly be placed in the "Iraq War supporters" column, no matter how hard you or anyone else might try .... and I still think Hersh is a loonytune. His narrative doesn't involve "minor differences." It is a completely fabricated load of horse poop, ostensibly fed to him by a "retired" official with no nexus to the actual events. One has to wonder if he's talking to people who are not actually there. This is not the first time he's made shit up and been shown to be bullshitting. All of this is recent, too--it's suggestive of an issue.

I feel sorry for him--he is decimating his legacy with this woowoo shit.

[billhicks76]

108. Hersch Vindicated

Looks like NBC an other intelligence assets are corroborating his story.

[MADem]

113. Your claim doesn't match their coverage.

You know, covering an allegation doesn't mean that they agree with it. They covered his last crazed proclamations in the context of debunking them.

I don't think ANYONE thought that the Pakistanis didn't know that Osama was living under ISI protection--but that's a long road from what Hersh is asserting. It's very easy to take a bit of truth and wrap it in a host of lies and create a conspiracy theory. In fact, that's the way most of the real juicy ones are invented.

Here's the actual NBC report (next time, YOU should provide the link when you are making an assertion), which is "coverage" of the allegations and the rebuttals--not corroboration. You might weigh more carefully before using that word--it does not mean what you think it means.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pakistanis-knew-where-bin-laden-was-say-us-sources-n357306

[billhicks76]

117. New Info Today

People stepping forward.

[MADem]

118. No one is taking this report seriously.

It doesn't pass the smell test.

[sabrina 1]

68. Reminds me of Cass Sunstein's advice to the US Govt. 'Always refer to those who may be

revealing information that is inconveniet, as 'CONSPIRACY THEORISTS'.


Thanks for posting that, I always try to remember Sunstein whenever a story like this comes out. And sure enough along with it, are the screams of 'CT'. Makes me think I need to make up my own mind rather than be even slightly influenced by the childish, non substantive drive bys with pictures of Cass's favored response to anyone who may be contradicting 'official stories', the old Tin Foil Hat distraction.

You have to hand it to Sunstein, he was always thinking of ways to keep information from the people, how to infiltrate internet forums, did you ever read his thoughts on that?

Now I am glad I read Hersh's report for myself. Tin Foil Hat and CT claims always cause me to go the source.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

74. How's your liberal TV doctor, Sabrina?

I read Hersh's article before i read this one. Hersh's article is bullshit, through and through. No proof, just conjecture. But hey, if you wanna believe that it was all some crazy conspiracy between the Pakistani and American governments, far be it from me to change your mind.

[sabrina 1]

77. And another unimpressive 'argument' against a most inconvenient story

by one of America's most respected investigative journalists.

How is your liberal-we-would-never-lie Corporation, Monsanto doing these days, I see they are on the run all over the place thanks to all those who speak out against their lies.

But back to the topic at hand.

Cass Sunstein and how to deflect from a story that might be true, but should not have seen the light of day:

'Make sure to refer to such persons as Conspiracy Theorists'.


I dismiss comments that have no argument against a story like this other than 'it's bunk'. THAT is bunk imho.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

79. I wouldn't know about Monsanto.

I don't argue in their favor. I just support something they HAPPEN to support. I wouldn't call them a liberal company, like you did with a certain TV doctor who supported both McCain and Romney.

The Vox article goes into great detail as to why Hersh's article is bullshit, but hey! Never miss an opportunity to slam a Democrat, amiright?

To quote the great Sid Dithers:

[sabrina 1]

80. I prefer Hersh's own version of events, where he names names, and references

material that is in the public domain for US to see than the 'OPINION' of a writer who has clear biases and misrepresents a lot of what Hersh had to say.

But if you support the CIA and think they would never, ever lie, Vox's story will do I suppose.

I find it hilarious that you never heard of Liberal Republicans. But hey, we can't all be up on everything and when you have no defense for your position on an issue, go for the little roly poly laughing guy.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

86. What the piss is a liberal Republican?

And why the fuck are you talking about them? Are you still doubling down that your precious TV doctor is a liberal? Really?

Here's a GREAT recent example of Hersh donning the tinfoil:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/our-men-in-iran

The man (Sy Hersh) was once credible. He no longer is. He gave us great info re: Mai Lai massacre back in the day. Even some decent, credible info re: Abu Ghraib 10 years ago (although, not ALL of what he printed was provable). These days, he's off his rocker.

[sabrina 1]

92. The man, Hersh, is way more credible than anyone I see here in this thread calling him

'not credible' or the unknown writer of the 'opinion' of Hersh's report.

Not so long ago I remember when Hersh first reported on Abu Ghraib, some similar name calling and charges, thanks again Cass Sunstein, of CT.

Right down to the children who were sodomized in that hell hole we were running over there. Yes he was called a CT and a wacko among other things.

And was proven to be correct, sadly.

Do you read your own posts btw? You made a supremely childish attempt to deflect from Hersh's report by bringing up a great thread btw, from months ago, and now that you don't want to talk about your support for Monsanto, you attempt to claim I brought that up? THAT definitely requires that little roly poly guy

[Dr Hobbitstein]

93. I asked why you were talking about so-called liberal republicans...

What does that have to do with Monsanto (who I've already stated multiple times I do not like nor support, no matter how you try to spin it). Oh, are you calling Dr Oz a "liberal Republican"? Because sure, "liberal" Republicans support McCain and Romney. I remember your "great thread". Just as great as "They're Gonna Bomb The Moon!". It shall live in DU infamy. Just not for the reasons you think.

I credited Hersh with Abu Ghraib as being a great piece. In the post you're responding to. I neither called him CT or wacko for that report.

[billhicks76]

121. Labeling A Conspiracy Theorist Should Be Banned

It's a personal attack. Argue the case on it's merits. The Coincidence Theorists are really a lame bunch in real life. Always making excuses for the status quo and making things as generic and acceptable as possible. I'm sorry but reality is stranger than fiction. Anyone who has led a full life and seen the twisted things that can happen would know this.

[geek tragedy]

11. Yes, they can decide which of the following is true:

1) Hersh's low-level, retired, anonymous source is all-knowing and speaks the gospel truth, and everyone else on planet earth is a contemptible liar, including not only Obama but also the SEALs who took part in the mission; and that there was a vast conspiracy amongst hundreds to keep the 'truth' from coming out; or

2) Hersh booked a monkeyfishing tour

[whatchamacallit]

13. Which White House version is the truth?

They have been many.

[geek tragedy]

14. The core facts about it have remained consistent. Details get corrected, which happens all the time

As opposed to Hersh's fantasy which is based on nothing but the say-so of some low-level guy who wasn't a major player and the Alex Jones types on the left who lapped it up just like the Ted Cruz crowd lapped the Jade Helm paraonoia up.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Same old fearful bullshit barrage

Bundle up Alex Jones, Ted Cruz, Chemtrails, Bigfoot, Loch Ness... and anyone who ever dares to challenge the government account, into one tidy looney bin. So easy, so weak.

[geek tragedy]

22. No, just bundle up everyone who buy into every unhinged conspiracy theory

that confirms their pre-existing bias.

Just to be clear: Hersh's story relies on ONE person's hearsay claims. One person's. No documents, no photos, no emails, no corroborating sources.

Just one retired low-level bureaucrat. Who is anonymous. Making a series of implausible, fantastical, internally contradictory claims for which there are ample rebuttals available in the public record.

If you want to believe that is the gospel truth, it is a free country. But, it is very clear why a person would believe such a fantastical tale with no evidence to support it.

Just like the birthers, 911 truthers, anti-vaxxers etc. People who believe what they want to believe rather than thinking critically.

[whatchamacallit]

28. It's obvious you're drenched in pre-existing bias

Talk about hearsay, anonymous sources and lack of corroboration: where are the pictures, films, body, DNA, seal testimony... Or right, deep-sixed for "national security". Believe what you must to maintain your fragile worldview.

[geek tragedy]

30. Numerous people have reported seeing the bin laden photographs.

SEALs have written books and given interviews.

Etc etc etc.

But, cling bitterly to your CT if it makes you feel smarter. And look out for Operation Jade Helm.

[whatchamacallit]

35. There it is

that lazy conflation for effect... I don't share Cruz' suppositions on Jade Helm, but you'll pin his tail on my donkey simply because I won't instantly throw Hersh under the bus. Yay for the reality based community!

[geek tragedy]

37. You're berating those who question his reliance on a single, low-level, retired source

without any supporting evidence while alleging a scandalous, criminal conspiracy.

Let's take Hersh out of the equation. We have one anonymous ""retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad" making all of these fantastical claims.

Why should anyone believe him without corroborating evidence?

[whatchamacallit]

39. How many times have you accepted government accounts based on

single, low-level, retired sources? If you want to make this about bias and mindsets, I imagine sources of relative quality provided by the government would get a lot less scrutiny from you.

[geek tragedy]

40. Nice dodge. Why should I trust some nameless, faceless low-level apparatchik

who's accusing everyone else of being a liar?

Hersh doesn't give us any reason to trust his source.

[whatchamacallit]

48. It's his source

The question is, do you mistrust the source because it's obviously untrustworthy, or because it challenges your beliefs? I agree you can't easily validate the information, but it seems you reject it purely because, in your estimation, it has to be a lie.

[geek tragedy]

49. I reject it for the same reason I reject Islam and Christianity.

There's no factual support for it. Not even the name of the person making the claim.

If there were evidence corroborating it, that would be one thing. But all of the available public knowledge cuts against this.

The times that Hersh has delivered the goods, he's done actual journalism and obtained corroborating evidence. This is just gossip.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Yeah, well thank god the government uses reliable sources

like curveball.

[geek tragedy]

56. I'm not saying to believe everything the government tells you.

Each claim has to be assessed based on the best available evidence, as well as logical scrutiny.

[whatchamacallit]

58. We were lead into a disastrous war with that one

Maybe you should be a little more open minded and less reliant on official sources.

[geek tragedy]

61. "a farrago of nonsense that is contravened by a multitude of eyewitness accounts, inconvenient facts

and simple common sense."

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/11/opinions/bergen-bin-laden-story-a-lie/

Let's start with the claim that the only shots fired at the Abbottabad compound were the ones that killed bin Laden. That ignores the fact that two SEALs on the mission, Matt Bissonnette, author of "No Easy Day," and Robert O'Neill have publicly said that there were a number of other people killed that night, including bin Laden's two bodyguards, one of his sons and one of the bodyguard's wives. Their account is supplemented by many other U.S. officials who have spoken on the record to myself or to other journalists.

I was the only outsider to visit the Abbottabad compound where bin Laden lived before the Pakistani military demolished it. The compound was trashed, littered almost everywhere with broken glass and several areas of it were sprayed with bullet holes where the SEALS had fired at members of bin Laden's entourage and family, or in one case exchanged fire with one of his bodyguards. The evidence at the compound showed that many bullets were fired the night of bin Laden's death.

Common sense would tell you that the idea that Saudi Arabia was paying for bin Laden's expenses while he was living in Abbottabad is simply risible. Bin Laden's principal goal was the overthrow of the Saudi royal family as a result of which his Saudi citizenship was revoked as far back as 1994.

Why would the Saudis pay for the upkeep of their most mortal enemy? Indeed, why wouldn't they get their close allies, the Pakistanis, to look the other way as they sent their assassins into Pakistan to finish him off?

Common sense would also tell you that if the Pakistanis were holding bin Laden and the U.S. government had found out this fact, the easiest path for both countries would not be to launch a U.S. military raid into Pakistan but would have been to hand bin Laden over quietly to the Americans.

Indeed, the Pakistanis have done this on several occasions with a number of other al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational commander of 9/11, who was handed over to U.S. custody after a raid in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi in 2003. So too was Abu Faraj al-Libi, another key al Qaeda leader who was similarly handed over by the Pakistanis to U.S. custody two years later.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/11/opinions/bergen-bin-laden-story-a-lie/

[blm]

50. The reason I don't trust the 'source' is because he's from Pakistan intel which

was closely aligned with GHWBush, especially at the time point when Poppy Bush was getting Pakistan's nuke program underway (AQKhan) and funded (BCCI).

Bushies planted this story - no way do they want Obama to cntinue to receive credit, especially while they are undergoing the enormous task of manipulating the general public into voting for Jeb2016.

[whatchamacallit]

55. That sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory n/t

[blm]

60. Sounds like it, but, if you ever read BCCI report you'd know it isn't.

I don't blame majority of DUers for having no clue about the time period - Pakistan's nukes, AQKhan, or Poppy Bush's role in BCCI which funded it all.

Corpmedia was told by their masters that it was just a bank story, and far too boring a subject for their audiences.

[sabrina 1]

122. Did you even read the link provided in this thread? Did you notice that one of the main

spokespersons to the media, who spoke about and described the photos in detail, admitted to Hersh that he never actually saw them but 'trusted' the person who described them to him? THAT individual is named in Hersh's account, meaning anyone who wanted to can go to him to verify his admission that he 'never actually saw the photos'. I noticed that those calling Hersh a CT (again I refer everyone to Cass Sunstein's advice to quash inconvenient stories) NEVER INTERVIEWED the NAMED SOURCES in Hersh's account.

Now why would they not do that?

Everytime I see credible people called CTs, I know someone is trying desperately to hide something.

Sunstein thought this would be a great way to discredit people, but in fact it turns out, it has the opposite effect.

[7962]

45. Since when does the govt release DNA? Or a body?

The biggest mistake was announcing it as soon as it happened. We had a lot of intel that could've been exploited and maybe a few other top people been eliminated before word got out

[Mojorabbit]

82. There seems to be a lot of people coming out of the woodwork to debunk this story

and that always leads me to believe there are aspects of it that he got right. When a respected journalist's reputation is attacked right after he puts out an article, it sends up a red flag.

[geek tragedy]

90. Gotta live the magical conspiracy theory mindset--"the fact that people are debunking it

means it's true."

Just like if they didn't, it would be "people aren't debunking it and are trying to ignore it BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S TRUE!!!!"

Hersh was respected 10 years ago, no doubt. Nowadays, he's just another has-been writing inflammatory gossip while trying to stay relevant.

[Mojorabbit]

99. Because you say so?

If there are problems with the article, then these problems should be delved into with backup sources instead of opinion. When the major focus is an attack on the credibility of a pulitzer prize winning journalist instead of what he wrote then I take a second look. The same group who upholds everything this govt does appears in all of these sorts of threads. They were in all the Snowden threads also. I don't give them much credence.

[geek tragedy]

100. This is getting funnier and funnier.

If there are problems with the article, then these problems should be delved into with backup sources instead of opinion.

The problems with the article is that THERE ARE NO BACKUP SOURCES. Hersh is acting as the stenographer of a retired, nameless, low or mid-level bureaucrat making the allegations.

When the major focus is an attack on the credibility of a pulitzer prize winning journalist instead of what he wrote then I take a second look.

The major focus is that his fantastical claims are incredibly thinly sourced and based on the hearsay claims of a single, dubious source. Not his personal credibility, but rather that this current piece (rejected by The New Yorker and other publications with standards) is gossipy trash, not journalism.

The same group who upholds everything this govt does appears in all of these sorts of threads. They were in all the Snowden threads also. I don't give them much credence.

So, you refuse to think skeptically and critically about this article because you consider its critics a bunch of poopypants.

Ok then, so much for objecting to ad hominem argument.

[Joe Chi Minh]

114. You got it. First principles.

[sabrina 1]

43. Thanks, he was mocked for his revelations about Abu Ghraib too. So I prefer to read

his own version of things, not someone else's biased opinion ridden diatribe.

[blm]

53. This is not Hersh, though. Durrani's intel days closely align him with Poppy Bush.

Hersh wrote Durrani's story.

[sabrina 1]

69. Durrani is only one part of Hersh's story.. Did you read it?

Clapper and Gates and many of Obama's cabinet members are closely aligned with the Bush dynasty btw. He seems to trust Bush's old cronies enough to keep them in his cabinet.

Any idea why he didn't replace all those old Bush loyalists?

[blm]

72. Sorry, sab1, but, this story is pushed by an old BFEE intel guy.

And it doesn't add up - did YOU read it?

Fer chrissakes, Pakistan military intel was a big part of Bush's overall strategy in that region - he used Pakistan like toilet paper. They let him because Poppy allowed their nuke program and even helped get the funding for it.

This is a ratfvcking article for Jeb2016.

[MADem]

15. I feel so sorry for that poor guy--he's in Pierre Salinger territory.

In fact, if losing one's reputation and dignity were a road race, Hersh would be ahead of Salinger's "legacy" by a country mile.

He's gone down the woo-woo road, and it's sad.

[malthaussen]

16. I think Mr Hersh was also present with Bill O'Malley...

... when the Moon landings were faked.

I'll abstain from ranting, but the significance attached to Osama bin-Laden's death is so indicative of the problems with this country...

-- Mal

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. What is it with these formerly respectable investigative reporters?

Robert Parry and now Seymour Hersh?

They build a good reputation and seem intent on blowing it all.

[stevenleser]

41. I think they feel the pressure of coming up with earth-shattering stuff and so they make it up or

intentionally don't vet their sources and thus can claim plausible deniability when their story is debunked.

They loved the adoration they received when they broke their big one or two real stories and want that attention back. Problem is, those kinds of stories don't come along very often.

[randome]

65. Same reason some celebrities crash and burn, I suppose.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[KittyWampus]

42. They're only as good as their sources. Time passes. Other journalists get the info.

Writers tend to write for their audience.

[blm]

76. Not them - their sources.

Seems to me like BFEE is laughing at them while they have their old intel buddies plant these stories.

Takes away the sting.

Remember what happened to Rather? Planted story, portions of which were true. Bushes NEVER forget. Work the BS in a way that helps Bushes in the long run. In this case, Jeb2016.

[KoKo]

20. Interesting that Max Fisher article ends with video of Cass Sunstein

interview talking about "Conspiracy Theories."

Seems Fisher or his Editor are going way out of their way to try to prove their view that Sy has gone off the rails.

A bit too much of Sunstein influence, there, I'd say, considering Sunstein's outrageous proposals to spread disinformation on websites.

[OnyxCollie]

36. +1. nt

[pinto]

21. +1. Saw him interviewed this morning and even that brief exchange seemed full of holes.

And he repeatedly made himself part of the story - a red flag for any semblance of a journalistic standard.

[Iliyah]

23. Seems like journalism's fire slow burn into nothing sphere

Also, anything (-) concerning President Obama seems to raise its ugly head here at the DU 24/7.

Same with HRC. Non-stop. Smells like RWers are getting their message across.

No man/women is perfect nor do not have a few (-)s in their closet.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone {Matt. 7:1}

So called religious fanatics seems to have forgotten that verse and many others.

[GoneFishin]

24. Nice try. His track record for digging out the buried facts and his willingness to report

those facts even when they embarrasses influential people is established.

Your discomfort that the facts being reported this time don't support your view is of little consequence.

[geek tragedy]

25. There are no facts being reported. Hersh doesn't present a single fact.

He presents second-hand allegations from a single, nameless, dubious source.

That is not journalism. That's gossip.

[babylonsister]

26. Ha! So

this doesn't bother you?

...his allegations are largely supported only by two sources, neither of whom has direct knowledge of what happened, both of whom are retired, and one of whom is anonymous. The story is riven with internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

Could it be you're so invested in discrediting the President, this mission, and perhaps the outcome?

[KittyWampus]

44. And for all we know, his sources may be General Petraeus.

[el_bryanto]

33. That's an interesting defense - it seems like to you the Truth doesn't matter

Your response is to a) suggest that the fact that it makes Obama and the Pentagon uncomfortable justifies the story, and b) suggest that those who dispute the facts are of little consequence (or their discomfort is of little consequence).

I would think the truth would be primary in this particular case.

Bryant

[blm]

57. Like the FACT that Durrani's intel days align him with GHWBush's cronies doesn't merit

an eyebrow lift?

Reads to me like we've seen stories like this planted many times before.

[GoneFishin]

94. Nice swarm you have organized here. So much ignorance assembled in one place. Impressive.

[DinahMoeHum]

29. As bin Laden is still dead after all this - I really don't care.

n/t

[pnwmom]

32. Agreed. The bottom line: Meh. n/t

[7962]

59. HA!

[kwassa]

84. No, Bin Laden is alive and living with Elvis and Generalissimo Francisco Franco ...

[Marblehead]

31. I don't like the

way they faked that pic of them watching the op, that's admitted.

[7962]

63. What, exactly, was "faked" about that picture? An admitted by whom?

[Maedhros]

34. Sy Hersch has more credibility than Max Fisher. [n/t]

[geek tragedy]

38. How much credibility does:

"a retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad."

who is anonymous, and whose claims are completely lacking in factual corroboration, have?

[blm]

62. It's Durrani's tale. When do we trust any intel figure aligned w/GHWBush?

This story was planted. The smell of fertilizer is strong.

[babylonsister]

46. Damn. Lots of butthurt in this thread.

I'm surprised. You'd think a healthy dose of skepticism would be...healthy.

[OnyxCollie]

51. Skepticism is healthy.

And after the administration's actions on torture, domestic surveillance, and prosecuting whistleblowers, they should be viewed as less than trustworthy.

BRITNEY SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

[Maedhros]

66. Oh, I'm skeptical.

And your "butthurt" comment is childish.

This article from Salon fairly represents my view point - essentially, that all the Bin Laden narratives are problematic:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/11/everything_we_know_about_the_death_of_osama_bin_laden_is_wrong/

Concerns about Hersh’s sourcing may well be correct. But what is true about Hersh’s story is that, in the aftermath of the raid, the administration very quickly starting boasting. John Brennan, then Homeland Security Advisor and now the director of the CIA, gave a press conference that almost immediately fell apart; basic details of the story — such as details of Bin Laden’s burial — have been obfuscated behind seemingly frivolous FOIA obstruction.

Indeed, we’ve been told cover story after cover story after cover story. Does that mean that CIA torture dead-enders invented details that could conveniently attach to Bin Laden’s death? That’s what evidence from CIA’s own records, cited in the Senate Torture report, shows. Does that mean the SEALs never considered capturing, rather than killing, Bin Laden? That’s what evolving stories from SEAL participants suggest.

When Hersh brought and confirmed his story to Durrani, the retired Pakistani General, the General said the Pakistani public would be “grateful” when his story came out because “people like to be told the truth.”

But that’s not actually right. People like to be told stories. Whether they’re true or not is of little import, if they hang together and serve certain purposes.

We — neither the American, nor the Pakistani public — has ever been told a true story about Bin Laden’s death. Or even one that hangs together.

This is yet another version, no more convincing than John Brennan’s tale that Bin Laden hid behind one of his wives.

Which is perhaps evidence that the key players in this story intend to keep spinning cover story after cover story to hide the real details of what happened in Pakistan the night Osama Bin Laden was killed.

[Mojorabbit]

102. +1000

None of the stories ring true esp what was done with the body.

[Cha]

110. No, he doesn't.

[tclambert]

47. If Osama bin Laden were still alive, why doesn't he say so?

I can't imagine a video he would love to make more than one saying, "Nyaah, nyaah, you missed me!"

[7962]

64. Where is Hersch alleging that Bin Laden is still alive? Or anyone else?

Or anyone with any credibility anyway

[tclambert]

73. Did I misunderstand? He said everything about the raid was a lie.

The key thing about that story is bin Laden's death. If that part is true, who cares about the other details?

Okay, on edit, I have to confess to laziness and not reading the whole article. After reading it, I have to ask, if he admits bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALs, then who cares about the rest? I suppose it could embarrass Pakistan to admit they were in on it. The official story also embarrasses Pakistan. How they disposed of his body doesn't really matter. I kind of assumed they lied about that and brought the remains back for careful examination . . . and possible taxidermy.

[7962]

81. See, I felt the same. Even if his story is true, its not some bombshell.

The only thing I never liked was the fact that the Pres came out with the news as soon as it happened. We should've examined all the intel we got, and it was a lot, and tried to exploit it before the news got around to the bad guys. Certainly it WOULD have gotten out fairly quick, but who knows who else we may have been able to get?

Taxidermy? Now THAT would be a bombshell!!

[Iliyah]

54. Why did the Bush Administration let OBL escape

and why did Bush say he was not concern about OBL anymore. .

I would love for those questions to be investigated.

Thank you Pres O.

[Calista241]

71. Even if the story is 100% true

1. I can see why the original story came out the way it did. National secrets and all.

2. BFD. This doesn't change the narrative.

[Blue_Tires]

83. I'm still waiting for him to retract that bullshit Syria story

[Doctor_J]

91. hersch was very accurate about what happened in the world while Stupid was president

He tends to not write lies.

[GoneFishin]

95. Yeah. But that was when his reporting reflected badly on the other team ... I mean Republicans.

Rah, Rah. Yay team!

[Marr]

96. Why are people so reflexively opposed to Hersh's story?

I'm only familiar with the rough outlines of his story, myself-- but none of it seemed shocking. I always assumed the official story was dressed up, rah-rah bullshit on some level. I mean, it was kind of an important event with complex political ramifications.

[Doctor_J]

98. take a wild guess

[ChiciB1]

116. AGAIN Doctor_J... BINGO! n/t

[zappaman]

105. Cuz it's not backed by eyewitnesses, videos, photos, facts...

Nothing.
Some of the reasons why the New Yorker rejected it.

[babylonsister]

107. Surprise! Thanks! nt

[zappaman]

104. Kick!

[Dem2]

106. I read his piece with interest

I was taken aback by what seemed to be a rumor based story. I also had the "so what?" reaction to it. He seems to have lost his way.

[Cha]

109. "The story simply does not hold up to scrutiny — and, sadly, is in line with Hersh's recent turn

away from the investigative reporting that made him famous into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories."

But, Hersh will always have his fans from those salivating at calling the President "a liar".

From your link, babylonsistah.. thank you..

"The evidence for all this is Hersh's conversations with two people: Asad Durrani, who ran Pakistan's military intelligence service from 1990 to 1992, and "a retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad." Read that line again: knowledgeable about the initial intelligence. Not exactly a key player in this drama, and anonymous at that.

Hersh produces no supporting documents or proof, nor is the authority of either source established. We are given no reason to believe that either Durrani or the "knowledgeable official" would have even second- or thirdhand knowledge of what occurred, yet their word is treated as gospel. His other two sources are anonymous "consultants" who are vaguely described as insiders.

[UTUSN]

111. R#46 & K n/t

[Damansarajaya]

112. I wasn't all that thrilled with the Abu Ghraib story, for that matter.

He claimed he had evidence of children getting raped, but that reporting never materialized. The story was always going to be "released soon," but as an avid reader of the media, I never saw it in the MSM . . .

[ChiciB1]

115. Saw This Coming A Mile Away...

Maybe there are too many here who DON'T know EVERYTHING about Hersh. Not going to make a long list, but it goes way back to Viet Nam and My Li. Been a long time ago, could have spelled that wrong. But I DO recall what was done to Dan Rather, ANOTHER investigative reporter from days gone by.

AND, I have a lot of respect for Amy Goodman who had him on her show this morning.

Okay, proceed with the bashing. Don't think the Pied Piper has left the building yet!

[Cha]

119. Hersh used to be a good investigative reporter.. something happned along the way.

How Solid Is This Sy Hersh Story About the bin Laden Raid?

Isaac Chotiner ?@IChotiner
Does Hersh think journalists should use this level of sourcing to, say, start a stupid war? Or is it only okay in this case?
8:39 AM - 10 May 2015

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/how-solid-is-this-story-on-the-bin-laden-raid.html

[IkeRepublican]

120. He sold his behind to the neocon establishment years ago

Couldn't resist the greed factor. Started with that complete smear piece on JFK claiming Kennedy had numerous venereal diseases and countless other things. Granted, JFK was no saint, but Hersh went completely out of his way to tap into the Republican base. After that, he wrote an article in Vanity Fair in early 2005 where he claimed to have "countless intelligence sources" that America was going to be bombing Iran the following June.

[Cha]

127. Wow.. good to know.. thanks Ike

[Maedhros]

123. New York Times correspondent Carlotta Gall writes that Hersh's story

rings true on several counts, based upon what she and other reporters have uncovered in their own research:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/magazine/the-detail-in-seymour-hershs-bin-laden-story-that-rings-true.html?_r=0

On this count, my own reporting tracks with Hersh’s. Beginning in 2001, I spent nearly 12 years covering Pakistan and Afghanistan for The Times. (In his article, Hersh cites an article I wrote for The Times Magazine last year, an excerpt from a book drawn from this reporting.) The story of the Pakistani informer was circulating in the rumor mill within days of the Abbottabad raid, but at the time, no one could or would corroborate the claim. Such is the difficulty of reporting on covert operations and intelligence matters; there are no official documents to draw on, few officials who will talk and few ways to check the details they give you when they do.

Two years later, when I was researching my book, I learned from a high-level member of the Pakistani intelligence service that the ISI had been hiding Bin Laden and ran a desk specifically to handle him as an intelligence asset. After the book came out, I learned more: that it was indeed a Pakistani Army brigadier — all the senior officers of the ISI are in the military — who told the C.I.A. where Bin Laden was hiding, and that Bin Laden was living there with the knowledge and protection of the ISI.

[Maedhros]

124. Another person stepping forward with corroborating information that supports Hersh.

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

R.J. Hillhouse, a former professor, Fulbright fellow and novelist whose writing on intelligence and military outsourcing has appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times, made the same main assertions in 2011 about the death of Osama bin Laden as Seymour Hersh’s new story in the London Review of Books — apparently based on different sources than those used by Hersh.

[pauldp]

125. Hersh struck a big nerve. Hence all the sleazy presstitutes lining up to bash him in the MSM

The notion that Bin Laden was in Abbotabad, a stones throw from the ISI, without the knowledge of top Pakistani officials
is ridiculous.

[Maedhros]

126. What I find frustrating is the number of people here on DU,

where - presumably - we're critically-thinking individuals, who will post knee-jerk rejections of any report or opinion that questions the dominant (read: White House approved) narrative. Look who has been thrown under the bus by the "liberals" at DU: Sy Hersh, Glenn Greenwald, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange.

And it's not because they are pushing Neocon positions, or waving the bloody shirt for war, or attacking liberal principles. The common factor with all of them is that they point out lies, obfuscations and abuses. They are simply victims of circumstance. Prior to 2008 they would be heroes.