It's amusing to see all the Obamaites attack Sy Hersh on his recent story about the killing of Osama Bin Laden the way Republicans attacked him in the past over other exposes he wrote. There has been very little "hope and change" in the last seven years on the government transparency front.
Hersh is a reporter of
tremendous integrity who broke the My Lai and Abu Ghraib stories among others . He is not a reporter who is motivated by
partisan politics. I've read the Hersh
article and I've read the attacks on his story (Vox, Politico and others). Most
of the attacks seem to center around the fact Hersh uses a lot of
anonymous sources. So what? Many of the
greatest breaking news stories of all time (such as Watergate) would not have been
written without anonymous stories. Hersh
does have some “on the record” sources such as Asad Durrani.
Hersh's article makes perfect sense to me for
three reasons 1.) I always found it hard to believe US forces would have be
able to enter Pakistan like that without the covert approval and assistance of
someone within the Pakistani government 2.) "The treasure trove of
intelligence" Bin Laden left behind? Nothing much came of that. 2.) The
part about Bin Laden being buried at seas sounded like bad fiction to me.
The one thing I would like to
see investigated further is Hersh reports that Saudi Arabia was involved in
keeping Bin Laden under wraps and funding his life. Considering the 09/11
reports' redacted pages allegedly implicate Saudi Arabia (and Israel), this is
definitely worth its own investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment