The WH/Politico Attack on Seymour Hersh by Glenn Greenwald

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/02-6

Seymour Hersh has a new article in The New Yorker arguing that there is no credible evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; to the contrary, he writes, "the U.S. could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein's Iraq eight years ago -- allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimates of the state's military capacities and intentions." This, of course, cannot stand, as it conflicts with one of the pillar-orthodoxies of Obama foreign policy in the Middle East (even though the prior two National Intelligence Estimates say what Hersh has said). As a result, two cowardly, slimy Obama officials ran to Politico to bash Hersh while hiding behind the protective womb of anonymity automatically and subserviently extended by that "news outlet":

the Obama administration is pushing back strongly, with one senior official saying the article garnered "a collective eye roll" from the White House . . . two administration officials told POLITICO's Playbook that's not the case. . . . a senior administration official said. . . . "There is a clear, ongoing pattern of deception" from Iran . . ."the senior administration official added" . . . And a senior intelligence official also ripped Hersh, saying his article amounted to nothing more than "a slanted book report on a long narrative that's already been told many times over" . . .

Dutifully writing down what government officials say and then publishing it under cover of anonymity is what media figures in D.C. refer to as "real reporting." ...

More at the link --

[DJ13]

1. Hmm, WH or Hersh... who would I trust on this issue?

Hersh.

He has no reason to lie, but the same cant be said about the WH (this one, or any of them in the past).

[aquart]

2. Iran probably wants us to think it has nuclear capability.

We don't invade our nuclear brothers.

[Enrique]

3. Iran is going to be our excuse for staying in Iraq

so we need to maximize how dangerous they seem.

[Mimosa]

4. That's true.

The West has a long history of interfering in Iran.

[hifiguy]

5. Sy Hersh has been spreading daylight into dark corners

for more than 40 years. IMO he has more credibility than anyone in any administration.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Glenn Greenwald: automatic unrecommend n/t

[Enrique]

8. what about Seymour Hersh?

you don't like him either?

What about Politico? Are you a big fan of theirs, especially when they serve the White House (or the previous White House) in this way?

[LoZoccolo]

10. Automatic unrecommend targets authors, not content. n/t

[Enrique]

15. Seymour Hersh is an author

is he programmed into your auto-unrec module?

[LoZoccolo]

21. No, he is not on the automatic unrecommend list. n/t

[SoCalDem]

22. oh shit.. there's a LIST now for auto-un-rec?

no one told Uggo-the Unreccer:



Un-reccer in real life

[Bragi]

18. I see

So if a targeted author writes that water flows uphill, then you unrec any posting that reports that?

If so, that's stupid. You just made my targeted authors list of one.

[LoZoccolo]

19. I would unrecommend a post that said that water flows uphill, yes. n/t

[2banon]

29. Mississippi River flowed backwards after an earthquake

There is a documented instance that the Mississippi River flowed backwards after an earthquake.. http://ezinearticles.com/?When-the-Mississippi-Flowed-Backward&id=182651

This would be considered interesting to me.. don't think I'd rec' it.. but it's interesting just the same.

I think the rec/unrec thing is silly.

It only reflects a personal bias you have (in this case) against Hersh and possibly Greenwald.

[Bragi]

31. Don't you just hate it when...

You misstate something totally, and then the time limit for edits falls like gauntlet, and there it stands, for time immemorial, a statement under your screen name that is false and indefensible?

When this happens, the experienced online debater has but one reasonable alternative, which is to state clearly and forcefully: I am NOT a Nazi, and making any outrageous allegation of this sort just demonstrates that YOU ARE A RACIST!

Enough said. I'm putting everyone on ignore.

[Wind Dancer]

11. Oh brother!

Covering your ears too?

[QC]

26. How nice that you two have something in common! n/t

[xphile]

27. Your automatic unrec == blatant stupidity.

Should make it easier to know which posts to avoid in the future.

[girl gone mad]

30. lol..

[disillusioned73]

7. k&r

:dem:

[malaise]

9. Hersh must be right

all sides attack him

[2banon]

28. all sides? Are you referring to the linear Left vs Right as "all sides"?

Only Conservatives and Lovers of Death, Destruction and War attack Seymour Hersh. (aka Right Wingers)

[Vanje]

12. K&R nt

[ProSense]

13. Wow!

<...>

As a result, two cowardly, slimy Obama officials ran to Politico to bash Hersh while hiding behind the protective womb of anonymity automatically and subserviently extended by that "news outlet":

the Obama administration is pushing back strongly...

<...>

So two anonymous sources pushed back against an article and Greenwald refers to them "two cowardly, slimy Obama officials" while asserting in his title: The WH/Politico Attack on Seymour Hersh.

When did disputing an article become an attack? And when did disputing an article mean that the WH is cahoots with Politico?

Greenwald has no idea who the sources are, but that doesn't stop him from resorting to name calling.

[EFerrari]

14. Right. The anonymous sources who criticize Hersh for using anonymous sources.

LOL

[Enrique]

16. the Politico article is clearly an attack on Hersh

a lot of the criticism of Politico is knee-jerk but this story is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with them. The story is exactly what Greenwald says it is. It is just a gift from Politico to the White House, helping them discredit a story they don't like. And the question remains, why would they give anonymity for a story like this?

[ProSense]

17. "It is just a gift from Politico to the White House

...helping them discredit a story they don't like."

So Politico, which spend most of it's time writing questionable stories about the administration and Democrats, decided to give the WH a gift?

Even if the WH strongly disagree with Hersh's POV as the article indicates, how does the WH's disagreement constitute an attack?

Maybe Politico has a motive, but trying to claim that this is a WH/Politico coordinated attack is beyond bogus.

[leftstreet]

20. K&R

[Bluebear]

23. Strike up the propaganda machine, Mr. President.

[Wind Dancer]

24. Bump

[scarletwoman]

25. Rec & kick. (nt)

[Canuckistanian]

32. K&R

I'd trust Hersh more than some flunkies at the WH.

[struggle4progress]

33. I don't much like either Greenwald or Politico. Here's the link to Hersh's article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_hersh