Hersh: VP Cheney Heard Proposal Staging Incident to Provoke Iran War?

Has he even referred generally to documents in a way that shows he could prove their existence?

 

I applaud Hersh for writing stories that nobody else writes. If I get one questionable story and one My Lai, I'm cool with that.

 

Without going back through the body of work, let's say he has referred to documentary evidence in at least one story. Or, for your purposes, let's say that he hasn't. Not once. I'm not sure that's the standard here either way.

Working as he does, I think in his case the question is, can he refer to them to bolster a point when making his case to his editors? They're the ones deciding what's sufficiently supported in these stories and what isn't.

Does he need to have documents in his possession? Or is it sufficient to have read them? If he's read them, was he allowed to take notes? Maybe, maybe not. Having read one, is he then equipped to go to another source to corroborate it, or to ask new questions? Does the new source back the document and the first source?

I understand your reservations about Mr. Hirsh. To a point, I share them. I have absolute confidence in David Remnick however, and in the process in place at The New Yorker to vet these stories before they run. Does that mean they're 100% right in 100% of all cases. Of course not. They're predictive, not historical.

 

I'm going to take Sy Hersh's credibility over Dick Cheney's every friggin' time.