What Do We Really Know About Osama bin Laden’s Death?

No, Hersh has moved into Noam Chomsky territory in which anybody and everybody speaking on behalf of the U.S. government, particularly the president, is automatically presumed to be among the most fiendish liars in the history of the world.

 

Fine, then we agree that it's not because of the mooslim-negro thing, and thus we agree that your prior post is wrong.

Still waiting for your evidence of these other prevalent theories besides Hersh's....

 

It's in large part because of the mooslim-neegro thing because Hersh knows there will always be a large and well-paying market of right-wing screechers eager to read anything portraying the M. N. as one of the most fiendish liars in the history of the world.

 

And at last we're at it ... Hersh is a victim of the right. If it weren't for the right's meany-pants booger-headedness, Hersh wouldn't have an audience for his loony-ness.

 

No, there's always a large market for conspiracy theories. Hersh's account can be best described as thinly sourced. If it was another writer, a lesser name, the NYT mag wouldn't have touched it.

 

The New York Times Magazine doesn't say that Hersh's story is the definitive account.

 

It should be noted, if you didn't get far enough into the article, that the New Yorker rejected the story for the weakness of the sources.

For those in and around the news business, the fact that Hersh’s report appeared in The London Review of Books and not The New Yorker, his usual outlet, was a story in its own right, one that hasn’t been told in full before. (Editors and reporters may not be as secretive as intelligence officials, but they like to keep a tight lid on their operational details, too.)
...
But the bin Laden report wasn’t the first one by Hersh that Remnick rejected because he considered the sourcing too thin. In 2013 and 2014, he passed on two Hersh articles about a deadly sarin gas attack in Syria, each of which claimed the attack was not launched by the Assad regime, the presumed culprit, but by Syrian rebels, in collaboration with the Turkish government. Those articles also landed in The London Review of Books. Like the bin Laden article, each was widely questioned upon publication, with critics arguing that the once-legendary reporter was increasingly favoring provocation over rigor. (Hersh still stands by both stories.)

 

Huh. Interesting,

Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder why it didn't get mentioned around here when the article first came out.

 

Huh. Got me AGAIN! Damn! Just guessing a lot of those posting on here didn't read the whole article. I had a tough time slogging though it myself.

 

It is a game of false equivalence.

NYT Mag presents Hersh's story and Bowden's story as being a binary choice when, clearly, Hersh's version is much weaker has much less sourcing and doesn't match up with literally all the other accounts that have come up in interviews and other publications.

The one that has, with some variation, is Bowden's account.

Also, I'm about 99.9 percent sure the New Yorker rejecting the Hersh account was mentioned here.

 

When it comes to "definitive accounts" (if you have an hour + to read), this is by far, the most nuanced and informative take on this whole Hersh controversy. Not sure if it's been posted here, but I have yet to see any discussion or critique on it.

 

It definitely was.