Posted on 05/20/2004 4:49:57 AM PDT by new cruelty
Reading the hot new New Yorker expose - which has the rest of the media in a tizzy, and has many Democrats even hungrier for Rumsfeld's resignation - can lead one to believe that the defense secretary had a hand in the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal.
Reading it more closely, however, leads one to realize that Rumsfeld knew, well, nothing. Reading it with the author's credibility problems in mind, the Pentagon's seemingly obligatory denials seem more credible.
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has been a trailblazer on the Abu Ghraib scandal, breaking numerous stories. His latest has tongues in Washington wagging.
In a piece titled "The Gray Zone," Hersh lays the blame for the scandal at the feet of Rumsfeld, who, Hersh writes, expanded a secret operations unit into Iraq. In the second sentence, Hersh leaves little doubt as to his personal conclusions: "Rumsfeld's decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of elite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror."
The article is quite damning - that is, until the reader gets to the obligatory disclaimer.
Buried 3,300 words inside a 4,500-word article is the following exoneration: "Rumsfeld may not be personally culpable." And farther down near the end was another: "The former intelligence official made it clear that he was not alleging that Rumsfeld or Gen. [Richard] Myers knew that atrocities were committed."
In Hersh's line of work, opinion-based reporting, he is absolutely within bounds to attack Rumsfeld. But the problem is the treatment then given by the rest of the media.
When mainstream news outlets reported on Hersh's piece, there was nary a mention of Hersh's left-leaning bias.
Even more troubling is that there are more than 25 quotes attributed to "former intelligence officials" and only five to current officials anywhere in government. And all, save for one public official, are anonymous.
Current officials deserve the cloak of anonymity, particularly when revealing information the public has a right to know and the act itself could cost the person's job. But what is the rationale for keeping nameless all the former officials? There are no jobs on the line, and former officials are routinely quoted on the record in most outlets.
How can others judge the credibility of nameless individuals who could be doing nothing more than settling old scores?
Readers, and the media at large, would also be wise to consider Hersh's credibility in past stories. While much of what he has written has been well-researched and true, he has not been without substantial error.
In November 2001, Hersh penned a New Yorker piece that portrayed a Pentagon mission to strike Mullah Omar in Afghanistan as a "near-disaster," completely contrary to the official line.
One fact from the story that numerous conservative publications, from National Review to Washington Times, were quick to expose was one that even a junior New Yorker fact checker should have caught: "The mission was initiated by 16 AC-130 gunships, which poured thousands of rounds into the surrounding area but deliberately left the mullah's house unscathed."
There almost certainly could not have been 16 AC-130 gunships in one battle; the military has a worldwide total fleet of 21.
Maybe Hersh's piece has quite a bit of truth in it. Even so, the worst that the article actually alleges (with facts) is that Rumsfeld expanded a program that, unbeknown to him, spiraled out of control.
But with the nameless sourcing - apparently needlessly in most of the cases - determining the accuracy of Hersh's reporting becomes an essentially impossible task.
Let's hope that's not why he used almost solely anonymous sources.
Let's hope that's not why he used almost solely anonymous sources.
Sources? We don' need no stinking sources!
I heard that Jason Blair was one of the unnamed "former intelligence officers"! :-)
What went on in that prison wasn't torture. It wasn't smart and it wasn't well-coordinated, but it wasn't torture.
I think humiliation (though not the way these amateurs used it) is a valid interrogation technique. We are a society that doesn't want to torture people, we have a lot of very bad people in custody, people with potentially very important information that can save lives of soldiers in Iraq and citizens in America, and we need to be free to use every possible method to get that information.
There should only be two restrictions on our interrogation techniques:
1. We should not torture.
2. We should not be silly.
Those 6 (or 10) soldiers in that prison did not torture. But what they did do was silly.
Bump. Interesting post.
"How can others judge the credibility of nameless individuals who could be doing nothing more than settling old scores?"
Could that smell be one of the Clark(e) boys?
Who told you that?! I want names!
It would seem that the energy that they infuse into their propaganda would produce at least a hint of excitement--but, no, it is the nature of propaganda always to be boring--mind-numbingly boring.
Hysterical presentation doesn't help.
If they had really wanted to torture the prisoners, they would have read them American "newsmedia" Democrat propaganda.
expecting the leftist mainstream news outlets to notice the leftist leanings of Hersh??? You silly boy!
What names do you want me to call you? Do you have any special ones, or can I just make something up? < /liberal sarcasm >
You can shave my head and call me Luther, just don't call me late for dinner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.