Sy Hersh Says Its Okay to Lie (Just Not in Print)
****************************AN EXCERPT ***********************************
*********************
By Chris Suellentrop
**********************************
Since the Abu Ghraib story broke eleven months ago, The New Yorkers national-security correspondent, Seymour Hersh, has followed it up with a series of spectacular scoops. Videotape of young boys being raped at Abu Ghraib. Evidence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be a composite figure and a propaganda creation of either Iraqs Baathist insurgency or the U.S. government. The active involvement of Karl Rove and the president in prisoner-interrogation issues. The mysterious disappearance of $1 billion, in cash, in Iraq. A threat by the administration to a TV network to cut off access to briefings in retaliation for asking Laura Bush a very tough question about abortion. The Iraqi insurgencys access to short-range FROG missiles that can do grievous damage to American troops. The murder, by an American platoon, of 36 Iraqi guards.
Not one of these exclusives appeared in the pages of The New Yorker, however. Instead, Hersh delivered them in speeches on college campuses and in front of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and on public-radio shows like Democracy Now! In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveatsuch as Im just talking now, Im not writingbefore unloading one of his blockbusters, which can send bloggers and reporters scurrying for confirmation.
Every writer understands that there is a gap between the print persona and the actual self, but Hersh subscribes to a bright-line test, a wider chasm than is usually acknowledged, particularly in todays multimedia age.
There are two Hershes, really. Seymour M. is the byline. He navigates readers through the byzantine world of Americas overlapping national-security bureaucracies, and his stories form what Hersh has taken to calling an alternative history of the Bush administration since September 11, 2001.
Then theres Sy. Hes the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story thats not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people, Hersh told me. I cant fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.
And in bending the truth, Hersh is, paradoxically enough, remarkably candid. When he supplies unconfirmed accounts of military assaults on Iraqi civilians, or changes certain important details from an episode inside Abu Ghraib (thus rendering the story unverifiable), Hersh argues that hes protecting the identities of sources who could face grave repercussions for talking. I defend that totally, Hersh says of the factual fudges he serves up in speeches and lectures. I find that totally not inconsistent with anything I do professionally. Im just communicating another reality that I know, that for a lot of reasons having to do with, basically, someone elses ass, Im not writing about it.
I'd like to lock Mr. Hersh in Mr. Peabody's Way-Back machine and drop him oh...say, the Battle of Gettysburg.
Thanks...more fodder for broken-glass Republicans: