Posted on 09/11/2004 10:35:48 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Release
On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040910-1240.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711
No. 889-04
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 10, 2004
Bump!
Maybe they only exist in Hersh's mind.
For lurking Bush critics....will Mr. Hersh appear after Kitty Kelly on 60 Minutes, Dan Rather, and the Today Show - a week or days before the election?
The hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam and his accomplices are unavailable for interviews, but millions of Iraqis have true tragic stories of real oppression and longsuffering to share, and a child could find enough true documented evidence in a naptime on the net proving that Saddam was a human WMD, and his regime as inhumane as they come.
I don't even want to know that our free (thanks to American troops, under God, past and present) blind press is willing to overlook the mass graves and over 3 decades of torture, rape and oppression...again...just as they downplayed the true atrocities and true nature of the enemy during Vietnam, to attack and misrepresent our troops and nation.
March, 2003:
Members of International A.N.S.W.E.R.;
Signatories of Not In My Name; and
Citizens of the United States of America:
With the impending military action in Iraq I felt compelled to write this letter. As a member of the United States military I regret to inform you that, regardless of your race, sex, color, creed, age, national origin, political ideology, or any other delimiter, the actions that will take place against Iraq will be fully, undeniably, and irrevocably IN YOUR NAME. Despite of your signature on a piece of paper, this statement remains true.
In my fifteen years of service in the U.S. Navy (8.5 years active duty, balance reserve) I have raised my right hand six time to swear "that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States". That wonderful document which covers us, protects us, enables our way of life. The constitution provides our rights, sets our standards of law, and importantly in this context gives the President of the United States the power to set the foreign policy.
The constitution also provides the method of electing the President, and designates him as Commander in Chief of the military. I have also sworn "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States", I do not have to like the president, I do not have to agree with his policy. I have served under four men holding that office, and made no distinction between them. When the President sets the military in action he does so by the power given him by the constitution and the people of the U.S. As a service member the President through the constitution ultimately directs my actions, the resulting action is therefore proscribed by the constitution. If you consider yourself a citizen of this country willfully covered by the Constitution, all military action is therefore In Your Name.
I know you might disagree with that statement, you may not like that statement, but the members of the armed forces will proudly serve in the name of all Americans. We will continue to provide you with security, with your freedoms, and your rights even if you do not like how, when or why we do.
Respectfully,
Stanley J. Wolczyk III
Petty Officer First Class U.S.N.R.
~*~
PJ ORourke: "the US Marine Corp has done much more for world peace that all the Ben and Jerrys ice cream ever sold." - God and Terrorism - http://www.northern.edu/schaff/god_terrorism.html
"Department of Defense Statement on Seymour Hersh Book
"Based on media inquiries, it appears that Mr. Seymor Hershs upcoming book apparently contains many of the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed sources."
Seymour Hersh is a diseased lunatic maggot paid by the NY Slimes to slander our president and our military.
Ammo for the upcoming battle with the lunatic left ~ Bump!
Below is an excellent oped on this liar:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3654.html
The Cult of Seymour Hersh
by Rael Jean Isaac, The American Spectator
26 July 2004
Hersh's latest concocted speculations have resulted in Richard Perle's describing him on CNN as "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist." Hersh has fallen repeatedly for conmen in the past, why is his yellow journalism allowed to continue unchecked, and in fact be rewarded by the Pulitzer prize and other journalism awards?
Character assassination. A simplistic moral universe in which the U.S. is the villain and Israel the only country yet more villainous. Anonymous sources that cannot be checked. Dark charges based on a crazy patchwork of suppositions. Far-out conspiracy theories. Con men as sources. Reputable sources misquoted. These constitute the decades-long MO of Seymour Hersh, the man now serving as star investigative reporter of the New Yorker.
Donald Rumsfeld is the target of Hershs most recent venture into character assassination. In the New Yorker of May 24, 2004 Hersh seeks to pin the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib directly on the Defense Secretary. Typical of Hersh, there is a lot more charge than substance. Supposedly, Rumsfeld approved a secret Pentagon program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners and then, along with Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, expanded the scope of the program bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib.
Had Rumsfeld endorsed sexual humiliation of prisoners? Does the secret program Hersh describes exist at all? The Pentagon promptly declared the articles charges outlandish, conspiratorial and filled with error and anonymous conjecture. Given that Hershs sources are anonymous (a former high level intelligence official here, a Pentagon consultant there), what he says is impossible to evaluate. But given Hershs track record, the highest order of skepticism is warranted.
Did Hersh think his article could unseat the Defense Secretary? He has had success in this line before. In March 2003 Richard Perle resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board after a firestorm of publicity concerning supposed ethics violations which Hersh had launched in The New Yorker. Again, the article was short on facts, long on sinister speculation. Indeed its only substantive fact was that Perle met with two Saudi businessmen to discuss Iraq: Adnan Kashoggi, the longtime arms dealer and middleman, and Iraqi born Harb Saleh al-Zuhair. Kashoggi had arranged the meeting at the request of al-Zuhair, who claimed to have come from Iraq with a negotiating offer from Saddam. All three agree that the only topic discussed at the meeting was Iraq.
This did not stop Hersh from declaring that Perles real motive in meeting with the two Saudis was to obtain investment in Trireme, a venture capital company focusing on technology, goods and services useful for homeland security, in which Perle is a partner. Hersh suggests Perles hawkishness on Iraq stemmed from his business interests. Hersh writes: If there is no war, he [Kashoggi] told me, why is there a need for security? Apparently Kashoggi had never heard of 9/11. Hersh hauls in Saudi Prince Bandar who had nothing to do with the meeting but states flatly: I believe the Iraqi events are irrelevant. A business meeting took place.
Like previous (and subsequent) victims, Perle could only explode in unavailing wrath. Asked what element of Hershs story was true, Perle told the New York Sun, Its all lies from beginning to end. On CNN Perle called Hersh the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist. A few years earlier, The New Yorker (May 22, 2000) devoted almost its entire issue to a Hersh story that rehashed ten year old allegations (exhaustively investigated by the army and found to be without merit) that during the first Gulf War General Barry McCaffrey had commanded troops who opened fire on unarmed Iraqis. Defending himself in the Wall Street Journal, McCaffrey wrote that Hersh had told people he had contacted that he intended to bury McCaffrey. But McCaffrey, like Perle, ran into the problem that self-defense inevitably sounds self-serving.
Hershs most unforgivable exercise in character assassination was in his 1983 anti-Kissinger book The Price of Power. While the book was intended to be a hatchet job on Kissinger (who called Hershs allegations about him slimy lies), the chief victim turned out to be Indias former Prime Minister Morarji Desai. Hersh quoted anonymous intelligence officials recalling Desai had been paid $20,000 yearly as a CIA informer during the Johnson administration. Desai, 87 years old, reacted in outrage, calling it a sheer mad story and brought a libel suit seeking $50 million in damages. By the time the suit went to a Chicago jury in 1989, Desai was 93 and too ill to come to the US. Kissinger testified on Desais behalf, flatly contradicting Hershs report in the book that he had been delighted to have someone of Desais stature on the payroll and had playfully chastised CIA officials elsewhere for failing to recruit Cabinet-level informers. He also testified that to his knowledge Desai had no connection to the CIA and that former CIA director Richard Helms had told him he would be on safe ground in testifying that Desai was not a paid CIA informant.
Nonetheless Desai lost. He could not prove that no one in the CIA had told Hersh that he was on the payroll because the judge ruled that Hersh need not identify his sources and Desais attorney was prevented from questioning anyone in the CIAs employ. Hersh never even took the stand. Hershs lawyer announced that the outcome proved that even a person as prominent as Morarji Desai cannot intimidate an American journalist entitled to his First Amendment protections. What the case really showed was that as long as he did not need to reveal his sources, an irresponsible journalist could label any public figure a CIA agent with impunity.
Who are Hershs sources? Much of the time, given his massive use of unnamed individuals, it is impossible to say. Are they reputable people? Disgruntled individuals with an axe to grind? Figments of his imagination? Who knows? However, when Hersh does identify his sources they can be evaluated and he has a record of being taken in by conmen. (Wanting to believe is perhaps more accurate than taken in conmen provide the sensational material on which Hersh thrives.) Hershs The Samson Option (1991) rests squarely on the fantasies of one Ari Ben Menashe. The theme of the book is that Israel, impelled by the megalomania of its leaders, built the Bomb, deceiving the United States (with the help of disloyal Jews) until the wicked deed was done. But apart from the conspiratorial anti-Semitic tone of the book, it had nothing to offer that was not already well-established except for the revelations of Ben Menashe. Hersh identifies him as a former Israeli intelligence expert who served as adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir on intelligence affairs (both untrue). Among Ben Menashes more sensational revelations, Hersh reports that Prime Minister Shamir personally authorized purloined U.S. intelligence obtained through Jonathan Pollard to be sanitized, retyped and turned over to Soviet intelligence officials as part of Israels ongoing exchange of intelligence with the Soviets on U.S. weapons systems. (How this squares with another of Ben Menashes disclosures, that Israel was using its stolen U.S. intelligence to target the Soviet Union which was always Israels primary nuclear target is not explained.)
In fact Ben Menashe is a notorious tale-spinner who currently, in a scenario beyond the imagination of the most far-out screenwriter, serves as chief witness in Robert Mugabes farcical treason trial of the leader of the chief opposition party in Zimbabwe. Among fantasies too numerous to count (he was Israels top spy, a commander of the Entebbe operation, planted a homing device in the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, declined an offer to become head of the Mossad) Ben Menashe claimed to have been with the first George Bush in Paris in October 1980 arranging for Iran to hold the hostages until after the Presidential election this on dates when Secret Service logs show Bush engaged in a large number of appearances in the United States.) Newsweeks John Barry, who looked into Ben Menashes claims, declared on CNN If you were talking about the American civil war, he would tell you he was the guy who planned Lees campaign.
Terrorism expert Steven Emerson, who described all this and more in a 1991 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, reports that Hersh was warned in advance about Ben Menashe but refused to listen. Emerson himself warned him. Hersh was also warned by Peter Hounam, the chief investigative reporter for the London Sunday Times Insight team who had broken the story of the Vanunu affair, with documentation on Israels Dimona reactor. Ben Menashe had claimed a leading role in luring Vanunu back to Israel and Hounam offered to let Hersh go through his personal files on the Vanunu affair which showed that none of Ben Menashes claims held up. Hersh was not interested. (Much later even Hersh would admit that Ben Menashe lies like people breathe.)
It turned out that Hersh was doubly conned. Emerson writes that after Ben Menashe was publicly exposed, Hersh issued a six page statement insisting he had documentation from a private detective confirming part of Ben Menashes story. A few days later the Sunday Times revealed the private detective was actually Joe Flynn, a well known British hoaxer, who admitted he had deceived Hersh for money (almost 1300 English pounds delivered by Hershs British publisher). I am a conman, Flynn told the Times.
But Hershs best-known romance with a conman came several years later, when he was working on a Kennedy book eventually published in 1997 as The Dark Side of Camelot. Hersh fell for a stash of phony documents peddled by one Lawrence S. Cusack (who went to prison in 1999 for defrauding more than 100 investors of $7 million in a scheme to sell them). Hersh assiduously wooed Cusack who claimed to have found in the files of his late father, a prominent lawyer, papers that included a contract in which Marilyn Monroe promised to keep silent about their affair in return for $600,000 and documentation linking Kennedy directly to mobster Sam Giancana. Amusingly, in one of his letters to Cusack Hersh wrote We got along so well at that dinner Tuesday night because, I like to think, we are all what we seem to be. Again, there was the same pattern of refusing to credit the warning signs, however glaring. In National Review, journalist John Miller observed that Hersh came up with desperate rationalizations for skeptics who wondered why documents containing ZIP codes were dated before ZIP codes even existed.
While Hersh pulled down a huge contract with ABC for a Kennedy documentary based on the documents, it fell apart when ABC concluded they were phony. In 1999 Hersh wound up on the stand as a prosecution witness and had to undergo a highly embarrassing three hour grilling by Cusacks lawyer. Hersh was asked to explain a letter he had sent to Cusack claiming he had not only independently confirmed that Cusacks father had known Kennedy through an interview with Kennedys secretary Evelyn Lincoln, but had also independently confirmed some of the most interesting materials in the papers. Here is where I absolutely misstated things an embarrassed Hersh testified. (Hersh has a pattern of claiming to corroborate material that defies corroboration. In The Samson Option he says that Ben Menashes account might seem almost too startling to be believed, had it not been subsequently amplified by a second Israeli, who cannot be named.)
Cusack was exposed in time to spare Hersh the embarrassment of basing yet another book on the breathless recitation of a conmans revelations. Instead Hersh provided what long-time Kennedy associate Theodore Sorenson described as a pathetic collection of wild stories. Even Thomas Powers, a friendly reviewer in The New York Times, described The Dark Side of Camelot as a file cabinet, holding up in strict chronological order just about every report, claim, rumor or telltale clue of everything the Kennedys and their friends would wish to keep secret. Notice the absence of the word fact in this list of the file cabinets contents.
The Dark Side of Camelot illustrates something else about Hershs use of sources: reputable sources tend to be misquoted or selectively expurgated if they do not forward Hershs personal agenda. The book claimed that Ted Kennedy paid off county chairmen in the West Virginia primary, among them Charles Peters, now publisher of Washington Monthly. Barbara Comstock, in National Review online, writes that Peters says Hersh interviewed him five times but simply ignored his claims that the payoffs did not happen. In The Samson Option Hersh cites Israeli scientist and government adviser Yuval Neeman as having told him that in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 Israel went on nuclear alert twice. I asked Neeman about this in 1992, not long after the book was published.
Neeman said he had spoken to Hersh and told him the United States not Israel went on nuclear alert twice during that war. Also in The Samson Option Hersh repeatedly cites former Israeli Defense Forces major Seth Mintz as source for the charge that Israel deliberately sank the USS Liberty during the 1967 war. On the contrary, Mintz says that the Israelis concluded the Liberty was an enemy ship masquerading as an American vessel after the U.S. embassy, twice queried, denied there was any American ship in the area.
Columnist John Lofton quotes Hersh in a 1984 interview with the University of Chicago magazine: Im not interested in history because Im trying to change things. This may explain Hershs contempt for mere historical truth. In The Samson Option Hersh writes that the famed U.S. airlift to Israel during the Yom Kippur War was only undertaken because Israel blackmailed President Nixon, threatening to use its atomic arsenal if supplies were not sent immediately. There is no evidence for this and Hersh does not even pretend to offer any. Veteran foreign correspondent Russ Braley wrote to Richard Nixon in retirement and asked if there was any truth in what Hersh wrote. In a letter dated January 22, 1992 Nixon replied: The story has no foundation whatever. In the Nov. 12, 2001 New Yorker Hersh described an October 20 raid on Taliban leader Mullah Omars compound as a near disaster, claiming twelve special forces were injured, three seriously. Gen. Tommy Franks said no one was wounded. Hersh claimed 16 AC-130 planes were used in the mission. The Air Force only has 21 and the large, heavily armed planes are not flown in groups. Journalist John Miller challenged Hersh: Would 16 of them lead a relatively small special-forces operation in Afghanistan? Undisturbed, Hersh said he might have misheard.
In his 1986 book The Target is Destroyed, on the Soviet downing of Korean civilian airliner KAL 007, Hersh gets the entire story wrong. His thesis is that the Soviets had made an honest mistake, confusing the Boeing 747 with the RC-135, a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. U.S. officials rushed to judgment because strong hostility to communism had led them to misread the intelligence. The real story, said Hersh, was not the fate of the plane but the politically corrupt use of intelligence by the U.S. In 1991 Izvestiya took advantage of its new freedom to investigate the case and interviewed Lt. Col. Gennadi Osipovich, the Soviet fighter pilot who shot down KAL 007. Osipovich said that he had been ordered to state on television that the Boeing had been flying with its lights out, and that it ignored warning tracer shots and a radio message before he destroyed it, all of which was untrue. He also indignantly rejected the suggestion that he had mistaken the plane for an RC-135. To be sure, Hersh could not have obtained the true story in 1984. But if his anti-American ideological blinkers had not been firmly in place, he would have been less confident in his simplistic thesis that bad American anti-Communism led to the U.S. lying about the incident, misrepresenting an innocent, if tragic, Soviet mistake.
In an interview with The Progressive Hersh declared that If the standard for being fired was being wrong on a story, I would have been fired long ago. And that is the real question: why has Hersh, who should long since have been banished to supermarket tabloids, instead attained what People magazine, in a fawning piece, called a kind of mythic status as a journalist. The answer clearly lies in Hershs long history of visceral anti-Americanism, which resonates with the journalistic elite. Hersh is a product of the Movement of the 1960s, which saw the American government as the focus of world evil. Hersh had his start with Dispatch News Service, a Movement outfit founded in 1969 as an alternative news agency to disseminate anti-Vietnam war stories to the mainstream press. A source called Hersh with a tip on what became known as the My Lai massacre. The army was in the process of court-martialing Lt. William Calley and investigating 36 others for their part in the shootings of civilians, and Hersh pursued the story, which Dispatch then distributed. Typically, Hersh insisted that My Lai was not an isolated instance: the true villain, he wrote, was the Army as an institution.
My Lai turned Hersh overnight into what A.M. Rosenthal, then New York Times managing editor, called the hottest piece of journalistic property in the United States. The Times hired him and he remained there from 1972 to1979. He wrote a series of stories attacking the CIA for covert actions abroad and for spying on domestic groups (the material, which had been assembled by the CIA itself and turned over to the Congressional committee with oversight of the CIA, was leaked to Hersh by CIA head William Colby). In the anti-establishment atmosphere of the period, Hershs stories had a major impact, playing an important role in launching Congressional investigations by both houses of Congress into the CIA. The upshot of the reforms Congress enacted was to seriously compromise our intelligence capabilities, setting up a firewall between the FBI and CIA, the piper being paid on 9/11. It is significant that Rosenthal would say that a number of Hershs stories would not have been publishable under the standards he demanded of Times reporters a few years later.
In 1979, his last year at the Times, Hersh went to Vietnam, one of a few selected American journalists the Communists permitted entry. He wrote a series of six articles in which he exhibited none of the critical zeal with which he challenged U.S. government claims. Hersh reported that the boat people were those who had cooperated with the Americans during the war and could not acclimatize; the New Economic Zones were cultural and social success stories (they were actually concentration camps for political undesirables); the reeducation camps, what they purported to be and not the brutal places they in fact were.
Hersh is an ideological yellow journalist. With his tenacity, lack of scruples, narrow vision and white hats versus black hats view of the world, he might have been a successful police reporter particularly in the earlier journalistic world of Chicago (Hershs home town) described by Ben Hecht, where letting the facts interfere with a sensational story was a mark against you. But Hersh is unable to handle complicated material, unable to understand or analyze policy issues. He never seems to have heard of standards of evidence. Unable or unwilling to sift out the wildest, most absurd allegations, he tosses them into the pot, as long as they contribute to his being able to say the target is destroyed.
The real issue is not Hersh but his standing among journalists. Hersh has won over a dozen major journalism awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Critics Circle Award, four George Polk awards, and this years National Magazine Award.. How could such dreadful stuff be so well rewarded? There is no worse indictment of the shoddy standards of American journalism and the political bias of its elite than the flood of awards its standard bearers have bestowed on Seymour Hersh.
Rael Jean Isaac writes for The American Spectator.
BMPING
Bump
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.