Seymour Hersh

[Bikewer]

Hersh was the first speaker in our university's monthly Assembly Series. I was on duty, and got to listen to the entire lecture for a change.

Hersh, for those that are not familiar, is the reporter that originally broke the My Lai massacre story many years ago, and has been a gadfly for many an administration since.
Although excoriated by many, he does seem to have a habit of being right...

This lecture was primarily concerned with his book, Chain Of Command. Chain of Command came out a couple of years ago, and I got a copy after listening to Hersh on Diane Rehm. What I have found most fascinating in the intervening period is that Hersh's assertions in the book have been echoed by half-a-dozen or more senior administration officials, some of whom have books of their own.

Whether or not you agree with Hersh's assertions, he has made a prediction which we'll be able to test. He maintains that the inner circle of the Bush white house is "on a mission", and feels that an attack on Iran is in the offing, presumably after the November elections.

Most pundits feel that this would be a spectacularly bad idea, with Iran able to stir up much more trouble than could be easily accomodated. Nonetheless, Hersh feels that the President sees this as "the right thing", and is not to be swayed by public opinion.

On a more emotional note, he compared the story of one of Lt. Calley's men he interviewed in the aftermath of My Lai to the present plight of a female soldier who had served at Abu Gharaib.
Not pretty.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I couldn't make it. But I will be there for Bill Nye next week!

 

[Ziggurat]

Although excoriated by many, he does seem to have a habit of being right...

No, actually, he doesn't. He has a habit of making sensational claims. But that's about all you can really say about them. He was right about Mi Lai, but he's also been wrong, sometimes spectacularly. One of the more famous examples was where he got taken in by forged documents purporting to prove a love affair between John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe. It took him a long time to even admit that they were forgeries, despite such details as having ZIP codes on documents dated before ZIP codes were even in use.

No, Hersh doesn't really have a habit of being right. Hell, by his own admission he doesn't even have a habit for telling the truth: he has freely admitted that when on speaking tours, he falsifies details of annecdotes he tells, supposedly in order to protect his sources. Maybe that's what motivates him, but he's basically told the world that he lies, and on that point at least we should believe him.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/index.html?imw=Y

 

[varwoche]

No, Hersh doesn't really have a habit of being right. Hell, by his own admission he doesn't even have a habit for telling the truth: he has freely admitted that when on speaking tours, he falsifies details of annecdotes he tells, supposedly in order to protect his sources. Maybe that's what motivates him, but he's basically told the world that he lies, and on that point at least we should believe him.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/index.html?imw=Y

Maybe there is some direct evidence we can consider. From the editorial:

Hersh delivered them [various claims] in speeches on college campuses and in front of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and on public-radio shows like “Democracy Now!”

Based on a hasty search, the only archived appearance I can locate is the Democracy Now interview. (Seemingly. The DN interview took place 1/26/05 and the editorial is dated 4/18/05.)

Can we proceed on the basis this is the DN interview cited in the editorial?

 

[Ziggurat]

Can we proceed on the basis this is the DN interview cited in the editorial?

No, actually, I'm not sure we can assume that. But I will note something from that transcript of interest to the original post, namely Hersh's predictions for the future, as made back in January 2005:

"Another salvation [in terms of changing Bush's course of action] may be the economy. It's going to go very bad, folks. You know, if you have not sold your stocks and bought property in Italy, you better do it quick. And the third thing is Europe -- Europe is not going to tolerate us much longer. The rage there is enormous. I'm talking about our old-fashioned allies. We could see something there, collective action against us."

So, how has the economy, and stocks in particular, done since January 2005?

Why Seymour felt qualified to offer up financial advice is quite beyond me, but it sure doesn't look like he was right. As for collective action from Europe against us, that'll be the day. I'm having a hard time of thinking of a single instance (other than maybe some minor trade disputes) where Europe acted collectively against anyone.

 

[punchdrunk]

Whether or not you agree with Hersh's assertions, he has made a prediction which we'll be able to test. He maintains that the inner circle of the Bush white house is "on a mission", and feels that an attack on Iran is in the offing, presumably after the November elections.

I seem to remember him on The Daily Show predicting an Iranian attack this summer. Anyone else recall this?

 

[punchdrunk]

Okay, at the bottom of this page there is some mention of this: it was last year, and last summer (time flies when you're growing senile).

 

[varwoche]

No, actually, I'm not sure we can assume that.

DN archives all of it's programs it appears. I don't see any other Hersh interviews leading up to the editorial you cited. This appears to be the interview.

But I will note something from that transcript of interest to the original post, namely Hersh's predictions for the future, as made back in January 2005:

This is hardly evidence of being willfully untruthful, per your original claim.

Add: Other interviews of Hersh by DN:
January 18th, 2005 Covert Operations in Iran
September 14th, 2004 Abu Ghraib

 

[Bikewer]

I believe that's when the New Yorker article about the intelligence-gathering by special ops troops inside Iran broke. I don't recall any predictions of an attack at that point.

On a related note, I listened to a debate on the Iranian question on Diane Rehm last week; one fellow (from some think-tank or other) in favor of "regime change" and the other (a mideastern affairs prof from some East coast college) on the "continue the negotiations" side.

The fellow wanting regime change was not in favor of military action, at least not directly. He seemed to feel that supporting "the opposition" was a good idea. He maintained that sanctions would be unworkable and innefective.

The pro-negotiation guy made the usual points; Iran is far from actually having a bomb, that they want to be accepted as a "player" in the region and accorded some respect, etc. This fellow maintained that within the Bush administration, there are two camps; one in favor of giving the whole Middle East adventure up as a bad job and declaring victory, the other fully in favor of preemptory attack against Iran as the "right thing to do".
(Note that this is Hersh's assertion as well.)

I don't pretend to know much about Hersh's previous history; I picked up Chain of Command after hearing him on NPR when it came out. However, as I noted above, nearly every assertion made in that book has been backed up and repeated by excellent sources, often from within the administration itself.

I was just listening this morning to yet more echoing of Hersh's pre-war scenario this morning, a new book Hubris out from David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Corn is of course from The Nation, and blatantly anti-administration; but Isikoff is an investigative reporter for Newsweek among other credits.
The assertions they talked about on the show were so similar to those in Chain of Command that they may have been cribbing from each other....

 

[varwoche]

Ziggurat, these are the claims about Hersh made by Suellontrop, the writer of the editorial you cited (numbers added):

(1) Videotape of young boys being raped at Abu Ghraib.
(2) Evidence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be a “composite figure” and a propaganda creation of either Iraq’s Baathist insurgency or the U.S. government.
(3) The active involvement of Karl Rove and the president in “prisoner-interrogation issues.”
(4) The mysterious disappearance of $1 billion, in cash, in Iraq.
(5) 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.”
(6) The Iraqi insurgency’s access to short-range FROG missiles that “can do grievous damage to American troops.”
(7) The murder, by an American platoon, of 36 Iraqi guards.
(8) In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveat—such as “I’m just talking now, I’m not writing”—before unloading one of his blockbusters

Some of these are so tersely stated that it's not clear what Hersh claimed, e.g. #1.

I'm also interested in this paragraph which I lump together as:

(9) 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 he’s 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. I’m just communicating another reality that I know, that for a lot of reasons having to do with, basically, someone else’s ass, I’m not writing about it.”

Is Hersh inventing facts without making it clear up-front? Or does he explain this to his audience real time? This context makes all the difference I think.

I'm going to see which of the 9 claims derive from the two Hersh interviews with DN preceding the editorial (when time allows -- in a day or three) to see if Hersh was accurately portrayed.