No, it's not a ridiculous question in view of your comment to wstera's posting of a NY Post article specifically questioning Hersh's latest report that an unidentified CIA official told him that Rumsfeld's directly responsible for Abu Ghraib because he wanted to wrest control of America's clandestine apparatus.
I'll grant you that the NYP article is not the best.
Nonetheless, there are failures in the Hersh story that any right thinking person can see without engaging in too much analysis.
First, the CIA source is unidentified by Hersh.
Second, Hersh has a history of making stuff up.
Third, given the legal restraints, how exactly could Rumsfeld do what Hersh accuses him, through an unidentified source, of doing?
Fourth, how exactly does Rumsfeld's alleged desire to wrest control for America's paramilitary and clandestine apparatus lead to Abu Ghraib?
These are serious failings in Hersh'story. If the NY Post saw fit to criticize the CIA as an alleged source, fine. It's not the best journalism, either, but neither is Hersh's, which you seem to endorse. Hence my question.
Seriously, do you think Hersh is the epitome of journalistic integrity? |
