Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'pathetic' American media

reply to post by BABYBULL24


I don't post that much on here but one thing that bothered me in all this was that he was supposedly on dialysis. No one has has mentioned in all this the missing dialysis machine or equipment he needed if he were still alive. He either had a kidney transplant somewhere between 2001 and 2011 or he didn't.

You can't tell me that if he did have a transplant the government didn't know about it. This guy has been long dead. Everything is a lie and things have gotten to the point that there is no truth ...

xuenchen
Hmmm.

Report: Bin Laden Already Dead

Published December 26, 2001
FoxNews.com

What is most interesting is that Fox News NEVER retracted the story and the 26 December 2001 article is still live on their website; I'd stumbled upon it too a few weeks ago and find it most telling.

Note the article still live on Fox News does not have a correction or update but has remained as initially published since 26 December 2001.

reply to post by NickDC202


Yes it is. They paid Ben Laden off and told him never to disappear and never come back. He turned "stool pigeon" and ratted on" his" terrorists to go straight and lead a normal life somewhere in the US. That was the original deal concocted back in 1999. We got our bundle, Ben Laden got his bundle, and to hell with the Twin Towers. The Devil wants a large bloody sacrifice every so often and in return we get more out-of this world- technology more advanced than Russia's.

VoidHawk
I agree about what he says about journalism, but does HE!!
Why have we got to wait for his book to know the facts? Shouldn't he be throwing it at us NOW!!

edit on 27-9-2013 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

all in due time

Rosinitiate
reply to post by NickDC202

 

And the truth shall set you free!

I've always known Obama wasn't responsible for the death of Osama simply because he was already dead. The level of fakeness that is portrayed as real to the public is absolutely unbelievable. Of course will this get picked up on CNN, MSNBC? Likely no. Will it begin impeachment proceedings? No.

If it did I'd be willing to bet it would open up a series of cans fully equipped with worms that have been festering so long it might be better to leave well enough alone. Of course I'm thinking 911.

Oh and score another point for alternative news. This has been going around for over a decade now. And it's just one more kernel of truth i learned a decade before journalists about what really happened to Osama. Alt news my not get it right all the time but make no mistake they are right more often the MSM. Which likely means the truth about Michael Hastings was a
So reported correctly via alt news. You guys tired of this crap yet? I am.

edit on 28-9-2013 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

It is important to be open to the fact that when Hersh presents his findings in full that it will be an indictment against BOTH Obama and Bush-- it will (in a manner much more eloquently than I did on page 1) demonstrate how the Bin Laden meme was used after December 2001 and the lives lost, rights lost, videos that were fabricated and global reputation that was left irreparable; it will demonstrate beyond doubt that regardless of which party is in office the lies that were perpetuated directly harmed the American public who potentially will come together and demand those responsible be held accountable for their treasonous actions and politics as we know it will have a real opportunity to completely change.

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by Maluhia

 

“In war, the Truth must Always be Guarded by a Bodyguard of Lies.”

Winston Churchill


Same holds True Today , we Are at War , Only this Time we do not Know who the Real Enemy is .........Yet ...

_

the real enemy is rebellion.

and WE are the prime suspects.

rebellion is first suppressed, when the suppression fails, it is infiltrated and controlled.

The NSA spying on EVERYBODY, shows we are ALL in the crosshairs.

What's the difference between oBama and oSama ?

no difference ... except the BS

reply to post by Arouet


You obviously no nothing about Seymour Hersh to make a comment that ignorant. He doesn't get it wrong. If he came out with that he has proof. Whether or not it provides the catalyst needed, well that I'm skeptical.

The problem with Hersch is that you know what he is going to say before he picks up his pen. He's not the kind of journalist who explores a subject, researches the facts, and comes to a conclusion. He comes to a conclusion before he knows any of the facts, then fills in the details to support his conclusion. Because of this, he is not credible except to people who already believe as he does.

schuyler
The problem with Hersch is that you know what he is going to say before he picks up his pen. He's not the kind of journalist who explores a subject, researches the facts, and comes to a conclusion. He comes to a conclusion before he knows any of the facts, then fills in the details to support his conclusion. Because of this, he is not credible except to people who already believe as he does.

Oh right, like how he just decided the Bush Administration had implemented and "executive assassination ring" that report directly to VP Chenney. And then he just cherry picked facts that fit his truth right?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination wing, essentially. And it’s been going on and on and on. And just today in the Times there was a story saying that its leader, a three-star admiral named McRaven, ordered a stop to certain activities because there were so many collateral deaths. It’s been going in — under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or to the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving.

AMY GOODMAN: Yesterday, CNN interviewed Dick Cheney’s former national security adviser, John Hannah. Wolf Blitzer asked Hannah about Sy Hersh’s claim.

WOLF BLITZER: Is there a list of terrorists, suspected terrorists out there who can be assassinated?

JOHN HANNAH: There is clearly a group of people that go through a very extremely well-vetted process, inter-agency process, as I think was explained in your piece, that have committed acts of war against the United States, who are at war with the United States, or are suspected of planning operations of war against the United States, who authority is given to the troops in the field and in certain war theaters to capture or kill those individuals. That is certainly true.

WOLF BLITZER: And so, this would be, and from your perspective — and you worked in the Bush administration for many years — it would be totally constitutional, totally legal, to go out and find these guys and to whack ’em.

www.democracynow.org...

If you ask me, you are making assumptions about him, not researching anything, and making stuff up to fit your truth. Pot, Kettle, Black.

kosmicjack
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Does an established journalist printing the truth really need PR?

Yes, indeed -- particularly when that journalist publishes stories that are unflattering to the government and the establishment. How often does Hersh get invited onto the Sunday propaganda news shows or CNN or MSNBC or FOX? Just about never. How often do hacks like Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol get air time? All the freak'n time, as do most of the usual corporate journo shills.

Moreover, everybody pimps their books shamelessly whenever they can. That is how things are done, in case you weren't aware. Hersh was quoted from a speech he was giving; last time I checked, all speech givers are always within their rights to plug their upcoming books. Again, that is how things work. People trying to smear Hersh by suggesting this was unseemly of him are hewing to a double standard as well as attempting to dismiss the message by undercutting the messenger.

How, in this day and age, with all the myriad of news media sources, does anyone get read or viewed without some amount of publicity? Are you also suggesting that journalists are wrong to use Twitter and any other social media or news media outlet to get publicity for their work? Heck, I've been a long-time fan of Sy Hersh and his work, but I had no idea he had a new book coming out until I saw a post elsewhere about this matter. It's a bit like a tree falling in the woods: if you're not there to see it happen, you won't know about it unless somebody tells you.


FTR, in my last post I miswrote, stating that Hersh writes for the NYT; it's actually The New Yorker for which he writes.

schuyler
The problem with Hersch is that you know what he is going to say before he picks up his pen. He's not the kind of journalist who explores a subject, researches the facts, and comes to a conclusion. He comes to a conclusion before he knows any of the facts, then fills in the details to support his conclusion. Because of this, he is not credible except to people who already believe as he does.

So says a an anonymous person on a website who doesn't bother to back up his claims with any sources.

Are you saying that everything he wrote about the Mai Lai massacre, about the Israeli nuclear weapons program and Abu Ghraib are wrong? Are you then claiming that Hersh never did do any research regarding these stories, and never found documentary evidence? He broke the Mai Lai massacre story, which was a big deal during the Viet Nam war. Apparently he was right about that and had done his research and garnered his facts, because it forced the military to court martial one of its own as a scapegoat in that war crime. Are you saying that the Abu Ghraib abuses also didn't happen, even though pictures have been released, as well as it being acknowledged by government officials that even more atrocious pictures have been withheld, and military personnel have had courts martial because of them?

How on earth do you know what he thinks on any matter? Obviously you already have your mind made up on this subject of US news media objectivity and the OBL raid, so you are going to deride any messenger providing information to the contrary. You are exactly what you claim Hersh to be. No doubt the irony escapes you. You're the one flinging cow poo, not Seymour Hersh.

MrInquisitive

schuyler
The problem with Hersch is that you know what he is going to say before he picks up his pen. He's not the kind of journalist who explores a subject, researches the facts, and comes to a conclusion. He comes to a conclusion before he knows any of the facts, then fills in the details to support his conclusion. Because of this, he is not credible except to people who already believe as he does.

So says a an anonymous person on a website who doesn't bother to back up his claims with any sources.

Are you saying that everything he wrote about the Mai Lai massacre, about the Israeli nuclear weapons program and Abu Ghraib are wrong? Are you then claiming that Hersh never did do any research regarding these stories, and never found documentary evidence? He broke the Mai Lai massacre story, which was a big deal during the Viet Nam war. Apparently he was right about that and had done his research and garnered his facts, because it forced the military to court martial one of its own as a scapegoat in that war crime. Are you saying that the Abu Ghraib abuses also didn't happen, even though pictures have been released, as well as it being acknowledged by government officials that even more atrocious pictures have been withheld, and military personnel have had courts martial because of them?

How on earth do you know what he thinks on any matter? Obviously you already have your mind made up on this subject of US news media objectivity and the OBL raid, so you are going to deride any messenger providing information to the contrary. You are exactly what you claim Hersh to be. No doubt the irony escapes you. You're the one flinging cow poo, not Seymour Hersh.

Uh, that's not just any "anonymous person on a website". That's the "great" schuyler, one of the Internet's greatest minds.

There's no point in arguing with schuyler, for he knows all.

/sarcasm

Eventually the truth of what happened on 9/11 will be a commonplace in the mainstream news of America but it is going to take a lot of smaller intermediate revelations before that happens. A lot of things will have to happen first. Very important political changes will have to occur, probably a lot of important people will have to have passed on.

Most of what happened when JFK was assassinated is still not "mainstream".

But every little bit helps, so thank you to Mr. Hersh.

If enough dots are filled in, people will eventually see the big picture.

schuyler
The problem with Hersch is that you know what he is going to say before he picks up his pen. He's not the kind of journalist who explores a subject, researches the facts, and comes to a conclusion. He comes to a conclusion before he knows any of the facts, then fills in the details to support his conclusion. Because of this, he is not credible except to people who already believe as he does.

Any long standing journalist has a need to be credible on serious matters. Look at Dan Rather, an anchor man for years, yet still a journalist, and often hated by some of the US population, but on the day of 9/11 talked about WTC7 falling just like a controlled explosion. He also talked afterward about how the media failed the nation then. He is not at his seat anymore is he?
Philip Hayton was the anchorman at BBC24 as it was known then, also long standing, he is also not there anymore either, however he made no comment/s about how anything fell, and just reported on what he was given, (which does include that "WTC7 was in danger of collapse we are told") but then Hayton had not seen any collapse because it had not happened. So actually it was Dan Rather in America who went the extra mile from his anchor seat to make a comment beyond any script.
Hersch on the OBL killing and aftermath, may still be in the information matrix, I have no idea. However, that story was changed too in the detail where there was no reason to, except that the official version was highly suspect from the outset.

What I don't understand about the people here and elsewhere trying to impugn Seymour Hersh's character and credibility is are they apparently defending against the charge of the US news media being pathetic? Obviously Hersh is talking about the MSM, not independent investigative journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Matt Tabibi. These same people apparently believe everything the US government has said about the OBL raid too.

reply to post by NickDC202


The problem with this kind of thing is that the evidence to support either the official or conspiracist view is identical ......ie practically zero. both sides require "faith" in the their version of the story.

reply to post by xuenchen


This is the difference

mekhanics
Meanwhile, SEALs Who “Killed Osama Bin Laden” Now Dead

When you dance with the devil, you shouldn't be surprised when you get "twirled" off a cliff. It's the nature of this beast, it can stop maiming and killing.

Anyone of intelligence following this story knows that Bin Laden, whoever he might be, has been dead for some time, if in fact, he even ever existed! So, the question for me is who is See-more Hirsch? How does he get away with it and have access to main stream media outlets where others can't get a listen if they pay for it themselves?

Is he a 'great journalist' or just another gatekeeper, providing just enough truth to whet most appetites?