Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
I remember you downplaying Hersh when it came to Abu Ghraib RFA. You turned out to be pretty wrong on that one, maybe you should step back and take what Hersh is saying more seriously as a result.
Not so sure how wrong I was, RF. I think Seymour tried to tie the prison incident to those high up in the chain of command. Or at least he insinuated it. He also makes lots of insinuations above. Labeling (again) many in the administration as warhawks. Saying that some were ready to invade Iran at any time. I don't buy it. Especially since it is Seymour. Seymour makes a living off of badmouthing the Pentagon, the White House and all aspects related to war. No one likes war (Seymour thinks some of our leaders do... or his inside sources say so). But some seem to get in the spotlight when there is one (Seymour).
But wait... Seymour has "inside sources". Ever read the National Enquirer? Every story starts off with, "Inside sources have said...". People can believe in Seymour. Sometimes Seymour will claim something and be partially right, but mostly wrong about his high-level accusations. It is a free country and Seymour can write as he pleases (unlike journalists in the old Iraq or in Iran). And some people will believe whatever new revelation his inside sources tell him. Those people, the ones who take Seymour's word for gold, are allowed to believe as they please. Inside sources don't convince me. But that is why I don't subscribe to the National Enquirer either. But a lot of people do (and a lot believe Seymour).