|
|
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
I haven't talked much about the Seymour Hersh thing, indeed at all, because I'm not one-hundred percent sure how noteworthy it is. Had you asked me if we were running or putting together operations vis-à-vis Iran, my answer would have been, "Sure, or at least I hope so."
Hersh has managed to tell us that what neocons hoped and liberals feared is true.
As to the question of whether he endangered troops, one has to ask when that last stopped the MSM. It is the standard policy of journalists to play hardball with us, since the worst we do is subpoena them, while they cozy up to thugs who would otherwise kill them.
Still, I guess Hersh has gone out of his way to get a scoop that could be bothersome to our policymakers and deadly for people willing to take far greater risks than Hersh for what they believe in. What to do about Hersh?
Cicero has this to say:Mr. Hersh's piece was damnable, and [I] would like to see him jailed for running his mouth. In fact, in a sane world, he would be joining there several other journalists for publishing a number of stories that have done serious harm to the military interests of the US and our allies in this conflict.
But it is not clear that we have here a suitable enabling law. And I generally frown on prosecutors stretching the law to nail people who have irked them in one way or another. Even if they clearly deserve it. Probably about right.
posted by gbarto at 1:47 PM
|
Archives
|
