zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
Seymour doesn’t provide any proof or any evidence. It’s argument by assertion. What he writes is plausible but without any sources or other corroborating evidence. I think it more believable that Seymour has been paid to write this by a Russian aligned entity.

I don’t know the truth of the matter and Seymour could be right. We just can’t tell from the evidence provided.

>>syzari+A2
Seymour Hersh has a very credible background and reputation. Assuming he is still lucid in his age, hasn't become a senile puppet of a ghost writer, then it would be foolish to write off his claims just because he isn't telling you who his source is.

>>LarryM+4K
He's lost his credibility over the years. Which is likely why this didn't get published by NY Times.

It's long but after reading this ask why you would believe this man who, in this new article, is making plenty of assertions all based on quotes from a single anonymous source.

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi...

>>erentz+ip1
Suppose this story was written by a "credible" reporter. Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published? Would it pass the national security screening?

>>pphysc+0s1
> Do you think NYT's Foreign Editors would allow it to be published?

If someone had an inside source on deep background with evidence of an American cover-up? Hell yes they would. And if they wouldn't, the Journal would pay a premium.

>>JumpCr+VF1
The New York Times is not the New York Post. The former has numerous guardrails (including the aforementioned Foreign Editors and NatSec screenings, the latter of which you ignored) to prevent a rogue journalist or editor from publishing a big story that could jeopardize the entire organization's government relations.