zlacker

It does strike me as odd that (by my reading) there's only a single, unnamed source for all these claims. Hersh's reputation as a journalist is significant and worth considering, but for me it makes it stranger that there's so little evidence in this piece which, as it notes, alleges an act of war.

>>karate+(OP)
> but for me it makes it stranger that there's so little evidence in this piece which, as it notes, alleges an act of war.

It makes it less surprising to me. Back in 2006 I believed Hersh when he reported that the U.S. had troops inside Iran laying the groundwork for an imminent American attack. This was also based on anonymous sources. After the attack failed to materialize, I learned to take such reporting with a large grain of salt.

>>bnralt+Ne
I have to sympathize with Hersh; being on the outside yet being taken seriously by some has to be hard on you. Paranoia strikes deep; into your life it will creep.

He used to be credible. Then unfortunately a lot of shady people learned they could manipulate him and get away with it, and so they've done. He can publish something like this and when anyone says, "prove it" he can't. Because Top Secret.

>>bnralt+Ne
When he reported on it before the alleged attack happened, it could always have been called of for one reason or another. I don't know how likely or possible such an effort would be, but at least on a small scale it checks out: If I wanted to poison someone, and someone credible enough to be believed in stated that I was going to do just that, who's to say that I can't just change my mind at that very moment? Without finding the poison it would be nigh impossible to prove.

This is something that will always be problematic when reporting on something that hasn't happened yet. As the future hasn't been written, there's always room for all actors to adapt and change their plans.