Let's Go Crazy
Seymour Hersh is a writer for the New Yorker who has broken several anti-administration stories over the last several years. Hersh styles himself an investigative reporter, but he has a history of coming up with "scoops" that can never be verified by anyone else. Here is part of the Amazon description of his recent book, Chain of Command:
In Chain of Command, Hersh takes an unflinching look behind the public story of President Bush's "war on terror" and into the lies and obsessions that led America into Iraq. Chain of Command is a devastating portrait of an Administration blinded by ideology and of a President whose decisions have made the world a more dangerous place for America.
So there's no question where Hersh is coming from. Still, he is respected in some circles, and once won a Pulitzer prize.
I'm a hard guy to shock, but this online chat conducted earlier today by the Washington Post is astonishing, for a guy who claims to be a mainstream journalist. Here are some excerpts:
Charlotte, N.C.: I seriously must wonder about this Bush manadate talk. You'd think the election was not close and that Bush won in a landslide. Kerry actually picked off two red states to Bush's one blue. [Ed.: As several readers have pointed out, this is not correct. The reverse is true.] This nation is still very divided. The republicans swerve to the right at their own risk.Seymour Hersh: you would be right in a rational world. welcome to the bush white house.
Washington, D.C.: Mr. Hersh,Thanks for your fine work. Given the administration's complicity in the human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the fact that no one was held accountable, and the president's reelection -do you think voters were by and large not bothered by the violations, or simply did not understand the scope of them?
Seymour Hersh: i think the bulk of the bush voters care very little about the way those who they perceive to be our enemies are treated. the reality is that far too many americans are not interested in the facts, or in reality. not a new concept, tho.
Germantown, Md.: Do you believe the president will strive for unity? Or will he skew more hard right?Seymour Hersh: in my view, he's got his mandate and he's going to carry on with his mantra -- bringing democracy to the middle east. pretty scary.
Paris, France: First, thank you for your extraordinary work on Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. My question was on Iraq's WMD. A GAO Report from October 2001 (#02-38) - one month before the start of Iraq war planning - highlighted that "Army planners 'stated that ‘their realistic working assumption was that a genuine CB event in the battlefield would overwhelm the medical system.’” What do you think would have been the admissible maximum level of loss in the US side - and how do you think the US would have reacted in case of a Iraqi chemical counterstrike for the defense of Baghdad ?Seymour Hersh: the fact is that there were no weapons and no casualties. re american casualties, very hard to gauge the acceptable limit, but it's clear that there's no limit at all to the number of civilian casualties in iraq that are acceptable to this white house.
ashington, D.C.: There was an unprecedented grass-roots effort for progressive candidates this past election, and it didn't carry us over the top. Maybe it's just the case that slightly more than half the country really wants to live under George Bush. I'm wondering why we have to keep living with these backwards southern and middle-Western states. Is there a process for secession?Seymour Hersh: the other side tried it and it didn't work. but you're not the first to raise it with me in the past day or so. we have to stick it out because right now george bush is responsible for cleaning up his own mess. and it can't be done, without some changes he will not make.
Baltimore, Md.: RE: DC's statement - "Backwards" southern and western neighbors? Can't you see that this attitude is one of the very reasons that these so-called "backwards" people don't pay attention to candidates from the coasts?Too many stereotypes being reinforced by you, and I'm not talking about the midwestern one. Looking down your nose at others not like yourself sure isn't going to entice anyone to vote for your side.
For what it's worth, I voted for Kerry...
Seymour Hersh: dunno what DC statement you're talking about. i did not see any evidence that kerrey talked down to any group, or dealt with them in terms of stereotypes. he simply refused to publicly attacks homosexuality.
Some Bush voters I've encountered seemed so uninformed and unaware of the facts out there on the public record that it was almost impossible to have a serious discussion. It's as if there is no public record, no serious reporting, and everything is just opinion. Have you seen a shift in this kind of thing over the last 30-odd years?Seymour Hersh: the most distressing issue, for me, in the election was the lack of information and the lack of interest in information about far too many of the electorate -- obviously, i'm referring to many of the religious factions who voted for bush. but ignorance has been part of america since its inception. my worry revolves around bush and rove's willingness, even eagerness, to use that ignorance. i know it's politics as usual, but polarizing the fabric for votes, in this case, seems over the top. (a loser's lament, i guess.)
A loser's lament, indeed. Keep this madness in mind next time you read about an "expose" by Mr. Hersh.
Thanks to InstaPundit for the tip.
BIG TRUNK adds: See also Andrew McCarthy's devastating review of Chain of Command from the October 11 issue of National Review: "Bad press."
