He says generalized skepticism about government accounts is not good enough to discount the possibility of a 2011 killing, instead of the rumored 2001 killing.
Fair enough.
However, the problem for me at least is not generalized skepticism of government accounts.
My problem is generalized skepticism of alternative media mouth-pieces attacking the government’s account – I don’t place much stock in the high-profile Mr. Hersh and his ilk.
Unlike Mr. Roberts, I don’t believe in the theory of a 2001 killing of Obama; but I also don’t believe the government’s OR Hersh’s version.
Until I study the matter at first hand, I refuse to take any account at face-value. The only thing I do believe is that there is no end to the depth and complexity of Anglo-Zionist propaganda and that anyone who goes by party-line, confession, or ideology of any kind, will not be able to untangle the web.
High-profile journalists are suspects numero uno when it comes to intelligence/CIA propaganda.
As I said, Douglas Valentine, Ann Williamson, Paul Craig Roberts, James Petras and the less-known but insightful Scott Creighton – between them encompassing every side of the alternative spectrum – have expressed cynicism/skepticism about Hersh.
The media fanfare over Hersh’s revelations is itself a giveaway.
Now Rozeff comes up with 4 voices in support of Hersh.
Three of them published their support on Counterpunch, which has, sorry to say, often retailed disinformation about 9/11 by none other than Alexander Cockburn. One is published at The Nation, another establishment leftist rag that carries disinformation all the time.
Before he died, I got to know Cockburn a little bit, with some exchanges over the phone and email. I liked the guy. He said nice things about my writing. I am grateful for that. I also appreciated his support of India and his love of Indian culture. His Catholic background and his sharp, curious brain made him a different kind of lefty.
But lefty he was….a true believer in feminism, the state, and “the people.”
And on at least two occasions known to me a guy who retailed government spin.
One was on 9/11. The other was on the child-sex abuse scandals of the 1990s.
The latter was a personal disappointment to me, because I relied on his word and his opinion, as an elder statesman on the subject of propaganda and the CIA.
I found later he was wrong on both subjects, but not because he was mistaken. It was because he was misleading.
I suspected a tie to the CIA. That was confirmed to me later by a senior libertarian writer who ought to know.
So, yes, Cockburn was a good guy on a number of things. A funny, insightful, even great writer.
But he also retailed spin when he felt he had to. I can’t make a judgment about why he did it. I’m just saying he did it.
So Cockburn supporting Hersh is like, well, the Washington Post echoing the New York Times.
Journalist two:
Justin Raimondo supports Hersh.
Well, he also uncritically supported Gore Vidal, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, about whose bona fides there are persistent serious questions that have never been answered. If you believe in the official Snowden-Assange story, I assure you, the tooth-fairy will be visiting soon……followed by some property in the Florida panhandle.
Raimondo, alas, is still an establishment alternative. I have nothing clear-cut against him, but I find his judgment questionable on some things.
The other writers who support Hersh, Michael Brenner and Greg Grandin, are both professors – of international relations and of history – who write for the establishment alternatives – places like The Nation and TomDispatch, whose contributors often overlap. Both are the usual East Coast left-liberal academic, part of the mandarin industry. I have zero trust in them.
But no need to worry about Raimondo, Cockburn and the rest. Mr. Hersh can be judged from his own words, no less (Note: this is not an endorsement of the site on which I found Hersh’ words)
Seymour Hersh has admitted that he’s nothing but a liar. It’s okay tho, he only lies when he gives $15, 000 college campus speeches or gives talks for the ACLU and that sort of thing, he assures us he never lies in print (a liar who says ‘believe me’…funny.)
In a recent interview, Hersh said the following in regards to his fibbing:
“Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people…I can?t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.?
and when Hersh changes names, dates, places, and the like:
?I defend that totally…I find that totally not inconsistent with anything I do professionally. I?m just communicating another reality that I know, that for a lot of reasons having to do with, basically, someone else?s ass, I?m not writing about it.?
Hersh is merely “communicating another reality” that he knows of?! Outrageous. It’s okay tho, he still stands by his practice of lying in speeches and on talk shows and such, he just promises he never lies in print (whew, and thought we were dealing with a FULL time liar here, as long as he’s only a liar 80% of the time, it’s okay I guess.)
Hersh puts it out on the table, and in doing so he let’s us all know that nothing he says can be trusted.”
So here we have a guy who makes up names and events to convey his own reality (kind of like Rumsfeld?). A guy who rides entirely on reputation for his credibility since many of his lengthy pieces contain nothing more than a single anonymous source. A guy whom one investigative journalist told me actually squashed an important expose (of George Soros) by a colleague and then plagiarized the material. And people take him at face-value as more credible than “the government.”
When will boobus libertarianus wake up to the fact that the “media” and the “alternative press” ARE the government? Often they are more the government than the “government.”
But that might require something a little bit more than slogans and herd behaviour.
It might involve – heaven forfend- a little critical thinking.…