[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Seriously AL you really aren't trying hard enough.

There's no need to.

For one you can't summarily dismiss the Hersh article because you allege that he is no longer a reliable source.

That was only half of it.

Nothing in your provided links assert that his written works since 9/11 are anything but factual.

So he has phases? Is this a decade thing or when the moon is full? How silly. He has a history of getting things right and making things up. Why must we do the guesswork every time he gets something printed.

"Check your sources" still applied when I last heard.

You have to prove that he's lying and not just rely on a general ad hominem attack.

Why does anyone have to believe a verified phoney? Are you that desparate?!

If anything the very first article in post #4 claims that the changing of the media through the internet is to blame for his preferred method of public speaking. There is no accusation of intentional misrepresentation in his written work however, aside from vague suspicions about his work on Kennedy, but since then the New Yorker carefully fact checks him, as stated by your article.

And of course the 2nd quote by Evan Thomas in post #8is misrepresented. The full quote is as follows, and in its proper context, ironically from an article provided by you in your previous post:

italics added.

I partially agree with Thomas. Hersh is often ahead of everybody but then he gets ahead of himself and the facts.

And much of what you refuse to debate is in fact not a paraphrasing or analysis by Hersh but the direct quotes of the interview with General Taguba. That is no anonymous source.

I have debated some of Taguba's claims here. They are not definitive. They are speculative. They are what's normally called "wishful thinking".

And with regards to this link (A Ghost In The Iraqi Prison), you give a very interesting source for use in your debunking of Hersh's truth. That that site is directly associated with the David Horrowitz Centre for Freedom can make me question their methods for criticizing anything. The propoganda spilled on the main site for the DHFC is itself enough to bring it under the category of a right wing mouth piece.

Why? Because you're left and he's right (possibly in more ways than one)? Got some specific mud to sling?

But eithr way theres nothing more than an attempt here to slander the man by challenging his character, his alleged hatred for american leaders and institutions (it might as well say he hates america the way the article says it) an nothing that directly contradicts his facts in this case. This part in particular basically calls him out without saying it directly:

That refers to an alleged blackmail overheard incompletely. But thats proof of nothing.

You'll ignore it. Obviously you have reason to.

The significant portion was never revealed but it is a tactic that biases the reader by emphasizing it. I'll say that in itself is bad journalism. That the next paragraph goes on to describe a scenario as if he had blackmailed the alleged source unethically shows the real reaching that this article does. The bias is heavy. It says that fact checkers could be duped by serious efforts to mislead. Wheres the proof of intent of that kind of significant deception?

What didn't you understand in the words: "He was practically blackmailing this guy"? This was a verbatim quote from the book Fit to Print: A.M. Rosenthal and His Times.