more hersh hoopla

A couple of weeks ago, Seymour Hersh wrote an article on Richard Perle that caused quite a stir. A few days ago, Perle announced his resignation as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Although Hersh’s article wasn’t about Perle’s dealings with Global Crossing, I’m sure it did little to assuage people’s concerns over Perle’s conflicts of interest.
The April 7 issue of the New Yorker features another article by Seymour Hersh (no link yet) that alleges that “U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armour would be needed to fight a war in Iraq.” Read on.
Can’t wait to get the issue in the mail so I can see what the hoopla is about this time.

Update: Seymour Hersh’s article is now online. Enjoy.


One Response to “more hersh hoopla”

  1. Big John Says:

    Hersch’s entire thesis rests on two things; that the war is ‘faltering’, and ‘leaks’ from unnamed ‘senior planners’ who speak directly to him.

    The idea that the war is going badly is idiotic. No army ever moved so far into enemey territory so fast in history. Stopping for a few days to consolidate does not constitute faltering. The anti-war crowd desperately desires that this be so, but no dice.

    As for these ‘leaks’, it sounds a lot like the typical bellyaching you get from any organization full of big egos, charged with an important job. With a group that large you’re bound to dig up one or two willing to bad-mouth those at the top.

    When one considers that Hersch’s article makes the administration look bad, and that ALL the leftist press seems to be hammering on the ‘faltering’ theme, it looks damned suspicious to me.

  • Twitter

  • Category Archives

  • Monthly Archives