Seymour Hersh does it again

Many times when `investigative reporter' Seymour Hersh writes something, it is normally (a) overblown (b) inacurate (c) harmful to American interests/security or (d) any combination of the above.

The present flap over Hersh's article in the The New Yorker , claiming that the Bush Administration is planning a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a good case in point.

Hersh made international headlines with this story, prompting denials from the ever-appeasing British Foreign Minister Jack Straw ( "The idea of a strike against Iran is plain nuts...There is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli. We can’t be certain about Iran’s intentions and that is, therefore, not a basis on which anybody would gain authority to go for military action.") and from the White House.

For one thing, given the situation with Ahmadinejad and Iran, its pefectly obvious to anyone but a simpleton that a certain amount of contingency planning has been done.

Big deal. Some `investigative journalism'.

Second, if in fact Hersh does have explicit knowledge of such plans, where does he get off trumpeting it in the media, enhancing the readiness of Iran and putting our troops at further risk?

Imagine a newspaper reporter during WWII doing an `investigative piece' stating that the US was planning on invading Normandy?

Where does this journalist get off putting his media jackal status and his paycheck ahead of US security in wartime?

This is similar to the last salvo Mr. Hersh fired, when he wrote claiming that US spies and commandos were active in Iran. If even one American or American intel asset dies now or in the future and it canbe traced to a heightened sense of awareness by the Iranian authorities, I think that falls well within the classic catagory of aid and comfort to America's enemies during wartime.

No one has the right to put other people's lives at risk to enhance their reputation or earn a few dollars.


Not even Seymour Hersh.