Kevin DrumJul. 1, 2017 10:21 PM <\/p>\n
Ford Williams\/U.S. Navy via ZUMA <\/p>\n
A reader emails to ask why I havent written about Seymour Hershs story from last week that accuses Donald Trump of ignoring evidence that Syrias chemical attack in April wasnt actually a chemical attack at all. Its worth an answer. <\/p>\n
First off, theres some background. Hershs main outlet was the New Yorker until a few years ago. But they refused to publish his 2013 article making the same accusation against the Obama administration, so the London Review of Books published it instead. But the LRB declined to publish his latest one, so it ended up in a German newspaper. Thats two well-respected publications that have parted ways with Hersh. Why? <\/p>\n
Second, Hershs latest piece is almost completely single-sourced to a senior advisor to the American intelligence community. Thats mighty vague. And boy, does this advisor know a lot. He seems to have an almost photographic recall of every meeting and every decision point that preceded Trumps cruise missile attack. Its hardly credible that a civilian advisor could be as plugged in as this guy apparently is. <\/p>\n
These things dont inspire confidence. So now lets take a look at the piece he wrote. Heres an excerpt: <\/p>\n
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the presidents determination to ignore the evidence. None of this makes any sense, one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. We KNOW that there was no chemical attack the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth I guess it didnt matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump. <\/p>\n
And now heres an excerpt from his 2013 piece: <\/p>\n
The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, How can we help this guy Obama when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along? <\/p>\n
This is way too similar. In fact, the whole 2017 piece reads like a warmed-over version of his 2013 article. I just dont trust it. <\/p>\n
Plus theres this: the Trump administration is one of the leakiest in memory. If Trump flatly ignored the advice of every one of his military advisorswhich is what Hersh saysits hard to believe that this wouldnt also have leaked to one of the legion of national security reporters in DC, who have demonstrated that theyre pretty sourced up. But so far, no one has even remotely corroborated Hershs story. <\/p>\n
Is this because the mainstream media is afraid to report this stuff? Please. Theyd see Pulitzers dancing before their eyes. Theres not a reporter in the entire city who wouldnt go after this story. <\/p>\n
You never know. Maybe Hersh will turn out to be right. Its certainly a compelling and detailed story he tells. But for now, I dont believe it. <\/p>\n
Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See original here: <\/p>\n
Did Donald Trump Invent a Chemical Attack in Syria? - Mother Jones<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kevin DrumJul. Continue reading