I should have more to say later today on Sy Hersh's blockbuster piece
on the death of Osama Bin Laden. Hersh contends that the official story is wrong, as I'm sure it is. But I have to ask: Why are so many people (CNN
, for example) paying attention to what Hersh has to say now
? When he revealed that the "Assad used sarin" story was bogus, we heard crickets. Apparently, if an investigative journalist wants attention, he should write something that plugs into a neocon narrative.
Hersh contends that Pakistan was "in on it" from the start. Actually, there was subtle-but-substantial evidence for that idea back in 2011, as I noted in this
One name is conspicuous by its absence in Hersh's piece: CIA Director Porter Goss. Am I the only one who recalls Goss' 2005 claim that he had "an excellent idea" where Bin Laden was?
Now let's play "Identify the Mystery Man"...
The major US source for the account that follows is a retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad. He also was privy to many aspects of the Seals’ training for the raid, and to the various after-action reports.
Goss retired as CIA Director in 2006. Could he have learned about this stuff in 2011? Possibly. The same could be said of Michael Hayden (retired 2009). Leon Panetta definitely
would have known, but I can't imagine Panetta saying anything that might endanger Hillary's candidacy.