DOD's response to Seymour Hersh's book

[Alpharetta]

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040910-1240.html

Based on media inquiries, it appears that Mr. Seymor Hersh’s upcoming book apparently contains many of the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed sources.

...The U.S. military itself -- not Mr. Hersh or any other reporter – first publicized the facts of the abuses at Abu Ghraib in January 2004, four months before Mr. Hersh “broke” the story.

To date the Department has conducted 11 investigations, of which eight reports have been completed and released, additionally:
....
Over 13,000 pages of reports have been compiled thus far.
Investigators have completed 950 interviews.
....
If any of Mr. Hersh’s anonymous sources wish to come forward and offer evidence to the contrary, the department welcomes them to do so. There are several open investigations, and we would certainly investigate their allegations without prejudice or hesitation.

More at LINK:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040910-1240.html

[molly]

1. Have any of Seymour Hersh's allegations ever

proven false? Has the DOD ever won a Pulitzer Prize?

[wtmusic]

2. The DOD "publicized" it to Don Rumsfeld

who publicized it to his dog

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. The ONLY reason the U.S. military publicized the facts

of the abuses is BECAUSE THEY FOUND OUT THAT HERSH HAD PICTURES OF THE ABUSES!!! Who do they think they're kidding?

[gratuitous]

4. Weasels

"it appears . . . unsubstantiated allegations . . . unnamed sources."

Gee, do you think if you military fuckers got off your duffs and started looking into the appalling behavior of some of our men and women in uniform in Iraq (as well as their civilian "contractor" counterparts), some of these allegations might get substantiated? And, considering the military's stellar track record in dealing with whistleblowers, I can't for the life of me fathom why someone who witnessed torture would have any reservations whatsoever about coming forward.

And I'm sure we all remember how eager the military was in January 2004 to get the full Abu Ghraib story out, which is why it had to "break" again four months later.

Fucking weasels. Paid for with my tax dollars. Fucking thieving weasels.

[saigon68]

5. Including the ANAL RAPIST who sodomized the young boy

The child was heard sreaming as someone Sodomized his ANUS

[tinanator]

6. in front of his father

this is the Bush killer. Find it. Show it.

[saigon68]

11. Forgot that part of the litlle Gem

Tortured in front of father by ANAL RAPIST

NICE </SARCASM>

[gratuitous]

7. Yeah, why should a whistleblower be reluctant?

I mean, there's nothing to exposing the heinous behavior of some military guy who would fuck a boy in the ass, has access to all sorts of armaments, has the tacit or not-so-tacit support of his superior officers, and who, if he decided to frag the rat that squealed on him . . .

Harrumph! "Unnamed sources"! Harrumph!

[htuttle]

8. The DoD said the same thing when Hersh exposed the My Lai massacre

Hersh is one of the last investigative reporters left in the US, with a very long history of ferreting out the truth from the Pentagon and CIA. I'd take his work over the Pentagon's story any day.

[Vickers]

9. "Over 13,000 pages of reports have been compiled thus far. "

Hmmm, that's a mighty big book. Hard to believe I've missed that at Barnes & Noble.

:eyes:

Oh wait, they didn't show anybody? Well, CHENEY THEM!

[GoBlue]

10. Oh yeah

The U.S. military itself -- not Mr. Hersh or any other reporter – first publicized the facts of the abuses at Abu Ghraib in January 2004, four months before Mr. Hersh “broke” the story.

Then explain this
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/release_list.asp?searchDays=&searchType=2&searchMonth=1&searchYear=2004&searchTopic=Abu+Ghraib+