"You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on 20 January"

[newtothegame]

Seymour Hersh? Paging Seymour Hersh? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Where are the hundreds of names he promised?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/19/seymour-hersh-new-yorker-reporter

[zipplewrath]

1. I was kinda wonderin' too

Supposedly there was going to be this flood of info. Did it never materialize, or is he writing a book?

[dflprincess]

3. Maybe he called them

and they were still afraid to talk? :shrug:

Being out of office would not stop Bushco from taking care of anyone they deemed a threat.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Over the last 4-5 years I've started to look at Hersh a lot more like I look at Chomsky.

I was and I think arguably still am a big Chomsky fan but maybe I'm getting older or have just seen enough of his work to see the profile of it- where there is definitely an edge, a line which he does not cross. He's great to introduce people to a lot of different topics and get new ideas into heads but he doesn't lead anywhere useful, ultimately. My feelings are much more complex than that but that's the very boiled-down opinion.

I've been getting the same vibe, or something similar, from Hersh. With Hersh, it's like Waiting for Godot. I don't have the time to go through all the events that Hersh has made assertions about being privy to forbidden knowledge of but Abu Ghraib is one. How many threads, how much time was spent on DU picking over his "revelations" there? That whole thing fizzled, whitewashed by the Australian leak of merely some of the material.

With Chomsky, there are five curtained-off areas and he opens up and revels three of them while the other two he refuses to recognize the existence of.

With Hersh, he's thrown open a curtain or two but keeps telling you how much more damning the information behind the other three is and never seems to solidly deliver.

Just my thought at the moment.

PB

[DesertFlower]

4. i don't pay attention to what he says anymore.