I became familiar with the man when he wrote the following:
It was quite a narration of events between northern Africa and the Middle East. Anyone who wants to risk himself to expose our dirty laundry is a fine journalist.
I'd like a followup for a few reasons, like with regards to their trust of the Russian source, knowing what we do now (not even talking the election stuff, just Russia's motivations in Syria alone; they definitely had a reason to want to keep us out, so giving us evidence that it wasn't Syrian Sarin would play into that; I really wonder if they weren't trying to cover up shit of their own too - just because it wasn't Syrian doesn't mean it couldn't have been Russian, Iranian, or even from Saddam's; and the article doesn't talk about the other shit the Syrian regime was pulling which is why we so readily believed that that they were behind it in the first place). I don't doubt Erdogan would do that, and its possible the Russian was feeding accurate information to stymie Erdogan knowing how close they were to getting the US to take Assad's regime out.
But that is exactly why we stepped back in Syria, we knew fucking everyone was trying to play us, including our own allies (and seemingly groups within our own government).
One thing I'm baffled by though is that he claims they didn't get the post attack intelligence (that cast doubt about it having been Syria, and even bolstering that it was very possibly Turkey) to the White House/Obama, yet it seems clear that Obama was aware of what was going on (even called out the one Turkish guy at the dinner). So either this guy seemingly missed contradictory claims, or maybe some of the info he got isn't on the up and up.
Ok, I'm sorry, but, something isn't right here. That previous article claims that the US consulate in Benghazi was just a cover for the CIA arms running for the Syrian rebels happening nearby. You'd think that would've been a pretty big fucking point in the Benghazi stuff, no? Considering they almost certainly were aware of it, makes the whole hearings even more of a sham. That or the JCS was trying to get it exposed publicly and in an explosive manner in an attempt to put a stop to it. Which is also troubling. But Congress clearly knew about supplying the opposition, so I'm not sure that would've been much of a bombshell (but it definitely would've put a big kabosh on their attempts at drawing that shit out). Which, actually, since the JCS was keen on stopping that stuff, uh, it kinda raises the question of perhaps they were involved (if nothing else but by funneling information; since we know they were doing that with other groups openly opposed to the US, its not outside the realm of possibility; the attackers knew enough to attack the CIA place specifically and first).
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
According to that article, our JCS has been actively undermining our own government, was almost directly helping Assad/Syria remain in power (by feeding intelligence on where to attack via Russia, Israel, and Germany; which, uh, Israel funnels intelligence info to Syria? At least the German explanation made some sense although I'm not sure I buy it fully either), directly funneled Russia to Syria (was a key component they imposed on Assad in exchange for their assistance to him), among other bombshells. If anything, that's the deep state (they at one point are keen to show that they can do whatever they want regardless of the current government, that's straight up how its portrayed in the article; and don't forget this is for a mediocre foreign power that we had been openly antaganistic to). Ironically, guess a name that very quickly showed up in regards to the JCS (in fact, it basically seems that he was the one pushing this pro-Russian change). I'll give a hint, its a name that immediately caused Turmp trouble for being associated with, because of his ties with Russia. It ends, essentially praising him. This would be another good article to follow up on, considering new information that has come to light.
For the people praising this guy as one of the "true journalists", uh, he seems every bit as prone to being swayed by his sources as others that you seem to condemn on a regular basis (well some of you, think it should be fairly obvious based on the people trying to point to this guy as reason you don't buy into other media, whilst I think the others see him for being a fairly typical journalist; which is to say, he's dependent on his sources for forming the claims he's putting forth; I'm certainly not seeing this "objective truth" that some seem to believe is the only "good journalism" especially in light of how more recent evidence certainly would change a lot of aspects of these articles). In fact, these articles are pretty damn heavy on trying to project things, whilst ignoring things that I think would call into question some parts of what he's being told (stuff that he doesn't even address; like why would the JCS, and Flynn specifically, be so cavalier about undermining American policy that they'd tell a journalist so much of what they've been doing). In fact if you look at the letters part you see compelling arguments that he's putting forth a fairly one-sided claim on many of the points he raises. There's enough things that make me question his sources (like his claim that Obama never got the info about it not being Syria, but then calling out Turkey at the dinner being one that he almost went out of his way to highlight that the info he got doesn't even line up, only he doesn't actually point out the contradiction in any way; and there's enough of the rest that calls into question some things). I'm not saying he's not doing research or that he is absolutely wrong, just that, he's at the behest of the info he is given, and he doesn't seem to actually be doing a lot of due diligence on either questioning the info (like when the contradictions are staring him in the face), or seeing other possible reasons. And given the circumstances and those involved, there's reason to question the information he's being given.
It'd take a lot more research to vet the info in his articles. Sounds like there's a fair amount of truth, but there's plenty of the narratives in those two articles that are very prone to being manipulated. Which is how journalism, especially on issues like this, often operate (so no, I'm not condemning that, just saying that, I'm not really seeing the praise that he's spectacularly better than other journalists in that regard).
Facebook
Twitter