"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "T. Early"

Definitively is a big word and the -particulars- of what we know
occurred at Abu Ghraib have not been tied to Rumsfeld. It's a good
piece because Hersh is one of the best at mining people who have
axes
to grind as his unnamed sources. Unfortunately, he writes lead
paragraphs like the one in the New Yorker story that are designed
for
maximum (overly broad) impact and aren't really supported by what
follows.


Wasn't Hersch the journalist that first reported the My Lai massacre
in
Vietnam?
Didn't the investigation by the military end up confirming his
reporting?

I didn't say he doesn't have the credentials, nor am I in any position
to argue with the substance of the New Yorker piece. I said I think
his lead paragraph--specifically "Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the
American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite
combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror"--is a
broad-stroke opinion, not a fact, and is not explored in the article.