<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[CO-OP NEWS]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://cooptv.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Coop Anti-War Cafe Berlin]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://cooptv.wordpress.com/author/zeitgeistmusic/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Other Questions Raised by Seymour Hersh&#8217;s Syria&nbsp;Scoop]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p> &#8222;Obama did not tell the whole story&#8220; on Bashar al-Assad&#8217;s alleged involvement in a chemical weapons strike in Syria last August, begins Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh&#8217;s latest piece.</p>
<p>The investigation, published at the London Review of Books this weekend, argues that the Obama administration &#8222;cherry-picked intelligence&#8220; in order to make the case for a military strike against Syria, omitting indications that Syrian rebels were also capable of obtaining Sarin gas. Hersh is one of the country&#8217;s best-respected investigative journalists, with an unparalleled track record of breaking big news. But while his latest work, called &#8222;Whose Sarin?&#8220; has gained substantial attention for the claims it contains, not everyone is convinced that Hersh got the story completely right this time. </p>
<p>According to multiple reports, Hersh first took &#8222;Whose Sarin?&#8220; to the New Yorker and the Washington Post, both of whom passed. While the New Yorker (where Hersh, a freelancer, regularly publishes his biggest scoops) did not comment on their reasons for not publishing the story, the Post reportedly rejected the piece because it didn&#8217;t meet the paper&#8217;s sourcing standards. The London Review of Books, apparently in response to questions about the piece&#8217;s provenance, told the Huffington Post that Hersh&#8217;s work was fact-checked by a former New Yorker fact checker before publication. Hersh&#8217;s story relies on anonymous sources, which is how Hersh tends to work, as do most reporters who deal with the world of foreign intelligence. It&#8217;s produced some of his best reporting.</p>
<p>Speaking to Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! on Monday, Hersh argued that the &#8222;mainstream press&#8220; was already sold on the Obama administration&#8217;s narrative, that &#8222;Bashar did it.&#8220; Hersh added: &#8222;This is why creepy troublemakers like me stay in business.&#8220; He responded to questions about the Post&#8217;s decision to drop his story in a similar manner: &#8222;Why did I think a mainstream press paper would want to go so hard against, you know, from a freelancer?&#8220; Hersh told Goodman, adding, &#8222;It was silly of me. I should have just gone to the London Review very quickly. My mistake.&#8220;</p>
<p>At least a few Syria experts are critical of Hersh&#8217;s conclusions at the London Review, including Eliot Higgins, a noted weapons expert who goes by the pseudonym Brown Moses on Twitter:</p>
<p>@Brown_Moses: &#8222;The fact is, there&#8217;s some key missing information from Hersh&#8217;s article about the munitions used that has been available for weeks.&#8220;</p>
<p>Dan Kaszeta, another security expert, while not dismissing Hersh&#8217;s reporting outright, suggests that it is incomplete and out of date:</p>
<p>@DanKaszeta: &#8222;I&#8217;ve been reading Seymour Hersh&#8217;s latest re. 8/21 and Syria. He&#8217;s months behind the dialogue and data.&#8220;</p>
<p>For what it&#8217;s worth, the White House has also denied Hersh&#8217;s allegations: Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the Director of National Intelligence, told The Hill that &#8222;the intelligence clearly indicated that the Assad regime and only the Assad regime could have been responsible for the 21 August chemical weapons attack,&#8220; adding that &#8222;the suggestion that there was an effort to suppress intelligence about a nonexistent alternative explanation is simply false.”</p>
<p>When it comes to investigative reporting, few have built up a stronger track record than Hersh, but recent comments by him about other members of the media have probably undermined a bit of that goodwill. Back in September, Hersh stated flatly in an interview with the London Guardian, that the official story of Osama bin Laden&#8217;s death at the hand of U.S. Navy Seals is a fraud, saying, &#8222;Nothing&#8217;s been done about that story, it&#8217;s one big lie, not one word of it is true.&#8220; His solution was for media outlets to fire all their editors, except the &#8222;ones that you can&#8217;t control.&#8220; Perhaps one of those editors would have published his sarin story a little faster.</p>
<p>Reprinted with permission from The Wire. The original story can be found here.</p>
<p>This article was published in Global Security Newswire, which is produced independently by National Journal Group under contract with the Nuclear Threat Initiative. NTI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group working to reduce global threats from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.<br />
<a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/the-other-questions-raised-by-seymour-hersh-s-syria-scoop-20131210" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/the-other-questions-raised-by-seymour-hersh-s-syria-scoop-20131210</a></p>
]]></html></oembed>