Is this the same Sy Hersh who claimed that the first ground raid, at least the first public one, into Afghanistan was a complete debacle? His claims were nicely ripped to shreds by this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2058474

Good rule of thumb: If 'Sy' says something, believe the exact opposite!

Mitch..

Your post here is so shot through with falacy it hardly seems worth the time... but

"The GOP-controlled Senate voted 79-19 this month to urge the president to outline a strategy for "the successful completion of the mission." Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., attracted attention with his call for a withdrawal within six months.

Hrmmm... I guess they didn't get the memo that the people actually are in FAVOR of an indefinite occupation.

Equally falacious, that 403 to whatever vote equates to popular support, or inaccurate polls. There is an old saying in politics that goes something like the last recourse of an unpopular politico is to blame the polls.

However, unlike you, I took the time to read Hersh. He uses too many unattributed sources. I recognize that many may fear retaliation from the administration, and so may have spoken on condition of anonymity, but then Hersh should spell that out. There was at least one person who did not shy from being identified, Collin Powell's Chief of Staff, who recounted views that Bush was "too distant" from the planning for the aftermath. Hersh points that out.

The piece is well written, certainly superior to anything I see out in the blogosphere. You may not like the Generals for what they are saying, but your unproven and conveniently unable to be disproven slur against them that they are merely speaking out to cull favor with an unlikely Democratic Presidency is a disservice (and grossly disrepsectful) to them, as well as to the men and women they are ostensibly speaking on behalf of. If you feel they are in error, that in fact we ARE winning on the ground, try using facts, rather than crappola innuendo.

Anyway, your conclusion that it means a. they have tainted information or b. the polls are wrong are not really proven in any way from your comments. First, you offer no facts of misinformation. Second, the Generals could and probably are fully relating fact based impressions, and the polls could easily be (and undoubtedly ARE) reflecting the truth of public opinion(oh wait, I'm an extremist for suggesting exactingly scientific, including those by Republican polsters, are fair). Both can and probably ARE true and STILL there can easily be a vote against setting a timetable, simply because the congresspeople may feel that this timetable was too rigidly defined.

You may want to read point 3 regarding illogical equivilancies, of your post about Blogs.. the vote does not equal lies or support, it equals a vote against a rigid timeline. You made comments highly disrespectful of combat veterans here, but we're to accept that your innuendo is right, and thier battle experience wrong.

Ok.. whatever.

PB

Mitch, Hersh was being pitched softballs on Hardball tonight. What jumped out most to me in the brief time I watched was how calm the usually hyperventillating Matthews got when Hersh essentially said that the war isn't winnable and that the Iraqi troops won't be able to hold off the insurgents and terrorists.

After reading the AP's article about Joe Lieberman's trip, I can't give Hersh even a tiny bit of credibility.

That AP article was a nice fit for my article contrasting Lieberman's perspective on Iraq and Sen. Biden's statements in his Washington Post op-ed.

this is way off...response here:
http://monkeysponge.blogspot.com/2005/11/just-plain-wrong.html