As Ruchi Parekh reported in this morning’s Daily News Roundup, Seymour Hersh has published a provocative and important piece in the London Review of Books, in which he claims that the White House deliberately “omitted important intelligence” and “presented assumptions as facts” when making the case that the al-Assad regime was responsible for August’s chemical weapons attack. Hersh writes that U.S. intelligence agencies had evidence that the al-Qaeda-linked rebel group, the al-Nusra Front, was potentially responsible for the attack. (I will have a post soon at Just Security analyzing Hersh’s story.)
The following is a sample of the wide spectrum of reactions to the Hersh piece from journalists and other commentators on Twitter.
Sy Hersh may be late to the party, but at least he's bringing the goods – #Syria #falseflag http://t.co/1O9cezANBi via @LRB
— James Corbett (@corbettreport) December 8, 2013
I've been reading Seymour Hersh's latest re 8/21 and Syria. He's months behind the dialogue and data.
— Dan Kaszeta (@DanKaszeta) December 9, 2013
The funniest part of the Hersh article is the portrayal of #Obama as a restless foe of #Assad, willing to go to any lengths for intervention
— Alex Rowell (@alexjrowell) December 8, 2013
2011: Seymour Hersh cut through the distortions around Iran's nuclear programme http://t.co/bgpMZlYXj1
2013: Syria http://t.co/9uNHdM8G0q— Steve Rose (@steveplrose) December 9, 2013
Always admirable to challenge authority but on Syria CW front ballistic evidence of regime attack was pretty clear http://t.co/FQsmZTD3xz
— Evan Hill (@evanchill) December 9, 2013
Someone should ask David Remnick again if he stands by assertion that Sy Hersh is "one of the greatest reporters the country has ever known"
— Jamie Kirchick (@jkirchick) December 9, 2013
Here's @mlcalderone on how the New Yorker & WashPost refused to publish Sy Hersh's new story http://t.co/6ZroppiVI3
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 9, 2013
The @LRB had an ex-@NewYorker fact-checker work on Hersh's Syria piece, which the NYer passed on: http://t.co/wPMxYYZKeB
— Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) December 9, 2013
https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/409689481483395072
Would love to see a media reporter report out why this didn't appear in the New Yorker http://t.co/Ta7xacclKU
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) December 9, 2013
.@CShoebridge does seem to anticipate Sy Hersh in 8/13 story, "Syria Chemical Weapons Used… But Used by Whom?" http://t.co/Mti3sthMNU
— Jeffrey Kaye (@jeff_kaye) December 9, 2013
.@MikeElk Correct. I think both Hersh critics and supporters grossly overstating what he concludes and how consistent it is w/known facts.
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) December 8, 2013
Follow @Brown_Moses for a summary of evidence not mentioned by Hersh mitigating likelihood that al-Nusra carried out the attack in question.
— Ali Gharib (@Ali_Gharib) December 8, 2013
Self-proclaimed weapons "expert" Brown Moses actually thinks he is in a position to refute Pulitzer journo Seymour Hersh? Funny stuff.
— Phil Greaves (@PhilGreaves01) December 9, 2013
https://twitter.com/praddenkeefe/status/409705394487844864
@les_politiques I've just written a piece for Foreign Policy highlighting a few key points he appears unaware of
— Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) December 8, 2013
@Ali_Gharib Yes, I have a great deal of respect for Seymour Hersh, people shouldn't be a dick about his work
— Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) December 8, 2013
I don't think Hersh rebuts @HRW's reporting on the Syrian sarin attack, which convincingly blames the government. http://t.co/oYrAPQr2Qf
— Matthieu Aikins (@mattaikins) December 8, 2013