Wow! And he's unapologetic, too!
Just saw this about New Yorker Journalist Seymour Hersch:

New Yorker magazine's national security correspondent, Seymour Hersh, has been making speeches and radio appearances in which he has told stories of young boys being raped at Abu Ghraib prison, of U.S. forces murdering 36 Iraqi guards, and of alleged involvement of Karl Rove and even the President himself in prisoner interrogation matters. But he now says he "fudged" some of the stories he's told. He tells New York magazine, "I can't fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say."

He says, "Sometimes I change events, dates and places in a certain way ... [to communicate] another reality that I know of." But, he insists, he only changes the facts to "protect people."

So...to quote Timon in Lion King: "and everybody's okaaaaay with this?"
I remember hearing (on NPR) a speech he made to a group of media people. He was making some outrageous claims about what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. He kept making all of these vauge references: "I can't go into detail here, but if you knew what was really happening..."
I was skeptical at the time, admittedly because of my political views, but also because he wasn't offering facts to back up what he was saying. He was just asking his listeners to "trust him".
So he can fudge what he says, huh? Is it fair to his audience not to tell them that what he's saying may not be entirely true? Isn't that, oh gosh, I don't know, misleading? Isn't that what he's so upset at Bush for supposedly doing to the American people?

via Ed Driscoll  ¶ 1:58 PM