Unlike many People, I like to be proven wrong!
This time I was. I more than believe him. He has the most credibility of anyone concerning anything he has ever written on. Lemme give you some background on this guy before I tell you how guilty I was of “false belief”.
Seymour Myron “Sy” Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is an American investigative journalist and political writer based in Washington, D.C. He is a longtime contributor to The New Yorker magazine on national security matters and has also written for the London Review of Books since 2013.
Hersh first gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. In 2004, he notably reported on the US military‘s mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. He has also won two National Magazine Awards and five George Polk Awards. In 2004, he received the George Orwell Award.
My Lai Massacre
On November 12, 1969, Hersh reported the story of the My Lai Massacre, in which hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians were murdered by US soldiers in March 1968. The report prompted widespread condemnation around the world and reduced public support for the Vietnam War in the United States. The explosive news of the massacre fueled the outrage of the US peace movement, which demanded the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. Hersh wrote about the massacre and its cover-up in My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath (1970) and Cover-up: The Army’s Secret Investigation of the Massacre at My Lai 4 (1972). For My Lai 4, Hersh traveled across the United States and interviewed nearly 50 members of the Charlie Company. A movie was also produced, based on this book, by Italian director Paolo Bertola in 2009.
In early 1974, Hersh had planned to publish a story on “Project Jennifer” (later revealed to be named Project Azorian and Operation Matador), a covert CIA project to recover a sunken Soviet navysubmarine from the floor of the Pacific Ocean. CIA director William Colby discussed the operation with Hersh in 1974, but obtained his promise not to publish while the operation was active. Bill Kovach, The New York Times Washington, D.C. bureau chief at the time, said in 2005 that the government offered a convincing argument to delay publication in early 1974—exposure at that time, while the project was ongoing, “would have caused an international incident”. The NYT eventually published Hersh’s account on March 19, 1975, after a story appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and included a five-paragraph explanation of the many twists and turns in the path to publication. It is unclear what, if any, action was taken by the Soviet Union after learning of the story. It was later revealed that the leaks prevented a second recovery attempt of the submarine after a small portion of it was raised in the summer of 1974.
Korean Air Flight 007
In The Target Is Destroyed (1986), Hersh alleged that the shooting down of Korean Air Flight 007 in September 1983 by the Soviet Union was due to a combination of Soviet incompetence and United States intelligence operations intended to confuse Soviet responses.[page needed]
Later releases of government information confirmed that there was a PSYOPS campaign against the Soviet Union that had been in place from the first few months of the Reagan administration. This campaign included the largest US Pacific Fleet exercise ever held, in April to May 1983.
Mordechai Vanunu and Robert Maxwell
In The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (1991), Hersh wrote that Nicholas Davies, the foreign editor of the Daily Mirror, had tipped off the Israeli embassy in London about Mordechai Vanunu. Vanunu had given information about Israel’s nuclear weapons program first to The Sunday Times and later to the Sunday Mirror. At the time, the Sunday Mirrorand its sibling newspaper, the Daily Mirror were owned by media magnate Robert Maxwell who was alleged to have had contacts with Israel’s intelligence services. According to Hersh, Davies had also worked for the Mossad. Vanunu was later lured by Mossad from London to Rome, kidnapped, returned to Israel, and sentenced to 18 years in jail. Davies and Maxwell published an anti-Vanunu story that was claimed by critics to be part of a disinformation campaign on behalf of the Israeli government.
Hersh repeated the allegations during a press conference held in London to publicize his book. No British newspaper would publish the allegations because of Maxwell’s famed litigiousness. However, two British MPs raised the matter in the House of Commons, which meant that British newspapers were able to report what had been said without fear of being sued for libel. Maxwell called the claims “ludicrous, a total invention”. He fired Davies shortly thereafter.
The attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan
Hersh strongly criticized Bill Clinton‘s decision to destroy, on August 20, 1998, the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Al-Shifa, the largest pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, accounted for half the country’s domestically produced medicines.
Hersh has written a series of articles for The New Yorker magazine detailing military and security matters surrounding the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. In March 2002, he described the planning process for a new invasion of Iraq that he alleged had been on-going since the end of the First Gulf War, under the leadership of Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Fried and other neo-conservatives. In a 2004 article, he alleged that Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld circumvented the normal intelligence analysis function of the CIA in their quest to make the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Another article, “Lunch with the Chairman”, led Richard Perle, a subject of the article, to call Hersh the “closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist.”
A March 7, 2007, article entitled, “The Redirection” described a recent shift in the George W. Bush administration‘s Iraq policy, the goal of which Hersh said was to “contain” Iran. Hersh asserted that “a by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
In May 2004, Hersh published a series of articles which described the treatment of detainees by US military police at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, Iraq. The articles included allegations that private military contractors contributed to prisoner mistreatment and that intelligence agencies such as the CIA ordered torture in order to break prisoners for interrogations. They also alleged that torture was a usual practice in other US-run prisons as well, e.g., in Bagram Theater Internment Facility and Guantanamo. In subsequent articles, Hersh wrote that the abuses were part of a secret interrogation program, known as “Copper Green“. According to Hersh’s sources, the program was expanded to Iraq with the direct approval of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, both in an attempt to deal with the growing insurgency there and as part of “Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.” Much of his material for these articles was based on the Army’s own internal investigations.
Scott Ritter, a disaffected former arms inspector, asserted in his October 19, 2005 interview with Seymour Hersh that the US policy to remove Iraqi president Saddam Hussein from power started with US president George H. W. Bush in August 1990. Ritter concluded from public remarks by President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker that the Iraq sanctions would only be lifted when Hussein was removed from power. The justification for sanctions was disarmament. The CIA offered the opinion that containing Hussein for six months would result in the collapse of his regime. According to Hersh, this policy resulted in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In January 2005, Hersh alleged that the US was conducting covert operations in Iran to identify targets for possible strikes. Hersh also wrote that Pakistan and the United States had struck a “Khan-for-Iran” deal in which Washington would look the other way at Pakistan’s nuclear transgressions and not demand handing over of its infamous nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, in return for Islamabad‘s cooperation in neutralizing Iran’s nuclear plans. This was also denied by officials of the governments of the US and Pakistan.
In the April 17, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, Hersh wrote that the Bush administration had plans for an air strike on Iran. Of particular note in his article was that a US nuclear first strike(possibly using the B61-11 bunker-buster nuclear weapon) is under consideration to eliminate underground Iranian uranium enrichment facilities. In response, President Bush cited Hersh’s reportage as “wild speculation.” 
When, in October 2007, he was asked about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton‘s hawkish views on Iran, Hersh stated that Jewish donations were the main reason for these:
|“||Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of – right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart enough to know the downside.||”|
During one journalism conference, Hersh stated that after the Strait of Hormuz incident, members of the Bush administration met in vice president Dick Cheney‘s office to consider methods of initiating a war with Iran. One idea considered was staging a false flag operation involving the use of Navy SEALs dressed as Iranian PT boaters who would engage in a firefight with US ships. According to Hersh this proposed provocation was rejected. Hersh’s allegation has not been verified.
In August 2006, in an article in The New Yorker, Hersh wrote that the White House gave the green light for the Israeli government to execute an attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Supposedly, communication between the Israeli government and the US government about this came as early as two months in advance of the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others by Hezbollah prior to the 2006 Lebanon War in July 2006. The US government denied these allegations.
The killing of Osama bin Laden
And this is where I come back in. I have done extensive research on 911, and as other posts here will tell you in “About” I know for sure that we were lied to about 911 by the Government. That really goes without saying. In my opinion, it was a Massod Operation.
Just to “touch” on the subject, my research shows me a long-running Zionist Plan for the Greater Israel Project
Now, with that said, I also have researched Bin Laden, and his early years, CIA training, education in the United States, his Royal Family (along with their ties to the Bush’s), along with his time as the leader in Afghanistan of what is named today as “Al Qaeda”.
Before going too far past that term, let me just say that the name is a fraud. There is no such organization. The term actually refers to:
(Jan. 29) …Just understanding that the term, al Qaeda means “toilet” in parochial Arabic, is a pretty big clue that the “war on terrorism” is a hoax.
(Jan. 30) …This is an explanation by a native Arabic speaker:
What does the word “Al-Qaeda” mean? In Arabic, “Al-Qaeda” has a different meaning, among them “Base”, “Ground”, “Norm”, “Rule”, “Fundament”,
“Grammar”. The exact meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used.
It depends on the word which follows “Al-Qaeda” in the sentence. “Qawa’ad
Askaria” is an Army Base, “Qawa’ad Lugha” stands for Grammar Rules (the
Bases of Grammar).
“Qa’ada” is the infinitive of the verb “to sit”. “Ma-Qa’ad” is a chair. “Al-Qaeda”
is the base or fundament of something. “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” is colloquial for
“I’m going to the toilet”. A very common and widespread use of the word “Al-
Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl.
This name comes from the Arabic verb “Qa’ada” which mean “to sit”,
pertinently, on the “Toilet Bowl”. In most Arabs homes, there are two kinds of
toilets: “Al-Qaeda” also called the “Hamam Franji” or foreign toilet, and
“Hamam Arabi” or “Arab toilet” which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget
it, the potty used by small children is called “Ma Qa’adia” or “Little Qaeda”.
Those who founded the glorious “International of Islamic Terror, Al-Qaeda,
probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language to know that by
using this name for their organization, they risked becoming the laughing stock
of everybody who speaks the Arabic “public” language.
Of course, it is now understood that the name was derived from a “database” on the Western Intelligence computer network for the Mujahadeen they had organized to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
It is also revealed that the Bush and bin Laden families are as tight as peas in a pod, involved in many financial deals. In fact, Bush Sr. was in a meeting with Osama’s brother on 9/11.
There are photos of Osama with Z-big sharing an inspection of an AK47 on the web. The interlocking directorates are a vast grimoire of intrigue.
Now back to where I was wrong:
When I first heard Obama go on TV and say he had in fact “Gotten Him” (Bin Laden), I laughed. This guy had not been part of any scene (Bin Laden) for more than a decade. After 911 he was interviewed by CNN, and although they buried the story (you still may be able to find it in their archives, if they have not erased it) he had talked about the USS Cole and his involvement in the funding for the bombing of it.
Firstly, let me say (as he said) that the reason for the bombing was pretty simple. The USA had put bases in Saudi Arabia, and under “Islamic Law”, this was forbidden. No other entity was allowed to have Military Bases on Islamic Land. His family and he had a great falling out because of the argument over this plan to allow US bases there.
Bin Laden was banished from Saudi Arabia and all of the Middle East after their argument, but this banishment would not hold weight in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Bin Laden was thought of as a hero.
Bin Laden admitted in the interview that he helped fund the bombing of the USS Cole. However, who he funded was not anything called Al Qaeda (of course) as that would be the name of a base or a toilet. No. Who he funded was The Muslim Brotherhood.
Does that name “ring a bell”? Yes, the same entity that the USA funds for their own rebel attacks in “International War Crimes” in the Middle East. Bin Laden (supporting them) wanted (as they did) the US bases out of Saudi Arabia, and that was the agenda.
Bush Sr. then had reason to put a target on “Bin Laden’s Head”, stating that he was the one responsible (which he was not) for the attack. No longer a CIA friend and ally now, he had gone to fight for the “other side” and he was now on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for the bombing of the Cole. Which again, was not his doing, but the Muslim Brotherhood’s doing, of which Bin Laden merely helped fund.
Accused of being part of, or responsible for 911 was a joke, right from the beginning. Bin Laden was a hero for his Afghanistan Days of 1979- the mid 80’s and nothing more. He really was no leader since then, although admired and consulted often in operations of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In fact, in March 2000 the Chicago Tribune reports that an Afghan witness and “Western intelligence official” said bin Laden is suffering from severe kidney and liver failure. Link: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-03-25/news/0003250085_1_laden-bin-religious-militia
This story was also picked up by CBS News in 2000, who outright lead with the title that “Bin Laden Reported to be Dying” from “kidney disease.”
I had other reports (which I studied) that told me that it would be very doubtful that Bin Laden could be long for this Earth, at that time. As a matter of fact, I was apt to believe this report that Osama Bin Laden Dead Since 2001 (Benazir Bhutto Says Osama Bin Laden Dead In 2007) Therefore, when I heard Obama state “We Got Him” in 2011, I had good reason to laugh. He was already dead! ← This is where I was wrong!
Now, what I still was not wrong about was the fact that he had nothing to do with 911, and there was no evidence linking him to 911, and that in fact, 911 was a Massod Operation. Those things I was correct about. At least until (at some future date) proven wrong, which I will admit immediately if I am proven wrong, as I am doing now.
Seymour Hersh I have researched and he is more than credible. He was right on JFK, Nixon, Kissinger, ohh… I can go on and on. He goes deep into investigative reporting, and he has won many awards for doing so. He stands on his “vast merits” of Journalism, and I have to certainly more than consider, his evidence and reporting.