Fury before the facts

Seymour Hersh's account of what he thinks really happened with Bin Laden has come under ferocious attack by Vox's Max Fisher. Among the charges is that Hersh didn't have enough sources, which is a strange allegation from an ex-reporter for the Washington Post which is happy to publish stories from one source if in a powerful enough official position. The Post has been a favorite drainage ditch for government propaganda for years.

The other interesting thing about the Vox story is that it came so fast after Hersh's version of the tale was published. Before attacking such a story, one would have expected Vox to have done some research of it own. Instead it came up with a piece that offered not contradictory evidence so much as criticism of Hersh's logic. And criticism that sounds suspiciously like it originated in part from some of the agencies involved in the affair.

The very fury of the Vox article should raise suspicions. If Hersh is wrong, then present the facts. But something that sounds so much like a rewrite of responses from involved public officials won't do the trick.

So for the moment, at least, give Hersh the edge. He has a much better record of telling the truth than the folks Vox defends so strongly.