And might I add that I have little faith in Hersh's story to begin with. I don't know he's wrong, but I'm far from convinced he's right.
Why do I say that? Let's look at his sources. There are four, or perhaps only three, backing up his main contentions. Here is how Hersh introduces them:
a.. "A former senior intelligence official"
a.. "A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror"
a.. "One former defense official"
a.. "A former high-level Defense Department official" [Note: I'm listing this as a different source than the one above it, but Hersh doesn't clearly signal that they're different. For example, he could have written, "another former defense official"] So number of "current" officials cited: 1--if you count the "adviser."
The "Pentagon adviser," I suspect, is a member of the Defense Science Board, members of whom are also cited in the story. The DSB are civilians who work part-time advising the SecDef. They are not involved in nuts-and-bolts planning.
http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/04/a_skeptical_rea.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Elliott
http://newappeal.blogspot.com/ www.ksworkbeat.org