You took a completely literal reading of a one sentence quote from an interview as his full opinion on the matter, and ignored that he immediately said that one sentence was not an accurate representation of his entire view. The Guardian even corrected the initial interview adding his further clarification. That seems like misinformation to me.
The Guardian did not issue a correction about Hersh's words. There was nothing to correct about them: the quote from Hersh is accurate. The Guardian issued a footnote/amendment (in their words), and here it is from the Guardian that you're referring to, as context:
> This article was amended on 1 October 2013. The original text stated that Hersh sold a story about the My Lai massacre to the New York Times for $5,000 when in fact it was the Times of London. Hersh has pointed out that he was in no way suggesting that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan, as reported, upon the president's authority: he was saying that it was in the aftermath that the lying began. Finally, the interview took place in the month of July, 2013.
Note that from this footnote that Seymour Hersh does not admit that he misspoke. He claims that he never suggested that Osama bin Laden was not killed. This is plainly a straight lie, given his claim that the White House's statement did not contain one word that was true.
If he wants to state that he misspoke in this interview: fine, then he should do it. But to state that he didn't make this claim is itself misinformation.
Edit: You're accusing me of bad faith. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie? If anything, Seymour Hersh has acted in bad faith in this ordeal, lying about his own statements. And people should be suspect of him for that.
>. Can you please explain how my argument is deceptive or a lie?
You condensed an entire book/section of a book that Hersh wrote into one sentence and then attacked it as if it were the argument he presented. It's not. It's something he said offhand in an interview about the book, and which he immediately clarified was not meant in the way people were taking it.
You're taking the worst possible interpretation of what he said and arguing he clearly meant that. Hence, not arguing in good faith.
That's not the definition of a bad faith argument. Here's a definition of bad faith according to Wikipedia: "Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. ... Some examples of bad faith include: ... a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith
I have not engaged in deception in the statements I've made in this thread a single time. However, it is important to point out that Seymour Hersh has indeed engaged in bad faith in his statements about Osama bin Laden, by refusing to acknowledge that he either originally misspoke, or he changed his claim about the White House's statement. In either case, he is being deceptive in his statements as I've demonstrated above, exactly what it means to argue in bad faith.
And now you're making your rebuttal hinge on the exact definition of a term I never used.
You aren't arguing in good faith. You aren't trying to be fair, open, and honest. Like your repeated claim that Hersh saying he in no way was suggesting that bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan is him refusing to acknowledge he misspoke. Or your constant ignoring of anything Hersh has said on the matter besides the one sentence you object to. Neither of those things are fair, or honest about his argument.
Okay, so if I'm understanding you right, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are claiming that your definition of "bad faith" differs from Wikipedia's definition. Is that correct? Would you be willing to offer a definition of what you mean by "not in good faith"?
Maybe you aren't being intentionally deceptive, I can't say. But as I pointed out you are not being fair and honest about Hersh's argument, which is more nuanced than the one sentence.
This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not addressing Hersh's other argument about the other specifics of the Osama bin Laden raid, and therefore fairness or dishonesty to that part of his argument is not relevant. I'm addressing his quote, the quote in which he claimed that all words in the White House report/statement were lies. He denied that he made this claim; he didn't say he misspoke or that he's amending his original statement. To say that I'm being unfair or dishonest about Hersh's argument by misrepresenting my argument is itself unfair and/or dishonest.
As for the reason why Hersh did this, I cannot say, a person's intention is a black box. But this kind of behavior amounts to some amount of dishonesty. It's not much more complicated than that.
> Hersh has pointed out that he was in no way suggesting that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Pakistan, as reported, upon the president's authority: he was saying that it was in the aftermath that the lying began
Is saying he misspoke. His words were interpreted in a way he did not intend them to be.
Addressing only the quote itself is unfair, as again that does not represent his actual argument.
Saying an amendment isn't a correction seems silly.
When your entire argument is "this one sentence when taken literally with no context can be considered crazy," I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
