I read through it and considered doing a write up, but I stopped myself because there were parts of it that I found a little hard to swallow.
So instead I decided to wait until other news outlets started to weigh in, realizing that they would have access to data and resources that I simply do not have.
As expected they were less than convinced by Hersh's report as well.
Here is what Vox had to say:
Hersh's story is amazing to read, alleging a vast American-Pakistani conspiracy to stage the raid and even to fake high-level diplomatic incidents as a sort of cover. But his allegations are largely supported only by two sources, neither of whom has direct knowledge of what happened, both of whom are retired, and one of whom is anonymous.
The story is riven with internal contradictions and inconsistencies. The story simply does not hold up to scrutiny — and, sadly, is in line with Hersh's recent turn away from the investigative reporting that made him famous into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Vox goes on to pick apart much of what Hersh wrote, and compares it with eyewitness accounts and reports from journalists who visited the scene in Pakistan.
And they are not alone.
Former CIA Chief Leon Panetta denies the veracity of Hersh's account, as does the White House.
Of course that is to be expected.
However the soldier who actually shot Bin Laden in that raid calls the report "an insult to the word ludicrous."
Look Seymour Hersh is a legend whose reporting has revealed incredibly important stories that the government certainly did not want revealed, like the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, and the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.
And I personally I have no problem believing that the story of Bin Laden's death is not precisely as it has been told to the American public.
However it seems that Hersh may have allowed his frustration with how the Obama administration has conducted foreign relations get the better of him this time.
