Sy Hersh knows how to write award winning exposés, no question there. But I find his reliance on spook-sources really over the top.
Part of the problem in just following what Hersh is trying to say is that none of his anonymous sources have names, which is what makes them so durn’d anonymous. And not havin’ names, it is just really hard to follow who says what. Of course, one could argue that with them all being anonymous, it really doesn’t make any difference who says what because you can’t verify anything anybody says anyway. This is not scholarship, IOW. It is somewhere in the grey zone between journalism and comic book fiction. I mean, IMO, any writing that can’t be completely verified must be presumed to be fiction.