I'll note, for clarity, that his credibility is damaged in the "folks should confirm this independently" sense, and not in the "ignore anything he says" sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's your theory, not Hitchens'. Right? Hitchens doesn't question Hersh's journalistic integrity as far as I can see.

Hitchens pretends that these rule changes are the heart of Hersh's argument, then says there's no connection between combat rules and the treatment of prisoners. Here's Hitchens:

Thus, from the abysmal failure to erase Mullah Omar comes the howling success in trailer-porn tactics at Abu Ghraib. More than one kind of non sequitur is involved in this “scenario.”

But the non sequitur exists only in Hitchens' deceptive presentation. Hitchens never mentions the changes that were made to loosen the rules about the handling of prisoners. His piece falls apart as soon as readers click on the New Yorker link and read Hersh's actual report.

Your argument is defensible. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's an intelligent argument that doesn't depend on my ignorance of Hersh's piece to work. Hitchens, on the other hand, creates a deceptive cartoon of Hersh's piece, and then says that his cartoon doesn't make sense. Of course it doesn't.

From the article and comments, in short, "Weee hatess Hitchensss foreveeer".

Except for My Lai, when has Sy Hersh been right. But, for the "Bush Lied,..." crowd, that makes him infallible. yawn. next!

---