Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent for the New Yorker who made his bones writing about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, stepped in it this week when he wrote to a reader that “There may have been some justice” in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. What could possibly have been just about the assassination of a United States president? Said Hersh, “The morality of JFK in comparison with [Lee Harvey] Oswald and/or Sirhan [Sirhan]” are “obvious questions … I just didn’t have the guts to put in writing what I came to believe, as you do, was an inevitable conclusion.” He continued, “You’re right in believing, if that’s what your letter suggested, that there might have been some justice – one reviewer wrote ‘rough justice’ – in John F. Kennedy’s terrible death by assassination, a means he had sought to end Fidel Castro’s life.”
Leave aside the fact that this is poorly-written tripe, begging the question of just how many editors it takes to prepare a Seymour Hersh column. This is purely moral relativistic evil. Assassinating a dictator is not the same as assassinating a democratically-elected president of the United States. This is like comparing a possible assassination of Hitler with a possible assassination of FDR. They are not the same morally in any way, shape, or form.
But Hersh has had it out for JFK for years – at least ever since he was fooled by fake documents on which he based his book The Dark Side of Camelot. Hersh’s claims about JFK’s womanizing were clearly true, but he’s also a highly-gullible journalist who consistently uses anonymous sources. That hasn’t stopped him from being a paragon of mainstream media journalism for years. Like Helen Thomas before him, he’s well-respected until he says something out of line. Watch for the left to throw one of their favorites under the bus now. Bad journalism is one thing. Attacking a Democratic president is another.