I thought my analysis of Hersh’s article was pretty good until I read the comments-section and realized the mistake I had made. True, there are inconsistencies in the text that I have problems with, but they pale in comparison to the contribution Hersh makes by identifying the people responsible for the destruction of Nord Stream. This is a very big deal. Hersh’s article serves as a criminal indictment of the top administration advisors—including the president himself—on charges of gross acts of terrorism. Instead of focusing on the implications of those allegations, I chose to explore what-I-believed-to-be the shortcomings of the article. And—in my defense—there are some glaring inconsistencies in the text. Those inconsistencies, however, should not have been overemphasized to the point where they undermined the central thesis in Hersh’s article, that is, that the Biden administration was directly involved in the greatest act of industrial sabotage in history. That should have been my main area of focus.

I hadn’t realized how imbalanced my article was until I read the comments section where a number of well-informed readers pointed out that my criticism of Hersh amounted to “nitpicking” which is a precise but fair critique of the piece. One particular reader who goes by the name Muggles had this to say:

This critique of Hersh’s highly believable account of the sabotage is used here by Whitney as merely a pretext to nitpick or manufacture objections to the account, solely to advance Whitney’s preexisting theories about the entire Russian/Ukraine invasion.

So the article isn’t about Nord Stream II or the pipeline, but the entire narrative that Whitney wants you to buy into.

Bait-and-switch.

So not about the Hersh article or theory of the crime. But all about Genius Whitney.” (end of comment)

Ouch!

This is very fair criticism and it’s the kind of feedback that writers appreciate. Sure, it’s a bit caustic and insulting, but—let’s face it—it’s mainly guys who hang out in these comments sections, and for guys, all communication is a form of mortal combat. I don’t expect anyone to pull their punches when it comes to expressing themselves honestly and with as much ferocity as they think is needed. But, if you want to change people’s minds, you have to make your case rationally and intelligently. Muggles does that. He and other similar comments helped me to see the mistake I made by “nitpicking” Hersh’s article when I should have focused on the “big picture’.

Everyone has heard the expression: Can’t see “the forest for the trees.” What it refers to is the person who focuses too closely on the details of a situation and misses the bigger issue. That is certainly true here. The fact is, Hersh’s article has the potential to undermine the credibility of the people in power and, by doing so, bring the war to a swift end. That is the ‘big picture’ and that is an objective I fully support. Unfortunately, I failed in that regard, and I regret it.