I didn't do it because I disagreed, I did it because the 'trustworthiness' of Mr Hersh is the very thing in question, and a discussion about a story based entirely off of his word and credibility alone had no other way of ending up. Again, I would love to argue on the merits of the evidence Mr Hersh has presented - but too bad he hasn't given any! Where else could this discussion end up other than whether or not Mr Hersh is credible?
It is not an ad hominem when the entire basis of an argument is 'so-and-so says so'. Well, I think so-and-so is full of shit; why isn't that a valid point of inquiry?
Please don't do the putdown/name-calling/slur thing on HN at all. You can make your substantive points without any of that.
(Edit: I see pvg already made this point, and I don't mean to pile on, but maybe it's important for a moderator to make this clear.)