US involved in planning Israel's operations in Lebanon?

It seems to me that baseless conspiracy theories are no longer contained to mental hospitals and underground sci-fi newsletters, but that they are increasingly being accepted by mainstream media. Below is a case in point.

According to a the paranoid conspiracy theorist in a recent AP article (see excerpt below), the U.S. and Israeli jointly planned the strike on Lebanon even before the July 12 kidnappings of 2 Israeli soldiers.

NEW YORK (AFP) - The US government was closely involved in planning Israel's military operations against Lebanon's Hezbollah militia even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, a US magazine reported.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prototype for a potential US preemptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.

Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Hersh said Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah -- and shared it with Bush administration officials -- well before the July 12 kidnappings.

WHERE DO I START WITH THIS ONE!?!

For a moment, let's ignore the one-sidedness of this article.

We have only to read two paragraphs in to find a logical fallacy.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine...

If you're unfamiliar with the term, take a look at the fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority.

I have met several nutcases in my life, therefore I suppose I am an expert on nutcases. Does that mean my opinion that Hersh is a nutcase must be correct?

The mere fact that Hersh has won a Pulitzer Prize does not make this story any more credible. Nor does it make him an expert on the subject.

The article then reiterates its fallacy

US government officials have denied the charges, but Hersh defended his piece Sunday saying he had strong sources for the article which was thoroughly vetted by New Yorker editors.

Ok. I have strong sources that say Hersh is a paranoid schizophrenic and this blog is thoroughly vetted by my readers. Does that mean my statement trumps Hersh's, because that's the implication being made about Hersh's defense to the government's statement?

The same article also uses testimony by "unnamed sources" to back its claims on several occasions

Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Hersh said Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah -- and shared it with Bush administration officials -- well before the July 12 kidnappings.

...

In the magazine Hersh writes that a former senior intelligence official said some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- a council of the president's top military advisors -- remain concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.

Of course they did. I've never been a fan of "unnamed sources", but I can believe this because a source very close to Hersh tells me that he, "Sees Hersh regularly wearing tinfoil hats to communicate with aliens that he believes are sending him message."

Hersh's version concludes

"There is no way that (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this," Hersh quotes the former official as saying.

"When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran."

This is a DOUBLE fallacy. Hersh is poisoning the well by begging the question.

See, that's funny, because my unnamed source says that Hersh or anyone who believes Hersh's story will disagree with my post, and inevitably, they'll draw reinforcement for their desire to accept Hersh's opinion.