OK, I read the article. (For those interested, here is a link: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh/?yrail. Be forewarned that it's pretty long).

I honestly don't see what you're so agitated about. Not saying that in any partisan way, just based on my reading of the article. I was expecting some sort of disclosure of secret operational details -- who, what, where. If any of that was included, I missed it. The article says the U.S. has been conducting covert operations in Iran. Didn't we already know that? The point of the article seemed to be that there is significant disagreement between the intelligence community and the White House on how to go about it. To the extent that the article was based on anonymous sources -- many sources are in fact named -- you have to suspect they are on the intelligence side of things. They seem to feel the administration, most specifically Cheney and his close associates, want to attack Iran without understanding its local nuances. (Sound familiar?)

I would think that as an ex-soldier (this goes for Tracy as well) you would be put off by the part about Admiral Fallon, the recently deposed head of U.S. Central Command. He is one of those who spoke to Hersh on the record. Unless you want to dismiss the arguments that the administration has consistently subverted the military chain of command, I would think you would be bothered by that.

There was nothing in the article I consider remotely treasonous or a threat to any operations. What did I miss?