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 entir

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?