Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Phillip F. Nelson]

It is true that I did not read, or even hear of, Seymour Hersh's first book, My Lai 4, which Mr. DiEugenio has noted in his post above. When this story broke, I was doing service for my country; but not in Vietnam, where LBJ would have preferred, but in the Peace Corps in Brazil, thanks to his fallen predecessor, JFK. I was there in the jungle, close to the Amazon, and communications with the outside world were extremely limited. In fact it was limited to the mail, and I was lucky to receive anything other than weekly letters from home. Anyway, I had read Hersh's book Cover Up in 1972, but lost my copy somewhere in the intervening years. I thought that I had remembered that he did talk about the Phoenix program in that book; when I checked Jim's sources (and found that he was saying precisely the opposite of what the book said), I found that my recollection was correct, and that Valentine confirmed it in his 1992 book.

As noted in the "Addendum" piece to Jim Fetzer's post #22 above, DiEugenio originally stated categorically that Hersh had been denying the linkage to the Phoenix Program all along, ever since his original reporting in 1969. (All of this started back on the Education Forum, but then went to the JFK Lancer Forum, before being transplanted here last week. It's as though Jim is "running but can't hide" from mewhich sounds weirdly like Charles Drago was saying about me.) I KNEW that this charge against Hersh was untrue, and protested the distortion immediately, without having even double-checked the sources. Well, it turns out that I was right, of course, and stated that Hersh was anything but "a CIA stooge", as portrayed by DiEugenio:

"Never mind the fact that Hersh has been battling the CIA and Pentagon for approximately forty years and is the least likely candidate for "CIA stooge" that one can imagine. Charging him with that is beyond absurd; it is simply laughable. His position as the best and most prolific investigative reporter of our times has been well established, except for anyone associated with the CTKA organization, who evidently have to submit to DiEugenio's dogma that he was and is somehow 180 degrees opposite of this. He should be judged on the basis of his entire body of work, and the awards he has received not least of which is the Pulitzer Prize which vindicate him and reveal the conflicted position of CTKA regarding his reputation."

Nowhaving backed away from his original and specious claim that Hersh was a CIA stooge who covered up Phoenix for forty years, DiEugenio backed that particular charge down to two years. Jim is now claiming that the Phoenix stuff did not come out until Hersh's book Cover Up in 1972. Here is what Jim said just yesterday:

#120
Now, Nelson insinuates that in footnotes to the Valentine book--which he previously tried to discredit--Doug uses articles written by Hersh in the Ny Times to mention Phoenix. Not so. Doug uses excerpts from the second book. . .

#124
"I was very clear in the above as to why Nelson is wrong about Hersh. I provided titles, dates of the books, straightened out his mis citations, and actually quoted from the second book.

Of those three specific citations in that book to Seymour Hersh, only two were to his book Cover Up, contrary to what DiEugenio just stated so emphatically in his posts yesterday. But the first citation was to his blockbuster article in the New York Times, dated August 25, 1970, which was the first time that anyone publicly suggested that the CIA, through Phoenix, was responsible for Mai Lai. This came only two months after he had published My Lai 4.

So, it turns out that he kept it away from the public a maximum grand total of two months. But it was still HIS NAME in the byline when the story came out on August 25, 1970 in the NY Times. So, the most that could be said about Hersh's "keeping it back" was NOT the two years as he explained it, but for only two months (which is probably explained by hisor, more likely, his publisher'sdesire for caution in handling such an explosive scoop and his desire to cross check sources).

All of the other vague accusations being dogmatically asserted by Jim lack sufficient specificity to evaluate properly; but, whatever it is he thinks might indicate Mr. Hersh is a CIA stooge I can guarantee you are either simply incorrect or distorted in some way. If he is willing to furnish me the specifics of his charges, I will be glad to investigate them thoroughly and come back here in February with a full report (which would be a second exception to my own vow, but don't worry, this won't go on forever). I just feel very strongly that Mr. Hersh has been the victim of a savage and unprovoked attack and when this happens, someone needs to own up to it. For the rest of January, however, I will not return to this site due to numerous conflicting priorities.

OK, I violated my own vow to never return to this website. This "special exception" was not intended to defend myself or the book, but the honorable name of Seymour M. Hersh. However, unlike Mr. Drago, whose chagrin over "his friend" Jim Fetzer's mild rebuke belies how sensitive he is to ad hominem attacks on himself, I do not choose to engage in such childish tactics. When I level criticism at someone or some thing, it is not just empty (and inherently meaningless) attacks on a person's character. But if the examples I cite show that, through their deeds, their character must be flawed, that is not something that I can be blamed for; in that case, the blame must reside at the source of the deed.

All of those ad hominem attacks on me, BTW, even before I had been admitted as a (temporary) member were clearly of the kind that your more objective and rational members will recognize immediately for what they are and from whom they came.
And they belie, I contend, deeply hidden secrets and ulterior motives, as noted in the previous post and which still stand. No attempt has been made to rebut them, not even a lame one, which I am confident others on this forum will find equally disturbing.