06-01-2011, 12:13 AM
PN:Jim, he may have cited the reference to the news item in his book, but the actual news article which he wrote that it referred to was dated August 25, 1970. Hersh wrote it, look it up. He "owned" that story throughout that period.
Did Nelson actually think I was going to trust him on this? That I would take his word for it and not call his bluff? Especially when a lying CIA slut like Hersh was involved?
So yesterday, I went down to my local library to see if they had the NY TImes on microfilm. They did not but they ordered it for me and it came in today. So I looked it up and printed it out.
There is NO ONE"S NAME on this story! It came across the UPI wire. So much for Hersh "owning this story." ANd so much for Nelson's credibility.
But alas, what else could be the case? Valentine would have mentioned Hersh had his name been on the story. When I e mailed him yesterday, he told me he did not recall the name. Because, as it turned out, there was no name to recall. That would not have been the case if Hersh was involved.
Now, let us turn to the article itself. And we will see why Hersh could not have originated it. It was a report on how Calley's defense was trying to unearth CIA documents related to the Phoenix Program. Now, as I said, if one reads Hersh's 1970 book on the massacre, it is quite hard to find any evidence of this there. But clearly, Calley had tipped off his lawyers about Phoenix and wanted to use it as a defense. It is very hard to conclude that in the year Hersh spent on his first book, somehow he was so bad of a reporter that he never surfaced any of this. I beleive this is not tenable. I beleive he did find out about it and chose not to write about it.
Now, after this story, and after the ridiculousness of the Peers Report and Calley's trial, even the village idiot had to know that Phoneix had to be involved. Or else how could 504 people be slaughtered like cattle, and no one spend a week in jail? So Hersh HAD to mention it in in his 1972 book. But even there, he tried to smudge the issue as to whether My Lai was such a result.
I was correct on this. Hersh spent three years covering up the true circumstances of what happened at My Lai. And then when he was finally cornered, he still tried to have it both ways. THerefore my conclusion stands. Hersh has been a CIA asset from the beginning of the rise of his career. And this culminated in his lying, hatchet job of a book on President Kennedy. Who else would use a lying douche bag like Sam Halpern as a source anyway? (Who, by the way, Talbot exposed as lying to Hersh in Brothers. Somehow, Nelson missed that also.)
Up until now, I have thought CD was stretching it in implying Nelson's book had a mission. But now, with this, how else does one explain his rabid and relentless attempt to cover up for Hersh?
Why do that at the expense of your own credibility? Which is now in tatters.
Did Nelson actually think I was going to trust him on this? That I would take his word for it and not call his bluff? Especially when a lying CIA slut like Hersh was involved?
So yesterday, I went down to my local library to see if they had the NY TImes on microfilm. They did not but they ordered it for me and it came in today. So I looked it up and printed it out.
There is NO ONE"S NAME on this story! It came across the UPI wire. So much for Hersh "owning this story." ANd so much for Nelson's credibility.
But alas, what else could be the case? Valentine would have mentioned Hersh had his name been on the story. When I e mailed him yesterday, he told me he did not recall the name. Because, as it turned out, there was no name to recall. That would not have been the case if Hersh was involved.
Now, let us turn to the article itself. And we will see why Hersh could not have originated it. It was a report on how Calley's defense was trying to unearth CIA documents related to the Phoenix Program. Now, as I said, if one reads Hersh's 1970 book on the massacre, it is quite hard to find any evidence of this there. But clearly, Calley had tipped off his lawyers about Phoenix and wanted to use it as a defense. It is very hard to conclude that in the year Hersh spent on his first book, somehow he was so bad of a reporter that he never surfaced any of this. I beleive this is not tenable. I beleive he did find out about it and chose not to write about it.
Now, after this story, and after the ridiculousness of the Peers Report and Calley's trial, even the village idiot had to know that Phoneix had to be involved. Or else how could 504 people be slaughtered like cattle, and no one spend a week in jail? So Hersh HAD to mention it in in his 1972 book. But even there, he tried to smudge the issue as to whether My Lai was such a result.
I was correct on this. Hersh spent three years covering up the true circumstances of what happened at My Lai. And then when he was finally cornered, he still tried to have it both ways. THerefore my conclusion stands. Hersh has been a CIA asset from the beginning of the rise of his career. And this culminated in his lying, hatchet job of a book on President Kennedy. Who else would use a lying douche bag like Sam Halpern as a source anyway? (Who, by the way, Talbot exposed as lying to Hersh in Brothers. Somehow, Nelson missed that also.)
Up until now, I have thought CD was stretching it in implying Nelson's book had a mission. But now, with this, how else does one explain his rabid and relentless attempt to cover up for Hersh?
Why do that at the expense of your own credibility? Which is now in tatters.